[Lobowolf]

onoway, on Jun 22 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

sooo Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jun 22 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

onoway, on Jun 22 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

sooo  Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 22 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

onoway, on Jun 22 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

sooo   Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jun 22 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 22 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

onoway, on Jun 22 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

sooo   Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe.

Well spotted, Mike. Here is a description of the Oklahoma law:

Quote

1st Degree Murder —There are three ways to commit 1 st Degree murder:



Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.



1 st Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of one of several crimes. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.



Child Abuse Murder —the state must prove the death of a child under the age of eighteen occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of child abuse or willfully permitting of child abuse. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death of the child.

2 nd Degree Murder —There are two ways to commit Second Degree Murder:



By Imminently Dangerous Conduc t—the state must prove that because of the defendant’s imminently dangerous conduct, which demonstrated a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life, and the death a human resulted.



2nd Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of any felony that does not serve as a basis for 1 st degree felony murder. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 22 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 22 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

onoway, on Jun 22 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

sooo   Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe.

Well spotted, Mike. Here is a description of the Oklahoma law:

Quote

1st Degree Murder —There are three ways to commit 1 st Degree murder:



Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.



1 st Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of one of several crimes. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.



Child Abuse Murder —the state must prove the death of a child under the age of eighteen occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of child abuse or willfully permitting of child abuse. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death of the child.

2 nd Degree Murder —There are two ways to commit Second Degree Murder:



By Imminently Dangerous Conduc t—the state must prove that because of the defendant’s imminently dangerous conduct, which demonstrated a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life, and the death a human resulted.



2nd Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of any felony that does not serve as a basis for 1 st degree felony murder. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

Without looking, I guarantee that armed robbery is on the list of predicate felonies for Oklahoma's first degree felony murder statute. Having said that, I can certainy see your opposition to having a first degree felony murder statute in the first place. My criminal law professor was opposed to felony murder in general.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I can certainy see your opposition to having a first degree felony murder statute in the first place.

I don't know if it matters other than semantics, but I think 1st degree murder should be reserved for premeditated murder.

I'm not sure if felony homicide should be 2nd degree murder or 1st degree manslaughter, though.

[onoway]

well I have watched the video a couple of times and it would take some very fancy talking to convince me that the five shots were anything but deliberate and intended to kill. How long ahead of time does premeditation need to occur? He goes past the downed guy twice with only a glance. Clearly he didn't have any worries about being shot in the back while he walks maybe 20 feet and gets a fresh weapon, comes back and shoots the guy in the belly (not the fastest way to kill someone either), then goes puts the gun away and then picks up the phone. Looks very much to me like "taking care of business": and that he maybe forgot about the security camera.

No problem with charging the guy who started it all waving a gun around in a robbery attempt; but in THIS case the pharmacist needs to get at least as harsh a sentence. Anything less would be a travesty.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

Quote

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know

I am fairly certain, though, that he did not grab the gun in order to offer it up as a sacrifice for his sins - although he did pony up his guns later to pay his attorney's fees.

I strongly suspect that last assertion has little, if any, basis in reality.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

Quote

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know

I am fairly certain, though, that he did not grab the gun in order to offer it up as a sacrifice for his sins - although he did pony up his guns later to pay his attorney's fees.

I strongly suspect that last assertion has little, if any, basis in reality.

Obviously, you are not from around these parts or you would not have doubted....

Quote

OKC Pharmacist Turns Guns Over to Lawyer
The Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with murder in the shooting death of a teenage would-be robber says he's given his guns to his defense attorney. Jerome Jay Ersland told Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure at a hearing Monday he's given every weapon he owns to defense attorney Irven Box. Bass-LeSure last week allowed Ersland to be released on $100,000 bail but banned him from any access to weapons. The hearing was to determine if he complied with her order. Box declined to say how many guns he was given but does say he took the weapons and other personal property as payment of part of his attorney fees. The 57-year-old Ersland is charged with first-degree murder of 16-year-old Antwun Parker when Parker and another teenager tried to rob the pharmacy at gunpoint.

[hotShot]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

Oklahoma is located in that part of the United States that is known as the "Bible Belt" and the population tends to be part of the far right Christian Coalition that seems to believe that killing crooks and torturing foreigners is A-O.K as long as God's children are the ones doing the killing and torturing.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

"You shall not kill"

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

"You shall not murder"

[Codo]

hotShot, on Jun 24 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

"You shall not kill"

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

"You shall not murder"

It is more like:

YOU shall not kill and I shall not murder- and I define what murder is.

[Fluffy]

Not everything is in the surveilance video I think.

If you had been assaulted 5 times before this year, and the few that were catched by police, didn't go to jail for having the underage protection, you are not probably on your right senses anymore and want to put a stop in wichever way it is possible.


On general I have always found unfair that you could be charged when someone put you on a "state of mind" very far from your normal state. And you do something to that person. But hell, 5 shots in the belly its just too much.


Anyone else finds ironic that his own surveilance video is the main proof against him?

[blackshoe]

My understanding is that the original (Hebrew? Aramaic?) passage was mistranslated. If you want to call correcting that error "pettifogging", well, go right ahead.

The report quoted upthread says that at least part of the reason Erslan turned over his guns was in compliance of the judge's order. It also quotes his lawyer as saying he accepted them in part payment of attorney fees. I guess (a) the lawyer has no intention of giving the guns back, whatever the outcome of the case, and ( he bills in advance. But my point is that the original assertion - that he "gave up his guns" in order to pay attorney's fees, was not likely. Since the main impetus for turning them over seems to have been to comply with the judge's order, I stand by my earlier response.

[jdonn]

God has updated to be with the times. Thou shalt not kill, unless thou lives in a state where it's ok to kill if someone tries to steal your dvd player.

[Lobowolf]

hotShot, on Jun 24 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

Oklahoma is located in that part of the United States that is known as the "Bible Belt" and the population tends to be part of the far right Christian Coalition that seems to believe that killing crooks and torturing foreigners is A-O.K as long as God's children are the ones doing the killing and torturing.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

"You shall not kill"

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

"You shall not murder"

Since the Bible wasn't written in English, back in the day, the word used was neither "kill" nor "murder." I've heard the assertion that "murder" is a more accurate translation, and it certainly strikes me as credible. Most cultures permit killing in self-defense, or in defense of others. And others permit capital punishment (and certainly did so in the Old Testament world). So I'm certainly inclined to believe that "murder" is the correct translation, and a more desirable one, certainly, with respect to things like self-defense when confronted with deadly force. Not all killing is wrong. A blanket proscription on murder makes more sense.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, trying to logically explain the meaning behind every phrase in the bible and how they fit together is like trying to do the same for SAYC.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Lobowolf, trying to logically explain the meaning behind every phrase in the bible and how they fit together is like trying to do the same for SAYC.

THAT'S a project I wouldn't dream of taking on. I mean, the Bible part, but the SAYC part too, now that I think of it.

But isolated parts (of each) can make some sense. 5-card majors? Sure.

Murder is either always wrong or so close that you could say always, for all practical purposes. Killing, yeah, almost always, too, but a lot less certain. I would add voluntary euthanasia to the list of killing that is not immoral.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Jun 24 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jun 24 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

Oklahoma is located in that part of the United States that is known as the "Bible Belt" and the population tends to be part of the far right Christian Coalition that seems to believe that killing crooks and torturing foreigners is A-O.K as long as God's children are the ones doing the killing and torturing.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

"You shall not kill"

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

"You shall not murder"

Since the Bible wasn't written in English, back in the day, the word used was neither "kill" nor "murder." I've heard the assertion that "murder" is a more accurate translation, and it certainly strikes me as credible. Most cultures permit killing in self-defense, or in defense of others. And others permit capital punishment (and certainly did so in the Old Testament world). So I'm certainly inclined to believe that "murder" is the correct translation, and a more desirable one, certainly, with respect to things like self-defense when confronted with deadly force. Not all killing is wrong. A blanket proscription on murder makes more sense.

I've always found the arguments that try to differentiate between "kill" and "murder" rather fascinating.

From what I can tell, the dispute about the translation is fairly recent in nature. Back when I went through confirmation classes, the King James Bible was pretty darn clear: The fifth commandment reads "Thou Shall Not Kill".

In a similar vein, if I trot out my family's old German bible, the commandment reads "Du sollst nicht töten" (Note the use of töten - "to kill" - rather than morden - to murder)

My cynical interpretation is that this whole dispute was ginned up by a group of fundies who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to follow word of god while still being able to apply the death penalty to folks they dislike.

Whatever...

Where it gets amusing is the strong overlap between fundies and Biblical literalists. I've always found it quite bizarre that the same group of people can simultaneously argue

1. The Bible is the literal word of god (and god has made sure that his word hasn't been corrupted during all those transcriptions)

2. Something as significant as kill versus murder slipped through the cracks

One of these days I'm sure that I'll run into a pro-death penalty King James Only literalists. If I'm really lucky, I'll get to watch his head explode.

http://en.wikipedia....s-Only_Movement

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Jun 24 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

1. The Bible is the literal word of god (and god has made sure that his word hasn't been corrupted during all those transcriptions)

2.

Thank God for that!

Does anything else matter?

[helene_t]

Isn't "you are not supposed to murder" a pleonasm? I suppose murder is defined as illegal killing.