[Winstonm]

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY - Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Quote

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Quote

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

[helene_t]

Guilty as charged, wtp?

I suppose the first shot may have been legal, though.

[gwnn]

what helene_t said

[cherdanno]

I lack the legal expertise to know whether this is murder or manslaughter. What he did was certainly wrong, and I don't understand what should be controversial about this case.

[PassedOut]

The first shot was fine. That's a risk robbers accept. What followed was murder.

[blackshoe]

We seem to have consensus here. Not that it matters what we think. I wonder what the jury will say?

[kfay]

I really still even wonder about the first shot to the head.

I just know I could never do that. It's such a horrifying thought.

[Jlall]

blackshoe, on Jun 21 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

We seem to have consensus here. Not that it matters what we think. I wonder what the jury will say?

Exactly, I was thinking this is a wtp but people are idiots so this guy will get off.

[blackshoe]

It might get "downgraded" to voluntary manslaughter, but I doubt he'll get off completely. I've been wrong before, though.

[onoway]

agree with everyone, this is murder....particularly since the additional shots were in the belly of an unconscious man. He could've finished the job with one shot to somewhere less vague and claimed he was afraid the guy was going to wake up.

Seems more like a "I'm mad and I'm not gonna take it anymore" scenario and people who feel victimized by whatever may be likely to respond to that, rather than the somewhat messy details?

A side note; it would be interesting to know the ethnicity of all the people involved. That also might have a bearing on how the jury reacts. even if it isn't supposed to.

[Winstonm]

The reason I brought up this case is because of the vast amount of support this pharmacist is receiving. I certainly don't condone the actions of the two kids who tried to pull off this robbery, but I cannot fathom how anyone can justify or support the decision of the pharmacist to essentially execute this teenager.

Certainly this has to be no less than 2nd degree murder.

[Winstonm]

Here is more of the story from The Tulsa World:

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.

Jerome Ersland, 57, was being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said in an afternoon news conference that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.

Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.

"I think he did something in his eyes that protected both himself and two ladies in there," Box said. "He put an end to the threat."

Box said he thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.

At an afternoon news conference, Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one is shot.

Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.

The charge alleges Ersland shot Parker while he was incapacitated and lying on his back.

Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to an affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.

Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker.

"Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns
his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer."

Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said.

He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.

[Winstonm]

onoway, on Jun 21 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

agree with everyone, this is murder....particularly since the additional shots were in the belly of an unconscious man. He could've finished the job with one shot to somewhere less vague and claimed he was afraid the guy was going to wake up.

Seems more like a "I'm mad and I'm not gonna take it anymore" scenario and people who feel victimized by whatever may be likely to respond to that, rather than the somewhat messy details?

A side note; it would be interesting to know the ethnicity of all the people involved. That also might have a bearing on how the jury reacts. even if it isn't supposed to.

This story may be of interest - I am at a loss to explain the outpouring of support for this pharmacist.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

[onoway]

He's a pharmacist, was thinking about the health care costs to fix the guy .
This story would not surprise me if it had come out of Texas. It's really quite sad how so many people justify/indulge in acting out of their own angst when they find a convenient scapegoat (if that is what it is).

[mtvesuvius]

Murder. I believe that the first shot was an act of self defense, however it's an obvious murder due to the later shots. This would be a lot closer to an act of self defense had he died from the shot to his head, and not recieved any more shots. It doesn't seem to be self defense any more when the person poses no threat.

[helene_t]

It doesn't disturb me so much that some think that the teenager got what he deserved. A couple of centuries ago, Danish law allowed people to kill thieves and people who had committed adultery. I suppose lots of people found that fair in Denmark back then, so it doesn't shock me if a lot of people in Oklahoma still do.

Not that I agree in any way, but lots of people (especially in certain regions which I think include Oklahoma) have shocking (to me) views on many moral and political issues, and this one isn't among the most shocking issues.

What disturbs me more is people defending an act that is obviously murder according to the law. I would say that those who think it should be legal to kill criminals should work for having the laws changed, and as long as they haven't succeeded in doing so they must realize that a jury has no choice but convicting the pharmacist for murder. But OK, I know people who find certain laws unreasonable to the extent that they refuse to abide by them.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Jun 21 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

It doesn't disturb me so much that some think that the teenager got what he deserved. A couple of centuries ago, Danish law allowed people to kill thieves and people who had committed adultery. I suppose lots of people found that fair in Denmark back then, so it doesn't shock me if a lot of people in Oklahoma still do.

Not that I agree in any way, but lots of people (especially in certain regions which I think include Oklahoma) have shocking (to me) views on many moral and political issues, and this one isn't among the most shocking issues.

What disturbs me more is people defending an act that is obviously murder according to the law. I would say that those who think it should be legal to kill criminals should work for having the laws changed, and as long as they haven't succeeded in doing so they must realize that a jury has no choice but convicting the pharmacist for murder. But OK, I know people who find certain laws unreasonable to the extent that they refuse to abide by them.

Very astute observations. 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.

[luke warm]

given what we know at this time, the first shot was self defense... after that, there was a crime - what exactly it was is yet to be determined... as long as the robber was alive and not a threat, there was no longer a defensible reason to shoot

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 02:10 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.

hard to resist getting in a dig at christians, eh winston, even if this probably has nothing at all to do with religion? had this happened elsewhere, say in new jersey, i guess that part could have been left unsaid

[Al_U_Card]

Interestingly, I can see the pharmacist being found guilty of manslaughter for the first shot but getting off on charges for the last five.

The first will depend on whether he was faced with a threat to his life. If there was imminent danger and threat of deadly force then np. Otherwise, use of deadly force for "self defense" was unwarranted and excessive. However, once he "lost it" he could get off for diminished capacity as he was overcome by anxiety/fear/guilt and was not responsible for his actions.

Either way, someone died because of the love of money....so what else is new?

[matmat]

luke warm, on Jun 21 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

hard to resist getting in a dig at christians, eh winston, even if this probably has nothing at all to do with religion? had this happened elsewhere, say in new jersey, i guess that part could have been left unsaid

there's christianity, the religion, and christianity the political movement. I suspect it's the latter that's getting bashed here. imo, it shouldn't even exist.