He loved to draw pictures... praise for a dead criminal

[cbrburns]

In the link below there is another link to the security video. It doesn't look good for the pharmacist.

http://www.kfor.com/news/sns-ap-ok--pharmacyshooting,0,2415801.story

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber has been charged with first-degree murder.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said Wednesday that 57-year-old Jerome Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater says 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 — says Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.

Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one being 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.

 

[jhblaze1]

I can definately see a murder charge even though I think the little prick got what he had coming to him. One less thugged out little pussy running around robbing and hurting people. Good, enjoy your dirt nap.

But why the F is this a first degree murder charge? I bet it gets dropped down to 2nd degree because I see no way of proving premeditation here, based of course on the little information available.

 

[M1911]

I can definately see a murder charge even though I think the little prick got what he had coming to him. One less thugged out little pussy running around robbing and hurting people. Good, enjoy your dirt nap.

But why the F is this a first degree murder charge? I bet it gets dropped down to 2nd degree because I see no way of proving premeditation here, based of course on the little information available.

Legally, you don't necessarily need a lot of time for an act to be premeditated.

 

[jhblaze1]

Legally, you don't necessarily need a lot of time for an act to be premeditated.

true, but I suppose it really depends on the circumstances. I think a good lawyer could make a strong argument that it was a crime of passion.

A really good lawyer could probably make a temporary insanity case by claiming that the defendant was in shock due to the immediately preceeding events.

It should be interesting anyway. I'd love to be on the jury for that one so I could practice my jury nullification skills.

 

[M1911]

true, but I suppose it really depends on the circumstances. I think a good lawyer could make a strong argument that it was a crime of passion.

Watching the surveillance video and how he calmly walked past the perp on two occasions, I'd have a hard time believing that.

A really good lawyer could probably make a temporary insanity case by claiming that the defendant was in shock due to the immediately preceeding events.

Dunno. Maybe.

This is one of those things that Ayoob beat into our heads at LFI-1 -- just one additional shot fired after the threat is over can turn a justified shooting into murder one. It's really unfortunate that he fired those extra shots. The victim is probably a hard-working good guy, a real asset to society. And now he's likely to go to jail for a long time. Even if he manages to avoid jail, he'll be spending close to $100k on his criminal defense, and possibly face a civil trial after that.

 

[second]

He was just saving the taxpayers a lot of money

 

[RI_John]

I know it's a knee jerk reaction to side with the gun owner, it's my first reaction too. However, no reasonable person can justify what this pharmacist did- watch the video if you haven't.

Just because I'm a gun owner and a staunch defender of the 2A doesn't mean I'm obligated to support someone who commits murder (I'd argue it was 2nd degree too, but it's still murder)

 

[MetalgodZ]

I know it's a knee jerk reaction to side with the gun owner, it's my first reaction too. However, no reasonable person can justify what this pharmacist did- watch the video if you haven't.

Just because I'm a gun owner and a staunch defender of the 2A doesn't mean I'm obligated to support someone who commits murder (I'd argue it was 2nd degree too, but it's still murder)

The case could be made for 1st degree manslaughter.

Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:

1. When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.

2. When perpetrated without a design to effect death, and in a heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon; unless it is committed under such circumstances as constitute excusable or justifiable homicide.

3. When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed.

I'm guessing that they're pushing this as premeditated. Not being there for the event and only seeing the video, I don't see how it couldn't reasonably be pushed down to 1st degree manslaughter.

 

[jhblaze1]

Watching the surveillance video and how he calmly walked past the perp on two occasions, I'd have a hard time believing that.


Dunno. Maybe.

This is one of those things that Ayoob beat into our heads at LFI-1 -- just one additional shot fired after the threat is over can turn a justified shooting into murder one. It's really unfortunate that he fired those extra shots. The victim is probably a hard-working good guy, a real asset to society. And now he's likely to go to jail for a long time. Even if he manages to avoid jail, he'll be spending close to $100k on his criminal defense, and possibly face a civil trial after that.

to be fair, i haven't watched the video. blocked at work. I'm operating on unfounded assumptions here!

 

[M1911]

to be fair, i haven't watched the video. blocked at work. I'm operating on unfounded assumptions here!

You really need to do so. Here's my description of the video from the other thread:

1) Perps come in store.
2) Victim shoots, perp 1 falls down, perp 2 flees store.
3) Victim walks past perp1 to door, turning his back to perp 1.
4) Victim goes out door, to parking lot.
5) Victim comes back in store, walks directly past perp 1, turns his back to perp 1 as he calmly walks to the back of the store.
6) Victim walks to the front of the store, stands over perp 1, and fires 5 times.

If the victim really felt that perp1 was still a threat, why did he turn his back to him at step 3? Why did he walk past perp1 and turn his back to him again at step 5? If perp1 was still a threat, why did he re-approach perp1 at step 6, instead of taking cover at the back of the store?

 

[x-frog-22]

Just one more reason to stay away from small cal. in home defense [380 auto]. Get somthing that when you hit them in the head they dont get up to come at you again [45acp is what I would recomend

 

[M1911]

Just one more reason to stay away from small cal. in home defense [380 auto]. Get somthing that when you hit them in the head they dont get up to come at you again [45acp is what I would recomend

Huh?

1) the perp didn't get up after being shot.
2) the perp didn't "come at" the victim again.
3) all handgun rounds are underpowered.
4) this incident didn't happen at home.

 

[Palladin]

I watched the video....pharmacist is going to have a real problem defending this one.
Turning your back on perp #1 indicates your threat is gone. he should have just picked up the phone at that point.

 

[RI_John]

The case could be made for 1st degree manslaughter.


I'm guessing that they're pushing this as premeditated. Not being there for the event and only seeing the video, I don't see how it couldn't reasonably be pushed down to 1st degree manslaughter.

I don't want to nitpick. 2nd degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter, whatever. It was very wrong in any case.

 

[M1911]

Here's a direct link to the video. Folks, you really need to watch it: http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-attorney-defense-story,0,6945101.story

 

[MetalgodZ]

I don't want to nitpick. 2nd degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter, whatever. It was very wrong in any case.

Didn't mean to nitpick, just thinking about penalties. 2nd degree murder is 10 to life, while manslaughter is 4 years. He screwed up, but I'm not about to debate the difference between "justice," what's legal, and whether the guy got what he "deserved." The whole situation is wrong.

 

[economist]

The pharmacist is screwed. The video is just too damning. Morally, I think the kid forfeited his right to breathe the moment he decided to participate in the crime. I can't see how justice is served by putting the pharmacist in prison. But I doubt a jury will let the guy walk away. My guess on 1st degree murder is that it will be a starting point for a plea to a lesser crime.

 

[RI_John]

The pharmacist is screwed. The video is just too damning. Morally, I think the kid forfeited his right to breathe the moment he decided to participate in the crime. I can't see how justice is served by putting the pharmacist in prison. But I doubt a jury will let the guy walk away. My guess on 1st degree murder is that it will be a starting point for a plea to a lesser crime.

While I agree that the kid forfeited his right to live by participating in an armed robbery and agree it would obviously be fine if he had shot the kid dead off the bat, I can't agree that it was not a crime (legally and morally) to shoot him later on the ground.

Imagine if it was a cop in uniform in this video instead of a pharmacist. Imagine the cop walking up to the unconscious, unarmed suspect lying on the floor and shooting him five times. There would be a lot of outrage here, I can guarantee you that.

 

[Robert J]

It looks bad for the employee, but I could not see in the video what was going on with the first robber. Did I miss an angle here? Was the robber fumbling with his gun, trying to get up or was he laid out still from the first shot?

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

His hobbies including drawing and holding up clerks at gunpoint...

 

[RI_John]

It looks bad for the employee, but I could not see in the video what was going on with the first robber. Did I miss an angle here? Was the robber fumbling with his gun, trying to get up or was he laid out still from the first shot?

The robber on the floor was unarmed, never had a gun, and unconscious from being shot in the head.

 

[Palladin]

The locals are going to hang the guy. he's white, killed a black kid....even though he was an armed thief, they won't look at it like that, in a black neighborhood. His store will be burned out in a week.

 

[FunYun]

The locals are going to hang the guy. he's white, killed a black kid....even though he was an armed thief, they won't look at it like that, in a black neighborhood. His store will be burned out in a week.

He wasn't armed, only the guy that ran was. Its kinda hard to justify someone with a bullet in their brain, lying on the ground without a weapon as a threat.

 

[Larry Legend]

He wasn't armed, only the guy that ran was. Its kinda hard to justify someone with a bullet in their brain, lying on the ground without a weapon as a threat.

If you watch the news video, it sounds as if the employee has some sort of mental retardation thing going on (he speaks slowly and awkwardly).

He most likely had some sort of PTSD after the incident and doing what he did seemed to him to be the most logical thing to do.

Secretly, I applaud him.

 

[theGringo]

He wasn't armed, only the guy that ran was. Its kinda hard to justify someone with a bullet in their brain, lying on the ground without a weapon as a threat.

You can never be too sure.

 

[JoeyB]

What I wrote after reading the first few pages: It's never great when a life is loss. Seems like this kid took too big of a risk. He intended to hurt someone and self-defense is justified in this case.

After watching that movie: IDK how I feel now. The guy may have gone overboard. Did the kid start coming at him after being hit in the head?

 

[M1911]

It's never great when a life is loss. Seems like this kid took too big of a risk. He intended to hurt someone and self-defense is justified in this case.

The first shots were legally justified. The last 5 were not legally justified. That is why the victim is facing murder charges.

 

[M1911]

After watching that movie: IDK how I feel now. The guy may have gone overboard. Did the kid start coming at him after being hit in the head?

The DA says that the perp was unconscious and prone when he was shot. If you look at the video, it appears to me that the victims' arms are pointing downwards when he is shooting, seemingly supporting the DA's assertion that the perp was prone.

Note that the victim walked past the perp twice, and then approached the perp a third time before shooting him. The perp wasn't on his feet chasing the victim.

The first shot(s) were justified. The last 5 were not, IMNSHO.

I do not feel much, if any, empathy for the perp -- if you commit armed robbery you may well end up dead. I do feel empathy for the pharmacist -- he's probably a stand-up guy, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, who made a terrible choice and is now facing dire consequences.

 

[K-DUB]

He wasn't armed, only the guy that ran was. Its kinda hard to justify someone with a bullet in their brain, lying on the ground without a weapon as a threat.

Not necessarily. Disparity of force is a factor to consider. A person without a "weapon" can still pose an imminent threat of death or bodily harm to me.

 

[mikem317]

Yup, he loved to draw pictures. And he just tried out for the high school football team. And he was picked. He was her precious baby. He would never do anything like this. Sure, he got caught up in the wrong clique, but so what? He was our little angel!

We've heard it all before. Plenty of times.