Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oklahoma Pharmacist Who Killed Armed Robber Gets Life

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oklahoma Pharmacist Who Killed Armed Robber Gets Life

    Oklahoma Pharmacist Who Killed Armed Robber Gets Life

    Video by Mark Berman Opposing Views
    (18 Hours Ago) in Society / Crime
    In a controversial case that has split Oklahoma City and led to volatile Facebook pages supporting both sides, an Oklahoma jury has recommended that a white pharmacist -- who shot and killed an armed black teenager trying to rob his store -- be sentenced to life in prison, following his conviction of first degree murder.

    In 2009 two young men burst into the store, pointing guns at Jerome Ersland. Instead of giving up the money, Ersland was able to get his own gun and shoot 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

    With Parker down, Ersland chased the other would-be robber out of the store. Surveillance video (below) shows Ersland going back into the store, retrieving a second gun, and shooting Parker five more times while he was on the ground. That shooting, however, takes place just off camera so it is not clear if the teenager was still threatening Ersland.

    Ersland's lawyer said he was acting in self-defense. Attorney Irven Box told ABC News that Ersland shot Parker again because he was still moving and thought he was a still indeed a threat.

    However, prosecutors said he went well beyond the threshold of self defense. "This defendant was absolutely not defending himself or anyone else," argued Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Chance.

    The jury deliberated for just three and a half hours last week before recommending a life sentence. The 59-year-old Ersland will be formally sentenced on July 11. If the judge upholds the jury's decision, Ersland will not be eligible for parole for at least 38 years.

    Ersland's lawyers said they would appeal the murder conviction.

    The case has split the local community as well as social media. There are Facebook pages for and against the pharmacist.

    One supporter is Oklahoma State Sen. Ralph Shortey. 'I'm gonna spend the rest of my career, however long it may be, trying to right this wrong,' he told ABC News.
    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/oklahoma-pharmacist-who-killed-armed-robber-gets-life

  • #2
    that's bs

    If a 10 year old girl pulls a gun on me, i'm shooting her in the face

    Comment


    • #3
      Thus is wrOng for him to get life. Robber had it coming.

      Comment


      • #4
        don't f### with the pharmacist

        Comment


        • #5
          I was in favor of the pharmacist until I read the story. After the robber was laying on the floor and disabled he shot him 5 times and basically murdered him.

          Comment


          • #6
            He deserves the sentence and I hope he is violently **** raped in jail (Will happen most likely).

            He injured the kid who was not armed while the other armed robber runs away. When he got back into the store he reloaded his gun and shots and kills the unconscious kid 5 times and kills him. It was cold blooded murder,

            He could have waited until the police arrived while watching over the harmless kid. Even in war, you don't kill prisoners

            Comment


            • #7
              The kid had it coming, and still may have posed a threat for all we know.

              This isn't justice.

              Comment


              • #8
                Self defence doesn't come into play when you've already shot the guy and he's down.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The article makes a mistake in stating In 2009 two young men burst into the store, pointing guns at Jerome Ersland. when the 16 year old was not armed. Shooting him the first time is understandable, but going in the back, reloading or grabbing another gun and then emptying it into him while he was still on the ground cannot be justified. Eligible for parole at 97, my guess is he'll die long before then.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the first bullets were self defense
                    justifyable


                    finishing him off, which he clearly did in every sense of the word
                    was murder with premeditation
                    going back to finish somebody off is by definition premeditated murder
                    if he's not a threat anymore you are no longer defending yourself


                    obviously this goes from state to state
                    but i'm not surprised with the legal outcome, given the circumstances



                    i'm not going on morals here
                    i'm talking about the law

                    somebody shows up trying to kill me i'm going to kill them if i've got the chance and don't have any other options
                    i didn't ask to get thrown into mortal combat


                    speaking legally
                    i can almost guarantee that the defendants lawyer (the lawyer of the store clerk,) wasn't arguing that his client was outright defending himself in the final act of finishing off the dying kid
                    if you're merely defending yourself you shoot until the threat is gone

                    five bullets to a downed person who was subdued to the point where one can casually walk past him to reload a gun (premeditation, mind you,) is an excecution


                    we can tell that the man on the ground was not a threat

                    for one, he's got a gun, showed up willing to use it, and would have shot the man if he were able
                    if not, when the man returns to reload his gun, he'd get up and leave, if it was in his capacity
                    it clearly wasn't in the man's capacity to defend himself, given the video evidence (the man casually walks past him, reloads a gun, walks back, and shoots him over a period of time that would certainly allow for a healthy man to either fire back or run)




                    the law's a *****
                    but in court you play the game
                    you don't talk about who is morally right or wrong. morals are a hill of ****
                    lawyers are generally graverobber types who will say anything to advocate subjectively
                    Last edited by New England; 06-01-2011, 06:14 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP