Pharmacist shot at two would-be robbers, one dead

[edro]

If it can be proved that he was alive after the first shot, it is murder.
He obviously had time to think about the situation, yet he shot an unarmed highly injured man anyway.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Pepsei

pharmacist Jerome Ersland shot at the two would-be robbers. Ersland fatally shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker and the second suspect was able to safely flee the scene. Ersland was charged with Parker's murder on Wednesday.

link with videos

Hmmm, without reading the article, Isn't it your right to defend youself with deadly force if you think your life is in danger?

He did defend himself, everything was fine, the threat was nullified and then he went on shooting an incapacitated body like he was playing Halo... that might be where the line was drawn. You know, just saying...

Yeah the thieves broke the law. So did this guy. 2nd degree murder charges would be justified.

if he were playing halo, there would've been teabagging. are there reports of teabags?

 

[SilentZero]

One shot one kill my ass...it's all about the double tap!

The guy did go overboard for shooting another 5 rounds.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).

Ah yes, the idiot republican position.

You really need to get a new act.

well its better then his new republican.txt he been doing.

Maybe, but he really has become the Bizarro Texmaster

Or dmcowen/jpeyton's third account. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention before, but I don't remember Phokus being so full of hatred until the last couple of months.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by: eLiu

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Pepsei

pharmacist Jerome Ersland shot at the two would-be robbers. Ersland fatally shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker and the second suspect was able to safely flee the scene. Ersland was charged with Parker's murder on Wednesday.

link with videos

Hmmm, without reading the article, Isn't it your right to defend youself with deadly force if you think your life is in danger?

He did defend himself, everything was fine, the threat was nullified and then he went on shooting an incapacitated body like he was playing Halo... that might be where the line was drawn. You know, just saying...

Yeah the thieves broke the law. So did this guy. 2nd degree murder charges would be justified.

if he were playing halo, there would've been teabagging. are there reports of teabags?

This made me laugh for 30 seconds.

 

[jpeyton]

Regardless of whether this guy is convicted or not, he's going to take it up the ass anyway. He'll need a great defense lawyer to explain away the actions captured on the security tape, plus quite a bit of money to buy medical expert testimony on his behalf. Even then, he's not guaranteed an acquittal.

Those extra five rounds he fired will prove to be one of the biggest mistakes of his life.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
By that reason most police officers who have killed anyone in the line of duty are also guilty. Is it necessary to shoot someone 30 times? Hell no, but police do it all the time.

let's see - shoot someone, go get another gun, go back and shoot some more?

Really?

Link?

Ever heard of Amadou Diallo, who got 41 shots, or Sean Bell who got 31? Both of them were unarmed and innocent. Their killers were never criminally punished.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).

Ah yes, the idiot republican position.

You really need to get a new act.

well its better then his new republican.txt he been doing.

he's upgraded now to republican.pdf

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).

Ah yes, the idiot republican position.

You really need to get a new act.

well its better then his new republican.txt he been doing.

he's upgraded now to republican.pdf

Why, did Fatbaugh finally buy a PDF converter for his mailing list?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
By that reason most police officers who have killed anyone in the line of duty are also guilty. Is it necessary to shoot someone 30 times? Hell no, but police do it all the time.

let's see - shoot someone, go get another gun, go back and shoot some more?

Really?

Link?

Ever heard of Amadou Diallo, who got 41 shots, or Sean Bell who got 31? Both of them were unarmed and innocent. Their killers were never criminally punished.

....

 

[thecrecarc]

I am disgusted at the robbers, disgusted at the pharmacist who went too far, and disgusted at the mom who claimed OTHERS influenced HER child to behave like asshole she claims they aren't.

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
By that reason most police officers who have killed anyone in the line of duty are also guilty. Is it necessary to shoot someone 30 times? Hell no, but police do it all the time.

let's see - shoot someone, go get another gun, go back and shoot some more?

Really?

Link?

Ever heard of Amadou Diallo, who got 41 shots, or Sean Bell who got 31? Both of them were unarmed and innocent. Their killers were never criminally punished.

....

Whether or not the above two cases got punished has no ramification on whether one believes the pharmacists in this case is guilty.

 

[thescreensavers]

I see no problem here other then the additional shots which were stupid thing to do.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
By that reason most police officers who have killed anyone in the line of duty are also guilty. Is it necessary to shoot someone 30 times? Hell no, but police do it all the time.

let's see - shoot someone, go get another gun, go back and shoot some more?

Really?

Link?

Ever heard of Amadou Diallo, who got 41 shots, or Sean Bell who got 31? Both of them were unarmed and innocent. Their killers were never criminally punished.

....

Sorry, they didn't get another gun, they just used multiple clips on the same one. :roll:

 

[jlee]

Also, to clarify regarding the two shootings linked above-

On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed race jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.

On April 25, 2008, all three of the police officers indicted were acquitted on all counts. The defendants opted to have Justice Arthur J. Cooperman make a ruling rather than a jury. The ruling was handed down in a state supreme court in Queens.

If you want to argue that the legal system is broken, that's another topic. However, whining that nobody was "punished" is pointless - that's the same legal system that everyone else goes through.

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Whether or not the above two cases got punished has no ramification on whether one believes the pharmacists in this case is guilty.

This.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: n yusef
Ever heard of Amadou Diallo, who got 41 shots, or Sean Bell who got 31? Both of them were unarmed and innocent. Their killers were never criminally punished.

Whether or not the above two cases got punished has no ramification on whether one believes the pharmacists in this case is guilty.

I agree, the pharmacist is a murderer and he should be punished. The point was that police have previously shot people thirty or forty times--certainly continuing after they were dead or dying--and that the law should be consistent for all people.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: n yusef
Ever heard of Amadou Diallo, who got 41 shots, or Sean Bell who got 31? Both of them were unarmed and innocent. Their killers were never criminally punished.

Whether or not the above two cases got punished has no ramification on whether one believes the pharmacists in this case is guilty.

I agree, the pharmacist is a murderer and he should be punished. The point was that police have previously shot people thirty or forty times--certainly continuing after they were dead or dying--and that the law should be consistent for all people.

However, Prater said security video shows that Ersland chased the second man outside before returning then walked past Parker to get a second gun before going back to fire the fatal five rounds into Parker's abdomen.

If you are incapable of making the distinction between these cases, an argument will do nothing for you.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Wait, so they are saying the shots to the abdomen killed the kid and not the headshot? something?s not quit right with that.
Unless it was a large caliber the abdomen shots probably would have been more then survivable, assuming some amount of help was called in, that and if major veins and arteries weren?t hit.
Either way the headshot should have killed the person instantly.

you play too many videogames.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

none of us have all the facts and we never will unless one of you fools is in the jury. so stfu.

 

[Number1]

I don't know if this is a valid analogy but is it acceptable for soldiers to shoot the wounded dead after a battle?

I don't think so.

This guy is a murderer.

 

[alkemyst]

it's clear we are in the company of cowards that hide until they absolutely know they will prevail.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Number1
I don't know if this is a valid analogy but is it acceptable for soldiers to shoot the wounded dead after a battle?

I don't think so.

This guy is a murderer.

It's better for soldiers to leave the wounded alive, but not for humanitarian reasons.

 

[RESmonkey]

Not reading it; 5 extra shots? Almost sounds like The Great Gatsby.

 

[Cashlaw]

Everybody who thinks the murder charge on the pharmacist is okey-dokey . . .

. . . seriously?

I mean, seriously???

I think the pharmacist handled himself incredibly well. How could he know that the guy on the floor did not have a gun? Or that he was really hurt? The whole thing happened really fast when you watch the video.

I would guess that the pharmacist was in a panic, he's an older man, and he wanted to make sure that the guy on the floor stayed on the floor. He didn't even aim 5 times for the head. He was probably thinking - in a panic - that those extra shots would not kill the guy, but just keep him from getting up and killing everyone in the store.

I doubt anyone posting in this thread, myself included, would have been able to handle that awful situation even half as well as the pharmacist did.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Cashlaw
Everybody who thinks the murder charge on the pharmacist is okey-dokey . . .

. . . seriously?

I mean, seriously???

I think the pharmacist handled himself incredibly well. How could he know that the guy on the floor did not have a gun? Or that he was really hurt? The whole thing happened really fast when you watch the video.

I would guess that the pharmacist was in a panic, he's an older man, and he wanted to make sure that the guy on the floor stayed on the floor. He didn't even aim 5 times for the head. He was probably thinking - in a panic - that those extra shots would not kill the guy, but just keep him from getting up and killing everyone in the store.

I doubt anyone posting in this thread, myself included, would have been able to handle that awful situation even half as well as the pharmacist did.

Hard saying, not knowing.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Cashlaw
Everybody who thinks the murder charge on the pharmacist is okey-dokey . . .

. . . seriously?

I mean, seriously???

I think the pharmacist handled himself incredibly well. How could he know that the guy on the floor did not have a gun? Or that he was really hurt? The whole thing happened really fast when you watch the video.

I would guess that the pharmacist was in a panic, he's an older man, and he wanted to make sure that the guy on the floor stayed on the floor. He didn't even aim 5 times for the head. He was probably thinking - in a panic - that those extra shots would not kill the guy, but just keep him from getting up and killing everyone in the store.

I doubt anyone posting in this thread, myself included, would have been able to handle that awful situation even half as well as the pharmacist did.

Hard saying, not knowing.

I feel for the people you are policing if you don't think you would handle this situation better than the pharmacist.