Pharmacist who killed robber guilty of murder

[alkemyst]

So what you're saying is that shooting a body that is already dead is against the law? Fascinating. Shooting him while he was a threat was perfectly legal but shooting a dead body is absolutely immoral.

Fact is is head wounds are not always fatal. He was incapacitated and no longer a threat. Had he continued to fire after the head shot immediately it'd be less a gray area.

Being he came back, witnessed this criminal still immobile and then made sure he was dead and then went on record being happy he did it was the issue.

 

[ShawnD1]

Being he came back, witnessed this criminal still immobile and then made sure he was dead and then went on record being happy he did it was the issue.

I guess that does sound pretty crazy. Guys who shoot intruders usually aren't too happy about it.

 

[alkemyst]

I guess that does sound pretty crazy. Guys who shoot intruders usually aren't too happy about it.

One of the first things they teach you in a gun training class is if you ever shoot a man esp if you kill him, you want to be as 'upset' as possible you had to do it.

Jurys are full of emotional people that tend to decide a case on emotion despite being told it needs to be objective. People in general get too emotional and feel terrible when someone is killed even if they were pricks.

Part of the reason the Osama Bin Laden assassination wasn't shown was is because of this. It would look like a total cold-blooded murder more than likely with people pleading for their lives and collateral victims.

Someone comes into my home chances are I am killing them, castle law allows that. I am not going to brag to the officer, make my statement that he had it coming and say I'd do it again for the next guy.

When the story breaks and say he has a 2 and 4 year old kid, an ex-wife that is now a crackhead and he was "only" committing armed robberies to feed his family and now they are orphans...that is not going to help me win the jury trial I will face.

Being sympathic does.

 

[PaperclipGod]

The security camera recordings show Parker and a friend, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, rush into the drugstore. Ingram points a handgun at the two female workers who flee to a backroom. Parker, who does not have a gun, tries to adjust a gray mask. Parker drops to the floor when the pharmacist shoots him in the head.

The recordings show Ingram flees from the store. Ersland follows the fleeing robber outside, then returns to the store, walks by where Parker has fallen, gets a second gun, walks back to Parker and shoots five more times.
The last shots were fired from 18 to 24 inches away and struck Parker in the abdomen and chest, according to the testimony.

AWESOME!! That pharmacist is a goddamn hero. He should get an award, and the thug that got away should get the same treatment as his dead friend.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

No, I want to see which military because he's the one that tossed military out there as his trump card. I'd laugh my ass off if he came back with Coast Guards.

I'm in the air force actually. My primary job isn't to go out and kill people, but I am trained to handle/have fired guns (I'm actually pretty good with an M9 ^.^ but I digress). As he mentioned, I didn't make any claim about you, and your foot was soundly in your mouth.

 

[BUTCH1]

The argument I made in the post you responded to was that not every violation of the law makes it necessary to apply the penalties. Regarding whether or not the pharmacist was in the right, I've offered my arguments about that earlier in this thread.

Well he had his day in court and was unanimously convicted, myself, I believe he should have been convicted for manslaughter for the simple reason that it was the thug that caused the whole thing but the video evidence and his attitude is pretty damming..

 

[Zenmervolt]

I think you don't understand what 'planning' means or is this because you feel it was a hate crime?

Actually, it's quite clear that you don't understand what "premeditated" means in a legal context. Case law is pretty clear on this. Any amount of time, no matter how infinitesimally small is sufficient to establish premeditation. I'd strongly suggest that you actually read some case law on this.

ZV

 

[spidey07]

I've made it clear that I have zero problems killing somebody in self defense or if they enter my home illegally or in defense of a 3rd party.

This is murder. armed or not, murder. You can't do what he did. The first shots were plenty fine legally, it's coming back and killing that was the problem.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Here's a scenario to play out in your mind - your moms were being raped and mutilated while you walk in with a gun - let's see if you will change your mind quickly. The pharmacist acted while being under the duress of being ROBBED. I don't know how I would act in that situation, and neither do you. It's easy to talk smack behind a computer screen.

You're usually pretty smart. Let's play a different role game.

Let's say you are the pharmacist, and everything plays out like in the video up to the point when you come back in the store, do you go get the second gun and shoot the guy 5 times? Just saying, if it were you, would you do what he did?

Same question goes for anyone that think there is any defense for the pharmacist.

Let's say you answered yes to the question above, would you then shoot yourself to make it look like self-defense, and would you further lie about the course of events?

Just curious.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

No its not asinine. Go ahead and present that excuse, but I'd expect that the cop would still write you a ticket. Maybe if you gave a better excuse like "my wife is in labor", you would walk free and maybe even get a police escort to the hospital. You are fully within your rights to present ANY excuse that makes sense to you but it is also the the cop's discretion to let you walk free if the he feels like it is for a worthy cause.

The same with juries. Murder is still murder but under the certain circumstances it can be excused.

You're right. The jury could have nullified. They could have come back from the deliberating room and said, "Your Honor, we feel that the defendant murdered this man, but we find him innocent anyway. Suck it, Trebek!", and the wouldn't be a god damned thing anyone could do about it.

BUT

They did not...

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

If you want to be a criminal and rob people this could happen you. I do not care if he had the gun or not, he was taking part in it. If more criminals were shot maybe they would think twice before doing it.

Why are people so soft on criminals?

Why are you?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

And it WOULD have been excused here but what happened is so clear-cut it's ridiculous to even argue it, dude (who I have NO sympathy for) is felled on the floor, motionless, from a head shot, threat over. What possible reason could the pharmacist come up with to come back 45 sec. later and pump 5 shots into him??, there is none and that's why he was convicted..

No there is one reason... malice. The thing is that in this democracy where we are the government and we vote for how we want things, and let the majority rule, we have laws. One of them is to let the government handle the punishments for crimes.

Self defense is not punishment, it's a universally obvious right. The pharmacist acted in self defense when he shot the man the first time. He acted in a perfectly reasonable way when confronted with a dire situation. The second time, when he came back got a new gun and used it, he acted out of malice. He was angry about the robbery and rightfully so, but that is no excuse to act as the State, and meet out punishment. When he did this he became every bit the criminal as those who had just victimized him.

I don't want this person as an example of how to act. I don't want this person to serve as a deterrent. I don't want this person out on the street.

 

[SSSnail]

You're usually pretty smart. Let's play a different role game.

Let's say you are the pharmacist, and everything plays out like in the video up to the point when you come back in the store, do you go get the second gun and shoot the guy 5 times? Just saying, if it were you, would you do what he did?

Same question goes for anyone that think there is any defense for the pharmacist.

Let's say you answered yes to the question above, would you then shoot yourself to make it look like self-defense, and would you further lie about the course of events?

Just curious.

I'm trained to shoot to kill, if I intend to shoot something, I'll be making sure that it's dead - that means more than one round in the body. If I was on the jury, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the pharmacist as a murderer, he might have overreacted, which is totally something that is reasonably expected of a normal guy in a stressed situation.

What he did afterwards to cover up his actions, perhaps it's realization that he did something wrong. But at that moment, I bet there's so much adrenaline pumping through him that he wouldn't have the clear mind to dictate his actions. It is not premeditated, it is spurred on by other life threatening action of others. It's not that difficult to understand.

I would NEVER convict that guy of murder 1. Plain and simple.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I'm trained to shoot to kill, if I intend to shoot something, I'll be making sure that it's dead - that means more than one round in the body. If I was on the jury, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the pharmacist as a murderer, he might have overreacted, which is totally something that is reasonably expected of a normal guy in a stressed situation.

What he did afterwards to cover up his actions, perhaps it's realization that he did something wrong. But at that moment, I bet there's so much adrenaline pumping through him that he wouldn't have the clear mind to dictate his actions. It is not premeditated, it is spurred on by other life threatening action of others. It's not that difficult to understand.

I would NEVER convict that guy of murder 1. Plain and simple.

That's not what I asked you.

 

[spidey07]

You're usually pretty smart. Let's play a different role game.

Let's say you are the pharmacist, and everything plays out like in the video up to the point when you come back in the store, do you go get the second gun and shoot the guy 5 times? Just saying, if it were you, would you do what he did?

Same question goes for anyone that think there is any defense for the pharmacist.

Let's say you answered yes to the question above, would you then shoot yourself to make it look like self-defense, and would you further lie about the course of events?

Just curious.

I'll play. The video doesn't show the robber.

If I came back into my store/home and the guy I shot was still moving he's still a threat. He could be reaching for a weapon in his waistband, pocket, ankle, whatever. If he was still moving I could make a reasonable case he was reaching for a weapon and I was still in fear of my life/property loss.

"I feared for my life" and shut the fuck up after that. "I feared for my life, attorney please". I feared for my life. "But what did the robber do, or say? What happened?"

"I feared for my life, no further comment unless by my attorney. I feared for my life."

Not only do you train to kill the robber, you train on how to deal with the law. I feared for my life.

 

[classy]

We have debated a lot of things on these boards over the years. Some with great points of argument on both sides of the issue. But, lol, this ain't one of them. This was a cold blooded murder of a guilty robber. You just can't do what this guy did. The video and circumstances just defy any logic that this was anything but first degree murder.

 

[spidey07]

We have debated a lot of things on these boards over the years. Some with great points of argument on both sides of the issue. But, lol, this ain't one of them. This was a cold blooded murder of a guilty robber. You just can't do what this guy did. The video and circumstances just defy any logic that this was anything but first degree murder.

I presented how it can not be murder. Even though I believe the shooters actions are wrong. I feared for my life and he was reaching for a weapon.

 

[classy]

I presented how it can not be murder. Even though I believe the shooters actions are wrong. I feared for my life and he was reaching for a weapon.

That scenario is seriously flawed. A prosecutor would take that apart in less than 2 hours. With some of the facts we now know, this guy probably would have been convicted even without video. Your premise of fearing for his life goes completely out the window because the pharmacist pursued the second robber outside the store, even shooting twice at the guy running away.

So obviously his fear while probably undeniable was miniscule at best. The second reason, ballistics would have still shown that he shot the guy 5 times in the stomach from close range. So his fear of him reaching for gun doesn't work because he clearly was very close to the robber. Again any fear he may had is not evident at all. Then they would have compared the bullets from the kids skull to those in his gut and shown he used two different guns.

His only prayer was a heat of the moment along the lines of some type of passion crime. Short of that, this dude is toast.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Does anyone know if the jury was given the option of a lesser charge?

 

[BUTCH1]

I presented how it can not be murder. Even though I believe the shooters actions are wrong. I feared for my life and he was reaching for a weapon.

Video shows otherwise, he was still and on the floor, his attorney's only hope would be he was in a state of rage and hope for a lesser charge. IMO he should have been charged with manslaughter because it was not him who caused the situation to begin with, it was the thugs who caused it..

 

[Zebo]

I'll play. The video doesn't show the robber.

If I came back into my store/home and the guy I shot was still moving he's still a threat. He could be reaching for a weapon in his waistband, pocket, ankle, whatever. If he was still moving I could make a reasonable case he was reaching for a weapon and I was still in fear of my life/property loss.

"I feared for my life" and shut the fuck up after that. "I feared for my life, attorney please". I feared for my life. "But what did the robber do, or say? What happened?"

"I feared for my life, no further comment unless by my attorney. I feared for my life."

Not only do you train to kill the robber, you train on how to deal with the law. I feared for my life.

You can say that all you want but video would make you a liar in reasonable persons eyes.

- you don't turn you back on what you fear unless you're going all the way, as in sprint and gone.
-robber was not moving threatening
-you don't walk up with no sense of urgency and coolly put 5 shots into someone if you fear for your life

Of course he should have STFU and planned a defense better for murder one.

 

[dabuddha]

Guess that'll teach the punk to go robbing someone.

 

[NetWareHead]

Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Because other people assign worth to a robber's life and I don't.

 

[stag3]

hmm kinda on the fence here, he shouldn't have shot him 5 more times but then again if the kid didn't try to rob the store in the first place, he would still be alive.

 

[Macamus Prime]

In the video of the Oklahoma City shooting, Mr. Ersland can be seen firing the first shot and Mr. Parker dropping to the floor. After chasing the other robber out the door, Mr. Ersland returns, walking past the place where Mr. Parker fell to get a second gun out of a drawer. He then points down toward the floor and shoots several times.

Ersland wasn't looking to defend himself any longer. He wanted revenge. Which is fine. But, I don't think the 2nd amendment and the right to defend yourself works that way.

1) He took the robber out.
2) He turned his back on him - meaning Ersland felt the threat was taken care.
3) Ran after the other robber. Leaving the downed Parker (who everyone is claiming to be a threat) alone.
4) Came back - still not immidiately addressing the downed robber,.. meaning once again, Ersland showed he felt Parker was no longer a threat.
5) He got another gun and pumped 5 more bullets into the kid.

OK, the kid was the scum of the earth. Ersland took him out with a shot to the head. He is down. It is now a settled and handled issue. When Ersland shoots him 5 more times, it is no longer about dealing with a threat - he wanted revenge. If you feel he was OK with doing that, then change the law. Until that point in time, he murdered him.

Some of you, are like Ersland; you look forward to any excuse to harm and kill another human being. You deem yourselves "better" because you choose to kill only when the moment is right.

Bottom line, Ersland is no better than the kid he just killed. However, the kid was willing to kill for money, Ersland probably did it because the kid was black. I am sure prison will treat him just grand.