Pharmacist who killed robber guilty of murder

[NetWareHead]

@ Netwarehead

So you don't want to answer my question then.

If this is your question:

Would you be still glad that he's using his own judgement to judge who should live and die?

Ultimately, when you look at it, it if is not the pharmacist then it is a lawful branch of the govt rendering a verdict that includes incarceration, penalties and possibly capital punishment. The govt is also an institution of man, plenty capable of error, just like a lone vigilante is also capable of error. Both of these entities should act based on morals and mete out punishment based on the crime and how said crime needs to be redressed. in the event of an error or a misjudgment, then our justice system makes allowances for this and the righting of wrongs. If the pharmacist committed a wrong, then it is being addressed now (1st degree murder conviction). I'm saying I do not agree with this and would have refused to convict if I were on that jury.

 

[Anubis]

not reading this shit show but the argument is stupid

he executed someone
and its on tape

case closed

 

[jman19]

The pharmacist executed the downed robber while being filmed. Clearly murder. How stupid can you be?

 

[amdhunter]

not reading this shit show but the argument is stupid

he executed someone
and its on tape

case closed

Jackass who tried to rob the person deserved it. Should have shot him more, then gone after his mother for giving birth to that POS.

 

[SSSnail]

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.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

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.

The pharmacist killed someone laying crippled on the floor in cold blood. How is that in anyway similar to what you described?

 

[SSSnail]

The pharmacist killed someone laying crippled on the floor in cold blood. How is that in anyway similar to what you described?

Right, because that bloodied crippled person just crawled into his store asking for help.

 

[tcsenter]

I remember an incident some years ago where a redneck family caught two burglars in their home. Somehow, they were able to subdue and get them tied up, then commenced to beating and torturing them for like an hour before calling police. I think they even video taped it, which was then used to prosecute and convict them of unlawful imprisonment, assault and battery, and a bunch of other charges.

Different than this?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Right, because that bloodied crippled person just crawled into his store asking for help.

It doesn't matter what the robber did; if he was killed by the initial shot (in the heat of the moment when the pharmacist was actually under duress) that would be one thing. Being robbed doesn't give you carte blanche to be a cold blooded killer. There's a reason we have courts dole out punishment.

 

[SSSnail]

LOL, it's easy for you to sit there and judge. Ever been a victim of a robbery? Armed robbery? Held a gun? Shot at anything? Been shot at? You're assuming the people that are committing the crimes will afford you the same rights and due process if they're successful. And that they won't kill you, or mutilate you...

So naive, so "progressive", so fucking clueless. I wouldn't doubt that some of you are from Berkeley, and that it's perfectly OK'ed to go hiking in Iran.

 

[NetWareHead]

Just because a law exists, sometimes the consequences of breaking such a law do not have to be necessarily applied. Each situation needs to be examined carefully.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

LOL, it's easy for you to sit there and judge. Ever been a victim of a robbery? Armed robbery? Held a gun? Shot at anything? Been shot at? You're assuming the people that are committing the crimes will afford you the same rights and due process if they're successful. And that they won't kill you, or mutilate you...

So naive, so "progressive", so fucking clueless. I wouldn't doubt that some of you are from Berkeley, and that it's perfectly OK'ed to go hiking in Iran.

Yea, I'm actually in the military so do you want your foot with mustard or ketchup?

 

[BUTCH1]

Just because a law exists, sometimes the consequences of breaking such a law do not have to be necessarily applied. Each situation needs to be examined carefully.

Do you have any idea of how asinine that sounds?, why don't I tell a cop if I get caught going 100MPH "my wife really pissed me off today!", OK your free to go sir, I understand. Your looking for some kind of wiggle room here and it does not exist, someone immobilized by a head wound lying still is not a threat, get it?.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Ersland had considerable support at first but that dropped off when it turned out he had fabricated his claims of being a combat veteran of the first Gulf War.

Prosecutors told jurors Ersland lied to police about what happened during the shooting, trying to come up with a good story to cover his wrongdoing. They said he underestimated how much homicide detectives would investigate.

They also reminded jurors he had lied about killing people during the first Gulf War. They said his military records show he was at Altus Air Force Base in 1991 and never was in combat.

Prosecutors also reminded jurors of testimony Ersland had faked a gunshot wound in an effort to support his defense. “He lies about everything,” Prater said.


Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542#ixzz1Nrki4IL2

Did anyone bother reading that article? Some "hero". He was convicted, albeit grudgingly by a jury of his peers. All 12 of them without one dissent. Just one of them disagreeing and he wouldn't have been convicted. Says a lot. He also expected to be convicted. The only people who are shocked/surprised here are those with an axe to grind.

Also, on the issue of manslaughter - it was "available" because lesser included offenses are just about always available, but it required a finding that just wasn't going to happen here:

Manslaughter in the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter, there must be no malice in the killing. In other words, it must not be malicious killing. If the killing is malicious even if it is done in the heat of passion, it is murder. Even if a killing is done in a sudden heat, excited by sufficient provocation if there is malice in it, it is murder, and if deliberation and premeditation are present then it is murder in the first degree. Anger and rage do not reduce an unlawful killing from murder to manslaughter.

 

[SSSnail]

Yea, I'm actually in the military so do you want your foot with mustard or ketchup?

Which military? I am a deactivated US Marine. You? What was it something about foot and mayonnaise?

 

[NetWareHead]

Do you have any idea of how asinine that sounds?, why don't I tell a cop if I get caught going 100MPH "my wife really pissed me off today!", OK your free to go sir, I understand. Your looking for some kind of wiggle room here and it does not exist, someone immobilized by a head wound lying still is not a threat, get it?.

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.

 

[Spg1]

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?

 

[ShawnD1]

Why are people so soft on criminals?

A man tries to rob store and is killed by store owner. Robber is labeled the victim and store owner goes to jail.
A different man smokes a joint and spends 5 years in federal prison.

justice system working as intended

 

[actuarial]

Which military? I am a deactivated US Marine. You? What was it something about foot and mayonnaise?

I don't know if you understand what foot in mouth means. You claimed that the people responding to this had never shot a gun or had one shot at them.

He never made any claim about you. What does he have his foot in his mouth about?

 

[SSSnail]

I don't know if you understand what foot in mouth means. You claimed that the people responding to this had never shot a gun or had one shot at them.

He never made any claim about you. What does he have his foot in his mouth about?

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.

 

[BUTCH1]

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.

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..

 

[actuarial]

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.

But his foot still wouldn't be in his mouth.

 

[NetWareHead]

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..

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.

 

[SSSnail]

But his foot still wouldn't be in his mouth.

So by virtue of me asking him if he had done some of the things, that equates to me putting my foot in my mouth? If I outright told him that he never had done any of those, then maybe you can say that I went and stuck my foot in my mouth. It's just merely asking for his credentials, so now that we've established that he at least held a gun, let's see where the conversation leads.

 

[ShawnD1]

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..

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.