T1B

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Shit, this is exactly what bradhusker was talking about.

Here we go... :twisted:

Jsc810 wrote:Yeah you can only take 'self-defense' so far, and that's too far.

Dins wrote:But taking a pause, and getting a second gun to finish him off, even though the threat was over crossed the line.

"We believe that armed robbers who enter our businesses and threaten our lives bear the responsibility for the outcome of an armed conflict that they initiate."

KC Scott wrote: How does the Pharmacist know he doesn't have another gun on him while he's squirming on the ground?

Oklahoma - First-degree Murder in Conjunction with 1 of 8 Aggravating Circumstances
Title 21 Penal Code, R.L.1910, § 2312, §21-701.7
R.L.1910, § 2312.
§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree

A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.
D. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
E. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.
Added by Laws 1976, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 1, § 1, eff. July 24, 1976. Amended by Laws 1982, c. 279, § 1, operative Oct. 1, 1982; Laws 1989, c. 259, § 1, emerg. eff. May 19, 1989; Laws 1996, c. 161, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1996; Laws 1997, c. 386, § 23, emerg. eff. June 10, 1997; Laws 1998, c. 5, § 11, emerg. eff. March 4, 1998; Laws 2004, c. 520, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2004; Laws 2006, c. 186, § 2, eff. July 1, 2006.
NOTE: Laws 1989, c. 253, § 1 repealed by Laws 1989, c. 353, § 14, emerg. eff. June 3, 1989. Laws 1997, c. 324, § 1 repealed by Laws 1998, c. 5, § 29, emerg. eff. March 4, 1998.

The Seer wrote:Should've been manslaughter. Ersland had absolutely no prior intent in harming those individuals. He wouldn't have harmed them had they walked in and transacted. They entered his establishment where other patrons were and he eliminated those that were in a position to eliminate HIM.

Because he went beyond what would be considered "reasonable" - manslaugher, and gets out in 5.

jiminphilly wrote:with malice aforethought

Dinsdale wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:with malice aforethought

Must be one hell of a DA if he convinced the jury of "malice aforethought."

which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.

Oklahoma Criminal Law
Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:
When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.
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.
When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed.


Punishment
Any person guilty of manslaughter in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than four (4) years.

Jsc810 wrote:Perhaps the jury concluded that when he put 5 rounds at point blank range into someone who was already unconscious, that showed intent to kill.

B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.

Jsc810 wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:First, it's not just someone. It was a criminal attempting to rob a store and potentially cause physical harm. Let's not lose site of that.

You're right, it's not just someone.

It was a criminal who previously was attempting to rob a store and potentially cause physical harm, but at the time was on the ground, unconscious, with a shot in his head.

Let's not lose sight of that.

The Seer wrote:Really "cool" how those eyewitnesses in the Buick stuck around....

Jsc810 wrote:Here is the video.

Now having seen the evidence, how would you have voted if you were on the jury?

Cuda wrote:I'd let him off with a small reward

Papa Willie wrote:Sounds to me like he didn't shoot the other little fucker enough.

88 wrote:I watched the videos. The result seems harsh to me. It seems more like 2nd degree murder (heat of the moment - bad decision - or voluntary manslaughter - blah, blah, blah) to me.

I suspect that the Prosecutor offered to allow the pharmacist to plea to manslaughter early in the case, but the defense thought they could get their client to walk free if they only gave the jury the option of first degree murder. Sometimes you gamble and lose. If my suspicions are correct, it was a bad bet on the part of the defense.


Edit: Mama is suing the pharmacist and the pharmacy: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/south ... 186029.htm

That will be interesting. To reach insurance money, she will have to prove that the shooting was the result of negligence (or gross negligence) because harm caused by intentional acts is generally not covered by insurance. So now you have a criminal conviction (standard of proof much higher than in civil courts) where a jury found intent to kill, but the dead kid's mama must prove that the pharmacist really didn't intend to kill the kid (defense unsuccessfully asserted by the pharmacist) in order to collect some insurance cash.

SOME jurors in the Jerome Ersland murder trial seem surprised by the vitriolic reaction to the guilty verdict. We weren't at all surprised. But we were disappointed.

Jerome Jay Ersland, the pharmacist is shown Thursday at the Oklahoma County jail after a jury convicted him of first-degree murder.

MULTIMEDIA
PHOTOview all photos

No surprise in harsh reaction to Ersland jury verdict
Ersland was convicted of first-degree murder for the May 19, 2009, shooting of a young man in the act of robbing the pharmacy where Ersland worked. Rather than removing any threat from the robber by shooting him, which Ersland had every right to do, he took the time to find another weapon and pump five additional bullets into Antwun “Speedy” Parker.
The case had racial overtones — Ersland is white and Parker was black — but these were somewhat subdued because Ersland was not only a perpetrator but a victim. His life and that of his co-workers were under threat.
Nevertheless, Ersland overreached and Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater correctly and courageously charged Ersland with first-degree murder. The jury could have acquitted him or convicted him of manslaughter. Instead, these 12 men and women weighed the evidence and agreed that Ersland had committed an act of premeditated murder.
The verdict was surprising given Ersland's victim status and the crime-intolerant atmosphere of this state. Reaction to the guilty verdict wasn't surprising. Demands for a pardon began immediately and Ersland partisans launched a petition drive in his support. Ersland himself began complaining of his treatment at the Oklahoma County jail.
Partly through Prater's intervention, Ersland had spent little time in jail before his conviction. He prepared for the trial as a man free on bail. There were no serious attempts by his defense team to make a deal with Prater. Ersland and his defense lawyers apparently presumed that no jury here would convict him of murder.
But jurors did and now Ersland awaits formal sentencing by the no-nonsense judge who presided over the trial. The jury recommended a sentence of life in prison. District Judge Ray C. Elliott may concur or he may reduce the sentence. The notion that Ersland will die in prison (he's now 59) is presumptive at this point.
We don't presume to know what any of us would have done had we been selected to the Ersland jury. But we believe the verdict was just because Ersland was well-represented during the trial and the two years leading up to it. This isn't a case of inadequate defense counsel. It is a case of a knee-jerk reaction to a verdict based on circumstances rather than actual evidence and an objective analysis of that evidence.
The circumstances are that Ersland was being robbed. His life hung in the balance. He reacted swiftly and surely by shooting Parker. Beyond that, when the circumstances changed, Ersland engaged in a criminal act.
“There are laws and they're set,” one juror told The Oklahoman's Nolan Clay. “And we had to follow the laws.”


Read more: http://newsok.com/no-surprise-in-harsh- ... z1S6bUzAWt

KC Scott wrote:anyone saying he should have been convicted of anything other than protecting himself, his employees and his business needs to form a line to the left

jiminphilly wrote:What was demographic of the jury?

mvscal wrote:... incapable of understanding what "with malice aforethought" truly means.

Dinsdale wrote:Sounds like the DA did a hell of a job explaining it to them.

Then again, "12 peers" seem to think spilling hot coffee on your lap means someone owes you a couple of mil.

smackaholic wrote:the constitution

smackaholic wrote:The rocket should walk.

Not because he's not guilty. Because the federal government seriously needs to be reigned in.

This is a MLB problem. Let them handle it.

If state drug laws were broken, let them handle it.

I will change my mind on this one if someone can show me where the constitution directs them, other than the ridiculous interstate commerce bullshit.

Dinsdale wrote:Near consensus on T1B? Or at least as close as I've seen on something like this. Pretty far ends of the spectrum mostly in agreement.

Jsc810 wrote:The man removed himself from any danger when he shot the criminal and then left the room. He did not have to come back to where the criminal was.

But when he came back to the room, there was no threat, nevertheless he did not hesitate, he went straight to the criminal and shot him 5 times point blank. That is intent to kill as far as I'm concerned.

My vote is for first degree murder.

XXXL wrote:Looking at what's reporting, I would gather that said pharmacist exceeded the case law boundaries of self defense.