Casey Anthony walks... This guy gets life in prison...

[GarMan]

Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'

msnbc.com news services
updated 7/11/2011 12:25:31 PM ET 2011-07-11T16:25:31

An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.

Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.

Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."

A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.

Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.

At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.

Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.

'Please don't give up hope'
Thousands of Ersland's supporters have reportedly signed petitions pushing Gov. Mary Fallin to pardon the pharmacist, or ease his sentence.

"Please people, don't give up hope. We got 17,000 signatures in a month," Ersland's friend and activist Karen Monahan told KOCO.

Monahan told the station she is selling T-shirts and collecting signatures to help save the life of her good friend.

"The last time I talked to him (Ersland), he was over-excited. He's getting letters (of support) from people he doesn't even know," Monahan reportedly said. 

He seems justified to me...

[JR4AU]

He seems justified to me...

Have you seen the video?

[Vandy Vol]

Have you seen the video?

I want to see his saliva on the gun.  If it's not there, then I can't prove he did it.  The CSI effect has made me go evidence crazy!

[RWS]

He seems justified to me...

He was probably fairly safe up until he pumped 5 more rounds into the guy who was laying unconscious on the floor. I think the original shooting was justified. He shot the guy in the head. I highly doubt the robber was posing much of a threat after that. There was absolutely no reason for him to, in a separate act, shoot the robber 5 more times.

[GarMan]

Have you seen the video?

He was probably fairly safe up until he pumped 5 more rounds into the guy who was laying unconscious on the floor. I think the original shooting was justified. He shot the guy in the head. I highly doubt the robber was posing much of a threat after that. There was absolutely no reason for him to, in a separate act, shoot the robber 5 more times.

It's all speculation.  We don't know that, and I disagree with the prosecution on this.  He could have been faking an unconscious state waiting for an opportunity to pull his own weapon.  Would you take a chance gambling with your own life and/or the lives of two co-workers?  I would not. 

[JR4AU]

It's all speculation.  We don't know that, and I disagree with the prosecution on this.  He could have been faking an unconscious state waiting for an opportunity to pull his own weapon.  Would you take a chance gambling with your own life and/or the lives of two co-workers?  I would not.

                                   

[RWS]

It's all speculation.  We don't know that, and I disagree with the prosecution on this.  He could have been faking an unconscious state waiting for an opportunity to pull his own weapon.  Would you take a chance gambling with your own life and/or the lives of two co-workers?  I would not.

It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video. 

[Token]

I don't understand the point in shooting the guy 5 more times.  Part of me wants to say, "if the kid was already dead", but I understand the flip side to that argument is intent.  And intent is everything.

[GarMan]

It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video.

I'm not playing devil's advocate.  Do you risk the lives of your co-workers or yourself based on subjective measures of what's reasonable?  We simply don't know if the headshot was significant enough to incapacitate the scumbag.  Did the bullet pierce the cranium?  Did it cause brain damage?  Would you know or even be capable of making that assessment during the event?  I don't believe that I would put 5 additional slugs in his gut, but I'd probably put a second in his head. 

[GarMan]

I don't understand the point in shooting the guy 5 more times.  Part of me wants to say, "if the kid was already dead", but I understand the flip side to that argument is intent.  And intent is everything.

They claim the kid would have likely survived if he had not been shot 5 more times.  That suggests to me the headshot may not have been significant enough.  Perhaps, it was only a glancing impact. 

[Token]

They claim the kid would have likely survived if he had not been shot 5 more times.  That suggests to me the headshot may not have been significant enough.  Perhaps, it was only a glancing impact.

The clerk was good while he was defending himself.  Once the kid was shot in the face and on the ground, the clerk chased the other kid away.  He then came back and noticed the kid still lying on the ground.  Even if the kid wasn't dead, he was no longer a risk to the clerk.  If he calls 911 then and stands guard with a gun until the cops arrive, we aren't discussing this.  Instead, he walks back around to his other weapon, then proceeds to shoot the kid 5 more times. 

Like it or not, he was no longer defending himself.  What he did is considered murder. 

[JR4AU]

He was such a threat that the old man calmly walked right past him turned his back to him, retrieved a second gun, walked out from behind cover, to point blank range to stand over this threat and pump 5 more rounds in him. 

Sorry, Garman, you're argument is full of fail.  And the jury spoke.  Not only with their verdict, but their sentencing recommendation. 

[RWS]

I'm not playing devil's advocate.  Do you risk the lives of your co-workers or yourself based on subjective measures of what's reasonable?  We simply don't know if the headshot was significant enough to incapacitate the scumbag.  Did the bullet pierce the cranium?  Did it cause brain damage?  Would you know or even be capable of making that assessment during the event?  I don't believe that I would put 5 additional slugs in his gut, but I'd probably put a second in his head.

The guy is a pharmacist, so he knows a thing or two about the human body. He's not an idiot, and probably has a little more knowledge than John Q Citizen walking down the street. It's a pretty easy assessment to make, I would think. "I just shot this fucker in the head. Is he moving, YES/NO? Are pieces of skull and brains on the floor, YES/NO?" Even if you double tapped, or shot him again if he wasn't incapacitated and was getting up or something, you would probably still be OK legally. You shot the guy. Have your co-workers move to a safe location, keep the guy on the floor at gunpoint regardless of if he is or isn't moving. Wait for cops.

Whether the guy was moving or not after the initial shot, there is no justification to put 5 more rounds in him. The pharmacist had a right to stand his ground. He went waaaaaay beyond that.

[JR4AU]

The guy is a pharmacist, so he knows a thing or two about the human body. He's not an idiot, and probably has a little more knowledge than John Q Citizen walking down the street. It's a pretty easy assessment to make, I would think. "I just shot this fucker in the head. Is he moving, YES/NO? Are pieces of skull and brains on the floor, YES/NO?" Even if you double tapped, or shot him again if he wasn't incapacitated and was getting up or something, you would probably still be OK legally. You shot the guy. Have your co-workers move to a safe location, keep the guy on the floor at gunpoint regardless of if he is or isn't moving. Wait for cops.

Whether the guy was moving or not after the initial shot, there is no justification to put 5 more rounds in him. The pharmacist had a right to stand his ground. He went waaaaaay beyond that.

Regardless of all that, looking at the pharmacist in the video, it's clear he's not feeling threatened.

[RWS]

Regardless of all that, looking at the pharmacist in the video, it's clear he's not feeling threatened.

That video is more than likely what totally sunk his case, too. The robber is barely out of frame, but just barely. I'm pretty sure if he was getting back up we would have seen a foot, leg, arm, something come into frame. It doesn't even look like the guy moved.

I'm all about shooting some dumbass that breaks into my house, or walks into a store I'm at flashing a gun. But as you know, we are bound to laws as well as far as what we can do to stand our ground, and there is a line that you can cross that makes you an aggressor.

[RWS]

http://www.news9.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3804065&h1=Oklahoma%20County%20District%20Attorney%20David%20Prater%20Discusses%20Crime&vt1=v&at1=Station%202&d1=1092234&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=20446469

That is a pretty good video from the prosecution. He even says it was 100% legit, up until the robber was shot 5 times. In that video, a little after the 4 minute mark, they show a different camera angle. The robber wasn't standing, or in the process of getting up after the first shot. The pharmacist went way beyond his right to defend himself and others. He even took the time to go get a more lethal weapon. If I thought somebody might pop back up and shoot my ass, I'm not turning my back on them, much less walking 20 feet away to go get another gun and then come back. I'm going to find cover and keep him at gunpoint until the cops get there.

[Kaos]

It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video.

Video can be faked. 

I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball. 

Video won't convince me of shit.  They should have had more of that. 

If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it. 

But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI.  I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago. 

So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real. 

Oh wait.  I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet.  Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did.   Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun. 

They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they? 

Fuck it.  I've got reasonable doubt.  Set that man free. 

[JR4AU]

Video can be faked. 

I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball. 

Video won't convince me of shit.  They should have had more of that. 

If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it. 

But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI.  I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago. 

So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real. 

Oh wait.  I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet.  Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did.   Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun. 

They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they? 

Fuck it.  I've got reasonable doubt.  Set that man free.

The defendant use an affirmative defense and didnt dispute the video.  Claimed self defense.  Jury said fuck off old man.

[AWK]

Video can be faked. 

I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball. 

Video won't convince me of shit.  They should have had more of that. 

If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it. 

But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI.  I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago. 

So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real. 

Oh wait.  I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet.  Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did.   Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun. 

They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they? 

Fuck it.  I've got reasonable doubt.  Set that man free.

[Kaos]

The defendant use an affirmative defense and didnt dispute the video.  Claimed self defense.  Jury said fuck off old man.

He was obviously under duress because a teenage boy once licked his balls. 

Acquittal.