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

GarMan · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2011, 04:00:22 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on July 12, 2011, 03:56:17 PM

No offense Jim, but this kind of statement is what gets a lot of people up in arms about lawyers. You might not like but just saying, it is.

What's wrong with extreme arrogance and condescension? Don't they teach that in law skewl?

CCTAU · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2011, 04:17:25 PM »

Well. I 'll say this. If I ever have to pull the trigger on someone, I'm not sure when I would stop. Not sure if I would pop one, chase another, then come back and pop the one again. I have no idea. I pray to God I never find out. But more importantly, I pray there are no cameras and no witnesses.

RWS · « **Reply #62 on:** July 12, 2011, 04:59:21 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 03:43:21 PM

Wow! You've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and assessed the case. That's amazing... Truly amazing...

Unless you can go back in time and change what the law was at the time the incident occured, it's not going to happen. Juries and judges go by what the law is. Not what you think it should be. Not what you want it to be. If I'm wrong, then great. Good for that pharmacist. It's just my opinion that he isn't going to win that appeal. But, I guess you've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and that's how you absolutely know I'm wrong.

JR4AU · « **Reply #63 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:01:24 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 04:00:22 PM

What's wrong with extreme arrogance and condescension? Don't they teach that in law skewl?

No, they teach law, which means I know more than you do about it.

JR4AU · « **Reply #64 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:02:19 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 11:55:23 AM

Not quite... Appeal in process... But, thanks for playing!

I'll ask again...what issue might cause it to be overturned?

GarMan · « **Reply #65 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:17:27 PM »

Quote from: RWS on July 12, 2011, 04:59:21 PM

Unless you can go back in time and change what the law was at the time the incident occured, it's not going to happen. Juries and judges go by what the law is. Not what you think it should be. Not what you want it to be. If I'm wrong, then great. Good for that pharmacist. It's just my opinion that he isn't going to win that appeal. But, I guess you've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and that's how you absolutely know I'm wrong.

Just silly... I'm not trying to change any laws, and I don't know if he'll win. I'm just saying that this isn't final until the appeals process has been exhausted. All of the sudden, it's just your opinion, but you were pretty phuckin' adamant in earlier posts.

GarMan · « **Reply #66 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:28:31 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 12, 2011, 05:02:19 PM

I'll ask again...what issue might cause it to be overturned?

Why don't you follow-up with the defense attorney? I'm not the one filing the appeal. Sorry...

JR4AU · « **Reply #67 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:33:19 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 05:28:31 PM

Why don't you follow-up with the defense attorney? I'm not the one filing the appeal. Sorry...

RWS · « **Reply #68 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:35:02 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 05:17:27 PM

Just silly... I'm not trying to change any laws, and I don't know if he'll win. I'm just saying that this isn't final until the appeals process has been exhausted. All of the sudden, it's just your opinion, but you were pretty phuckin' adamant in earlier posts.

Of course it's my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball. But based on what the law is, it's my opinion that he's not going to win that appeal. I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. It's no different than when somebody says "Dude, Team X is going to beat the shit out of Team Y."

Jesus, tell me you're not really this dense.

JR4AU · « **Reply #69 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:44:57 PM »

Quote from: RWS on July 12, 2011, 05:35:02 PM

Of course it's my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball. But based on what the law is, it's my opinion that he's not going to win that appeal. I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. It's no different than when somebody says "Dude, Team X is going to beat the shit out of Team Y."

Jesus, tell me you're not really this dense.

He's not going to win his appeal on the court of criminal appeals just deciding they didn't like the jury verdict, and setting it aside.

Was there an issue at trial that might cause it to be remanded for some adverse ruling on evidence, or law? I haven't a clue.

GarMan · « **Reply #70 on:** July 12, 2011, 06:01:11 PM »

Quote from: RWS on July 12, 2011, 05:35:02 PM

Of course it's my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball. But based on what the law is, it's my opinion that he's not going to win that appeal. I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. It's no different than when somebody says "Dude, Team X is going to beat the poop out of Team Y."

Jesus, tell me you're not really this dense.

Oh... That explains it. Thanks for clarifying...

GarMan · « **Reply #71 on:** July 12, 2011, 06:32:12 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 12, 2011, 05:44:57 PM

He's not going to win his appeal on the court of criminal appeals just deciding they didn't like the jury verdict, and setting it aside.

Was there an issue at trial that might cause it to be remanded for some adverse ruling on evidence, or law? I haven't a clue.

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with your statements.

But, I can't believe that you admitted to weakness. You haven't a clue? After all of your condescending lectures and comments in this thread, you haven't a clue? Lord, have mercy!

Just out of curiosity... If they find that this dirtbag was actually dead when he pumped 5 slugs into his gut, what happens? What if they find that he would have later died from his head wound? What if there was evidence that the scumbag was moving after the headshot that wasn't admitted during the original trial? What about potential influence of the local African-American community trying to portray him as a murdurous racist thug for having murdered a poor defenseless black man?

JR4AU · « **Reply #72 on:** July 12, 2011, 06:56:55 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 06:32:12 PM

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with your statements.

But, I can't believe that you admitted to weakness. You haven't a clue? After all of your condescending lectures and comments in this thread, you haven't a clue? Lord, have mercy!

Just out of curiosity... If they find that this dirtbag was actually dead when he pumped 5 slugs into his gut, what happens? What if they find that he would have later died from his head wound? What if there was evidence that the scumbag was moving after the headshot that wasn't admitted during the original trial? What about potential influence of the local African-American community trying to portray him as a merdurous racist thug for having murdered a poor defenseless black man?

No weakness. I wasn't at the trial to know about the objections or rulings.

What condescending remarks and lectures are you referring to? The one where I say you legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble? Well, from many of your posts, this one above included, you are very ignorant about the whole process, or at least play like you are. The last paragraph you write is perfect evidence. It's like Reagan said. It's not just that you're ignorant, it's just that so much of what you "know" just isn't so. I know criminal law. It's what I do. I have done it professional in some form or fashion for the last 17 years as a cop, defense lawyer, and prosecutor. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and a Law Degree. If it's arrogance to think I know more law than you, well then that's what it fuckin' is.

The evidence is in. All the forensics was done before the trial. There won't be any "new findings" about when he might have died, or if he was or wasn't dead when he was shot 5 more times. That was done, and it was put in to evidence at trial. Had they determined the first shot was fatal, then they couldn't have convicted him of murder as he righteously shot him the first time. As I understand the evidence, that wasn't the case.

The Appeal process doesn't look at the evidence, and they don't admit new evidence. They look at rulings on objections and pleadings. They look to see if all the rules were followed. If some rule wasn't followed, they determine if it was prejudicial or harmless error. If it was bad enough, they can send a case back. Usually, in high profile cases like this one, that type of thing makes the "news" of all the legal talking heads. I've heard nothing like that. If the defense lawyer didn't preserve something for the record, then they won't consider it. The trial is over. The jury's verdict, especially in criminal cases, is rarely disturbed. Could there have been some kind of technical error, the kind you'd raise the fucking roof over getting some piece of shit that you thought should be going to prison "off on a technicality"? (which is rare too) The kind that make guys like you rant mindlessly about lawyers? Yes. I'm not aware of it though. If there is, I bet you'll be all for it since it would suit your opinion of the case. Then the nest time that works for someone you think is a piece of shit, you'll be ranting and raving.

Kaos · « **Reply #73 on:** July 12, 2011, 06:59:09 PM »

Oh shit.

What if he WAS dead when he shot him five more times.

Now he's just shooting dead body. That's not against the law -- unless they charge him with discharging a firearm against municipal codes.

So essentially unless they can tell me that the first bullet didn't kill the punk then I'm going to have to acquit.

And if he WASN'T dead, then maybe he started moving again. Couldn't see that from the video. Maybe he was crawling toward a KNIFE!

Shoot him! Shoot him! Shoot him!

Miscarriage of justice.

We just don't know enough about what happened.

GarMan · « **Reply #74 on:** July 12, 2011, 08:03:15 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 12, 2011, 06:56:55 PM

No weakness. I wasn't at the trial to know about the objections or rulings.

What condescending remarks and lectures are you referring to? The one where I say you legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble? Well, from many of your posts, this one above included, you are very ignorant about the whole process, or at least play like you are. The last paragraph you write is perfect evidence. It's like Reagan said. It's not just that you're ignorant, it's just that so much of what you "know" just isn't so. I know criminal law. It's what I do. I have done it professional in some form or fashion for the last 17 years as a cop, defense lawyer, and prosecutor. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and a Law Degree. If it's arrogance to think I know more law than you, well then that's what it effin' is.

The evidence is in. All the forensics was done before the trial. There won't be any "new findings" about when he might have died, or if he was or wasn't dead when he was shot 5 more times. That was done, and it was put in to evidence at trial. Had they determined the first shot was fatal, then they couldn't have convicted him of murder as he righteously shot him the first time. As I understand the evidence, that wasn't the case.

The Appeal process doesn't look at the evidence, and they don't admit new evidence. They look at rulings on objections and pleadings. They look to see if all the rules were followed. If some rule wasn't followed, they determine if it was prejudicial or harmless error. If it was bad enough, they can send a case back. Usually, in high profile cases like this one, that type of thing makes the "news" of all the legal talking heads. I've heard nothing like that. If the defense lawyer didn't preserve something for the record, then they won't consider it. The trial is over. The jury's verdict, especially in criminal cases, is rarely disturbed. Could there have been some kind of technical error, the kind you'd raise the effing roof over getting some piece of poop that you thought should be going to prison "off on a technicality"? (which is rare too) The kind that make guys like you rant mindlessly about lawyers? Yes. I'm not aware of it though. If there is, I bet you'll be all for it since it would suit your opinion of the case. Then the nest time that works for someone you think is a piece of poop, you'll be ranting and raving.

What an a$$hole response!!! Even the tone of your message is condescending. Yippy! You're a lawyer! Yay for you!!! I have no doubt that everything you have stated is correct with regard to legal relevance, but you spout your legal expertise like it's the final word on everything. You know nothing about this trial, but you know everything about this judgement. After all, you watched the video. I never tried to push this into the legal discussion, but that's where you guys took this. I haven't even debated any legal positions on this. My original concern still stands. If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react? Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me. I've been in my share of confrontations. The fear... The rage... The concern... Your legal expertise cannot appropriately address or determine how a person would behave in those situations. If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder. That's human nature. I don't want to murder anyone. I'm not planning to kill anyone. I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation. Do you really believe that your law degree makes you an expert on human nature and behavioral psychology as well? That's arrogance!

RWS · « **Reply #75 on:** July 12, 2011, 09:21:23 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 08:03:15 PM

Do you really believe that your law degree makes you an expert on human nature and behavioral psychology as well? That's arrogance!

Do you realize how much intent plays in to the legal system? How big of a role that guessing on reasonable human behavior is? Do you not realize that warrants are issued everyday based on what somebody thinks somebody was trying to do? That people are arrested every day based on what an officer thinks an arrestee was going to do, or meant to do? I promise you that not all of those people who make those decisions are experts on human nature and behavioral psychology either. I just think you honestly don't know how the legal system works outside of what you see on Court TV. Alot of people don't. And when you try to explain it to them, they look at you like you have 3 heads. Especially if they're a victim.

It's not really arrogance on his part, or claiming to be a psychiatrist. It's just how shit is.

Token · « **Reply #76 on:** July 12, 2011, 09:26:25 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 12, 2011, 08:03:15 PM

What an a$$hole response!!! Even the tone of your message is condescending. Yippy! You're a lawyer! Yay for you!!! I have no doubt that everything you have stated is correct with regard to legal relevance, but you spout your legal expertise like it's the final word on everything. You know nothing about this trial, but you know everything about this judgement. After all, you watched the video. I never tried to push this into the legal discussion, but that's where you guys took this. I haven't even debated any legal positions on this. My original concern still stands. If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react? Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me. I've been in my share of confrontations. The fear... The rage... The concern... Your legal expertise cannot appropriately address or determine how a person would behave in those situations. If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder. That's human nature. I don't want to murder anyone. I'm not planning to kill anyone. I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation. Do you really believe that your law degree makes you an expert on human nature and behavioral psychology as well? That's arrogance!

I hope you are trying to be an asshole. Kaos is being an asshole. Kaos' assholing is funny. At least to me it is. I'm not so sure you are, but I hope you are. Because if you are really trying to argue a point here? You're getting your ass handed to you.

JR4AU · « **Reply #77 on:** July 12, 2011, 09:34:02 PM »

Some things that worked against Jerome's self defense argument:

The kid on the floor was unarmed. His accomplice was, and the first shots were legal. Hard to argue your "he was still a threat". But yeah, he didn't know he wasn't armed, so that's not huge, but a factor.

Forensic evidence indicates the kid never moved after hitting the floor. Head wounds tend to bleed profusely. It was pooled where he fell, and the Pathologist said he didn't move when shot again, tending to indicate he wasn't conscience.

Most people who are conscience tend to react to a gun being pointed at them, and fired from what GSR evidence said was 18-24 inches from the kid's chest. The bullet wounds were tightly grouped. The Human Nature I know says you don't walk up within 2 feet of something you feel is a threat.

He tried to tell police the robbers fired. Not a big deal in and of itself, but they found no evidence, ie spent casings, bullet holes. Ersland's own personal physician and friend testified against him, claiming he tried several times to get her to change his medical records to reflect a bullet wound. They needed not fire on him to allow him to fire at them, but he got caught lying. Months after the robbery he tried to pass off a .22 shell casing as being found under a book rack in the store.

He apparently lied about his military record, trying to bolster his "I knew what I was doing, I was clear headed" defense....said he'd been in combat in the desert, but his military record said different.

Jurors said they were satisfied the prosecution proved the kid wasn't moving when he was shot again 5 times. They didn't rely on just the video.

Human nature that I'm familiar with nets you a conviction under such circumstances. I'm certain I could read "human nature" enough to seat 12 jurors and get a conviction on those facts.

And GarMan, what the fuck makes you and kind of expert on human nature or behavioral psychology?

Tiger Wench · « **Reply #78 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:03:08 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 12, 2011, 09:34:02 PM

And GarMan, what the fuck makes you and kind of expert on human nature or behavioral psychology?

Asked and answered, counselor. GarMan hangs out with Uncle Sani...

GarMan · « **Reply #79 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:10:18 PM »

Quote from: RWS on July 12, 2011, 09:21:23 PM

Do you realize how much intent plays in to the legal system? How big of a role that guessing on reasonable human behavior is? Do you not realize that warrants are issued everyday based on what somebody thinks somebody was trying to do? That people are arrested every day based on what an officer thinks an arrestee was going to do, or meant to do? I promise you that not all of those people who make those decisions are experts on human nature and behavioral psychology either. I just think you honestly don't know how the legal system works outside of what you see on Court TV. Alot of people don't. And when you try to explain it to them, they look at you like you have 3 heads. Especially if they're a victim.

It's not really arrogance on his part, or claiming to be a psychiatrist. It's just how poop is.

Actually, that's a great point. You're right. I don't disagree. What was the perceived intent according to the prosecution and the defense?