More fucked up jurisprudence

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Shit, this is exactly what bradhusker was talking about.

Here we go... :twisted:

[indyfrisco]

I'd say he took it too far, but I'm glad Antwun Parker is dead. Ersland took one for the team, and did a little exterminating.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[R-Jack]

Shit, this is exactly what bradhusker was talking about.

Here we go... :twisted:

Did he call the robber a spook or not? This is important shit.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

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

Not really. If you put a bullet in his dome, he can't come back and rob you again. That's self defense.

[Dinsdale]

First-degree murder seems a little harsh.

But people have a right to defend themselves. It isn't a license to exterminate criminals.

An unarmed dude threatened him during a robbery. He fired a round, and ended the threat. If he unloaded his clip from one gun, it might have flown, despite the fact the perp was unarmed. But taking a pause, and getting a second gun to finish him off, even though the threat was over crossed the line.

I'm no lawyer, but I know where I live (not DC), the standard is "stopping the threat," not "killing the threat."

[poptart]

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

I've always loved it when a wrestler picks up a thoroughly thrashed opponent on the count of 2... just so he can work him over for a couple more minutes.

:twisted:

[Go Coogs']

Bullshit, Dins.

The fact is you're unsure what your state of mind is in when the adrenaline is pumping that hard. I'm all for more vigilant and violent justice by citizens considering our court system is a judicial process and not a justice one.

Frome Ersland's family:

"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."

Armed or not, when you cross that line of being a predator, ski mask and all, your ass better be prepared for anything.

[Dinsdale]

After watching the vids, it makes it even tougher. The first shot (fine shooting-btw... head shot from 20+ feet in a panic is badass) was clearly justified, since one of the perps was threatening them with a gun.

But he went outside (showing intent to maybe not act in self-defense, but mete out justice), came back in, got a different gun/clip, and stood right over the guy and blasted away.

That's not "defending yourself," that's carrying out your own sentence.

First degree murder still seems wayyyyy too harsh. He didn't seek out someone to kill, he didn't premeditate anything, he had nothing to gain, and he probably had a pulse rate of 250 because someone just waved a gun at him in his store. I have no idea what the legal standard for 1st degree is in OK, but there's so many elements missing to make it "a murder of the most heinous kind," it would be tough to put the guy away for life. He legitimately fear for his life, and the lives of others, and it was the perps' actions that led him down the road of making a bad decision.

[The Seer]

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.

Really "cool" how those eyewitnesses in the Buick stuck around....

[Dinsdale]

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

Irrelevant.

He made it out the front door once. Could have ushered the employees out and done it again. He had plenty of time to retreat to safety with his employees, and his excuse "I'm disabled and couldn't run" was clearly bullshit, since he'd already done it once.

The threat was clearly over. He never attempted to get the employees out, he never attempted to flee the threat, he never sought refuge, but instead sought more bullets to unload after a headshot.

The second volley wasn't "self-defense," it was "revenge."

There's fairly clear standards of self-defense, and his actions exceeded them by a mile.


On the other hand, equating what he did to chopping up a kid and stuffing him in a suitcase, or shooting a store clerk to jack $50 is ridiculous as well.

He's definitely guilty of a crime, but I don't think justice was properly served.

[jiminphilly]

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.

[Dinsdale]

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.

Sounds reasonable to me. Complete lack of intent -- strictly bad judgement in reaction to others' harmful intent.

Manslaughter, and let him out in 2-3. Or less, on the condition he never touches a gun again.

[Dinsdale]

with malice aforethought

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

I suppose it says nothing about how long it takes to hatch a "malice aforethought," but regardless of his poor decision, it wasn't a premeditated crime.

And since that appears to be the only part of the Murder 1 statute he broke, that's a big stretch.

[jiminphilly]

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.

Agreed. Knee-jerk reaction? Jury got it wrong.

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.

Emotions are running high.
Life was threatened by the appearance of at least 1 weapon.
The follow-up shots were cruel but I'd still consider the defendant to have impaired judgement ruling out premeditation.

[Dinsdale]

I agree with you, Jim.

[jiminphilly]

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.

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.

Second, why didn't the judge allow for the testimony of another pharmacist to testify as to their emotional state during a robbery? Clearly this is going to be an issue with the appeal. As Dins said earlier, credit to the DA for convincing the jury of premeditation.

What was demographic of the jury?

[jiminphilly]

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.

As a juror how am I supposed to distinguish when the defendant was no longer emotionally compromised from having a gun pointed at him that his subsequent actions, though cruel, were indeed premeditated to end the life of the criminal?

Know what would help? The testimony of someone who has been through that experience. I've been in car accidents that have left me shaken for days. Yet I'm supposed to think this guy was in complete control of his thoughts mere minutes after having his and those of his co-workers threatened? Sorry, not buying it.

[Tom In VA]

Was there any menton of it being a "mercy killing" in the heat of the moment ?

Kid with half his brains hanging out and still in pain writhing on the ground etc.. ?

[indyfrisco]

Really "cool" how those eyewitnesses in the Buick stuck around....

Hey, I was just suprised they parked head first.

I remember a "on the street" radio guy from a sports talk show I listened to in Dallas walking up to a black guy who just parked and asked him, "I noticed you backed into your parking spot. Why is that?" His response was "Black peoples always back in. You never know when you gonna have tuh get away from thuh 5-0."

[Cuda]

Here is the video.

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

I'd let him off with a small reward

[indyfrisco]

I'd let him off with a small reward

True, a large reward if he got both of them.

Sounds to me like he didn't shoot the other little fucker enough.

fixed.

[indyfrisco]

I'm betting if Mama would settle for 10k.

[jiminphilly]

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.

This is just an editorial but it appears some of your assumptions are correct:

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

[Dinsdale]

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

Standing over an unconscious person and pumping them full of lead when it was just as far to the front door as it was to get the second gun is "protecting himself"?

That don't fly.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Dear Jerome,

Thanks for covering for me, bro. Been pretty busy at the office lately.

Peace.

[indyfrisco]

I think the vicimed bully needs to sue his victim as well. Looks like he may have broken a leg there.

[LTS TRN 2]

Yeah, I posted this one before. Notice how the chick shows up right as the idiot gets slammed--then a bigger dude seems ready to take up for the slammed kid and the chick blocks him directly.

The pharmacist of course is completely guilty even though the punks deserved whatever they got--from the first clip only.

[mvscal]

What was demographic of the jury?

12 tards. A failed educational system produces stupid people who are incapable of understanding what "with malice aforethought" truly means. This is clearly manslaughter not murder 1.

Though, if I was the DA, I would have cited him for littering or perhaps negligent discharge of a firearm or disorderly conduct if were in a vengeful mood. Then I'd shake his hand and thank him for taking out the trash.

[Dinsdale]

... incapable of understanding what "with malice aforethought" truly means.

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.

[mvscal]

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

Yes, I'm sure he did. Stupid people are easily misled.

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

I used to think that case was bullshit until I actually reviewed the facts. The coffee was beyond merely hot. She was hospitalized for 8 days with 3rd degree burns on her thighs, shniz and asscrack and had to undergo skin grafting procedures to repair the damage. Initially all she asked for was actual expenses and anticipated future expenses. McDonald's offered $800.

Her damages were very real.

[LTS TRN 2]

Yeah..I don't mean to hijack yer crappy thread, but some serious fucked up jurisprudence has just let the Rocket walk, laughing all the way.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The blunder by federal prosecutors that brought the Roger Clemens trial to an unexpected end could kill the entire prosecution and free Clemens to try to reclaim his legacy.

Moments after he declared a mistrial on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wondered aloud to the packed courtroom, "Now we must address whether the defendant [Clemens] can be re-prosecuted."

The legal doctrine that prompted the judge's query is known as "double jeopardy," and it could result in Walton telling the prosecutors that they will have no second chance to prosecute Clemens on charges of obstruction of Congress and perjury.

[smackaholic]

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]

the constitution

What's that?

Sin,
The Fed


I wanted to see the arrogant prick go down. That's offset by my hatred of the fed's power-grab, and the idea that the prosecutor is so grossly incompetent that he's going to lose to a high-dollor wizbang attorney anyway.

Judge: You can't show that video

Prosecutor: Oh, he must have meant I can't show this perfect example of hearsay without subtitles.


Unfreakingbelievable. Did he get his law degree from a box of Crackerjacks?

[Diego in Seattle]

The pharmacist must have worn a Longhorns t-shirt to court to get convicted of this in OK.

I agree that murder one is overkill. But he definitely wasn't justified in pumping the kid with lead. It was obvious from the tape that he felt that the threat was gone.

[Dinsdale]

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.

I guess dude should have got manslaughter.

But I don't live in OK, so it's none of my business.

[LTS TRN 2]

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.

I agree, fuck the feds. But someone obviously paid the suddenly incompetent U.S. assistant DA's (one of whom is conspicuously in a wheel chair, while the other looks like a clown) to somehow flop like two of the three stooges. Fuck the Rocket, a no-class roid ragin' psycho who (just) like Bonds has actually disgraced the game.

[poptart]

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.

I'll break from ranks and say that he should have been given... a medal.

:D



But honestly, it's really hard to say for sure unless you are on the jury and you hear the evidence as it is presented to you.
That said, first degree murder doesn't seem to be within the realm of possibilities.

Manslaughter?
Yeah, maybe so.

[jiminphilly]

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.

Fairly simply to make that statement when you're not in the heat of the moment don't you think Chip?

[XXXL]

Aloha from the courtroom, here on a quick eviction prove up, so will add my takes on this thread.

Self defense is a jurisdictional defense. In CA, if your in your home, you can take the intruder out.

However, here in CA, you cannot exceed the level of force in usual applications (scratch your heads).

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

Think my case is next.

Hope the defense bar wins the Rocket's dbl jeopardy motion.

L8r

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

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

Wow, I'm sure glad a lawyer dropped by to clear that one up for us.