Pharmacist kills gun toting robber, gets life in prison

[mw00]

also i dont support that kind of violence but in this case i'm not looking down on the pharmacist. the gov should actually pay him some money. imagine the money he just saved for the gov from all the lawyers, judges, police officers and who knows what else gotta deal with the punk in his already thug life. anytime i hear a gang memeber or low life dying on the news, i cant help but feel we rid one more useless asshole living on this planet

[Mac4Lyfe]

I get that there's something off about this guy. Problem is that can't be the standard for incarceration. There's lots of people that are uneducated, bigoted, and/or just off. We can't throw those folks in jail just because they might kill someone. In this case, whatever his faults, he seems to have a problem with armed robbers. I think we can safely keep him around. You said that you think he'll kill again if given the chance. If it's another armed robber, I'm cool with that. Really.

Well he didn't "might kill someone", he did kill someone and thus was found guilty. I'm glad it was a robber and not an innocent bystander but something tells me the next time it will be some little child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't disagree. I think he broke the law. I just don't think it's worth paying to imprison him. Laws are supposed to keep society in check. How is that served here? It's not like he went looking for this fight. He just finished it. Exactly what type of conduct are we hoping to deter here? Do we want to tell criminals that the law will protect them? I'd rather they think that the law will protect the victim in every instance and that the victim gets every benefit of the doubt. Isn't that a better deterrent to future crime that punishing the victim? We're hoping to deter people from dispensing vigilante justice. It's not about the robber, he's dead but we can't have the public defending themselves then taking it a step further and murdering others (even if the other is a scumbag). There comes a point when you go from defending yourself to taking the law into your own hands. He crossed that point very clearly.

Again, I think bringing a gun into the equation changes everything. Obviously, we can't have traffic accidents ending in shootouts. That's not even close to what happened here. Have a love one lose their life in a traffic accident where the driver was intent on killing someone and tell me again that it's not as important.

I don't think you aren't looking for it, but let me start by saying sorry for your losses. I agree that a car is a weapon but a hand gun is quite a bit different. The drunk driving accident is also a poor example. By definition, it's an accident (at least the collision part is). A better example using a car would be some dude purposely driving through a crowd, backing up, and the trying to hit those that were still moving. If the crowd got him out of the car and beat him to death, according to you, it's still murder because we have laws and they were no longer acting in self defense (the guy was removed from his car). If we could identify the guy(s) that beat the driver to death, should they go to jail? Is society a better place because they are in jail? Alternatively, is it more dangerous to society if they aren't in jail?
Someone getting into a car and driving it while drunk is no accident. It is just as premeditated as an armed robber, in fact it's worse because you are knowingly putting other lives in jeopardy while the robber just wanted to steal some shit. Imagine you seeing your families mangled bodies on the side of the road while the drunk driver is unscathed. If it wasn't for the law, wouldn't you want to rip his eyes out? The only thing that prevents you from killing this drunk is that you know it's premeditated murder even though he deserves it. Then you come to find out that the drunk has done it before and got out of jail numerous times for the same offense.

Also, in your other example, if the crowd beat a guy to death in that case, they would be guilty of murder. It's happened in the past. You can't take the law into your own hands no matter how wrong the other person is.

[crustyme]

are you really that stupid? rape is wrong no matter what the circumstances are, you can kill someone for a variety of different reasons, some bad and some good.

if your daughter was laying unconscious somewhere, you'd rather she be shot 5 times in the chest than be raped?

[frostno98]

The DA has two choices in charges, Man slaughter, Murder, or no charges due to a justifiable homicides. It was that simple for the juror's, given the video tape. Without the video tape, this guy gets out clean. There's probably costless of bogus self defense stories by property owners or cops that never gets charged because nobody really knows what happens without video. Although even with video, Oakland's Bart got only 2 years for killing an unarmed black dude in the subway because he thought he was reaching for a taser and shot the guy with a real gun instead. He should got at least 10 years.

Man slaughter-DA does can not charge man slaughter because the robber getting killed was not by accident.

Murder-Make sense, since the 2nd act was intentional with malice aforethought.

Justifiable homicide-Justifiable if he killed them in commission of the robbery, but not justifiable once threat has been removed which was the case. Plus the guy lied to the cops, to down play his state mind. He knew exactly what he was doing.

It was either Murder or set the guy free, and the evidence was pretty clear. Unlike the OJ case, the jury's was presented with concrete and irrefutable evidence to rightfully charge this guy for murder. It couldn't be anymore clearer than that video.

[mw00]

if your daughter was laying unconscious somewhere, you'd rather she be shot 5 times in the chest than be raped?

your argument is so elementary..seriously. did you not read i said that rape is bad no matter what. but when you kill someone, it could be for the right or wrong reason? if she bust in a store in a mask with a gun, i wouldnt like that she got shot but in somewhere in the back of my mind i would think she asked for it. heck if my own daughter came at me with a gun, i might even shoot her myself.

[crustyme]

your argument is so elementary..seriously. did you not read i said that rape is bad no matter what. but when you kill someone, it could be for the right or wrong reason? if she bust in a store in a mask with a gun, i wouldnt like that she got shot but in somewhere in the back of my mind i would think she asked for it. heck if my own daughter came at me with a gun, i might even shoot her myself.

you're arguing that murder is better than rape. according to the laws of the land, murder is far worse which is why sentences and penalties are worse.

if cold blooded murder was appropriate than anything less (murder, torture, waterboarding, slavery, etc) should be equally appropriate, correct? yet, you think rape is worse and deserves punishment while murder is fine.

do you not see the zaniness of your thinking?

[mw00]

ok going by your logic, should the marines that kill bin laden be sentenced to life too? stop twisting it around so it can support your argument

[DwightShrute]

if cold blooded murder was appropriate

Crust, I have to ask ... you you honestly believe (from what we've seen and read) this classifies as cold blooded murder?

[Mac4Lyfe]

Okay, all you guys defending the pharmacist, please watch this. I told you that guy was nuts and no one wanted to defend him...


Link doesn't seem to be working in the thread. Here it is below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzt0gBaNJg4&feature=related

[crustyme]

Crust, I have to ask ... you you honestly believe (from what we've seen and read) this classifies as cold blooded murder?

that's what the law says: "Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed", and the 12 jurors agreed.

[DwightShrute]

that's what the law says: "Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed", and the 12 jurors agreed.

OK fair enough bro but do you agree?

[crustyme]

ok going by your logic, should the marines that kill bin laden be sentenced to life too? stop twisting it around so it can support your argument

you're seriously comparing the killing of a mass murderer to an unconscious unarmed kid?

had bin laden been found unconcious on the floor, the special ops would not have fired 5 bullets in to his chest, that im sure of.

[Nittany Lion]

blacks AGAIN

both kids deserved to die

this pharmacist is a hero

[crustyme]

OK fair enough bro but do you agree?

100%

[DwightShrute]

100%

fair enough then sir
we will just have to agree to disagree

[mw00]

you're seriously comparing the killing of a mass murderer to an unconscious unarmed kid?

had bin laden been found unconcious on the floor, the special ops would not have fired 5 bullets in to his chest, that im sure of.

fair enough..you just proved to me that there are reasons on killing someone sometimes whether we personally think its right or not. no matter, i'm sure in the back of your mind while you might have thought it was inhumane, you will agree we prob rid ourselves a lowlife prolly no good thug.

[bettilimbroke999]

great point

I think we can all agree

I finally posted something we can all agree on

[crustyme]

they shot bin laden cause he refused to surrender and they thought he was armed. no different than the pharmacist shooting the kid in the head, both justified. but the latter exceeded his authority and the law by executing the boy. the special ops would never have executed bin laden had he survived the initial firefight.

learning more about the pharmacist, he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. for all we know he would have gone on a shooting spree at a local mall.

[Mac4Lyfe]

they shot bin laden cause he refused to surrender and they thought he was armed. no different than the pharmacist shooting the kid in the head, both justified. but the latter exceeded his authority and the law by executing the boy. the special ops would never have executed bin laden had he survived the initial firefight.

learning more about the pharmacist, he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. for all we know he would have gone on a shooting spree at a local mall.

Look at the link I posted. He shot several rounds down a crowed street with little kids. The dude was fuking nuts. Look at other information below that I found. I hope noone is still defending this wacko...

Oklahoma City druggist Jerome Ersland's record in doubt:
The Oklahoman ^ | 7/26/09 | NOLAN CLAY
Posted on Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:17:10 PM by Two_Sheds
A pharmacist charged with murder told police he had killed before, while overseas in the first Gulf War. But according to his military records, he was never there.

Instead, Jerome Jay Ers-land spent the war in 1991 as the pharmacy chief at the military hospital at Altus Air Force Base in southwestern Oklahoma, records show.

Ersland fatally shot a robber May 19 at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City.

The shooting attracted national attention when prosecutors charged him with first-degree murder, alleging he went too far while defending himself. Military veterans rallied to his support after he described himself as an Army veteran injured during Operation Desert Storm. He told The Oklahoman in May he hurt his back during a mortar attack.

and here's more...

“Allied forces invaded Iraq and Kuwait on Feb. 24, 1991. Fighting ended four days later. One record specifically reflects Ersland was at Altus Air Force Base on Feb. 25, 1991.
Hours after the robbery, Ersland told police he suffers PTSD “from being in the Gulf War,” a detective reported.
“He said, ‘I killed a lot of people there, but I had to do it. I dream about it every night.’ Ersland said he got hurt there (Gulf War) and that was why he was wearing the medical back and front brace,” the detective reported.
The detective quoted Ersland as saying, “So, I have killed a number of people with a .50-caliber” and “I was a platoon leader from Fort Bragg.” The detective reported Ersland said he was in the Army until he got hurt and then the Air Force let him join because there was a high demand for pharmacists.
Ersland left the Army in February 1989, well before the Gulf War, records show. His first assignment after joining the Air Force was the Altus Air Force Base hospital.”

[Mac4Lyfe]

I told you all this pharmacist was fuking nuts...

Jurors heard testimony from Ersland's personal physician Dr. Laura Black-Wicks. Black-Wicks testified that she was a personal friend of Ersland and that he had repeatedly asked her to change his medical records to show a gunshot wound to his wrist from the Reliable Pharmacy shooting.
"He asked me to change the records to indicate that he had a gunshot wound and that it had been infected," Black-Wicks said. "I told him I could not just change someone's medical records."

http://www.newson6.com/story/14714375/testimony-continues-in-jerome-ersland-case?clienttype=printable

[crustyme]

he's