Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero-did he execute robber?

[RamboLiberal]

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A jury Thursday convicted an Oklahoma City pharmacist of first-degree murder, saying he went too far when he pumped six bullets into a teenager who tried to rob the drug store where he worked, and suggested he spend the rest of his life in prison.

Jerome Ersland, 59, had been hailed as a hero for protecting two co-workers during the May 19, 2009, robbery attempt at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in a crime-ridden neighborhood in south Oklahoma City.

A prosecutor, however, said that after Ersland shot Antwun Parker in the head, knocking the 16-year-old to the ground, Ersland made himself "judge, jury, executioner" by getting a second handgun and shooting the boy five times in the abdomen. A coroner's report said the latter shots killed Parker.

"This defendant was absolutely not defending himself or anyone else," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Chance told jurors during closing arguments Thursday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giPhLJBZy4EzCcag_d3kSWDiYxrg?docId=830ae02df40f4d86a24792d565d4cd1c

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Seconds after Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland was found guilty of first-degree murder, strong opinions of the verdict began popping up on Facebook, Twitter and News9.com

"He didn't have to shoot the dude five times," said Oklahoma City resident Jimmy Williams. "After shot him the first time he should have just called the police."

-----

"If it happened to me … If someone came in to rob me, I would probably do the same thing," said Linda Walker. "I mean, I would be in fear for my life."

-----

"My mouth kind of hit the floor when I heard the verdict," said Adams . "I personally didn't think they could ever get 12 people in Oklahoma to convict him. I was pretty shocked."

http://www.news9.com/story/14737042/storm-of-opinions-after-ersland-guilt-verdict

I don't have a problem with this verdict.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Murder 1. Nice.

Bye, bye Jerome.

[Taverner]

2. There is not enough information here to pass judgement

Just think about Rodney King - you watch THE ENTIRE video and you KNOW they shouldn't have beat King up.

But before the video made it to prime time, Rodney was practically given the death sentence. Truncheons do not feel good when stricken with one. Worse if those lousy bones get in the way.

I'm sure they captured the incident on camera - I'll wait until I see that before I pass judgement.

[petronius]

4. There's a link to the security cam video in the other thread on this

It's pretty convincing...

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. It must have been enough to convince the jury, in this case.

This guy is toast.

[slackmaster]

3. The verdict seems correct to me as well

Robbing people is a very dangerous undertaking. It increases your probability of falling victim to a trigger-happy vigilante.

[baldguy]

6. And it should be understood by all that BOTH are criminals.

Should be, but isn't.

[Logical]

7. Good Point! n-t

[ergot]

8. Antwun probably won't be robbing any more pharmacies, at least.

There's always a silver lining.

[eqfan592]

9. It didn't seem like the kid...

..really wanted to be in the first place. His body language was all wrong for somebody intent on committing a crime.

We need to be doing more to keep kids like this from falling into crime in the first place. Even if he had only been shot the one time to the head and died from that with no subsequent murder trial (because at that point it was a clear cut case of self defense), I wouldn't be able to view this as anything less than tragic.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Wrong. There is no silver lining on this cloud.

Just 2 fucked up people. One a would be robber, the other a murderer.

[Taitertots]

10. What a pathetic miscarriage of justice

Killing a violent criminal while they are trying to victimize you is a basic human right.

[petronius]

12. You're on the wrong site (nt)

[cleanhippie]

13. I hope you forgot your sarcasm tag. If not, you need to seek help.

[Taitertots]

15. There is no reason to assume this attacker magically became benevolent the second his ass dropped

I see no reason to expect anything but malevolent response from people who are currently engaged in malevolent acts.

Any reasonable person would only assume that this person was a continued threat. They were given no reason to assume otherwise.

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Ironically enough

He went back to retrieve and then did the deed with a Taurus Judge .

What everybody is just DYING to know is , "Did he use long colt cartridges ?" .

[cleanhippie]

14. I watched a show the other day where they were shooting clays with "The Judge"

Never did I think I would see someone shooting trap with a handgun!

[GKirk]

16. I'd be curious as to what the

jury considered to be the most damning piece of evidence. It wouldn't seem to be the
video because you can't actually see the robber. Was it Erslund's own testimony?

[rrneck]

17. As I recall from the video

he shot him, walked outside, walked back inside, retrieved another gun from behind the counter and shot him again.

[GKirk]

18. Yes, but...

...you can't see the robber in the video. He could have been reaching for a gun as far as I know.

[rrneck]

19. Could be.

There was a lot of casual wandering around before he shot him again though. Why didn't he make sure the weapon was secured and render first aid instead of taking a tour of the parking lot?

But I'm working off of memory here, I could be wrong.

[GKirk]

20. Link to video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ&feature=fvwrel

I agree that by watching it he seems to be rather casual about the kid on the floor... but still...

[rrneck]

21. Thanks for the link.

The article in the OP says that only one of the kids was armed. It looks like in the video that the kid with the red shirt had a gun, but the kid with the white shirt is the one that got shot. If there was no weapon present there was no need to keep shooting, especially if the kid was already down and probably unconscious since he had taken a round to the head. At least that's the way it looks to me.

[DWC]

22. After much thought and consideration...

I think this conviction will not stand.

I do not defend the follow on shooting and think it was the wrong and probably in violation of the Law, but there are some serious mitigating circumstances that must be considered; most significantly is the intended victim's state of mind following the initial attack by the robbers.

On appeal, this conviction will probably be overturned based on traumatic, temporary insanity.

Semper Fi,

[GKirk]

23. What if...

... what if there was testimony like. He said "the next guy to try to rob me is going to die"?

[gejohnston]

24. Did he?

[Euromutt]

25. I have to say first-degree murder struck me as excessive, given the circumstances

And had I been on the jury, I'm not sure I'd have voted guilty on that specific charge. I don't consider Ersland's actions excusable, but I'm not sure I buy into the element of premeditation. Second-degree murder, I could go along with, I think, but not first-degree.

[GKirk]

26. I agree...

...as a juror I think I would want him punished but not with life in prison.

[eqfan592]

27. A fair point to be sure.

I think people forget the whole "premeditated" part of 1st degree murder. I think he may have an appeal on his hands for the 1st degree charge that wouldn't have existed with a 2nd degree conviction.

[Starboard Tack]

29. It became 1st degree when he took a walk, came back and emptied his gun on the kid

Clearly premeditated and the jury saw it that way. No self defense involved after the first shot.

[ergot]

30. Unless the thug was already dead.

:shrug:

[Atypical Liberal]

33. He was not.

Read the article. The second volley of fire killed him.

[Starboard Tack]

35. "A coroner's report said the latter shots killed Parker."

It might behoove you to actually read the OP before joining in the conversation. :dunce:

[ergot]

36. I did read it, the coroner was speculating. It's what they do.

:shrug:

[Starboard Tack]

41. Wouldn't have mattered the guy walked out instead of kicking any gun away

and came back to commit murder. No self defense involved. If you follow his rules I'm sure he'll be happy with your company.

[eqfan592]

32. Is that really pre-meditation though?

I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the guy either. The kid was unarmed, and after the 1st shot I agree, it wasn't self defense anymore. Honestly, I'm more concerned with the guy winning an appeal and not doing any time at all than anything else.

[guitar man]

31. I think he did wrong

And I think he should be punished. I don't know about life without parole, under the circumstances it seems a bit extreme. 2nd degree and 25 years with the possibility of parole perhaps.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Too bad.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for two people committing armed robbery, and one of them being shot to death.

Was it self-defense? No. The remaining criminal was, according to the article, unconscious when Ersland shot him the second time.

But as far as I'm concerned, the perp got just what he deserved.

[ergot]

40. As incredible as it seems, there are some people who think using a gun in self-defense

is worse than using one to commit crimes. I can't even begin to imagine how that kind of mindset develops. :shrug:

[jpak]

37. Castle Law Lovers take note

yup

[gejohnston]

38. This has nothing to do with Castle Law. Please go look it up or ask a lawyer what it is.

It would help discussing the subject intelligently.

[ergot]

39. Point taken: when robbed by armed thugs, stick with one gun to rid the world of them.

I'd be satisfied with putting 8 or 9 into him.