• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pharmacist who killed robber guilty of murder

brainhulk

brainhulk

Diamond Member
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347891729253696.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

A pharmacist who fatally shot a teenage robber in Oklahoma City was found guilty Thursday of first-degree murder in a jury trial that ignited debate over the limits of self-defense.

The pharmacist, 59-year-old Jerome Ersland, fired a weapon after two young men entered his pharmacy, one of them waving a gun, in May 2009. Mr. Ersland's bullet hit 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head, Oklahoma County prosecutors alleged.
Click to expand...

the intruder was waving a damn gun...such bullshit
 
Last edited:
he shot and killed an unarmed boy. seems like murder to me.

Prosecutors called Ersland an executioner. They said he killed an unarmed, unconscious boy who was no longer a threat and then lied to police to make himself look like a hero

The security camera recordings show Parker and a friend, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, rush into the drugstore. Ingram points a handgun at the two female workers who flee to a backroom. Parker, who does not have a gun, tries to adjust a gray mask. Parker drops to the floor when the pharmacist shoots him in the head.

The recordings show Ingram flees from the store. Ersland follows the fleeing robber outside, then returns to the store, walks by where Parker has fallen, gets a second gun, walks back to Parker and shoots five more times.
The last shots were fired from 18 to 24 inches away and struck Parker in the abdomen and chest, according to the testimony.


Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...ys-begin-appeal/article/3572107#ixzz1Nces8Dlw
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is why people shouldn't own guns.

/getthatouttatheway





Appeal, appeal, appeal.

Edit: Damn, the pharmacist shouldn't have picked up the other gun. He should appeal on the grounds he still thought the other was a threat. Maybe get him bumped down to second degree. I think first degree is too much. When is the sentencing?
 
Last edited:
While i am all for self defense, what the pharmacist did was despicable.

The security camera recordings show Parker and a friend, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, rush into the drugstore. Ingram points a handgun at the two female workers who flee to a backroom. Parker, who does not have a gun, tries to adjust a gray mask. Parker drops to the floor when the pharmacist shoots him in the head.

The recordings show Ingram flees from the store. Ersland follows the fleeing robber outside, then returns to the store, walks by where Parker has fallen, gets a second gun, walks back to Parker and shoots five more times.

The last shots were fired from 18 to 24 inches away and struck Parker in the abdomen and chest, according to the testimony.
Click to expand...

If Parker was alive... shooting him FIVE more times was assassination.
There was no reason to shoot him five more times.
 
people willing to threaten the lives of others should be executed if they get themselves caught/disabled like that.

no but srsly shotty situation there
 
Its a shitty situation for all involved, a literal tragedy.

Placing ordinary people in extraordinary situations will always yield unpredictable results, a lapse in judgement cost two people their lives and livelihood.
 
Alone said:
What a moron. He would have been alright if he hadn't fucking shot a kid who was already dead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after reading the article, just yes.

I still don't think that constitutes first degree, his adrenaline must have been going crazy, he couldn't have made any sane decisions at that time. Still, that fucker should have been happy with his first good shot.
 
dumb, the guy was probably already dead since he was shot in the head.

So basically, he is sentenced to life in prison for shooting a dead person.
 
Gun control failed in this situation; he shot the wrong guy.

But yeah, after the threat was gone, the right thing to do would've been to shut himself down and call the cops.
 
First degree murder seems a bit too much given the circumstances. Second degree on manslaughter would be more appropriate IMO.
 
Alone said:
I don't care. That was excessive use of force. There was no threat.

If you can't control yourself, maybe you shouldn't have a gun.
Click to expand...

I think the man still committed a crime. I do not, however, think that crime is first degree murder.

I agree, those that cannot control themselves after an adrenaline rush, should not carry a gun for "self-defense."
 
MikeyLSU said:
dumb, the guy was probably already dead since he was shot in the head.

So basically, he is sentenced to life in prison for shooting a dead person.
Click to expand...

Report says he was alive.

He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.
Click to expand...
 
I remember reading about this ages ago when it happened, probably here on ATOT. The guy is a sick bastard, probably a racist fucker, and while he was put in the situation, he clearly belongs behind bars.
 
His crime is very much 1st degree murder. He chose to execute someone and it wasn't in the heat of the moment. He came back to the victim and finished him off. He made a very poor choice in doing that and became the monster he was fighting.
 
Brigandier said:
I think the man still committed a crime. I do not, however, think that crime is first degree murder.

I agree, those that cannot control themselves after an adrenaline rush, should not carry a gun for "self-defense."
Click to expand...

He went back and grabbed another weapon with intent to harm another person after the threat had been removed. That's first degree murder easily.
 
Alone said:
He went back and grabbed another weapon with intent to harm another person after the threat had been removed. That's first degree murder easily.
Click to expand...

For sure, if he wasn't under mental duress, which I really think he was.

He should have waived the jury trial and just put it before a judge.
 
MikeyLSU said:
dumb, the guy was probably already dead since he was shot in the head.

So basically, he is sentenced to life in prison for shooting a dead person.
Click to expand...

The pharmacist claimed he was still moving. So he wasn't dead yet.

I'm fine with the head shot. If the thief with the gun had killed someone, the unarmed guy would be just as guilty of murder. He understood the risks when he went with his friend.

However after the pharmacist got the first shot off and put the guy on the ground, he was no longer a threat. If he was still a threat, why is he chasing after another guy? Come on. He walks back and gets another gun and then shoots him again. Why not just monitor him while the police arrive? He had enough time to think about what he was doing.

If you're going to carry a gun, you should understand your actions could have consequences. In this case, his decision to execute the guy cost him his own life.
 
Brigandier said:
For sure, if he wasn't under mental duress, which I really think he was.

He should have waived the jury trial and just put it before a judge.
Click to expand...

After he shot the guy and chased the other guy away, he was no longer under duress. He handled the situation well until he decided to execute the dude on the floor.
 
mcmilljb said:
After he shot the guy and chased the other guy away, he was no longer under duress. He handled the situation well until he decided to execute the dude on the floor.
Click to expand...

Just because the threat was removed does not mean the thought processes and chemicals were removed from his brain.

I am only defending this guy in that he should not have gotten first degree murder, he should still serve time, but first degree murder this was not. Though the man was still alive after the shot to the head, does not mean that he would have lived ultimately. He really should have been happy with the first shot, that he wasn't, I cannot understand. It was reprehensible that he tried to make himself the "hero", and I am quite content to let him rot for his mistakes. I will, at least, attempt to play a better lawyer than he had.

If I was this guy, I would have taken a plea deal and saved everyone some time.
 
Brigandier said:
Just because the threat was removed does not mean the thought processes and chemicals were removed from his brain.

I am only defending this guy in that he should not have gotten first degree murder, he should still serve time, but first degree murder this was not. Though the man was still alive after the shot to the head, does not mean that he would have lived ultimately. He really should have been happy with the first shot, that he wasn't, I cannot understand. It was reprehensible that he tried to make himself the "hero", and I am quite content to let him rot for his mistakes. I will, at least, attempt to play a better lawyer than he had.

If I was this guy, I would have taken a plea deal and saved everyone some time.
Click to expand...

His thought processes turned to "I am going to kill this guy." That is not acceptable in our society because it's not self-defense. During the time he went to get a second gun, he was not thinking about elmininating a threat because the threat was already gone. He was no longer under duress. He had time to cool off and not shoot the guy again. However he chose not to, and it's cost him dearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top