Did he go over the top?


Blacknbengal

Blacknbengal

Well-Known Member
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber


An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.

Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.

Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."

A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.

Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.

At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.

Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.

Rest story
 
I have been told many times in handgun self-defense courses I have taken is that excessive force will land you in jail. I know jokers talk all the time about emptying a clip in a mofo...but if you do that, then you better be ready to argue that the person was still a threat. Now what most instructors will tell you that 2-3 shots in the chest cavity will incapacitate the threat, you need to fire until you are no longer threatened. You are not to kill a person simply because they were trying to kill you as far as the law goes. Now if they die as a result of you justifiably defending yourself, then them dying is simply a by product of you defending your life. This dude went back and got another gun and executed that dude as per the footage. He probably would have been o.k. if that tape was not available.
 



Makaho 2.0 said:
I have been told many times in handgun self-defense courses I have taken is that excessive force will land you in jail. I know jokers talk all the time about emptying a clip in a mofo...but if you do that, then you better be ready to argue that the person was still a threat. Now what most instructors will tell you that 2-3 shots in the chest cavity will incapacitate the threat, you need to fire until you are no longer threatened. You are not to kill a person simply because they were trying to kill you as far as the law goes. Now if they die as a result of you justifiably defending yourself, then them dying is simply a by product of you defending your life. This dude went back and got another gun and executed that dude as per the footage. He probably would have been o.k. if that tape was not available.
Click to expand...


Yup, that going back for another gun is what messed him up....AND, they have it on tape too? oh well...:smh:
 
What he did was no better than a thug in a drive by shooting. He went up and beyond killing this person like a animal. He deserves to be put away for life. He had already defended his life, he went over board being a azz hole, now he will be in prison where they will take his azz hole.
 
Blacknbengal said:
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber


An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.

Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.

Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."

A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.

Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.

At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.

Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.

Rest story
Click to expand...
HE WENT WAY OVER THE TOP.
THAT WAS NO LONGER SELF-DEFENSE........THAT WAS MURDER.

Once he shot the first one and the others ran off, that should have been it. He went back in the office, got another gun, and then came back and shot the robber that was out on the floor 4 more times. The guy was no longer a threat because he was out cold and shot.
 
I was taught (now it was by my thug brothers) that if you shoot, empty it to kill. If buddy would have lived trust that man would have to have been scared the rest of his life.
 
I don't know about this one here.

How far is going too far when talking about self defense? If MY life was on the line, I will always take the "better him than me" stance when defending myself, and I wouldn't want to take NO chances. Shooting to incapacitate MIGHT NOT be enough to save my life. What do I do then? Let him possibly recover, so he can come back and kill me? :noidea::noidea:

Assuming that the robber (who was already shot in the head) was dead (unconscious my arse...that dude was DONE), how does shooting an already dead man make this situation even worse? How does shooting a dead man turn self defense into murder? Was this over the top? Perhaps... Does the punishment fit the crime? I honestly don't think it does.
 
PVSAX99 said:
I don't know about this one here.

How far is going too far when talking about self defense? If MY life was on the line, I will always take the "better him than me" stance when defending myself, and I wouldn't want to take NO chances. Shooting to incapacitate MIGHT NOT be enough to save my life. What do I do then? Let him possibly recover, so he can come back and kill me? :noidea::noidea:

Assuming that the robber (who was already shot in the head) was dead (unconscious my arse...that dude was DONE), how does shooting an already dead man make this situation even worse? How does shooting a dead man turn self defense into murder? Was this over the top? Perhaps... Does the punishment fit the crime? I honestly don't think it does.
Click to expand...
First, how can you be defending yourself against someone that is unconcious??? Second, don't try to add anything else to it. Facts established the man was unconscious, not dead. I'm sure the ME testified to which shot was the kill shot. Once your life is no longer being threatened, there is no self defense.
 
DAHILL said:
If buddy would have lived trust that man would have to have been scared the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

+1

The robbers get no sympathy from me. You try to rob someone, you get what you get. This is why I got a .45. I only wanna have to shoot them once.
 
It seems to me and seems like any law official would tell you that in the event of a robbery or some crime of the sort that it is HARD to tell what the suspects is capable of doing and IT IS JUSTIFIABLE to shoot the culprit to keep him from robbing you or harming you--seems this is the case when police officers react when someone gets to aroused like the former football star that was killed in California!
 
ToPdOg said:
+1

The robbers get no sympathy from me. You try to rob someone, you get what you get. This is why I got a .45. I only wanna have to shoot them once.
Click to expand...
And dude only had to shoot once. Shot the robber in the head and put his ass down. Call the cops and let them have him from there. Those additional shots were pure vengeance, not self defense. Self defense is a defense. Vengeance ain't.
 
Some of yall have watched too many movies where a criminal is left for dead then gets up and attacks again. All this pharmacist had to do was take the robber's gun and call police.
 
jag4life said:
Some of yall have watched too many movies where a criminal is left for dead then gets up and attacks again. All this pharmacist had to do was take the robber's gun and call police.
Click to expand...

But what about him coming back another day when he get out? :uhoh: You know that they only get 5 years for armed robbery certain places.
 



Blacknbengal said:
But what about him coming back another day when he get out? :uhoh: You know that they only get 5 years for armed robbery certain places.
Click to expand...

What movies you watching? lol The overwhelming majority of felons upon release don't go back for vengeance especially when they were committing an aggressive act. If they do, then they will face even more charges and more than likely get his ass capped again. The point that has been made too many times in this thread is that when you are defending yourself you have every right to stop the assault by any means necessary, but to shoot an incapacitated threat is a criminal offense. If the police shoot someone that is no longer a threat they are subject to criminal charges. You simply cannot shoot someone and kill them based on what they might do 5 years from now.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
What movies you watching? lol The overwhelming majority of felons upon release don't go back for vengeance especially when they were committing an aggressive act. If they do, then they will face even more charges and more than likely get his ass capped again. The point that has been made too many times in this thread is that when you are defending yourself you have every right to stop the assault by any means necessary, but to shoot an incapacitated threat is a criminal offense. If the police shoot someone that is no longer a threat they are subject to criminal charges. You simply cannot shoot someone and kill them based on what they might do 5 years from now.
Click to expand...
Oh, I already know that. I was asking for those that wants to empty the clip.
 
Yall better stop watching them movies. :lol: Not understanding the law when owning a gun legally can be worst than having one illegally if you don't be careful.
 
Well...this situation here is different than being caught in the heat of the moment. The fact that the dude shot the robber in the head, then went in the back to get another gun and shoot the guy some more is overkill. But I don't think it is quite the same as shooting to incapacitate and/or kill someone when you are defending your life.

Yeah...some of us watch too much tv. But it's not like the crap that happens on tv doesn't happen in real life sometimes. See...this is the main reason why I don't need a gun...cause I'll be damned if I have to spend the rest of my life in jail for trying to defend myself. I may as well let my assailant shoot me and get it over with...:shame:
 
Yes he went over the top. It's been said already, that in this situation the dude was down, therefore he ceased to be a threat, even if he wasn't unconscious and just incapacitated he is still no longer a threat. And any act towards that individual becomes an act of aggression.
 
I remember writing about something like this a couple years ago. A couple of young men robbed a corner store. One guy had a gun and the other guy didn't.

So the perps take the cash a leave. The owner of the store gets his gun from behind the counter, runs outside a shoots one of the guys dead as he's trying to get away on a bike. The owner ended up being charged for that. Why? That young man on the bike was no longer a threat.
 
PVSAX99 said:
Well...this situation here is different than being caught in the heat of the moment. The fact that the dude shot the robber in the head, then went in the back to get another gun and shoot the guy some more is overkill. But I don't think it is quite the same as shooting to incapacitate and/or kill someone when you are defending your life.

Yeah...some of us watch too much tv. But it's not like the crap that happens on tv doesn't happen in real life sometimes. See...this is the main reason why I don't need a gun...cause I'll be damned if I have to spend the rest of my life in jail for trying to defend myself. I may as well let my assailant shoot me and get it over with...:shame:
Click to expand...

Let's get one thing straight, and anyone that's taken a pistol self-defense course or that is an LEO knows that, you are not taught to "shoot to incapacitate" it is a life or death situation and it's your life or theirs. All this shooting to incapacitate, wound, disarm, etc is just plain wrong. When you shoot you aim at the head (if your are a marksman or better) or center mass; the chest area or more specifically from the bottom of the neck to the waist area.

And as for carrying a pistol for self defense or whatever your reason is, once you start carrying, you have a whole new respect for the pistol, your freedom, your life, and the lives of others; so you won't be as quick to pull that pistol as you think you would.

Also in self-defense you are not allowed to shoot someone in the back, if they're running away from you, you can't shoot them. I don't care if they just shot your child, your momma, your daddy, or whomever. If they are fleeing and you shoot them, even if you don't kill them, you will be charged with a crime.
 
Last edited:
Blacknbengal said:
But what about him coming back another day when he get out? :uhoh: You know that they only get 5 years for armed robbery certain places.
Click to expand...

A person that is caught and you testify against them can come back after they get out so whats the point.

It stopped being self defense when he shot one, ran the others out the store, AND THEN HAD TIME TO GO BACK AND GET ANOTHER GUN AND SHOOT A PERSON LAYING ON THE FLOOR OUT COLD, and shoot him 4 more times when he was no longer a threat.

I'm all for these robbing mofo's to get blown away, but with laws like the castle doctrine, there are a set of rules that come with it. If he had opened up on this guy and shot him 4 times in the heat of the moment before he hit the floor out cold, then that is self defense against an immediate threat against you. Once the threat is taken out, thats it.

That is also why you can't just shoot someone for walking across your yard like people was yelling when these Castle Doctrine laws were being made. people here was talking all that noise about how it was going to be open season on Black People where ever these laws were in place.

All this talk about comming back is just excuses.
 
jstate83 said:
That is also why you can't just shoot someone for walking across your yard like people was yelling when these Castle Doctrine laws were being made. people here was talking all that noise about how it was going to be open season on Black People where ever these laws were in place.
Click to expand...

Man, these clowns like Kenneth Stokes here in Jackson was all up on the radio and t.v. talking about the castle doctrine giving white folks a chance to shoot black folks in their yards for no reason.

http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/

It don't say nothing about shooting somebody for "walking in your yard" like Stokes and those other fools tried to say. Since the castle doctrine was enacted no one has simply just shot somebody for being in their yard, much less white folks shooting black folks for being in their yard. Kenneth Stokes could find racism in a snowstorm just because all the flakes are white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top