I Wish He Would Shut Up

[Breadburner]

Nope, because once again you missed the fact that I said in another thread that these perpetrators got what they deserved.  The guy shooting the perpetrators when he faced an imminent threat on his life is fine by me; the law allows for it.  Shooting a kid when he's no longer a threat though?  That takes bravery.  Likely why you liked it.

And the grammar cop in me comes out..I'm not just a forum cop.

You're is a contraction of you are.  Your is a possessive pronoun.

Go back to burning your yeast and grain foodmatter.

What a guy you are..You think it's cool for innocents to get shot and killed......

[AquaMan]

Conan, I'm not much into searching out links but I think it was on the channel 6 newsfeed.

[Conan71]

This is all I can find:

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

Wow, does he sound like Lenny from "Of Mice & Men" or is he gorked out on opiates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h0Z3kXHwqE&feature=related

On O'Reilly Factor he claims Parker was trying to talk to him and was turning his head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euluw4yGKUA&feature=related

Presser with D.A. Prater at the time.  Still no view of Parker after he hit the deck.  Prater explains the charges better.  What he's saying is essentially Parker was no longer a threat at the time and the robbery was over with.  Most of this explanation is from about 8:00 in the video and later as the media asks the DA questions. At 13:00 Prater says if the first shot had been fatal "We would not be here right now".  Apparently the first shot was a fragment which went into the skull and knocked him out but was not fatal.

Again it's relying on the M.E.'s testimony on that.  Take it for what it's worth.

http://www.news9.com/story/10429037/pharmacist-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-robber?redirected=true

Since Ersland had his conceal carry, he's been trained that once there is no longer a threat of bodily harm to yourself, you cannot shoot the suspect.  Still hard for me to see it as more than 2nd degree murder or first manslaughter, but it does explain the thought process the DA used.

[Hoss]

What a guy you are..You think it's cool for innocents to get shot and killed......

And you think someone who shot a human being after he'd already disabled him SIX TIMES deserves to walk.

But of course I never said it was cool for innocents to get shot and killed.  Just because you don't have an argument stop putting words in my mouth.

This ain't the Wild Freaking West, Yeastie Boy.

EDIT:  And now that I re-read the entire content of the thread, I know what you're doing.  I didn't read the msnbc article, so I can't comment on what happened there, and won't since I didn't read it.  And still haven't read it.  Especially since it was an MSNBC article YOU were linking, of all people

My point pertains to the subject at hand, not some comparison item.

[RecycleMichael]

This ain't the Wild Freaking West, Yeastie Boy.

+1

[RecycleMichael]

Oklahoma City pharmacist convicted of murder faked back injury, examination finds
By NOLAN CLAY NewsOK.com
Published: 7/11/2011 

OKLAHOMA CITY - A pharmacist convicted of murder has been faking a broken back, an examination of jail X-rays found. Jerome Jay Ersland, 59, of Chickasha, has worn a back brace for years and has been prescribed powerful medication for pain. He told the police and news media he suffers from an inoperable back injury.

X-rays of his back were taken after he was incarcerated at Oklahoma County jail May 26. A radiologist who examined the X-rays reported none of his vertebrae were fractured, sources told The Oklahoman. The doctor concluded Ersland has modest osteoarthritis of the spine, The Oklahoman learned. That is a condition men about his age often endure.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110711_12_0_OLHMIY513634

[Townsend]

Sentenced to life per World tweet.

[cynical]

"Premeditation," is really not that useful a concept and doesn't have anything to do with this case. Nor does adrenaline. The elements of 1st degree murder are:

1. The death of a human
2. The death was unlawful
3. The death was caused by the defendant
4. The death was caused with malice aforethought. 
OUJI-CR 4-61

Lest anyone think that "malice aforethought" means a substantial amount of premeditation, the next instruction defines it this way:

"Malice aforethought" means a deliberate intention to take away the life of a human being. As used in these instructions, "malice aforethought" does not mean hatred, spite or ill-will. The deliberate intent to take a human life must be formed before the act and must exist at the time a homicidal act is committed. No particular length of time is required for formation of this deliberate intent. The intent may have been formed instantly before commission of the act.
OUJI-CR 4-62.

These are the instructions the jury was given.  They are straight out of the uniform instructions approved by the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Murder 1 requires proof of a specific intent on the part of the defendant to kill.  The jury could easily infer that intent from the fact that Erslund got the second gun, returned, and pumped a bunch of shots into the kid. And the fact that the kid was disabled defeated Erslund's self-defense claim.  They apparently didn't buy the time-honored unofficial defense that the SOB needed killin'.

The only issue that might save Erslund is whether the prosecution proved with competent evidence that the kid was still alive when Erslund returned and fired the additional shots.  Remember that the ME that conducted the autopsy and concluded that the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds, including the additional shots, did not testify at trial.  Other experts testified from the written autopsy report.  Recent Supreme Court cases hold that although an expert witnesses written report preserved as a "business record" might be an exception to the hearsay rule, denial of the defendant's right to cross examine the author of the report is a violation of the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him, whether the evidence is deemed reliable or not.  Since the original ME wasn't available for cross-examination, if Erslund's attorneys preserved the issue for appeal, I think he has a good chance of a reversal. 

The video I saw showed the robber laying face down on the floor and the pharmacist stepping over him to get another gun and then plugging him. That is probably what caused the jury to decide premeditation. There was little or no threat and obvious his motive was not fear.

[AquaMan]

Thanks for the enlightenment. I spoke without benefit of a law degree and you have rightfully corrected me. It appears malice aforethought was the critical issue.

[ZYX]

http://www.newson6.com/story/15048928/judge-to-sentence-jerome-ersland

Maybe he's regretting those last five shots now.