I Wish He Would Shut Up

[ZYX]

Jerome Ersland. Selfish idiot.

http://www.newson6.com/story/14930877/jerome-ersland-tells-news-9-hes-suffering-in-misery

By the way, Im That Guy

[Hoss]

Jerome Ersland. Selfish idiot.

http://www.newson6.com/story/14930877/jerome-ersland-tells-news-9-hes-suffering-in-misery

By the way, Im That Guy

And you put it perfectly.  However, I don't think 1st Deg Murder was warranted.  Manslaughter?  Absolutely.  He needs to serve time. He sounds like he wants to get off scot-free.  Tough..

[ZYX]

And you put it perfectly.  However, I don't think 1st Deg Murder was warranted.  Manslaughter?  Absolutely.  He needs to serve time. He sounds like he wants to get off scot-free.  Tough..

I don't know about first degree murder, because I think that has to be premeditated, but maybe second degree. His intention was to kill this kid. That is fine with me, I would have done the same thing for the first one, two, maybe even three shots, but six times is totally uncalled for and shows agression rather than self defense.

[Conan71]

I don't know about first degree murder, because I think that has to be premeditated, but maybe second degree. His intention was to kill this kid. That is fine with me, I would have done the same thing for the first one, two, maybe even three shots, but six times is totally uncalled for and shows agression rather than self defense.

Or an overage of adrenaline.  He'd just had a gun pointed at him by the kid's partner.  However, Ersland IS retired military, it's not like he hadn't been trained for stressful situations.  I'd love to think I'd react a whole lot more rationally, but if the kid started to move or was rolling around on the floor, who's to say they wouldn't have done the same thing.  It's a difficult deal, being a juror doesn't mean you put yourself in the suspects shoes, it means listening to the evidence and seeing how it fits the law.

My understanding is they had been robbed multiple times.  He may have finally had enough.  He might have also spoken to the cops more than he should have and thought the security tape and his account of the incident wouldn't implicate him in a murder.  My future father-in-law also said he'd never have Irven Box represent him.

Jurors are speaking out saying we "don't understand the law" like they do.  Still, I've heard no explanation how the prosecution cobbled together a 1st degree murder charge on this unless they managed to convince the jury that Ersland had been wanting to shoot a black thug in his pharmacy for years.  In which case, that would be premeditated.

[ZYX]

Conan,  I'm with you on the first degree murder charge. Why is it considered first degree? I kinda wonder if there's something we were never told.

[Hoss]

Conan,  I'm with you on the first degree murder charge. Why is it considered first degree? I kinda wonder if there's something we were never told.

I believe the video showed him, after he had come back in from chasing the others, go back to behind the counter, bring the gun and then shoot this kid four or five more times when it was evident he was no longer a threat.  It's possible in that 10 seconds that the prosecutor thought he was 'premeditating'.

[sgrizzle]

I'm guessing it was first because he shot the kid and left, then came back later, walked by the kid, went and found a gun, and then shot him several times. He had negated the threat to his life, and seemed to be intent on coming back to finish him off. Whether that counts for first or not, I do not know.

[Breadburner]

I would imagine if these people could still speak would have wanted Ersland as their Pharmacist....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43456381/ns/us_news?gt1=43001

[Hoss]

I would imagine if these people could still speak would have wanted Ersland as their Pharmacist....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43456381/ns/us_news?gt1=43001

So I'm guessing from that remark you think he should get off scot-free, correct?

[Conan71]

I believe the video showed him, after he had come back in from chasing the others, go back to behind the counter, bring the gun and then shoot this kid four or five more times when it was evident he was no longer a threat.  It's possible in that 10 seconds that the prosecutor thought he was 'premeditating'.

Problem is, the ONLY evidence the wounded and/or dead robber was completely incapacitated or that he was not already dead would have to be the ME's testimony or relying on what the female caller was saying on the 911 tape and expecting someone can possibly be relating with 100% accuracy what's just happened when their life flashed before them.  There is no camera angle out of the two videos which shows the robber laying on the ground, he could have been sitting up for all anyone knows (though I find it doubtful).  There's no visual proof to the contrary.  They could certainly figure out if the head wound came from the first shot or second round since he used two guns.  IMO, if he'd have not changed guns, they could have never concluded the sequence of shots.  Use a double-stack the next time or start out with the bigger artillery.

If M.E. testimony was the primary basis for the charge, his attorney should be all over that on appeal considering how well documented problems are at our M.E.'s office.

[carltonplace]

Or an overage of adrenaline.

Or an overage of opiate based pain killers.

wonder why he stopped unloading? Did he run out of ammo?

[AquaMan]

Problem is, the ONLY evidence the wounded and/or dead robber was completely incapacitated or that he was not already dead would have to be the ME's testimony or relying on what the female caller was saying on the 911 tape and expecting someone can possibly be relating with 100% accuracy what's just happened when their life flashed before them.  There is no camera angle out of the two videos which shows the robber laying on the ground, he could have been sitting up for all anyone knows (though I find it doubtful).  There's no visual proof to the contrary.  They could certainly figure out if the head wound came from the first shot or second round since he used two guns.  IMO, if he'd have not changed guns, they could have never concluded the sequence of shots.  Use a double-stack the next time or start out with the bigger artillery.

If M.E. testimony was the primary basis for the charge, his attorney should be all over that on appeal considering how well documented problems are at our M.E.'s office.

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.

[Conan71]

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.

Link?  I've seen two different camera angles and you cannot see the suspect in the ones I've seen.

[Breadburner]

So I'm guessing from that remark you think he should get off scot-free, correct?

I'm guessing your glad those people are dead and the perp is out walking the streets....

[Hoss]

I'm guessing your glad those people are dead and the perp is out walking the streets....

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.