PDA

View Full Version : Mother Of Teen Killed During Robbery Suing OKC Pharmacist



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

oudavid1
5/18/2011, 01:49 PM
Article (http://www.news9.com/story/14670426/mother-of-teen-killed-during-robbery-suing-okc-pharmacist)


Posted: May 18, 2011 1:43 PM CDT Updated: May 18, 2011 1:43 PM CDT

Antwun Parker Antwun Parker

Jerome Ersland (right) leaves court with his attorney. Jerome Ersland (right) leaves court with his attorney.

Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The mother of a teenager killed during an attempted robbery of a south Oklahoma City drug store is suing the store and the pharmacist who shot the boy.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday by Cleta Jennings seeks unspecified damages from 59-year-old Jerome Ersland and the Reliable Discount Pharmacy for the death of 16-year-old Antwun Parker on May 19, 2009.

Parker was first shot in the head as he and another teen tried to rob the pharmacy. The lawsuit says an autopsy found the initial shooting wasn't fatal and that Parker died when Ersland shot him five more times.

It calls the second shooting "an act of gross negligence and deliberate indifference" that caused Parker's death.

Ersland is on trial for first-degree murder in the case. He says he shot in self-defense.

Maybe the first time.

the mother suing is her taking the best of a bad situation. Its amazing how bad parenting is gonna possibly pay off for her.

Ive seen the video, the clerk was ok to shoot first, but not the other five times. What do you guys think?

OhU1
5/18/2011, 01:52 PM
How do we calculate damages on this one? How much little Speedy could have robbed and stole over the years had his earning potential not been cut short?

Sooner5030
5/18/2011, 01:53 PM
Can a injured criminal still harm you? How fast can you make that judgement? What weapon was used and how familiar was the user with that weapon?

not meant as rhetorical questions but I'm sure that I would act differently than planned when someone attempted to rob me. Also, would a reasonable prudent person knowingly accept the risk of death when they decided to rob someone?

OU Engineer
5/18/2011, 01:54 PM
How do we calculate damages on this one? How much little Speedy could have robbed and stole over the years had his earning potential not been cut short?

+1

I agree he went too far. However I wouldnt vote him guilty of murder if I were on the jury. I don't feel a disabled elderly man defending himself and going too far deserves the death penalty or life in prison.

I also am so frustrated our court system allows this. YOUR CHILD WAS KILLED IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A FELONY. HOW IS THAT WRONGFUL DEATH?!?!?!

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 01:55 PM
its been awhile since i've watched that video - but i think its hard to call that self defense in the legal definition

regardless, jury nullification is a likely scenario

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/18/2011, 01:56 PM
I don't care if someone comes into my place, whether home or business, with bad intent(and armed). They aren't walking out, they should have said everything to their maker before acting out that impulse.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 01:58 PM
The mother doesn't deserve a penny. Hell, she wasn't even raising the kid. As for the pharmacist, I say convict the lying sack of .... He lied and said he was shot. He lied and said the kid was trying to get up. He lied and said someone pulled a shotgun on him in the parking lot. With the kid unconscious on the ground, Ersland went to a drawer, pulled out another gun and emptied it in the unarmed kid. The kid paid for his crime with his life. Ersland needs to spend about 30 years in prison for his crime--premeditated murder.

This should get some response.

OutlandTrophy
5/18/2011, 01:59 PM
she might win but there will not be anything to collect. Jerome has had to basically give his attorneys everything he has worked for all his life. He had a fantastic gun collection that is gone.

The man has no assets at this point, he has nothing to collect on.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:01 PM
The mother doesn't deserve a penny. Hell, she wasn't even raising the kid. As for the pharmacist, I say convict the lying sack of .... He lied and said he was shot. He lied and said the kid was trying to get up. He lied and said someone pulled a shotgun on him in the parking lot. With the kid unconscious on the ground, Ersland went to a drawer, pulled out another gun and emptied it in the unarmed kid. The kid paid for his crime with his life. Ersland needs to spend about 30 years in prison for his crime--premeditated murder.

This should get some response.

I'll bite. If the kid never would have tried to rob him, none of this would happen. Didn't the accomplices recently get convicted of murder? They should give Jerome his guns back, and leave him the **** alone.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:03 PM
I'll bite. If the kid never would have tried to rob him, none of this would happen. Didn't the accomplices recently get convicted of murder? They should give Jerome his guns back, and leave him the **** alone.



I disagree. I would like to see the POS die in prison.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:04 PM
You can disagree all you want. He is a victim here. Plain and simple. I'd have shot the little mother****er a hundred times if I were in his shoes.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:05 PM
You can disagree all you want. He is a victim here. Plain and simple. I'd have shot the little mother****er a hundred times if I were in his shoes.




He was a victim for a little while. Then, he became a murderer.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:07 PM
i'd have shot him too - and i'd probably be looking at jail time as well

what he did is murder - in the legal sense - not that i have much of a problem with it in this case - but from a pure legal point of view - he's in trouble

but this is a good example that you CAN be sued by a dead man! :)

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:08 PM
He was a victim for a little while. Then, he became a murderer.

I kinda lean that way myself...the vid tells all...

I doubt if he gets convicted...

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/18/2011, 02:09 PM
http://www.absolutet-shirts.com/images/rule-2-double-tap.jpg

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:10 PM
I kinda lean that way myself...the vid tells all...

I doubt if he gets convicted...




Oh, I don't think he will be convicted. By the way, have you heard anything from Okie?

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:12 PM
This is why video can be a bad thing. The little ****er (and all his gangsta buds) deserved to be capped that day. I ain't talking about legalities, I'm talking about what's right.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:13 PM
This is why video can be a bad thing. The little ****er (and all his gangsta buds) deserved to be capped that day. I ain't talking about legalities, I'm talking about what's right.

kind of ironic that the tool (video) he employed to protect him - could end up putting his *** in prison

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:14 PM
+1

I agree he went too far. However I wouldnt vote him guilty of murder if I were on the jury. I don't feel a disabled elderly man defending himself and going too far deserves the death penalty or life in prison.

I also am so frustrated our court system allows this. YOUR CHILD WAS KILLED IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A FELONY. HOW IS THAT WRONGFUL DEATH?!?!?!


This is a horribly contradictory post.


So you agree that Ersland went too far, yet you wouldn't vote him guilty of murder because he's 59 and wears a back brace?


On the civil side, first and foremost, our court system is not "allowing" anything. She filed a lawsuit. Anyone is allowed to file a lawsuit. If the court accepts the defenses arguments on any number of procedural issues, including that no valid cause of action was asserted, then the case will be dismissed.


Finally, you admit yourself that Ersland went too far in killing the kid. The autopsy shows that if Ersland had not unloaded 5+ rounds into his abdomen, the kid would probably still be alive. Therefore, by your own admission you should at least be able to see and understand the moms argument. You may not agree with it, but that's irrelevant unless you're on the jury.

NormanPride
5/18/2011, 02:14 PM
http://www.absolutet-shirts.com/images/rule-2-double-tap.jpg
Wisdom.

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2011, 02:14 PM
This is why video can be a bad thing. The little ****er (and all his gangsta buds) deserved to be capped that day. I ain't talking about legalities, I'm talking about what's right.Concur.

TUSooner
5/18/2011, 02:15 PM
I don't care if someone comes into my place, whether home or business, with bad intent(and armed). They aren't walking out, they should have said everything to their maker before acting out that impulse.

Make sure you get this post permanently deleted before your trial. ;)

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:15 PM
This is why video can be a bad thing. The little ****er (and all his gangsta buds) deserved to be capped that day. I ain't talking about legalities, I'm talking about what's right.





I am just glad that the trial is costing the lying sack of .... every penny he's got. Whether he is convicted and goes to prison means very little to me, but losing all of his worldly possessions is good enough for me.

KuppiKunta
5/18/2011, 02:15 PM
He shoulda just made the first shot count! But it's really hard to say what one would do under those circumstances. I'm sure the adrenaline was flowing and even after the first shot, he probably didn't feel safe.

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/18/2011, 02:17 PM
Okay, next issue is the kid is a damn thug, the guy didn't shoot the Dalai Lama. Whose to say if this "recovers", he doesn't come back and put 5 in his chest? He already showed he was capable of committing a felony...

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:18 PM
Oh, I don't think he will be convicted. By the way, have you heard anything from Okie?

Nope...haven't seen him anywhere...

Hot Rod
5/18/2011, 02:18 PM
I'm sure the adrenaline was flowing and even after the first shot, he probably didn't feel safe.

This is what I believed happened. Getting robbed is not an everyday occurrence and he felt his life was in jeopardy. He reacted in a manner with his safety in mind.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:20 PM
I am just glad that the trial is costing the lying sack of .... every penny he's got. Whether he is convicted and goes to prison means very little to me, but losing all of his worldly possessions is good enough for me.

Why all the hate for the victim? Did the punk deserve to die or not?

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:21 PM
Okay, next issue is the kid is a damn thug, the guy didn't shoot the Dalai Lama. Whose to say if this "recovers", he doesn't come back and put 5 in his chest? He already showed he was capable of committing a felony...


Yeah, the kid did commit a felony, when basically forced to by two adult males. He was 13 or 14 years old. Thank God the mistakes I made when I was that age didn't result in my death.


Of course, the response is that I knew better than to rob at that age. And you're right, I did. However, I was fortunate enough to be raised in a good community by good parents and good role models. Not every kid is as fortunate. Does that make it right? No. Just makes me feel bad that kid never had anyone care enough about him to teach him how to be a good person, and now, he'll never get a chance to change that.


Not to mention, several members of the university football team you cheer for came from similar backgrounds. Thank God someone gave them a second chance.

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:22 PM
Why all the hate for the victim? Did the punk deserve to die or not?

With the first shot...

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:23 PM
Why all the hate for the victim? Did the punk deserve to die or not?


Teenagers deserve to die for robbing a pharmacy? Seems slightly harsh, don't you think?

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:24 PM
Unless there is a vid that I havnt seen the one that was posted here never showed the punk after he was down.How can some here say he WANT trying to or looked like he was trying to reach for a weapon?After all the Pharmicist isnt a Trained Law officer that can spot this stuff. Like has been said the adrenalin was pumpin.

I like these monday morning QBs who dont their butts from shinola. :rolleyes:

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:24 PM
Teenagers deserve to die for robbing a pharmacy? Seems slightly harsh, don't you think?

If I remember correctly wasn't one of the "teenagers" waving a gun around?

Hot Rod
5/18/2011, 02:25 PM
Teenagers deserve to die for robbing a pharmacy? Seems slightly harsh, don't you think?

Not backing the pharmacist at all, but do you think he asked him his age? If he came in with 2 adults, then he probably thought he wasn't a teen.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:25 PM
Unless there is a vid that I havnt seen the one that was posted here never showed the punk after he was down.How can some here say he WANT trying to or looked like he was trying to reach for a weapon?After all the Pharmicist isnt a Trained Law officer that can spot this stuff. Like has been said the adrenalin was pumpin.

I like these monday morning QBs who dont their butts from shinola. :rolleyes:


Ummm, maybe because he was unconscious??

OutlandTrophy
5/18/2011, 02:25 PM
Jerome's aways been a little off but he'd been robbed a few times prior to this.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:26 PM
If I remember correctly wasn't one of the "teenagers" waving a gun around?

Yep, the one Ersland chased down the street. The one who was killed was unarmed.



Not backing the pharmacist at all, but do you think he asked him his age? If he came in with 2 adults, then he probably thought he wasn't a teen.

He didn't come in with 2 adults. Those losers weren't in the store. They sent the two kids in.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:26 PM
Teenagers deserve to die for robbing a pharmacy? Seems slightly harsh, don't you think?

Criminals of any age that put themselves into a situation where getting killed is most assuredly an option deserve whatever they get. Harsh? Who gives a ****? Life is harsh. We all make our choices. These dumb ****s made a poor one that day. I suppose we could say the pharmacist did too, but he didn't start the mess.

OutlandTrophy
5/18/2011, 02:27 PM
kids with guns in your face are just as dangerous as adults with guns in your face.

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:27 PM
Ummm, maybe because he was unconscious??

YOU saw that in the Vid huh? :rolleyes:

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:27 PM
Unless there is a vid that I havnt seen the one that was posted here never showed the punk after he was down.How can some here say he WANT trying to or looked like he was trying to reach for a weapon?After all the Pharmicist isnt a Trained Law officer that can spot this stuff. Like has been said the adrenalin was pumpin.

I like these monday morning QBs who dont their butts from shinola. :rolleyes:

I think you are correct...the vid I saw showed the kid go down behind a counter never to be seen again...the pharmacists lack of sense of urgency tends to suggest the subject was no longer a threat...notice I did say "suggests"....

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:27 PM
Why all the hate for the victim? Did the punk deserve to die or not?




I have every sympathy for a normal victim. There was nothing normal about this piece of .... He lied about his military service. He lied about both kids being armed (he murdered the unarmed one). He lied about being shot (actually cut himself to make it look like he was nicked by a slug). He lied about hurting his back during the encounter. He lied about someone pulling a shotgun on him in the parking lot. He lied about the unconscious kid trying to get up (video shows the opposite).

Now, to answer your question. The kid with the gun deserved to be shot. Hell, even the dead kid deserved to be shot for placing himself in that situation. But, after being shot in the head and being totally defenseless, no, the kid did not deserve to be murdered. At that time, he was 100 percent defenseless. He was unconscious, unarmed and under control.

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:28 PM
Yep, the one Ersland chased down the street. The one who was killed was unarmed.




He didn't come in with 2 adults. Those losers weren't in the store. They sent the two kids in.

Correct...

Partial Qualifier
5/18/2011, 02:28 PM
i'd have shot him too - and i'd probably be looking at jail time as well

what he did is murder - in the legal sense - not that i have much of a problem with it in this case - but from a pure legal point of view - he's in trouble

but this is a good example that you CAN be sued by a dead man! :)

I guess I'd be doing the time too. It's hard (impossible) to put myself in Ersland's shoes but in that situation, with this guy who had just gravely threatened my life with a gun at my face... idunno.

Educate me: are we saying it's okay to kill a robber or intruder with a single shot? Just don't pump him full of lead? Are we supposed to make a judgement call (whether or not the intruder is truly incapacitated) under the pressure of knowing your life depends on your quick decision?

OutlandTrophy
5/18/2011, 02:29 PM
But, after being shot in the head and being totally defenseless, no, the kid did not deserve to be murdered. At that time, he was 100 percent defenseless. He was unconscious, unarmed and under control.


too bad, so sad. maybe he shouldn't have gone to a gunfight without a gun? maybe he shouldn't have tried to forcibly take something from another person?

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:29 PM
I have every sympathy for a normal victim. There was nothing normal about this piece of .... He lied about his military service. He lied about both kids being armed (he murdered the unarmed one). He lied about being shot (actually cut himself to make it look like he was nicked by a slug). He lied about hurting his back during the encounter. He lied about someone pulling a shotgun on him in the parking lot. He lied about the unconscious kid trying to get up (video shows the opposite).

Now, to answer your question. The kid with the gun deserved to be shot. Hell, even the dead kid deserved to be shot for placing himself in that situation. But, after being shot in the head and being totally defenseless, no, the kid did not deserve to be murdered. At that time, he was 100 percent defenseless. He was unconscious, unarmed and under control.

Gee. You sure seem to have all the FACTS in this case. Is the dumb ho bitch mom your client?

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:30 PM
I have every sympathy for a normal victim. There was nothing normal about this piece of .... He lied about his military service. He lied about both kids being armed (he murdered the unarmed one). He lied about being shot (actually cut himself to make it look like he was nicked by a slug). He lied about hurting his back during the encounter. He lied about someone pulling a shotgun on him in the parking lot. He lied about the unconscious kid trying to get up (video shows the opposite).

Now, to answer your question. The kid with the gun deserved to be shot. Hell, even the dead kid deserved to be shot for placing himself in that situation. But, after being shot in the head and being totally defenseless, no, the kid did not deserve to be murdered. At that time, he was 100 percent defenseless. He was unconscious, unarmed and under control.

You KNOW this cause you were there Right?

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:30 PM
Criminals of any age that put themselves into a situation where getting killed is most assuredly an option deserve whatever they get. Harsh? Who gives a ****? Life is harsh. We all make our choices. These dumb ****s made a poor one that day. I suppose we could say the pharmacist did too, but he didn't start the mess.


So under your stated opinion, if a teenager is recklessly driving, then he deserves to die. That sucks, life is harsh.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:30 PM
Unless there is a vid that I havnt seen the one that was posted here never showed the punk after he was down.How can some here say he WANT trying to or looked like he was trying to reach for a weapon?After all the Pharmicist isnt a Trained Law officer that can spot this stuff. Like has been said the adrenalin was pumpin.

I like these monday morning QBs who dont their butts from shinola. :rolleyes:

well i get your point - and like i say, i've slept a day or two since i've seen the video- but i seem to recall the old guy being rather calculated - and didnt respond/act at all like somebody who was trying to quell an immediate threat

in fact, i think he left the kid on the floor and went to the back room or somewhere else - i do remember that he took his eyes off the kid for a period of time - that to me doesnt say "he's an immediate threat" - and THEN he shoots the boy

the kid was a punk, and the pharmacist likely saved some other citizen from being victimized by the kid....but that doesnt change the fact that the old man acted in a way thats not at all consistent with what you're describing

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 02:30 PM
I guess I'd be doing the time too. It's hard (impossible) to put myself in Ersland's shoes but in that situation, with this guy who had just gravely threatened my life with a gun at my face... idunno.

Educate me: are we saying it's okay to kill a robber or intruder with a single shot? Just don't pump him full of lead? Are we supposed to make a judgement call (whether or not the intruder is truly incapacitated) under the pressure of knowing your life depends on your quick decision?

You can continue to pump lead into a guy until he is no longer a threat to your life...and yes, you are expected to be able to make that judgement...

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:31 PM
You KNOW this cause you were there Right?




No, Vet, I was not there. They have two video tape angles. One that the public has seen, and one that will be shown at the trial that shows the kid motionless on the floor as the piece of .... pumps shells into his motionless body.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:32 PM
YOU saw that in the Vid huh? :rolleyes:


It's called an Autopsy Report. Try reading one.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:32 PM
I guess I'd be doing the time too. It's hard (impossible) to put myself in Ersland's shoes but in that situation, with this guy who had just gravely threatened my life with a gun at my face... idunno.

Educate me: are we saying it's okay to kill a robber or intruder with a single shot? Just don't pump him full of lead? Are we supposed to make a judgement call (whether or not the intruder is truly incapacitated) under the pressure of knowing your life depends on your quick decision?

the castle doctrine in texas is a bit different than it is in Oklahoma - i think anyway - you are only allowed to use the force necessary to eliminate the "immediate threat"

if a shoot an intruder in my house and he runs out the door in an effort to escape - no matter how threatened i felt- i can't chase him out the door and shoot him again

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:33 PM
No, Vet, I was not there. They have two video tape angles. One that the public has seen, and one that will be shown at the trial that shows the kid motionless on the floor as the piece of .... pumps shells into his motionless body.

Dude, seriously, you need to lose the hate for the victim.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:33 PM
You KNOW this cause you were there Right?

you were there to say otherwise?

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:33 PM
well i get your point - and like i say, i've slept a day or two since i've seen the video- but i seem to recall the old guy being rather calculated - and didnt respond/act at all like somebody who was trying to quell an immediate threat

in fact, i think he left the kid on the floor and went to the back room or somewhere else - i do remember that he took his eyes off the kid for a period of time - that to me doesnt say "he's an immediate threat" - and THEN he shoots the boy

the kid was a punk, and the pharmacist likely saved some other citizen from being victimized by the kid....but that doesnt change the fact that the old man acted in a way thats not at all consistent with what you're describing
Really? Just what am i describing? The simple fact that Not a dayum one of us KNOWS the facts of this deal?

soonercruiser
5/18/2011, 02:35 PM
I'll bite. If the kid never would have tried to rob him, none of this would happen. Didn't the accomplices recently get convicted of murder? They should give Jerome his guns back, and leave him the **** alone.

I agree!
You live by the sword; you die by the sword!
To bad the Legislature and Gov. didn't make the new law retroactive.
Pharmacist should sue the mom for the pain & suffering caused by her son!
*But, it's a bad situation all around.
Hope I'm called to be on the jury.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:35 PM
Dude, seriously, you need to lose the hate for the victim.



Dean, I clearly stated that I have every sympathy for normal victims.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:36 PM
Really? Just what am i describing? The simple fact that Not a dayum one of us KNOWS the facts of this deal?

oh i'm sorry, i guess in the clamor created over you not "being around as much" i didnt get the notice we werent allowed to post our opinions anymore

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:36 PM
I agree!
You live by the sword; you die by the sword!
To bad the Legislature and Gov. didn't make the new law retroactive.
Pharmacist should sue the mom for the pain & suffering caused by her son!
*But, it's a bad situation all around.
Hope I'm called to be on the jury.


Good luck with that, considering you are obviously fair and impartial :rolleyes:

Midtowner
5/18/2011, 02:36 PM
Have y'all read this account of Ersland switching his story around multiple times and being caught in several lies?

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacists-words-will-play-role-at-trial/article/3568497?custom_click=lead_story_title

-- If you're going to trust someone's account of what happened at the crime scene, it'd better not be this guy.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:37 PM
hoops, i'm curious - if the robbers weren't teenagers, would you have such a hard on for them?

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:38 PM
No, Vet, I was not there. They have two video tape angles. One that the public has seen, and one that will be shown at the trial that shows the kid motionless on the floor as the piece of .... pumps shells into his motionless body.

Ok so then You've seen this other Vid that NO ONE ELSE here has right?


you were there to say otherwise?

No JK I wasn't there, Now show me where I said it was OTHER WISE. Ive simply been stateing that NONE of us knows the facts and Some here are makin assumptions that are more than likely erroneous.

Try some different baiting tactics these you are using are gettin old :rolleyes:

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:38 PM
Have y'all read this account of Ersland switching his story around multiple times and being caught in several lies?

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacists-words-will-play-role-at-trial/article/3568497?custom_click=lead_story_title

-- If you're going to trust someone's account of what happened at the crime scene, it'd better not be this guy.

Who cares? All you legal-types are focusing on the wrong thing. You're all "but he's a lying scumbag" when the focus here should be on the criminals who created this situation. Forget about what happened later.

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:40 PM
oh i'm sorry, i guess in the clamor created over you not "being around as much" i didnt get the notice we werent allowed to post our opinions anymore

Heh, I decided Id stick around to show you that your pitiful attempts at baiting just wont work, But you are welcome to keep trying.:rolleyes:

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:40 PM
Ok so then You've seen this other Vid that NO ONE ELSE here has right?



No JK I wasn't there, Now show me where I said it was OTHER WISE. Ive simply been stateing that NONE of us knows the facts and Some here are makin assumptions that are more than likely erroneous.

Try some different baiting tactics these you are using are gettin old :rolleyes:

i'm simply saying that you're bashing those who have a differing opinion than your own - because they werent there......when you werent there either

you're allowed to have your opinion, which seems to be that Ersland was in fear for his life becaus there's a slight/great possibility that the kid was doing something out of view of the video

others (myself included) have a differing opinion based on what we can CLEARLY see in the video

why is it necessary for you to correct those of us who think differently? you werent there either

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/18/2011, 02:40 PM
He should have lied a lot better and accidentally destroyed the tapes...

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:40 PM
Who cares? All you legal-types are focusing on the wrong thing. You're all "but he's a lying scumbag" when the focus here should be on the criminals who created this situation. Forget about what happened later.


Haha. I enjoy it when lay persons tell legal professionals what issues they should be focusing on in regards to a legal question.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:41 PM
Heh, I decided Id stick around to show you that your pitiful attempts at baiting just wont work, But you are welcome to keep trying.:rolleyes:

well you responded twice to the same line, so it must be working a little bit ;)

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:41 PM
Ok so then You've seen this other Vid that NO ONE ELSE here has right?



No JK I wasn't there, Now show me where I said it was OTHER WISE. Ive simply been stateing that NONE of us knows the facts and Some here are makin assumptions that are more than likely erroneous.

Try some different baiting tactics these you are using are gettin old :rolleyes:



Vet, I have not seen the video. I have just been told that one exists and that it will be shown at trial. We will just sit back and see what happens.

soonercruiser
5/18/2011, 02:41 PM
Really? Just what am i describing? The simple fact that Not a dayum one of us KNOWS the facts of this deal?

Oh, wait!
The all-seeing, the all-knowing, omnipotent Profit has all the facts.
No need to post any more!
:rolleyes:

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/18/2011, 02:42 PM
Vet, I have not seen the video. I have just been told that one exists and that it will be shown at trial. We will just sit back and see what happens.

Do you have the same source as David...I will need to see tweets

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:43 PM
Haha. I enjoy it when lay persons tell legal professionals what issues they should be focusing on in regards to a legal question.

Haha. I enjoy it when bleeding heart coddlers of criminals tell us normal folks what we should be focusing on.

Yes, I know it's about legal issues. Yes, I know the pharmacist "legally" probably commited a crime. Yes, I know that a jury in Oklahoma will not convict him of anything serious, and for this I am proud to be an Okie.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:44 PM
Oh, wait!
The all-seeing, the all-knowing, omnipotent Profit has all the facts.
No need to post any more!
:rolleyes:




Why don't you crawl into that goofy car of yours and take a ride. Better yet, crawl into your Lycra bike pants and take a bicycle ride into north Edmond. Please let me know when you plan to get here.

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:44 PM
i'm simply saying that you're bashing those who have a differing opinion than your own - because they werent there......when you werent there either

you're allowed to have your opinion, which seems to be that Ersland was in fear for his life becaus there's a slight/great possibility that the kid was doing something out of view of the video

others (myself included) have a differing opinion based on what we can CLEARLY see in the video

why is it necessary for you to correct those of us who think differently? you werent there either

Whoa there Nelly back up yer wagon.

WHERE have i said anything was MY opinion?
Where am I even trying to 'Correct You or anyone else." Im simply staing that not a one of us here KNOW the facts , Now Mr. TRAINED INVESTIGATOR. Search that out.:P

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:45 PM
He should have lied a lot better and accidentally destroyed the tapes...

:D

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:46 PM
Vet, I have not seen the video. I have just been told that one exists and that it will be shown at trial. We will just sit back and see what happens.

Thats all I been saying. The Facts will out.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:47 PM
Haha. I enjoy it when bleeding heart coddlers of criminals tell us normal folks what we should be focusing on.

Yes, I know it's about legal issues. Yes, I know the pharmacist "legally" probably commited a crime. Yes, I know that a jury in Oklahoma will not convict him of anything serious, and for this I am proud to be an Okie.


I'm a conservative Republican and have no affiliations with criminal law. My opinion comes from what the law itself says. Let's be honest, you have no clue without looking up self-defense on Wikipedia what the elements, requirements, and exceptions to this doctrine of law are, so don't pretend to.

The fact of the matter is, the only issue in this case is whether the events that transpired between the time of Ersland firing the first shot that incapacitated the deceased and the time Ersland fired the fatal shot give rise to a valid self-defense claim.

In my opinion, and I would venture to say the opinion of an overwhelming number of legal professionals, is that by the letter of the law, Jerome Ersland is guilty of murder.

Whether he gets convicted or not remains to be seen. However, if he does not get convicted, in my opinion, the jury would have been acting on its own behalf and beliefs instead of following the law.

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:47 PM
Thats all I been saying. The Facts will out.



Is that what happened in the OJ trial? I agree with you that the facts WILL come out, but he still won't be convicted.

Midtowner
5/18/2011, 02:48 PM
Who cares? All you legal-types are focusing on the wrong thing. You're all "but he's a lying scumbag" when the focus here should be on the criminals who created this situation. Forget about what happened later.

It goes to intent, and that Ersland knew he was doing the wrong thing when he did it. He went so far as to invent multiple accounts of what happened, even so far as self-inflicting a wound so that he could say he was wounded in a firefight.

Ersland was fine after the first shot. But he had no right to go back and summarily execute that kid well after the danger had passed. That kid deserved a judge and jury. Victims of crimes don't get to substitute their judgment for the judge and jury.

As far as the video goes, my understanding is that there's another video, which due to its graphic nature, wasn't released to the public. Parker was unarmed and unconscious when he was executed.

This is why we don't have lynch mobs.

Sooner5030
5/18/2011, 02:49 PM
Whether he gets convicted or not remains to be seen. However, if he does not get convicted, in my opinion, the jury would have been acting on its own behalf and beliefs instead of following the law.

not a JD and I didn't even sleep at a holiday inn....but I thought the judge decided the law and the jury decided the facts?

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:50 PM
This is why we don't have lynch mobs.

Huh? You think a bunch of pissed off Okies would want to lynch the pharm? Most I know would like to buy him a drink.

Viking Kitten
5/18/2011, 02:50 PM
the castle doctrine in texas is a bit different than it is in Oklahoma - i think anyway - you are only allowed to use the force necessary to eliminate the "immediate threat"

if a shoot an intruder in my house and he runs out the door in an effort to escape - no matter how threatened i felt- i can't chase him out the door and shoot him again

In Oklahoma, different laws apply for homes and businesses. If this had happened in Ersland's home, the law would completely be on his side. (You can legally kill anyone who invades your home, even if they aren't armed.) Since it was in a business, he is only allowed to eliminate the immediate threat, as you say. (As a sidenote, automobiles are treated the same way as homes.)

The Profit
5/18/2011, 02:52 PM
It goes to intent, and that Ersland knew he was doing the wrong thing when he did it. He went so far as to invent multiple accounts of what happened, even so far as self-inflicting a wound so that he could say he was wounded in a firefight.

Ersland was fine after the first shot. But he had no right to go back and summarily execute that kid well after the danger had passed. That kid deserved a judge and jury. Victims of crimes don't get to substitute their judgment for the judge and jury.

As far as the video goes, my understanding is that there's another video, which due to its graphic nature, wasn't released to the public. Parker was unarmed and unconscious when he was executed.

This is why we don't have lynch mobs.


AMEN!!

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:52 PM
Does it not bother some of you who are defending Ersland that when he dialed 911, the first thing he said was "This is Colonel Jerome Ersland" when he's been retired from the military for years?

Midtowner
5/18/2011, 02:52 PM
Huh? You think a bunch of pissed off Okies would want to lynch the pharm? Most I know would like to buy him a drink.

No, but that's basically what the pharm did to Parker.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 02:53 PM
not a JD and I didn't even sleep at a holiday inn....but I thought the judge decided the law and the jury decided the facts?


The jury receives jury instructions that are law. How would a layperson know the definition and components of first degree murder if they were not given the law? The jury then incorporates the facts into that law.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:56 PM
Does it not bother some of you who are defending Ersland that when he dialed 911, the first thing he said was "This is Colonel Jerome Ersland" when he's been retired from the military for years?

Stretch much? Sheez, my dad retired in 1968, and to his death in 2010, he was "Sgt. Dad." Even in the phone book, etc.

Also, do you not think this guy was all freaked out? First, he gets robbed, then he gets into a gun fight, then he kills one of the perps, all in a couple minutes time. You think you'd be all "um, hello, this is Sooner Hoops the bleeding heart and I'd like to report a crime..."?? Sheez, some of you people.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:56 PM
Unless there is a vid that I havnt seen the one that was posted here never showed the punk after he was down.How can some here say he WANT trying to or looked like he was trying to reach for a weapon?After all the Pharmicist isnt a Trained Law officer that can spot this stuff. Like has been said the adrenalin was pumpin.

I like these monday morning QBs who dont their butts from shinola. :rolleyes:

i dont know vet, when you call those of us "monday morning QB's who dont their butts from shinola" and then roll your eyes.....i suppose thats where i got this from


Whoa there Nelly back up yer wagon.

WHERE have i said anything was MY opinion?
Where am I even trying to 'Correct You or anyone else." Im simply staing that not a one of us here KNOW the facts , Now Mr. TRAINED INVESTIGATOR. Search that out.

badger
5/18/2011, 02:56 PM
I've read a lot of stories on this and have seen the video and videos of Ersland talking about the incident and photos from the courtroom et al.

Ersland has given up everything of monetary value for his legal defense fund. He even reportedly had the "legal defense fund" jar money at his pharmacy stolen. His lawyers have apparently agreed to pro bono anything he can't pay for.

The teen who was shot was apparently shot in the head first and in the body after that. He had a weapon that he flashed when trying to rob the place before getting shot.

The other attempted robber, in accordance with Oklahoma laws, is getting charged with murder also because he was involved in the crime. If I'm not mistaken, he was already found guilty, despite some defense about not being an accomplice or that he wasn't the one there or something that didn't fly with jurors.

Perhaps this is just the mom's way of dealing with her grief --- not out for compensation, but vindication in case Ersland is found "not guilty." Like the OJ case, it is possible to be acquitted but then later successfully sued. In fact, the OJ case might have inspired this lawsuit for all that I know. However, like the OJ case, I doubt the plaintiffs will collect the full award amount, because the assets won't be there to claim.

What I am most curious about is how if the first shot was to the head, and the teen robber was already dead, how could the additional shots fired turn it into murder if he's already dead? Excessive, yes, but is it murder to shoot repeatedly at a dead body (yes, realizing how insensitive that sounds).

I'll try to find articles to cite on stuff I said above

EDIT: Yes, three others were also charged with first-degree murder, including the other attempted robber and two adults who are accused of planning the robbery. Link (http://www.newsok.com/article/3568500?highlight=[%22ersland%22])

I failed to mention this, but apparently after one of them was convicted, he attacked the Oklahoma County DA. Link (http://www.newsok.com/article/3564082?highlight=[%22ersland%22])

Also, as someone mentioned, Ersland has been reportedly changing his story. You can view the video and what Ersland has reportedly said to media and police here. (http://www.newsok.com/article/3568497?highlight=[%22ersland%22]) After viewing the video again, it appears that the teen robber who got away, not the one killed, was the one waving a gun.

Here (http://www.newsok.com/article/3566381?highlight=[%22ersland%22]) is more info on the legal fee Ersland is reportedly paying attorneys. $5k a day. Stay out of legal trouble, South Oval.

Also, Ersland reportedly endangered others by chasing the armed attempted robber out of the store. Link (http://www.newsok.com/article/3563639?highlight=[%22ersland%22])

Viking Kitten
5/18/2011, 02:56 PM
Speaking of the jury, selection is underway right now. That would certainly be an interesting voir dire to watch.

olevetonahill
5/18/2011, 02:56 PM
Does it not bother some of you who are defending Ersland that when he dialed 911, the first thing he said was "This is Colonel Jerome Ersland" when he's been retired from the military for years?

Whats that got to do with anything?

crackback
5/18/2011, 02:57 PM
CCDean sounds like he's wrong

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:57 PM
In Oklahoma, different laws apply for homes and businesses. If this had happened in Ersland's home, the law would completely be on his side. (You can legally kill anyone who invades your home, even if they aren't armed.) Since it was in a business, he is only allowed to eliminate the immediate threat, as you say. (As a sidenote, automobiles are treated the same way as homes.)

ok then the laws are very much the same on both sides of the river

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 02:59 PM
Speaking of the jury, selection is underway right now. That would certainly be an interesting voir dire to watch.

the DA has his/her work cut out for them

Viking Kitten
5/18/2011, 02:59 PM
The other attempted robber, in accordance with Oklahoma laws, is getting charged with murder also because he was involved in the crime. If I'm not mistaken, he was already found guilty, despite some defense about not being an accomplice or that he wasn't the one there or something that didn't fly with jurors.



He plead guilty and got a relatively light sentence in exchange for testimony. He will likely be released not long after he turns 18.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 02:59 PM
The jury receives jury instructions that are law. How would a layperson know the definition and components of first degree murder if they were not given the law? The jury then incorporates the facts into that law.

I've done my time on a few juries. One involved one of your fellow JDs who liked to boink little children. Anyhow, yes, the judge gives you the law. When the jury goes into that deliberation room a whole lot of **** goes down - **** based on feelings/emotion/morals/etc. Just because the law says something doesn't mean a jury won't not convict/convict based on gut feelings/fear/etc. OJ ring a bell?

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 03:00 PM
CCDean sounds like he's wrong

How about having a take or STFU?

The Profit
5/18/2011, 03:04 PM
I've read a lot of stories on this and have seen the video and videos of Ersland talking about the incident and photos from the courtroom et al.

Ersland has given up everything of monetary value for his legal defense fund. He even reportedly had the "legal defense fund" jar money at his pharmacy stolen. His lawyers have apparently agreed to pro bono anything he can't pay for.

The teen who was shot was apparently shot in the head first and in the body after that. He had a weapon that he flashed when trying to rob the place before getting shot.

The other attempted robber, in accordance with Oklahoma laws, is getting charged with murder also because he was involved in the crime. If I'm not mistaken, he was already found guilty, despite some defense about not being an accomplice or that he wasn't the one there or something that didn't fly with jurors.

Perhaps this is just the mom's way of dealing with her grief --- not out for compensation, but vindication in case Ersland is found "not guilty." Like the OJ case, it is possible to be acquitted but then later successfully sued. In fact, the OJ case might have inspired this lawsuit for all that I know. However, like the OJ case, I doubt the plantiffs will collect the full award amount, because the assets won't be there to claim.

What I am most curious about is how if the first shot was to the head, and the teen robber was already dead, how could the additional shots fired turn it into murder if he's already dead? Excessive, yes, but is it murder to shoot repeatedly at a dead body (yes, realizing how insensitive that sounds).

I'll try to find articles to cite on stuff I said above





Good questions, but many of your statements are not true.

The kid was grazed by the first shot. It knocked him out, but did not kill him. The autopsy showed that the kid would have easily survived the initial wound.

He did not have a weapon. The other kid had the weapon. That kid pleaded guilty, served as state's witness at the trial for the vermin, who put the kids up to the robbery and will go to prison for many years.

Ersland has been placing stories in the Oklahoman for months in an attempt to garner sympathy. One of those stories was about the jar that was supposedly stolen. With all of the other lies that Ersland has told, I wonder about this story. He is obviously not a man, who can be trusted.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 03:06 PM
Stretch much? Sheez, my dad retired in 1968, and to his death in 2010, he was "Sgt. Dad." Even in the phone book, etc.

Also, do you not think this guy was all freaked out? First, he gets robbed, then he gets into a gun fight, then he kills one of the perps, all in a couple minutes time. You think you'd be all "um, hello, this is Sooner Hoops the bleeding heart and I'd like to report a crime..."?? Sheez, some of you people.


Good for your dad.


Whats that got to do with anything?


Geez, I dunno, maybe his mindset?? That was a hard question...



I've done my time on a few juries. One involved one of your fellow JDs who liked to boink little children. Anyhow, yes, the judge gives you the law. When the jury goes into that deliberation room a whole lot of **** goes down - **** based on feelings/emotion/morals/etc. Just because the law says something doesn't mean a jury won't not convict/convict based on gut feelings/fear/etc. OJ ring a bell?


No ****, Sherlock. That was my entire point.

crackback
5/18/2011, 03:07 PM
That was my take

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 03:08 PM
That was my take

12 posts and that's all you got? Bye.

badger
5/18/2011, 03:09 PM
Good questions, but many of your statements are not true.

The kid was grazed by the first shot. It knocked him out, but did not kill him. The autopsy showed that the kid would have easily survived the initial wound.

He did not have a weapon. The other kid had the weapon. That kid pleaded guilty, served as state's witness at the trial for the vermin, who put the kids up to the robbery and will go to prison for many years.

Ersland has been placing stories in the Oklahoman for months in an attempt to garner sympathy. One of those stories was about the jar that was supposedly stolen. With all of the other lies that Ersland has told, I wonder about this story. He is obviously not a man, who can be trusted.

I added links to my initial post to clarify stuff, but yes, sounds right. The video in the first link shows him go after the escaping one with a gun instead of the one he shot initially.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 03:10 PM
a jury may not convict him - but a grand jury did indict him, when they could have returned a no bill and called it "justifiable homicide"

i dont think he's going to have the easy time in front of an "okie jury" that some of you think he's going to have

OUMallen
5/18/2011, 03:19 PM
Does it not bother some of you who are defending Ersland that when he dialed 911, the first thing he said was "This is Colonel Jerome Ersland" when he's been retired from the military for years?

I wouldn't defend Erland at all, but nor do I care he stated his rank. Why should it matter?

I tell people I'm a lawyer when it matters or is relevant. Military experience when he's just been robbery-attempted and then he killed a kid with a gun is relevant.

You'd hope the flatfoots that got their first would understand that the caller might have a gun, but is ex-military and knows what he's doing with it. it could help to calm the first responders. it could help to identify who is whom.

I think Ersland should be in big trouble, but what is your point?

pphilfran
5/18/2011, 03:21 PM
This thread was great fun...then the stinking lawyers got involved...

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 03:24 PM
I wouldn't defend Erland at all, but nor do I care he stated his rank. Why should it matter?

I tell people I'm a lawyer when it matters or is relevant. Military experience when he's just been robbery-attempted and then he killed a kid with a gun is relevant.

You'd hope the flatfoots that got their first would understand that the caller might have a gun, but is ex-military and knows what he's doing with it. it could help to calm the first responders. it could help to identify who is whom.

I think Ersland should be in big trouble, but what is your point?


I think Prater, or whoever is trying to case, can certainly make the argument that referring to himself as Colonel on the phone call, as well as other statements he made before/during the incident, could go to intent. He was in a blind rage and was going to kill the kid regardless of whether he was a threat or not. He had been robbed before, and dammit, he wasn't getting robbed again because he was Colonel Jerome Ersland.

Witnesses said Ersland rarely referred to himself as Colonel, yet he does when calling 911 to inform them he had just shot and killed someone?

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 03:26 PM
I think Prater, or whoever is trying to case, can certainly make the argument that referring to himself as Colonel on the phone call, as well as other statements he made before/during the incident, could go to intent. He was in a blind rage and was going to kill the kid regardless of whether he was a threat or not. He had been robbed before, and dammit, he wasn't getting robbed again because he was Colonel Jerome Ersland.

Witnesses said Ersland rarely referred to himself as Colonel, yet he does when calling 911 to inform them he had just shot and killed someone?

rarely is not the same as "never"

i think that isue is a non fact

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 03:28 PM
rarely is not the same as "never"

i think that isue is a non fact


By itself, in a vaccuum, perhaps you're right. Couple it with other statements he made, and it tends to create a mindset of intent.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 03:29 PM
having never made a call to 911 after shooting somebody, i'd be hard pressed to tell you what my mindset would be

i think the DA has quite a bit more to hang his hat on, then the introductory statement on the 911 call

just my opinion

sooner_born_1960
5/18/2011, 03:37 PM
My opinion. If the DA goes to great lengths to convince the jury of the mindset of Erstland, he's got a weak hand.

Mjcpr
5/18/2011, 03:45 PM
My opinion. If the DA goes to great lengths to convince the jury of the mindset of Erstland, he's got a weak hand.

Well, he will make a turrible pimp then.

OUMallen
5/18/2011, 03:46 PM
By itself, in a vaccuum, perhaps you're right. Couple it with other statements he made, and it tends to create a mindset of intent.

Stretch.

SoonerLVZ
5/18/2011, 03:51 PM
Here's my take. I disagree with the DA moving forward in a murder trial for murder in the first degree. I think that a manslaughter charge would have been fitting. Send it trial, make a point that way that street level/lynch mob justice won't be tolarated. I think Prater is still having to live with the ghost of Bob Macy/Joyce Gilchrist in the DA's office and is trying to fight against any charge of racism and/or corruption that may still be part of the way the DA is viewed in Oklahoma County.

Sooner5030
5/18/2011, 03:54 PM
Again…do not have a JD and I didn’t stay at a holiday inn but when considering the law can extenuating circumstances be presented as a defense? You know like most of us make different decisions while being robbed than we would on any other normal day.

If there was an act that day that I view as the proximate cause for these horrible events it would be the DECISION to rob the store. Not some dudes horrible reaction to the robbery.

EnragedOUfan
5/18/2011, 04:02 PM
So he referred to himself as Colonel, not a big deal in my opinion..... After being in this situation, I would think your adrenaline would be flowing, your heart pounding, your mind would not be right, and you would still be scared and shaking. Thankfully I have yet to be robbed, there's no telling how I would react especially if my life was in danger and I had a firearm nearby. If you're unhealthy, this type of situation could make you have a d@mn heart attack........Hopefully this will be in his defense.

C&CDean
5/18/2011, 04:04 PM
Again…do not have a JD and I didn’t stay at a holiday inn but when considering the law can extenuating circumstances be presented as a defense? You know like most of us make different decisions while being robbed than we would on any other normal day.

If there was an act that day that I view as the proximate cause for these horrible events it would be the DECISION to rob the store. Not some dudes horrible reaction to the robbery.

Very cogent post. I'm hoping the jury feels the same way.

tator
5/18/2011, 04:04 PM
Seems like he pretty obviously went too far to me, just my opinion though.

I'm not sure that he should be guilty of anything, as I'm not sure what I would do given the same situation.

CobraKai
5/18/2011, 04:06 PM
So under your stated opinion, if a teenager is recklessly driving, then he deserves to die. That sucks, life is harsh.

I don't think armed robbery and speeding are the same. If we want to play that game I could say "so you're saying the horde of teenage Manson murderers don't deserve to die."

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 04:08 PM
I don't think armed robbery and speeding are the same. If we want to play that game I could say "so you're saying the horde of teenage Manson murderers don't deserve to die."


There's a difference between speeding and reckless driving. Either way, it was a hypothetical to show Dean how ridiculous his comment was. Nothing more.

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 04:11 PM
Article (http://www.news9.com/story/14670426/mother-of-teen-killed-during-robbery-suing-okc-pharmacist)



Maybe the first time.

the mother suing is her taking the best of a bad situation. Its amazing how bad parenting is gonna possibly pay off for her.

Ive seen the video, the clerk was ok to shoot first, but not the other five times. What do you guys think?

I think that kids should pay attention to the sign in the pharmacy window saying "NO FIREARMS"

The Profit
5/18/2011, 04:20 PM
I think that kids should pay attention to the sign in the pharmacy window saying "NO FIREARMS"




Damn good advice.

Sooner5030
5/18/2011, 04:23 PM
on another note.....if someone can sue a parent for their kid running into someone while riding a bike why cant this guy sue her for failing to prevent her teen from robbing a store?

there's an act or omission of an act
you can link the cause
and there are damages

meh. maybe he should have done nothing, then labeled himself as a citizen SWAT team, conducted a no-knock with the wrong address, storm the young lads house and open fire when he thought he heard gunshots.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 05:24 PM
she should be suing the 2 thugs that forced her son to commit the robbery.

Midtowner
5/18/2011, 05:46 PM
She should be suing herself for being a bad mother. Kids don't generally go and try to knock over drug stores when they have parents who have taught them right from wrong.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 05:52 PM
She should be suing herself for being a bad mother. Kids don't generally go and try to knock over drug stores when they have parents who have taught them right from wrong.

if she knew who the father is, she should sue him for bad parenting.

Midtowner
5/18/2011, 05:54 PM
if she knew who the father is, she should sue him for bad parenting.

And some back child support dangit. That's probably the real tragedy here... no more child support. Bummer.

FirstAndGoalOU
5/18/2011, 06:01 PM
Kids don't generally go and try to knock over drug stores when they have parents who have taught them right from wrong.
Sadly, This is the Moral of the Story.

sooner ngintunr
5/18/2011, 06:02 PM
.

stoopified
5/18/2011, 06:10 PM
meh. maybe he should have done nothing, then labeled himself as a citizen SWAT team, conducted a no-knock with the wrong address, storm the young lads house and open fire when he thought he heard gunshots.Hindsight is alaways 20/20 :D

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 06:45 PM
I'd like to drug test the Mother to see if he was down there getting drugs for her. Wonder if she's got any drugs he was trying to get, in her system? Then I wonder if she had a legal prescription for them? Then they can put her in prison and let her sue.

jk the sooner fan
5/18/2011, 07:23 PM
I'd like to drug test the Mother to see if he was down there getting drugs for her. Wonder if she's got any drugs he was trying to get, in her system? Then I wonder if she had a legal prescription for them? Then they can put her in prison and let her sue.

good point, i'd be curious to know what's flowing thru the mothers veins

OutlandTrophy
5/18/2011, 07:27 PM
If I got to determine rules for a society I would let people kill people that are part of an armed burgulary team.

I would not punish those that killed armed robbers and members of armed robbery teams.

sooner ngintunr
5/18/2011, 07:35 PM
If I got to determine rules for a society I would let people kill people that are part of an armed burgulary team.

I would not punish those that killed armed robbers and members of armed robbery teams.

No brainer when its drugs that they are stealing. I might feel different if it were food though. Maybe.

texaspokieokie
5/18/2011, 07:40 PM
No brainer when its drugs that they are stealing. I might feel different if it were food though. Maybe.

they'd trade the food for drugs.

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 07:44 PM
When you wake up in the morning and go to work at a pharmacy....you know the chance of you getting robbed vs. the flower shop down the street is pretty high. If someone comes in to rob you for narcotics and the Corporation or store you work for is to cheap to hire a Off-Duty Police Officer to work there and deter these folks who maybe just want to have a big party before going back to prison.....

Who the hell is going to want to work in these places?

Yeah....it's a great idea to award the Mother money. Maybe if they do....the Pharmacies will realize it's real important to hire armed guards at places with narcotics.

I don't think the Mother should get a dime but maybe the Pharmacy should have some damned Off-Duty Police or a metal detector and a man-trap so that folks can't rob these places.

What if that happens and instead of robbing the stores.....they just start waiting for patrons to pick up Rx's and then just whack them in the parking lot?

GKeeper316
5/18/2011, 07:46 PM
I'd like to drug test the Mother to see if he was down there getting drugs for her. Wonder if she's got any drugs he was trying to get, in her system? Then I wonder if she had a legal prescription for them? Then they can put her in prison and let her sue.

cops talked to her and are satisfied she had no knowledge of the robbery beforehand.

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 07:48 PM
cops talked to her and are satisfied she had no knowledge of the robbery beforehand.

Check my last post....

Maybe she deserves the money. If the store had had a Cop....maybe her dumbass kid wouldn't have robbed the place.

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2011, 08:25 PM
Maybe if frog's had wings, they wouldn't bump there *** when they hit the ground...

soonercruiser
5/18/2011, 08:32 PM
Why don't you crawl into that goofy car of yours and take a ride. Better yet, crawl into your Lycra bike pants and take a bicycle ride into north Edmond. Please let me know when you plan to get here.

You missed me; I just got back from Edmond. :D

BTW - no more "funny little car" for you to "covet".
Found another big Sooner fan with good taste: and $$!

Shall I post a picture of my lycra pants so you can give me critique?
Duh! :P

Muno
5/18/2011, 08:47 PM
Stretch.

Huge stretch. If the DA has to resort to making these types of arguments they are in big trouble.

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 09:09 PM
Maybe if frog's had wings, they wouldn't bump there *** when they hit the ground...

That sounds like a good idea for a movie Turd. Zombie winged frogs that look like trolls dressed like Nazis.

cccasooner2
5/18/2011, 09:13 PM
Check my last post....

Maybe she deserves the money. If the store had had a Cop....maybe her dumbass kid wouldn't have robbed the place.

It's a jungle out there. It's pure speculation whether a "cop" presence would have mattered. Read a newspaper of LA or any of the other big cities and it seems it doesn't matter if an army is around, the s**t still happens.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 09:35 PM
Check my last post....

Maybe she deserves the money. If the store had had a Cop....maybe her dumbass kid wouldn't have robbed the place.


If that pharmacy had a cop, the adults who forced these two to rob this place owned by Ersland would have just chosen another pharmacy that didn't have a cop

soonercruiser
5/18/2011, 09:52 PM
When you wake up in the morning and go to work at a pharmacy....you know the chance of you getting robbed vs. the flower shop down the street is pretty high. If someone comes in to rob you for narcotics and the Corporation or store you work for is to cheap to hire a Off-Duty Police Officer to work there and deter these folks who maybe just want to have a big party before going back to prison.....

Who the hell is going to want to work in these places?

Yeah....it's a great idea to award the Mother money. Maybe if they do....the Pharmacies will realize it's real important to hire armed guards at places with narcotics.

I don't think the Mother should get a dime but maybe the Pharmacy should have some damned Off-Duty Police or a metal detector and a man-trap so that folks can't rob these places.What if that happens and instead of robbing the stores.....they just start waiting for patrons to pick up Rx's and then just whack them in the parking lot?

Anybody worried about the cost of drugs and toothpaste going up due to the lack of common sense in the judicial system???
:rolleyes:

cccasooner2
5/18/2011, 09:56 PM
Anybody worried about the cost of drugs and toothpaste going up due to the lack of common sense in the judicial system???
:rolleyes:

Sounds like a baited liberal trap. Libs don't care, it's the principle.

Sooner_Tuf
5/18/2011, 10:15 PM
Why all the hate for the victim? Did the punk deserve to die or not?

Of course he did. The video doesn't show anything that the prosecution alleges. You can't see the kid on the floor. The Pharmacist says the kid was moving. He was the only one that knows.

I don't give a damn if the kid was moving or not. He went in the store with a gun making clear their intent that they would kill to get what they wanted. The fact he got his *** killed in the process is called poetic justice.

The pharmacist deserves a winning lottery ticket. If more of this happened there would be fewer robberies. A lot of crimes can be committed on accident, armed robbery is not one of them.

Sooner_Tuf
5/18/2011, 10:18 PM
When you wake up in the morning and go to work at a pharmacy....you know the chance of you getting robbed vs. the flower shop down the street is pretty high. If someone comes in to rob you for narcotics and the Corporation or store you work for is to cheap to hire a Off-Duty Police Officer to work there and deter these folks who maybe just want to have a big party before going back to prison.....

Who the hell is going to want to work in these places?

Yeah....it's a great idea to award the Mother money. Maybe if they do....the Pharmacies will realize it's real important to hire armed guards at places with narcotics.

I don't think the Mother should get a dime but maybe the Pharmacy should have some damned Off-Duty Police or a metal detector and a man-trap so that folks can't rob these places.

What if that happens and instead of robbing the stores.....they just start waiting for patrons to pick up Rx's and then just whack them in the parking lot?

You don't actually know anything about this situation do you?

Sooner_Tuf
5/18/2011, 10:21 PM
Does it not bother some of you who are defending Ersland that when he dialed 911, the first thing he said was "This is Colonel Jerome Ersland" when he's been retired from the military for years?

No, is there a reason it bothers you? Are you planning on giving up your education when you retire? Assuming you have any.

Sooner_Tuf
5/18/2011, 10:25 PM
I have every sympathy for a normal victim. There was nothing normal about this piece of .... He lied about his military service. He lied about both kids being armed (he murdered the unarmed one). He lied about being shot (actually cut himself to make it look like he was nicked by a slug). He lied about hurting his back during the encounter. He lied about someone pulling a shotgun on him in the parking lot. He lied about the unconscious kid trying to get up (video shows the opposite).

Now, to answer your question. The kid with the gun deserved to be shot. Hell, even the dead kid deserved to be shot for placing himself in that situation. But, after being shot in the head and being totally defenseless, no, the kid did not deserve to be murdered. At that time, he was 100 percent defenseless. He was unconscious, unarmed and under control.


When the David Prater filed charges during the press conference he said the kid was dead after the first shot. Probably before he hit the floor. If Ersland hadn't continued to shoot there would be no charges.

There shouldn't be any charges against him. He didn't go down the street and enter this kids house and kill him. Those kids were committing an armed robbery.

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 10:27 PM
You don't actually know anything about this situation do you?

Well......no....I just worked in one for around 2 years and I just remember that Junkie with a Silver Plated Colt .45 shaking and waving it at the Pharmacist while he walked him around and told me to sit on the floor.

http://www.freewebs.com/hhhshorty/gun.jpg

http://kpel965.com/files/2011/04/Cody-Richard1-250x200.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/02/stonerdrug.jpg

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 10:28 PM
What a fun day that was....

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 10:32 PM
Anybody worried about the cost of drugs and toothpaste going up due to the lack of common sense in the judicial system???
:rolleyes:

I've defended both sides of this jerkoff.....

I mean....WTH is wrong with anything I said?

I'd would well imagine the most you know about a pharmacy is where to drive up and hand them your script? I mean....if you are a Pharmacist then shed some light. It would really be appreciated if you would quit with the faux outrage every time I post. Make a freaking point for God's sake. If you can.

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2011, 10:38 PM
You have got to be ****'n me...STONER DRUG???? LMMFAO!!!:D:D:D

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 10:38 PM
Every time I see crap like this someone makes a comment that "That bitch shouldn't get one dime!". Which is correct.

When someone comes in a Pharmacy, marches everybody in the store to the back and shoots them all in the head and takes all the drugs and the surveillance video....someone says " That place should have had better security!"

When some Pharmacist defends himself and then puts five extra rounds in someone that should understand that if you stick a gun in someone's face.....they might kill you.....The guy that put 5 extra rounds in the kid is suddenly a bad guy? Then his mother is due damages?

I'll be glad to hear Cruiser's and Tuf's wonderful solutions....

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 10:40 PM
You have got to be ****'n me...STONER DRUG???? LMMFAO!!!:D:D:D

:D

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 10:58 PM
When the David Prater filed charges during the press conference he said the kid was dead after the first shot. Probably before he hit the floor. If Ersland hadn't continued to shoot there would be no charges.
There shouldn't be any charges against him. He didn't go down the street and enter this kids house and kill him. Those kids were committing an armed robbery.


Dude, no. Prater did not say the kid was dead after the first shot. If the kid was already dead, Prater couldn't file murder one charges against Ersland.


The kid was unconscious, which is how he could be murdered. Again, see the autopsy report.

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 10:59 PM
No, is there a reason it bothers you? Are you planning on giving up your education when you retire? Assuming you have any.


Helps if you read the thread before posting. Just a thought...

SoonerHoops
5/18/2011, 11:00 PM
You don't actually know anything about this situation do you?


There is a large degree of irony in this post when you're basing your opinion off completely false facts.

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 11:01 PM
I'm guessing they went to bed...

tE_wx279N7o

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 11:02 PM
Helps if you read the thread before posting. Just a thought...

They can't be wrong....you're being unrealistic.....;)

stevo
5/18/2011, 11:06 PM
This is a horribly contradictory post.


So you agree that Ersland went too far, yet you wouldn't vote him guilty of murder because he's 59 and wears a back brace?


On the civil side, first and foremost, our court system is not "allowing" anything. She filed a lawsuit. Anyone is allowed to file a lawsuit. If the court accepts the defenses arguments on any number of procedural issues, including that no valid cause of action was asserted, then the case will be dismissed.


Finally, you admit yourself that Ersland went too far in killing the kid. The autopsy shows that if Ersland had not unloaded 5+ rounds into his abdomen, the kid would probably still be alive. Therefore, by your own admission you should at least be able to see and understand the moms argument. You may not agree with it, but that's irrelevant unless you're on the jury.


Ohhhhhhhhhh....why herro!!!

StoopTroup
5/18/2011, 11:08 PM
Dude, no. Prater did not say the kid was dead after the first shot. If the kid was already dead, Prater couldn't file murder one charges against Ersland.


The kid was unconscious, which is how he could be murdered. Again, see the autopsy report.

The word "PROBABLY"....

I'm not an attorney but when working a case....it's not one of those words IMO that helps win a case....I guess it might cast doubt....but when you are asking for money over negligence and you use "PROBABLY"....I'm not thinking you are going to win the votes on a jury unless you have a rap sheet on the Phamacist where he has shot and killed a butt load of other patrons who picked up their high blood pressure meds and tried to pay with a hand gun and he killed them....lol

MR2-Sooner86
5/18/2011, 11:43 PM
if she knew who the father is

She's black so she'll have no idea.

*looks around*

Who said that?



Is it bad the guy lied? Yes it is but him cleaning up the gene pool is a better service than his lies.

I don't see why everybody is so upset. The little bastard was on the ground so he made sure he'd stay there and never get back up. I don't care if he was moving or knocked out. We should be thankful for the pharmacist making sure the thug never steals oxygen from the rest of us ever again.

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/19/2011, 01:07 AM
I might not have killed the guy, but I definitely shoot both knee caps and trigger fingers. Then he could wheel himself around Juvy hall

StoopTroup
5/19/2011, 01:53 AM
You know.....

Let's say you are a pharmacist that lives in that area. Folks who come in talk to you and tell you about gangs that are recruiting and that you are a target. Say you get a little news about it coming down soon and that they might even cap you off.

You go to work everyday knowing you are a target and being used as a way to help some punk that can kill you and not possibly be tried as an adult....or you can quit. Today....it comes down. You tell the kids they are making a mistake and that they should just turn around and leave. They push you and even threaten to kill you. At this point....you can't quit. It's down to survival. You shoot and the kid tries to pick up his gun. There are others with him but you don't know if they left or are hiding behind one of the counters. By this time the one you shot is drawing the gun on you again....

You unload 5 times, drop your clip so you can protect yourself if others come back. The police have been called but you are just glad you killed one of the gang bangers and you know your life was in less danger if you had just given them the drugs....but since it was a gang initiation and you were marked for death....You made the choice to fight back.

Now you are really marked for death and the Pharmacy instead of move you....they keep you there or just fire you for shooting a patron that was robbing you.

Again....why would anyone want to work there. Also....this is why some areas in big cities don't have Pharmacies or grocery stores or gas stations. They get tired of getting robbed or used for initiations.

I hope they put more security in that place and the guy that shot that kid gets some therapy. I hope the Mother wins enough to maybe bury her kid....but if I was the Pharmacy....I might have out Attorney's make her an offer to drop the suit and that we would pay for a nice funeral for her boy.

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 08:05 AM
I don't see why everybody is so upset. The little bastard was on the ground so he made sure he'd stay there and never get back up. I don't care if he was moving or knocked out. We should be thankful for the pharmacist making sure the thug never steals oxygen from the rest of us ever again.


So murder should be condoned, but only when the victim isn't a good citizen, right??

C&CDean
5/19/2011, 08:06 AM
So murder should be condoned, but only when the victim isn't a good citizen, right??

Well....yeah? DOH.

OU Engineer
5/19/2011, 08:27 AM
So murder should be condoned, but only when the victim isn't a good citizen, right??

no, murder should not be condoned.

However, it should not be classified murder if the "defendant" was initially the victim of a felony, regardless of the outcome.

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 08:36 AM
no, murder should not be condoned.

However, it should not be classified murder if the "defendant" was initially the victim of a felony, regardless of the outcome.


Hmmm. So if the defendant gets hit by a drunk driver, the circumstances of which give rise to a DUI, then the defendant should be able to murder the drunk driver?

OU Engineer
5/19/2011, 08:41 AM
Hmmm. So if the defendant gets hit by a drunk driver, the circumstances of which give rise to a DUI, then the defendant should be able to murder the drunk driver?

no legal background my @$$. you think like a lawyer and therefore I do not like you.

At the same time I must respect your trolling abilities.

Perhaps I should have stated "in this case"... does that appease you?

OUMallen
5/19/2011, 08:45 AM
no legal background my @$$. you think like a lawyer and therefore I do not like you.

At the same time I must respect your trolling abilities.

Perhaps I should have stated "in this case"... does that appease you?

No need to be an a-hole.

You should be thankful there are people out there thinking like lawyers. Keeps people safer than you would.

The Profit
5/19/2011, 09:02 AM
I don't know why people have a problem understanding that 2 completely different crimes can take place within minutes of each other.

Crime No. 1: Two kids (one armed, one not) go into a drug store after being coerced into doing so by two long-time loser criminals. One boy (the unarmed one) is shot (grazed in the temple) and rendered unconscious. The other boy runs out of the store. This is the end of crime No. 1. At this point, when the police arrive, the wounded boy is taken to the hospital and later transfered to jail. The other boy is found and apprehended. Both boys tell police the names of the hoods, who were the instigators, and all are convicted.

Crime No. 2: An unarmed robber comes into a pharmacy to commit robbery. He is immediately shot in the head with a grazing wound to the temple. This wound renders him unconscious. While the boy is laying on his back unconscious, the pharmacist, who has already unloaded one pistol at a fleeing robber, goes over to a drawer, picks up another pistol and empties 5 shells into the belly of the unarmed and unconscious 13 year old, which results in the death of the youngster. Then, almost immediately, the pharmacist begins creating a story to tell police. He says that he was grazed by a bullet. He wasn't. He even uses a knife to cut his skin, and tells authorities that this injury was caused by gunfire. It wasn't. He lies and tells authorities that the boy was trying to get up. Video evidence proves that to be untrue as well.

The boy was guilty in crime No.1. The pharmacist was guilty in crime No. 2.

Soonerwake
5/19/2011, 09:04 AM
Check my last post....

Maybe she deserves the money. If the store had had a Cop....maybe her dumbass kid wouldn't have robbed the place.

What a sad world we live in where pharmacies, in addition to banks, school dances, etc. have police presence in order to protect us.

Sounds to me like the kid made his bed, now he's lying in it..

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 09:30 AM
no legal background my @$$. you think like a lawyer and therefore I do not like you.

At the same time I must respect your trolling abilities.

Perhaps I should have stated "in this case"... does that appease you?


Bizarre post.


So you want to make an exception just for Jerome Ersland? I guess the court should say something along the lines of "Well, Jerome, you're probably guilty of murder, but because we feel sorry for you, we're going to make an exception here and just let you off"?

What about other criminals with good excuses?

soonercruiser
5/19/2011, 11:23 AM
So murder should be condoned, but only when the victim isn't a good citizen, right??

WE KILL INNOCENT BABIES who have done nothing to anyone, DON'T WE??? (50-55 million since Roe v. Wade)

So, why all the fuss?
:rolleyes:

The Profit
5/19/2011, 11:28 AM
WE KILL INNOCENT BABIES who have done nothing to anyone, DON'T WE??? (50-55 million since Roe v. Wade)

So, why all the fuss?
:rolleyes:




Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with this thread (surprise, surprise).

Howzit
5/19/2011, 11:28 AM
So murder should be condoned, but only when the victim isn't a good citizen, right??

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/MED/27/2768/D4JTD00Z/posters/charles-bronson.jpg

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 11:37 AM
WE KILL INNOCENT BABIES who have done nothing to anyone, DON'T WE??? (50-55 million since Roe v. Wade)

So, why all the fuss?
:rolleyes:


Wow.

MR2-Sooner86
5/19/2011, 11:39 AM
Some people are really getting upset and confused about this. Sand in the vaginas maybe?


So murder should be condoned, but only when the victim isn't a good citizen, right??

Here's the legal definition of murder.

The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.


First, the thief wasn't human. He somewhat looked and acted like one but obviously hasn't evolved enough to join the rest of us in society.

As for the justification or excuse, he was an oxygen thief which means he was committing a crime 24/7 365. The only punishment for such a crime is death. He could've also been booked on lack of critical thinking skills.

In the end, this thief's death is like your dog who gets rabies. Does it suck you have to shoot him? Yes but it has to be done. In the end it's just a dog compared to the safety of your family and yourself.

TheHumanAlphabet
5/19/2011, 11:50 AM
I don't care if someone comes into my place, whether home or business, with bad intent(and armed). They aren't walking out, they should have said everything to their maker before acting out that impulse.

+1 That's my rule. You in my abode without my permission. I will shoot to kill.

TheHumanAlphabet
5/19/2011, 11:52 AM
Well....yeah? DOH.

+1

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 11:56 AM
New law people. If you know someone who you believe is not a good citizen, go murder them. You won't get in trouble because murdering a bad citizen is sanctioned murder.

MR2-Sooner86
5/19/2011, 12:08 PM
New law people. If you know someone who you believe is not a good citizen, go murder them. You won't get in trouble because murdering a bad citizen is sanctioned murder.

You obviously don't read do you? Did I say bad citizen? No, I said un-evolved subhumans who can't join our society and steal oxygen from the rest of us.

Again, they're like rabid dogs. It sucks to shoot rabid dogs, especially if it's yours, but it must be done to keep our quality of life better. Does it suck it was an, almost human, kid? Yes but he obviously wasn't evolved enough to be with the rest of us and needed to be culled out.

olevetonahill
5/19/2011, 12:09 PM
New law people. If you know someone who you believe is not a good citizen, go murder them. You won't get in trouble because murdering a bad citizen is sanctioned murder.

http://www.indiamike.com/india/attachments/8763d1227258262-quality-of-life-on-19-000rs-month-trolls_feed.jpg

OULenexaman
5/19/2011, 12:12 PM
never seen so many....everywhere.

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 12:12 PM
I'm a troll because I'm stating what other posters dumb arguments are? I think you may be drunk, olev.

OU Engineer
5/19/2011, 12:15 PM
I'm a troll because I'm stating what other posters dumb arguments are? I think you may be drunk, olev.


In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

.

olevetonahill
5/19/2011, 12:18 PM
I'm a troll because I'm stating what other posters dumb arguments are? I think you may be drunk, olev.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_Photo/2005/10/05/1128517279_7563.jpg

jk the sooner fan
5/19/2011, 12:25 PM
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_Photo/2005/10/05/1128517279_7563.jpg

so you marinade your lunch meat in the OVJ?

olevetonahill
5/19/2011, 12:27 PM
so you marinade your lunch meat in the OVJ?

Dont do the OVJ anymore.

OULenexaman
5/19/2011, 12:39 PM
made with real crack......who needs the OVJ.

DIB
5/19/2011, 01:12 PM
Are all 13 yr old kids that are coerced by career criminals to rob a pharmacy unarmed considered subhuman, or just the black ones?

SoCaliSooner
5/19/2011, 01:14 PM
Are all 13 yr old kids that are coerced by career criminals to rob a pharmacy unarmed considered subhuman, or just the black ones?

Just the black ones. Duh.

SoonerHoops
5/19/2011, 01:44 PM
I'm sorry you disagree with my arguments that made you look foolish, Engineer. But that does not mean I made an argument in order to provoke an emotional response from you. Try again.

Midtowner
5/19/2011, 03:40 PM
So the best argument MR2 can come up with is that Antwun Parker wasn't human? Would it be presumptuous to play the race card at this point?

And from a WWJD standpoint, WWJD?

Jammin'
5/19/2011, 03:46 PM
So the best argument MR2 can come up with is that Antwun Parker wasn't human? Would it be presumptuous to play the race card at this point?

And from a WWJD standpoint, WWJD?

Ask him Saturday.

The Profit
5/19/2011, 04:01 PM
Ask him Saturday.




:D :D

Jacie
5/19/2011, 04:10 PM
WE KILL INNOCENT BABIES who have done nothing to anyone, DON'T WE??? (50-55 million since Roe v. Wade)

So, why all the fuss?
:rolleyes:

And crime rates actually went into decline about 20 years after this practice started . . . not that there could possibly be any link between the two.

The Profit
5/19/2011, 04:18 PM
And crime rates actually went into decline about 20 years after this practice started . . . not that there could possibly be any link between the two.




AHA!!! A Freakenomics reader. I loved that book.

OU_Sooners75
5/19/2011, 04:22 PM
How do we know it was bad parenting but instead bad choices for the individual that ended up dead?

When will people stop blaming the parents and start blaming those that did the deed or that was part of the problem directly?

okie52
5/19/2011, 04:27 PM
The pharmacist should be suing the mother for not aborting her kid.

The Profit
5/19/2011, 04:29 PM
The pharmacist should be suing the mother for not aborting her kid.





Interesting twist. You are tricky today.

Midtowner
5/19/2011, 04:31 PM
How do we know it was bad parenting but instead bad choices for the individual that ended up dead?

When will people stop blaming the parents and start blaming those that did the deed or that was part of the problem directly?

I blame the guy who actually chose to kill the kid.

If we're looking for who is most directly at fault, blame the guy who calmly walked into the store, stepped over the kid, ambled back to the drawer where he kept his other gun, gimped back over to the kid, and squeezed the trigger five more times.

Turd_Ferguson
5/19/2011, 04:34 PM
I blame the guy who actually chose to kill the kid.

If we're looking for who is most directly at fault, blame the guy who calmly walked into the store, stepped over the kid, ambled back to the drawer where he kept his other gun, gimped back over to the kid, and squeezed the trigger five more times.Holy crap! You were there??? Why didn't you say so in the first place....damn, I'm with you now...fry that bastard!

The Profit
5/19/2011, 04:36 PM
Holy crap! You were there??? Why didn't you say so in the first place....damn, I'm with you now...fry that bastard!




I knew you would come along eventually. Good debate does produce results. Welcome to the "Guilty" side.

OU_Sooners75
5/19/2011, 04:37 PM
I blame the guy who actually chose to kill the kid.

If we're looking for who is most directly at fault, blame the guy who calmly walked into the store, stepped over the kid, ambled back to the drawer where he kept his other gun, gimped back over to the kid, and squeezed the trigger five more times.

I am not saying it wasnt that guys fault...however, the OP suggests that the death is due to bad parenting...in which I say Bull****!

The guy should fry that killed the kid...but this is not a parenting issue like so many perfect parents or people without kids want to say when a young man or woman misbehaves or breaks the law.

okie52
5/19/2011, 04:44 PM
Interesting twist. You are tricky today.

Being away from the board for a while has its advantages.;)

Midtowner
5/19/2011, 04:44 PM
Holy crap! You were there??? Why didn't you say so in the first place....damn, I'm with you now...fry that bastard!

Watch the video.

DIB
5/19/2011, 04:47 PM
I am not saying it wasnt that guys fault...however, the OP suggests that the death is due to bad parenting...in which I say Bull****!

The guy should fry that killed the kid...but this is not a parenting issue like so many perfect parents or people without kids want to say when a young man or woman misbehaves or breaks the law.

That is a fair point, but the kid was 13. Where were his parents to keep him from hanging out with older criminals that coerced him into doing this in the first place. I'm not saying that the parents should be held legally responsible, but you have to wonder if this could would have made different choices if he had stronger role models.

OU_Sooners75
5/19/2011, 05:06 PM
That is a fair point, but the kid was 13. Where were his parents to keep him from hanging out with older criminals that coerced him into doing this in the first place. I'm not saying that the parents should be held legally responsible, but you have to wonder if this could would have made different choices if he had stronger role models.


Story I just read said he was 16, not 13.

You cannot blame the parents in all of this. Sure, the parents should be stronger role models for their children, but there is only so much parents can do when raising their kids that leads to the decisions the kid makes in life.

IMHO, the pharmacist should fry for what he done. He incapicated the kid and then went back to make sure he was dead. That to me is not justifable homocide.

MR2-Sooner86
5/19/2011, 05:56 PM
So the best argument MR2 can come up with is that Antwun Parker wasn't human?

Did I say that? No I said he was an un-evolved subhuman. Get your facts straight before you post.

That really isn't my best argument though. My best argument is that Antwun Parker was stealing oxygen and his death benefits the rest of us.

You see folks, some people are alive simply because it's illegal to kill them. We had to wait until those superior critical thinking skills of Antwun's went to work before action could be taken. Of course people will say, "he was only 13!" Yes, because a majority of 13 year olds help out in armed robbery so we should cut them some slack.

I know, "murder is wrong" or "can't we resolve it peacefully" are what some are spouting on here. The people who say this are pacifist or just don't have a backbone. They've been picked on their entire lives and never grew the balls to stand up for themselves so when they see somebody else do it, they get angry. They're angry because they see somebody acting with confidence, something they've never had.

As for taking him to court, I'm sure most tax payers would rather pay for his coffin than his jail cell.


Would it be presumptuous to play the race card at this point?

Ah the good ole race card, when somebody can't make any argument whatsoever so they fall back on something that gets used so much it borders on hysterical. Congratulations, your debate skills fall between Jesse Jackson's and a fifth grader's.

Makes me wonder who is really thinking about race when they throw that card out.

I know, it's my fault because I'm white and prosper from a system that takes advantage of blacks. It's my fault they were slaves, even though their own people started the practice, due to my ancestors and even when they were free they were oppressed. It's my fault they are so down on themselves that they can't take accountability and sunk into a culture of violence and drugs. It's my fault because I'm white and I oppressed blacks that they have no fathers or jobs. It's my fault, because I'm white, that blacks are in the state they are in today.

It's my fault, because I'm white, that Antwun Parker was born without a father. It's my fault, because I'm white, that his single mother couldn't watch him all the time and he fell in with the wrong group. It's my fault, because I'm white, that he walked into that store to rob it. It's my fault, because I'm white, that he died.

I've heard it all before from those with the guilty conscious who can't stand up for themselves. Keep it up though I could use the laugh.

Okla-homey
5/19/2011, 05:59 PM
Can we at least agree on the fact the pharmacist, while understandably angry and fed-up, executed that kid when he was lying bleeding on the floor and no longer a threat?

And that my friends, is why he was charged with murder. Murder (n): a homicide completed with malice aforethought.

See, he took the kid down. Then, he thought about it. And he went and got a different gun, and he executed him. <-----that = murder.

Turd_Ferguson
5/19/2011, 06:02 PM
Did I say that? No I said he was an un-evolved subhuman. Get your facts straight before you post.

That really isn't my best argument though. My best argument is that Antwun Parker was stealing oxygen and his death benefits the rest of us.

You see folks, some people are alive simply because it's illegal to kill them. We had to wait until those superior critical thinking skills of Antwun's went to work before action could be taken. Of course people will say, "he was only 13!" Yes, because a majority of 13 year olds help out in armed robbery so we should cut them some slack.

I know, "murder is wrong" or "can't we resolve it peacefully" are what some are spouting on here. The people who say this are pacifist or just don't have a backbone. They've been picked on their entire lives and never grew the balls to stand up for themselves so when they see somebody else do it, they get angry. They're angry because they see somebody acting with confidence, something they've never had.

As for taking him to court, I'm sure most tax payers would rather pay for his coffin than his jail cell.



Ah the good ole race card, when somebody can't make any argument whatsoever so they fall back on something that gets used so much it borders on hysterical. Congratulations, your debate skills fall between Jesse Jackson's and a fifth grader's.

Makes me wonder who is really thinking about race when they throw that card out.

I know, it's my fault because I'm white and prosper from a system that takes advantage of blacks. It's my fault they were slaves, even though their own people started the practice, due to my ancestors and even when they were free they were oppressed. It's my fault they are so down on themselves that they can't take accountability and sunk into a culture of violence and drugs. It's my fault because I'm white and I oppressed blacks that they have no fathers or jobs. It's my fault, because I'm white, that blacks are in the state they are in today.

It's my fault, because I'm white, that Antwun Parker was born without a father. It's my fault, because I'm white, that his single mother couldn't watch him all the time and he fell in with the wrong group. It's my fault, because I'm white, that he walked into that store to rob it. It's my fault, because I'm white, that he died.

I've heard it all before from those with the guilty conscious who can't stand up for themselves. Keep it up though I could use the laugh.I think that'll just about cover the fly by's...

http://loot-ninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/maverick07-500x351.jpg

OklaPony
5/19/2011, 06:36 PM
Finally, you admit yourself that Ersland went too far in killing the kid. The autopsy shows that if Ersland had not unloaded 5+ rounds into his abdomen, the kid would probably still be alive.
Probably.... hmmm, probably.


Can we at least agree on the fact the pharmacist, while understandably angry and fed-up, executed that kid when he was lying bleeding on the floor and no longer a threat?

And that my friends, is why he was charged with murder. Murder (n): a homicide completed with malice aforethought.

See, he took the kid down. Then, he thought about it. And he went and got a different gun, and he executed him. <-----that = murder.
I wonder if it's possible that Ersland, in the heat of the moment, realizing that he had merely injured the perp, was concerned that said perp may well regain enough gumption to become a threat yet again? I'm not saying he was right or wrong but if put in the same position and I had the opportunity to retrieve another weapon to finish the job, I'd probably do it. I'll bet most people would in fact do the same if put to the test.

It'll be interesting to see what the juries think of all this.

Sooner_Tuf
5/19/2011, 06:54 PM
Can we at least agree on the fact the pharmacist, while understandably angry and fed-up, executed that kid when he was lying bleeding on the floor and no longer a threat?



If we could agree on that there would be no debate now would there?

I don't agree that he executed the robber. Can we agree that he was defending himself, his store, his customers and his employees?

Maybe just maybe if the Pharmacist is at fault for this robbery can we agree to blame the Pharmacists parents?

I am at a total loss how anyone could think this guy isn't a hero. Would those of you that think he should have a security guard be happier if a guard shot the robber? Robbers should be shot. If enough of them get shot maybe they will quit robbing places and people.

Okla-homey
5/20/2011, 05:32 AM
Probably.... hmmm, probably.


I wonder if it's possible that Ersland, in the heat of the moment, realizing that he had merely injured the perp, was concerned that said perp may well regain enough gumption to become a threat yet again? I'm not saying he was right or wrong but if put in the same position and I had the opportunity to retrieve another weapon to finish the job, I'd probably do it. I'll bet most people would in fact do the same if put to the test.

It'll be interesting to see what the juries think of all this.

Two points:

1) In Oklahoma, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.
2) Your use of force in self-defense should not exceed the amount of force necessary to defeat the threat posed by another.

Therefore, "finishing-off" someone you've shot and disabled, particularly if he's horizontal on the floor and no longer moving, will most likely result in your being charged with murder...like the pharmacist. You may place your trust in the jury to acquit, but you know what? By the time that happens, if it happens, this pharmacist will have spent every dime he has, and probably signed over his home and cars, to his defense attorney.

Then, even if you are acquitted, now you're broke. And if there's anything left, you'll lose that defending the civil suit brought by the person you murdered's family.

But what do I know? I'm only a sleazy lawyer.

C&CDean
5/20/2011, 08:56 AM
Two points:

1) In Oklahoma, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.
2) Your use of force in self-defense should not exceed the amount of force necessary to defeat the threat posed by another.

Therefore, "finishing-off" someone you've shot and disabled, particularly if he's horizontal on the floor and no longer moving, will most likely result in your being charged with murder...like the pharmacist. You may place your trust in the jury to acquit, but you know what? By the time that happens, if it happens, this pharmacist will have spent every dime he has, and probably signed over his home and cars, to his defense attorney.

Then, even if you are acquitted, now you're broke. And if there's anything left, you'll lose that defending the civil suit brought by the person you murdered's family.

But what do I know? I'm only a sleazy lawyer.

So, what you're saying is that no matter what, the lawyer always wins.:P

The Profit
5/20/2011, 09:12 AM
Two points:

1) In Oklahoma, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.
2) Your use of force in self-defense should not exceed the amount of force necessary to defeat the threat posed by another.

Therefore, "finishing-off" someone you've shot and disabled, particularly if he's horizontal on the floor and no longer moving, will most likely result in your being charged with murder...like the pharmacist. You may place your trust in the jury to acquit, but you know what? By the time that happens, if it happens, this pharmacist will have spent every dime he has, and probably signed over his home and cars, to his defense attorney.

Then, even if you are acquitted, now you're broke. And if there's anything left, you'll lose that defending the civil suit brought by the person you murdered's family.

But what do I know? I'm only a sleazy lawyer.




I've always said that I would take a sleazy lawyer over a sleazy doctor any day. One of them may kill you financially, but the other one kills you literally.

OUMallen
5/20/2011, 09:42 AM
So, what you're saying is that no matter what, the lawyer always wins.:P

YES.

/thread

yermom
5/20/2011, 10:52 AM
what you lawyerin' types fail to understand is that most people don't care what the law is.

it's hard to shed a tear for Little Johnny Armed Robbery Accomplice.

StoopTroup
5/20/2011, 10:54 AM
I guess it all depends on what the judge will allow in court as evidence.

It could be possible that the Pharmacy will just offer the gal some money to go away too.

The Profit
5/20/2011, 10:56 AM
what you lawyerin' types fail to understand is that most people don't care what the law is.

it's hard to shed a tear for Little Johnny Armed Robbery Accomplice.



And some people don't care if the lying and murdering pharmacist loses everything he ever owned....just saying.

StoopTroup
5/20/2011, 10:58 AM
I think it would be cool if the Prison System just gave money to Pharmacists Legal Team after they had torched these little bastards when they rob them as a way to save us the Tax payers costs.

Wonder....is that possible?

StoopTroup
5/20/2011, 11:03 AM
Aren't these kids who rob Pharmacies really terrorists who are trying to fund their illegal activities? Can't the Homeland Security folks step in to help?

StoopTroup
5/20/2011, 11:05 AM
I know if I was a Pharmacist....I wouldn't work in any place that didn't have a panic room and was protected. These idiots anymore will shoot you...leave you for dead and then later get caught because there were 1000 pictures of them robbing it. You'll still be dead though.

Junkies aren't really very smart.

olevetonahill
5/20/2011, 11:12 AM
You can donate to his defense fund HERE :cool:
http://jeromeersland.org/

The Profit
5/20/2011, 11:15 AM
You can donate to his defense fund HERE :cool:
http://jeromeersland.org/




Vet, that site is sickening. What made this POS a hero. Also, the flag behind him is a little much. I hope someone figures out how to hack into his site and steal his defense money.

StoopTroup
5/20/2011, 11:20 AM
Vet, that site is sickening. What made this POS a hero. Also, the flag behind him is a little much. I hope someone figures out how to hack into his site and steal his defense money.

No ****....that man trap they had was a way for him to coax people to come in and kill people...

He's completely an obvious murderer....

Good call Profit.

The Profit
5/20/2011, 11:22 AM
No ****....that man trap they had was a way for him to coax people to come in and kill people...

He's completely an obvious murderer....

Good call Profit.




Excactly!! Thanks ST

olevetonahill
5/20/2011, 11:34 AM
Vet, that site is sickening. What made this POS a hero. Also, the flag behind him is a little much. I hope someone figures out how to hack into his site and steal his defense money.

So I guess you aint gonna donate huh?

Lets see tho Ya kill some one whos trying to rob you and yer a murdering sleaze bag, Right?

But its OK in YHO to Hack sites and steal. Gotcha :rolleyes:

badger
5/20/2011, 11:37 AM
You could start a jeromeersland.com and have fun with that if the domain's available.

Or, just roll your eyes. Whatever money this guy has ever had is gone. He got the enjoyment of shooting an attempted robber repeatedly out of the situation. I bet he has realized how wrong he was and how NOT WORTH IT it was by now. Even if he though he was right at the time, ever since then, with the attorneys and the days in court and the expenses, he can't be feeling too good about his actions anymore.

Even if he does get a 'not guilty' verdict, he is probably not going to be able to find another job, he is probably going to have even more legal fees from a wrongful death lawsuit so... meh.

The Profit
5/20/2011, 11:37 AM
So I guess you aint gonna donate huh?

Lets see tho Ya kill some one whos trying to rob you and yer a murdering sleaze bag, Right?

But its OK in YHO to Hack sites and steal. Gotcha :rolleyes:




I see no problem with stealing from a murderer.

olevetonahill
5/20/2011, 11:42 AM
I see no problem with stealing from a murderer.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4651713926_7e604dd3eb.jpg

soonerhubs
5/20/2011, 11:43 AM
... And around we go!

OU Engineer
5/20/2011, 12:06 PM
So, what you're saying is that no matter what, the lawyer always wins.:P

hence why I dislike lawyers.

StoopTroup
5/20/2011, 01:08 PM
Even if he does get a 'not guilty' verdict, he is probably not going to be able to find another job, he is probably going to have even more legal fees from a wrongful death lawsuit so... meh.

I wonder why Reliable hasn't fired this scumbag?

The Profit
5/20/2011, 01:15 PM
I wonder why Reliable hasn't fired this scumbag?



You know the old saying...."even bad publicity is better than no publicity at all."

Sooner_Tuf
5/20/2011, 01:50 PM
I made a donation and I made it in Profit's name.

Sooner_Tuf
5/20/2011, 01:52 PM
Two points:

1) In Oklahoma, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.
2) Your use of force in self-defense should not exceed the amount of force necessary to defeat the threat posed by another.

Therefore, "finishing-off" someone you've shot and disabled, particularly if he's horizontal on the floor and no longer moving, will most likely result in your being charged with murder...like the pharmacist. You may place your trust in the jury to acquit, but you know what? By the time that happens, if it happens, this pharmacist will have spent every dime he has, and probably signed over his home and cars, to his defense attorney.

Then, even if you are acquitted, now you're broke. And if there's anything left, you'll lose that defending the civil suit brought by the person you murdered's family.

But what do I know? I'm only a sleazy lawyer.

You scared me there for a second, I thought I had been doing it wrong. But then I saw this.

http://www.newson6.com/story/14511180/oklahomas-make-my-day-law-expands-to-businesses

The Profit
5/20/2011, 01:55 PM
I made a donation and I made it in Profit's name.




That's okay. When I hack the account, I will get it back tenfold.

badger
5/20/2011, 01:57 PM
I wonder why Reliable hasn't fired this scumbag?

That's true --- I know they had him still working and having a collection jar in one of those NewsOK.com videos. Perhaps he's friend with the owner, or related to him?

To clarify, I doubt another place hires him with this on his work history. It would admirable if the pharmacy he currently works keeps him employed, considering this incident.

Okla-homey
5/20/2011, 06:37 PM
So, what you're saying is that no matter what, the lawyer always wins.:P

Only because people do stupid shiite. Then, we get called in to fix it. And that costs money.

It's kinda like dumarses who don't bother getting a concealed carry permit and carry anyway. What they don't "get" is the fact that CCP holders, under Oklahoma law, are presumed to be acting in self-defense when they shoot an intruder or a mugger on the street. That "presumption" is a powerful thing. It means the evidence burden shifts and the prosecutor must prove you were NOT acting in self-defense. OTOH, non CCP holder who shoot a guy must prove they WERE acting in self-defense. Trust me on this, that presumption in favor of the CCP is frickin' HUGE. That's why this lawyer would advise anyone who thinks they might someday pop a cap in a perp get a CCP.

soonercoop1
5/20/2011, 06:48 PM
Article (http://www.news9.com/story/14670426/mother-of-teen-killed-during-robbery-suing-okc-pharmacist)



Maybe the first time.

the mother suing is her taking the best of a bad situation. Its amazing how bad parenting is gonna possibly pay off for her.

Ive seen the video, the clerk was ok to shoot first, but not the other five times. What do you guys think?

You rob someone with a gun and you reap the consequences...another frivolous suit...

Okla-homey
5/20/2011, 06:51 PM
You rob someone with a gun and you reap the consequences...another frivolous suit...

That ain't the law in Oklahoma. You execute ANYONE who is lying defenseless on the floor in a pool of their own blood you caused to leak, and you'll be paying $$$...while getting BF'ed in Big Mac on your criminal conviction.

soonercoop1
5/20/2011, 06:55 PM
That ain't the law in Oklahoma. You execute ANYONE who is lying defenseless on the floor in a pool of their own blood you caused to leak, and you'll be paying $$$...while getting BF'ed in Big Mac on your criminal conviction.

Didn't look like execution to me just self-defense...put me on the jury...:D

SoonerHoops
5/20/2011, 09:14 PM
You rob someone with a gun and you reap the consequences...another frivolous suit...


I think you need to learn the definition of frivolous....

SoonerHoops
5/20/2011, 09:23 PM
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=25841


Testimony under questioning by Prater: She was in her front yard removing an old boat from her yard (by order of the city). She witnessed Ersland fire three shots outside the pharmacy in pursuit of Ingram. She stated that Ingram was running away and not returning fire or pointing a weapon at Ersland. She stated her son was in the direct line of fire of Ersland's gun. Her and her son had to take cover. Ingram ran through a vacant lot but was unable to get over a fence. Ingram then got into a vehicle. Vehicle was not at the end of the pharmacy building or near it [Ersland claimed he came into contact with the getaway vehicle at the edge of the pharmacy and one occupant produced a shotgun].


Witness testified that her mother buzzed Ingram and Parker into the pharmacy. She said she heard one say, "I'm going to shoot your ***!" She stated there were multiple guns kept in the pharmacy, including a shotgun and 1-2 pistols. She testified she & her mother retreated to the back room. She stated that Ersland did not come looking for them after the shooting. She testified she never heard any voices after Ersland returned, produced a second gun and shot Parker 5 more times. (meaning Parker was not saying anything to Ersland - threatening or otherwise - even though Ersland had stated the opposite)



The judge just accused defense attorneys of trying to harpoon the jury and said they have one more chance to follow the rules.



UPDATE: apparently the recess with the judge and attorneys was to tell them there is a security alert. Deputies then scanned the public seating areas visually and are walking each floor looking for an individual.

soonercoop1
5/21/2011, 07:26 AM
I think you need to learn the definition of frivolous....

:D

okie52
5/21/2011, 03:00 PM
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=25841


My impression after the first day is that the prosecution was much better at presenting their information - it flowed well, was easy to understand, Prater was likable and very few objections from the defense.

The defense started off really bad with their opening. However, it got much better. Irvin was good at attacking the prosecution fearlessly. His son Jeff did very well at picking prosecution witnesses apart and exposing their weaknesses in their testimony.

After day one, I still feel Ersland technically broke the law and should be punished. But, I'm not convinced the jury would find him guilty at this point. So far the jury has exactly what I think they will desperately want - any excuse to find reasonable doubt.

The ME's testimony will really mean alot.

Noticed two jurors (one man and one woman) nodding off during the last couple of witnesses.



.