Mother Of Teen Killed During Robbery Suing OKC Pharmacist

Article

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

+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?!?!?!

 

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

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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?

 

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

 

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.

 

Wisdom.