Pharmacist gets life for killing unarmed robber

[Scimmia]

Sponsored Links

Originally Posted by bigfatdave

He saw: someone who only MOMENTS BEFORE was participating in an armed robbery and was stopped from forcing his way behind the counter move ... at which point he shot to stop again.

No, he didn't shoot at that point. He calmly walked past him, turned his back to him, retrieved another gun, walked over (not ran), bent over, and shot him again. Not the actions of someone who feels threatened.

Originally Posted by bigfatdave

So YOU know exactly how the guy on the floor was moving now?

Prove to me, with actual evidence, that the dirtbag on the floor wasn't moving in any way that could be construed as a reach for a weapon and I might agree with you.

The only actual evidence anyone can offer here is the testimony of the ME, who said the first shot knocked him unconscious. Beyond that, see my answer to your earlier post.

Originally Posted by jare-3

OK, now you're just twisting words. I said that the thug who planned the robbery is ultimately to blame.

I agree, and the two adults who planned the robbery and were waiting in the getaway car were convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life as well. That doesn't absolve Ersland for responsibility for his own actions.

[Milspec]

It's clear that shooting the kid again wasn't necessary but we don't know what was going through the guy's mind when he fired. Fight or flight is instinctive and once the decision is made it's not always an easy thing to turn off. Just because the guy looks calm and rational on the video doesn't mean he understood his actions were wrong at that particular time...even if he does now.

But to me that's almost beside the point. When career criminals are released to reduce prison overcrowding is the public really served by putting this guy away for life? Is he likely to go out on a killing spree if he were sent home on probation with 10,000 hours of community service? What if that crew had picked a different store to rob? Would he have started shooting random kids anyway? Or is he a decent guy who went too far after he and his customers were threatened with death? Hopefully the parole board will consider some of these questions before the real criminals he's locked in with decide to get some payback.

[blue ridge reef]

Very well said. I get why justice is to be blind, but I've always felt that the threat someone poses to society should at least be some factor into sentencing. Do a child molester search in your area sometime and look at all the pervs who are paroled. I have six in my neighborhood. Meanwhile the guy down the block caught growing weed a couple years back is still locked away, as far as I know. I'm not making a statement one way or the other on marijuana, but for God's sakes, I think he's less likely to screw up in a way that has any impact than a guy whose wiring is so wrong he's sexually attracted to children. And I don't buy the "build more prisons" argument. There are crimes that are worthy of locking someone in a cage for and there are crimes that are not. I'm not 100% sure I'd feel the way Milspec does if someone in my family was the victim, but I also don't expect them to commit robbery. And getting shot had better be considered a very real possibility when you do that act.

[jamil]

Imprisonment isn't just to protect society. It's also punishment. The kid that participated in the armed robery didn't commit a capitol offense yet Ersland sentanced him to death after his own defense was no longer in question.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ersland was justified in his initial action. And if that first shot would have killed the perp we wouldn't be discussing this. But those who heard all the evidence both sides presented believed he went beyond self defence with his subsequent actions. And he'll now have to pay the price that 1st degee murder bears.

[jonm61]

Originally Posted by jare-3

Most likely not, but 1st Degree Murder? I think someone is trying to make an example of Mr. Ersland. But hey, that is only my opinion.

If I were Mr. Ersland, I'd appeal and get a new defense attorney.

The jury was given a choice of charges and chose to find him guilty of 1st degree murder.

Originally Posted by MGMike

How do we know that he wasn't already dead from the first shot?

Originally Posted by bigfatdave

unless there was compelling evidence showing that there was no possible percieved threat from the dirtbag on the ground, Ersland has room to appeal.

Originally Posted by bigfatdave

Prove to me, with actual evidence, that the dirtbag on the floor wasn't moving in any way that could be construed as a reach for a weapon and I might agree with you.

Testimony from the ME and from witnesses said the kid was unconcious when he was shot the 2nd time. The first round grazed his head. From everything that's been written about what came out during the trial, there was no question that the kid was unconcious and was not a threat.

It's too bad there wasn't a better camera angle. That would've absolutely resolved any question.

Personally, I don't think I would've gone for 1st degree murder. 2nd at most, manslaughter at least. And remember, this is a fairly gun friendly state. If this had been someplace like NY or CA, it wouldn't have taken the jury nearly as long to find him guilty and put him away for life without parole, only because they don't believe in the death penalty.