I leave it to you, our readers, to discuss - was it wrong to shoot someone who no longer posed a threat, and who may not have been armed in the first place? Does the Castle doctrine apply? Was Ersland in the wrong to pursue one of the suspects outside the store, instead of allowing him to retreat?
Have at it! Here is the link to the video, if this doesn't play for you.
From MSNBC:
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'
An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.
Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.
Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."
A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.
Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.
Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.
Please don't give up hope'
Thousands of Ersland's supporters have reportedly signed petitions pushing Gov. Mary Fallin to pardon the pharmacist, or ease his sentence.
Video: Was it murder or self-defense? (on this page)
"Please people, don't give up hope. We got 17,000 signatures in a month," Ersland's friend and activist Karen Monahan told KOCO.
Monahan told the station she is selling T-shirts and collecting signatures to help save the life of her good friend.
"The last time I talked to him (Ersland), he was over-excited. He's getting letters (of support) from people he doesn't even know," Monahan reportedly said.
The whole concept of the castle doctrine law is to change the doctrine of self-defence so that it becomes easier for one to use deadly force. Normally, self-defence only allows the amount of force reasonable to stop the threat. reasonbable being a question for the trier of fact since the defendant would say the force was reasonable.
ReplyDeleteAs I point out, any excessive force turns the defender to the aggressor and removes the claim of self-defence. The use of deadly force against an unarmed aggressor could lead to the person who uses that force to be prosecuted.
That would cause hesitance in those who can think in the advisability of using a firearm for self-defence purposes since they could end up being "judged by 12" with the results being unfavourable.
Personally, I find these laws repugnant and hypocritical coming from those who claim to believe in the santity of life and to respect the constitution, which includes the right of due process for criminals.
Here's another talker for your consideration ...
ReplyDeleteBlake Schritter, a constituent services representative for Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and a rising Republican activist in Arizona, has resigned.
Gosar's district neighbors Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and in May, Schritter opened a Twitter account named "drunkenbs".
His tweets got him in trouble ... such as :
"The Rep. Weiner Twitter scandal is all over the news. Note to self: when in politics, never shag and shout."
"The line at the post office is moving at a glacial pace. I'm ready to open fire with a handgun to get some damn service!"
"I can't believe how unprofessional liberal professors can be. I'm sitting here, cleaning my gun, thinking...this is a classroom!!!" (Schritter studies criminology in graduate school.)"
FYI : Arizona has "conceal and carry" laws, so it is not unusual for a resident to carry a weapon .... but in April, Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) vetoed a bill to allow guns on campuses.
So, here's the question, should Minnesota deny the right for licensed gun-owners to carry on college campuses ? (Tony Cornish R-24-B) has authored legislation to allow guns on Minnesota campuses ... which would mean that Minnesota would join Texas)
It was my impression that in those states where it was proposed to allow guns to be conceal carried, that the educational institutions objected, on the grounds that to do so was going to raise the cost of their insurance impossibly high.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/guns-texas/guns-on-campus-could-cost-colleges/
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/concealed-handgun-law/wentworth-gets-a-win-for-campus-carry/
If this becomes prohibitively expensive, I don't see it continuing.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/04/08/20110408xgr-guns0408.html
ReplyDeleteSo much for the fiscal conservatives caring about what things cost, or spending priorities; that's a joke.
This was a recent NRA failure due in part to past gun violence.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/09/2106830/no-guns-on-college-campus-say.html