Oklahoma Nesties
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email [email protected]theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Verdict on Pharmacist

What do you think? [Poll]

Re: Verdict on Pharmacist

  • I haven't watched any of the recent coverage of the trial, so my knowledge is based on when the story first came out. I think life in prison is WAY too harsh. Those kids were the ones who came in shooting (right, they shot first?) He did some questionable things (like continuing to shoot him once he was down), but who knows what any of us would do in the same situation.
  • I think a life sentence is too harsh. The kid put himself in the situation. Although, I do think he deserves some time in jail. The way he shot the kid, went to the back, came out and shot him again was just too much. If he wouldn't have come back and shot him again then I think it would be different.

    Kaylee & Cole 06.14.08

    8/6/11 First 5k! OG&E Expo Run 34:47
    9/3/11 Brookhaven Run 5k 34:18
    9/17/11 Healthy Sooners Fun Run 5k 33:38
    10/15/11 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure 33:31
    10/29/11 Monster Dash 5k 32:06 PR!
    11/11/11 Veteran's Day Run 11k in Dallas 1:13:15 Instant PR!
    1/28/12 Texas Half Marathon 2:38:03 Instant PR!
    3/25/12 Earlywine Dash
  • I can't really seem to write a cohesive paragraph about this, so some bullet points:

    • From what I understand, the robbers didn't shoot first. One of them had a gun, but not the kid who was shot.
    • I agree with a guilty verdict. Maybe first degree murder was too harsh, but then again, the jurors heard/saw all the evidence and get to decide that, not me.
    • "The kid put himself in the situation" (paraphrasing here) rubs me the wrong way. He was pressured to perform a robbery by two older men, was unarmed, and was already unconsciuos when Ersland came back and shot him point-blank FIVE more times.
    • The outrage I have seen on twitter and FB about the guilty verdict scares me a bit, honestly.
    • The comments in the newsok.com article about this have me weeping for humanity.
  • There were a lot of other things Ersland did, after the event happened, that were quite shady. He changed his story multiple times, including once where he said the kids came in, guns a-blazin', which was obviously wrong according to the security monitor. He wasn't a stable person before the attempted robbery, according to what I've read about him. Of course, none of this really has anything to do with the verdict, but it definitely made it a lot harder for Box to defend him.

    I was actually quite surprised that the jury voted this way, and so quickly. I have seen so many people say that Ersland was a "hero" for what he did. 

    [IMG]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff75/pltollison/raptor.jpg[/IMG]
  • image fuzzylogic:

    There were a lot of other things Ersland did, after the event happened, that were quite shady. He changed his story multiple times, including once where he said the kids came in, guns a-blazin', which was obviously wrong according to the security monitor. He wasn't a stable person before the attempted robbery, according to what I've read about him. Of course, none of this really has anything to do with the verdict, but it definitely made it a lot harder for Box to defend him.

    I was actually quite surprised that the jury voted this way, and so quickly. I have seen so many people say that Ersland was a "hero" for what he did. 

    I was shocked. Pleased, but shocked.

  • image oklagirl:

    "The kid put himself in the situation" (paraphrasing here) rubs me the wrong way. He was pressured to perform a robbery by two older men, was unarmed, and was already unconsciuos when Ersland came back and shot him point-blank FIVE more times.

    Yeah, maybe that wasn't the best way to word it. What I mean is that the boy should have known the potential risks involved. It is horribly sad that he was shot and killed (especially since most of what Ersland did was unnecessary) and I don't think he deserved to be killed, but the boy had to have known there would be a chance that he would be shot.


    Kaylee & Cole 06.14.08

    8/6/11 First 5k! OG&E Expo Run 34:47
    9/3/11 Brookhaven Run 5k 34:18
    9/17/11 Healthy Sooners Fun Run 5k 33:38
    10/15/11 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure 33:31
    10/29/11 Monster Dash 5k 32:06 PR!
    11/11/11 Veteran's Day Run 11k in Dallas 1:13:15 Instant PR!
    1/28/12 Texas Half Marathon 2:38:03 Instant PR!
    3/25/12 Earlywine Dash
  • I'm sure he knew that he could be shot or killed. Teenagers, however, have this inexplicable ability to not actually think that these things can really happen to them. It's always the other guy that gets shot. The other guy that gets killed.

    I believe murder 1 was the only thing on the table? It was either that or nothing, if I understand correctly. The jury had to decide whether or not Ersland's actions, after taking the kid down, were pre-meditated. 

    [IMG]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff75/pltollison/raptor.jpg[/IMG]
  • image fuzzylogic:

    I'm sure he knew that he could be shot or killed. Teenagers, however, have this inexplicable ability to not actually think that these things can really happen to them. It's always the other guy that gets shot. The other guy that gets killed.

    I agree, but I think all people, not just teenagers, are like this. For example, the tornadoes. You see the destroyed houses on TV and you never actually think that'll happen to you.


    Kaylee & Cole 06.14.08

    8/6/11 First 5k! OG&E Expo Run 34:47
    9/3/11 Brookhaven Run 5k 34:18
    9/17/11 Healthy Sooners Fun Run 5k 33:38
    10/15/11 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure 33:31
    10/29/11 Monster Dash 5k 32:06 PR!
    11/11/11 Veteran's Day Run 11k in Dallas 1:13:15 Instant PR!
    1/28/12 Texas Half Marathon 2:38:03 Instant PR!
    3/25/12 Earlywine Dash
  • I agree with the poster in the FFFC thread about the accountability of Speedy's mom in this case. If your kids are running around in a bad crowd, what are you doing as a parent to stop it?  How are you instilling a sense of right and wrong in your own kids?  I just have to wonder. 

    A lot of people often say that so and so was a good kid who got caught up in a bad crowd.  I also wonder what constitutes a good kid these days.  What distinguishes the good kids who rob stores and hang with thugs versus good kids who study hard, excel in school and volunteer?  Most everyone starts off as a good kid, but there's a distinction between kids who work hard at being a good person and having a good future and those who don't. 

  • I am shocked.  Manslaughter seemed like the better choice but for some reason that wasn't even a choice, which I do not comprehend. I agree the pharmacist made some bad decisions in not being completely honest about his past etc - but that does not change the fact that two men woke up that day and decided to rob the place.  Hindsight is 20/20 - we know NOW that the victim did not have a gun but one of the men did have a gun and the victim did act as if he had a gun.  First degree murder is premediated - this is not premediated.  The pharmacist did not wake up that day and decide to nail someone and two minutes prior to the robbery happening he did not have a plan to nail someone.  You ambush a person's place of business like that - you HAVE to know there are consequences.  I don't care how old you are - 16 or 50 - there are consequences.  And we *all*, regardless of our age - have the mindset of "it won't happen to me."  This is NOT a teenager mindset - this is human mindset.

    As far as the prosecutor - I only know what I read on newsok.com but these are my thoughts: What is human nature in that situation?  Being in that situation is not human nature and until you are in a situation like that, you have no idea how you will react.  It is easy to criticize the pharmacist's decisions NOW - but until you are in that situation - I don't think you have a right to judge or critique the pharmacist's decisions in that 45 seconds.

    Even worse - the second man who survived the robbery will be let out of juvi when he is 19.  That sickens me.

    Even worse worse - the mama of the man that died has a civil suit against the pharmacist and will now most likely win.  Her son robbed a pharmacy and got shot and she thinks she is entitled to compensation?

  • image stripesandspots:

    I am shocked.  Manslaughter seemed like the better choice but for some reason that wasn't even a choice, which I do not comprehend. I agree the pharmacist made some bad decisions in not being completely honest about his past etc - but that does not change the fact that two men woke up that day and decided to rob the place.  Hindsight is 20/20 - we know NOW that the victim did not have a gun but one of the men did have a gun and the victim did act as if he had a gun.  First degree murder is premediated - this is not premediated.  The pharmacist did not wake up that day and decide to nail someone and two minutes prior to the robbery happening he did not have a plan to nail someone.  You ambush a person's place of business like that - you HAVE to know there are consequences.  I don't care how old you are - 16 or 50 - there are consequences.  And we *all*, regardless of our age - have the mindset of "it won't happen to me."  This is NOT a teenager mindset - this is human mindset.

    As far as the prosecutor - I only know what I read on newsok.com but these are my thoughts: What is human nature in that situation?  Being in that situation is not human nature and until you are in a situation like that, you have no idea how you will react.  It is easy to criticize the pharmacist's decisions NOW - but until you are in that situation - I don't think you have a right to judge or critique the pharmacist's decisions in that 45 seconds.

    Even worse - the second man who survived the robbery will be let out of juvi when he is 19.  That sickens me.

    Even worse worse - the mama of the man that died has a civil suit against the pharmacist and will now most likely win.  Her son robbed a pharmacy and got shot and she thinks she is entitled to compensation?

    I really don't understand why she thinks she's entitled to some kind of compensation when her kid is the one that committed a crime, that just really blows my mind.

    I totally agree with everything you said, No one knows how they would react in that sort of situation until they are in that situation. With that being said, I think he should do some jail time but I think a life sentence is very harsh. Like a PP said,  no one wins in this situation and the whole thing is just really sad.

    [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/5fq6vl.jpg[/IMG]
    My Girls




    <a href="http://www.thebump.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Baby Names"><img src="http://global.thebump.com/tickers/tt15b9c4.aspx" alt=" Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker" border="0" /></a>

    06/10 [email protected] 10 weeks: 03/11 mc @ 8 weeks due to blighted ovum.
  • image stripesandspots:

    I am shocked.  Manslaughter seemed like the better choice but for some reason that wasn't even a choice, which I do not comprehend. I agree the pharmacist made some bad decisions in not being completely honest about his past etc - but that does not change the fact that two men woke up that day and decided to rob the place.  Hindsight is 20/20 - we know NOW that the victim did not have a gun but one of the men did have a gun and the victim did act as if he had a gun.  First degree murder is premediated - this is not premediated.  The pharmacist did not wake up that day and decide to nail someone and two minutes prior to the robbery happening he did not have a plan to nail someone.  You ambush a person's place of business like that - you HAVE to know there are consequences.  I don't care how old you are - 16 or 50 - there are consequences.  And we *all*, regardless of our age - have the mindset of "it won't happen to me."  This is NOT a teenager mindset - this is human mindset.

    As far as the prosecutor - I only know what I read on newsok.com but these are my thoughts: What is human nature in that situation?  Being in that situation is not human nature and until you are in a situation like that, you have no idea how you will react.  It is easy to criticize the pharmacist's decisions NOW - but until you are in that situation - I don't think you have a right to judge or critique the pharmacist's decisions in that 45 seconds.

    Even worse - the second man who survived the robbery will be let out of juvi when he is 19.  That sickens me.

    Even worse worse - the mama of the man that died has a civil suit against the pharmacist and will now most likely win.  Her son robbed a pharmacy and got shot and she thinks she is entitled to compensation?

    YesYes
    Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I would almost bet that the second man will go on to commit future crimes/robberies when he's out of juvi.  

    As for the bolded part---just ridiculous.  Why she thinks she's entitled to anything baffles me.
  • image iluvchris27:
    image stripesandspots:

    I am shocked.  Manslaughter seemed like the better choice but for some reason that wasn't even a choice, which I do not comprehend. I agree the pharmacist made some bad decisions in not being completely honest about his past etc - but that does not change the fact that two men woke up that day and decided to rob the place.  Hindsight is 20/20 - we know NOW that the victim did not have a gun but one of the men did have a gun and the victim did act as if he had a gun.  First degree murder is premediated - this is not premediated.  The pharmacist did not wake up that day and decide to nail someone and two minutes prior to the robbery happening he did not have a plan to nail someone.  You ambush a person's place of business like that - you HAVE to know there are consequences.  I don't care how old you are - 16 or 50 - there are consequences.  And we *all*, regardless of our age - have the mindset of "it won't happen to me."  This is NOT a teenager mindset - this is human mindset.

    As far as the prosecutor - I only know what I read on newsok.com but these are my thoughts: What is human nature in that situation?  Being in that situation is not human nature and until you are in a situation like that, you have no idea how you will react.  It is easy to criticize the pharmacist's decisions NOW - but until you are in that situation - I don't think you have a right to judge or critique the pharmacist's decisions in that 45 seconds.

    Even worse - the second man who survived the robbery will be let out of juvi when he is 19.  That sickens me.

    Even worse worse - the mama of the man that died has a civil suit against the pharmacist and will now most likely win.  Her son robbed a pharmacy and got shot and she thinks she is entitled to compensation?

    I really don't understand why she thinks she's entitled to some kind of compensation when her kid is the one that committed a crime, that just really blows my mind.

    I totally agree with everything you said, No one knows how they would react in that sort of situation until they are in that situation. With that being said, I think he should do some jail time but I think a life sentence is very harsh. Like a PP said,  no one wins in this situation and the whole thing is just really sad.

    I agree with these statements. 

    I think it's tragic that a kid was killed, and I think Ersland was very wrong to shoot him multiple times after he was down, but what it boils down to for me is that Ersland was minding his own business in his pharmacy, two guys walk in to rob his store, he defends himself and he ultimately gets life in prison. 

    You can argue that he did more than "defend himself," and you'd be justified, but I don't think he woke up that day and thought, "I think I'll kill a teenager." I think the guy could be unstable or maybe violent, but I don't think he's a premeditated murderer. 

    Those kids made a conscious decision to hurt someone that day, whether it was by shooting or robbing. I don't think Ersland is a hero by any means, but none of us know how we'd react in that situation.

  • image stripesandspots:

    Even worse worse - the mama of the man that died has a civil suit against the pharmacist and will now most likely win.  Her son robbed a pharmacy and got shot and she thinks she is entitled to compensation?

    I had not heard about this. That just makes me sick that someone like her wants to profit off of her son's death when HE was the perp!  I don't see how she would be entitled to much if she does win a civil suit considering Ersland could be in bars the rest of his life and I'm sure his attorneys have soaked up everything else he's got. 

  • image speedysari:
    image iluvchris27:
    image stripesandspots:

    I am shocked.  Manslaughter seemed like the better choice but for some reason that wasn't even a choice, which I do not comprehend. I agree the pharmacist made some bad decisions in not being completely honest about his past etc - but that does not change the fact that two men woke up that day and decided to rob the place.  Hindsight is 20/20 - we know NOW that the victim did not have a gun but one of the men did have a gun and the victim did act as if he had a gun.  First degree murder is premediated - this is not premediated.  The pharmacist did not wake up that day and decide to nail someone and two minutes prior to the robbery happening he did not have a plan to nail someone.  You ambush a person's place of business like that - you HAVE to know there are consequences.  I don't care how old you are - 16 or 50 - there are consequences.  And we *all*, regardless of our age - have the mindset of "it won't happen to me."  This is NOT a teenager mindset - this is human mindset.

    As far as the prosecutor - I only know what I read on newsok.com but these are my thoughts: What is human nature in that situation?  Being in that situation is not human nature and until you are in a situation like that, you have no idea how you will react.  It is easy to criticize the pharmacist's decisions NOW - but until you are in that situation - I don't think you have a right to judge or critique the pharmacist's decisions in that 45 seconds.

    Even worse - the second man who survived the robbery will be let out of juvi when he is 19.  That sickens me.

    Even worse worse - the mama of the man that died has a civil suit against the pharmacist and will now most likely win.  Her son robbed a pharmacy and got shot and she thinks she is entitled to compensation?

    I really don't understand why she thinks she's entitled to some kind of compensation when her kid is the one that committed a crime, that just really blows my mind.

    I totally agree with everything you said, No one knows how they would react in that sort of situation until they are in that situation. With that being said, I think he should do some jail time but I think a life sentence is very harsh. Like a PP said,  no one wins in this situation and the whole thing is just really sad.

    I agree with these statements. 

    I think it's tragic that a kid was killed, and I think Ersland was very wrong to shoot him multiple times after he was down, but what it boils down to for me is that Ersland was minding his own business in his pharmacy, two guys walk in to rob his store, he defends himself and he ultimately gets life in prison. 

    You can argue that he did more than "defend himself," and you'd be justified, but I don't think he woke up that day and thought, "I think I'll kill a teenager." I think the guy could be unstable or maybe violent, but I don't think he's a premeditated murderer. 

    Those kids made a conscious decision to hurt someone that day, whether it was by shooting or robbing. I don't think Ersland is a hero by any means, but none of us know how we'd react in that situation.

    I agree with both of you! It is crap that Ersland has to spend the rest of his days in jail for protecting himself. I can see where the jury could be confused if he told different stories but I am sure that it all happened so fast he didn't remember everything when it first happened.

    I also feel like the mom wanting compensated is a crock! She didn't even know where her son was and he was comitting a crime so no compenstation should be given to her.

     My parents are business owners and if someone came in to their place of business with a gun trying to rob them they would probably do the same thing Ersland did.

    Shop my ThirtyOne Site anytime 24/7 www.mythirtyone.com/116821
  • I wonder if the jury couldn't get past the fact that he shot the kid five times - point blank - after he was shot the first time. I know that's not the way it's supposed to work, but the fact that he was convicted on first degree murder charges really surprised me.

    I don't think that it should've been first degree murder...while the overall package of the robbery didn't look good for him, come on now. This guy's life was at stake, as were the lives of his employees. I would've reacted the same way [besides the extra shots], not knowing what the robbers had on them or what they intended to do with any weapons.

    As for the mom...I'm still formulating my thoughts on her and how responsible she is for this whole thing. All I know is, the civil suit is stupid.

    [url=http://charmedkindoflife.blogspot.com/].:.Charmed Kind of Life [2.17.13].:.[/url]

    <a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lbyf.lilypie.com/qnrpm6.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers" /></a>

    <a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lagf.lilypie.com/t967m5.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Angel and Memorial tickers" /></a>
  • I would also like to point out and I said this before - 45 second between the perps trying to rob the place and the last shot.  If this is premediated murder - FORTY FIVE SECONDS - then watch out - if someone decides to rob your house - and you exercise your right to shoot him - better do it within 45 seconds - because this case will now set the timeline for premediation.  If someone comes into your house, ties you up, rapes you, robs you, and is in your house three hours before you can get to a gun and defend yourself - you could now be looking at murder one.  Premediation, right? You had all that time while being beat and raped to think about how you could murder the guy that is harming you.  The perp is now the victim.

    Think about the precendence this case sets.

    Do I agree he did something wrong? I don't know.  I wasn't there. I can't imagine the terror he or anyone else in that store felt on that day. 

    This man's life and his family's life is ruined because he got up one day and went to work.  These "victims" got up one day and decided to rob a pharmacy.  Sure, one paid with his life - that is the consequence you face when you decided to ROB SOMEONE.  But should the pharmacist's life and his family's lives be ruined by this?  I don't think so.  And now he is looking at financial ruin too because the mother of the victim feels she needs to be compensated for the loss of her son that appears to be a total piece of sh!t.

    And I agree with Jamie - when the juvi perp gets out at 19, I am willing to bet big money that he will commit another crime by the time he is 19 1/2.  My heart goes out to those potential victims as well.

  • image stripesandspots:

    I would also like to point out and I said this before - 45 second between the perps trying to rob the place and the last shot.  If this is premediated murder - FORTY FIVE SECONDS - then watch out - if someone decides to rob your house - and you exercise your right to shoot him - better do it within 45 seconds - because this case will now set the timeline for premediation.  If someone comes into your house, ties you up, rapes you, robs you, and is in your house three hours before you can get to a gun and defend yourself - you could now be looking at murder one.  Premediation, right? You had all that time while being beat and raped to think about how you could murder the guy that is harming you.  The perp is now the victim.

    Think about the precendence this case sets.

    Do I agree he did something wrong? I don't know.  I wasn't there. I can't imagine the terror he or anyone else in that store felt on that day. 

    This man's life and his family's life is ruined because he got up one day and went to work.  These "victims" got up one day and decided to rob a pharmacy.  Sure, one paid with his life - that is the consequence you face when you decided to ROB SOMEONE.  But should the pharmacist's life and his family's lives be ruined by this?  I don't think so.  And now he is looking at financial ruin too because the mother of the victim feels she needs to be compensated for the loss of her son that appears to be a total piece of sh!t.

    And I agree with Jamie - when the juvi perp gets out at 19, I am willing to bet big money that he will commit another crime by the time he is 19 1/2.  My heart goes out to those potential victims as well.

    Yes Very good points!


    Kaylee & Cole 06.14.08

    8/6/11 First 5k! OG&E Expo Run 34:47
    9/3/11 Brookhaven Run 5k 34:18
    9/17/11 Healthy Sooners Fun Run 5k 33:38
    10/15/11 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure 33:31
    10/29/11 Monster Dash 5k 32:06 PR!
    11/11/11 Veteran's Day Run 11k in Dallas 1:13:15 Instant PR!
    1/28/12 Texas Half Marathon 2:38:03 Instant PR!
    3/25/12 Earlywine Dash
  • I have mixed feelings on this.  I think a significant amount of prison time would have been appropriate, but I feel that a life sentence is excessive in a situation where everything happened so fast that there is no way it could have been truly "premeditated."  I don't think what he did was the right thing, but I think that doing something irrational in the heat of a crazy situation is not the same as being a cold-blooded killer.
  • image critti710:
    I have mixed feelings on this.  I think a significant amount of prison time would have been appropriate, but I feel that a life sentence is excessive in a situation where everything happened so fast that there is no way it could have been truly "premeditated."  I don't think what he did was the right thing, but I think that doing something irrational in the heat of a crazy situation is not the same as being a cold-blooded killer.

    You said it the best - I absolutely agree.

    ((my husband and I have been debating this case now for two years - I do agree he should have been charged with manslaughter but was certain that the jurors wouldn't convict him at all; husband also agreed on manslaughter but figured the jurors would convict him of worse - he wins))

  • I believe Ersland deserves punishment...but not to the extreme of life in prison.  I think if anyone came into my store or home with a gun and the intent to rob me, all rules would fly out the window.  My safety would become first and foremost and I'm sure I'd do whatever came to mind first.

    The shots after the kid was down were pretty fvcked up IMO.  THAT is why he deserves punishment--the kid could have lived, been rehabilitated and become a wonderful person.  Or he could have been a serial criminal.  But we'll never know, because Ersland decided that death was his only option for punishment.  And that I don't agree with. 

    Lilypie First Birthday tickers
  • image BoyMom21:

    The shots after the kid was down were pretty fvcked up IMO.  THAT is why he deserves punishment--the kid could have lived, been rehabilitated and become a wonderful person.  Or he could have been a serial criminal.  But we'll never know, because Ersland decided that death was his only option for punishment.  And that I don't agree with. 

    Agreed. The first shot was self defense, but the later five were murder. I read that the surveillance video showed him coming back inside from chasing the other robber, and he walked over Parker with the first gun loose in his non-shooting hand then turned his back to him to get the second gun. You don't walk like that if you're still scared for your life.

    image image
  • image SunnyDaze31:
    image BoyMom21:

    The shots after the kid was down were pretty fvcked up IMO.  THAT is why he deserves punishment--the kid could have lived, been rehabilitated and become a wonderful person.  Or he could have been a serial criminal.  But we'll never know, because Ersland decided that death was his only option for punishment.  And that I don't agree with. 

    Agreed. The first shot was self defense, but the later five were murder. I read that the surveillance video showed him coming back inside from chasing the other robber, and he walked over Parker with the first gun loose in his non-shooting hand then turned his back to him to get the second gun. You don't walk like that if you're still scared for your life.

    How do you know how you would act in that situation?  Have you been robbed at gunpoint before?  There were 45 seconds between the time the robbers entered the pharmacy and the lost shot was fired.  First off, he did not know the prep did not have a gun - the perp told him he had a gun.  Second off, the kid was moving - the pharmacist had no way of actually knowing if he was dead or not.  Third, all you have seen is the survellance tape. You have no idea of the actual terror of what was going on in that moment and even the other patrons in the pharmacy thought the perp had a gun.

    And even if the last five were murder - the jury convicted him of PREMEDITATED MURDER.  I agree with a manslaughter charge.  But 45 seconds is not premeditated murder.

    ***Also, as an update, I was discussing this case with some of my attorney friends earlier this morning and one told me that the juror only had the option of murder one or conviction at all and that is not true - the jurors DID have the option of manslaughter.  Why they chose murder one, I will never understand.***

  • I have mixed feelings on the whole thing, but i keep asking myself of people would feel differently if the kid was an adult....
    Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers
  • image stripesandspots:

    And even if the last five were murder - the jury convicted him of PREMEDITATED MURDER.  I agree with a manslaughter charge.  But 45 seconds is not premeditated murder.

    ***Also, as an update, I was discussing this case with some of my attorney friends earlier this morning and one told me that the juror only had the option of murder one or conviction at all and that is not true - the jurors DID have the option of manslaughter.  Why they chose murder one, I will never understand.***

    I still think it was murder, but I don't think it was premeditated.  I would also agree with a manslaughter charge.

    image image
  • Here's the thing: it doesn't matter if we don't know what WE would do in a situation like that. No one can know that for sure, even trained officers. That's why there are laws that determine what kind of retaliation is allowed. The so-called "make my day" law states that you have every right to injure or even kill an intruder who poses an imminent threat. However, as soon as that threat has passed, you no longer have the authority to injure or kill someone.

    The intruder in this case was taken out by the first shot Ersland made to his head. He could have lived, possibly, according to the M.E. But he no longer posed a threat. Ersland turned his back at least twice on Parker (kid), once to run after the other burglars, and then once again as he casually walked by to get a new gun, load it, and unload the 5-shot clip into Parker's back.

    In my mind, this very well could have been premeditated, in a way. As I understand it, Ersland had been robbed several times before. Perhaps he finally had enough and said, "I'm going to kill the next mothereffer that comes in this door and tries to rob me." Totally my speculation, but I could see it happening.

     

    [IMG]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff75/pltollison/raptor.jpg[/IMG]
  • I would defend my home too. (I know it was his business.) I think his punishment was so unfair. He should not have had to go to jail for defending what was his. Those punk boys were in the wrong. I think it is disgusting that he went to jail for trying to keep himself and his property safe. I would react the same way out of panic and fear for my life, my families, and my property.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards