NT, You're on the jury...

[russ tha g]

So all you legal experts are saying that an adrenaline fueled pharmacist who had a gun in his face while his life was threatened seconds prior should be able to dissect a maybe-60-second long time frame into three discernible sections of pre-threat, threat, post-threat and act accordingly in all of them? Three discernible sections that even we at the comfort of our own PC's could argue over.

 

[russ tha g]

So all you legal experts are saying that an adrenaline fueled pharmacist who had a gun in his face while his life was threatened seconds prior should be able to dissect a maybe-60-second long time frame into three discernible sections of pre-threat, threat, post-threat and act accordingly in all of them? Three discernible sections that even we at the comfort of our own PC's could argue over.

 

[nublee]

Originally Posted by i LyricaLJKilla i

The man is definitely guilty.

But he shouldn't receive anywhere close to life in prison.


I can't imagine getting guns pulled on me by two dudes.....and trying to act rationally after that.

 

[nublee]

Originally Posted by i LyricaLJKilla i

The man is definitely guilty.

But he shouldn't receive anywhere close to life in prison.


I can't imagine getting guns pulled on me by two dudes.....and trying to act rationally after that.

 

[f3djam]

There needs to be an asterisk for crimes when its dealing with killing certain people

 

[f3djam]

There needs to be an asterisk for crimes when its dealing with killing certain people

 

[jthagreat]

is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.
the most important point made in my eyes...

the clerk was put into this situation due to those kids actions, not his own.

 

[jthagreat]

is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.
the most important point made in my eyes...

the clerk was put into this situation due to those kids actions, not his own.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot, all of you would be calling him a hero.

If he had shot the kid 4 times initially, yes.  He exited his store, was no longer in danger, came back, saw the kid incapacitated on the floor, went and retrieved a SECOND gun, then executed the kid.  He could have called the police after the first kid ran off.  He assessed the situation and made the decision to go get a new gun to finish the kid off with.  Temporary insanity is a weak defense as is, the evidence on that video footage probably ended any chance of it working.

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

Big ATZ wrote:

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot, all of you would be calling him a hero.

I sure would've but the five extra shots were not needed.

An easy thing for you to say with the luxury of hindsight.


That's true.  But that's also why you assume a certain level of responsibility when you purchase a firearm.  If you can't think on your feet quickly enough then you probably aren't ready to own one.  It was an unfortunate "mistake" but the laws and punishments for it exist as is to deter situations like this.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot, all of you would be calling him a hero.

If he had shot the kid 4 times initially, yes.  He exited his store, was no longer in danger, came back, saw the kid incapacitated on the floor, went and retrieved a SECOND gun, then executed the kid.  He could have called the police after the first kid ran off.  He assessed the situation and made the decision to go get a new gun to finish the kid off with.  Temporary insanity is a weak defense as is, the evidence on that video footage probably ended any chance of it working.

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

Big ATZ wrote:

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot, all of you would be calling him a hero.

I sure would've but the five extra shots were not needed.

An easy thing for you to say with the luxury of hindsight.


That's true.  But that's also why you assume a certain level of responsibility when you purchase a firearm.  If you can't think on your feet quickly enough then you probably aren't ready to own one.  It was an unfortunate "mistake" but the laws and punishments for it exist as is to deter situations like this.

 

[tennhouse2]

alot of you are saying temporary insanity which i could agree with, but the question was if we were on this jury and that was not the defense given



"So all you legal experts are saying that an adrenaline fueled pharmacist who had a gun in his face while his life was threatened seconds prior should be able to dissect a maybe-60-second long time frame into three discernible sections of pre-threat, threat, post-threat and act accordingly in all of them? Three discernible sections that even we at the comfort of our own PC's could argue over."


first off you wouldnt have to think about pre-threat that means nothing is happening, were always in pre-threat


so the question is should he be able to tell the diffrence between when hes in Threat and Post-Threat. And the answer to that is yes

this all happened fast but not that fast, he had time to walk back into the store, collect himself then, get another gun...after that point anyone needs to be able to tell right from wrong but if they still cant after they point they are a danger. What if something else shocking happens to him later whats he gonna do then? thats the type of person who walks in on his wife cheating and instead of walking back out or beating up the guy, he grabs a revolver and shoots them both.



But like u said Russ we dont know all the facts but from what i saw in the video it was murder

 

[tennhouse2]

alot of you are saying temporary insanity which i could agree with, but the question was if we were on this jury and that was not the defense given



"So all you legal experts are saying that an adrenaline fueled pharmacist who had a gun in his face while his life was threatened seconds prior should be able to dissect a maybe-60-second long time frame into three discernible sections of pre-threat, threat, post-threat and act accordingly in all of them? Three discernible sections that even we at the comfort of our own PC's could argue over."


first off you wouldnt have to think about pre-threat that means nothing is happening, were always in pre-threat


so the question is should he be able to tell the diffrence between when hes in Threat and Post-Threat. And the answer to that is yes

this all happened fast but not that fast, he had time to walk back into the store, collect himself then, get another gun...after that point anyone needs to be able to tell right from wrong but if they still cant after they point they are a danger. What if something else shocking happens to him later whats he gonna do then? thats the type of person who walks in on his wife cheating and instead of walking back out or beating up the guy, he grabs a revolver and shoots them both.



But like u said Russ we dont know all the facts but from what i saw in the video it was murder

 

[big atz]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

Big ATZ wrote:

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot, all of you would be calling him a hero.

I sure would've but the five extra shots were not needed.

An easy thing for you to say with the luxury of hindsight.
That's true. We are making our opinions without knowing what was going through his mind.

 

[big atz]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

Big ATZ wrote:

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot, all of you would be calling him a hero.

I sure would've but the five extra shots were not needed.

An easy thing for you to say with the luxury of hindsight.
That's true. We are making our opinions without knowing what was going through his mind.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

alot of you are saying temporary insanity which i could agree with, but the question was if we were on this jury and that was not the defense given



"So all you legal experts are saying that an adrenaline fueled pharmacist who had a gun in his face while his life was threatened seconds prior should be able to dissect a maybe-60-second long time frame into three discernible sections of pre-threat, threat, post-threat and act accordingly in all of them? Three discernible sections that even we at the comfort of our own PC's could argue over."


first off you wouldnt have to think about pre-threat that means nothing is happening, were always in pre-threat


so the question is should he be able to tell the diffrence between when hes in Threat and Post-Threat. And the answer to that is yes

this all happened fast but not that fast, he had time to walk back into the store, collect himself then, get another gun...after that point anyone needs to be able to tell right from wrong but if they still cant after they point they are a danger. What if something else shocking happens to him later whats he gonna do then? thats the type of person who walks in on his wife cheating and instead of walking back out or beating up the guy, he grabs a revolver and shoots them both.



But like u said Russ we dont know all the facts but from what i saw in the video it was murder

that would be a crime of passion, and there's a defense for that.  that's the ONLY time something like that is "acceptable" and even then he'd have to kill them both right there.

a dude's robbing you and you fend them off, then chase them, then return, fetch a different weapon, and kill the other unarmed robber?  that's murder.

not to mention most states have a flee requirement in their criminal laws.  if you're presented with a danger you're obligated to try to escape it if you can without engaging and deadly force is only acceptable when presented with the immediate threat of deadly force on your persons.  in oklahoma if someone invades your land and threatens your life you can shoot to kill - yes.  but that kid was incapacitated already and the other kid, the one who actually HAD a weapon, had already fled the scene.  there was no threat to his life anymore.  he was obligated to call the police.

instead he got a different gun and went through with what was essentially an execution.  not to mention he shot the kid multiple times after the fact.  that's murder.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

alot of you are saying temporary insanity which i could agree with, but the question was if we were on this jury and that was not the defense given



"So all you legal experts are saying that an adrenaline fueled pharmacist who had a gun in his face while his life was threatened seconds prior should be able to dissect a maybe-60-second long time frame into three discernible sections of pre-threat, threat, post-threat and act accordingly in all of them? Three discernible sections that even we at the comfort of our own PC's could argue over."


first off you wouldnt have to think about pre-threat that means nothing is happening, were always in pre-threat


so the question is should he be able to tell the diffrence between when hes in Threat and Post-Threat. And the answer to that is yes

this all happened fast but not that fast, he had time to walk back into the store, collect himself then, get another gun...after that point anyone needs to be able to tell right from wrong but if they still cant after they point they are a danger. What if something else shocking happens to him later whats he gonna do then? thats the type of person who walks in on his wife cheating and instead of walking back out or beating up the guy, he grabs a revolver and shoots them both.



But like u said Russ we dont know all the facts but from what i saw in the video it was murder

that would be a crime of passion, and there's a defense for that.  that's the ONLY time something like that is "acceptable" and even then he'd have to kill them both right there.

a dude's robbing you and you fend them off, then chase them, then return, fetch a different weapon, and kill the other unarmed robber?  that's murder.

not to mention most states have a flee requirement in their criminal laws.  if you're presented with a danger you're obligated to try to escape it if you can without engaging and deadly force is only acceptable when presented with the immediate threat of deadly force on your persons.  in oklahoma if someone invades your land and threatens your life you can shoot to kill - yes.  but that kid was incapacitated already and the other kid, the one who actually HAD a weapon, had already fled the scene.  there was no threat to his life anymore.  he was obligated to call the police.

instead he got a different gun and went through with what was essentially an execution.  not to mention he shot the kid multiple times after the fact.  that's murder.

 

[big j 33]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

At worst, temporary insanity or self-defense. At best, drop the charges and let this man go on with his life.
Keep in mind, too, that we don't have all of the facts of the case solely from this post. We don't know:

if the wounded robber was conscious or not.

whether the wounded robber was continuing to threaten the man or not.

if the older pharmacist was absolutely out of harm's way or not. 

that the wounded robber didn't have a/another weapon.

etc.

People are saying since the pharmacist walked past the wounded robber that he must have felt safe... he may have been running off adrenaline. I mean, hell, he just had two guys run in waiving a pistol in his face. Not sure if any of you have had that happen, but it gets your adrenaline going. This same adrenaline combined with the nature of the situation--A POTENTIAL ROBBERY AND MURDER--is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.

Take cases where police shoot people who are unarmed or use what seems to be excessive force, battered wife defenses, etc. The fact that he was able to be convicted of MURDER is ridiculous. Whether or not the killing was unlawful depends on where the self-defense threshold stops... which is entirely debatable given the circumstances. Then throw in the fact that the only malice aforethought would have had to have been formed in SECONDS--seconds where a man was still trying to defend himself.

The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think any even half-way reasonable person could look at this video--perhaps even at all the evidence--and seriously say that this guy murdered somebody.

We do know some of those things in fact... look at the article. 

Moments later, Mr. Ersland shot Mr. Parker five more times as he lay unconscious on the ground, say prosecutors who had a security surveillance video to bolster their case.

The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law.

The wounded robber didn't show ANY weapon at all, it was the one who was chased away who had the gun, was on the ground, and as far as WE know, didn't pose any thread to the store owner. You say "buncha Monday morning quarterbacks in here" aren't you doing the SAME thing? Making judgments based on facts you don't entirely have? Not to mention, as far as I know, the defense didn't argue for temporary insanity or try to prove he was without sound judgment, as the article states. The initial shot hit the robber in the head and he lay on the ground unconscious. 
It's one thing to say they should have argued a different legal defense, but that's not what we're discussing... if we were on the jury, what would you do? With the defense presented, it's not as ridiculous as you're making it seem. The defense attempted to argue it was self-defense, but from the evidence it didn't seem as if he was still in danger. You can say "put yourself in his shoes" but you can't do that because you have to look at the evidence and facts. If you want to argue he didn't have malice aforethought then go ahead, but based on the evidence we can see not to mention the defense didn't argue for insanity, he seemed well in control of his own actions.

 

[big j 33]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

At worst, temporary insanity or self-defense. At best, drop the charges and let this man go on with his life.
Keep in mind, too, that we don't have all of the facts of the case solely from this post. We don't know:

if the wounded robber was conscious or not.

whether the wounded robber was continuing to threaten the man or not.

if the older pharmacist was absolutely out of harm's way or not. 

that the wounded robber didn't have a/another weapon.

etc.

People are saying since the pharmacist walked past the wounded robber that he must have felt safe... he may have been running off adrenaline. I mean, hell, he just had two guys run in waiving a pistol in his face. Not sure if any of you have had that happen, but it gets your adrenaline going. This same adrenaline combined with the nature of the situation--A POTENTIAL ROBBERY AND MURDER--is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.

Take cases where police shoot people who are unarmed or use what seems to be excessive force, battered wife defenses, etc. The fact that he was able to be convicted of MURDER is ridiculous. Whether or not the killing was unlawful depends on where the self-defense threshold stops... which is entirely debatable given the circumstances. Then throw in the fact that the only malice aforethought would have had to have been formed in SECONDS--seconds where a man was still trying to defend himself.

The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think any even half-way reasonable person could look at this video--perhaps even at all the evidence--and seriously say that this guy murdered somebody.

We do know some of those things in fact... look at the article. 

Moments later, Mr. Ersland shot Mr. Parker five more times as he lay unconscious on the ground, say prosecutors who had a security surveillance video to bolster their case.

The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law.

The wounded robber didn't show ANY weapon at all, it was the one who was chased away who had the gun, was on the ground, and as far as WE know, didn't pose any thread to the store owner. You say "buncha Monday morning quarterbacks in here" aren't you doing the SAME thing? Making judgments based on facts you don't entirely have? Not to mention, as far as I know, the defense didn't argue for temporary insanity or try to prove he was without sound judgment, as the article states. The initial shot hit the robber in the head and he lay on the ground unconscious. 
It's one thing to say they should have argued a different legal defense, but that's not what we're discussing... if we were on the jury, what would you do? With the defense presented, it's not as ridiculous as you're making it seem. The defense attempted to argue it was self-defense, but from the evidence it didn't seem as if he was still in danger. You can say "put yourself in his shoes" but you can't do that because you have to look at the evidence and facts. If you want to argue he didn't have malice aforethought then go ahead, but based on the evidence we can see not to mention the defense didn't argue for insanity, he seemed well in control of his own actions.

 

[nako xl]

Big J 33 I don't know why Russ kept harping on the insanity plea. No defense is going to argue "yes what my client did was in fact murder, and he was wrong, but he only did it because he was driven so crazy." An adrenaline rush doesn't equal insanity. The defense is barely ever raised except in cases where it's almost certain that based on the facts he's guilty, and without it the defendant is going to be convicted and faces the death penalty.

In this case they felt they'd win straight up off a simple self-defense argument. but it's clear from that video and the facts as presented that he was no longer defending himself when the second shooting occurred. At least not according to law. They essentially forced the court to define what self defense encompasses in the state of Oklahoma. That's why he lost.

 

[nako xl]

Big J 33 I don't know why Russ kept harping on the insanity plea. No defense is going to argue "yes what my client did was in fact murder, and he was wrong, but he only did it because he was driven so crazy." An adrenaline rush doesn't equal insanity. The defense is barely ever raised except in cases where it's almost certain that based on the facts he's guilty, and without it the defendant is going to be convicted and faces the death penalty.

In this case they felt they'd win straight up off a simple self-defense argument. but it's clear from that video and the facts as presented that he was no longer defending himself when the second shooting occurred. At least not according to law. They essentially forced the court to define what self defense encompasses in the state of Oklahoma. That's why he lost.

 

[dt43]

that is the definition of murder.

after watching it again, the one who had the gun was the one who ran away. the kid he murdered didnt even have a gun.


he shouldnt have gotten life tho considering his life had been endangered moments before.. give him something like 25 years with parole in 10 or something.

 

[dt43]

that is the definition of murder.

after watching it again, the one who had the gun was the one who ran away. the kid he murdered didnt even have a gun.


he shouldnt have gotten life tho considering his life had been endangered moments before.. give him something like 25 years with parole in 10 or something.

 

[itsgettinhot]

I don't understand where ya'll are coming from at all.

He just guaranteed that teenager will never threaten someone's life with a gun ever again.  I'd say he's a hero.

 

[itsgettinhot]

I don't understand where ya'll are coming from at all.

He just guaranteed that teenager will never threaten someone's life with a gun ever again.  I'd say he's a hero.

 

[erwizzle415]

Second degree murder