TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

drjoker wrote:
srothstein wrote:
I think the outcome was a tragedy, but by the same token, I think the pharmacist was probably wrong in the second round of shots. I don't hold it against him for doing it, and I don't think he should have just stayed outside the store. I just don't think the shots were necessary, even if the suspect was starting to get up. He could have been handled other ways. I don't think I could have voted to convict him for them either, but I can see how the jury could have, depending on the evidence.

You're right, I also think that he's probably guilty, BUT America is based on guilty if PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT and I still have doubts regarding his guilt because it is entirely possible that the pharmacist thought the kid was going for a gun due to his movement on the ground that was off-camera. Therefore, I would also NOT convict if I were on the jury because I think he was probably guilty but not absolutely without a doubt guilty.

BTW, my comments are definitely NOT racist. I am a minority in America and I've personally felt the sting of racism. Also, there was no personal attack at anyone, especially TAM. That's why I offered to pay for gas to drive us to Oklahoma to protest. I'm just saying that we should stick together and not convict people like Jerome Ersland because one day, one of us might be the next Jerome Ersland. It's easy to say that we'll act perfectly from the safety of our armchairs, but it's really hard to say what we'll really do under the extreme stress of several armed men trying to kill us.

The standard for conviction is not "absolutely without a doubt guilty." The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt guilty." And I'm not going to join a protest against his conviction because I believe he was correctly convicted. I wouldn't have had a problem with calling him innocenct if he had killed the perp with his first shot or shots. That's not the issue. The issue is that he left the store after downing the perp, and then he went back in, calmy walked past the downed perpetrator—so obviously there was no ongoing threat—calmly walked behind the counter, calmly reloaded, and then calmly walked over to the downed perp and pumped 5 more rounds into him. That's murder, any way you cut it, because at that point it was no longer a self-defense shooting. Obviously, you are free to disagree.

The Annoyed Man

drjoker wrote:
b322da wrote:
drjoker wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile.
The fact of the matter is that the kid was black and the judge was up for re-election in a black district.
It was just a matter of time until this brilliant observation surfaced here. Since when did the judge convict the murderer? The jury convicted him. I would suggest that if there is anyone out there who knows what the relevant evidence was better than even you do, it was the jury.
I hate to question your judgment again, TAM, but I must once again agree with you.

Elmo
What evidence is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What testimony is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What assertions are allowable or overruled are decided by... the judge! Hmmm... I wonder if you can get a fair trial if the judge put blinders on the jury?

The judge presiding his trial is under investigation for fraud: http://public.esquireempire.com/Hon.+Ju ... e+Oklahoma . She is defending herself in court against allegations that she stole state funds meant for foster children.

Judge Tammy Bass LeSure is a flaming liberal who is a known anti-2nd amendment activist.

You still think it was a fair trail? When you're forced to defend yourself with a gun, we'll make sure that she's YOUR judge. Is that O.K.?

They later changed judges in mid-trial, but not until after damaging testimony that should have been overruled was already presented.

Since the passage of the CHL laws in many states, the liberal anti-2nd amendment activists who know they cannot influence the ballot box have switched from influencing the ballot boxes to rigging trials and railroading good citizens in favor of thugs, greasy politicians and their cronies. Under this onslaught, we must exhibit solidarity and stick together. TAM, if there is a protest in Oklahoma for Jerome Ersland, I'll drive us there and pay for all the gas.

That was directed at me? Please.

Edited to add: DrJoker, if this was a self defense shooting (the second time), why did he go back inside? He shot the guy once in the head, and then he went outside. He should have stayed outside until the cops got there. He's guilty. Liberal judge or not.

The Annoyed Man

steveincowtown wrote:
Lano wrote: No winners at all.
I disagree, I think the winners were all the perp's future vicitms.

I am not saying this guy did the moral/correct thing, what I am saying is that should he really be convicted of the same crime that Charles Manson was?

If he had initially reacted with 2 to COM and 1 to the head, I would agree with you and say, No, he shouldn't be convicted of the same crime. But he didn't do that. He shot him once in the head, went outside, came back inside a minute or two later, went behind the counter, reloaded, came back out from behind the counter, and executed the perp with 5 more shots to the body. That was a coup de grace. That is premeditated murder. Same as what Charles Manson did. The fact that the diseased was a dirtbag whom I wouldn't take the time to pee on if he were on fire is irrelevant. WE don't get to play judge, jury, and executioner. We just don't. That we don't get to do that is what makes us better than the piece of filth that he killed. When the pharmacist did what he did, he lowered himself to the same moral plane as the robbers. There is no reason for the court to extend him any particular mercy. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that the dead robber initiated the incident in the first place, the pharmacist might arguably deserve the death penalty. That's what we do with illegal executioners.

The Annoyed Man

I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

Re: UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

Re: UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

Re: UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder