Oklahoma pharmacist convicted in murder of teen robber is sentenced to life

Was he out of danger only to return, get another gun and shoot a defenless wounded robber on the ground?

The answer to that is yes and that makes it more then just reacting to a situation.

I doubt he would have been convited for the first shot he fired but returning and reloading is a very conscious act .

You are deiberatly ignoring he was out of danger only to "return" to the danger itself.

 

" just another brain-washed bubblehead who has a Party / Ideology do all my thinking for me."

Is exactly my complaint about you, and so stated a number of times.

 

With the difference between us being, I can prove this about you and you cannot about me

 

Like I said, we all judge from our own experiences. I have said I can respect the difference but that doesn't mean I have to agree because I've had different experiences.
1. I've been shot at. Guess what? I wasn't Jack Bauer. Each time, I was pretty wired up for almost an an hour. I didn't look like it but I was.
2. Go visit Detroit. Have a kid shoot at you, fire back and than wait a week to see if him running off that day, get you "out of danger" for good. Maybe in your limited experience that would be the case. In mine, if that kid doesn't come back and kill you, he loses face.

But of course you know all this and there is no room for even the consideration that another might have a point

 

I have no interest in what happens in your alternate fantasyland you think is reality.

 

Let's hope the Governor steps in and pardons the man or at least commutes his sentence.

 

This doesnt matter, this is simple demagogy . The law is the law , and it clearly states you CANT hurt someone who is defensless even if he just robbed you.

 

Label my opinion all you want. That seems to be a typical tactic among the weaker debaters here.

And no, I am not trying to stir up prejudices, simply rendering a personal opinion. I think there was room to consider manslaughter. You don't. I can understand and appreciate your views, even though I disagree with them. You have a closed mind to anything but absolute agreement with your view. Fair enough.

It's easy to tell when someone is so intent on winning an argument, they can't even acknowledge the possibility that someone else may have a valid point. Lots of folks here are exactly the same way. Usually they are ConservaRepubs but obviously, one party / ideology doesn't have the exclusive rights...

 

As much as I hate it, we were in agreement before. Knowing that Ersland could have been experiencing a volcano of Adrenalin, Man 2 probably would have been the better charge.

However this video looks really bad for his case.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7701462

Too much time and events went on for the secondary shots to be considered one act. And his doing the belly shots at such close range looks bad too.
If not for this video, I'd say he was railroaded.

The 2 other perps were also found guilty of M1 for their partner getting killed in the commission of a felony.

 

It does and it is undoubtedly why he was convicted. I'm just a nut about our right to protect ourselves and I have lived in a couple places where if he didn't do exactly what he did, the kid would have been honor-bound to kill him.
No that's not how the law reads but I see someone who did not create the dangerous situation, was clearly provoked and could have been subject to revenge later (not that that last item has anything to do with the law). I think that leaves room for at LEAST Man1 or murder 2. JMO.
But M1 with no shot at parole? Seems pretty political to me.

 

Parole in 38 years. Same as life at his age. But even if he was eligible for parole in 7 years. What are the 'Bros' going to do to this naive honky that killed a 'brother'? Executed the brudda he did! Every day he remains alive in prison will be a gift and a torture.

 

What's the moral of the story? If you shoot someone successfully stopping a robbery call the cops and don't be a moron and execute an unarmed defenseless kid laying on the floor. Dude thought he was Charles Bronson and it blew up in his face. Even did it on tape. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot.

 

And if that happens it sends a message that it is okay to do with this man did.

 

So you can't shoot someone who threatens your life and robs you? Okay then.

 

You can shoot them once, but you cannot go back, reload your gun, and shoot them multiple times when they are lying on the ground and pose no harm to you.

 

Perhaps you should look up what the term means.

The law simply doesnt work that way, you might say it makes all the difference but it simply doesnt, what matters is what happened and what he did.

btw simply stating someone isnt right but giving no explenation THATS a sign of a weak debater.

I wouldnt know, I know too little of the man or the event and what happened, no doubt the jury got a lot more information and was able to make an informed decision. It could have been justified to give him a lighter sentence it might not have been, I go for the judgement of the jury, you put that into doubt without knowing all the facts.

 

The robber he killed wasnt even armed.

Thats an excuse the law just cant take into account.

It doesnt you yourself say it, the law cant take this into account. All whats left is a man not in danger calmy walking past a wounded and unarmed robber, taking a gun and shooting him several times and killing him.

Why would that jury be thinking "political?"

 

The jury renders the verdict. The judge (who has to run for re-election) renders the sentence.

 

The jury found him guilty of first degree murder. Sentence is death penalty or life inprosonment if I am not mistaken.

The 2 robbers got life as well, do you disagree with that as well?

 

Except with the 3 strikes law (which I think is in some cases stupid) the judge has some mobility.

No, I don't disagree with the verdict on the robbers. They created the deadly situation and were unprovoked. It was clearly premeditative and planned on their part. May they never get parole.

 

I posted this before. 2 LA cops enter a 12 stool doughnut shop. See a wanted man. All 3 pull guns and blaze away. There are customers in the small shop, [none hit] The cops empty their service weapons. .38 revolvers then, prior to the age of Glocks. They also empty their "back up weapons" and they reload and empty again, their service revolvers. The bad guy whose gun was empty when the smoke cleared was hit 22 times. The police were not prosecuted.

 

I think the pharmacist shot the guy until he was dead so he would not have to go through the trauma of having the punk rob him again in a few months.

 

After he was sued and had to pay the punk's medical bills too!

 

America is screwed up, that's for sure. Time for another revolution.

 

That was one of my points earlier. It's easy to sit in self-righteous judgement from suburban Omaha. It's different when you have lived in dangerous places.

The anti-gun extreme Lefties have absolutely no room for any other opinions on this. They are all certain that were they ever threatened at gunpoint, they would instantly be transformed into James Bond, not be in a state of shock for all of five minutes, not worry about retribution later (because you know, Gangs would NEVER come back for revenge in a case like this!), and really, just Mirandize the guy and make him some tea, while waiting for the authorities.

I ain't James Bond.
I'm also not so extreme that I can't show some respect or understanding for their views, even if I disagree with them.

But you know how it is here. People get so caught up in winning arguments, they would rather fire away, sling insults or label, than acknowledge that any point differing from their own, might also be valid.