How's this for a verdict?

Remove all ads!

Um... we did ask a lawyer... from page 2 of this thread...

Just sayin... I think the important point is the fifth qualification for second degree murder i.e., "is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual". So for 2nd degree murder to apply, you can't be deliverately trying to kill someone. 2nd degree is unintentional, but dangerous enough that the person had to realize it was dangerous. Like if you get into a fistfight and in your rage kill the other guy. It wasn't your intention, but you had to realize that a fight would be imminently dangerous.

 

Forget about long term. It isn't nearly as important as you make it.

He still has a right to his life. While not innocent, since robbery doesn't carry the death penalty, it is hard to argue he forfeited it, entitling the pharmacist to kill him beyond self defence. Having been in a situation of self defence doesn't grant a right to kill an assailant when he is no longer a threat. Self-defence allows for self-defence against an ongoing illegal attack, but not beyond that. It doesn't grant a right to kill, it only renders necessary killings non criminal. This was not a necessary killing.

It is not turning it all on the evil pharmacist. And while I don't know whether he is evil, I can see that he certainly acted excessively. He made his choices, too, when he decided to get more guns and kill that kid. He also got a really bad consequence. The sword of justice cuts both ways. Actually, it's quite often like that.

 

What's really a shame is that the initial shooting was a phenomenally successful outcome - no robbery, no innocents hurt, bad guy down, no criminal liability.

 

I'd take it a step further - not only isn't it nearly as important - it's not important at all. It's not even in the definition of 1st degree murder in Oklahoma. All that is required is deliberate and intentional.

 

I can understand why the guy was overly emotional: He had been robbed in the past and he just had two kids wave a gun around in his face and at his employees. He's probably sick of feeling like a victim. That does not excuse what he did, but it's like the guy who comes home early from work and finds his wife in bed with another guy. He shoots them both, but it's still murder, although a crime of passion.

 

Does society benefit from having this guy in prison? Are the streets safer with him behind bars? My answer to both questions is no. That is my rationale. I know the image of "justice" is supposed to be blind and to the letter of the law he clearly violated the law. I consider this on par to the "zero tolerance" policies. In this case I would have used my discretion and not convicted. I also can't help but feel that there was probably a little bit of "temporary insanity" going on at the time and if given the chance to do it over he probably would not have kept shooting. I think people tend to overlook how the rush of adrenalin and the power of rage can overrule reason.

 

I disagree TGS. There needed to be a reasonable sentance for the murder otherwise the state would be telling the "law abiding citizens" there was open season on "criminals." Society does benefit by making him accountable for his crime.

I think he got off easy -- he could be on death row.

 

The guy is in his 60s and he's serving a minimum of 25 years - it essentially is a death penalty IMO.

 

Given the circumstances, though, do you think he'll really serve the full 25? Governors can commute, good behaviour kicks in, etc etc. We do it for criminals with multiple felony offenses, likely they'll do it for this guy too. At least, I hope they do. As Snook says, the guy was operating under a rush of adrenaline, testosterone, and fear, and he overreacted. He made a lousy decision, and I'm all for punishing him, but it's his sole offense, as near as I can tell, and I say the circumstances merit some consideration.

 

The funny thing is that if we apply LKD's reasoning to the kid it wouldn't be murder one if he had managed to shoot first when the store owner pulled out his gun. After all, the robber hadn't planned to kill anyone, he just wanted a bit of cash he just responded to the store owner and shot him.

 

The kid entered the store with criminal intentions. He attempted to rib that store. Therein lies the cardinal difference. He is criminal scum -- a parasite on society. His crime may not be a capital one, true enough, but I feel little pity for him. No matter how you cut it, he had no right at all to be doing what he was doing. It's a pity the victim overreacted, though. Jail will not be a fun place for the guy.

 

joa,
had he killed the kid in self defence there would have been no problem. If you take absolute and individual rights (to life, self determination (sexual and otherwise) and property) seriously then self defence must be a sharp sword. We had a case here, a block a way, about three or so years ago, where some kid tried to rob some other kid's mobile. Victim drew a knife, stabbed and killed the assailant. Not criminal because it was self defence. That's ok. He had it coming.

However, if we project the pharmacist's conduct on this case: He'd have knocked out the mugger, and then cut his throat. That's not self defence but, excuse the pun, clear cut murder.

What this should make clear to you LKD, the pharmacist didn't merely 'overreact', as you euphemistically put it - he almost literally executed the kid. That's why I have neither pity for the victim nor for the pharmacist.

 

No I don't - I think it's far more likely he will die before he ever gets released from prison. However, given that he isn't even eligible for parole for 25 years, I don't think he'll get out before that.

Well, the good behavior part goes back to the parole - even with good behavior it's a 25 year minimum. As for getting his sentence commuted, it's possible, but I've seen very little evidence over the years of governors commuting the sentence of someone who committed murder. I'm sure it's happened, but I do not recall any recent (as in my lifetime) examples.

 

That is an assumption. We don't want our police to jump to these conclusions which is why such cases are tried. The man was found guilty after a trial and mitigating circumstances were evidently found to be non-pursuasive. If you go by the finding, the man was operating with intent and purpose. He calmly leveled the gun at a prone body and fired multiple times. I'm really not sure why such an action would be viewed heroic or worthy of commutation.

 

And the assumption that he was in a rush of adrenaline, testosterone is in turn based on diffuse sympathy for the guy, some mirror imaging and a good dose of glee that the robber got what he deserved. Why was he under adrenaline? Because he must have been, because the posters imagine they would be. People, think clearly about this.

I tried to drive that point home before. The robber was down, bleeding from the head and instead of calling 9/11 after having so thwarted the robbery the pharmacist went and got his guns and executed the robber? Get that into your heads. There is nothing worthy of commutation indeed.

Everything that I read hints to a spontaneous but deliberate and wilful action. "I need to get my other weapons to kill this guy" is deliberation and shooting at someone prone on the ground suggests nothing but wilfulness, and as for the intent to kill: I find it utterly implausible that the pharmacist was under the illusion that shooting at the kid on the ground at point blank range would not kill him.

 

The pharmacist very likely was full of adrenaline. Unless you're some kind of old hand at shootings, pretty much everybody who gets into one gets a major adrenaline shot, and they often do all kinds of other wonky things like pee their pants or cry or pass out or what have you. But I'm pretty sure adrenaline can't be used as a legal defense. You're supposed to pee and cry and pass out - that's normal - but you're not supposed to 'take it to the next level' once the threat has been stopped.

From what I've read, other contributing factors to the determination of Ersland's state of mind were that he steadfastly lied about being shot at by the robbers (he said both were armed and fired at him - that's easy to get mixed up in the middle of a firefight, but they were probably looking for him to say he was unsure what happened or that he thought they had fired at him, not to insist that it was so, which smacks of covering your ass) and his cowboy antics outside the store. (I believe it was reported that he fired a couple rounds at the fleeing guy outside.) Those things make him seem a bit more calculating.

 

It's a pity, I think. Mr. Ersland could have been a neighborhood hero, but he gave in to something - I'm not quite sure what, anger probably - went out of his way to kill the kid outside of the limits of self-defense, and is now facing a long jail sentence for murder. Since he was probably still affected by the attempted robbery, I can imagine there would be good cause for arguing it was a second-degree murder, but that's probably small consolation. Ironic, isn't it? Just like the kid he shot, he gave in, did something very stupid, and wrecked his life over it. Why would he want to go back and take another gun anyway?

By the way, if the kid was dead, and he shot the dead body, can he be convicted of something for defacing a dead body? Such actions seem a bit distasteful, although obviously not murder.

 

This just in (well, two days ago): http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...rugRAg?docId=30f266df419846b0adb0e78d8c5db814

This is what happens when you rely on the good will of bad guys.

(Shock value and sensationalism aside, it is a good indication of the inherant risks of the compliance model.)

 

Who in the hell kills 4 people at point blank range to cover their painkiller theft? This is a severely damaged individual we're dealing with here.