Murder or Self-Defense

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by auditor0007, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    The case of Jerome Ersland's conviction has created a large outcry from many who feel he received the shaft for defending himself. On the other side, many believe he took the law into his own hands and became jury, judge, and executioner.

    After watching the video, I have to agree with his conviction. While I support anyone's right to defend themselves and to use lethal force if necessary, his actions were well beyond defending himself. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks.

    Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

    Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

    Read the entire story and watch the actual video. What is posted is only the beginning.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Already familiar with the case. The guy was fucked because the kid he shot was lying on the ground and off camera. He shot him, chased the other kid out of the store, came back, got another gun, and then shot the first kid multiple times. Unless that guy had an uzi he was not a real threat. Probably was not a deliberate murder, but it dod not meet the criteria for self defense.
     
  3. Tank
    Offline

    Tank Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Thanks Received:
    1,756
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,921
    The guy is a Pharmacist is not a trained Police Officer, who knows how you would have acted after someone just tried to take you're life.
     
  4. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    No, I wouldn't have convicted him solely on that videotape evidence.

    I have no idea what that robber is doing off frame or how badly he was injured by the first shot. If he even looked like he was reaching for a weapon, I would have done exactly what Erskand did.

    In fact, Ersland walks passed the injured robber calmly but hurries back, which leads me to believe the robber was doing something to cause Ersland to be fearful.

    Now, I have no access to the testimony, just the video...and based on what I could see, I would have acquitted Ersland.
     
  5. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    If the robber is doing anything after the first shot, then the pharmacist would not have walked by him calmly in the first place on his way to get his other gun. He was reloading to execute the kid, plain and simple. Now that being said, I think a first degree murder conviction was excessive. A lot of people having a gun stuck in their face would have done the same thing, being so mad they couldn't control themselves, and just wanted to kill the fucker. I don't know if the jury was given any options as to convicting him of a lesser charge such as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The last thing was that the kid didn't even have a gun.
     
  6. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    Then why calm one way, and then rushing back?

    That makes no sense, unless something is happening off camera that makes him suddenly feel the need for haste, like a threatening movement from the robber.

    If there are no other witnesses but Ersland and the camera, and Ersland's testified the robber appeared to be reaching for a weapon, I would have to acquit.
     
  7. JamesInFlorida
    Offline

    JamesInFlorida Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,501
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +184
    I wouldn't have given him 1st degree, but I def. would have given him 2nd degree. The fact is he did intend to kill the kid.

    Based on the video-the kid was lying on the ground, and incapacitated. I agree that if the kid was a threat-he wouldn't have calmly walked towards the back. Now the first shot on the kid was obviously justifiable-no question about that.

    I obviously don't have all the evidence-but based solely on the video, there's no way I could acquit him.
     
  8. Momanohedhunter
    Offline

    Momanohedhunter BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,668
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +250
    Anyone know if the jury is talking yet ?
     
  9. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    Where in that video do you see the robber on the ground OR incapacitated?
     
  10. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124

    They are currently restrained by the judges gag order.
     

Share This Page