Pharmacist shoots robber - found guilty of murder. People outraged.

There is going to be no changing views on this one.

If you go on emotion and vigilante justice, yes the pharmacist deserves a medal.

But if you go by letter of the law, he deserves the murder rap he got.

And if his mental state was that altered from the confrontation, then blame the defense attorney for not attempting a temporary insanity plea. My guess they had no prayer of making that work either, why, because it was murder. Murder that might give some people a warm fuzzy inside cause a bad guy got killed, but murder none the less.

 

Every day our 2nd Amendment Rights are under fire. As gun owners we need to be responsible and use good judgement, that is our responsibility to ensure future generations will be armed considering our Liberal Left and their agenda. This man showed no remorse in the video or at court. He walks by the guy calmly without looking back which shows me the shot thug is NOT A THREAT.

The guy might have snapped and 1st degree murder might be excessive but he turned his back on the thug and returned calmly an EXECUTED him!!!!

We have the right to defend ourselves but we are not above the law. If a Police officer shot a criminal, walked out of where it occurred and walked back in to finish the guy he would be on trial too. Once you have neutralized a threat you are responsible for any actions taken once they are defenseless. Military Members have been court martialed for it, cops pulled from duty and sent to jail and idiots like the Pharmacist handed life sentences. Once the piece of **** was shot and down he still had the right to life, the Pharmacist is not God and should not decide if he lives or dies at his hands and bullets.

 

It's to bad this guy was even put in that situation by the pos kids.

That is a trial I am glad I wasn't on.

 

I have no compassion for the crying family in the video for losing their little thug, sadly they will likely file a Civil Lawsuit and end up owning everything the Pharmacist had

 

Let us remember the VA Tech shooter. If someone say shot him in the middle of that melee and put him down with a serious injury to where he was incapacitated, and then walked up to him and blew his darn brains out with 55 shots to his head and torso, would that person have been convicted for murder?

 

Really? Did ya ask him?

Otherwise, IMO the guy gets manslaughter. Can't believe he got 1st degree. No one can PROVE that the "squirming" gunman wasn't a threat. Hell he could have been deemed not a threat when the guy walked past him and started to become one when he came back out. WE DON'T KNOW. Manslaughter yes. 1st degree no.



PS. Nice sig line VA

 

The other kid may be out of juvenile custody in 2 years. The hits just keep on coming....

http://www.koco.com/r/22189598/detail.html

 

I would really like to see the breakdown of the jury in this case.

I also see where the pharmacist is a disabled veteran.

 

If he is a disable veteran then I respect him for his service. I do not see how any jury regardless of makeup can condone him walking away from the shot thug without apparent concern for his safety and returning to execute him. What he did makes him a killer, had he fired the fatal shot and not returned he would have been a hero.

 

.[/QUOTE]
racewayking

Military Members have been court martialed for it, cops pulled from duty and sent to jail
[/QUOTE]

These two quotes got me thinking and I don't completely disagree.
But I feel like for every case you can find where someone was court martialed or charged you can find an equal amount of cases where due to circumstances the charge was not first degree or a plea bargain was made to cop to something else or the person was outright aquitted due to the castle law. Or lets look up domestic violence killings where people rage and kill a partner or a person kills an abusive partner, think you can find many that don't involve the charge of first degree murder?

That's all i'm saying, I just don't see it as pre-meditated. He was a legally armed citizen who prevented himsef and others from becoming victims. He didn't roll over,he put himself in there against armed criminals and defended himself and others, he said "not today". Maybe he thought he was in the right, that the castle law meant he could kill the guy(all means necessary). Not saying that's right or smart but maybe he believed that, and made what was ultimately a dumb decision.

I think his legal team sucks, they should have found as many cops/soldiers/victims as they could that have been involved in shootouts and put them on the stand and ask them if it's traumatizing, if it's possible to make serious mistakes. He shouldn't have been facing 1st degree, I wonder if he was just stubborn and didn't accept a plea deal so they tried to stick it to him and succeeded.

I completely agree with Christine..."a sad commentary"....the citizen who killed the armed felon will spend the rest of his life in prison while the family of the dead criminal will sue for wrongful death or whatever they sue for and take whatever the 60 year old pharmacist is worth(which is probably not too shabby). At least he can have the comfort of knowing his retirement will not be paying for that particular robbers canteen money in prison, cuz that would really suck.

I am not saying I would of done exactly what he did or what he did was the right choice. I just know if I were on the jury and they said its first degree or nothing he would of got not guilty from me, if the charge and the term was lessened, he'd of gotten guilty. But I can understand you other guys views. Just writing this made me realize and I agree with whoever said it earlier when they said they wouldn't have wanted to be on the jury for this trial.

I consider the pharmacy his "house" in a sense, what if this happened in your house? Just curious, nobody seems to want to touch that too much. I feel like I would want to nullify the threat with extreme prejudice and would be really leary of survivors.

It just makes me ask myself the question: What would I do in my house? And if i'm a citizen on the jury doesn't that factor weigh in. I mean would I hold him to some higher level than I would hold myself while protecting/defending my own home/family/self?

 

racewayking

Military Members have been court martialed for it, cops pulled from duty and sent to jail
[/QUOTE]

These two quotes got me thinking and I don't completely disagree.
But I feel like for every case you can find where someone was court martialed or charged you can find an equal amount of cases where due to circumstances the charge was not first degree or a plea bargain was made to cop to something else or the person was outright aquitted due to the castle law. (or look up domestic violence killings where people rage and kill a partner or a person kills an abusive partner, think you can find many that don't involve the charge of first degree murder?)

That's all i'm saying, I just don't see it as pre-meditated. He was a legally armed citizen who prevented himsef and others from becoming victims. He didn't roll over,he put himself in there against armed criminals and defended himself and others, he said "not today". Maybe he thought he was in the right, that the castle law meant he could kill the guy(all means necessary). Not saying that's right or smart maybe but maybe he believed that, and made what was ultimately a dumb decision.

I think his legal team sucks, they should have found as many cops/soldiers/victims as they could that have been involved in shootouts and put them on the stand and ask them if it's traumatizing, if it's possible to make serious mistakes. He shouldn't have been facing 1st degree, I wonder if he was just stubborn and didn't accept a plea deal so they tried to stick it to him and succeeded.

I completely agree with Christine..."a sad commentary"....the citizen who killed the armed felon will spend the rest of his life in prison while the family of the dead criminal will sue for wrongful death or whatever they sue for and take whatever the 60 year old pharmacist is worth(which is probably not too shabby). At least he can have the comfort of knowing his retirement will not be paying for that particular robbers canteen money in prison, cuz that would really suck.

I am not saying I would of done exactly what he did or what he did was the right choice. I just know if I were on the jury and they said its first degree or nothing he would of got not guilty from me, if the charge and the term was lessened, he'd of gotten guilty. But I can understand you other guys views. Just writing this made me realize and I agree with whoever said it earlier when they said they wouldn't have wanted to be on the jury for this trial.

I consider the pharmacy his "house" in a sense, what if this happened in your house? Just curious, nobody seems to want to touch that too much. I feel like I would want to nullify the threat with extreme prejudice and would be really leary of survivors.

It just makes me ask myself the question: What would I do in my house? And if i'm a citizen on the jury doesn't that factor weigh in. I mean would I hold him to some higher level than I would hold myself while protecting/defending my own home/family/self?[/QUOTE]

It all boils down to excessive force. He stopped the kid with the first shot, was it necessary to fire the rest? I support shooting the kid the first time, but once he dropped and was no longer a threat there was no need for more bullets. The kid was a ****bag and I feel nothing for his family and their loss. I do feel for the family of the Pharmacist because his actions just caused them more misery than they could ever deserve due to his actions.

 

With our screwed up justice system....probably.

 

I get what you have been saying raceway.

It makes me ask, What's excessive force? Is excessive force used while stuck in a robbery premeditated murder? Can you willfully kill someone in 40 seconds under those circumstances? Yes. Can you pre-meditate a murder in 40 seconds under those circumstances? Not in my opinion. Are those two the same thing? I don't think so, you think so. That much I get, it just made me ask a lot more questions, of myself mainly.

 

I truly think the old man snapped and lost it. I really don't see it as premeditated since he didn't have a gun waiting for the kid when he walked in. What bothers me is that I still see it as murder and wonder why a temporary insanity plea wasn't entered. People have been known to panic or act outside their norm in situations like this but it wasn't like he unloaded the gun and then stopped so without temporary insanity I see no way to sway a jury against what he did.

Sadly excessive force is often left to judge and jury, that is why taking one good shot is better than a bunch of good shots.

 

Brett....I was curious as well and did a little digging. I think you will be surprised at the results...I was.

 

This is interesting...you guys should read this in its entirety. Looks like Mr. Ersland fabricated some of his story.

 

...............

 

.......

 

.....

 

.....