OK druggist note says jail is 'like being in hell'

Unbreakable

Unbreakable

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
5,415
Location
My own little world
An Oklahoma City pharmacist who was convicted of murder for killing a robber says serving time in jail is "like being in Hell"

Jerome Jay Ersland told The Oklahoman in a note that when last week's verdict was read he knew he was "doomed forever."

The 59-year-old Ersland is to appeal his first-degree murder conviction for shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker when Parker and another teenager robbed Ersland's pharmacy in 2009. Security video shows Ersland shooting Parker five times after Parker was already down and unconscious from a gunshot wound to the head Ersland fired.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110603...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA29rZHJ1Z2dpc3Rubw--

Over reacted much?
 
i guess he had no insurance :p

but really the pharmacist deserves enduring hell for killing a 16y.o. over such a small matter
 
I agree with the murder charge, when I did security work we were allowed to detain people by any means necessary, however after they were detained and either down on the ground or unable to 'cause physical harm' or 'pose a threat' we were not allowed to do anything.

So, when this robber was posing a threat to the pharmacist it could be argued that he was allowed to protect himself by using the gun, however, after the robber was on the ground and unable to cause physical harm to anyone the pharmacist shot him 5 more time?!

I am sorry, that -is- murder. He deserves his hell.
 
Mora Fiend said:
It doesn't say in the article if it was armed robbery, there is a difference, most people who rob pharmacies just hand a note to the pharmacist, however we cannot speculate as to whether or not the robber had a weapon.
Click to expand...

I read it in another article about this matter - I am not speculating.
 
poopymcpoop said:
You honestly think armed robbery is a small matter?
Click to expand...



A pharmacist should not be packing. No reason for a pharmacist to be shooting at anyone. The pharmacy is insured for these instances & as you read in the article. He shot the kid several times more after he was laying there motionless.
 
Video of shooting

Ersland came back like a minute after shooting the guy and shot him several more times. Also, the kid he shot was not the armed one.
 
I just watched that video, and that was very blatently cold blooded murder. This man deserves what he got, the unarmed kid that went with his friend to rob a pharmacy and got killed in the process, does not.

You can tell that this guy (the pharmacist) just wanted to pop off some shots, he probably dreamed of the day he could use the gun that he had no reason to be carrying in his store. As it was said in the above posts, these places are heavily insured and standard operating procedure in a situation like this is to give the robbers what they want and call the cops afterwards and review the tapes.

I understand the flip side to this situation. People have a right to defend themselves, espically when facing down a gun barrel. If this pharmacist just popped off his shots while there was an immediate threat in his presence; ie: The armed individual, then he probably would of had a good defence against a murder charge, however, he shot an incapacitated, unarmed individual while he was on the ground AFTER the immediate threat was gone.

There is no defence against what this pharmacist did after the armed man ran away. He shot someone who could not cause him any harm at the time. That is murder, plain and simple.
 
We could all sit here and say what shouldve happened, but the fact of the matter is - nobody knows what they would do when the massive surge of adrenaline and the fight/flight survival response envelopes you. The pos robbers had kept coming back and jacking this guy over and over, and the pharmacist ended the threat. The robbers got what they deserved IMO. I can't believe he got convicted in OK tho, one of the most pro-gun rights havin stand ur ground redneck states in the US. At the same time I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this could have been a racist or hater dude who wanted to kill - I guess only God knows...
 
Mysterie said:
i guess he had no insurance :p

but really the pharmacist deserves enduring hell for killing a 16y.o. over such a small matter
Click to expand...

Fuck that, if you decide to rob dealers, banks or pharmacys you take the risk of being shot and maybe killed. Sad but true, thats the real world. I dont think the old man deserves a life sentence because some punks decided to rob his pharmacy that day. If they had not have tried a robbery they would not have gotten shot. Pretty simple.
 
^Watch the video. They went in, the pharmacist shot the unarmed one (which is stupid), the armed one ran away and the pharmacist chased him out. Then the pharmacist came back, checked on something, then walked over to the guy he'd shot and shot him 5 more times. That is murder, not self defense.

Also, just cause "that's the real world" don't mean it's ok to shoot someone over some shit like that. Morality and what really happens often don't correlate.

poopymcpoop said:
You honestly think armed robbery is a small matter?
Click to expand...

Killing someone over material objects is pretty cold blooded, yeah. Armed robbery isn't a small thing but it's a lot smaller then taking someone's life. Someone robs me, they get what I got and we both walk away alive. No one deserves to die just for robbery, that's not a fitting punishment.


As far as jail being like hell, jail isn't that bad. Prison though, prison is like hell, I wouldn't wish prison on anyone. And prison is where this guy's going.
 
Last edited:
psychomimetic said:
^Watch the video. They went in, the pharmacist shot the unarmed one (which is stupid), the armed one ran away and the pharmacist chased him out. Then the pharmacist came back, checked on something, then walked over to the guy he'd shot and shot him 5 more times. That is murder, not self defense.

Also, just cause "that's the real world" don't mean it's ok to shoot someone over some shit like that. Morality and what really happens often don't correlate.



Killing someone over material objects is pretty cold blooded, yeah. Armed robbery isn't a small thing but it's a lot smaller then taking someone's life. Someone robs me, they get what I got and we both walk away alive. No one deserves to die just for robbery, that's not a fitting punishment.


As far as jail being like hell, jail isn't that bad. Prison though, prison is like hell, I wouldn't wish prison on anyone. And prison is where this guy's going.
Click to expand...



I agree with you that shooting the guy while he is down on the floor was not self defense, and death for robbery is not a suitable punishment....

On the other hand if the dude who got killed had stayed at home then he would still be alive. Being an accessory to a robbery is a big deal and getting shot is always a definate possibility, armed or not.

I feel sorry for the dead guy but even more for the pharmacist just going about his day and then having a gun put in his face, now he gets a life sentence. Thats fucked.
 
I feel sorry for the dead guy but even more for the pharmacist just going about his day and then having a gun put in his face, now he gets a life sentence. Thats fucked.
Click to expand...

He didn't get a life sentence for just 'going about his day.' He got a life sentence because he shot somebody 5 times who was already on the ground and completely disabled.

A pharmacist has no place being armed at work, let alone shooting somebody 5 times 'after' they're no longer a threat. The robber isn't blameless, but the pharmacist sure as fuck isn't either. It's one thing to fire on somebody who's holding a gun aimed at you, trying to rob you, but then going back when they're already on the ground bleeding, and shooting them 5 more times? There was absolutely no sane reason, no justification, for what he did.
 
Crankinit said:
He didn't get a life sentence for just 'going about his day.' He got a life sentence because he shot somebody 5 times who was already on the ground and completely disabled.

A pharmacist has no place being armed at work, let alone shooting somebody 5 times 'after' they're no longer a threat. The robber isn't blameless, but the pharmacist sure as fuck isn't either. It's one thing to fire on somebody who's holding a gun aimed at you, trying to rob you, but then going back when they're already on the ground bleeding, and shooting them 5 more times? There was absolutely no sane reason, no justification, for what he did.
Click to expand...


True, the pharmacist fucked up big time firing those extra shots and killing the robber, that wasnt neccesary.
But obviously the pharmacist DID need to be armed at work, shit the robber with the gun could have easily killed him just to steal pills. Thats the crazy ass world that we live in. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it...


I see your point though, it was a cold blooded shooting no doubt. A few years in prison may be in order, but becoming a lifetime inmate because you were the victim of a robbery gone bad is not right either.
 
Greenstar420 said:
True, the pharmacist fucked up big time firing those extra shots and killing the robber, that wasnt neccesary.
But obviously the pharmacist DID need to be armed at work, shit the robber with the gun could have easily killed him just to steal pills. Thats the crazy ass world that we live in. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it...


I see your point though, it was a cold blooded shooting no doubt. A few years in prison may be in order, but becoming a lifetime inmate because you were the victim of a robbery gone bad is not right either.
Click to expand...

Well lets play the scenario out if he hadn't been armed: The robber comes in, he hands them the drugs, his insurance compensates him, they go on with their lives as criminals and addicts and he goes on with his life more or less as normal.

As opposed to him choosing to fire on them, resulting in one person dead and himself doing life in prison.

There's a reason companies always tell their workers to comply with robbers, because no amount of lost stock is worth the danger of a shootout. This wasn't about defending his property, this was about his ego and his emotions. He couldn't handle just sitting by while they made off with the drugs, so instead he killed one of them and landed himself in prison.

Yes, it sucks, nobody has the right to walk into a store with a gun and demand drugs, but all he did by carrying a gun at work is make the situation infinitely worse for everybody involved. There was no benefit, no potentially positive outcome, to his decision to come to work armed.
 
^ You make a good point there man, I know what you mean. I guess I can just relate to the pharmacist wanting to shoot some pair of fuckers waving a gun in my face trying to rob me. Just an emotional reaction. Was totally looking at it from that perspective. What he did was not right though, no benefit for anyone involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top