Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

TheLostBoys

TheLostBoys

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
4,315
Location
East Coast
An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.

Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.



Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."



A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.

Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.


At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.



Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.

Thousands of Ersland's supporters have reportedly signed petitions pushing Gov. Mary Fallin to pardon the pharmacist, or ease his sentence.

"Please people, don't give up hope. We got 17,000 signatures in a month," Ersland's friend and activist Karen Monahan told KOCO.



Monahan told the station she is selling T-shirts and collecting signatures to help save the life of her good friend.



"The last time I talked to him (Ersland), he was over-excited. He's getting letters (of support) from people he doesn't even know," Monahan reportedly said.


Im trying to find a link because I got this off another site.
 
This is overkill. the minute someone is no longer a physical threat to anyone deadly force cannot be justified. If he was wrestling for the gun with the robber and it accidentally went off, that is another story but this is premeditated cold-blooded murder plain and simple coming back with another gun to shoot an incapacitated robber who is already shot lying on the floor is in no way justifiable.
 
Roximegamorphasis said:
This is overkill. the minute someone is no longer a physical threat to anyone deadly force cannot be justified. If he was wrestling for the gun with the robber and it accidentally went off, that is another story but this is premeditated cold-blooded murder plain and simple coming back with another gun to shoot an incapacitated robber who is already shot lying on the floor is in no way justifiable.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how this was premeditated. Premeditated means it was planned with the intent to take someone's life. This was a robbery in which the clerk shot one of the robbers. I agree it was over kill pumping 5 more bullets into him but at the same time who knows what I would do in the heat of the moment with adrenaline blasting thru your body. I don't agree with the 1st degree murder chars. I think it should have been manslaughter and he should have gotten 2-5 years.
 
nothing wrong with this sentencing..he kept shooting when there was no reason to. The defendent dosent seem sorry for killing him either. Maybe he coulda got man slaughter if he didnt purposely killem. My 2cents
 
I don't think the robbers were even armed.

And what are you, as a pharmacist protecting, that is worth taking a life over?

When I watched the video I had a feeling that this guy was waiting for a situation like that. That's why in a way it seems premeditated. He acted not in a protective manner, but in an offensive manner.

In the video it was like two young boys, probably too young to even know WTF they were doing, went into the store and said "gimme some oxy" and the pharmacist started shooting at them, when one was down he wanted to get the other on down also but he luckily ran away. Then they pharmacist went into the store and made sure the first one was dead, probably due to anger from the second boy getting away so he GAVE HIM FIVE MORE SHOTS TO THE HEAD while the boy was unconscious.

Where was the treat in the second part?

Just like the guy who used a gun in a Walgreens pharmacy getting fired. Good. WTF was he thinking bringing a gun to work.

When people rob pharmacies they don't do it to kill. They shouldn't be killed.

I think a good example has been set.
 
Last edited:
I agree, there was no reason for the pharmacist to shoot him so many times. There is also no reason for any pharmacist to carry any weapons at work.

Whats next, tellers at the bank carrying 9mm handguns & ready to shoot any customer that slips them a note stating this is a robbery?
 
OK I can understand 7-10 years. MAYBE 20. But life? Jesus fuck "land of the get jailed for stepping out on your doorstep in the morning"..

But then I read the part about shooting the unconscious kid. Fucker deserves his sentence. But this country does still arrest anyone for anything.
 
It's America, We have the right to bear arms, but christ man, you pump lead into an unconcious teenager yeah fuck him
 
MemphisX3 said:
Premeditated means it was planned with the intent to take someone's life. This was a robbery in which the clerk shot one of the robbers.
Click to expand...

How much planning ahead is needed to justify premeditation? The robber ceased to be a robber when he was laying on the ground unconscious. After that, he wasn't doing much of anything, now was he? The clerk was not satisfied with an unconscious robber - he thought, like many Americans, that the perp would be better off completely dead. So he thought about it, and while the robber was passed out he pumped rounds into his body from a gun he had to actually go back and get with the express intent of murdering a man who was no longer able to walk or pose any threat. I think we are all aware of the rules - if the clerk really believes that this wasn't premeditation then he is naive, as are the people petitioning for his release.
 
muvolution said:
Anyone ever actually fired a double-action semi-auto?

The clip is gone before you can say "dead"
Click to expand...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg
At least know what you're talkin about before sayin some uninformed shit like that.

That's not what happened at all. I've shot pistols thousands of times and I've never had a clip empty a few shells, then jump into another gun to finish him off before I could say "dead"


You don't shoot someone in the head, walk outside, come back 15 seconds later, walk PAST the body, fuck around with the register, smoke a square, call your wife, eat a sandwich, GRAB ANOTHER GUN, then walk back and put 5 more bullets in him

"The medical examiner says he most likely would have survived the shot to the head, he said it was the 5 extra shots that killed him"


And the fact he fuckin shot the UNARMED one



Dude deserves every fucking bit of that sentence. He had no fuckin reason to be carrying a gun at all he is A PHARMACIST not a fuckin armed security guard. And even if he was justified in shooting the guy in the head, when you walk outside and dick around, come back in and he's fuckin lifeless you fuckin call the cops and wait outside. You don't grab ANOTHER gun (Why the fuck did he have 2 guns anyways, 1 maybe but 2? Are you fuckin serious) and finish off the fuckin lifeless body.
 
muvolution said:
Anyone ever actually fired a double-action semi-auto?

The clip is gone before you can say "dead"
Click to expand...

They're all double action, aren't they? What would a single action semiautomatic be?

edit: apparently there are single action semis
 
Last edited:
Doing something stupid is one thing. Killing is a whole another level. What these BOYS did was stupid, really f'n stupid. But you usually don't kill them when someone does something stupid.

I am wondering what the jurors based their decision on. Yes, I think its really harsh to get first degree murder charges because jails are there for:
1) to stop people who are a threat to society
2) to set an example

Is this guy now a threat? Would he have done the same thing now? I think so. But after 5 years of jails. Probably not.
Would an example of 5 years jail time be a good enough deterrent from pharmacists carrying guns? Probably.

I say probably in all instances that why I think he got such a harsh sentence. If both were a definite no or yes, I think he would have gotten a much lesser sentence.

Now, any pharmacist in his right mind will NEVER carry a gun, just give up the meds and get them back cuz they are insured anyways. They will know that if they fire a gun at work they will get very harshly punished. At least lose their job, license and at most spend considerable jail time. What is wrong with that? Are drugs some kind of diamonds to be protected with your and someone else's life.

It's a sad story for all involved, but there are some dangerous people out there, and they don't only live in the ghettos.

Reminds me of a personal story. My SO got into a car crash somewhere on the side rode. Was in shock, couldn't use the phone, forgot how. Went to the first house to get help, to call family. THEY GUY PULLED A GUN OUT AND TOLD HIM TO GTFO OR HE WILL SHOOT HIM. Luckily we have some friend's of family in area that somehow located him and bought him home. Sad story. My SO was no threat. I'm pretty sure the guy thought about this and was happy to go get his gun and use it because a stranger appeared on his property and he though he would have been within his rights to shoot. My SO had to RUN AWAY for fucks sake. Very upsetting personal story.
 
Last edited:
muvolution said:
Anyone ever actually fired a double-action semi-auto?

The clip is gone before you can say "dead"
Click to expand...

In most situations yes, but the video had 2 obvious parts.

1. Where the guy protects his store and the threat is gone. If he stopped here, even if the teenager died, I think all he would get was a temporary license suspension. Definitely no jail time.

Part 2. He murders. In cold blood. No threat anymore. Premeditation can mean years or minutes. When you see someone doing something stupid and decide to kill them when they don't pose a threat then you are murdering.

I think the fact that the boys were so naive, caused the guy to get life in prison.

I personally would be much more scared of this pharmacist than the boys, if either was in my community.

To me, it adds to the idea that many pharmacists think drug addicts/users are worthless scum that don't deserve to live. I think this idea caused the pharmacists actions more than anything else. Also probably racism. When you have someone with such ideals carrying a deadly weapon and having contact with the public, BAD VERY BAD.

Bricks & Stacks said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg
"The medical examiner says he most likely would have survived the shot to the head, he said it was the 5 extra shots that killed him"
Click to expand...

That is a line that should not have been crossed. Accidental killing is one thing, murder is another. I don't think anyone can say this was an accident.

I feel most for the mother of the dead boy. Not that it brings him back, but that justice is served and we don't murder stupid kids for them doing stupid things.

That's why we have laws, to divide ourselves from the animals. Laws can be unjust, but in the case of murder, they are just IMO.
 
Last edited:
woah, i didnt even noticed he went back into the store and got another gun and shot him...thats just uncalled for. sentencing is dead on imo. i dont think it was premeditated but he got what he deserved.

as far as the pharmacists carrying guns is concerned, yeah i think they should. the new york incident supports this. alot of people are brazen enough to rob a pharmacy with intent to kill if somethign goes wrong. everyone has a right to protect themselves.
 
captainballs said:
How much planning ahead is needed to justify premeditation? The robber ceased to be a robber when he was laying on the ground unconscious. After that, he wasn't doing much of anything, now was he? The clerk was not satisfied with an unconscious robber - he thought, like many Americans, that the perp would be better off completely dead. So he thought about it, and while the robber was passed out he pumped rounds into his body from a gun he had to actually go back and get with the express intent of murdering a man who was no longer able to walk or pose any threat. I think we are all aware of the rules - if the clerk really believes that this wasn't premeditation then he is naive, as are the people petitioning for his release.
Click to expand...

i certainly understand your arguement, and it is valid, i just dont think it qualifies as premeditated. i think it falls more along the lines of a crime of passion.
 
after watching the video, you still believe that this was a decision made through out-of-control passion or fear?
 
i dont think he sould get life but he did take it to far this a kid under the age of 18 who had been shot and was no longer a threat you had plenty of time to think about what you were doing as you walked in to the other room to load your gun walk back over to the boy and shoot again
 
My b, I just thought he emptied a clip, That dude was a sociopath looking for the right time and place to release his anger.

The whole thing is so fucked up, they are just drugs, what's the worst someone could do with them? Kill Themselves? Well why don't you just do it for them instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top