Pharmacist convicted of murder, shooting a armed robber

[Joe Bob]

Self-Defense Case: Pharmacist Guilty - WSJ.com

Haven't seen a post on this yet.....any comments?

Mine would be next time burn the tape......

[BeyGon]

I don't think putting five rounds into him while he was wounded and on the ground helped him. Not that I think he did anything wrong.

[A930Rocket]

I think he was good to go until he came back with another gun and pumped 5 more rounds into him while he lay on the ground.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Ditto.

Defense attorney should've said: "If he shot a piece of ****, you must acquit".

Plugging the guy repeatedly on the ground was not necessary and probably technically outside the bounds of legality however and not knowing the details, I suspect that's what he got nailed for, not the self-defense per se.

Sounds like a good case for making your first shot count. More range time.

[stomachmonkey]

I think we discussed it when it first came up.

Saw the verdict on the morning news.

He would have been fine and IMHO completely justified except for when he stepped over the guy, got a second spoon, walked back and put 5 more holes in him point blank.

[HardDrive]

I think second degree would be more appropriate, but he clearly executed the guy.

Did he probably do society a favor? Yes.

[red-beard]

In Texas, "He needed kill'n" used to be a reasonable defense...

[stomachmonkey]

I think the other issue is the kid that he shot did not have a weapon.

The threat level may not have met the standard for justifiable homicide.

[Joe Bob]

Well, he DID shoot a poor misdirected black child.....he shoulda dropped a knife on the kid.

[Zeke]

Conviction is one thing. What do you think the sentence will be? 8 to 15 and out in 4?

[GH85Carrera]

He was sentenced to freaking LIFE in prison.

[Joe Bob]

.....the jury, which deliberated for less than four hours, found Mr. Ersland guilty of first-degree murder, punishable by life in prison.
Unless there has been a sentence since his conviction....I don't see it as life, yet......

[Moses]

I don't understand why the law expects us to behave in a rational way after an irrational provocation.

It seems to me the initiator of violence is rightly responsible for all that results from his crime, both rational and irrational.

You don't want the twitchy old man behind the counter to go ape****? Don't point a gun at him.

[stevepaa]

The other perp should have been tried. Did they catch him?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Moses

I don't understand why the law expects us to behave in a rational way after an irrational provocation.

It seems to me the initiator of violence is rightly responsible for all that results from his crime, both rational and irrational.

You don't want the twitchy old man behind the counter to go ape****? Don't point a gun at him.

Perfectly sums up how I feel about the circumstances the poor SOB had imposed on him.

[RWebb]

there are rules for self defense, just like there are rules for warfare

[jyl]

Sympathies aside, the facts as I recall them (we've discussed this one before) were homicide.

gun/self defense guys; what is your take on this pharmcist's actions? video.

No reasonable basis to think the victim was a threat (prone, wounded, no weapon, defendant walks by the victim/turns his back on the victim as if he knows the man has been neutralized).

Actions consistent with deliberation (walked outside, came back in, walked to counter, retrieved another gun, walked back to victim, aimed, fired 5X).

Presumably the evidence at trial showed this.

My guess - the defense would have needed to show something involuntary like a mental blackout (layman's term), but didn't. IIRC, the defendant went on a TV show to talk about it - he or his lawyer or both are fools - that probably foreclosed a lot of potential defense arguments.

[McLovin]

I think it's a fairly tough call.

Obviously, if he shot the guy 3 seconds after having the gun stuck in his face, or within 3 seconds of gunshots being fired, he'd be ok.

If he shot the guy 30 minutes after the exchange, that would be easy too.

In this instance, it seemed like approx. 30 seconds passed. Having not ever had a gun stuck in my face, or being involved in a gunfight, I don't know what one's mental state is during those 30 seconds.

But first degree murder is usually preplanned, premeditated murder. I guess one could meet that within a few seconds of being assaulted/robbed at gunpoint, but it does seem a bit harsh. I'd guess that in a lot of cases, you would get some kind of conviction and jail time, but in most cases, it wouldn't be 1st degree and life.

Seems like the right answer is that given the time that passed, he shouldn't have a complete "self defense" defense, but also should not be convicted/sentenced the same as a person who plans out a murder for weeks, then goes and carries it out. He seems somewhere in between those.

[Seahawk]

There were precious few facts, as I recall.

What bravo sierra.

Originally Posted by jyl

Sympathies aside, the facts as I recall them (we've discussed this one before) were homicide.

[jyl]

There was a video. The guy's tv interview. The jury would have had plenty more info. More info than in many shootings.