Should Jerome Ersland have been found guilty of Murder?


philray

Recommended Posts

Absolutely and without doubt.......

The first shot at the 16 year old that hits him in the head was justifiable. Once he ran out of the store and shot at the other thug robber he was likewise wrong.....it was stupid. He could have caused other people to be caught in the crossfire and the thing to do was to stay inside the store and protect the employees.

He walked past the kid laying on the ground with no regard for whether the thug still presented a threat, which proved he wasn't. He went back and got a different gun and shot the kid five more times. He could have stood there and covered the thug on the floor and shot him again if he tried to get up or presented a threat.

I'm all about self defense and would have shot inside the pharmacy just like he did. He didn't have to shoot him more, that's what got him. The law is clear and this was an easy one for the jury.

New

Edited by Newarcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go back and forth on this. I do agree that if he was still a threat why did he turn his back on the boy, but on the flip side I don't know how I would have reacted if I was just threatend with a gun. Hopefully I would have used more judgement than that. In a moment of panic, was he worried about retaliation, or maybe with his adrenaline pumping he just didn't think. I definelty wouldn't hold anything against him if he would of kept firing once the boy fell, but when he chased the other boy out and then came back in and got another gun that is pushing it. I do know that the pharmacist was forced into this situation. He didn't wake up thinking I am going to kill someone today. All that being said, I think he should have been punished, but I think that giving him life in prison is too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to waiver a little bit too......

Personally I would favor a law that says you can tie a chain to someone's ankles and drag them down a gravel road until dead if they rob you. I hate thieves. HATE THEM. HATE HATE HATE. So on one hand I believe that he should have been able to shoot the thug 100 times.

However, under the rule of law he really hosed himself. There was really no question as to whether he is guilty under the rule of law in this case.

I'd be interested to know if the kid was dead already from the first shot or if the subsequent shots did it. If he's dead from the first shot, then well bad idea no harm done. If the kid would have lived, well then it was more like murder.

New

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.