TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

drjoker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile.

The fact of the matter is that the kid was black and the judge was up for re-election in a black district.

It was just a matter of time until this brilliant observation surfaced here. Since when did the judge convict the murderer? The jury convicted him. I would suggest that if there is anyone out there who knows what the relevant evidence was better than even you do, it was the jury.
I hate to question your judgment again, TAM, but I must once again agree with you.

Elmo

What evidence is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What testimony is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What assertions are allowable or overruled are decided by... the judge! Hmmm... I wonder if you can get a fair trial if the judge put blinders on the jury?

The judge presiding his trial is under investigation for fraud: http://public.esquireempire.com/Hon.+Ju ... e+Oklahoma . She is defending herself in court against allegations that she stole state funds meant for foster children.

Judge Tammy Bass LeSure is a flaming liberal who is a known anti-2nd amendment activist.

You still think it was a fair trail? When you're forced to defend yourself with a gun, we'll make sure that she's YOUR judge. Is that O.K.?

They later changed judges in mid-trial, but not until after damaging testimony that should have been overruled was already presented.

Since the passage of the CHL laws in many states, the liberal anti-2nd amendment activists who know they cannot influence the ballot box have switched from influencing the ballot boxes to rigging trials and railroading good citizens in favor of thugs, greasy politicians and their cronies. Under this onslaught, we must exhibit solidarity and stick together. TAM, if there is a protest in Oklahoma for Jerome Ersland, I'll drive us there and pay for all the gas.

drjoker wrote:

b322da wrote:

drjoker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile.

The fact of the matter is that the kid was black and the judge was up for re-election in a black district.

It was just a matter of time until this brilliant observation surfaced here. Since when did the judge convict the murderer? The jury convicted him. I would suggest that if there is anyone out there who knows what the relevant evidence was better than even you do, it was the jury.
I hate to question your judgment again, TAM, but I must once again agree with you.

Elmo

What evidence is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What testimony is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What assertions are allowable or overruled are decided by... the judge! Hmmm... I wonder if you can get a fair trial if the judge put blinders on the jury?

The judge presiding his trial is under investigation for fraud: http://public.esquireempire.com/Hon.+Ju ... e+Oklahoma . She is defending herself in court against allegations that she stole state funds meant for foster children.

Judge Tammy Bass LeSure is a flaming liberal who is a known anti-2nd amendment activist.

You still think it was a fair trail? When you're forced to defend yourself with a gun, we'll make sure that she's YOUR judge. Is that O.K.?

They later changed judges in mid-trial, but not until after damaging testimony that should have been overruled was already presented.

Since the passage of the CHL laws in many states, the liberal anti-2nd amendment activists who know they cannot influence the ballot box have switched from influencing the ballot boxes to rigging trials and railroading good citizens in favor of thugs, greasy politicians and their cronies. Under this onslaught, we must exhibit solidarity and stick together. TAM, if there is a protest in Oklahoma for Jerome Ersland, I'll drive us there and pay for all the gas.

That was directed at me? Please.

Edited to add: DrJoker, if this was a self defense shooting (the second time), why did he go back inside? He shot the guy once in the head, and then he went outside. He should have stayed outside until the cops got there. He's guilty. Liberal judge or not.

Would I suggest doing what the pharmacist did? Nope.

Would I vote for him to be charged with murder? Nope.

I agree with tacticool, charge the other criminal.

I'm going to quote some on this Forum.

A CHL is a licence to Conceal Carry.


A CHL is NOT a Licence to play Batman.. or some such.


The threat had been diminished. If the Badguy runs away... you do not have the right to chase his monkey ____ down and shoot him/her. Plain and simple.

Fangs wrote: I agree with tacticool, charge the other criminal.

One article I read on this incident said the other robber as well as two other accomplices were also convicted of murder.

When we comment on this, we need to remember that it occurred in a different state with different laws than what we are used to. For example, Texas laws define manslaughter and murder differently. OK laws (I tried to read them to be sure and I may have misunderstood) defines manslaughter as any homicide that is not murder. From what I read in their laws, the case was either first degree murder or justifiable, with no legal grounds in between.

My training includes teaching us that the premeditation (or malice aforethought as OK law uses) does not have to take very long. In this case, reloading can be shown as malice aforethought, and that is more than long enough. One of the differences I noted in their laws is that they do not have a heat of the moment clause to lower the offense, which could have benefited the pharmacist in Texas.

Also, there would be forensic evidence of movement in some cases, for the last shots. I believe the coroner testified that the robber was immobile on the floor when the shots were fired. I did not follow the case closely, so I may be remembering things wrong on that subject. That evidence would go a long way towards convincing a jury either way also.

On the other subject, the judge's ruling could certainly affect the jury decision. As was pointed out, the testimony or defense arguments allowed or ruled out may make a serious difference in a case. I am not sure that her being investigated for theft has much of a direct influence on any case, legally, especially since we believe in innocent until proven guilty. Her reelection campaign might be shown to have had an affect but I am not sure. Our judges all hear cases during their reelection campaigns also.

But, I would think that there would be an appeal over the changing of the judge without declaring a mistrial at that point. And all it would take is for the new judge to admit that he would have ruled differently on some points. I think the points could have been ruled legally, but if they could have been ruled on either way and the new judge would have ruled differently, a case for the appeal might exist.

I think the outcome was a tragedy, but by the same token, I think the pharmacist was probably wrong in the second round of shots. I don't hold it against him for doing it, and I don't think he should have just stayed outside the store. I just don't think the shots were necessary, even if the suspect was starting to get up. He could have been handled other ways. I don't think I could have voted to convict him for them either, but I can see how the jury could have, depending on the evidence.

I hope they can sentence him to probation, or that he wins on appeal, but I am not sure from the newspaper coverage (and we all know how accurate that is) that the jury was totally wrong.

drjoker wrote:

b322da wrote:

drjoker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile.

The fact of the matter is that the kid was black and the judge was up for re-election in a black district.

It was just a matter of time until this brilliant observation surfaced here. Since when did the judge convict the murderer? The jury convicted him. I would suggest that if there is anyone out there who knows what the relevant evidence was better than even you do, it was the jury.
I hate to question your judgment again, TAM, but I must once again agree with you.

Elmo

What evidence is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What testimony is allowable or not is decided by... the judge! What assertions are allowable or overruled are decided by... the judge! Hmmm... I wonder if you can get a fair trial if the judge put blinders on the jury?

The judge presiding his trial is under investigation for fraud: http://public.esquireempire.com/Hon.+Ju ... e+Oklahoma . She is defending herself in court against allegations that she stole state funds meant for foster children.

Judge Tammy Bass LeSure is a flaming liberal who is a known anti-2nd amendment activist.

You still think it was a fair trail? When you're forced to defend yourself with a gun, we'll make sure that she's YOUR judge. Is that O.K.?

They later changed judges in mid-trial, but not until after damaging testimony that should have been overruled was already presented.

Since the passage of the CHL laws in many states, the liberal anti-2nd amendment activists who know they cannot influence the ballot box have switched from influencing the ballot boxes to rigging trials and railroading good citizens in favor of thugs, greasy politicians and their cronies. Under this onslaught, we must exhibit solidarity and stick together. TAM, if there is a protest in Oklahoma for Jerome Ersland, I'll drive us there and pay for all the gas.

This discussion is not going to continue with racial allegations and quasi-personal attacks.

Chas.

Gunner21 wrote:I'm going to quote some on this Forum.

A CHL is a licence to Conceal Carry.


A CHL is NOT a Licence to play Batman.. or some such.


The threat had been diminished. If the Badguy runs away... you do not have the right to chase his monkey ____ down and shoot him/her. Plain and simple.

You are not quoting a single person on this forum with that racist remark...

srothstein wrote:
I think the outcome was a tragedy, but by the same token, I think the pharmacist was probably wrong in the second round of shots. I don't hold it against him for doing it, and I don't think he should have just stayed outside the store. I just don't think the shots were necessary, even if the suspect was starting to get up. He could have been handled other ways. I don't think I could have voted to convict him for them either, but I can see how the jury could have, depending on the evidence.

You're right, I also think that he's probably guilty, BUT America is based on guilty if PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT and I still have doubts regarding his guilt because it is entirely possible that the pharmacist thought the kid was going for a gun due to his movement on the ground that was off-camera. Therefore, I would also NOT convict if I were on the jury because I think he was probably guilty but not absolutely without a doubt guilty.

BTW, my comments are definitely NOT racist. I am a minority in America and I've personally felt the sting of racism. Also, there was no personal attack at anyone, especially TAM. That's why I offered to pay for gas to drive us to Oklahoma to protest. I'm just saying that we should stick together and not convict people like Jerome Ersland because one day, one of us might be the next Jerome Ersland. It's easy to say that we'll act perfectly from the safety of our armchairs, but it's really hard to say what we'll really do under the extreme stress of several armed men trying to kill us.

drjoker wrote:

srothstein wrote:
I think the outcome was a tragedy, but by the same token, I think the pharmacist was probably wrong in the second round of shots. I don't hold it against him for doing it, and I don't think he should have just stayed outside the store. I just don't think the shots were necessary, even if the suspect was starting to get up. He could have been handled other ways. I don't think I could have voted to convict him for them either, but I can see how the jury could have, depending on the evidence.

You're right, I also think that he's probably guilty, BUT America is based on guilty if PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT and I still have doubts regarding his guilt because it is entirely possible that the pharmacist thought the kid was going for a gun due to his movement on the ground that was off-camera. Therefore, I would also NOT convict if I were on the jury because I think he was probably guilty but not absolutely without a doubt guilty.

BTW, my comments are definitely NOT racist. I am a minority in America and I've personally felt the sting of racism. Also, there was no personal attack at anyone, especially TAM. That's why I offered to pay for gas to drive us to Oklahoma to protest. I'm just saying that we should stick together and not convict people like Jerome Ersland because one day, one of us might be the next Jerome Ersland. It's easy to say that we'll act perfectly from the safety of our armchairs, but it's really hard to say what we'll really do under the extreme stress of several armed men trying to kill us.

The standard for conviction is not "absolutely without a doubt guilty." The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt guilty." And I'm not going to join a protest against his conviction because I believe he was correctly convicted. I wouldn't have had a problem with calling him innocenct if he had killed the perp with his first shot or shots. That's not the issue. The issue is that he left the store after downing the perp, and then he went back in, calmy walked past the downed perpetrator—so obviously there was no ongoing threat—calmly walked behind the counter, calmly reloaded, and then calmly walked over to the downed perp and pumped 5 more rounds into him. That's murder, any way you cut it, because at that point it was no longer a self-defense shooting. Obviously, you are free to disagree.

I have to agree. If he felt threatened by the downed robber, he sure did not act like it. He appeared to be bent on killing him pure and simple. It started out as clearly justified self defense and then became murder. We can't claim ourselves to be law abiding good guys if we think it is ok to become judge, jury, and executioner. Perhaps he should have gotten a lesser sentence, but the verdict of the jury was a good verdict.

Gunner21 wrote:I'm going to quote some on this Forum.

A CHL is a licence to Conceal Carry.

It was his place of business. Did he need a license in OKC?

tbrown wrote:

Gunner21 wrote:I'm going to quote some on this Forum.

A CHL is a licence to Conceal Carry.

It was his place of business. Did he need a license in OKC?

When a person takes it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner, nothing will protect them from prosecution. Not even a cop is allowed to do what this guy did. I bet a soldier would be facing charges if he made this same decision in war.

I've got to agree with TAM on this one.

Clearly no threat at the time of the second engagement. Putting a boot to his head and kicking the perp's gun away would've likely sufficed in ending any potential emerging threat.

On another note, did anyone else get the funeral home advertisement while waiting for the video?

03Lightningrocks wrote: When a person takes it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner, nothing will protect them from prosecution. Not even a cop is allowed to do what this guy did. I bet a soldier would be facing charges if he made this same decision in war.

Absolutely true, Lightning. The jury in this case had to have found the facts in the case to be such that a soldier in the field facing the enemy doing the same thing would be guilty of both murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and violation of the Law of War.

Unfortunately for both our nation and the individual soldiers, we see more than one of these cases in our military justice system right now.

Elmo