Two Recent OKC Events That Show Us How To Deal With Crime

[Rhythm Guy]

Well, the pharmacist who ventilated the punk who tried to rob him at gunpoint is on trial for first degree murder. I hope the law is such that the jury can't arbitrarily find him guilty of a lesser charge; and there's no way in Hades that any jury in Oklahoma is going to convict him for murder one. I personally think he oughta win Citizen of the Year. That worthless pile of crap will never pull a gun on my wife, my mother, my friend or me. He would have no doubt grown into a worthless human being, and I'm glad we don't have to foot the bill for his incarceration, his existence, or his litter of illegitimate kids.

They're not even charging the guy who went into his house and aired that thief out. Castle laws? If they apply to a home, why not a business, where the pharmacist probably spend the majority of the hours in a day? That's another pile of diseased colon puke that I won't have to worry about breaking into my house. The guy who gave him what he had coming is also a hero, in my opinion.

[Orat]

While it was a bit bizarre that, after shooting the guy once in the head, killing him, he went in a back room, grabbed a different gun, then returned to fire four more shots into the stomach of the lifeless corspe, I can't figure out how such bizarre behavior equals murder. I mean, the kill shot was the first one, fired in self-defense. How is firing unnecessary bullets into an already dead body "murder"?

[msbobbie]

The report I read said the guy was not killed with the first shot, by getting a different gun and shooting him four more times is what got this pharmacist the murder charge.

We hear reports almost daily of police officers over reacting and are given an adrenalin excuse. I expect the same will happen with this pharmacist.

,

[Rhythm Guy]

The guy wasn't dead. If I understand correctly, it grazed him and knocked him down. I believe Jerome Ersland's story that he was still moving after being told to be still. For all this decorated vet knew, he could have had a gun stuff in his shorts, and have been planning to get up and make mincemeat out of whoever was left in the store. So, he neutralized the threat. I mean, let's face it, look at Mr. Ersland's brace -- any normal, healthy 16 year old could probably do him harm regardless of whether he was armed or not. His back is severely messed up, and it got that way defending us. I'm glad that "baaaaby", as they keep calling him on the broadcast news cry fests, won't ever make anyone else fear for their life.

One more thing: Now they're saying that forensics don't match Mr. Ersland's story. People who put a lot of stock in police forensics have seen too many episodes of CSI. It's not all steel and glass Blade Runneresque operating rooms. In real life, it's often cramped, unsantitary, and stuffed into whatever available space they could find. And in OKC, it's almost always a complete fabrication. Joyce Gilcrist may be gone, but her spirit most certainly lives on.

[Orat]

What do they need forensics for anyway? They have video of the whole thing!

So let's assume the first shot didn't kill him. Had it killed him, he'd be a free man right now. But since it didn't, now I'm supposed to accept the idea that shooting him a few more times was murder? Yet it wouldn't have been murder had the first shot killed him? What kind of bizarro world are we living in?

I suppose the argument is being made that after the first shot knocked him down, he was no longer a threat - but nobody could have known that for sure in that situation.