dslpwr81

Maybe there is already a thread on this, or maybe it's in the political section. If you haven't been on top of the Jerome Ersland case, check it out on Facebook, Youtube, AOL, etc.... Unbelievable how this could be!!!

Bark

It is crazy. Those jurors apparently couldnt place themselves into the mindset that takes place in an emergency. Yes, sitting in front of my computer, all fat and happy, I can say that I might not have continued shooting. But I wasnt there. Those punks created the situation and should pay for it, not the people they were going to probably kill.

Redleg

I'd like to see more on the report and autopsy. Even if Parker WAS armed while laying there, Ersken put himself in harms way walking past the guy, then left the possibility of safety again when he approached for the kill shots. Kinda tuff to argue "fear of life" in that manner. I don't disagree with the initial shot. If one is armed, I would assume the other to be as well, or at least assume that he had knowledge of and was in the mindset of assisting the armed suspect.

firestorm

I agree with the first shot, even if it's fatal. However, unless the criminal is still coming after you, there is no reason to empty the magazine. IF you had emptied the magazine in the 'first' shot(s) fired, or the criminal is still combative and a threat, then that's ok. You don't leave, return, THEN empty.

DADDY'S DIESEL

Wow!!
Walking back by the guy you just shot then coming back by him to get another gun to shoot him is just wrong!

staarma

So I guess I have to wonder.....if he shot the kid in the head then is the kid dead? How can he kill him more by negligence in firing more shots into his body? Did they rule murder from the first shot? If they did then it's a wrong verdict and the kid simply got what he needed. If they ruled the backup shots were worthy of a murder verdict then did he kill the guy at first with a head shot and then murder him again with subsequent shots? How did they know the kid hadn't pulled up on him when he was coming back to check him and he decided to "finish" him off like his defense said? If the kid was shot in the head but was still alive then I think we owe the guy a thank you for not having to pay for life support for the rest of the young kid's life after a shot to the head. Might sound harsh but reality usually is in these kind of situations. Nobody won here.

The kids who took the intiative to bring loaded guns into a store with intent to kill and/or rob got what they deserved that day and there is no question about it. I would have a hard time convicting anyone in that case, especially of murder. Stupidity maybe but not murder.

Bark

Good points but I still think a first-degree murder charge is crazy. Even five minutes after the incident I will bet he still wasnt thinking straight.

dslpwr81

Why?

Lary Ellis (Top)

I don't know ANYTHING about this case but I do know from experience that often a body moves around or "twitches" after it is dead. Would that justify what he did?......I can't say since I wasn't there but who knows what was in his mind during that stressful time?

Me I have no quarrel with ridding the world of another waste of skin....

DADDY'S DIESEL

Ok I have read the news reports and watch the video. So let me make sure I get this right "He shot the guy in the head then chased somebody else away, then came back and got another gun and then shot the unarmed and incapacitated man on the floor five more times?"

Is there something more to this?If so please let me know...
Maybe he should not get a 1st degree murder charge.

Bark

Yup.
Setting everything else aside I immediatly focused on the charge. In our State first degree murder has to be premeditated.
I really dont think Jerome set out that day to kill that individual.