Pharmacist Shoots Robber 5 Times - Charged with 1st Deg. Murder

[101lifts2]

http://patterico.com/2009/05/30/pharmacist-shoots-armed-robber-is-charged-with-murder/

Looks like he won't be robbing anyone again...

[derf]

I don't blame the DA, the guy did shoot after he wasn't in danger anymore, if the guy would have stood up yeh it was self defense, but the dude was already on the floor.

Other than that, good for him

[Riceaholic]

Or maybe if you hadn't run into a pharmacy with your bitch friend waving a gun around, none of this would have happened. Good riddance. I hope he walks.

In fact, they should give the pharmacist an annual bonus for stopping crimes that probably would have occurred over the next decade.

I work in a city where this shit happens constantly. I'm sure all the local stations were running the family all teary eyed talking about how he was such a good kid and never meant any harm to anyone.

[Smittie61984]

I hope it comes to pass that the 1st bullet to the head ended that miserable little fucks life. And though he shouldn't have shot hte kid again if he was alive it shouldn't be 1st degree

[Papa_Complex]

I hope it comes to pass that the 1st bullet to the head ended that miserable little fucks life. And though he shouldn't have shot hte kid again if he was alive it shouldn't be 1st degree

If he calmly walked over to get another gun and then popped the coup de grace (five times!), then it shows premeditation. That's a First Degree charge. Premeditation can be years of planning or a conscious, split second decision to end someone's life. When the subject has a bullet in the head and is bleeding out on the floor, then he isn't likely to be much of a further danger.

[Particle Man]

I'm sure all the local stations were running the family all teary eyed talking about how he was such a good kid and never meant any harm to anyone.

and I'm hoping an equal number of people who say "eff him, he messed with the bull and got the horns"

[Lamnidae]

and I'm hoping an equal number of people who say "eff him, he messed with the bull and got the horns"

word.






Dude's right though. he *shouldn't* have gone over and popped the extra 5 rounds into the guy..............


first degree murder? no..... i dunno.... manslaughter? sure. he was defending himself/others, and got caught up in the moment.

[Ninjakel]

and I'm hoping an equal number of people who say "eff him, he messed with the bull and got the horns"


Yup, i agree 100%

[tommymac]

Or maybe if you hadn't run into a pharmacy with your bitch friend waving a gun around, none of this would have happened. Good riddance. I hope he walks.

In fact, they should give the pharmacist an annual bonus for stopping crimes that probably would have occurred over the next decade.

I work in a city where this shit happens constantly. I'm sure all the local stations were running the family all teary eyed talking about how he was such a good kid and never meant any harm to anyone.

I agree 100% there are robberies all the time up by where I work and I feel these skells dont deserve to live. The stories here are that they made some bad decisions but are now with their babies mammas and turning their lives around:td:

Then the family tries to sue saying his civil rights were violated which tells me they should be shot in the head too.

Tom

[RACER X]

i think it was a legal shooting, till he came back and popped him 5x, though i have no prob. w/ what he did, i think he's gonna end up in trouble.

[fasternyou929]

I don't blame the DA, the guy did shoot after he wasn't in danger anymore, if the guy would have stood up yeh it was self defense, but the dude was already on the floor.

Other than that, good for him


You ever been shot at? I don't understand why our justice system expects the victim to make the correct moral judgment when their life was just in danger. It's only ~45 seconds from the time a guy gets a handgun shoved in his face to when he fires a few more rounds at the guy on the floor. When your heart rate suddenly hits 180bpm and adrenaline dumps into your system by the pound, 45 seconds can be a blink of an eye. I bet he made up his mind what he was going to do in the first 0.5 seconds, then his body was on auto-pilot for the rest.

There's a real simple way to avoid being shot by a pharmacist: don't attempt armed robbery on a pharmacy.

Jerome Ersland is the victim of armed robbery. The criminals are the two that premeditated armed robbery. Their thoughts and actions took much more than 45 seconds to plan and act out.

[G-Rex]

This has been all over the local news.

According to what he has said, basically, this...

He shot the kid in the head, and headed after the other one, who ran away to a waiting car.

He came back in, and the kid was apparently moving. The guy had recently had spinal surgery, and could not move anywhere in a hurry. At this point he was still fearful for his life he said, and if the kid had come after him, there was no way he could defend himself or the ladies that were working with him in the store.

From what I've heard/seen, he was justified. It pisses me off when people say he was a good kid. NO, he wasn't!!

There is only reason as best I can tell that the DA is pressing charges. One segment of the community would be in an uproar otherwise.

Hell, at the bail hearing, the DA told the judge this guy *should* be allowed to keep his guns, and to carry a gun when he goes to work. The judge denied that motion and the man had to turn over all of his weapons to his attorney.

The moral of the story is: If you want to walk into a store like Billy Bad Ass and rob it, don't be surprised if you get your ass shot.

[Papa_Complex]

He came back in, and the kid was apparently moving. The guy had recently had spinal surgery, and could not move anywhere in a hurry.

If you can't move very quickly and are afraid of the guy bleeding on the floor, leave.

I have no sympathy for the thieves. There is, however, a limit to what you can do in a case like this. If he had unloaded his first gun into the guy's head in a panic, then so be it. This was an execution.

[G-Rex]

If you can't move very quickly and are afraid of the guy bleeding on the floor, leave.

I have no sympathy for the thieves. There is, however, a limit to what you can do in a case like this. If he had unloaded his first gun into the guy's head in a panic, then so be it. This was an execution.

There were two female employees in the store. He was not sure of their whereabouts and at one point said he thought one of them had been hit also. He wasn't about to leave them there when there was still a potential thread in the building. This guy is a veteran and acted according to what he thought was right.

I stand by what I said. He did the right thing.

[Papa_Complex]

And I stand by my statement that it wasn't in self defence, it was an execution.

[Destitute]

Let the system run its course. I hope the pharmacist is acquitted of any criminal charges. Perhaps he will end up with civil liability for wrongful death.

[Rider]

That fucking punk got what he deserved. The Pharmacist is a god damn hero, treat him like not, not like a criminal.

[LeeNetworX]

You ever been shot at? I don't understand why our justice system expects the victim to make the correct moral judgment when their life was just in danger. It's only ~45 seconds from the time a guy gets a handgun shoved in his face to when he fires a few more rounds at the guy on the floor. When your heart rate suddenly hits 180bpm and adrenaline dumps into your system by the pound, 45 seconds can be a blink of an eye. I bet he made up his mind what he was going to do in the first 0.5 seconds, then his body was on auto-pilot for the rest.

There's a real simple way to avoid being shot by a pharmacist: don't attempt armed robbery on a pharmacy.

Jerome Ersland is the victim of armed robbery. The criminals are the two that premeditated armed robbery. Their thoughts and actions took much more than 45 seconds to plan and act out.

This has been all over the local news.

According to what he has said, basically, this...

He shot the kid in the head, and headed after the other one, who ran away to a waiting car.

He came back in, and the kid was apparently moving. The guy had recently had spinal surgery, and could not move anywhere in a hurry. At this point he was still fearful for his life he said, and if the kid had come after him, there was no way he could defend himself or the ladies that were working with him in the store.

From what I've heard/seen, he was justified. It pisses me off when people say he was a good kid. NO, he wasn't!!

There is only reason as best I can tell that the DA is pressing charges. One segment of the community would be in an uproar otherwise.

Hell, at the bail hearing, the DA told the judge this guy *should* be allowed to keep his guns, and to carry a gun when he goes to work. The judge denied that motion and the man had to turn over all of his weapons to his attorney.

The moral of the story is: If you want to walk into a store like Billy Bad Ass and rob it, don't be surprised if you get your ass shot.

http://smiliesftw.com/x/clap.gif (http://smiliesftw.com)

[Riceaholic]

This has been all over the local news.

According to what he has said, basically, this...

He shot the kid in the head, and headed after the other one, who ran away to a waiting car.

He came back in, and the kid was apparently moving. The guy had recently had spinal surgery, and could not move anywhere in a hurry. At this point he was still fearful for his life he said, and if the kid had come after him, there was no way he could defend himself or the ladies that were working with him in the store.

From what I've heard/seen, he was justified. It pisses me off when people say he was a good kid. NO, he wasn't!!

There is only reason as best I can tell that the DA is pressing charges. One segment of the community would be in an uproar otherwise.

Hell, at the bail hearing, the DA told the judge this guy *should* be allowed to keep his guns, and to carry a gun when he goes to work. The judge denied that motion and the man had to turn over all of his weapons to his attorney.

The moral of the story is: If you want to walk into a store like Billy Bad Ass and rob it, don't be surprised if you get your ass shot.

"The segment" of the community I think you are referring to is always in an uproar when shit like this goes down around here.

[Particle Man]

you ever been shot at? I don't understand why our justice system expects the victim to make the correct moral judgment when their life was just in danger. It's only ~45 seconds from the time a guy gets a handgun shoved in his face to when he fires a few more rounds at the guy on the floor. When your heart rate suddenly hits 180bpm and adrenaline dumps into your system by the pound, 45 seconds can be a blink of an eye. I bet he made up his mind what he was going to do in the first 0.5 seconds, then his body was on auto-pilot for the rest.

There's a real simple way to avoid being shot by a pharmacist: Don't attempt armed robbery on a pharmacy.

Jerome ersland is the victim of armed robbery. The criminals are the two that premeditated armed robbery. Their thoughts and actions took much more than 45 seconds to plan and act out.
qfmft

[Smittie61984]

There's a real simple way to avoid being shot by a pharmacist: don't attempt armed robbery on a pharmacy.


Or rob an Walgreens in some large cities Yuppie section. Not "Billy Bob's Gas/Tire/Lube/Grill/Pharmacy" in Bodunk, Arkansas.

[Lamnidae]

Or rob an Walgreens in some large cities Yuppie section. Not "Billy Bob's Gas/Tire/Lube/Grill/Pharmacy" in Bodunk, Arkansas.

word.


i mean, c'mon.... how stupid can you be.


oh and "oh he was a good kid"


yeah he might have been good when he was like 5, but clearly that fucker is out causing a stir now (or, well, was).

[Amorok]

And I stand by my statement that it wasn't in self defence, it was an execution.

Potato, potahto. Call it what you want, but I support the guy. That dumbass touched the stove. Maybe he's not a victim, he's an example? When the balloon goes up you can't tell what your reaction will be, and when some punk kid runs into a pharmacy waving a gun, he's running a risk. Apparently this time it was a risk of getting shot five times.

And the family will of course be on the news talking about how he was a good kid, how he was turning his life around. Like this armed robbery attempt was just a little slip on his road to success. Fuck this kid, he brought deadly force against a peaceable man and lost. Let the pharmacist go, give him his gun back, and stencil the silhouette of an armed robber on the door of his store like they stencil MiG silhouettes on the side of our fighters.

[Particle Man]

Like this armed robbery attempt was just a little slip on his road to success.

It was gonna be the LAST time, honest!


:td:

[Papa_Complex]

Potato, potahto. Call it what you want, but I support the guy. That dumbass touched the stove. Maybe he's not a victim, he's an example? When the balloon goes up you can't tell what your reaction will be, and when some punk kid runs into a pharmacy waving a gun, he's running a risk. Apparently this time it was a risk of getting shot five times.

And the family will of course be on the news talking about how he was a good kid, how he was turning his life around. Like this armed robbery attempt was just a little slip on his road to success. Fuck this kid, he brought deadly force against a peaceable man and lost. Let the pharmacist go, give him his gun back, and stencil the silhouette of an armed robber on the door of his store like they stencil MiG silhouettes on the side of our fighters.

It is possible to simultaneously be both suspect and victim. There were two separate crimes committed here.

[G-Rex]

There were two separate crimes committed here.

I have to disagree. There is a key word that hasn't been brought up much in this whole thing. Premeditation. Those kids had given thought and planning to robbing that pharmacy. The guy working there did not wake up and say to himself "I think I'll shoot someone today."

I think that says it all myself.

[Papa_Complex]

I have to disagree. There is a key word that hasn't been brought up much in this whole thing. Premeditation. Those kids had given thought and planning to robbing that pharmacy. The guy working there did not wake up and say to himself "I think I'll shoot someone today."

I think that says it all myself.

As I stated earlier in this thread premeditation can take place over weeks, or in a split second. The shop owner showed premeditation by going over to his cabinet, retrieving a second gun, then proceeding to put 5 bullets into a nominally helpless target.

[Particle Man]

There were two separate crimes committed here.

yeah - one by the robber and one by the legal system.

[Rider]

yeah - one by the robber and one by the legal system.

Truth.

[Rider]

As I stated earlier in this thread premeditation can take place over weeks, or in a split second. The shop owner showed premeditation by going over to his cabinet, retrieving a second gun, then proceeding to put 5 bullets into a nominally helpless target.

He was just protecting himself. It's hard to convict someone if they claim they were fearful of their life and took appropriate action to neutralize the threat. I'd kill the SOB too. As long as someone like that is alive they are a threat. You ever watch horror movies? You never stop until you're absolutely certain your target is D-E-A-D.

[askmrjesus]

You ever watch horror movies? You never stop until you're absolutely certain your target is D-E-A-D.

There's a slight difference between a wounded (and apparently unarmed) teenager laying on the floor, and Freddy Kruger.

Let's say a 250lb dude is out riding his bike, and gets pulled over for speeding. He gives the 175lb cop some lip, so the cop tasers his ass. The cop, who stills considers the bigger dude a threat, pops five rounds into the guy while he's laying on the ground. Still cool?

JC

[Rider]

There's a slight difference between a wounded (and apparently unarmed) teenager laying on the floor, and Freddy Kruger.

Let's say a 250lb dude is out riding his bike, and gets pulled over for speeding. He gives the 175lb cop some lip, so the cop tasers his ass. The cop, who stills considers the bigger dude a threat, pops five rounds into the guy while he's laying on the ground. Still cool?

JC

Yes. Don't lip off to a man carrying a gun.

[Particle Man]

There's a slight difference between a wounded (and apparently unarmed) teenager laying on the floor, and Freddy Kruger.

Let's say a 250lb dude is out riding his bike, and gets pulled over for speeding. He gives the 175lb cop some lip, so the cop tasers his ass. The cop, who stills considers the bigger dude a threat, pops five rounds into the guy while he's laying on the ground. Still cool?

JC

that depends - is said dude wearing flip-flops and shorts?

[Papa_Complex]

that depends - is said dude wearing flip-flops and shorts?

... and does he have a BULLET IN HIS HEAD ALREADY?

[askmrjesus]

that depends - is said dude wearing flip-flops and shorts?

Hey, it was hot out, and the dude's got a glandular problem.

Don't be a hater.

JC

[the chi]

... and does he have a BULLET IN HIS HEAD ALREADY?

For arguments sake:

This doesnt automatically mean he was not a threat. I just took my concealed weapons class, and the instructor clearly stated that if you feel threatened or in fear of your life, you basically keep shooting till they stop moving. (He wasnt advocating shooting people btw, simply telling us, if you pull that gun out, it better be a damned good reason and you better mean to use it, like LEO's are taught.)

Just because he had a bullet in his head doesnt mean he wasnt a threat...look at people who get shot, keep going, and never even have the bullet removed?

*edit to add*

Another thing to keep in mind, is everyone responds to pain etc differently. We recently lost 2 sheriffs locally, they tased the suspect, and while he was still laying on the ground he began firing and didnt stop till they were both dead.

[Papa_Complex]

For arguments sake:

This doesnt automatically mean he was not a threat. I just took my concealed weapons class, and the instructor clearly stated that if you feel threatened or in fear of your life, you basically keep shooting till they stop moving. (He wasnt advocating shooting people btw, simply telling us, if you pull that gun out, it better be a damned good reason and you better mean to use it, like LEO's are taught.)

Just because he had a bullet in his head doesnt mean he wasnt a threat...look at people who get shot, keep going, and never even have the bullet removed?

*edit to add*

Another thing to keep in mind, is everyone responds to pain etc differently. We recently lost 2 sheriffs locally, they tased the suspect, and while he was still laying on the ground he began firing and didnt stop till they were both dead.

No, of course4 it doesn't and the advice that you got to keep pulling the trigger until the target stops moving is the same that I've gotten from police. The fact that he was laying on the ground and had a bullet in his head, and didn't interfere when the proprietor walked over to retrieve another weapon with which to pump him full of bullets does strongly hint at the fact that he was no longer a threat though.

Ultimately this will hopefully all be sorted out in court. I supported Bernie Goetz until it came out that he had come back to one of the men he had shot, said "It looks like you could use another" or some such, then shot him again while he was laying on the floor with a bullet in his spine.

[the chi]

Its definitely a tough one.

I see exactly where you are coming from and tend to agree that he didnt "appear" to be much of a threat at that point.

Then again, I am all for the dude who shot him, protecting his life, those of his fellow workers and well, the kid knew what he was doing, and from that side of the fence, I kinda am of the opinion he just committed assisted suicide. What he did was wrong, and well, he is responsible for the mess in the first place. Its not like the pharmacist went vigilante and hunted for someone to shoot and kill. :shrug:

[Rider]

Its definitely a tough one.

I see exactly where you are coming from and tend to agree that he didnt "appear" to be much of a threat at that point.

Then again, I am all for the dude who shot him, protecting his life, those of his fellow workers and well, the kid knew what he was doing, and from that side of the fence, I kinda am of the opinion he just committed assisted suicide. What he did was wrong, and well, he is responsible for the mess in the first place. Its not like the pharmacist went vigilante and hunted for someone to shoot and kill. :shrug:

Exactly. That thief was laying on the ground. You don't know whether he is going to get up or just lay there. Might as well be on the safe side.

How many times you hear about these shooting sprees and people are staying alive by pretending they were dead. I say the only way to know for sure is to put as many bullets in them until you are certain they aren't getting up or you run out of ammo.

[askmrjesus]

For arguments sake:

This doesnt automatically mean he was not a threat. I just took my concealed weapons class, and the instructor clearly stated that if you feel threatened or in fear of your life, you basically keep shooting till they stop moving. (He wasnt advocating shooting people btw, simply telling us, if you pull that gun out, it better be a damned good reason and you better mean to use it, like LEO's are taught.)

The pharmacist's defense went out the window, as soon as he became the aggressor, and chased the other guy down the street. It's hard to claim fear for your life, if you're one doing the chasing.

As for head wound boy, is he was such a threat, he should have been shot BEFORE the pharmacist went all Charles Bronson, and ran out the door.

I'm not going to shed any tears for the kid. He choose an extremely limited career path, and got his ass shot for it. I put this under the, "Sucks to be you" heading. However, the pharmacist had control of the situation once the guy was down, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it Murder 1, I don't think he deserves an "atta-boy", and a pat on the head.

JC

[Rider]

The pharmacist's defense went out the window, as soon as he became the aggressor, and chased the other guy down the street. It's hard to claim fear for your life, if you're one doing the chasing.

As for head wound boy, is he was such a threat, he should have been shot BEFORE the pharmacist went all Charles Bronson, and ran out the door.

I'm not going to shed any tears for the kid. He choose an extremely limited career path, and got his ass shot for it. I put this under the, "Sucks to be you" heading. However, the pharmacist had control of the situation once the guy was down, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it Murder 1, I don't think he deserves an "atta-boy", and a pat on the head.

JC

I do because if more people did this we'd have far less fucktards trying to rip people off. Live by the sword, die by the sword!

[Archren]

The pharmacist's defense went out the window, as soon as he became the aggressor, and chased the other guy down the street. It's hard to claim fear for your life, if you're one doing the chasing.

As for head wound boy, is he was such a threat, he should have been shot BEFORE the pharmacist went all Charles Bronson, and ran out the door.

I'm not going to shed any tears for the kid. He choose an extremely limited career path, and got his ass shot for it. I put this under the, "Sucks to be you" heading. However, the pharmacist had control of the situation once the guy was down, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it Murder 1, I don't think he deserves an "atta-boy", and a pat on the head.

JC


I'm with JC on this.

One thing the military teaches us in terms of Rules of Engagement - if they are out of the fight by reason of surrender, illness, or injury, they are now considered an EPW, not a target. Take away their means of killing you (in other words, if the pharmacist shot him in the head, he could have taken away his weapon), and they are no longer a threat. We aren't allowed to go back and pump more bullets in them after the fact unless they are actively trying to kill us or impede the mission. Kill them right off the bat. Body-body-head. Otherwise, too bad.. you have a prisoner and shit-ton paperwork to deal with.

If the pharmacist was that worried about the kid pulling another gun on him, he should have cleared the body before trying to chase the other guy down the street. And if he had some sort of spinal injury, why the fuck was he chasing the other guy in the first place?

While I am generally of the opinion that he had the right to defend himself initially, the way he followed through was all wrong. Just MHO.

[Papa_Complex]

I do because if more people did this we'd have far less fucktards trying to rip people off. Live by the sword, die by the sword!

And if you have a vigilante mentality, then you run into little issues like that buy in Texas who smoked the Japanese exchange student, or the motorcyclist who was sideswiped by a couple of daddy's little girls and was shot in the back by the lying bitches' father.

[Rider]

I'm with JC on this.

One thing the military teaches us in terms of Rules of Engagement - if they are out of the fight by reason of surrender, illness, or injury, they are now considered an EPW, not a target. Take away their means of killing you (in other words, if the pharmacist shot him in the head, he could have taken away his weapon), and they are no longer a threat. We aren't allowed to go back and pump more bullets in them after the fact unless they are actively trying to kill us or impede the mission. Kill them right off the bat. Body-body-head. Otherwise, too bad.. you have a prisoner and shit-ton paperwork to deal with.

If the pharmacist was that worried about the kid pulling another gun on him, he should have cleared the body before trying to chase the other guy down the street. And if he had some sort of spinal injury, why the fuck was he chasing the other guy in the first place?

While I am generally of the opinion that he had the right to defend himself initially, the way he followed through was all wrong. Just MHO.

But you are bound by the Geneva Convention, civilians are not. A motherfucker puts a gun in my face, he better take me out because if I have the chance, it's curtains for him. While I don't condone murder, I wholeheartedly feel that given the chance if let go, this dirtbag will do it again and next time I might end up in a body bag. I'm just dealing a preemptive strike to protect myself from a future threat. Once a criminal makes a successful heist, they will repeat because they got away with it once.

[Papa_Complex]

But you see they didn't execute a successful heist and it was, in fact, murder.

[Rider]

And if you have a vigilante mentality, then you run into little issues like that buy in Texas who smoked the Japanese exchange student, or the motorcyclist who was sideswiped by a couple of daddy's little girls and was shot in the back by the lying bitches' father.

I don't know anything about those stories. I would never go looking for criminals after the fact. I'm saying right then and there at that moment in time, some one pulls a weapon on me, I consider that threat to do great bodily harm. I'd then take action. If this guy got away, so be it, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way looking for him.

[Rider]

But you see they didn't execute a successful heist and it was, in fact, murder.

Whose to say that as soon as they serve their jail time(if they do any at all) they won't come back and try it again and this time leave no witnesses.

[Papa_Complex]

Whose to say that as soon as they serve their jail time(if they do any at all) they won't come back and try it again and this time leave no witnesses.

I simply answered the points that you stated. If you want to turn your stand into a moving target, well feel free ;)

[Rider]

I simply answered the points that you stated. If you want to turn your stand into a moving target, well feel free ;)

If you are a criminal doing criminal activities and if you walk away with your life, then that is successful and willing to try it again. No matter how much jail time you serve. Once a criminal always a criminal.

[Papa_Complex]

Ah, so the definitions change now :lol:

[Rider]

Ah, so the definitions change now :lol:

Nope, maybe your understanding of the definition changed or I wasn't clear of the definition in the first place. Most likely the later is more accurate though.

[Papa_Complex]

"Success" is defined as achieving mission goals. So being seen, shot at, and getting away with nothing more than your life is achieving mission goals? I want to see your dictionary.

[Rider]

"Success" is defined as achieving mission goals. So being seen, shot at, and getting away with nothing more than your life is achieving mission goals? I want to see your dictionary.

Planning to point a gun at someone and still being alive the next day.. yeah I'd say that is successful. You do realize that once you point a gun at someone, you are taking your own like and putting in the hands of anyone else that might me strapped. Anytime you make it out of that situation alive... yeah it's a success.

[Papa_Complex]

:lol:

[askmrjesus]

But you are bound by the Geneva Convention, civilians are not.

Civilians are bound by the rule of law, which states that you are entitled to defend yourself, but are not entitled to seek revenge.

JC

[Archren]

Civilians are bound by the rule of law, which states that you are entitled to defend yourself, but are not entitled to seek revenge.

JC

Yup.

[Rider]

Civilians are bound by the rule of law, which states that you are entitled to defend yourself, but are not entitled to seek revenge.

JC

If you feel that your life in in danger, you have the right to protect yourself and that's all the reason you need. Meaning if you believe that your life or your families life is at stake, you have a legal right to take action.

[Papa_Complex]

If you feel that your life in in danger, you have the right to protect yourself and that's all the reason you need. Meaning if you believe that your life or your families life is at stake, you have a legal right to take action.

It's also based on the actions of a reasonable person. A reasonable person, even one who has his adrenaline pumping because of a near miss, knows that it is wrong to repeatedly shoot someone who is already bleeding out on the floor with a bullet in his head.

[askmrjesus]

If you feel that your life in in danger, you have the right to protect yourself and that's all the reason you need. Meaning if you believe that your life or your families life is at stake, you have a legal right to take action.

It would seem obvious that the District Attorney who charged the pharmacist with Murder, probably has a better understanding of the law than you do.

There are limits to everything, and this guy exceeded those limits.

JC

[Tmall]

It would seem obvious that the District Attorney who charged the pharmacist with Murder, probably has a better understanding of the law than you do.

There are limits to everything, and this guy exceeded those limits.

JC

NO! You're wrong. If somebody cuts me off and I fear for my life, I can burn him and his family in their home without fear of consequences. Fo' real.. trust me, I know!

[Rider]

It's also based on the actions of a reasonable person. A reasonable person, even one who has his adrenaline pumping because of a near miss, knows that it is wrong to repeatedly shoot someone who is already bleeding out on the floor with a bullet in his head.

Hey we weren't there, so we don't know for sure. Maybe the pharmacist saw the guy move or twitch. It's hard to prove that this guy was not fearful of his life. If I saw a guy that I just shot move, I'd shoot him again because you do't know what they are going to do.
It would seem obvious that the District Attorney who charged the pharmacist with Murder, probably has a better understanding of the law than you do.

There are limits to everything, and this guy exceeded those limits.

JC

Well i do know that it's hard to prove a negative. You have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that this guy was not fearful of his life. How do you prove that? You can't.

[Kaneman]

I'm with Rider on this one. The one thing that would've guaranteed this "good kid" got to live another day would've been him NOT committing armed robbery. From my POV everything that happened to him after his decision to perform said robbery is a moot point.
________
Travel Insurance Forums (http://www.insurance-forums.org/travel-insurance/)

[Rsv1000R]

It was suggested that in that part of the country, he'd never get 12 guilty verdicts on murder 1, which was why he was charged with murder 1 and not manslaughter instead.

:idk:

[askmrjesus]

I'm with Rider on this one. The one thing that would've guaranteed this "good kid" got to live another day would've been him NOT committing armed robbery. From my POV everything that happened to him after his decision to perform said robbery is a moot point.

For the record, as gun owner, I would not hesitate to blow that kid's head off. I don't care if he's a fucking Eagle Scout, you pull a gun me, or assist someone who pulled a gun a me, your ass is going down.

But, and this is a pretty big but, as a gun owner, you have to know what the law is, or you're in deep shit. This isn't a case of "what feels right", it's a point of law.


Well i do know that it's hard to prove a negative. You have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that this guy was not fearful of his life. How do you prove that? You can't.

Hey, once a jury gets involved, it's a crapshoot.

As I recall, the article said no gun was found at the scene. It's going to be just as hard to prove that the guy on the floor, with a bullet in his head, and no visible gun, qualifies as a threat to your life, especially when you're standing over him, with a gun, and no bullet in your head.

JC

[tommymac]

I'm with Rider on this one. The one thing that would've guaranteed this "good kid" got to live another day would've been him NOT committing armed robbery. From my POV everything that happened to him after his decision to perform said robbery is a moot point.

Thats how I feel, once this guy went down this road he forefits all his rights IMO including the right to breathe the same air I do. One of our attendings was robbed at gunpoint on his way to the ER last night. I would love to see the skell get brought in for a trauma and hes standing over him. May be a bit harsh but I think its better if theyre just removed from society all together and out tax dollars dont have to pay to feed and house him for 20 years now.

Tom

[Papa_Complex]

For the record, as gun owner, I would not hesitate to blow that kid's head off. I don't care if he's a fucking Eagle Scout, you pull a gun me, or assist someone who pulled a gun a me, your ass is going down.

But, and this is a pretty big but, as a gun owner, you have to know what the law is, or you're in deep shit. This isn't a case of "what feels right", it's a point of law.

Hey, once a jury gets involved, it's a crapshoot.

As I recall, the article said no gun was found at the scene. It's going to be just as hard to prove that the guy on the floor, with a bullet in his head, and no visible gun, qualifies as a threat to your life, especially when you're standing over him, with a gun, and no bullet in your head.

JC

Obviously the pharmacist is too stupid to own a gun; he had two and didn't think to plant one on the crook.

[askmrjesus]

Obviously the pharmacist is too stupid to own a gun; he had two and didn't think to plant one on the crook.

I knew he was stupid when he shot the guy with no gun first. :lol:

Oh, and he's also a liar:

"A police detective said Ersland lied to the police and news reporters about the shooting. Ersland, for instance, said the robbers shot at him. "Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” he told The Oklahoman. "I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” Prosecutors say there is no evidence anyone but Ersland fired inside the store."

http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-released-after-supporter-arranges-bail/article/3373432

JC

[HRCNICK11]

It would seem obvious that the District Attorney who charged the pharmacist with Murder, probably has a better understanding of the law than you do.


Or he he is trying to be re-elected and or trying to keep the punks in his city from rioting. The man might get lucky the jury might be feed up wth all the crap criminals.

Maybe the guy was in fear that the guy would come back if he got out of the hospital.

I worked with a guy that had been shot in the head and not only lived but was fine. Matter offact he drove himself to the hospital. A shot to the head does not mean crap. Go big when you select you gun.

[askmrjesus]

Or he he is trying to be re-elected and or trying to keep the punks in his city from rioting.

Or, maybe he hopes to get re-elected by doing his job, which is to follow the laws of his state.

Maybe the guy was in fear that the guy would come back if he got out of the hospital.

Maybe he's afraid of Wolverines, should he shoot Hugh Jackman?

A shot to the head does not mean crap.

Ok, hold still. Wait, where are you going? Pussy.

Go big when you select you gun.

That I agree with.

JC

[Smittie61984]

the motorcyclist who was sideswiped by a couple of daddy's little girls and was shot in the back by the lying bitches' father.

That was in Georgia actually. He was convicted of murder if I remember right. Though I think the lying bitches should really be the one in jail. I somewhat empathize with the father and believe he was manipulated by the daughters. Anyways.

Not saying it's right but I wonder how much crime woudl go down if you were able to straight up murder someone who tried to rob you at gun point and after shooting them and disabling them able to put a bullet into their head to finish the job.

I also believe that once you break into someone's house and try to leave, armed or not, that the homeowner should be allowed to grab whatever scoped high powered rifle they have and pop one into the back of your head as you are running out. Or if someone is breaking into your vehicle that if you are able to get your rifle out the window without having the criminal notice. That you should be able to put a sniper strategic shot through their head/neck/back/foot/whatever with no warning at all.

[Papa_Complex]

That was in Georgia actually. He was convicted of murder if I remember right. Though I think the lying bitches should really be the one in jail. I somewhat empathize with the father and believe he was manipulated by the daughters. Anyways.

Not saying it's right but I wonder how much crime woudl go down if you were able to straight up murder someone who tried to rob you at gun point and after shooting them and disabling them able to put a bullet into their head to finish the job.

I also believe that once you break into someone's house and try to leave, armed or not, that the homeowner should be allowed to grab whatever scoped high powered rifle they have and pop one into the back of your head as you are running out. Or if someone is breaking into your vehicle that if you are able to get your rifle out the window without having the criminal notice. That you should be able to put a sniper strategic shot through their head/neck/back/foot/whatever with no warning at all.

I didn't say where that one was. It was the exchange student that I mentioned was killed in Texas.

If you could straight up murder someone who was trying to rib you at gun point then there would be a whole lot of old grudges being dealt with through the use of drop pieces.

[askmrjesus]

I didn't say where that one was. It was the exchange student that I mentioned was killed in Texas.

If you could straight up murder someone who was trying to rib you at gun point then there would be a whole lot of old grudges being dealt with through the use of drop pieces.

The whole idea of the death penalty, (which I'm for) or in this case, the "instant death penalty", being a deterrent is bogus.

"For 2007, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.5, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1"

Why? Because the type of people who are inclined to kill people during the commission of a crime, are fucking idiots. They either don't consider the consequences, or don't a give a fuck.

No law you could impose, is going to make these people any smarter. It would, as you pointed out, probably drive the Murder rate up, instead of down.

JC

[Smittie61984]

If you could straight up murder someone who was trying to rib you at gun point then there would be a whole lot of old grudges being dealt with through the use of drop pieces.

If someone wants to literally murder someone then they are going to find a way to do it regardless of law.

I just can't stand thieves. I don't make jack shit right now and I'm busting my ass trying to get through school to better myself. Making roughly $10 an hour with much of that time me hand digging a fucking hole or nearly getting hit by cars while standing on burning hot ass pavement for hours. Stealing $100 from me is like stealing 10hours (actually more after taxes) of my life. People should die for that.

[Amorok]

If you could straight up murder someone who was trying to rib you at gun point then there would be a whole lot of old grudges being dealt with through the use of drop pieces.

Yeah, because that doesn't happen now. Nobody would ever think of that.

[101lifts2]

But you see they didn't execute a successful heist and it was, in fact, murder.

I'm sorry but your replies sound like a true liberal (you're from Canada...so that explains it. LOL).

These two punks came in with gun pointed at the pharmacist's head demanding drugs. At that point, he had every right to blow his fuckin brains out. He just so happen to finish him off because he would of prolly ended up a veggie anyways at the expense of the taxpayer.

Killing a child in cold blood is Murder 1, not shooting an armed robber until he's dead.

[HRCNICK11]

In truth I know what the guy did is wrong but I can tell you if I were on the jury I would have a hard time putting the guy in jail. Only 2 people in that store left there house intent on breaking the law and had malice and fore thought.

The man reacted to criminals and there right to be treated as humans ended when they pointed a guy at someone that was no threat to them. If he had been a police officer or a soldier that had been trained to deal with criminals then that would be different. The man was scared and amped up from having a gun pointed at him.

Think about it when you choose to get in a car after drinking you give up lots of rights. If pulled over its one of the few times when you can lose your license just for not blowing into a straw. I think that when you decide to use a gun in a crime the intented victims should be able to treat you as they see fit.

PS Jesus feel free to post your thoughts with out picking mine apart line by line.

[askmrjesus]

Killing a child in cold blood is Murder 1, not shooting an UNarmed robber until he's dead.

Fixed.

Care to show the statute that backs up that statement, Mr. Perry fucking Mason?

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Fixed.

Care to show the statute that backs up that statement, Mr. Perry fucking Mason?

JC

Well now you've gone and done it! I can't blow him out of the water for making obviously incorrect statements about the issue at hand, so now I'm stuck saying lame things like I'm only a liberal when I don't agree with him.... and stuff.

[askmrjesus]

In truth I know what the guy did is wrong

Well there you go.

but I can tell you if I were on the jury I would have a hard time putting the guy in jail.

Not if you follow the law.

Only 2 people in that store left there house intent on breaking the law and had malice and fore thought.

Doesn't matter. The pharmacist decided to murder someone while at work. The fact that he didn't think of it before he left the house, is immaterial.

The man reacted to criminals and there right to be treated as humans ended when they pointed a guy at someone that was no threat to them.

His right to treat them as animals, ended when they were no longer a threat to him.


If he had been a police officer or a soldier that had been trained to deal with criminals then that would be different. The man was scared and amped up from having a gun pointed at him.

Watch the video again. Does he look scared to you? He didn't even glance at the dude he was supposed to be so afraid of, on his way to grab his second gun.

Think about it

I did.

when you choose to get in a car after drinking you give up lots of rights.

True.

If pulled over its one of the few times when you can lose your license just for not blowing into a straw.

Also true.

I think that when you decide to use a gun in a crime the intented victims should be able to treat you as they see fit.

False, and not even close to what anyone would call justice. Can I rape their mom? Set them on fire? Set their mom on fire? No.

PS Jesus feel free to post your thoughts with out picking mine apart line by line.

If would of have a been a lot easier, if you just would have said that at the beginning.

JC

[askmrjesus]

Well now you've gone and done it! I can't blow him out of the water for making obviously incorrect statements about the issue at hand, so now I'm stuck saying lame things like I'm only a liberal when I don't agree with him.... and stuff.

Sorry, that was rude of me.

I just really wanted to use the phrase, "Mr. Perry fucking Mason", and I lost my head.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Sorry, that was rude of me.

I just really wanted to use the phrase, "Mr. Perry fucking Mason", and I lost my head.

JC

Well give a guy a heads up next time first.

Yeah, he looked positively paralysed with fear, didn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg&feature=fvsr

[101lifts2]

Fixed.

Care to show the statute that backs up that statement, Mr. Perry fucking Mason?

JC


Yeah its called you're not even compaing apples to oranges. Murder 1 is premediated murder in which you have a right mind to kill someone. We don't know what was going through this guys head after some people just robbed him. You DON"T know..you are just ASSuming, like I am.

[101lifts2]

....Watch the video again. Does he look scared to you? He didn't even glance at the dude he was supposed to be so afraid of, on his way to grab his second gun.....
JC

He is crippled...he isn't going to move fast..and how the hell do you know he wasn't scared? Because he didn't jump up and down screaming? Please your assuming just as much as me.

There is 1 dead thief and one in jail. That is where fucking armed robbing thieves belong. The state should have given the guy money for saving the taxpaper jail costs.

[101lifts2]

Well give a guy a heads up next time first.

Yeah, he looked positively paralysed with fear, didn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg&feature=fvsr

You know to me it doesn't matter if I was on the jury. I hope they prove the first bullet would have killed him anyways.

[Smittie61984]

Out of the times that police "accidently" lose security videos, why can't this be one of them.

And what if it was a poor black man who broke into a courthouse and opened fire with a M16 on a couple of handcuffed rednecks who just raped and attempted to murder his daughter? Well it'd be a movie where the black man gets off with pre-meditated murder and everyone in the theatre rejoices as the murderer gets off.

[101lifts2]

Out of the times that police "accidently" lose security videos, why can't this be one of them.

And what if it was a poor black man who broke into a courthouse and opened fire with a M16 on a couple of handcuffed rednecks who just raped and attempted to murder his daughter? Well it'd be a movie where the black man gets off with pre-meditated murder and everyone in the theatre rejoices as the murderer gets off.


Not the same thing...and that guy should go to jail. While I would feel for the guy, you cannot allow Vigilante justice as we are a country of law. The phamacist says he was scared for his life....something a jury is going to have to decide.

[askmrjesus]

Well give a guy a heads up next time first.

Ok, here it comes..


He is crippled...he isn't going to move fast..and how the hell do you know he wasn't scared? Because he didn't jump up and down screaming? Please your assuming just as much as me.



Crippled my shiny white ass. He was moving pretty fast when he chased the other dude out the door.

I'm not claiming that he wasn't scared, I'm sure he was. Was he scared enough to think that a bleeding, unarmed kid laying on his back, was a threat? Please. The dude is a Gulf War vet, he should know the difference.


Yeah its called you're not even compaing apples to oranges. Murder 1 is premediated murder in which you have a right mind to kill someone. We don't know what was going through this guys head after some people just robbed him. You DON"T know..you are just ASSuming, like I am.

Had you been following along, you'd know that I don't think Murder 1 is the right charge. There are definitively some extenuating circumstances here, but the fact remains, that he did not have to shoot that guy 5 more times. The one thing I'm not assuming, is what the law is.

JC

[101lifts2]

....Had you been following along, you'd know that I don't think Murder 1 is the right charge. There are definitively some extenuating circumstances here, but the fact remains, that he did not have to shoot that guy 5 more times. The one thing I'm not assuming, is what the law is.

JC


The discussion is about Murder 1 JC..get with the program and quit drinking. lol If you don't think its Murder 1, then you think he should be aquitted because that is the charge the jury is going to have to decide on.

If they would have lessened to charge to voluntary manslaughter or something like that, I might think probation would suit the punishment just fine.

[Papa_Complex]

The discussion is about Murder 1 JC..get with the program and quit drinking. lol If you don't think its Murder 1, then you think he should be aquitted because that is the charge the jury is going to have to decide on.

If they would have lessened to charge to voluntary manslaughter or something like that, I might think probation would suit the punishment just fine.

Do I have to give you the legal definition of premeditation, or will you simply accept the two posts that I've made on the subject already?

Oh, fuck it. I'll just toss it in here anyway:

PREMEDITATION. A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.
2. Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistence which indicate more perversity. The preparation of arms or other instruments required for the execution of the crime, are indications of a premeditation, but are not absolute proof of it, as these preparations may have been intended for other purposes, and then suddenly changed to the performance of the criminal act. Murder by poisoning must of necessity be done with premeditation. See Aforethought; Murder.

[askmrjesus]

The discussion is about Murder 1 JC..get with the program and quit drinking. lol If you don't think its Murder 1, then you think he should be aquitted because that is the charge the jury is going to have to decide on.

If they would have lessened to charge to voluntary manslaughter or something like that, I might think probation would suit the punishment just fine.

Under Oklahoma law, the pharmacist can use "Heat of Passion" as a defense. If he does so, the jury has to be instructed to choose between Murder 1, and Heat of Passion manslaughter, so it's not as cut and dry as you think.


OUJI-CR 4-95A

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE –
DEFENSE OF HEAT OF PASSION

A person who kills another person in the heat of passion cannot have the deliberate intent required for murder in the first degree. Thus, malice aforethought and heat of passion cannot co-exist.

______________________________

Notes on Use

This instruction should be given if the defendant has raised heat of passion manslaughter as a defense to murder in the first degree and evidence supporting this defense has been introduced at trial. In cases where heat of passion manslaughter has been charged as a lesser included offense to murder in the first degree, the trial court should also give OUJI-CR 10-23 and 10-24 relating to lesser included offenses and the appropriate jury instructions on murder in the first degree in OUJI-CR 4-61 through 4-63 and heat of passion manslaughter in OUJI-CR 4-95 and 4-97 through 4-101. This instruction should be given after the heat of passion manslaughter instructions.

Committee Comments

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 45, n. 14, 139 P.3d 907, 925 n. 14, and Black v. State, 2001 OK CR 5, 21 P.3d 1047, 1067 n. 17, that more specific jury instructions on the relationship between murder in the first degree and heat of passion manslaughter may be desirable. See also United States v. Lofton, 776 F.2d 918, 921-22 (10th Cir. 1985) (reversing murder conviction because the jury instructions did not specifically distinguish heat of passion and malice "as inconsistent mental states or inform the jury that finding one necessarily precluded finding the other").


Given the obvious premeditation in this case, the pharmacist would be a fool not to raise this defense.

JC

[Rsv1000R]

The whole idea of the death penalty, (which I'm for) or in this case, the "instant death penalty", being a deterrent is bogus.

"For 2007, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.5, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1"

Why? Because the type of people who are inclined to kill people during the commission of a crime, are fucking idiots. They either don't consider the consequences, or don't a give a fuck.

No law you could impose, is going to make these people any smarter. It would, as you pointed out, probably drive the Murder rate up, instead of down.

JC

While I'd like to think it's a deterrent, I'm okay if all it does is remove scum from the human population on earth.

[Rider]

Given the obvious premeditation in this case, the pharmacist would be a fool not to raise this defense.

JC


Let them roll the dice on a murder 1 charge. You will never get 12 jurors to convict. The pharmacist should plead not guilty to the grave. The fact that the kid that was shot had no gun doesn't make a shit of difference. You do know that there have been instances where people kill people with their bare hands? You don't need a fucking weapon present to be fearful of your life.

[askmrjesus]

While I'd like to think it's a deterrent, I'm okay if all it does is remove scum from the human population on earth.

That exactly why I'm for it.

My position has always been that the death penalty may not be an effective deterrent to everyone, but it works pretty damn good on the people it's applied to.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

That exactly why I'm for it.

My position has always been that the death penalty may not be an effective deterrent to everyone, but it works pretty damn good on the people it's applied to.

JC

And for that reason should only be used in truly heinous cases ('special circumstances', murder of a law enforcement officer, etc.), or with offenders who are at serious risk of re-offending (serial killers, etc.).

[Rider]

And for that reason should only be used in truly heinous cases ('special circumstances', murder of a law enforcement officer, etc.), or with offenders who are at serious risk of re-offending (serial killers, etc.).

That's ALL of them.

[Rsv1000R]

And for that reason should only be used in truly heinous cases ('special circumstances', murder of a law enforcement officer, etc.), or with offenders who are at serious risk of re-offending (serial killers, etc.).

I'm okay with just plain murders, But in general I'd like their cases be clear cut, and not based on circumstantial evidence.

[Papa_Complex]

That's ALL of them.

You would have a very hard time demonstrating that theory. Most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim and has had a great deal of time to work up to it. Every killer isn't a serial killer (though some of the things that I'm seeing from kids these days make me think that we're raising a generation of sociopaths).

[Rider]

You would have a very hard time demonstrating that theory. Most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim and has had a great deal of time to work up to it. Every killer isn't a serial killer (though some of the things that I'm seeing from kids these days make me think that we're raising a generation of sociopaths).

Don't need to prove it. Put them in the chair and flip the switch and be done with it.

[askmrjesus]

Let them roll the dice on a murder 1 charge. You will never get 12 jurors to convict. The pharmacist should plead not guilty to the grave. The fact that the kid that was shot had no gun doesn't make a shit of difference. You do know that there have been instances where people kill people with their bare hands? You don't need a fucking weapon present to be fearful of your life.

It doesn't really matter if he pleads not guilty, the prosecutor can amend the charge to include the lessor charge anyway, (if I'm reading this right).

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Don't need to prove it. Put them in the chair and flip the switch and be done with it.

Next step: Do away with the trial and just fry their asses because they've been accused.

[Rider]

It doesn't really matter if he pleads not guilty, the prosecutor can amend the charge to include the lessor charge anyway, (if I'm reading this right).

JC

No matter the charge, he should plead not guilty anyway. Why plea bargain to a lesser charge? I don't see a case where this guy will get convicted of ANYTHING unless he comes out and admits that he was not fearful of his life. If he says that, all bets are off and his ass is going to prison.

[Rider]

Next step: Do away with the trial and just fry their asses because they've been accused.

Be real, there's no need to exaggerate.

[askmrjesus]

That's ALL of them.

So if the pharmacist is convicted, he should get the chair?

I mean, he is a convicted murderer at that point....:lol:

JC

[Rider]

So if the pharmacist is convicted, he should get the chair?

I mean, he is a convicted murderer at that point....:lol:

JC

Yes, if he is convicted of 1st degree murder(which he won't) he should get the chair.

[askmrjesus]

No matter the charge, he should plead not guilty anyway. Why plea bargain to a lesser charge? I don't see a case where this guy will get convicted of ANYTHING unless he comes out and admits that he was not fearful of his life. If he says that, all bets are off and his ass is going to prison.

It's a tricky call. Juries do some weird shit. They might want the maximum sentence for manslaughter, instead of the minimum he might be able to plea for.

In light of the video, and the fact that he lied to police about being shot at...well, a bird in the hand, and all that.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Be real, there's no need to exaggerate.

I feel the same way about you saying that everyone convicted of homicide should fry. An ex-neighbour of mine was a bouncer in a club and caught some guy trying to rape a girl in the alley outside. He hit the guy a little too hard and a few times too many, and killed him. Went to prison for murder. Should he have fried?

[Rider]

I feel the same way about you saying that everyone convicted of homicide should fry. An ex-neighbour of mine was a bouncer in a club and caught some guy trying to rape a girl in the alley outside. He hit the guy a little too hard and a few times too many, and killed him. Went to prison for murder. Should he have fried?

Was he convicted of 1st degree murder? I doubt it.

[Papa_Complex]

Was he convicted of 1st degree murder? I doubt it.

We don't have "murder 1" in Canada. Our term is "culpable homicide" and he was convicted of it. Ended up serving something like 12 years.

Correction: The Criminal Code now appears to contain the words "first degree murder" and you are correct, that isn't what he was charged with, or convicted of. I need to update my reading list.