Oklahoma drugstore shooting stirs debate over self-defense

[Vegas]

http://www.myfox8.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-pharmacy-shooting,0,5293973.story?track=rss

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail thanks to an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

[domenick2x]

Doesn't sound like 1st Degree Murder to me.

If the DA went a little lower, there'd be a better chance of conviction.

[thrasymachus]

Doesn't sound like 1st Degree Murder to me.

If the DA went a little lower, there'd be a better chance of conviction.
Depends on what the fatal shot was, I suppose.

[Vegas]

Doesn't sound like 1st Degree Murder to me.

If the DA went a little lower, there'd be a better chance of conviction.

Shooting a guy that's laying on the floor is pretty extreme.

[TimicktheGreat]

http://www.myfox8.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-pharmacy-shooting,0,5293973.story?track=rss

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail thanks to an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters and become the darling of conservative talk radio.
I see nothing wrong with the pharmacist defending himself by shooting the robber...I am all for self-defense but to then grab another gun and shoot a wounded man laying on the ground is just way too far. I hope this guy sees a lot of jail time.

[domenick2x]

Shooting a guy that's laying on the floor is pretty extreme.
Yes, but unless there was a notable delay between the first shot and the deadly ones, I'm not sure that you'll get 'aforethought'.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69297

A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.

(plus other circumstances that don't apply)

[tichabou]

I'm generally against shooting the wounded.

[KinjaKahn]

At a trial, the jury will likely get instructions that will allow a lesser conviction. I can see manslaughter, but I think with a good attorney he is not guilty and walks. Especially if they go temp. insanity.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

http://www.myfox8.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-pharmacy-shooting,0,5293973.story?track=rss

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor. Had this been a hardened, drug-addict-criminal with a rap sheet and not a teen, i'm not so sure the public- or people here- would have been so quick to judge the pharmacist as the wrong-doer......


....even though the pharamacist wouldn't have known about the rap sheet or criminal record beforehand anyway.

[thrasymachus]

At a trial, the jury will likely get instructions that will allow a lesser conviction. I can see manslaughter, but I think with a good attorney he is not guilty and walks. Especially if they go temp. insanity.
You don't know much about the legal system.

[thrasymachus]

I would try to get a medical expert to testify that the first shot (the one in the head) fatally wounded the teen. So you argue self-defense and then plead guilty to something stupid like desecrating a dead body or tampering with evidence.

[KinjaKahn]

You don't know much about the legal system.
Ok ....

LOS ANGELES — Rock music producer Phil Spector was convicted Monday of second-degree murder in the shooting death of a film actress at his mansion six years ago, a verdict that will send him to prison for at least 18 years barring a successful appeal.
A Superior Court jury returned the verdict after about 30 hours of deliberations. The jury had the option of choosing involuntary manslaughter, but did not do so.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515275,00.html


A great attorney will show and get experts to testify that the state of mind of a man faced with death is not limited to rational thought. The fear for ones life will cause just about any type of reaction. The pharmacist can simply say the kid was still making what he perceived as continuation efforts... (still moving, or reaching for the gun.)

[thrasymachus]

Ok ....



A great attorney will show and get experts to testify that the state of mind of a man faced with death is not limited to rational thought. The fear for ones life will cause just about any type of reaction. The pharmacist can simply say the kid was still making what he perceived as continuation efforts... (still moving, or reaching for the gun.)
I'm chalking up another item on the list.

Things KinjaKahn does not know much about:

Ronald Reagan
The Legal System

[KinjaKahn]

I would try to get a medical expert to testify that the first shot (the one in the head) fatally wounded the teen. So you argue self-defense and then plead guilty to something stupid like desecrating a dead body or tampering with evidence.
You are aware that all head shots are not fatal? It would be rather comical for you to argue a grazing wound or a sinus wound killed him.

[thrasymachus]

You are aware that all head shots are not fatal? It would be rather comical for you to argue a grazing wound or a sinus wound killed him.
The argument would depend on the facts of the case. Depending on that, it's much smarter an argument than your lazy "temporary insanity" argument -- which by the way, rarely persuades the jury.

You lose. Please don't try again.

[thrasymachus]

The argument would depend on the facts of the case. Depending on that, it's much smarter an argument than your lazy "temporary insanity" argument -- which by the way, rarely persuades the jury.

You lose. Please don't try again.
Unless you're finally going to answer what Reagan's greatest accomplishment was. But I've got a funny feeling you're never going to answer that question.

[KinjaKahn]

Unless you're finally going to answer what Reagan's greatest accomplishment was. But I've got a funny feeling you're never going to answer that question.
The simple fact that you cannot deduce what I alluded to, tells me not to try and enlighten you, as it would be pointless. I feel you probably consider Reagan's efforts to be undermining to your political philosophy.

[KinjaKahn]

The argument would depend on the facts of the case. Depending on that, it's much smarter an argument than your lazy "temporary insanity" argument -- which by the way, rarely persuades the jury.

You lose. Please don't try again.
In this case the "defendant" is considered heroic. So any plausible argument in his defense will get the benefit of doubt. Stop counting chickens before the eggs have been laid.

[thrasymachus]

The simple fact that you cannot deduce what I alluded to, tells me not to try and enlighten you, as it would be pointless. I feel you probably consider Reagan's efforts to be undermining to your political philosophy.
The fact you can't give a straight answer tells me you're probably more of a Democrat than a Republican.

[thrasymachus]

In this case the "defendant" is considered heroic. So any plausible argument in his defense will get the benefit of doubt. Stop counting chickens before the eggs have been laid.
I'll agree with you on the fact that where the jury feels sympathy toward the defendant that weaker arguments are more likely to succeed, but the jury has not even been selected yet, making it hard to determine just how the jury will feel about the defendant.

[TimicktheGreat]

Ok ....



A great attorney will show and get experts to testify that the state of mind of a man faced with death is not limited to rational thought. The fear for ones life will cause just about any type of reaction. The pharmacist can simply say the kid was still making what he perceived as continuation efforts... (still moving, or reaching for the gun.)
So you want the pharmacist to stetch the truth and claim the teen that was shot in the head went to reach for the gun? Not only does that sound implausable but also there is video evidence to prove for or against that claim...Lying in court....not a good idea

[hannitykillspuppies]

I'm chalking up another item on the list.

Things KinjaKahn does not know much about:

Ronald Reagan
The Legal Systemthis list will be infinitely long.

[KinjaKahn]

So you want the pharmacist to stetch the truth and claim the teen that was shot in the head went to reach for the gun? Not only does that sound implausable but also there is video evidence to prove for or against that claim...Lying in court....not a good idea
I saw the video, the kid falls off screen.

[TimicktheGreat]

I saw the video, the kid falls off screen.
link?

[BurnAfterReading]

this list will be infinitely long.

it should actually be its own thread so that we can keep it updated daily.

[tichabou]

it should actually be its own thread so that we can keep it updated daily.

It'd be easier to keep a list of stuff he knows much about.

[BurnAfterReading]

It'd be easier to keep a list of stuff he knows much about.

ya ok.......im sure that'll be a hell of a kick off

/sarcasm

[TimicktheGreat]

It'd be easier to keep a list of stuff he knows much about.
The thread would have no posts

[KinjaKahn]

link? I saw it on Television, but I did check to see if it was on the net... it is... I found and watched it in less the 2 mins... don't be a lazy shiftless piece of shit, go find it.

Clue: fox news videos...

[TimicktheGreat]

I saw it on Television, but I did check to see if it was on the net... it is... I found and watched it in less the 2 mins... don't be a lazy shiftless piece of shit, go find it.

Clue: fox news videos...
I want the link where you saw it so there will be no discrepancy when the wounded teenager does not attempt to grab for the gun like you say the pharmacist should claim in the court of law.

[KinjaKahn]

I want the link where you saw it so there will be no discrepancy when the wounded teenager does not attempt to grab for the gun like you say the pharmacist should claim in the court of law.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension stunt double?

[Smoke681]

I've read the garbage in this thread, and decided to respond to the OP and leave all your bickering to you.

The pharmacist was in the right up until the point where he went behind the counter, picked up another gun, and proceeded to shoot a defenseless human being 5 more times.

I won't claim to be a legal expert like Kinja, but I do have some thoughts on the charge. 1st degree murder is defined as unlawful, premeditated killing of another human being. The "X" factor here is how the courts define "premeditated", because I know for a fact that somewhere in that definition is a "lying in wait" clause. Now, I don't know how you could argue that the Pharmacist "lied in wait". I mean, unless you would count the likely 10 seconds it took for him to get behind his counter for the other gun. Without that pesky "lying in wait" clause, I personally would argue it was premeditated by MY definition...which is to say that after he fired the first shot (in self defense), every action after that was thought-out. He knew he struck the kid in the head (you don't just overlook that), so he knew the kid was "out of the fight", for all intents and purposes. So from that point, making the deliberate decision to go back behind his counter for another weapon, and to proceed to fire off 5 more shots into the defenseless body of what could have been a rescuable human being, THAT shit was premeditated in my mind, even if only for a few seconds.

Did he act in a fit of rage? Was he so consumed by fear and anger, that he virtually lost control of himself and went into very extreme "fight or flight" mode? Perhaps, I really don't know.

I suppose I'll conclude by saying that I think a case could be made for 1st degree murder, but if the prosecution wants this guy to actually be convicted of a crime, they're going to have to aim a little lower.

[KinjaKahn]

I won't claim to be a legal expert like Kinja,
I made no such claim. He got another gun because the first one was emptied. Nobody but the shooter knows what the criminal was doing while on the floor.

[Smoke681]

I made no such claim. He got another gun because the first one was emptied. Nobody but the shooter knows what the criminal was doing while on the floor.
After being shot in the head, even if he wasn't dead, I'm going to go with the most likely scenario that he was definitely no longer a threat to the pharmacist.

Maybe that's just a wild and crazy assumption. But I'll go with my gut, here.

[KinjaKahn]

After being shot in the head, even if he wasn't dead, I'm going to go with the most likely scenario that he was definitely no longer a threat to the pharmacist.

Maybe that's just a wild and crazy assumption. But I'll go with my gut, here.
Reasonable doubt at this point. Bullets follow the "laws of physics"... (unless its the Warren Commission telling the story) ...the kid was moving when shot, it is quite possible the bullet grazed his head, and rung his bell real good, leaving him stunned on the floor, but entirely able to recover and kill the pharmacist in time.

[Smoke681]

Reasonable doubt at this point. Bullets follow the "laws of physics"... (unless its the Warren Commission telling the story) ...the kid was moving when shot, it is quite possible the bullet grazed his head, and rung his bell real good, leaving him stunned on the floor, but entirely able to recover and kill the pharmacist in time.
I think even you know how doubtful this scenario is that you speak of. If he was able to defend himself at that point, or was a legitimate threat to the pharmacist...how exactly did the pharmacist have time to go get another gun, and fire off 5 more shots while the robber did nothing?

Come on, Kinja. I mean, really. You're smarter than this. You HAVE to be.

[KinjaKahn]

I believe there was no crime committed by the pharmacist. I will look for anything to defend him. He did the right thing. This criminal's career is over.

[hannitykillspuppies]

from the article.

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

also from article:

Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KOTV, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters that he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.

"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."

Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."

[hannitykillspuppies]

I think even you know how doubtful this scenario is that you speak of. If he was able to defend himself at that point, or was a legitimate threat to the pharmacist...how exactly did the pharmacist have time to go get another gun, and fire off 5 more shots while the robber did nothing?

Come on, Kinja. I mean, really. You're smarter than this. You HAVE to be.funniest thing i have ever read here.

[KinjaKahn]

from the article.



also from article:
LOL That changes things quite a bit. The pharmacist now clings to temp insanity or some form of non responsibility by reason of circumstance. I am still pleased the criminals career is over.

[Smoke681]

I believe there was no crime committed by the pharmacist. I will look for anything to defend him. He did the right thing. This criminal's career is over.
Have you never committed a crime? Ever?

Have you ever broken the speed limit? If so, it seems to be someone should be pumping your skull full of bullets right about now as well, by your own logic, of course.

[KinjaKahn]

Have you never committed a crime? Ever?

Have you ever broken the speed limit? If so, it seems to be someone should be pumping your skull full of bullets right about now as well, by your own logic, of course.
And your logic... local ordinance violation = armed robbery, felonious assault, and possession of firearm during the commission of a felony.

Borrowing from the Terri Schaivo case and the proof of consciousness... a declaration of unconsciousness and defenseless, will be arguable. Then borrowing from my own personal experience with my mother dying in the hospital and involuntary movements made while unconscious after multiple brain surgeries. It remains plausible... the criminal made what could be perceived are continuation motions, that would be taken as aggressive and life threatening, which provoked more bullets.

[BurnAfterReading]

Have you never committed a crime? Ever?

Have you ever broken the speed limit? If so, it seems to be someone should be pumping your skull full of bullets right about now as well, by your own logic, of course.

doesnt seem to be any use arguing with Kinja. although watching what this guy writes is hilarious.

[Smoke681]

And your logic... local ordinance violation = armed robbery, felonious assault, and possession of firearm during the commission of a felony.

Borrowing from the Terri Schaivo case and the proof of consciousness... a declaration of unconsciousness and defenseless, will be arguable. Then borrowing from my own personal experience with my mother dying in the hospital and involuntary movements made while unconscious after multiple brain surgeries. It remains plausible... the criminal made what could be perceived are continuation motions, that would be taken as aggressive and life threatening, which provoked more bullets.
I didn't read past your first line, because frankly, I didn't want to see you get dumber.

Your whole thing is that the "criminal" got what he deserved. Really? REALLY? The first shot in the head was deserved, I already stated this. The going back behind the counter for a new gun, and the subsequent 5 shots to a DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING was NOT "deserved". A line was crossed there. By YOUR logic, all criminals should be executed. It's horribly disturbing logic, considering that at one point or another, we've all broken the law in some way, shape, or form. This guy didn't rape the pharmacist's wife.

If you want a country of vigilante justice, where citizens run around amok shooting every criminal they see, then I strongly suggest you find a nation where that kind of justice is served...because those nations do exist, and I think you'd be much happier in that environment, however short a time you would actually survive there.

You are despicable, to say the least.

[KinjaKahn]

I didn't read past your first line, because frankly, I didn't want to see you get dumber.

Your whole thing is that the "criminal" got what he deserved. Really? REALLY? The first shot in the head was deserved, I already stated this. The going back behind the counter for a new gun, and the subsequent 5 shots to a DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING was NOT "deserved". A line was crossed there. By YOUR logic, all criminals should be executed. It's horribly disturbing logic, considering that at one point or another, we've all broken the law in some way, shape, or form. This guy didn't rape the pharmacist's wife.

If you want a country of vigilante justice, where citizens run around amok shooting every criminal they see, then I strongly suggest you find a nation where that kind of justice is served...because those nations do exist, and I think you'd be much happier in that environment, however short a time you would actually survive there.

You are despicable, to say the least.
Well maybe you should read... a bit more. unconscious people can still move.

[Smoke681]

Well maybe you should read... a bit more. unconscious people can still move.
Indeed, you prove this daily.

[KinjaKahn]

Indeed, you prove this daily.
Run out of argument? Hilarious. Not comprehending my argument makes you an ignoramus. Granted I do not know what the pharmacist told the police/DA... if he said nothing without an attorney present he will get off completely, and he should... So take your "despicable" and cram it in your ass.

[Smoke681]

Run out of argument? Hilarious. Not comprehending my argument makes you an ignoramus. Granted I do not know what the pharmacist told the police/DA... if he said nothing without an attorney present he will get off completely, and he should... So take your "despicable" and cram it in your ass.
I will do no such thing.

You epitomize the "internet tough guy" who talks real big from his keyboard, but when the shit hits the fan, you'd be the first to run away like the vagina that you are. It is my estimation that if you were that Pharmacist, you'd have been hiding underneath the very counter where he retrieved the second weapon, crying for Ann Coulter to come and save you.

[BurnAfterReading]

I will do no such thing.

You epitomize the "internet tough guy" who talks real big from his keyboard, but when the shit hits the fan, you'd be the first to run away like the vagina that you are. It is my estimation that if you were that Pharmacist, you'd have been hiding underneath the very counter where he retrieved the second weapon, crying for Ann Coulter to come and save you.

vagiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinas on the run.....vagiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinas on the run


(sang to "Band on The Run")



(youre welcome)

[KinjaKahn]

I will do no such thing.

You epitomize the "internet tough guy" who talks real big from his keyboard, but when the shit hits the fan, you'd be the first to run away like the vagina that you are. It is my estimation that if you were that Pharmacist, you'd have been hiding underneath the very counter where he retrieved the second weapon, crying for Ann Coulter to come and save you.
Since were having fun with radical imagination... I think your some obese beer guzzling sports addicted shill of man, wannabe do-gooder who attempts to think its just fine to let people that point guns at others, do their time in the University of Crime on my dime, then come out and commit more crimes. You are the one launching personal attacks then cry "internet tough guy" when I smack ya back... you are the epitome of half wit internet dumb bitch.

[tichabou]

Holy shit. This thread is hillarious. I'm impressed that Smoke bothered to argue this long.

[BurnAfterReading]

Since were having fun with radical imagination... I think your some obese beer guzzling sports addicted shill of man, wannabe do-gooder who attempts to think its just fine to let people that point guns at others, do their time in the University of Crime on my dime, then come out and commit more crimes. You are the one launching personal attacks then cry "internet tough guy" when I smack ya back... you are the epitome of half wit internet dumb bitch.

its really simple....

make one post that makes any kind of sense in THIS dimension.

[KinjaKahn]

Holy shit. This thread is hillarious. I'm impressed that Smoke bothered to argue this long.
Me too usually the chimp runs off with his pussy hurt.

[Jiddy78]

Good God...

Only one thing left to do here:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h2Me8fvn0DQ/SMGyo2l0gwI/AAAAAAAAAsM/FsvTMxVwge8/S660/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

[hannitykillspuppies]

Since were having fun with radical imagination... I think your some obese beer guzzling sports addicted shill of man, wannabe do-gooder who attempts to think its just fine to let people that point guns at others, do their time in the University of Crime on my dime, then come out and commit more crimes. You are the one launching personal attacks then cry "internet tough guy" when I smack ya back... you are the epitome of half wit internet dumb bitch.i can only hope that someday your two paths cross. and that on that magnificent day you somehow muster up the balls to mouth off in a similar fashion.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Good God...

Only one thing left to do here:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h2Me8fvn0DQ/SMGyo2l0gwI/AAAAAAAAAsM/FsvTMxVwge8/S660/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

that picture sucks. the owl one was cool though.

[KinjaKahn]

its really simple....

make one post that makes any kind of sense in THIS dimension.
How about you make an argument that gets the pharmacist off. Anyone can sit there and cry for this piece of shit dead criminal. None of us know all the facts, but most seem to wanna see him lose his lifestyle, because he reacted in a different way than you think you would in the same situation. He didn't go to work that day looking to have his world crumble because some fucking piece of shit wants money or drugs.

[hannitykillspuppies]

How about you make an argument that gets the pharmacist off. Anyone can sit there and cry for this piece of shit dead criminal. None of us know all the facts, but most seem to wanna see him lose his lifestyle, because he reacted in a different way than you think you would in the same situation. He didn't go to work that day looking to have his world crumble because some fucking piece of shit wants money or drugs.why? he went over the line of acceptable force in the case of self defense.

[Jiddy78]

that picture sucks. the owl one was cool though.

*shrugs*

Not much to choose from in the "threadsucks" picture category....I could post this oldie but goodie though, although based on this thread it doesn't apply:

http://www.nerd-factory.com/ftp/div/ar10/lmao.jpg

[KinjaKahn]

why? he went over the line of acceptable force in the case of self defense.Everyone is entitled to a defense... maybe not in liberal candyland, but in the USA they do have that right.

[BurnAfterReading]

How about you make an argument that gets the pharmacist off. Anyone can sit there and cry for this piece of shit dead criminal. None of us know all the facts, but most seem to wanna see him lose his lifestyle, because he reacted in a different way than you think you would in the same situation. He didn't go to work that day looking to have his world crumble because some fucking piece of shit wants money or drugs.

who said i wanted to cry for the burglar?

this is what i mean and why you are such a joke.

its either black or white with you....no gray. its very sad.

[Smoke681]

Me too usually the chimp runs off with his pussy hurt.
I started the vaginal portion of this discussion, so now you are a joke thief.

Furthermore, the bottom line here is this:

You advocate for a society of vigilante justice. You believe in a world where two wrongs equal a right. I do not subscribe to this philosophy, and I thank God that 98% of my fellow citizens also do not subscribe to this lunacy. I own guns, and I'll forever fight for my right to own them. But anarchy is never the answer. There are laws, and when those laws are violated, there is a penalty. I strongly believe that if one's life is threatened, one has every right to defend their own right to live, by whatever means is necessary. When that threat ceases to exist, there is a line in the sand that is crossed when you continue to engage the aggressor...the point at which YOU become the aggressor and are no longer defending your right to live, but taking it upon yourself to effectively terminate another person's right to live. This pharmacist crossed that line. Whether or not you believe that to be true does not make it fact. The Pharmacist did what was necessary to remove the threat upon his life, and he then crossed that proverbial line and became the murderer. Upon crossing that line, you subject yourself to the laws of this great Nation, and I do firmly believe that the Pharmacist will get his due punishment and will pay the penalty for his actions.

I don't believe I have anything further to say on the matter.

[tichabou]

Everyone is entitled to a defense... maybe not in liberal candyland, but in the USA they do have that right.

Nothing says self defense like "unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat".

[BurnAfterReading]

Nothing says self defense like "unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat".

thats the dead kitten position. very intimidating.

[Jiddy78]

How about you make an argument that gets the pharmacist off.

But I'd be reaching and my argument would lack belief to back it...which would make it infinitely more difficult....and I ain't in school so I don't have to choose a side for "debate's sake."

[tichabou]

I started the vaginal portion of this discussion, so now you are a joke thief.

Furthermore, the bottom line here is this:

You advocate for a society of vigilante justice. You believe in a world where two wrongs equal a right. I do not subscribe to this philosophy, and I thank God that 98% of my fellow citizens also do not subscribe to this lunacy. I own guns, and I'll forever fight for my right to own them. But anarchy is never the answer. There are laws, and when those laws are violated, there is a penalty. I strongly believe that if one's life is threatened, one has every right to defend their own right to live, by whatever means is necessary. When that threat ceases to exist, there is a line in the sand that is crossed when you continue to engage the aggressor...the point at which YOU become the aggressor and are no longer defending your right to live, but taking it upon yourself to effectively terminate another person's right to live. This pharmacist crossed that line. Whether or not you believe that to be true does not make it fact. The Pharmacist did what was necessary to remove the threat upon his life, and he then crossed that proverbial line and became the murderer. Upon crossing that line, you subject yourself to the laws of this great Nation, and I do firmly believe that the Pharmacist will get his due punishment and will pay the penalty for his actions.

I don't believe I have anything further to say on the matter.

It's a damn shame I already repped you in this thread.

[Jiddy78]

Everyone is entitled to a defense... maybe not in liberal candyland, but in the USA they do have that right.

Who said he won't get a defense?

A jury of his peers will see his case....and if all of them see it the way I am seeing it, he's most likely going to lose his defense.

[Smoke681]

Everyone is entitled to a defense... maybe not in liberal candyland, but in the USA they do have that right.
The Pharmacist executed his right to defend himself.

Once he accomplished that, he proceeded to go above and beyond and become a murderer.

[KinjaKahn]

Nothing says self defense like "unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat".Nothing says speculate the situation at the time of the subsequent shootings, like that does. "Poses no threat" is an opinion.

[KinjaKahn]

The Pharmacist executed his right to defend himself.

Once he accomplished that, he proceeded to go above and beyond and become a murderer.

Who needs a trial eh? lock em up. Way to uphold the law. Moron.

[tichabou]

*shrugs*

Not much to choose from in the "threadsucks" picture category....I could post this oldie but goodie though, although based on this thread it doesn't apply:

http://www.nerd-factory.com/ftp/div/ar10/lmao.jpg

My brother has a shirt with this on it.

http://www.funfoll.com/data/content/ff_3095_0.gif

[Jiddy78]

Nothing says speculate the situation at the time of the subsequent shootings, like that does. "Poses no threat" is an opinion.

True enough...but a jury will be deciding on probably that very merit...and based on what I'm seeing here, you probably aren't going to agree with them...and it will not only then be an "opinion"....but a "verdict."

[hannitykillspuppies]

Everyone is entitled to a defense... maybe not in liberal candyland, but in the USA they do have that right.
so, let's here the defense you would use for a child molester.

[tichabou]

Who needs a trial eh? lock em up. Way to uphold the law. Moron.

lmao at you chiding someone else about the rule of law.

I'm quoting the prosecutor. Not my opinion, the opinion of someone in the know.

[Jiddy78]

My brother has a shirt with this on it.

http://www.funfoll.com/data/content/ff_3095_0.gif

I prefer my LMAO politicos unaffiliated.

[hannitykillspuppies]

*shrugs*

Not much to choose from in the "threadsucks" picture category....I could post this oldie but goodie though, although based on this thread it doesn't apply:

http://www.nerd-factory.com/ftp/div/ar10/lmao.jpgthis one is better.

http://cowlander.neobahumut.com/LOL%20PICTURES/LMAO.jpg

[Smoke681]

Nothing says speculate the situation at the time of the subsequent shootings, like that does. "Poses no threat" is an opinion.
If a person lying unconscious and unarmed is perceived as a threat to you, then you are even more of a coward that i already thought you were.

[Jiddy78]

this one is better.

http://cowlander.neobahumut.com/LOL%20PICTURES/LMAO.jpg

I asked if Data was in the new Star Trek movie and was told no.

See you on the ABC premiere Star Trek.

[KinjaKahn]

lmao at you chiding someone else about the rule of law.

I'm quoting the prosecutor. Not my opinion, the opinion of someone in the know.
Doesn't matter who said it... it is an opinion.

[tichabou]

Doesn't matter who said it... it is an opinion.

It's an opinion backed up by evidence. Here is an unconscious, unarmed man on his back. That evidence supports the claim of not posing a threat. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Who needs a trial eh? lock em up. Way to uphold the law. Moron.i think the medical examiner's determination that the shots to the burgular's torso are what killed him pretty much solidified the murderer label for the pharmacist.

[KinjaKahn]

If a person lying unconscious and unarmed is perceived as a threat to you, then you are even more of a coward that i already thought you were.
Unconscious is not proved, and even if proved it is plausible this kid still moved... unarmed is irrelevant as a movement towards a gun even if unconscious can still be perceived as a threat, threat is an opinion that is formed by the one being threatened. Reasonable doubt.

[KinjaKahn]

i think the medical examiner's determination that the shots to the burgular's torso are what killed him pretty much solidified the murderer label for the pharmacist. No trial by rule of Ashley... got it.

[hannitykillspuppies]

No trial by rule of Ashley... got it.

you're right. the guy shouldn't have stopped with the second gun. he should have chopped the kid up, poured gasoline on him, and burned him. he could have been a zombie.

[Smoke681]

Unconscious is not proved, and even if proved it is plausible this kid still moved... unarmed is irrelevant as a movement towards a gun even if unconscious can still be perceived as a threat, threat is an opinion that is formed by the one being threatened. Reasonable doubt.
Ahh. Ok. So let's think about the amount of time it took our vigilante pharmacist to go back behind his counter, get his other weapon, make that weapon ready, and fire 5 more rounds into this teenager. Then, let's think about the amount of time it would have taken our vigilante pharmacist to merely kick away or grab the weapon that our unconscious teenager was allegedly motioning toward, and perhaps drive a heel into his arm or some other such restraining tactic to prevent the unconscious teenager from continuing his threatening motion.

And then let's decide which would have taken longer.

[KinjaKahn]

It's an opinion backed up by evidence. Here is an unconscious, unarmed man on his back. That evidence supports the claim of not posing a threat. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Apparently you failed to comprehend the part of our rights that said the burden of proof resides in the state.

[Jiddy78]

Unconscious is not proved, and even if proved it is plausible this kid still moved... unarmed is irrelevant as a movement towards a gun even if unconscious can still be perceived as a threat, threat is an opinion that is formed by the one being threatened. Reasonable doubt.

Have you ever been on a jury Kinja?

My guess is no...but I'm interested.

[KinjaKahn]

Ahh. Ok. So let's think about the amount of time it took our vigilante pharmacist to go back behind his counter, get his other weapon, make that weapon ready, and fire 5 more rounds into this teenager. Then, let's think about the amount of time it would have taken our vigilante pharmacist to merely kick away or grab the weapon that our unconscious teenager was allegedly motioning toward, and perhaps drive a heel into his arm or some other such restraining tactic to prevent the unconscious teenager from continuing his threatening motion.

And then let's decide which would have taken longer.
Whats the rule on how much time it takes to recover your wits from a traumatic sequence of events?

Take into account the distance from the criminal at the time of movement and the distance the criminal is from the gun ... I can assert the criminal had the weapon in hand or looked to be about to have it, as he returned from retrieving the 2nd weapon, at which time the threat would be every bit as real as anytime earlier and totally justify the actions taken.

[Smoke681]

Whats the rule on how much time it takes to recover your wits from a traumatic sequence of events?

Take into account the distance from the criminal at the time of movement and the distance the criminal is from the gun ... I can assert the criminal had the weapon in hand or looked to be about to have it, as he returned from retrieving the 2nd weapon, at which time the threat would be every bit as real as anytime earlier and totally justify the actions taken.
And I can assert that once shot in the head, whatever weapon this teenager was holding was no longer in his possession, thus removing any need for our vigilante pharmacist to ever run back to his counter for the 2nd weapon in the first place.

[KinjaKahn]

Have you ever been on a jury Kinja?

My guess is no...but I'm interested.
Yes a civil one... about a drunk driving victims family who was suing TGIfridays for serving a drunk woman. The Victim is actually in a TV commercial... made me emotional every time I saw it. Beautiful young girl 17 if I remember correctly... thrown from the vehicle she was in when a drunk bitch hit them... She died in the street.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Whats the rule on how much time it takes to recover your wits from a traumatic sequence of events?

Take into account the distance from the criminal at the time of movement and the distance the criminal is from the gun ... I can assert the criminal had the weapon in hand or looked to be about to have it, as he returned from retrieving the 2nd weapon, at which time the threat would be every bit as real as anytime earlier and totally justify the actions taken.

why didn't you just kick it away when you came back into the store from running off the other burgular?

[KinjaKahn]

And I can assert that once shot in the head, whatever weapon this teenager was holding was no longer in his possession, thus removing any need for our vigilante pharmacist to ever run back to his counter for the 2nd weapon in the first place.No need for a 2nd weapon if the pharmacist believed he was now safe and the situation were resolved.

[KinjaKahn]

why didn't you just kick it away when you came back into the store from running off the other burgular?I didn't know that was the rules for being a victim.

[Smoke681]

I didn't know that was the rules for being a victim.
The pharmacist lost his "victim" tag once he assumed the role of "vigilante".

[hannitykillspuppies]

I didn't know that was the rules for being a victim.

but i can assert that he could have kicked the gun away when he came back into the store.

[KinjaKahn]

The pharmacist lost his "victim" tag once he assumed the role of "vigilante".
Way to deny trial... It's Self defense.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Way to deny trial... It's Self defense.
you need to defend yourself from people who are laying on their back shot in the head and unconscious?

[KinjaKahn]

but i can assert that he could have kicked the gun away when he came back into the store.
He could have ran away... he could have called in sick... he could have emptied the gun into the the criminals head the first time. It's easy to second guess what he should have done when you have the luxury of contemplating it for a few hours. All this happened in a couple minutes. The fear doesn't leave at a certain amount of time nor does the adrenalin drain from your system.

[KinjaKahn]

you need to defend yourself from people who are laying on their back shot in the head and unconscious?
Got proof positive the kid's muscles didn't move involuntarily?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Got proof positive the kid's muscles didn't move involuntarily?
got proof they did?

[hannitykillspuppies]

He could have ran away... he could have called in sick... he could have emptied the gun into the the criminals head the first time. It's easy to second guess what he should have done when you have the luxury of contemplating it for a few hours. All this happened in a couple minutes. The fear doesn't leave at a certain amount of time nor does the adrenalin drain from your system.

aye, what you can assert is black and white. what others can assert has many different shades of gray. quite the world you live in.

[KinjaKahn]

got proof they did?
Burden of proof is on the state.

[Jiddy78]

Yes a civil one... about a drunk driving victims family who was suing TGIfridays for serving a drunk woman. The Victim is actually in a TV commercial... made me emotional every time I saw it. Beautiful young girl 17 if I remember correctly... thrown from the vehicle she was in when a drunk bitch hit them... She died in the street.

I was on the jury for a felony case (One that had no right being brought to court in the first place by the feds IMO)...I documented some of it on here...Will try to find the link for ya...But one thing that stuck out in your post was something they hammered into us in pre-trial instructions (also given to us on paper) was that the scope of what is reasonable doubt is not as expansive as, based on what I was hearing/reading, you would think it would be.

A good example would be if you ever have watched 12 angry men...Based on the instructions/definition of reasonable doubt the jury and I were provided would have been tossed to the wayside (I actually did deliberate by presenting situations that "could have" occurred, in my opinion, quite possibly...but possibility alone is not enough to warrant "reasonable doubt" per their definition)....There was no buying it per the rules or by the other jurors.

[Jiddy78]

Burden of proof is on the state.

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7062&highlight=jury

[KinjaKahn]

aye, what you can assert is black and white. what others can assert has many different shades of gray. quite the world you live in.
Yet you assert there's no grey area... he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt...

[hannitykillspuppies]

Burden of proof is on the state.
right, the defense doesn't have to prove anything they present at trial.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Yet you assert there's no grey area... he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt...you not being able accept the facts of what occured in the pharmacy is not my problem.

[KinjaKahn]

you not being able accept the facts of what occured in the pharmacy is not my problem.
The prosecutor doesn't have all the facts... neither do you.

[tichabou]

Apparently you failed to comprehend the part of our rights that said the burden of proof resides in the state.

I understand that. They've presented their proof, which pretty conclusively shows that he did not provide a threat anymore. If you'd like to allege otherwise, then you should provide some proof for that assertion, which goes against every piece of evidence collected so far.

[KinjaKahn]

right, the defense doesn't have to prove anything they present at trial.It's the eyewitness account... its either believed or not... I still have temp insanity to fall back on.

[hannitykillspuppies]

The prosecutor doesn't have all the facts... neither do you.
yeah this is a real whodunit, will be months before anyone gets to the bottom of what actually happened there.

[hannitykillspuppies]

It's the eyewitness account... its either believed or not... I still have temp insanity to fall back on.it's not temporary.

[KinjaKahn]

yeah This Is A Real Whodunit, Will Be Months Before Anyone Gets To The Bottom Of What Actually Happened There.lol prosecutors are never wrong and never make mistakes.

[LSU]

I understand that. They've presented their proof, which pretty conclusively shows that he did not provide a threat anymore. If you'd like to allege otherwise, then you should provide some proof for that assertion, which goes against every piece of evidence collected so far.


An unconscious involuntary twitch is definitely an act of aggression. He may have twitched enough to grab the gun, aim, and fire. Duh.

[KinjaKahn]

it's not temporary.Do you really need a flurry of insults again? You're such an attention whore.

[KinjaKahn]

An unconscious involuntary twitch is definitely an act of aggression. He may have twitched enough to grab the gun, aim, and fire. Duh.
Translation: It's impossible for him to twitch... :rolleyes:

[thrasymachus]

Burden of proof is on the state.
It's the state's burden to show that a defendant's defense did not happen? For example, is it the state's burden to show that the defendant was not insane? Or is it the defendant's burden to show that the defendant was insane?

Look it up and then shut up for a long time.

[LSU]

Translation: It's impossible for him to twitch... :rolleyes:


for such an avid proponent of reading comprehension...


http://www.impawards.com/2003/posters/lost_in_translation.jpg

[hannitykillspuppies]

Do you really need a flurry of insults again? You're such an attention whore.
so you know it's true then?

[KinjaKahn]

for such an avid proponent of reading comprehension...


http://www.impawards.com/2003/posters/lost_in_translation.jpg
Criminal twitched and got wasted, sorry the pharmacist didn't wait around to see what was going to happen following the twitch... Of course I am sure you feel the criminal deserves the right to learn from his mistakes in jail and come out a better and more focused criminal.

[thrasymachus]

It's the state's burden to show that a defendant's defense did not happen? For example, is it the state's burden to show that the defendant was not insane? Or is it the defendant's burden to show that the defendant was insane?

Look it up and then shut up for a long time.
By the way, this rule varies by state but I believe the majority of states place the burden on the defendant. In other words, the state doesn't have the burden to prove everything.

[KinjaKahn]

It's the state's burden to show that a defendant's defense did not happen? For example, is it the state's burden to show that the defendant was not insane? Or is it the defendant's burden to show that the defendant was insane?

Look it up and then shut up for a long time.Follow the conversation retarded fuckwad... I never said anything about proving insanity... on either side. They are two separate defenses.

[LSU]

Criminal twitched and got wasted, sorry the pharmacist didn't wait around to see what was going to happen following the twitch... Of course I am sure you feel the criminal deserves the right to learn from his mistakes in jail and come out a better and more focused criminal.


Wow, you got all that from me saying a twitch is an act of aggression?

Oh, I got it, you're high right now. Didn't take that into consideration.

[tichabou]

Do you really need a flurry of insults again? You're such an attention whore.

Follow the conversation retarded fuckwad... I never said anything about proving insanity... on either side. They are two separate defenses.

Hilarious.

[thrasymachus]

Follow the conversation retarded fuckwad... I never said anything about proving insanity... on either side. They are two separate defenses.
You could have easily shot me down by doing the research and seeing that Oklahoma puts the burden on the state in insanity cases anyway...but I do believe you mentioned temporary insanity very early on in the thread. I guess you've abandoned that argument?

In any event, learn the legal system. The state doesn't have the burden of proving everything. So either stop acting like you know what you're talking about or just shut the fuck up already.

[LSU]

You could have easily shot me down by doing the research and seeing that Oklahoma puts the burden on the state in insanity cases anyway...but I do believe you mentioned temporary insanity very early on in the thread. I guess you've abandoned that argument?

In any event, learn the legal system. The state doesn't have the burden of proving everything. So either stop acting like you know what you're talking about or just shut the fuck up already.


It's not an act. It's the real thing.

[KinjaKahn]

Wow, you got all that from me saying a twitch is an act of aggression?

Oh, I got it, you're high right now. Didn't take that into consideration.
I took it as it was... sarcasm... If a finger is on the trigger... a twitch can get ya shot...

[Jiddy78]

In any event, learn the legal system. The state doesn't have the burden of proving everything. So either stop acting like you know what you're talking about or just shut the fuck up already.

This is what I was trying to get at before..."Reasonable doubt" I don't think is what Kinja thinks it is...at least based on my experience as a juror.

[tichabou]

I took it as it was... sarcasm... If a finger is on the trigger... a twitch can get ya shot...

What part of unarmed didn't you understand?

[LSU]

I took it as it was... sarcasm... If a finger is on the trigger... a twitch can get ya shot...


If someone else is there holding the arm up at an angle and at a person? Or are you assuming the pharmacist was laying on the floor directly in line of the barrel of the gun?

[LSU]

This is what I was trying to get at before..."Reasonable doubt" I don't think is what Kinja thinks it is...at least based on my experience as a juror.


If Kinja believes he is reasonable, and he has a doubt... voila! Reasonable doubt.

[KinjaKahn]

What part of unarmed didn't you understand?Make A move, a twitch towards a weapon and see if someeone holding a gun doesn't shoot you. Had this been a cop and the criminal twitches... it's a blaze of lead.

[hannitykillspuppies]

What part of unarmed didn't you understand?

what the hell do those silly reporters and law enforcement officials and da types know? not as much as kinja, that's for sure.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Make A move, a twitch towards a weapon and see if someeone holding a gun doesn't shoot you. Had this been a cop and the criminal twitches... it's a blaze of lead.
kinja would know, he's played cops and criminals many times.

[KinjaKahn]

If Kinja believes he is reasonable, and he has a doubt... voila! Reasonable doubt.
Self defense case... a criminal making a move towards a weapon is plenty reasonable doubt to a 1st Degree Murder charge.

[LSU]

Self defense case... a criminal making a move towards a weapon is plenty reasonable doubt to a 1st Degree Murder charge.

Making a move or making an uncoordinated twitch?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Making a move or making an uncoordinated twitch?
one in the same lsu, one in the same. burden is on the state to prove it isn't.

[KinjaKahn]

Making a move or making an uncoordinated twitch?
one in the same lsu, one in the same. burden is on the state to prove it isn't.Ahhh... now the pharmacist must be a trauma physician so he can correctly judge the possibility of life threatening danger to himself. Instantaneously.

[LSU]

I wonder of the deceased was wearing one of these. If so, I fully believe the "twitch defense" Kinja puts forth.

http://www.hauntedprops.com/ProductImages/aaaaaaamakeuuuoo/PM771166.jpg or http://www.yourprops.com/norm-480cedcf83ad1-Friday+the+13th,+Part+3+(1982).jpeg

[LSU]

Ahhh... now the pharmacist must be a trauma physician so he can correctly judge the possibility of life threatening danger to himself. Instantaneously.

It takes a trauma physician to tell the difference between a coordinate move towards a weapon and an involuntary twitch?

[hannitykillspuppies]

I wonder of the deceased was wearing one of these. If so, I fully believe the "twitch defense" Kinja puts forth.

http://www.hauntedprops.com/ProductImages/aaaaaaamakeuuuoo/PM771166.jpg or http://www.yourprops.com/norm-480cedcf83ad1-Friday+the+13th,+Part+3+(1982).jpeg

i already used the zombie defense.

[KinjaKahn]

It takes a trauma physician to tell the difference between a coordinate move towards a weapon and an involuntary twitch?If the kid is holding his head and his arm falls in the general direction of his gun as he loses consciousness... I wouldn't wait to see whats going on... I am shooting this piece of shit before his hand hits the floor. I don't think its necessary for anyone to wait and see whats next when someone criminal points his gun at you.

[LSU]

If the kid is holding his head and his arm falls in the general direction of his gun as he loses consciousness... I wouldn't wait to see whats going on... I am shooting this piece of shit before his hand hits the floor. I don't think its necessary for anyone to wait and see whats next when someone criminal points his gun at you.


You start by talking about a limp arm falling to the floor, and end with the criminal pointing a gun at you...

something doesn't quite fit in between those two things.

Nevermind the fact that you could be standing there dead to rights in the event an actual move is made to flee or attack.

[thrasymachus]

Honestly, Kinja, I see where you're coming from. And I don't think this guy is going to get convicted of 1st degree murder. But he is going to get convicted of something and he's going to do jail time for his actions.

But I don't think he was completely in the wrong here. And the fact of the matter is, these two moron teens put their lives in his hands when they entered that store with intent to commit armed robbery.

But we also live in a civilized society. And it simply seems unreasonable that we should let somebody kill a person who, to the reasonable person, was no longer a threat.

Now the drugstore clerk, he was a Vietnam War vet or something, right? Maybe he had a flashback or something. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't thinking completely clearly.

At worst, we're looking at 2nd degree murder and at best, I'm thinking some sort of manslaughter.

[KinjaKahn]

Honestly, Kinja, I see where you're coming from. And I don't think this guy is going to get convicted of 1st degree murder. But he is going to get convicted of something and he's going to do jail time for his actions.

But I don't think he was completely in the wrong here. And the fact of the matter is, these two moron teens put their lives in his hands when they entered that store with intent to commit armed robbery.

But we also live in a civilized society. And it simply seems unreasonable that we should let somebody kill a person who, to the reasonable person, was no longer a threat.

Now the drugstore clerk, he was a Vietnam War vet or something, right? Maybe he had a flashback or something. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't thinking completely clearly.

At worst, we're looking at 2nd degree murder and at best, I'm thinking some sort of manslaughter.
Comical... remember this asshole... http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95305&postcount=10

[Smoke681]

Comical... remember this asshole... http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95305&postcount=10
Personal attacks -- namecalling imparticular, need to cease immediately.

This goes for me as well.

If you can't engage in this discussion without calling someone an asshole, fuckwad, pussy, or any other name for that matter, then you should remove yourself from the thread.

[thrasymachus]

Comical... remember this asshole... http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95305&postcount=10
You still don't know dick about the legal system, but I think your intuitive defense of this man is indicative of how some other people may feel. Additionally, I wouldn't feel comfortable convicting this guy of first degree murder. So I think a jury is going to find somewhere between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. That's all.

[KinjaKahn]

Personal attacks -- namecalling imparticular, need to cease immediately.

This goes for me as well.

If you can't engage in this discussion without calling someone an asshole, fuckwad, pussy, or any other name for that matter, then you should remove yourself from the thread.
Does "despicable" count?

[KinjaKahn]

You still don't know dick about the legal system, but I think your intuitive defense of this man is indicative of how some other people may feel. Additionally, I wouldn't feel comfortable convicting this guy of first degree murder. So I think a jury is going to find somewhere between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. That's all.
So I stated your opinion on the outcome before you did, you belittled me for it... then after a bunch of bullshit, you're going to agree with me and still belittle me. Classic.

[thrasymachus]

So I stated your opinion on the outcome before you did, you belittled me for it... then after a bunch of bullshit, you're going to agree with me and still belittle me. Classic.
I'm not belittling you, I'm simply stating a fact: you do not know much about the legal system.

Your comments on the insanity defense, having a witness possibly fabricate evidence, and your discussion about the burden of proof show this.

Just because we agree on what the possible results are doesn't mean we have the same wealth of knowledge. Two people can get a math problem and come up with the same result but come to that result through completely different methods -- and one of those methods could be wrong yet still yield a correct result.

[LSU]

So I stated your opinion on the outcome before you did, you belittled me for it... then after a bunch of bullshit, you're going to agree with me and still belittle me. Classic.


You're complaining about being belittled? Really?

No, seriously?

[KinjaKahn]

I'm not belittling you, I'm simply stating a fact: you do not know much about the legal system.

Your comments on the insanity defense,
temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.

having a witness possibly fabricate evidence,
It is naive to believe someone can face life in prison or the death penalty, and resist the urge to lie to get off.

and your discussion about the burden of proof show this.
My mention of "Burden of proof" was all related to the witness saying the guy moved and got shot again. Never did I say the burden of proof for temp. insanity is on the state. Two different defenses. Please read what I write.

Your initial response was belittling. I initially spoke of two outcomes... a manslaughter conviction and an acquittal. They don't both happen... its one or the other.

[KinjaKahn]

You're complaining about being belittled? Really?

No, seriously?
I don't start on people... they start on me... An example is today... with smoke... I cant recall any disrespectful dialog with him. I met your sarcasm with sarcasm... not name calling. I remember who starts shit with me here. I disagree with practically everyone in this thread... everyone isn't treated the same way.

[LSU]

I don't start on people... they start on me... An example is today... with smoke... I cant recall any disrespectful dialog with him. I met your sarcasm with sarcasm... not name calling. I remember who starts shit with me here. I disagree with practically everyone in this thread... everyone isn't treated the same way.



you've got that right.

[hannitykillspuppies]

i Don't Start On People... They Start On Me... An Example Is Today... With Smoke... I Cant Recall Any Disrespectful Dialog With Him. I Met Your Sarcasm With Sarcasm... Not Name Calling. I Remember Who Starts Shit With Me Here. I Disagree With Practically Everyone In This Thread... Everyone Isn't Treated The Same Way.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thrasymachus]

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.


It is naive to believe someone can face life in prison or the death penalty, and resist the urge to lie to get off.


My mention of "Burden of proof" was all related to the witness saying the guy moved and got shot again. Never did I say the burden of proof for temp. insanity is on the state. Two different defenses. Please read what I write.

Your initial response was belittling. I initially spoke of two outcomes... a manslaughter conviction and an acquittal. They don't both happen... its one or the other.
Temporary insanity rarely wins (though in cases where the jury is sympathetic to the defendant, it has a way of working more often), perjury is never a good idea (and in fact, attorneys have an obligation to make sure their witnesses do not perjure themselves on the stand), and the entire discussion of "burden of proof" seemed to be plagued with some sort of notion that the state needs to prove everything. If the defendant claims that the boy twitched, it may not be the state's burden to show that the boy didn't twitch...and it seemed like you were saying the burden would be on the state to show that. I don't know the state law of Oklahom but I'd guess that the burden would be on the defendant in that situation.