Thunder
06-04-2009, 04:02 AM
soldiers?
More like mindless robots.
More like mindless robots.
View Full Version : Self defense - Racist style Thunder 06-04-2009, 04:02 AM soldiers? More like mindless robots. kevinpate 06-04-2009, 07:44 AM They just used the Tom T Hall approach on what life is all about - faster horses younger women older whiskey and more money drumsncode 06-04-2009, 08:42 AM The way I look at it... "I ain't did nuthin" says he didn't do nothing... Get it? Did not do nothing, so in a way, he DID DO something, since he DID NOT do nothing. There ya go, guilty as a squirrel looking at an oncoming tire. Ah yes, a brilliant observation! You got him on a technicality. I hereby appoint you the chief prosecutor and also make you my honorary Ebonics translator. Good work. :-) And I believe that David Prater is going to charge the "oncoming tire" with murder-one, then also charge the driver of the car. His reasoning is that after the squirrel was hit by the front tire and incapacitated, that the rear tire was unreasonable force. The judge wants the driver to turn over all tires to the court. PennyQuilts 06-04-2009, 02:44 PM They wanted stuff and the older guys promised them a share of the loot. Nothing complicated about it. Greed, baby. And if I were to go out on a limb and compare them with many of the kids I work with - their parents are content to live in poverty but the kids they bring into this world want the same things their buddies at school, have - ipods, video games, blah, blah, blah. Mom can't afford it, dad isn't around. They don't get the connection between labor and income, no one is watching them, they wander the neighborhood with other thugs, the only adult males they see are criminals who tell them - hey, you want a video game? Either steal it from your friends, the store, or rob someone so you can walk right in and pay for it. Nothing complicated about it. bornhere 06-04-2009, 05:58 PM First, I can't believe he hired Irven Box. Box in my opinion is a hack and prefers to plea his client even if it sells him/her out in the process. A much better pick would have been Garvin Isaacs. I'm familiar with his record and his preference to avoid the media spotlight. Excellent trial lawyer. Box argued and won a landmark appeal before the US Supreme Court, which is not what I would call the work of a 'hack.' Midtowner 06-04-2009, 06:22 PM Box argued and won a landmark appeal before the US Supreme Court, which is not what I would call the work of a 'hack.' I checked Oyez.org, can't find a record of him ever appearing before the United States Supreme Court. I'm not calling you a liar, but do you have a source for that assertion? bornhere 06-04-2009, 11:03 PM I had it wrong. The appeal I was thinking of was Glen Burton Ake vs. Oklahoma, which established the right of an indigent defendant to receive state-funded psychiatric examination if requested. Box was Ake's counsel on appeal, but the case was argued before SCOTUS by someone else. kevinpate 06-05-2009, 04:02 AM In the interest of clarity On the first appeal of right before the Oklahoma appellate court, prior to the S.Ct.'s landmark ruling in the Ake decision, the appellate counsel for Ake were Richard Strubhar and Reta Strubhar out of Yukon. The state appellate court rejected Ake's claims, but the US Supreme Court then broke some significant new ground for indigent defendant ssistance in its Ake decision. The name of counsel before the S Sct. escapes me, but as already noted, it was not Box. Box was involved with Ake's retrial and the first appeal of the new convictions and sentences, but not with the original go around. BailJumper 06-05-2009, 05:04 PM Box argued and won a landmark appeal before the US Supreme Court, which is not what I would call the work of a 'hack.' What's your point? Gassaway won some unbelievable cases in his time and yet he's a hack. Coyle used to be one of the best and yet he has his demons. I didn't say Box doesn't know the law. However, I feel he learned long ago he can make more money with volume and pleas. drumsncode 06-05-2009, 07:29 PM Maybe I missed it, but I have never heard why Jerome came back and switched guns. That one remains a puzzle to me. nighttrain12 06-05-2009, 09:25 PM Maybe I missed it, but I have never heard why Jerome came back and switched guns. That one remains a puzzle to me. He said he saw the guy try to get back up. Why he switched guns, I don't think he has said. Maybe he had only the one bullet in his first gun. Curt 06-05-2009, 10:19 PM I don't think the kids deserved to die.... but I don't think the Pharmacist deserved it either. In this case, from what we know, it was self defense. No Karrie they did deserve to die...they knew what they were doing this is another example of the only way things will ever change is for extreme actions to be taken against the bad guy... They would have killed innocent people and not felt any remorse so why should anyone feel remorse for them... I'd of killed them all... Thunder 06-05-2009, 11:29 PM no karrie they did deserve to die...they knew what they were doing this is another example of the only way things will ever change is for extreme actions to be taken against the bad guy... They would have killed innocent people and not felt any remorse so why should anyone feel remorse for them... I'd of killed them all... Bravo!!!! Bostonfan 06-06-2009, 07:39 AM No Karrie they did deserve to die...they knew what they were doing this is another example of the only way things will ever change is for extreme actions to be taken against the bad guy... They would have killed innocent people and not felt any remorse so why should anyone feel remorse for them... I'd of killed them all... and you too would be charged with murder.... Midtowner 06-06-2009, 08:13 AM I'd of killed them all... Nice... internet tough guy. Would you have killed them all with a roundhouse kick you learned from Chuck Norris? Since the [we'll call them defendants because that's what they are now] defendants were in the process of fleeing and no longer posed any sort of threat, and indeed, you would have probably had to shoot them in the back as they were fleeing, you'd be charged with murder for each of them as well as kevinpate said. If you're going to exhibit that kind of irresponsibility with your firearms (even when you're fantasizing about killing people), you really have no business owning them. You apparently don't understand when it is and isn't ok to use deadly force. PennyQuilts 06-06-2009, 08:57 AM Mid, you are studying for your bar exams and that twists your emotional, human response. It will take you about three years to get back to human feelings. Curt is not expressing an academic reaction - it is pure, honest, human emotion. Trust me on this. You don't have to agree with his emotional reaction - plenty of us don't - but harping on the law isn't going to touch most of us, even the lawyers. The law didn't protect that man from being robbed. At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy. Was it "right" to shoot that kid? I personally don't think so, based on what I saw in the video. But the question that man asked himself, if he asked himself anything at all, was not whether it was legal to shoot that kid, but whether the kid had it coming. You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing. Midtowner 06-06-2009, 12:57 PM The law didn't protect that man from being robbed. Sure it did. It allowed him to use deadly force in self-defense to fire shot number one only. The law doesn't allow that everywhere. At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy. Was it "right" to shoot that kid? I personally don't think so, based on what I saw in the video. But the question that man asked himself, if he asked himself anything at all, was not whether it was legal to shoot that kid, but whether the kid had it coming. You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing. As far as anything I've read, the only one doing the shooting was Ersland (except for Ersland's first story which turned out to be a lie). The kid had shot number one coming. That is all. No one deserves to be executed in cold blood for a run of the mill robbery, no matter how frustrated the shopkeeper is. drumsncode 06-06-2009, 01:51 PM Sure it did. It allowed him to use deadly force in self-defense to fire shot number one only. The law doesn't allow that everywhere. As far as anything I've read, the only one doing the shooting was Ersland (except for Ersland's first story which turned out to be a lie). The kid had shot number one coming. That is all. No one deserves to be executed in cold blood for a run of the mill robbery, no matter how frustrated the shopkeeper is. Please explain how the cops are allowed to empty a clip into a guy, without even knowing for sure that he has a gun. I've seen this countless times and to my knowledge, they always get off with no charges. Suppose Ersland had not stopped to run out of the building, but rather kept firing the same gun into the suspect until he ran out of bullets (cop style). Would there be charges then? My reasoning is, if the cops are allowed to keep firing without checking the target's health, a citizen should be allowed to do the same in an armed robbery. My only criticism of Ersland is that he gets very low points on "style". kevinpate 06-06-2009, 06:37 PM The pharmacist/defendant could have put more bullets into the lad at the outset, and most likely with no foul being found. That however is not what transpired. Whether one agrees or not, it does make a difference how he exercised his use of his firearms. For anyone in the 'punk had it coming' camp, (no show of hands needed, most of you already bought the t shirt anyhows), do your loved ones a HUGE favor. If you ever find yourself on the wrong end of someone else's firearm, and you come out alive, take a clue from this and KEEP YOUR LIPS PRESSED TIGHTLY TOGETHER LIKE YOU JUST SUCKED DRY A TUBE OF SUPER GLUE. Most folks can not lie well when they are in an emotional state. Also most folks can't remain unemotional when they are shot at, or shoot at someone, or have other sudden pressures applied. That combination can rapidly boil up a big old pot of murky hurt. Almost everyone has the right to remain silent. Too few exercise it, even when it might just keep their bacon off the fire. PennyQuilts 06-06-2009, 07:01 PM Listen to Kevin. Bostonfan 06-07-2009, 07:39 AM So are some of you advocating that we not abide by the law? Are some of you saying we just ignore the law when it benefits certain people? The guy shot him once in self defense. Left, came back, and pumped 5 more rounds in the kid's stomach. The law gives you every right to protect. It doesn't give you the right to kill because someone pisses you off. Midtowner 06-07-2009, 08:56 AM Please explain how the cops are allowed to empty a clip into a guy, without even knowing for sure that he has a gun. I've seen this countless times and to my knowledge, they always get off with no charges. First, if someone is armed with a gun, the police may use deadly force to abate the situation if there's a reasonable belief that the individual will use the gun. Second, if the suspect is unarmed, the police may still use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect if they have probable cause to believe that the fleeing suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm or death to others. Ersland's privilege was the same here. If he'd have just emptied his clip in to the kid, game over, self defense, game, set, match. That's not what happened though. There's actually a transit cop in California being held right now because he shot a handcuffed suspect to death (he shot the suspect in the back while the suspect was on the ground mouthing off), so no, police don't have this unlimited authority to kill. dismayed 06-07-2009, 10:14 AM My reasoning is, if the cops are allowed to keep firing without checking the target's health, a citizen should be allowed to do the same in an armed robbery. My only criticism of Ersland is that he gets very low points on "style". Not a very good argument. Cops are allowed to do a lot of things that you and I are not allowed to. If I suspected you were committing a crime and decided to "arrest" you until the police arrived, I would be completely liable if it turned out you did not commit any crime. Depending on how I did it I could be charged with false imprisonment, maybe even kidnapping.... The police are given authority under the law to enforce it, and are therefore protected from personal legal retaliation to a certain extent. You and I are not. But, that aside, even the police must abide by the law. A cop can't open fire on a guy, run after another suspect, then return to the original suspect who is on the ground and disabled and "finish him off." In fact he's required to give him aide and call in the EMTs. He'd be in just as big of trouble if he did what Ersland did. PennyQuilts 06-07-2009, 10:20 AM So are some of you advocating that we not abide by the law? Are some of you saying we just ignore the law when it benefits certain people? No Boston. No one is saying that. Use your head. And "certain people?" You just keep hoping, don't you? nighttrain12 06-07-2009, 11:38 AM http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-pharmacists-case/article/3375757?custom_click=lead_story_title Here's a rather lengthy article about the life of (former) Lt. Col. Jerome Ersland (the pharmacist). Among the tidbits, in his second divorce, he insisted on keeping all his Clint Eastwood movies. I like this guy more every day. LOL Bostonfan 06-07-2009, 07:06 PM No Boston. No one is saying that. Use your head. And "certain people?" You just keep hoping, don't you? Use my head? How cute.... What exactly are you saying then? You think he should get off without doing jail time? Do you think he murdered the kid? Or do you think it was self defense? What is it? And wth am I hoping for? That made no sense. PennyQuilts 06-07-2009, 07:25 PM Use my head? How cute.... What exactly are you saying then? You think he should get off without doing jail time? Do you think he murdered the kid? Or do you think it was self defense? What is it? And wth am I hoping for? That made no sense. Boston, go back and read my posts. I am not going to hand feed you. Sheesh. Public education... Bostonfan 06-07-2009, 08:05 PM Boston, go back and read my posts. I am not going to hand feed you. Sheesh. Public education... Ok, let me go back on your post. You first say "The law didn't protect that man from being robbed." WRONG The law did. Because of the Make My Day law, he protected himself, property, and others. Nothing was taken. He was not robbed. You then say, "At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy." WRONG. It most certainly existed. If it hadn't, he would've been robbed at the very least. Then you say, "You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing." WRONG again. The law was alive and well. The law that states you have the right to unload on a kid that is no threat to you didn't die......it never existed. So, back to my original question. Are you advocating not abiding by the law? I know you said no earlier, but from your earlier post, it looks like you are... nighttrain12 06-08-2009, 12:25 AM http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacy-robbery-suspects-have-history-of-offenses/article/3376021?custom_click=headlines_widget Why the hell were those two adult scumbags not in jail!?! They are obviously career criminals. None of this would have happened if they were still locked up. Just lock those two up for the rest of their life, keep the 14 year old robber in juvenile detention for 4 more years until he turns 18 and sentence Jerome 'Dirty Harry' Ersland to home confinement and force him to watch 'Every Which Way But Loose', 'Any Which Way You Can', and 'Bronco Billy', back-to-back-to-back every day for 2 straight years. PennyQuilts 06-08-2009, 05:58 AM Ok, let me go back on your post. You first say "The law didn't protect that man from being robbed." WRONG The law did. Because of the Make My Day law, he protected himself, property, and others. Nothing was taken. He was not robbed. You then say, "At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy." WRONG. It most certainly existed. If it hadn't, he would've been robbed at the very least. Then you say, "You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing." WRONG again. The law was alive and well. The law that states you have the right to unload on a kid that is no threat to you didn't die......it never existed. So, back to my original question. Are you advocating not abiding by the law? I know you said no earlier, but from your earlier post, it looks like you are... Sigh. I'll bite on the off chance that this isn't just trolling and deliberate misrepresentation, but actually just thickheadedness. You really need to read the entire post to understand the context and figure out which are the material phrases rather than simply skipping them. Here is the original post - It doesn't say what you are trying to make it say: Mid, you are studying for your bar exams and that twists your emotional, human response. It will take you about three years to get back to human feelings. Curt is not expressing an academic reaction - it is pure, honest, human emotion. Trust me on this. You don't have to agree with his emotional reaction - plenty of us don't - but harping on the law isn't going to touch most of us, even the lawyers. The law didn't protect that man from being robbed. At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy. Was it "right" to shoot that kid? I personally don't think so, based on what I saw in the video. But the question that man asked himself, if he asked himself anything at all, was not whether it was legal to shoot that kid, but whether the kid had it coming. You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing. emphasis added. I suspect you are just trolling and should just ignore it but on the off chance that you simply don't comprehend the concept, I'll go out on a limb and remind you that the post was directly responding to Mid's post about the need to understand what the law technically requires. I even alluded to it in the post in question although for some reason, you didn't seem to think that was important (or just left if off because it allowed you to try to twist my meaning). My point was - and I will try again - is that in the heat of the moment, the man and the robbers weren't thinking about the technical legalities. They were making decisions based on more primitive levels. That was no bar exam under sterile conditions. The robbers were motivated by greed, the pharmacist was motivated by - who knows - rage? fear? panic? The letter of the LAW wasn't in charge of their decision making there at that moment. The law will mop it up but it wasn't in control at that point in time. To try to turn that into some sort of gotcha (which you do constantly, notwithstanding a complete lack of talent in that regard) is just hamfisted. No offense. I could have written it in crayons for the more concrete thinkers but most of us have more than a sixth grade reading comprehension. Reducing it to that level would would probably be insulting. I'm sorry you didn't understand the post but honestly don't know how I can dumb it down without insulting everyone else. One thing that helps me is to ask the question - does that make sense the way I am reading it? If it doesn't , you might want to go back and read the whole post, in context, a couple of times. It really helps. That is assuming that you really want to understand what is being written, of course. If you are just trolling, that is a waste of time. PennyQuilts 06-08-2009, 06:18 AM Ok, let me go back on your post. You first say "The law didn't protect that man from being robbed." WRONG The law did. Because of the Make My Day law, he protected himself, property, and others. Nothing was taken. He was not robbed. You then say, "At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy." WRONG. It most certainly existed. If it hadn't, he would've been robbed at the very least. ... And although it is really too easy to be quite respectable, let me point out that the law didn't keep the man from being robbed. I believe the man with the gun took care of that. Bostonfan 06-08-2009, 07:34 AM [QUOTE=East Coast Okie;230856]Sigh. I'll bite on the off chance that this isn't just trolling and deliberate misrepresentation, but actually just thickheadedness. :LolLolLol I read the first sentence and decided not to waste my time reading the rest of the bull****. Hope you had fun typing that bs that didn't get read..... I'm sure it was riveting..... PennyQuilts 06-08-2009, 07:44 AM [QUOTE=East Coast Okie;230856]Sigh. I'll bite on the off chance that this isn't just trolling and deliberate misrepresentation, but actually just thickheadedness. :LolLolLol I read the first sentence and decided not to waste my time reading the rest of the bull****. Hope you had fun typing that bs that didn't get read..... I'm sure it was riveting..... Honey, you never really read them, anyway - which was the main point of the post you didn't read, btw. What a hoot. My suggestion is that if you are going to respond to a post, read it first. Martin 06-08-2009, 07:55 AM i read the first sentence and decided not to waste my time reading the rest of the bull****. hope you had fun typing that bs that didn't get read..... i'm sure it was riveting... go be a troll someplace else. if you can't discuss issues like a mature adult, then don't post. -M DaveSkater 06-08-2009, 09:58 AM go be a troll someplace else. if you can't discuss issues like a mature adult, then don't post. -M THANK YOU! :congrats: CuatrodeMayo 06-08-2009, 12:03 PM go be a troll someplace else. if you can't discuss issues like a mature adult, then don't post. -M No joke...Seriously. possumfritter 06-08-2009, 02:17 PM Sadly, all of this is just a very sad commentary on the kind of society we have become. I would have to check the numbers, but I believe more people have been killed in Oklahoma this year then have the number of American Troops in Iraq. Very, very sad indeed. PennyQuilts 06-08-2009, 04:35 PM Sadly, all of this is just a very sad commentary on the kind of society we have become. I would have to check the numbers, but I believe more people have been killed in Oklahoma this year then have the number of American Troops in Iraq. Very, very sad indeed. Yup - and the senselessness of it all is what makes it all the more hard to take. What a tragedy that a young life was lost and there are others that are going to be destroyed by this. For no good reasons, whatsoever. I can't imagine one of my children being in this situation but then again, it only goes to show that you never know, really, how your life can take an awful, unexpected turn. Sure, the adult thugs and perhaps the kids knew they were going down the wrong path, but I'm betting they never expected something like this to happen. Doesn't make it right - just makes it all the more obvious that thinking people need to stop and consider the possible consequences before they hang out with thugs or engage in criminal behavior. And teach their kids to do the same. I don't know what to say about the pharmacist. I don't know what he was thinking. And how could I? I have no idea what I would do if someone pointed a gun at me and threatened to kill me. I'd like to think I'd keep my head but wouldn't suggest anyone bet on it. Someone who is not particularly stable might crack. Dunno. I guess I'd personally like to think that he just cracked rather than that he executed the kid. I suspect a lot of people see it different - some people I respect say they would have liked to have done the same thing as the pharmacist. I guess figuring out what happened is what trials are for. Sad, sad. possumfritter 06-08-2009, 05:31 PM East Coast Okie, You are so right..."we" just don't know what "we" would do unless "we" were in that same situation. I don't own a handgun or a business, so hopefully I'll never face anything like that in my lifetime. Although my oldest Son was robbed at gunpoint when he was closing up at Sonic one evening. And he was assaulted once when he fired a slacker. I didn't like what I was feeling or thinking on those two occassions. But, after seeing the video over and over and over, absent the presence of any weapon in the wounded boys hand, I really do have to wonder what the pharmacist was thinking. fourthworldtraffic 06-08-2009, 06:55 PM Now were talking about people deserving to die.... I resist my explosive response change the topic this is no cipher it's a hog wallow of thumbtwiddling nonsense. It was a ****ed up situation with drugs and fire power involved. fourthworldtraffic 06-08-2009, 07:00 PM We have got to become more involved and better at being neighborhoods and communities....really though..EVerytime I get on the computer I just get angry..and so I think I need to be developing my real life instead of ranting at abstract emotional weather ...What are we doing? BB37 06-08-2009, 07:05 PM He may not have been thinking, but acting purely on adrenaline. That's something that law enforcement agencies train police officers to guard against (during/after a pursuit, shootout, etc.), but difficult to do in a 4 hour concealed carry class. And since the pharmacist is a disabled veteran, some are raising questions about post-traumatic stress disorder playing a part. At most, I think the pharmacist will get a manslaughter conviction. Certainly not murder 1. possumfritter 06-08-2009, 07:21 PM He may not have been thinking, but acting purely on adrenaline. That's something that law enforcement agencies train police officers to guard against (during/after a pursuit, shootout, etc.), but difficult to do in a 4 hour concealed carry class. And since the pharmacist is a disabled veteran, some are raising questions about post-traumatic stress disorder playing a part. At most, I think the pharmacist will get a manslaughter conviction. Certainly not murder 1. BB37...I kinda thought the same way after the phamacist fired the second shot (with the first shot being "justified"). But the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th shots. If the most qualified Judge is not assigned to hear this case, the consequences could make for a long, hot summer. Curt 06-08-2009, 09:46 PM Nice... internet tough guy. Would you have killed them all with a roundhouse kick you learned from Chuck Norris? Since the [we'll call them defendants because that's what they are now] defendants were in the process of fleeing and no longer posed any sort of threat, and indeed, you would have probably had to shoot them in the back as they were fleeing, you'd be charged with murder for each of them as well as kevinpate said. If you're going to exhibit that kind of irresponsibility with your firearms (even when you're fantasizing about killing people), you really have no business owning them. You apparently don't understand when it is and isn't ok to use deadly force. Ok since you know me so well..have you ever been held up at gun point? have you ever had your mother murdered like I have?...Ok now you pushed my button...you want proof? I have no sympathy for criminals and they do deserve to die if they are willing to kill someone else while commiting a crime.. It's weak bleeding hearts like you that make me want to puke.. Midtowner 06-08-2009, 09:58 PM I have no sympathy for criminals and they do deserve to die if they are willing to kill someone else while commiting a crime.. I can see that you're projecting just a bit here. You don't know what "they" are willing to do or not do, but you should know that after the danger has abated and "they" no longer have the capability of killing you or hurting you other than maybe bleeding on you a bit, that you are no longer able to kill them. It's very simple really. If you do kill, you go to the pokey just like you had killed them in cold blood. Thunder 06-08-2009, 10:17 PM If he is convicted on manslaughter, isn't that still punishable by death? CuatrodeMayo 06-08-2009, 10:29 PM Ok ...since you know me so well..have you ever been held up at gun point? have you ever had your mother murdered like I have?...Ok now you pushed my button...you want proof? I have no sympathy for criminals and they do deserve to die if they are willing to kill someone else while commiting a crime.. It's weak bleeding hearts like you that make me want to puke.. http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/21/images/xlarge/FLO_3_ex21dodge_NYET68_0621.jpg "Go on and make your jokes Mr Jokey... Joke-maker!" Midtowner 06-08-2009, 10:32 PM If he is convicted on manslaughter, isn't that still punishable by death? Never. Thunder 06-08-2009, 10:36 PM Never. Well, I remember Sami on Days of our Lives was convicted on manslaughter for killing (but she didn't when she was found on the scene blacked out) and was sentenced to death. They revived her after someone made a confession in time. I guess every state is different. What's the punishment for manslaughter? nighttrain12 06-08-2009, 10:52 PM Well, I remember Sami on Days of our Lives was convicted on manslaughter for killing (but she didn't when she was found on the scene blacked out) and was sentenced to death. They revived her after someone made a confession in time. I guess every state is different. What's the punishment for manslaughter? There's no set amount but it would probably be about 2 years served. I have a hard time believing they will find 12 jurors in any of the 77 counties in Oklahoma that will all vote guilty on any charge. Thunder 06-08-2009, 10:53 PM I have a hard time believing they will find 12 jurors in any of the 77 counties in Oklahoma that will all vote guilty on any charge. It's not that hard, according to some people on here definately will find him guilty. possumfritter 06-08-2009, 10:56 PM Thunder...you can start here: OSCN Found Document:First Degree Manslaughter (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=69314&hits=) PennyQuilts 06-09-2009, 04:26 AM Well, I remember Sami on Days of our Lives was convicted on manslaughter for killing (but she didn't when she was found on the scene blacked out) and was sentenced to death. They revived her after someone made a confession in time. I guess every state is different. You can't make this stuff up. Thunder 06-09-2009, 04:31 AM You can't make this stuff up. I didn't! It was so many years ago. Lucas was the one that killed Franco, Sami's fiance on their wedding day (cant remember how it started but it was accidental...I think Franco provoked it). Sami walked in, saw the body, and passed out. Kate, Lucas' mother, put the murder weapon next to Sami with her fingerprints on it when she discovered the scene before anyone else did. She was charged for manslaughter and sentenced to death. Ever since that, I thought manslaughter was punishable by death, but it doesn't seem like that for Oklahoma. PennyQuilts 06-09-2009, 05:28 AM I didn't! It was so many years ago. Lucas was the one that killed Franco, Sami's fiance on their wedding day (cant remember how it started but it was accidental...I think Franco provoked it). Sami walked in, saw the body, and passed out. Kate, Lucas' mother, put the murder weapon next to Sami with her fingerprints on it when she discovered the scene before anyone else did. She was charged for manslaughter and sentenced to death. Ever since that, I thought manslaughter was punishable by death, but it doesn't seem like that for Oklahoma. Yes, well, okay. Proof positive that Oklahoma is soft on crime... Midtowner 06-09-2009, 07:09 AM She was charged for manslaughter and sentenced to death. Ever since that, I thought manslaughter was punishable by death, but it doesn't seem like that for Oklahoma. It pretty much has to be murder in the first degree. And there usually have to be aggravating circumstances. kevinpate 06-09-2009, 07:27 AM Thunder, this information is reasonably accurate. Capital punishment in Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Oklahoma) To go to the actual statute language, start here: OSCN Found Document:Murder in the First Degree (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=781000&dbCode=STOKST21&year=) There's a Next Section button in the burgandy header, use it to navigate through until you get to section 733. Once you get there, you've got it pretty well covered. Oh, and while you've probably already figured it out by now, just in case there is any confusion remaining, soap operas, like most telly stuff, don't know diddly about Oklahoma law. 8^) USG '60 06-09-2009, 07:41 AM I don't believe Manslaughter is a capital crime in ANY state. The function of the name is it's distinction from Murder, is it not? kevinpate 06-09-2009, 08:17 AM USG, you are correct. Shoot fire and save the Talons, Not even all Murder I cases are capital crimes. Though many do not realize it, and many even lament it, the death penalty is rarely placed on the table as a punishment, even in Oklahoma and Texas, two very strong death penalty states. The VAST majority of Murder I cases, whether intentional murder or felony murder, never have a bill of particulars (BOP) filed by the state. The BOP is an additional charging document. it sets forth the specific alleged circumstance(s) that would warrant making a defendant death eligible for his or her specific offense. Without a BOP, the death penalty option is never open for consideration in a specific case. With a BOP, the jury, or judge in a non-jury setting, first decides guilt or innocence on the charged crime. If guilty of anything less than a variation of Murder I, the death penalty goes off the table and sentencing is based on statutory parameters for the specific class of crime. If guilty of Murder I or Felony Murder I, then a sentencing trial commences. If the fact finder decides at the conclusion that least one statutory aggravating circumstance does exist beyond a reasonable doubt, then at this point, the death penalty is finally set on the table as one of three punishment options, but is not required to be imposed. Even in the most vile and cruel form of crime, and even if the defendant is the most unremorseful, spiteful, seemingly souless, utterly of no value to even his momma sort of chap, the death penalty becomes one additional option open to the decision maker. The other two options, life imprisonment and life without a possibility of parole, are always available for a Murder I defendant. legislativeResearcher 02-01-2010, 11:08 PM The idea that a participant in an armed robbery was "executed" shows that Oklahoma County has a DA that is not capable of solid judgement. The only thing that Ersland should have been charged with is "Reckless Endangerment" since he chased the other armed robber and could have caused injury to innocent bystanders. It is impossible to "murder" a participant in armed robbery. period No one deserves to die, but Antwun participating in an armed robbery forfeits all his rights. Antwun's family does not want to accept what their son did and that the consequences were his responsibility. It would be bad for public policy for the armed robbery participant, Antwun to be made a victim or martyr. The armed robbers planned the attack and propped open the door to circumvent security measures. Civil rights leaders are off base trying to make this a racial matter. Armed robbers do not have any civil rights. Judge Bass Jones-Lesure is making this sound like a civil rights matter, saying it is a case of "equal justice" Most people would see it as a case of law and order DA Prater made a false statement that is inflammatory saying that Antwun was unconscious and was executed, since the video does not show anything about his state of conscious, IT IS A THEORY that he was unconscious. |