Confronted by two holdup men, 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 Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
There are several things wrong here. Starting with the initial charge of first degree murder. That was TOTALLY uncalled for. If I had been sitting on that jury, just the fact that the whole episode only took 43 seconds would have eliminated the First Degree charge. That charge requires premeditation.
Minimum of a hung jury, probably a not guilty on that charge. I don't have enough information to make a decision on any other charges the DA may have brought.
:cuss::cuss:
I concur, Murder 1 is just wrong. Manslaughter should be the charge. But if the criminal was still attempting to fight...
But it just shows what you'll get for a jury that they went along with the murder 1 conviction.
Manslaughter is what you get when your actions lead to someone's death but you didn't actually intend for the guy to die. Murder 2 is the actual appropriate charge. The pharmacist intended to kill the robber (you don't shoot someone six times for any other reason, especially when you go for a head shot with the first one), but it was in the heat of the moment. Killing in self-defense is one thing, even if you go for the kill shot right off, if you're under deadly threat yourself. But once the robber was down, the extra shots were simply an execution. Murder 2.
Manslaughter is what you get when your actions lead to someone's death but you didn't actually intend for the guy to die. Murder 2 is the actual appropriate charge. The pharmacist intended to kill the robber (you don't shoot someone six times for any other reason, especially when you go for a head shot with the first one), but it was in the heat of the moment. Killing in self-defense is one thing, even if you go for the kill shot right off, if you're under deadly threat yourself. But once the robber was down, the extra shots were simply an execution. Murder 2.
The sentence is appropriate to the crime. The pharmacist's actions were calculated and not in the least bit SD. He was either being vengeful or punitive with his second round of shooting. Neither motive is a legal justification for shooting. Both qualify as murder one when premeditated. The preparation he went through to be able to do the second shooting (when he clearly demonstrated that he believed he was in no further danger) leads the conclusion of premeditation beyond any reasonable doubt.
Mens rea cannot be established, beyond 'all reasonable doubt,' in 43 seconds. His attorney should have clearly demonstrated his confused, in shock, frightened, non-rational state of mind. There can be no resolved aforethought action in this state, just confusion and shock and lack of full awareness. It isn't like temporary insanity--which can last a long time and still be used as a defense. It is spur of the moment incapacity to think rationally--either with benevolence or malice. I don't have all the facts nor know the judge's instruction to the jury on malice aforethought as being an absolute element of murder 1, but the verdict is a travesty of justice and will be reversed and remanded on appeal, I have no doubt.
As to his guilt, no question. Voluntary Manslaughter, maybe even murder 2--but not murder 1. He killed someone who was in the act of committing a felony, not the Salvation Army bellringer, whether he was standing or laying in a pool of his own blood. I have to conclude incompetent defense--another grounds for appeal and reversal, may be in play here.
Premeditation can be established in less than a second. The pharmacist walked calmly past the shot BG, turning his back on him. Clearly he thought the BG to be no further threat. He then took the time to go get the gun and shoot the BG again. That is premeditation.
Feel free to insist it isn't. I don't see any further reason to repeat the crystal clear logic.
Moving on.