Wow, I've never seen that site before, DNS. That's just wrong. They're soliciting donations for this guy and out right lying to do it.
Furthermore: "There is no evidence at the scene that shows that the robbery suspects ever fired a round inside the pharmacy."
I disagree; I would argue that it was premeditated. First, here's the definition of premeditation, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/:I'm kind of surprised he was convicted of first degree murder. That usually calls for premeditated malice. Maybe the prosecutor was able to show that 45 seconds amounted to that, but I'd have thought that second degree murder or manslaughter would have been more likely.
Here are my two arguments:premeditation n. planning, plotting or deliberating before doing something. Premeditation is an element in first degree murder and shows intent to commit that crime.
Exactly. It's the correct verdict. And Mr. Parker was in fact unarmed; the detectives at the scene found no weapons on him.Mello2u said:The prosecutor must have persuaded the jury that Ersland's act of retrieving a second gun, walking over to the unconscious Antwun Parker and firing 5 shots into the abdomen of the unconscious Antwun Parker (and unarmed as perceived by Ersland); amounted to a pre-meditated (malice aforethought) act against someone who was no longer a threat (unlawful) and thus murder.
Just so...WildjustanotherscumbagofftotheslammerAlaska
Guilty as charged. Good job. He executed a defenseless (and possibly mortally wounded) man.
--emphasis mine. I might even change possibly to hopefully.Guilty as charged. Good job. He executed a defenseless (and possibly mortally wounded) man.
who had a survivable head wound.
He should have caught his breath, regained his senses for a few minutes (maybe a half hour) and then phoned 911. He should have made it obvious during th half hour that he was extremely shaken and perhaps unable to dial the phone very well. But he was wrong in firing the additional shots. That made him guilty of murder.
what the charge WOULD be for shooting a dead person?
As would leaving a mortally wounded man to die
That is why he needs to be obviously unable to respond and terribly distraught while he fumbles the phone for a half hour. I think you get it.
Yes. As I wrote above, the autopsy report described the head wound as a "non-fatal gunshot entrance/graze wound."dreamweaver said:was that the autopsy ruling?who had a survivable head wound.
Yes, we do get it, and it's a course of action that would be taken, or recommended, only by someone who is, umm, seriously ethically challenged.Eagle Eye said:Wildalaska: I understand your concern. That is why he needs to be obviously unable to respond and terribly distraught while he fumbles the phone for a half hour. I think you get it.As would leaving a mortally wounded man to die
A good question.mikejonestkd said:Eagle Eye, what part of your suggested course of action is in line with the firing line's main purpose...?
But he didn't "chase him down." He shot him once in the head, entirely justifiably, and then returned nearly a minute later, with a different gun, and and shot him while he lay unconscious on the floor.Rifleman1776 said:I don't buy first degree murder. But "premeditation" can be anywhere from months to seconds. That is a legal matter.
I do belive it was wrong of him to chase the guy down for the purpose of shooting him, much less five times.