Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Oklahoma City PoPo shoots and kills perp who was killing his K9

People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You want normal and practical? A man is dead because he was stabbing a dog. The cop ran to him. The cop murdered the guy over a ffffuckin dog.

As for my "fear" of dogs, ill say it again. I have no problem being around dogs. But if you dont control YOUR dog, it dies. If YOU take exception to that, that threat will get dealt with too. Youre no different than me. From what ive read of your posts over the years, you either like to shoot your drunk mouth off or youd defend yourself from an attack no matter who it came from. Seema like you dont take no schit, so dont BS me that youll stand there and let a ffffuckinndog gnaw on you.

you may have on my thoughts about dogs...I have three. Those three are generally confined to my house & my back yard...If I found you or anybody else in either & you were actively stabbing or even attempting to stab them, you'd most likely end up dead. If I had invited you into either my back yard or house & one of them tried to bite you, I'd promptly kill it myself...

If I thought any of my dogs were of a mind to bite somebody if they somehow got loose & were running free in the neighborhood, I'd kill them...I have no compassion or use for either undisciplined or vicious dogs.

You may believe so, if you wish, although you are not required to by law.

The court must presume innocence until proof of guilt; i.e., the judge and the jury, but that is a legal formality. A man cannot be convicted until he's proven guilty.

But innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

You can watch a man commit a crime and know he's guilty and even testify so at a trial, but if a jury then finds that he has not been proven guilty, despite your testimony, is he innocent?

Upon further reflection, I am seeing this in a different light. A man was killed. Dead forever with no chance of a new life, over a purely property crime. This should never occur.

If a person is stealing my stuff, no matter what stuff, no matter what stuff it is or how valuable, he will never see the business end of any of my weapons. Whether that weapon be a gun, knife or dog. All can cause injury, scarring and or death. If a dog is biting me, whether it be a pit bull, a poodle or a K-9, I am going to fight back with whatever I have on hand to make the biting and pain stop as soon as possible. This is a reaction that is so deeply ingrained into our DNA and sub-concieousness that to try to hold a person accountable for action during a large dog vs person encounter is beyond silly and wholly unreasonable.

The perp may have been a multi offending career criminal, but he did not deserve a death sentence. Nor should any person stabbing any dog be given a death sentence. A criminals live is a human life. A dog is a dog, no matter how noble or highly trained that dog might be, or how atached we might be to that dog.

Slightly outside the scope of this conversation, but very pertinent is this: If we begin to ascribe the right to life that we have to a dog, ANY dog or other animal, then the animal rights groups have great moral ground and standing, as well as CASE HISTORY then, with which to attack those of us who hunt. All that wouod then have to be established is the supposed nobility of this or that anumal, or someone's emotional atatchment to an animal or species and POOF! hunters are then classed as murderers and deserving of capitol punishment. In some cases imeediately and without trial by the person who ascribed nobility or emotional atatchment to said animal.

I do not think that any of us, and I am a dog lover with three of them, can afford to go down that road. We as a people and nation cannot go down that road.

It is sad that this fine dog died, truly. But the man who was stabbing it was acting in reasonable and expected self defense at that particular moment of time. The officer was not in danger as far as we know, and if this is the case (no imminent danger to the officer) he is in grave error here.

As I see it, if you use dogs as tools for apprehension, know that you unleashing an animal on a human being who might react -and reasonably so - in great fear and in a life or death defensive manner.

who's to say if your wife stepped out, she wouldn't be defending herself from the dog...

really? wow...

I knew we had something in common. I feel exactly the same way.

Unless I'm one of the ignored. Then nevermind.....

who's to say if your wife stepped out, she wouldn't be defending herself from the dog...

who's to say if your wife stepped out, she wouldn't be defending herself from the dog...

who's to say if your wife stepped out, she wouldn't be defending herself from the dog...

Cmon Toad, you know this is different. If any member of my family is being attacked by a dog, even my own dog its dead. This is not that, this is a suspected criminal that had a deadly weapon and some of you are trying to make excuses for him. He had a knife in the dark, just fresh off a robbery and was killing a police dog. Officer approached and finished him. How is that a problem?

Cmon Toad, you know this is different. If any member of my family is being attacked by a dog, even my own dog its dead. This is not that, this is a suspected criminal that had a deadly weapon and some of you are trying to make excuses for him. He had a knife in the dark, just fresh off a robbery and was killing a police dog. Officer approached and finished him. How is that a problem?

Sorry, but you are wrong. The guy was being arrested for suspected robbery, had a knife in which he used to kill a police dog. Guess what, the dickhead doesn't do that and he still is alive today. Its squarely his fault, not the cops. Do stupid things and expect stupid results. Too many bad people around these days and I don't feel for any of them. Whos to say if your wife stepped out he wouldn't be using the knife on her. Sounds like a job well done to me, one less pos walking this green earth.

GC, what is your take on this case of an OKC pharmacist who shot a young armed negro punk who tried to rob his establishment and was convicted of 1st degree murder, and received a life sentance?


Former pharmacist Jerome Ersland loses appeal

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected former pharmacist's complaints about his murder trial but did order new trial for one of two felons accused of planning a drugstore robbery.

by Nolan Clay
Modified: June 20, 2013 at 10:10 pm �
Published: June 20, 2013

Former pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland has lost his first appeal of his murder conviction.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on Thursday unanimously rejected all of his complaints. Ersland will appeal next to Oklahoma City federal court.

Ersland, 61, is serving a life sentence for fatally shooting a teenage robber inside the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City on May 19, 2009. An Oklahoma County jury convicted him at a trial in 2011 of first-degree murder.

�Well, I guess the only shot then is federal court,� his appeals attorney, Doug Friesen, said. �I�m surprised � I still believe in the stuff I put down there � I think it�s a significantly longer shot now, significantly.�

The appeals court did reverse the first-degree murder conviction of one of the two longtime felons accused of planning the robbery.

In a 3-2 opinion, the appeals court on Thursday ordered a new trial for Emanuel D. �E Man� Mitchell, 35, because he was not allowed to represent himself. In a separate opinion, the appeals court upheld the first-degree murder conviction of his cousin, Anthony D. �Black� Morrison, 47.

The two men recruited Antwun �Speedy� Parker, 16, and Jevontai Ingram, then 14, to rob the drugstore, according to testimony at their trial. Morrison gave Ingram a gun and Mitchell waited outside in a stolen getaway car, according to the testimony.

Inside the drugstore, Ersland shot Parker in the head, knocking Parker to the floor. Surveillance videos show he then chased after a fleeing Ingram, came back inside the drugstore, got a second gun and shot Parker five more times.

The case sparked a national debate. Ersland claimed he was defending himself and two female co-workers, but prosecutors said he went too far.

The appeals court found the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the murder conviction.

�We conclude the physical and forensic evidence showed that, when Ersland returned to the pharmacy and shot Parker five times in the body, Parker was unarmed and unconscious but alive, and did not pose a threat to Ersland or anyone else in the pharmacy,� the judges wrote in the 39-page opinion.

�Evidence further showed that, in order to shoot Parker, Ersland stepped across Parker�s body, turned his back, went behind the counter, put down his empty revolver, opened a drawer, took out the Kel Tec, walked to where Parker lay on the floor, stood over him, and fired five shots almost straight down into Parker�s body, close together and in rapid succession. Ersland did not appear flustered or hurried, and acted in a deliberative manner,� they wrote.

Ersland�s chief complaint in his appeal was that his lead trial attorney, Irven Box, was inept and made mistakes that cost him a fair trial. The appeals court, though, wrote: �A painstaking review of the entire record shows that trial counsel zealously represented Ersland.�

May I? It is not a good idea to execute anybody...even if they tried to rob you earlier.