UPDATE: OKC Pharmacist Jerome Ersland Convicted Of Murder

I have no sympathy for the man shot, but can't defend the shooter's actions in this particular case either. Its unfortunate for him it turned out this way, but his actions weren't exactly standard operating procedure for anyone who has taken a self-defense course or two(and if carrying for self-defense, this should always be recommended).

Had he shot him, and held a gun on him until the police arrived...or shot him again after some sort of threat was perceived, I wouldn't doubt his choices in any way. However, standing over a prone criminal who seems to be incapacitated and not making any current threats or actions, and emptying your gun into him is pretty hard to justify. Again, i wasn't there, and ahve no sympathy for the shooter's "victim" but this is ar from a clearcut case of a "good shoot". IMO, it doesn't qualify as FIRST degree murder, but also don't necessarily believe this guy was in the right, either. He WAS a hero, UNTIL he stood above that man and emptied his gun.

Until that point, he did nothing wrong, and SHOULD have been praised as a hero. His own actions brought his hero status into question though. As far as the question of wheter or not he was armed....its pretty easy to check someone shot in the head and unconscious for a weapon, and doing so seems like a more prudent course of action than emptying your revolver into him on the off chance he MIGHT be armed. I was taught to only shoot when there was a clear and present threat, no the possibility someone might be a threat. I see gangbangers on a frequent basis, and have no doubt whatsoever they are "dangerous"....that doesn't give me the right to shoot them preemptively though.

If you aren't being immediately threatened, you can't shoot (or RESHOOT) someone based on some idea they MIGHT be a threat. He committed murder, and being emotionally charged shouldn't excuse his actions in the slightest. I'm often "emotionally charged" after a fight with the wife, or a confrontation at work, whatever...that doesn't mean I have the right to execute anyone. In fact, being "emotionally charged" shouldn't be used as an excuse for anything. If one is unable to control his emotions well enough to conclude shooting an unconscious, apparently unarmed man 5 additional times...with a gun you had to go retrieve from elsewhere...you have no business carrying or even owning a gun in the first place!!!!!!!

Shooting someone who is no longer a threat to you or anyone else isn't excusable. Its murder, and the jury seemed to see that. I actually think a finding of NOT guilty would do more harm to gun owners than holding this man accountable for his actions would. In the big picture, I think things fell into their proper places, but that won't truly be determined until sentencing. i do firmly believe this man needs a significant punishment though....his actions are not exactly the sorts of things we want emulated.

In an event that took some 45-47 seconds, I think it's a pretty tall order to expect that a guy should go from “I'm fighting for my like,” to dispassionate, “I am now safe and calm.”

I suspect much of what swayed the jurors was a combination of factors, not the least of which was Ersland's outright lying in some cases, possible faulty memory in others, and video evidence that did not corroborate his version of the pivotal event (shooting downed robber), a video which showed only Ersland's actions and not those of the robber.

There's one more thing, too. Mindset. It seems the prosecutor did a good job of convincing jurors that Ersland's actions were wrong, and that his mindset was both not what he claimed (still fighting for his life) and that any action resulting from such mindset was still not excusable under the law.

It would be interesting to know what evidence jurors saw and what swayed them. It would be just as interesting to know how long others, faced with similar situations, felt as if their own lives were in danger, and how long it took for those feelings – and the belief that the bad guy remained a threat – to go away.

One more thing. Many observers have said that Ersland did not look scared when he took action. This leaves me asking this broad question (not specific to the Ersland case): does anyone acting in self defense ever look scared? Or does the mere act of self defense look aggressive?

This should not be happening, first degree murder is nowhere near what happened here. At the worst, a manslaughter charge and even that is taking it a bit far. From what I understand happened:

Pharma shot unarmed robber, incapacitating him
Chased armed robber out door
Pharma shot unarmed robber to death

A little inappropriate on the pharma's part, but I can't blame him. If the robber was moving, he was acting on impulse. In his situation, I would've put a pair in his legs to prevent escape, then hogtied him until the cops arrived. This is also why juries should not view the actual trial or know the names, faces etc. of the accused/victims. They should only look at the record of the trial and not view the actual trial as they may be more inclined to rule fairly?

If I'd have to speculate on the one detail that most unhinges the defense's case it would be the fact that he left the store -- in other words he was free to leave and be utterly beyond the risk of bodily harm -- and then returned to kill the wounded robber.

Understanding that taking of life is only justifiable when an attacker has the ability and opportunity to put your own life or safety in immediate jeopardy, once the defendant was physically separated from the robber, to say nothing of the robber's apparently obvious incapacitation, the defendant would have had no affirmative defense for continued violent action. It doesn't matter that he was probably still pretty cheesed off about the whole thing.

Many of our laws against violent crimes exist largely to protect society against those things we may do when in agitated states.

I would've put a pair in his legs to prevent escape

Click to expand...

Uh, what? Using lethal force to prevent escape is not part of a citizen's justifiable actions, almost anywhere, almost ever.

@Sam

That is true, forgot about that. But letting him escape? I'm sure that carries some consequences of its own?

But letting him escape? I'm sure that carries some consequences of its own?

Click to expand...

No legal ones. You cannot be held liable for not physically restraining or capturing a violent criminal, and you certainly can be in very serious criminal and civil jeopardy for events resulting from your efforts to do so. If he wants to leave, and is able to leave, get out of his way. (They'll pick him up at the hospital or scrape him off the sidewalk later anyway.)

alsaqr said:

The jury had a choice between first degree murder, first degree manslaughter and innocent. The jury got it wrong. i think there is a good chance this verdict will be overturned by the OK Court of Criminal Appeals.

Click to expand...

Actually, the jury had the option to nullify the judge's instructions and convict on whichever lesser charge they felt was appropriate. See Jury Nullification.

The bigger issue with Ersland specifically is that he is nuttier than a squirrel turd. He changed his story multiple times, fibbed about his military service, allegedly attempted to appear as if he had been shot (even went as far as inserting metal fragments in his head).

I think it is certainly plausible that 1) the Parker may have still been conscious and considered a threat, or 2) the first shot was fatal and thus the shots in questions were not murderous. Either one of those two is enough to acquit under Oklahoma law. Heck, I would have said not guilty based on those premises, personally. However Ersland's actions after destroyed his credibility, sealing his fate.

It was 90% on film.....if I recall.

Ersland was caught up in the fury of life and death combat and is now second guessed by everyone armed with the luxury of being able to leisurely view the video, devoid of all emotional involvement, and debate woulda, coulda, shouda...

Click to expand...

All of us who are armed carry the responsibility to CONTROL OUR EMOTIONS when faced with some dog who's tried to kill us. I think we all know that. The firearm carries the responsibility, and part of being an armed citizen is accepting that responsibility. There is no lawful coup de grace shot. If the threat is no longer imminent, no matter how big a scum bag the guy is, you no longer have justification to shoot.

I think it's a pretty tall order to expect that a guy should go from “I'm fighting for my like,” to dispassionate, “I am now safe and calm.”

Click to expand...

In a word--tough. If you cannot carry that responsibility do not carry a firearm.

From the facts as presented, first degree murder is precisely what happened here. You do NOT get to "finish off" a suspect who had in the past presented a deadly threat. That is taking the law into your own hands, and has nothing to do with the justification of self defense anymore.

I would not have done what he did but in the heat of that o think the verdict is wrong and I would be comfortable if he walked. These people would stop doing that stupid stuff if they all got put down in the act of their crimes. If these gang bangers murder someone and go to prison then they are the "man" when they get out. Some of them have to kill or rape just to get. Into some gangs. Read my earlier post. Some people do that and walk out in 7 years. Our justice system is a,joke. When you can sue McDonald's bc you spill coffee on yourself and get millions then you have a severely flawed system.

in the heat of that o think the verdict is wrong and I would be comfortable if he walked.

Click to expand...

You think the verdict is wrong, when he walked away -- left the building -- then came back in to methodically kill the unconscious teenager on the floor?

I should have said charge and not verdict. I'm not up on all the legal lingo but maybe one charge under 1st degree. He did not go out looking for trouble. They brought it to him. I don't see where their age has anything to do with it.

Wow! This is the first time I've heard about this case. That video shows pretty clearly how stupid it was to shoot him 5 more times while he was lying on the ground, presumably unconscious. When he walks back into the store and glances down at the perp he then turns his back to him, showing that he didn't think the perp was a threat anymore.

I would have tried to argue 2nd degree murder, instead of 1st. But that's hard given how calm and collected he appears. To argue it was in the heat of the moment is tough. I still feel bad for the pharmacist. The perp started this mess and got his just deserts.

I should have said charge and not verdict. I'm not up on all the legal lingo but maybe one charge under 1st degree.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. The verdict in general -- that his actions were unlawful -- certainly seems right. The charge itself, which degree of murder, or manslaughter could be in question.

However, here are the definitions:

First Degree: An intentional killing that is a willful, deliberate and premeditated action.
Second Degree: Homicide committed by an individual engaged engaged in or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
Third Degreer: Any other murder (e.g. when the intent was not to kill, but to harm the victim but death resulted).
Manslaughter: killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder

Given those definitions, 1st Degree Murder does seem to be the only charge that really fits.

When you can sue McDonald's bc you spill coffee on yourself and get millions then you have a severely flawed system.

Click to expand...

Considering there is a vast difference in criminal and civil law, I'm not sure what this comment has to do with anything Fallout Mike. it certainly doesn't apply to the criminal justice system in ANY way, as that was an entirely CIVIL manner. As far as "putting down" criminals.....the dude ALREADY had that cov edred...the criminal was moist certainly down....what he DID NOT have the right to do is grab ANOTHER gun, and empty into the unconscious man on the ground. I don't care WHO you are or WHAT you've done, that exceeds the right to self defense in a major way. Its no longer "defense" if you can escape, or there is no longer a clear and present threat to you. A man shot in the head, on the ground bleeding, unconscious, is no longer a threat, and while a coupe de grace may be proper when putting an injured animal out of its misery, but is an entirely different story when it comes to humans and a claim of self defense

Sam1911,
I'd say 2nd degree murder fits better than 1st -- the killing was willful, deliberate, but (IMHO) not premeditated.

(Ersland should have used the "He needed killin" defense.)

Davek , my first post refers to criminal justice.

Lee Lapin said:

2) the first shot was fatal and thus the shots in questions were not murderous.

IIRC the coroner ruled that it was the second set of shots (from the .380) that was fatal. I haven't had time to review all the details of this case, so there's much I can't address with any confidence. Anyone who needs a jumping-off point to review the data on this case could do worse than to start with http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3583562&postcount=757 .

fwiw,

lpl

Click to expand...

There were two medical examiner reports done on this (as the first ME in OK was released amid all kinds of allegations including mishandling of evidence, sexual harassment, and a general lack of competency and ethics to hold the position). Box tried to use this as means to cast light on the legitimacy of the autopsy, but his attempt was objected by the prosecution and sustained by the judge.


You are correct that the 1st shot entered the skull and brain was exposed, but as non-fatal.

Here is a link to the first Autopsy: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/1003/ME Autopsy.pdf

I know what the ME said, but if one suffers damage to the brain, I could not say without a doubt that it was not fatal, and thus I would have voted not guilty. I concede that the jury obviously viewed that evidence with more confidence that I could have.

sad state of affairs.

it's the robber's fault for putting the pharmacist in that position in the first place.

who's to say the pharmacist wasn't still threatened by the scumbag trying to get back up? maybe he was still trying to attack, you can still shoot someone while lying on the floor for pete's sake.

the pharmacist should be given the benefit of the doubt!!!

i hope he appeals, wins, then sues the crap out of governing body that prosecuted him!