Big Brother IS watching.

[9x23]

I suspect that many of you have seen the video of Jerome Ersland, a pharmacist from Oklahoma City, first defending himself and his co-workers then it's the government's contention that he was executing the perpetrator.

There is no doubt that he exhibited GREAT heroism, but the tail end of the video is giving the prosecutors a different direction. Remember, probable cause does not have to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion, instead it's "what would lead a reasonable man to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed or will be committed."

On the scale of absolute doubt to no doubt at all, beyond a reasonable doubt falls in the 80 percentile range, but probable cause ("what would lead a reasonable man to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed or will be committed") falls in the 40 percentile range. The police have a lot of latitude here. It appears that based ONLY on what I saw you could go either way. You might want to take a look at my signature line.

If you were Ersland how would you have told the story?

How do you feel having both private and government cameras watching you - even in the most innocuous places??? .....9x23

 

[Ed Ames]

For the record, I'm expressing disgust with people who would defend that pharmacist without knowing what actually happened. It looks extremely iffy from the video but that's what courts are there to sort out.

 

[TexasRifleman]

How do you feel having both private and government cameras watching you - even in the most innocuous places??? .....9x23

First, he worked there forever, he HAD to know there were cameras. So that's not really "big brother".

As to the question of how the story should be told, there is only one answer in a self defense shooting;

"I need medical attention please, and I would like to speak with my attorney".

That's how you tell the story.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Been going on a very long time back east. You cannot use any of the Beltways, toll roads or tunnels including many parts of downtown without being on some sort of Camera. I recall NYC had thiers very high up on poles and Baltimore the same.

London UK is full of cameras.

Now we are beginning to see speed cameras back east that will auto-cite you and mail you a ticket when your vehicle is captured over the speed limit. Same with traffic lights and such.

You have alot of people with camcorders in public and I carry one myself.

Anything can happen at any time and it USUALLY gets captured. Not all of it gets shown to the public for various reasons usually either graphic limitations or perhaps some other reason.

If you want a nut to chew on, consider this. Why is it we have thousands of imagery and a few of the 9-11 vs the NYC and in PA towers and only have a little parking gate camera shot of the one at the Pentagon?

They probably went to all the places with camera shot of that pentagon and confisicated the tapes and sunk them deep. Might be 50 years before they see light of day again.

The topic refers to a self defense against a robbery. Fine. No one has a problem with that. But it became murder when he apparently fired again while the suspect is on the floor. This horse has been beaten senseless and will be sent to the Rendering plant that is the Courthouse for further processing until everyone gets a nice packaged finish to the whole thing.

No wonder Lady Justice has scales in her hand blindfolded.

For those who have experienced or is experiencing survillence from the so called big brother, perhaps medicines for anxiety might be in order. If you are not breaking a law, why should they be watching?

There is always a certain percentage of a population that likes privacy. Plenty of woodlands and mountain valleys to get into far out of any camera shot range of any town or city. Unfortunately the airspace and space is not off limits to cameras.

I recall firing model rockets up above a neighbor's high fence that had a camera that tripped when the parachute was deployed. Unfortunately due to software error in my head, poor planning and a strong wind that rocket drowned into that neighbor's pool. Serves me right.

My final thought. I dont care anymore within reason. Occasionally there is a Homeland Security Helicopter that orbits overhead or nearby while the USAF has total dominance of anything at treetop height to infinity. (They like to fly low and fast where I am.. the lower, the better to wave at them)

 

[Igloodude]

Not to threadjack, but odds are fairly good that crime scene forensic investigation would make the video extraneous - he got a second gun and emptied the magazine into someone who was lying on the floor and no longer a threat. I think a charge of second-degree murder is probably appropriate in his case.

 

[TexasRifleman]

he got a second gun and emptied the magazine into someone who was no longer a threat.

That is sort of the problem. The video makes it LOOK like the guy was no longer a threat, but you can't see him in the video.

We have NO idea what that guy on the ground was doing when he was shot, or what he was saying.

The video is exactly 1/2 of the story.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

You would think with a round in the head you will not be too functional. You would be experiencing very deep system core errors in thought processing and other issues prior to death.

Some folks HAVE been shot in the head proper and for some crazy reason suffer only the entry wound and otherwise 100% fine.

 

[Animal Mother]

I can only judge from what I saw on the video. IMHO, It was a good shoot until he returned and fired at the unarmed, unconcious, and wounded suspect.

You must shoot to stop, not shoot to kill, unless you like the idea of spending years in a concrete room with a steel toilet.

Granted, if the suspect was reaching into a pocket or doing something else that would reasonably cause Jerome Ersland to feel his life was in danger then he may get out of this with a not-guilty verdict.

The hard part is going to be proving what really happened to a jury.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It was a good shoot until he returned and fired at the unarmed, unconcious, and wounded suspect.

And again, what did you see in that video to lead you to believe that the guy in the ground was unarmed and unconscious?

The only video I have seen shows ONLY the pharmacist. The perp is not in frame.

We just don't have enough information to make any choice about what happened here, any statements like you make are just speculation.

 

[kingpin008]

You would think with a round in the head you will not be too functional. You would be experiencing very deep system core errors in thought processing and other issues prior to death.

Of course you'd think that. Unfortunately, it isn't always true. A shot to the head doesn't mean that the bullet entered the brain, or even peirced the skull. And even if it did, there was a case not too long ago where an officer pulled a man over for a traffic violation, and the man attacked him and brought him to the ground.

A bystander with a CCW came to the officer's aid, shooting the attacker multiple times in the chest and head with a .40 caliber, and the guy would not stop. An up-close (almost touching his skin with the muzzle) headshot finally put him down, but even after that he attempted to get up twice.


My google-fu is weak at the moment, so I can't provide a link to the article, but hopefully someone else remembers the case I'm talking about.

 

[gtoken]

Whats wrong with the notion that if someone is trying to rob you that they must accept whatever happens to them?

 

[Animal Mother]

And again, what did you see in that video to lead you to believe that the guy in the ground was unarmed and unconscious?

There is nothing I saw in the video which indicated the perp on the ground was unarmed and unconscious--and that's the rub.

I've read statements saying that the perp was unconscious. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp was indeed unconscious, either though some as-of-yet unreleased camera footage from a different angle or via some forensics, it will be a tough charge for Ersland to beat.

But you are right, we don't know what the perp was doing.

 

[9x23]

"...he HAD to know there were cameras."

TexasRifleman:

First, he worked there forever, he HAD to know there were cameras. So that's not really "big brother".

Of course he KNEW the cameras were there! Did you think he had the expectation of privacy in light that it captured the commission of an armed robbery? That’s a major reason for the camera being there; it’s a shame that it showed more than he cared for it to.

It doesn’t matter who owns the cameras; if they show the occurrence of a crime the police will confiscate them as evidence. So, yeah, Big Brother IS watching - if not disguised as wolf in sheep’s clothing.

BTW, you had a good response for your explanation to the police. I've heard better, but yours will do.....9x23

 

[TexasRifleman]

It doesn’t matter who owns the cameras; if they show the occurrence of a crime the police will confiscate them as evidence. So, yeah, Big Brother IS watching - if not disguised as wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Very true. Good point.

 

[Schleprok62]

You would think with a round in the head you will not be too functional. You would be experiencing very deep system core errors in thought processing

This is definitely an overstatement... There are many documented cases where any number of serious (or what would appear to be serious) head wounds/traumas/etc that have showed little to know effect on the subjects thought processes.

One incident I recall reading about, and seeing on one of those TV shows about real cases was an older woman was out planting flowers using a kitchen knife... well, in process of doing something, she fell and the knife passed between her eyeball and eye socket and on through into the brain. The knife was like 6" long, and the handle was was at about her eye... they took her to the hospital and she was conscious and knew her name, and knew she was hurt...etc... they rushed her into surgery and removed the knife with no discernable brain damage... hmmm.... the human body is an amazing thing...

So, in this case, who knows without seeing how the bullet struck the victim... it may not have passed through and just rung his bell...

Did anyone catch the caliber of the weapon used??

 

[ants]

Were the last 5 rounds self defense or murder?


Sorry, but you and I don't have enough information to conclude, one way or the other.



I'll reserve judgement until all the facts are on the table.

 

[ants]

Did anyone catch the caliber of the weapon used??

According to his own statement, the man used a KelTec P3AT that he kept in his pocket, a 380 Auto. That was the first round he fired. He picked up a second gun and ran out the door, then returned and put the second gun away. He used the P3AT again for the final 5 shots.

 

[TexasRifleman]

That was the first round he fired. He picked up a second gun and ran out the door, then returned and put the second gun away. He used the P3AT again for the final 5 shots.

Seems like I read the other one was a Taurus Judge.

 

[Chuck24]

I would not have gone back and shot him. It seems if you rob a place with a gun, then you are responsible for whatever happens to you.

 

[PT1911]

link to the video?

 

[Animal Mother]

http://newsok.com//article/3372941?custom_click=rss

 

[kingpin008]

I would not have gone back and shot him.

I'd be willing to bet you'd change your tune if the guy you just shot in the head was struggling to get back to his feet with the gun he had been holding when he busted in within reaching distance.

...Which is very possibly what Mr. Ersland was presented with when he re-entered the pharmacy.

 

[t165]

TexasRifleman gave some very good advice. If you are involved in an incident involving serious injury or death to another person then you should contact a lawyer before giving any statements to anyone, espicially law enforcement. Protect yourself. Even if you feel you are 100% correct that doesn't mean a prosecutor will. Prosecutors are all too often politicians first. They have their views concerning firearms and self defense. It does not cost him a dime to prosecute you. Even if you eventually win before a jury of your peers it will be a costly and laborious process. I would not want to rely on a court appointed attorney to fight for my life/freedom.

The big if in all of this to me is...

(1) If the robber on the floor was already dead from the first shot or if he was still alive at the time of the subsequent shots. I thought the first shot was entirely justified and if that is the one which killed him then how could he have been murdered by the next set of multiple shots? Forensics should be able to determine this.

(2) If he was still alive after the first (head) shot and was displaying any aggressive actions while out of camera view. I'm not sure if the pharmacist made statements to the police one way or another.

There is all kinds of what if's in this scenario. From what I understand the alleged robber that was killed did not have a firearm. What if the 2nd perp which was caught states the slain perp was not involved in the robbery at all...just an inocent bystander. I know it sounds ridiculous but from a legal standpoint there is so much up in the air at this point surrounding this incident. Defense attorneys can be very inventive. This case is looking like there will be the law vs (2) defense attorneys with their own stories to best serve their clients. Not to mention possible civil attorneys representing the slain man's family against the pharmacist and the store which he worked for. What a quagmire.

I'm not bad mouthing law enforcement. They have a duty to investigate the incident and record/collect evidence. I'm just recommending individuals to protect themselves. It was recommended strongly to me when I attended the police academy to seek an attorney if I was ever involved in a police shooting. A police officer can be thrown to the wolves as quickly as a citizen. The real power in law enforcement are Prosecutors. Get one with anti gun views and all bets are off.

 

[CoRoMo]

LEO should always, and often do, welcome the notion that an involved individual prefers to communicate through an attorney. It is the wisest of options. TV/movies portray LE to immediately assume guilt when the person of interest requests that protection, but only the experienced LEO members/moderators here can tell us what reality is.

How do you feel having both private and government cameras watching you - even in the most innocuous places?

As to this question, I have mixed feelings.

As an employer, I am tempted by the thought of surveillance of my business property, but I’ve decided against the use of it on the interior because as an employee, I know what that does to morale.

As far as government surveillance goes, I am also slightly torn. I have so little trust, respect, and faith in government that it prompts me to oppose anything they do. But, if a traffic camera can enforce our traffic laws more efficiently and with less expense, my opposition has a hard time finding its footing.

 

[SHvar]

I wander if there isnt another camera view not shown here. Of course for legal reasons if the corner that the incident occured in is on another camera view we as the public wont see it. Thats evidence to the actual event, maybe after the verdict it will be available to see.
Until then we cannot make an opinion either way as to what actually happened.
In the video we saw the 2 perps with guns in their hands, we saw one go down in a corner we cannot see, and one run away. We saw the defendant go after the second perp, then return looking in the direction the 1st perp went to. Then the defendant got on the phone.