Jerome Ersland

[Hansgunner]

Jerome Ersland, the Pharmacist who ventilated one of two would would be robbers attempting to rob his Oklahoma City pharmacy in 2009,lost his appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals on 06/20/13. He will continue his appeal, according to the NewsOk article to the Federal system (good luck). Ersland was retired army (technically, he retired air force, but he actually served most of his time in the army and was combat trained and experienced). What gave the prosecutor an opening in his case was that after Ersland had dropped one of the would be robbers and chased the other for a few blocks before returning to his pharmacy, after which, he reloaded and emptied the clip into the punk laying wounded on the floor - all caught on video. Ersland's defense, quite legitimate in my opinion, was that his military training and experience taught him to finish off aggressors, and there was no racial animus. Sadly, the jury (ethnic composition not known, from my reading anyway) went with the prosecution. One moral to be derived from this is that you simply cannot trust the prosecutor to do the right thing, so be very careful in SD situations - contact an attorney ASAP and say as little as possible (other treads develop this).

 

[Art Eatman]

Military training is irrelevant to one's behavior in the civilian world. The legal requirement is that you cease hostile activity as soon as the threat is ended.

 

[Hansgunner]

Ersland

How can training and experience be irrelevant to anything. Training conditions one to act in a certain manner to achieve desired results - not to mention adrenalin pumping situations when one or more punks are waving weapons at you and your employees. Of course, there is the unspoken political subtext for the prosecutors actions - one that one must always be aware of - that is worse in some areas of the country than others, perhaps, but there nevertheless.

 

[Hansgunner]

Ersland

I might add, that in America, the "civilian world" is quite violent - Chicago is the most obvious example, but murders and brutality for trivial gain is the norm, though not ballyhooed by the corporate media.

 

[joesolo]

What Art said.

 

[Jim K]

Sorry, Hansgunner, but if someone is so far out that he doesn't know whether he is on a battlefield or in his own store, he is pretty darned dangerous to everyone around him.

There is no court in any state that would not consider pumping a full magazine load into a wounded and (at that point) harmless man to be anything but murder. The heat of the moment might provide some excuse, but taking time to reload shows a calm deliberation that contradicts any "heat" excuse.

Unless you take the attitude that human life (or at least some human life) is worthless and some people deserve to be killed, that druggist was wrong, legally and morally. If you do feel that some people deserve to be killed, I only hope that you stay away from me; I might belong to that type. And you might consider that someone else might feel that you deserve to be killed.

Jim

 

[Art Eatman]

"Training conditions one to act in a certain manner to achieve desired results..."

True. But Ersland's problems stemmed from coming back and shooting some more, AFTER the desired results had been achieved. Big no-no in the eyes of the law.

Once the Bad Guy quits, the party's over.

 

[alsaqr]

Yep, Ersland came back and killed a perp who was incapacitated from earlier shot/s.

Then Ersland made it worse by lying to the police about the shooting and his military experience. He also doctored the crime scene.

BTW: Four people were found guilty of 1st degree murder in this case: The second robber, the two adult accomplices and Ersland.

 

[clutch]

Once the assailant(s) are not a threat, it is time to break off and stop. Forget that, and you are in big trouble.

 

[Sam1911]

We've had several good threads on that case. Read here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815

Long story short, under very specific situations where life will be lost if we do not immediately do so, the law recognizes that we may need to shoot (or otherwise grievously injure or even kill) another human being. When the threat is no longer immediate, realistic, and/or present, we no longer have ANY lawful justification for continuing to use deadly force.

Returning to a former assailant who is no longer capable or willing to harm you and executing them is a crime (murder, most likely).

Whatever Mr. Ersland's prior training might have been, or might not have been, whatever was in his head at the moment encouraged him do a VERY bad thing. A thing that the law and society clearly forbids.

When attacked violently, we may shoot (or otherwise assault) someone to stop them from harming us in that instant. In some cases our assault may cause their death. The law says this is an acceptable outcome if we are FORCED to harm them in order to stop their attack.

We may NOT decide that they should die and enact that decision. We may not pass judgment and carry out a sentence for their crime against us. That's not a power any one person has over another. SOCIETY may decide this, but the individual may not. Our violent act is ONLY our most effective means of stopping an attack, and only as such may the guilt for that action be set aside by the law.

When one is seen to re-enter the scene of a violent encounter after the event in order to execute an incapacitated person, the law doesn't care if you were trained as a Navy SEAL or a rodeo clown, what you're doing is against the most fundamental law of our society.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And this has already been thoroughly discussed. If anyone is interested, he can follow the linked Sam's post.