UPDATE: OKC Pharmacist Jerome Ersland Convicted Of Murder

Status
Not open for further replies.
zxcvbob,

He's describing the Parker murder/rape/arson committed by Anthony Carr and Robert Simon in the 1990.

The case has nothing at all to do with this situation and bringing it up is an inappropriate attempt to link a particularly heinous crime to an armed pharmacy robbery gone bad.

The Parkers were brutally betrayed, attacked, kidnapped and subjected to rape, murder, and arson by Carr and Simon. There is lot of similarity with the Capote novel, but the case is real.

Regardless of whether the Parker crimes took place or not THIS case is nothing like the murder of the Parkers and has no bearing. It is about a couple of teens that were manipulated into committing an armed robbery of a pharmacy by a couple of older harder criminals. During the course of the robbery of the pharmacy they'd never been in before with occupants they'd never met before they stormed in with one perp brandishing a firearm. They fired several shots not hitting anyone and when the pharmacist returned fire hitting the unarmed perpetrator in the head and downing him, his accomplice fled being pursued by the pharmacist. When the pharmacist came back into the store he walked right past the unarmed perp on the floor, got a second weapon and walked up to him and shot him multiple times.

The Parkers case has no bearing or resemblance to this one except that in both, ultimately the truth came out and the criminals who committed murder were convicted and are expected to suffer the consequences.

If you defend yourself there's nothing wrong with that, when you go beyond to doling out a coup de grace you've become a murder.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. I *think* the Capote book was based on a real murder too; I'm not sure how much (if any) it was fictionalized.

From what I've seen, Ersland was guilty of murder but I'm not so sure that it should have been 1st degree. I hope he gets a relatively light sentence.
 
fiddletown: But it's also a place to which people come to learn. And folks will come away from these discussions with ideas about what they can and can't do.

True, these exercises can not, and should not, be a substitute for proper training and education in use of force matters. Nonetheless, for many this is all the training they get. That's too bad, but we should at least try not to actively confuse or mislead folks.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I actually understand (from a layman's perspective) how civilian lethal force legalities apply in our country. I live in the real world. In point of fact it's been a personally very real world of lethal force encounters scattered across the planet over the last several decades.

My comments were a theoretical segue down a rabbit hole and purely for discussion. However, I do assign most forum participants a modicum of ability with regard to reading comprehension. I wouldn't rely on an internet firearms forum for other than broadly general legal advice (i.e., "Get a lawyer"). I don't expect others to do so either. Caveat Emptor.

I wish you well. ;)
 
Last edited:
This discussion is all great, but unfortunately it all does not consider the aspect of local politics on the process. I can assure you it played a large role.
 
Here's a somewhat similar event from 1984 (in terms of high emotion, guilt, and sentencing). A shooting played out in front of a TV news crew and the police officers who were escorting a handcuffed child-kidnapping and molestation suspect. The suspect was being returned to Louisiana after extradition from another state, having (apparently) fled to avoid prosecution. I remember watching the video on the day it happened.

The victimized child's father ambushed and executed the suspect in a scene eerily reminiscent of the slaying of Lee Harvey Oswald. Definitely premeditated. Definitely a man out of his mind with rage, grief, stress. Definitely not self defense. Definitely not heat of the moment. Interesting to see how it played out in court and it makes for an interesting example of "compare and contrast" vis-a-vis the Ersland case.

This newscast video depicts a murder by gunshot but is not excessively graphic due to camera angle; an audio narration and reporter interview accompanies the video:

http://yikers.com/video_dad_shoots_sons_molester_in_the_head.html

Read the excerpt below to see what sort of charge this shooter faced and the sentence meted out:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/28/u...tenced-in-killing-of-suspected-kidnapper.html

BATON ROUGE, La., Aug. 27 (1985) — A father who fatally shot a man suspected of kidnapping and sexually assaulting his son was given a suspended prison term today and sentenced to five years of probation.

The man, Leon Gary Plauche, 39 years old, had pleaded no contest to manslaughter in the death of Jeffrey Doucet, 25, who was shot in the head in the Baton Rouge airport in March 1984.

The shooting occurred as deputies were returning Mr. Doucet in handcuffs from California, where he had been arrested on a charge of kidnapping Mr. Plauche's 11-year-old son.
Click to expand...

In one case, although there was never a threat to life of the defendant...he was (essentially) slapped on the wrist for a premeditated killing.

In the other, despite an immediate threat to the survival of the defendant and others...he was punished for excessive response when he killed.

It will be interesting to see what sentence Ersland actually receives.
 
Last edited:
evan price: Agreed. These are two entirely different scenarios and cases, but both pull at the public's perception of legal definitions and what constitutes justice.

The 1984 case is possibly more of a deliberate crime and yet, Ersland may receive greater punishment. Or not. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Hso, the only reason I brought it up is bc I knew the parkers and there were 3 rapists and killers. Which seems to so often go unrealized. The third one got out after just a few years. The only reason I brought it up is bc if one of those got out after a few years then there is no way I could be ok with thus pharmacists getting life without parole. I am not trying to compare crimes. Just the sentencing.
 
I'd like to point out an article from 26 May that, among other things, recounts what happened to all the various people who had some part in the robbery that led to the death of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. It might help to put the whole situation in perspective.

The article can be seen at http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/54828a5... Shooting/id-07c212d44fc14decaecee7a6f2f3b8ea .

In short, there were five people involved in the robbery attempt in one way or another-

Jerome Ersland, pharmacist and intended robbery victim, now 59 years old - convicted of first degree murder. The jury — eight women and four men — recommended a life sentence after deliberating 3.5 hours. Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott can impose a lighter sentence when Ersland is sentenced July 11, but cannot depart upward. If he accepts the jury's suggestion, Ersland would be eligible for parole after 38 years and three months. See in addition the article at http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...idence-of-faked-gunshot-wound/article/3562001 . See also the article describing the expense of Ersland's legal defense at http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...000-a-day-during-murder-trial/article/3566381 .

Antwun Parker, unarmed accomplice to intended armed robbery, 16 years old at the time - dead at the scene, shot repeatedly by Ersland.

Jevontai Ingram, armed robber, 14 years old at the time of the attempted armed robbery- sentenced to a state juvenile facility after pleading guilty to first-degree murder under Oklahoma's felony murder law. That law allows a murder charge against someone when an accomplice is killed during the commission of a crime. In addition, from an article at http://newsok.com/teen-pleads-guilty-to-murder-in-oklahoma-city-pharmacy-robbery/article/3430603 - Under an agreement with prosecutors, Ingram was sentenced as a youthful offender to treatment at a state juvenile facility. He can be held no longer than five months after his 18th birthday, but could be released sooner if he completes his treatment plan.

Prosecutors could seek to have him put in state prison to serve a life sentence if he fails treatment.

Ingram is the robber seen in the recording pointing a gun inside the pharmacy. He fled the drugstore when the pharmacist began shooting. He is cooperating with prosecutors against two men accused of planning the robbery.

Prosecutors have said Ingram did not fire any shots and Parker did not have a gun during the robbery.

Anthony D. Morrison, 44, and Emanuel Mitchell, 33, recruited the teens and helped plan the robbery. While the robbery attempt took place, they waited outside the pharmacy in getaway cars. They were convicted of first-degree murder in early May and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

You can find a collection of articles re. this incident at http://newsok.com/pharmacyshootings

fwiw,

lpl
 
fiddletown said:
Forty-five seconds is a long time in a violent encounter.
Click to expand...

Ok. But it seems short to me.

fiddletown said:
And in any use of force situation, we will be expected to adjust to changed circumstance. Without an real and immediate threat, we will not be legally justified in using lethal force.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it seems there are at least three ways to look at Ersland and his actions.

1. Man in fear for his life shoots robber whom he believes is a threat.​

Jury certainly didn't buy that one.

2. Man not in fear for his life shoots robber whom he believes is not a threat.​

Jury bought that one.

3. Man shoots robber WE believe is no longer a threat.​

Number 3 helped the DA sway the jury, likely in addition to whatever other evidence they saw, and that's where opinions differ. Whatever Ersland claims was going on inside his head is subordinate to what we think about what he did. For instance:

hso said:
...you can't claim you were subject to a real threat when you're shown on video to not be in danger.
Click to expand...

Ersland is a liar about a number of things. Maybe one of them is his claim that he felt the robber, whom we cannot see in the later part of the video, was still a threat, for which reason he shot him again. That he may have still felt threatened doesn't seem so far removed from human nature as to be impossible. It's entirely possible he did almost everything wrong, as observed in JohnKSa's quoted post, and still perceived the wounded robber as a threat not only to him, but to the two employees who remained, and for which reason he may have returned to the pharmacy.

Clearly the jury thought otherwise.

What I remain curious about is Ersland's mindset at the time of the second shooting, how the establishment of such mindset may have helped his case, and how useful this is in the defense of such cases.

My curiosity does not mean that I see establishment of mindset as a reliable, or only, defense in court (which seems to be Cosmoline's take, which I correct here). It only means that I am curious, and so I question.
 
It's entirely possible he did almost everything wrong, as observed in JohnKSa's quoted post, and still perceived the wounded robber as a threat not only to him, but to the two employees who remained, and for which reason he may have returned to the pharmacy.
Click to expand...
Could be--but if he had returned for that reason and ensured that the employees were able to get away to safety, we wouldn't be discussing it.
 
Armed robbery has to be a traumatic experience. So, this guy freaks out and pumps lead into the probably dead assailants. Who are we to say this guy doesn't have a right to freak out? The police always use excessive force and back it up by say how they were in a dangerous situation.

The only difference I see is cops are trained for the stresses of this job the best they can be, and have experiences in highly stressful situations. (Swat)


But, a random citizen should be punished for excessive force though? This seems to be telling in how they view citizens. Sheep shouldn't fight back.
 
Mikhail Weiss: Great commentary.

What I remain curious about is Ersland's mindset at the time of the second shooting, how the establishment of such mindset may have helped his case, and how useful this is in the defense of such cases.
Click to expand...

I suspect that while nearly everyone outside the event (including the jury) saw two shootings, in Ersland's universe it was all a single blurred event.

There's the rub...
 
Mikhail Weiss said:
...What I remain curious about is Ersland's mindset at the time of the second shooting, how the establishment of such mindset may have helped his case, and how useful this is in the defense of such cases.

My curiosity does not mean that I see establishment of mindset as a reliable, or only, defense in court (which seems to be Cosmoline's take, which I correct here). It only means that I am curious, and so I question.
Click to expand...
There are a variety of questions that could be asked, and may well need to be asked, about the nature and conduct of Ersland's defense -- what evidence was available, what could perhaps have been done to rehabilitate his credibility, etc. The answers to those sorts of questions can be tremendously helpful to lawyers who are put in the position of handling a self defense case. A big part of the craft of trial advocacy is finding ways to effectively, within the rules, tell your client's story.

But there is also a more general lesson to be learned by gun owners from Ersland. We as gun owners need to be learning that we need to understand the laws relating to the use of lethal force in self defense, and that we need to train and practice so that we can exercise good judgment under stress. Ersland shows very dramatically that if a bunch of strangers who weren't there thinks we used lethal force beyond what was necessary to stop an imminent threat, we can be held legally accountable; and we will not be happy with that result.
 
It's been pointed out more than once here that, under the influence of adrenalin, people tend to run off at the mouth. People also tend to be confused about the details of what they've just been through in the aftermath of adrenalin-charged incidents. That's why it's important to be careful what you say under the influence of the chemical cocktail that comes with severe stress. Beyond the basics that are clear from the evidence at the scene, usually the less said in the immediate aftermath of the incident, the better.

What you say matters, but how you say what you say might matter even more. In this regard also, Ersland was apparently his own worst enemy. The surveillance videotapes that contradicted his initial story hurt him, but sometimes his choice of words hurt him even worse IMHO. Quoted from the newspaper story linked below, In the police interview, [Ersland] referred to Parker as “the guy that I nailed.”

Worst of all, Ersland flat out lied, repeatedly, about all sorts of things that could be easily verified. Some of it could be attributed to confusion and adrenalin. But far too much of it couldn't, as the exerpt below indicates.

There are an awful lot of lessons to be learned from this case. That's why we are discussing it. I think DON'T LIE! is one of the biggest lessons here.

fwiw,

lpl
====

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542

Oklahoma City pharmacist found guilty of murder
Jury chooses a life term as punishment.
BY NOLAN CLAY [email protected]
Published: May 27, 2011

snip///
Prosecutors told jurors in closing arguments Thursday that the evidence proves Parker never moved again after a shot to the head knocked him to the pharmacy floor. They said Ersland's own actions prove he didn't consider the wounded robber a threat when he shot him again.

“Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, an execution,” District Attorney David Prater said.

During the closing arguments, Prater played for jurors again the security camera recordings of the shooting. He stopped it at points, telling jurors the pharmacist turned his back to the downed robber to get a second gun to shoot the robber again.

“It's a human trait. You don't turn your back on something you're afraid of,” Prater said.

Prosecutors told jurors Ersland lied to police about what happened during the shooting, trying to come up with a good story to cover his wrongdoing. They said he underestimated how much homicide detectives would investigate.

They also reminded jurors he had lied about killing people during the first Gulf War. They said his military records show he was at Altus Air Force Base [in OK] in 1991 and never was in combat.

Prosecutors also reminded jurors of testimony Ersland had faked a gunshot wound in an effort to support his defense. “He lies about everything,” Prater said.

Box conceded that the pharmacist has said some “goofy things” and had facts wrong in his police interview and about his military record. He argued that didn't change what the pharmacist perceived inside the pharmacy.

Jurors were given the option of finding Ersland guilty of first-degree manslaughter instead or of acquitting him completely.
///snip
 
This thread is a good read...Missed it first time around:uhoh:

Don't think anyone should contribute money to assist Ersland, he is morally corrupt:(

Regards
 
still perceived the wounded robber as a threat not only to him, but to the two employees who remained
Click to expand...

Except that Parker, who was the suspect shot, did not have a handgun. that individual fled the store who was then chased by the shop owner. The shop owner, while under stress, is expected to responsibly control his actions as a legal firearm's owner.

But I do find it surprising that the jury didn't come in with their option of a lower charge if by nothing else the stress.

But what must be understood is that these incidents involving responsible firearm's owners are far and few between.

we need to train and practice so that we can exercise good judgment under stress
Click to expand...

Absolutly.

I see so many come into our club and use their legally carried handguns allowed under the very reasonable NH law. Yet so many haven't a clue what their responsibilities are or the proper way to use their firearms. Training is available for very reasonable costs yet some think simply firing off fifty rounds makes them competent in all areas.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting discussion but it doesn't belong in ST&T. Unfortunately I can't really find a place on THR where this discussion of the morality of the current laws on the use of deadly force would fit in.

Would the world be a better place if the law allowed for Ersland to kill the robber when he returned to the store? I don't know...What I do know is that no matter how interesting the discussion is, THR, with the narrow focus we strive for isn't the place to have it.
 
Just as an update, and for information only, the shooter has been sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, as reported here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1
  • Locked
OKC pharmacist charged with murder in teen's death
Replies
18
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
V
  • Locked
Oklahoma Pharmacist Charged With First Degree Murder
Replies
4
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
H
  • Locked
Jerome Ersland
Replies
10
Views
769
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
U
  • Locked
Oklahoma pharmacist once called hero, now convicted murderer in attempted robbery
Replies
16
Views
848
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top