Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Murder 1

Perhaps this is a better question in Legal, but I found it curious that the prosecutor filed Murder 1 charges - Premeditated Murder. Certainly the fact that the BG tried to rob the "suspect" in his own store with a weapon would present mitigating circumstances to a Murder 1 charge? Given other statements from the prospecutor, it seems he is a bit sympathetic to Ersland - why go to Murder 1?
 
His lawyer says that his defense is the "Make My Day" law. He had a gun in face and he is justified his "eliminating the threat". Direct Quote from defense attorney: "It's the price you pay when you come into a pharmacy with a gun and
Click to expand...
And that might work...for the first shot. It is not going to even come close to working as far as defending his action after re-entering the building.

PS: It is pretty clear to me on the tape that the perp on the floor made no movements. You can read that in the shooters reactions. He never made any noticeable change in his stance, demeanor, or gate. Plus, he walked right up to the perp. You would not do that if he was posing a threat. That would be completely counter to your natural instinctual reaction to danger.
 
So does anybody know if it might be possible to show that the head wound would have been fatal and the other shots were non-consequential? Perhaps the charge would be reduced.
Click to expand...
There is some variation of this in different jurisdictions, but basically the question is causation. What caused the actual death? Doesn't matter if the head wound would have been fatal later on if the follow-up shots were the immediate cause of death.
 
Given other statements from the prospecutor, it seems he is a bit sympathetic to Ersland - why go to Murder 1?
Click to expand...

Premeditation doesn't have to happen days or weeks in advance of the act. It can happen mere moments in advance -- for instance, if a person were to calmly walk into another room, retrieve and load a firearm, and then walk over to the victim and shoot him.

In this case, I'd say what drove the choice for Murder 1 was the fact that Ersland calmly walked past the downed criminal two different times, walked over to the drawer where the second weapon was stored, retrieved it, and walked back over to fire more shots. The whole series of actions indicates premeditation, not simply reacting in the heat of the moment -- at least, that's the reasoning I'd use if I were the prosecutor. Perhaps, though, he chose to charge the higher offense in hopes of getting a guilty plea to something less, rather than a trial.

pax
 
Here's another interesting link from the DA:

http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148

Even though he decided to charge a pharmacist with murder for killing a would-be robber, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said he supports people’s right to defend themselves as allowed by state law.

"I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” Prater said Wednesday in a news conference.

He said the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”...
Click to expand...

More at the link!

pax
 
That fairly high def in store video is some damning evidence! One less criminal punk on the street but it looks like the shooter was way off base and beyond the scope of his rights to self defense...
Brent
 
This is all very fascinating and instructive and confusing and frustrating. I'm sorry that one life was lost and another ruined in order to provide this...but life lessons are often best learned through the errors/follies/successes of others.
 
Right Pax, the video I posted on the previous page has the DA discussing the case and going on and on about the 2nd Amendment and what is and is not justified in a shooting. He seems to go out of his way to explain the need for prosecution in this case and how this prosecution should in no way affect others in their right to use guns for self defense. He argues the first shot (head shot) was completely justified and had Ersland stopped there, there would be no problem, but that shooting the downed suspect was not self defense shooting and hence his decision to prosecute.

He seems to be quite well spoken.
 
Even though he decided to charge a pharmacist with murder for killing a would-be robber, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said he supports people’s right to defend themselves as allowed by state law.

"I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” Prater said Wednesday in a news conference.

He said the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”...
Click to expand...


Looks like you could not ask for a more reasonable or gun-friendly DA, particularly when he advocated that Ersland should be able to remain armed while out on bail.
The defense is gonna have a hell of a time finding any bias against self defense from the prosecution.
 
Perhaps, though, he chose to charge the higher offense in hopes of getting a guilty plea to something less, rather than a trial.
Click to expand...
This is my guess. The circumstances of this case may or may not technically support a Murder 1 charge and possible conviction; however, I would be extremely surprised to see this go to trial and an actual conviction on murder in the first degree result.

I think the prosecutor went for the big charge right away to demonstrate to the defense how seriously they take this crime and to try to get the defense to quickly agree to a plea deal (manslaughter would be my guess).
 
We've had debates here in the past about the mindset of 'Shoot to stop' vs. 'Shoot to kill'.

The 'Shoot to kill' advocates insist that it is the same thing as 'Shoot to stop', while the 'Shoot to stop' crowd claims the opposite, they 'Shoot until the threat is stopped'.

When we make that decision to carry a gun, we have, if we are responsible mature individuals that is, also decided that we are willing to do violent things to preserve our life or that of others.
Ersland did commit a violent act in defense.
Then he crossed the line.

I wonder if asked before this incident, what Ersland would have said his mindset was? 'Shoot to kill'? 'Shoot to stop'? 'Shoot to slidelock'?
 
His lawyer says that his defense is the "Make My Day" law. He had a gun in face and he is justified his "eliminating the threat". Direct Quote from defense attorney: "It's the price you pay when you come into a pharmacy with a gun
Click to expand...

His lawyer should shut up if he can't do better than that.

WildquietisbetterAlaska ™
 
many things to consider.

it is hard to compare a store scene to a home but reading all this and seeing the charge, I can't help but wonder what some of us would do if this were in the home (intruder hit and down and no longer a threat).

Logic would tell me that I should find or make some cover and be ready to defend against a continued threat until authorities arrived.

Logic would also tell me that if I stand over the fallen and unload the rest of my revolver, there will be grave questions.

Could Mr. pharmicist have moved across the store and taken cover
and been in defensive position in case of continued threat while waiting for authorities?

That might have saved him a lot of time and money.

But I wasn't there. He obviously shot to kill.
 
When one considers the illegal act of the coup d gras shot on a downed BG need to realize the slug will likely be in the floor or ricochet back into the body but either way forensic evidence will prove the shot was from close range, from above, on a downed threat.
Brent
 
WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'

the DA argued heatedly with the judge at the prelim today. the judge ordered Mr ersland to turn in all his guns, The DA argued the although he was charged he has not been convicted and he should still be afforded the right to defend himself.
 
"16 year old child" my butt :mad:
Also, when animals defend, and dominance is made the predator leaves, and if he doesn't he gets killed. The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.
 
Kyo, Name a wild animal that, in the wild, will face a trial with lawyers stating law in front of a judge and fellow wild animals.... Can't do it can you? Not even with smart animals such as primates or porpoises...
Brent
 
His lawyer should shut up if he can't do better than that.
Click to expand...

That was my take as well WA, would not surprise me to see him play the "inadequate counsel" card at some point if he is convicted.


WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'
Click to expand...

He may be well respected, but he's hanging his hat on one hell of a weak position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top