On the long version of the DA's news conference he states that the medical examiner concluded that the head injury was survivable as the bullet fragmented, and the larger portion was deflected. He was emphatic in the fact that the five subsequent shots were the "kill" shots, hence the charges.
Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers
- Thread starter Blue Steel
- Start date
- Status
On the long version of the DA's news conference he states that the medical examiner concluded that the head injury was survivable as the bullet fragmented, and the larger portion was deflected. He was emphatic in the fact that the five subsequent shots were the "kill" shots, hence the charges.
Deaf Smith
New member
Then insanity is his only real defense. He was badly injured in the military (notice the back brace) and he took pain killers.
That, I suspect, will be his defense. I.E. he flipped.
That, I suspect, will be his defense. I.E. he flipped.
supergas452M
Moderator
Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland? I live in a neighboring state and can give some of my time in this cause. Just wondering?
Shadi Khalil
New member
I hardly think thats a sound defense stratagy. I thought "flipping" ment to become state evidence, what do you mean?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Dont think that most folks here want to be bodyguards for accused murderers.
Well hell Clem, head over to your local jail and bail out a gangbanger then and guard him...no difference
WildyoumustbejokingAlaska TM
Tucker 1371
New member
I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Forget the video, all it shows is that Ersland fired several shots in a downward direction, Parker could have been trying to get up, and in that case he's a legitimate threat.
I completely agree that if he fired while Parker was motionless on the ground then that is legally wrong and unnecessary for the purpose of self defense.
However, in any case, I would hate to see Parker convicted. Even if he did execute Parker I think it served a good purpose (so long as he's found innocent) as it should most certainly make criminals think twice before pulling crap like this.
The only thing that can prevent crime is to reduce the will to commit it not the ability to do so. The best way to reduce the will to committ crime is to increase the certainty and severity of punishment. If a criminal has to constantly worry about losing his life to carry out his trade common sense says he would consider a career change. Convicting Ersland will only embolden criminals like Parker (cut the "kid" crap, he was a criminal
Guilty already?
Wow. I can’t see the BG on the floor in either view. If I were on a jury, and it were argued (by the defense) that our pharmacist guy was going over to investigate a sound, and the BG started to rise, I would now have a doubt.
Is my doubt of murder 1 “reasonable”? I might be inclined to believe that the fatal shots to the abdomen were a continuance of his self-defense, were the bg rising. I can’t see the bg in the tape, or what he is doing. The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim? I do have a doubt because of this lack of a view. Is my doubt "reasonable"? I have a hard time believing him after his first account was so wildly off from the videos. How much of a stretch would I give this guy, were I a juror?
You don’t need one peta creep to convict; you need one of me to get him off on this charge. I think I lived in OK long enough to know, finding a group of 12 “not me’s” in that area will be difficult, to say the least.
As a side note… I’m not saying that Wild Alaska has never said anything useful on here before, I’m saying I’ve never seen it. That I don’t read as much here as I would like, and still consider myself new on this forum, has as much to do with that as anything. At first I was in the “hero” camp, with only minor doubts. The fact that the only posts I’ve seen by WA were sarcastic one-liners, gave me cause to dismiss him. I have gleaned a little respect for you sir, due to this one, and will read your posts with renewed interest. It is good to remember that thing about being an ambassador, and yes, you can say I was cowering when I went behind the counter, it would not bother me one bit.
I don't mean to offend, merely enlighten.
Wow. I can’t see the BG on the floor in either view. If I were on a jury, and it were argued (by the defense) that our pharmacist guy was going over to investigate a sound, and the BG started to rise, I would now have a doubt.
Is my doubt of murder 1 “reasonable”? I might be inclined to believe that the fatal shots to the abdomen were a continuance of his self-defense, were the bg rising. I can’t see the bg in the tape, or what he is doing. The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim? I do have a doubt because of this lack of a view. Is my doubt "reasonable"? I have a hard time believing him after his first account was so wildly off from the videos. How much of a stretch would I give this guy, were I a juror?
You don’t need one peta creep to convict; you need one of me to get him off on this charge. I think I lived in OK long enough to know, finding a group of 12 “not me’s” in that area will be difficult, to say the least.
As a side note… I’m not saying that Wild Alaska has never said anything useful on here before, I’m saying I’ve never seen it. That I don’t read as much here as I would like, and still consider myself new on this forum, has as much to do with that as anything. At first I was in the “hero” camp, with only minor doubts. The fact that the only posts I’ve seen by WA were sarcastic one-liners, gave me cause to dismiss him. I have gleaned a little respect for you sir, due to this one, and will read your posts with renewed interest. It is good to remember that thing about being an ambassador, and yes, you can say I was cowering when I went behind the counter, it would not bother me one bit.
I don't mean to offend, merely enlighten.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I think I have been pretty circumspect with respect to the ultimate issue of guilt here....I could easily construct a defense for mr Erland by the way...many of them have been alluded to by other members here...in fact, I gave it to you several pages ago viz:
"Ladies and gentlemen, we know the pressure that the DA is under from some members of the community to resolve this tragedy at the expense of my client. My client, a law abiding and respected veteran, did not precipitate these tragic events, rather, he was a victim forced into this situation by the violent and criminal acts of the decedant."
1. Politics.
2. Veteran/cripple
3. Initial justification
My only question would be whether to use PTSD. Goal being an aquittal based on justification or at the worst, some degree of manslaughter. Good case to try, especially in light of what the video doesnt show.
I betcha...its called.....an autopsy! Complete with trajectories!
WildhowsthatforasarcasticonelinerAlaska TM
Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? I would have a hard time buying a marginal measurement from a doctor, over an eye witness. Not that this guy was a great eye witness.
All things being the same, I think yours is a good one. It still LOOKS like he did what the DA says. I think one or more of those jurors will be looking for even the smallest of reasons to let him off. I also think the DA went for the harder to prove charge so the guy could more easily be let go. Is he trying to lose? Maybe.
What would you think as a juror if your defense were presented in a convincing way. I feel my doubt, as stated, is reasonable. As a Juror, I would have to hear it presented in a convincing way, or no go.
G-Afineexampleman26!
All things being the same, I think yours is a good one. It still LOOKS like he did what the DA says. I think one or more of those jurors will be looking for even the smallest of reasons to let him off. I also think the DA went for the harder to prove charge so the guy could more easily be let go. Is he trying to lose? Maybe.
What would you think as a juror if your defense were presented in a convincing way. I feel my doubt, as stated, is reasonable. As a Juror, I would have to hear it presented in a convincing way, or no go.
G-Afineexampleman26!
Wildalaska
Moderator
Yes, inferentially.
NO. The DA charged appropriately, especially in light of the legal requirement of lesser included offenses. Hes playing it smart, prosecuting without seeming vengeful
WildhestryingtoblockthedefendantsanticipatedpoliticalargumentsAlaska TM
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Wow, I love how selectively people choose what evidence is acceptable when they wish to not believe the truth of the matter.
As for innocent until proven guilty, it seems everyone is very ready to assume that the person shot was guilty and deserved to die based solely on a few seconds of video tape where all he does is put a tobogan cap on his head .
I agree - Ersland could very well have been thinking just that.
However, under Oklahoma law, he could not come to the aid of "bystanders" that are not related to him by blood or employer/employee relationship. As my SDA instructor put it, "other people are on their own!" If this was Ersland's goal in chasing down the second robber, he cannot use the law to protect his actions.
The only time it is acceptable to use armed force to defend "just anybody" is if you are in your own home, in which case the castle doctrine protects your actions.
This point of the law was intended to cut down on vigilantism and the possibility of "bad shoots" on undercover cops, innocent bystanders, etc.
It's an important point of Oklahoma law that residents like myself must constantly keep in mind when carrying concealed outside the home.
Double Naught Spy
New member
With Saints, it is guilty until proven innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal issue, not a reality issue.
Of course if we are going to go with the "innocent until proven guilty" business here, then we need to realize that Antwun Parker was a completely innocent man who apparently was shot and the shot several more times moments later by another supposedly innocent man.
Blood spatter evidence certainly could. If the arms are splayed out as described when he was shot, that will be able to be discerned.
That would be contrary to the DA's statements at about 10:56-11:30. http://www.news9.com/Global/categor...art=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065
Last edited:
Yep, I know what he said in the press conference. And that's what is bugging the heck out of me. Oklahoma has castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws that give you free reign to defend yourself with no duty to retreat. There's nothing about pursuing someone that is no longer an imminent threat.
Perhaps he was speaking as someone who has influence over the law (i.e., his arguments can influence a judge to interpret the law one way or the other). Guess that's why he's the DA and I'm not!
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay, how about citing some statutes that say you can't defend another in OK outside of the home.
Well, I can't.
There are statutes that state when you can shoot (i.e., standing your ground anywhere you have a right to be, or in your own home). Without such a statute, I would conclude that I am taking a legal risk if I act outside those explicit permissions. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on tv, etc).I did some looking, and it seems that what I'm referring to is not in the SDA act itself. However, it is what is taught in the state-mandated CLEET training course that all concealed-carry licensees must attend prior to the issue of permit. Whether these guidelines carry force of law or are just good legal advice, I can't say. Either way, I personally won't take the risk - if the perp decides to flee, I will let him!
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay, it doesn't really matter what you would do. That wasn't the point. The point was that you said it was illegal to defend another in OK - coming to the aid of bystanders, as it were, and that it was to cut down on vigilanteism. However, you can't produce an statutes to support your claim. Obviously, if it is illegal, you should be able to find some law to prove this. I say this because I can't find any law that says you can't either.
Me thinks either your instruction was in error or that your memory was in error on this matter.
Me thinks either your instruction was in error or that your memory was in error on this matter.
You're correct - I erred in saying it was illegal. (Historical note - I usually only admit error to my wife).
My original intent in all of this was to question Ersland's decision to chase the second perp after he had ceased to be an imminent threat. Perhaps it was legal, perhaps not, but it seems like a bad idea, especially if the behavior could be used to bolster the other legal arguments against him. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm spewing hogwash here, granted.
Nope, that's the actual instruction from the state-certified course, and I only took the class two weeks ago.
The criteria was mentioned several times (twice an hour, I think!) My memory can be questionable at times, but not that questionable!
Other SDA licensees whom I know have mentioned the same thing, so I don't believe it is faulty instruction. The class is "book-taught" and the instructor was plainly reading from the CLEET materials. It would be curious to know the origin of the guideline, but until I know for sure, I'm going to assume that if it isn't grounded in actual statute, it's either due to legal precedent from previous court cases or simply intended to keep me out of legal trouble. As a lawyer friend once told me, "You don't ever want to be a test case."
By the way, Mr. Ersland has my sympathies. Regardless of his actions and their legality, he did not ask to be placed in that position, and that sucks no matter what his guilt or innocence may be.
Tucker 1371
New member
Agreed, just wish we could see the report from that. Trajectory = closer to perpendicular to the plane of Parker's abdomen = Ersland was justified. The closer to parallel to aforementioned plane the trajectories are = the flatter on the ground Parker was = Ersland guilty.
I also think that the PTSD argument may be a more viable route for Ersland other than arguing that he was justified. Does Ersland actually have PTSD? I'm not a big fan of lying.
Last edited:
- Status