Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the affidavit of probable cause:

The Medical Examiner preformed [sic] an autopsy on Parker's body, and found that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area, and died from these injuries.
Click to expand...

It's a bit ambiguous the phrase "these injuries."

If Parker died from the head shot but not the stomach wounds, there's no criminal homicide. If Parker died from the stomach wounds, there is. If Parker died as a result of both the head shot and the stomach wounds, also criminal homicide.

I would not be surprised to see the pharmacist present an expert at trial who will testify that the head wound (lawfully inflicted) was what did in Parker. The jury might have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the stomach wounds were the cause of death.
 
Another perspective on the upper body brace: Watching the video several times last week, my perception of Ersland's movements was and is that his upper torso was restricted by the brace. He did not twist his body, bend over at the waist, or display any other upper body movement that I would expect of a person facing a pair of armed robbers and attempting to defend himself, his employees, and his business with two handguns. (He didn't know if both or only one was armed.) In other words, I (at this point) think it is a stretch to conclude his posture throughout the episode implies he executed the deceased. This doesn't mean he didn't unlawfully kill the deceased - it means only that, in my opinion, his posture is not very persuasive evidence of an unlawful shooting.
 
Okay, this is now lookin' reopened against Kathy "pax" Jackson's request. the question posed was simply asking opinion on how the brace affects your sympathy...

RickyB, You are 100% wrong I am guessing. The when and what killed the BG is not assumable by lay persons.
Until a "person" is "declared" dead by a doctor or medical examiner they are a "person". After declared dead I am sure there are charges for pumping bullets into the deceased akin to desecration or mutilation of a "body"...
This may not be everywhere but you may have missed the fact that rarely is a person "declared" dead at the scene of accident or homicide... Usually it will be reported "... The victim was (declared) dead at the hospital..." Until the moment the doc says the words and looks at the clock, it is a person, not a body.
Brent
 
Pax, stop this line if you think it is weird but - do folks think that Ersland's appearances in the brace make him look more sympathetic or less?

The reason I ask is that oddity in appearance sometimes acts against you.
Click to expand...

He doesn't look sympathetic to Antwun Parker even though like Ersland, Antwun was apparently mobility impaired after being shot the first time. Even in a Dr. Kavorkian way, he doesn't look sympathetic to Parker.

Or do you mean will people have sympathy for Ersland because he looks in some way pitiful with the brace on? Maybe, maybe not. While his upper body movements were restricted somewhat, I am sure the prosecution will point out that Ersland managed to do everything movement-wise you might see with other shop keepers involved in fights including drawing a gun, making use of available cover by crouching behind it, shooting, giving pursuit to a fleeing suspect, etc. He just doesn't appear to bend or twist at the waist and doesn't appear to actually run, assuming he would have run.

It's a bit ambiguous the phrase "these injuries."
Click to expand...
It may seem that way in the affidavit, but it wasn't in the interview Prater gave where he said the ME told him that Parker was unconscious but alive at the time he was shot in the gut and that he would have survived the shooting had he not been shot after that first time.
 
I wasn't struck by the idea of him being impaired as generating sympathy but that he look like an oddity. Most folks might cover the brace - as a pharmacist with a white coat - for example.

To put my psychologist hat on - when someone violates the norm in appearance - blame sometime accrues to them. Not being attractive, having an odd name - things like that act against you when you are judged.

Sounds weird but I'd downplay that strange looking brace. If I were the defense attorney, I'd get a focus group to judge how best to present him.

Of course, that costs quite a buck to do right.
 
I disagree, Glenn.

As a defense attorney I would play that brace up. It could be be sold as a consent reminder of his disability and vulnerability. It doesn't justify the shooting but it might help when the jury is deciding between man and murder.
 
this is now lookin' reopened against Kathy "pax" Jackson's request.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I commented based on new information, which is the affidavit in Trooper Tyree's post (or the link to it, that is). I took that as a new development.

Mea culpa if it isn't.

Until a "person" is "declared" dead by a doctor or medical examiner they are a "person". ... Until the moment the doc says the words and looks at the clock, it is a person, not a body.
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding you right, if a safe had somehow fallen onto Parker and cut off his head and then the defendant pumped rounds into his headless body, the defendant could still be convicted of murder because at that point Parker was still a person because no doctor had yet declared him dead. (I'm not trying to twist your words but simply taking my understanding of what you said to its logical conclusion).

Here's how it works. The DA will put on the ME to testify as to the cause of death. Based on the affidavit, we can expect that the ME will testify that Parker was alive when he was shot repeatedly in the stomach and that the stomach wounds either caused the death by themselves or hastened his death. If the jury buys that, then the defendant can be found guilty of a criminal homicide.

BUT if the defense can raise a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind as to whether the stomach wounds caused the death by themselves (or hastened his death), or if the jury can't come to a conclusion to a reasonable certainty that Parker was alive at the time he was shot in the stomach by the defendant, the jury will (or is supposed to) acquit the defendant of any homicide. Quite frankly, if Parker was alive when he was shot in the stomach (something that I believe an ME can tell quite readily), I would be hard pressed as a juror to believe that shooting him five times in the stomach did not hasten his death.

The fact that doctor did not "declare" Parker dead until, say, an hour later does not mean that Parker was in fact alive (or legally alive for that matter) at the time he was shot in the stomach. If the head shot killed Parker, then shooting him in the stomach can not possibly be a homicide.
 
First I am apologetic for not realizing you were replying to info in a link...
In this...
If I'm understanding you right, if a safe had somehow fallen onto Parker and cut off his head and then the defendant pumped rounds into his headless body, the defendant could still be convicted of murder because at that point Parker was still a person because no doctor had yet declared him dead. (I'm not trying to twist your words but simply taking my understanding of what you said to its logical conclusion).
Click to expand...
I am not educated to all the nuances of the legal system I am but a dumb ol'redneck;)...:o
As to this...
Here's how it works. The DA will put on the ME to testify as to the cause of death. Based on the affidavit, we can expect that the ME will testify that Parker was alive when he was shot repeatedly in the stomach and that the stomach wounds either caused the death by themselves or hastened his death. If the jury buys that, then the defendant can be found guilty of a criminal homicide.
Click to expand...
Here we have 2 possibilities...
1)Me says bullets entered basically straight in front of torso with bullets or dents in floor showing BG was flat on his back... Murder verdict likely.
2)Holes are in the side of BG as if he was turning to possibly rise... Could go not guilty altogether or possibly a lesser charge if jury feels he may have shot again in an adrenaline induced panic. Or they may stick with original charge finding him guilty of the 1st. degree murder.

As for the back brace, I don't know his ailment but I am in constant pain if I stood all day but wear no brace as I don't get the relief to justify the irritations of a brace. So I can't expect folks to automatically feel sorry for my pain. I am so neutral an nonjudgmental That I am pretty much apathetic to others with the exception of going out of my way to assist the mobility impaired or other obvious common handicaps.
Brent
 
It could be that the brace would make him sympathetic. That's why I asked - but people are strange and that's a strange looking gadget.

That's why I suggested a little focus group. Interesting.
 
JMHO

Concerning the issue of "was Parker dead when Ersland shot him the 2nd time", Ersland's own testimony states that he was still moving, and the rational was that he "could" have hurt him, so he fired. Using deadly force on an incapacitated, subdued, disabled, surrendered or cooperative suspect, you are then culpable, and went too far under the Castle Defense and no longer sheilded from prosecution.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to reopen this prematurely, but I found this article interesting and perhaps insightful somewhat into his nature and mentality.

http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-oklahoma-pharmacists-case/article/3375757

In his last divorce, he wanted "The Green Berets,” "Forrest Gump,” "Red Dawn” and all Clint Eastwood movies. "You can keep the other 100 movies,” he told his wife.
Click to expand...
Ersland had more than 100 guns in his home, a source told The Oklahoman. This year, he bid $11,054 to buy two historic Marlin rifles, according to a gun broker newsletter. He told The Oklahoman many of his guns were from the Civil War. He once testified that his collection included machine guns.
Click to expand...
Ersland and his second wife, Wanda Jean Ersland, divorced in 2006 after 23 years of marriage. A psychologist who treated his son said the boy’s mother reported Ersland "displayed paranoid behavior, abused drugs and displayed other inappropriate behavior,” records show.
Click to expand...

Hester reported Ersland "repeats himself quite often and insists on volunteering information about himself, particularly regarding his injury, that neither Jeremy nor I have solicited. Mr. (Ersland) appears fully engaged in conversation when he is talking or when/if he is the subject of conversation but ... seems distracted ... when either Jeremy or I are speaking. ... Jeremy has repeatedly told me during visits, in his father’s absence, that he does not enjoy being with his father because his father is strange or crazy.
Click to expand...

On the shooting


Pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland has made some unusual statements about the robbery.


In one interview with The Oklahoman, he described the events as nightmarish, then gave a detailed description of the two robbers’ masks.


"They were nice gray masks. They were homemade, made out of a velvet-like material. And they were exactly alike. They were nice. Somebody had — a female, who knew what she was doing — made them, it looked like,” he said.


He also has given accounts of his actions that conflict with surveillance video of the shooting.


He told an Oklahoma City TV station, KFOR, he had a gun in each hand at one point. "Yes, I had to,” he said. "They were shooting at me from both sides so I shot at them from both sides as well.”


In the video, he can be seen shooting one robber in the head and chasing a second robber from the store. The video shows he returns to the store, puts his gun down and gets out a second gun from a drawer. He uses the second gun to shoot the wounded robber again. He never had both guns at the same time. Also, prosecutors say the robber who died was unarmed, and the other robber did have a gun but never fired.
Click to expand...
 
Hester reported Ersland "repeats himself quite often and insists on volunteering information about himself, particularly regarding his injury, that neither Jeremy nor I have solicited. Mr. (Ersland) appears fully engaged in conversation when he is talking or when/if he is the subject of conversation but ... seems distracted ... when either Jeremy or I are speaking.
Click to expand...

This goes right back to the question posed by Glenn, This kind of behavior suggests that the brace is as much a "psychological crutch" as it is a physiological one. A "conversation piece" This kind of behavioral "evidence" that is being fed into the media trial, makes that brace even more likely to have a negative impact on his defense.

His eccentric behavior will likely be a part of this trial, and just may be his undoing.

While this is just plain media spin, you can bet the prosecution will use some of this same spin in their own case.
 
This goes right back to the question posed by Glenn, This kind of behavior suggests that the brace is as much a "psychological crutch" as it is a physiological one. A "conversation piece" This kind of behavioral "evidence" that is being fed into the media trial, makes that brace even more likely to have a negative impact on his defense.
Click to expand...
It is also a perfect example of typical behavior of drug addicts who use overblown conditions as an means to legitimize their drug addiction.

Also, the accusations of paranoid behavior (if true) would support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times. That would help explain the cold and calculated manner in which he performed the execution.
 
Keep in mind, he did just have a back surgery 6 weeks before the shooting. Doctors do not generally perform major spinal surgery on people who do not need it, nor on people whose physical exams and xrays do not support the diagnosis.

That news article was a hit piece, but I think there's a lesson here for all of us: if you're involved in an "iffy" shooting, or in a good shooting that becomes of interest to the media, you can reasonably expect that every person you've ever offended in your life will want to talk to the press about you. Knowing it's likely to happen might help keep you on a more even keel when it does.

And OuTcAsT is quite right about some of this becoming part of the trial. That all goes to the mindset of the defendant, something that does pertain in a criminal case.

pax
 
PlayboyPenguin said:
...support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times.
Click to expand...

Indeed. His reaction and behaviors seem more consistent with a "Here's my chance." attitude instead of "Oh crap, I'm being robbed."


The more we find out about this guy the more it seems like he's another one of those people that everyone had a bad feeling about but nobody wanted to "cause trouble" or "seem paranoid" or "get involved".
 
A psychologist who treated his son said the boy’s mother reported Ersland "displayed paranoid behavior, abused drugs and displayed other inappropriate behavior,” records show.
Click to expand...

Well no kidding!? How many ex-wives go out of their way to say GOOD things about former husbands?

The idea (or fact) that this gentleman may not be the "perfect" model citizen, or that he had alot of guns, should not factor into what transpired during the 30 seconds that his life and others where in immediate danger.

Now, I agree that he would have been better off shooting himself in foot instead of firing those last shots. What concerns me, is that if any one of us were ever unfortunate enough to have to defend ourselves with deadly force, would we be subjected to the same defamation?

Let's say two thugs walk into my office and open fire. I use deadly force to protect my life. I may have been justified in the shooting but the prosecution is going to say " Well he had x number of guns, x amount of ammo, enjoyed "violent" movies, and his ex-girlfriends had nothing good to say about him " :D

Those kinds of practices don't help anyone. This man should be judged, but he should not be judged based on his character alone. He should be judged on his actions that day.
 
Those kinds of practices don't help anyone. This man should be judged, but he should not be judged based on his character alone. He should be judged on his actions that day.
Click to expand...

Those things are impossible to separate. He acted that day BECAUSE of his character.


Let's say two thugs walk into my office and open fire. I use deadly force to protect my life. I may have been justified in the shooting but the prosecution is going to say " Well he had x number of guns, x amount of ammo, enjoyed "violent" movies, and his ex-girlfriends had nothing good to say about him "
Click to expand...

The number of guns, statements from his ex, all may be irrelevant in another situation. When a man shoots a defenseless person 5 times with no sense of danger or rationale then there may be any number of otherwise extraneous details that play a role.
 
Also, the accusations of paranoid behavior (if true) would support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times.
Click to expand...

An interesting notion. Not quite the mantra of "as you train, so shall you fight" since training is designed to make simple physical movements more automatic when under stress, but similar to that mantra on a mental and emotional level.

I doubt that Ersland thought everyone was out to get him or even that the bad guys were out to get him (the laymen's idea of paranoia--I don't know what the correct psychiatric definition is), but I think he had a hyper-sensitivity to danger.

When I took a hunter safety course, "Buck fever" was described as hunter wanting to find his quarry (a deer) and so the hunter's mind makes him see movement in the bushes as a deer and he shoots. The idea here is that the eagerness to find what one is looking for can alter perceptions.

Erlsand may have suffered a variant of buck fever (or maybe I should call it "bad guy fever"). This, of course, is not acceptable in deer hunting, much less when deliberately shooting at targets known to the shooter as being human, but it could affect the nature of his intent and thus whether it is murder one or a lesser offense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top