Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
The newspaper reported that the pharmacy had been robbed a few years prior to this incident. Does anyone know whether Ersland was present when the first robbery occurred?
 
Did Parker twitch?

There is a third video angle that is shot from behind the counter and from behind Ersland after he retrieved the second gun. Parker is still not visible, however as Ersland is approaching Parker he suddenly flinches to his left (only a quick, couple of inches at most) as if to take cover and then returns to his forward direction toward Parker. I have noticed that this third video angle is NOT being shown any where at this time. I have been unable to find it again.

As a defense attorney I would point out that this is evidence that Parker indeed did move and it would be reasonable to believe that he was a threat again. At best forensics can only say Parker's position at the moment of the last 5 shots, and not his position just 1 second earlier. Perhaps this flinch in the video and the fact that forensics cannot state Parker's EXACT position until the first of the last 5 shots were fired is enough for the jury to have reasonable doubt.

How can the ME state he was unconscious and immobile? Can the ME also state that Parker did not twitch, flinch, or moan just before being shot the last 5 times? Would even a slight movement by Parker make a reasonable person believe he was a threat again?

Parker was on his back with both hands spread out to the sides. Could the movement have been just one hand starting to move? Is that enough to consider him a threat again?

The trial will be interesting; terrible but interesting.

I believe that Ersland went beyond reasonable self defense. I would probably go for voluntary manslaughter. Please see the definitions below for more information.

For a second degree murder, or first degree murder charge I would need unquestionable evidence that Parker did not move AT ALL and that Ersland had indeed planned to kill anyone that tried to rob him.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

“In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.”

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/second+degree+murder

“second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state. (See: murder, first degree murder, manslaughter)”

And finally from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/first degree murder

“first degree murder n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill. (See: murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, felony murder doctrine)”
 
As a defense attorney I would point out that this is evidence that Parker indeed did move and it would be reasonable to believe that he was a threat again
Click to expand...

Thats for summation. You cant cross examine a tape. The only one who can testify to make that tape favourable is the Defendant.

A loose cannon :)

WildroolinginanticipationAlaska ™
 
There is a third video angle that is shot from behind the counter and from behind Ersland after he retrieved the second gun. Parker is still not visible, however as Ersland is approaching Parker he suddenly flinches to his left (only a quick, couple of inches at most) as if to take cover and then returns to his forward direction toward Parker.
Click to expand...
Not seeing that at all. All I am seeing is him moving slightly to the left to clear the entrance of the counter. Just as he moved slightly to the right going the other direction at the exact same location.
 
Here's a link to an awesome series of articles by Austin "Gun Rights Examiner" Howard Nemerov. The articles look at two pharmacy shootings with different legal outcomes, and explore the legal issues surrounding them:

Intro

"Part 1" (actually Part 2, since the intro is integral)

"Part 2"

"Part 3"

Well worth the read.

pax
 
The one guy was down, perhaps the pharmacist thought he wasn't a threat, so he chased the other guy (short chase because he is crippled) and retrieved a bigger gun. I certainly would get my bigger gun if I'd just been in a gun fight. I could see how he may have tunnel visioned on the second guy because he was still on his feet openly displaying a firearm. Sure the kid turns as if to run, which he did, but he could have just been looking for cover, or an exit to shoot from. Nothing stopping the kid from turning at the door and spraying bullets back into the store.

After getting his bigger gun he noticed the kid on the floor moving or something. Or maybe his tunnel vision turned to him. Perhaps his mind could only focus on one thing at time, why not? Do you think you could multi-task in a fire fight? Plus he has a history in the armed forces where you shoot to kill because that is how you guarentee the threat is neutralized.

I'd say because we cannot see on the video, he gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure how this "evidence" the kids was unconcsious and not moving can be proved. Someone would have to spend quite a bit of time convincing me as a jurist that they can prove the kids was not moving and not a threat with out me being able to see the kid in that state with my own eyes ie:video tape.

It is unfortunate he cannot keep his story inline with the video, but remember this is a truamatic even he just went through. I can see how a little confusion can go hand in hand with pulling the trigger to shoot someone.
 
doh,

Well, that's what the jury trial is for. They'll get to see the forensic evidence we're just guessing at. We can look at the videos ourselves and judge whether Ersland's body language is consistent with fear as he glanced at the downed man, transfered the gun to his non-shooting hand in a non-shooting grip, turned his back on the downed man, walked to the end of the counter, retrieved another gun from a locked drawer, and walked right up to the downed man to fire at him from a very close distance without ducking or flinching or even looking over at the guy as he retrieved the second gun from the drawer. But they'll get to see whether the blood splatter, bullet trajectories, and other physical evidence on-scene supports Ersland's story.

One thing, though: Ersland said he used the smaller gun first, then retrieved the bigger one. However, Angle 3 of the surveillance cameras sure looks to my eye as if he's using the Judge (large revolver) first, and if that's the case, he then transitioned to the small .380, inconsistent with his statements to the media. That would be consistent with the DA's statements in the extended interview (link at top of page 21 of this thread), where the DA said the stomach shots were done with a .380 caliber pistol.

pax
 
Last edited:
I can not see which gun he uses first. It makes sense to me that the smaller gun was on him at the time, and the larger gun was in the drawer. But because it makes sense to me doesn't mean that is how he does it.

Regarding the evidence the kid was not moving. I'm sure they have something, but I do not see how anything other than video footage of the kid can be proof he wasn't moving. You can keep your head perfectly still and be moving your hands and arms, you do it to type. I'm sure the kid was well able to keep his head straight so as not disturb and blood trails and what not.

I would like to be a fly on the wall for this trial. It would be interesting to see how they "prove" the kid was unconscious and not moving, there for not a threat. I just do not see it happening with a logical jury.

Edit: Just noticed the part about the smaller .380 being the rounds found in the stomach
 
Thanks for the links Pax, I enjoyed the article.

I was a little taken back by the whole concept of a knife-toting thug being potentially more lethal than a gun-carrier within 21 feet. Totally believable, but a little concerning.
 
In video #3 you can plainly see that the first gun was the Judge. Now if you want to say that a P3AT is a bigger gun than a Judge that is OK and I don't know whether he was shooting .410 or .45 at first or how many times he shot but the Judge was first.
 
Can the ME also state that Parker did not twitch, flinch, or moan just before being shot the last 5 times?
Click to expand...
None of these actions deem a man a threat to life, limb or liberty!
Sorry not even in my "REDNECK BOOK OF SELF DEFENSE" have I learned this...
Brent
 
I would probably go for voluntary manslaughter.
Click to expand...

That is a curious statement, is this from the angle of defense or prosecution? You state that you are a defense attorney so, I can only speculate that you are speaking from that angle. The reason I find that statement curious is that, by your own provided material the manslaughter description is ;

“In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.”
Click to expand...

Whereas the differential given is ;(parsed)

second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.
Click to expand...

I would think that 5 shots to the abdomen, at close range, would suggest quite plainly that there was an intent to kill, rather than harm, to any reasonable juror. Thus, ruling out a large part of the manslaughter argument.

And out of curiosity, how would you "spin" the completely fabricated statement the defendant made to the police concerning the events? Particularly the fact that the defendant claimed that he was fired upon ? "faulty recollection due to trauma"? or the "gunshot wound" he received? Isn't the defendant's statement direct evidence? Please elaborate (if you wish) on how you would get past this work of fiction? How will you convince me, as a juror, that a righteous man has to lie? And by all means feel free to contrast that with the video, and other available direct evidence.
 
Last edited:
In angle 3, from about 50-56 sec are particularly disturbing. Do you see how he leads with his right foot and extends his left arm to keep his balance as he bends over the subject? :o

This does not bode well for him in a courtroom.
 
Keep in mind when it comes to a jury, and the instructions given, the Judge will instruct the jury that they can give as much or as little weight to any of the testimony given by witnesses by reason of the veracity of that witness. Ersland has already given so much testimony which is blatently false, if I were in on that jury, none of his testimony would be given any weight. I wouldn't be able to trust a single thing he said. So in the end, the camera footage, in it's entirety and not edited as is done on all of the websites (time missing, especially the nearly 30 seconds while he was outside chasing the 14 year old) would be the direct testimony I would use as the primary consideration for formulating my opinion. Having said that, it wouldn't be good for the defendant. It would be my assertion that intially, while in what he saw as a threat to life when he was presenting his weapon in a ready to fire state, anything after that, in his mind he did not see himself in imminent threat and was the aggressor, which is not defendable under the Castle Defense. And yes, I live in OKC....
 
Last edited:
Ah, but as a juror, you would be instructed to not pay any attention to anything not in evidence in court, inclusive of the news events preceding the trial where Ersland made statements.
 
Ah, but as a juror, you would be instructed to not pay any attention to anything not in evidence in court, inclusive of the news events preceding the trial where Ersland made statements.
Click to expand...

Detectives will testify concerning his false testimony given to investigators. Anything you say to law enforcement can and will be used against you in a court of law. It mirrors what we read in the media. That will certainly be introduced as direct evidence to impeach his testimony. The camera footage will certainly be introduced, and I see no way for the defense to quash that testimony. The footage doesn't lie, it has no bias. Ersland's own actions testify against him.
 
Last edited:
Well that would be in court, would it not, assuming he gave the same statements to detectives that he gave to the media? I have certainly seen more than one case where what was said publically didn't reflect what was said to investigators.

The footage doesn't lie, it has no bias.
Click to expand...
The footage doesn't tell the truth either, and it most definitely has some bias. The footage is what it is, a record of the event. It neither tells the truth or lies about the truth. It presents limited perspectives of what happened.

Given the arguments noted thusfar in this thread, the notion that the footage doesn't lie is interesting because not everyone agrees one what the footage is "saying." You see, the footage, like real life, is being interpreted. We interpret Ersland's behaviors in that footage as to what he is doing. There isn't even any sound to coincide with the footage, nor does it cover the whole of the events. It is nothing more than an incomplete accounting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top