Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers
- Thread starter Blue Steel
- Start date
- Status
Micahweeks
New member
Ok. I've read through about 16 to 18 pages of this thread. I've looked at every link and read the articles. I've done my own research and watched every angle of the surveillance videos. Here is my opinion/prediction.
Murder one is not an appropriate charge. Here is why. Murder must be accompanied by premeditation. Given Ersland's evidenced mental instability and drug induced state of mind, I find it extremely unlikely that anyone can make a serious case that in the 10 seconds he left and came back that he made a malicious plan to execute the boy on the floor. The event happened fairly quick, so I think manslaughter is a more appropriate charge.
Is he guilty of wrong doing? Yes.
Did he do something reprehensible? Yes.
Is he someone who should be carrying or keeping a gun nearby? No!!!
Is Murder in the First Degree an appropriate charge? Not if you can't disprove his altered state of mind under the morphine. It would be a crime of passion, manslaughter.
Before I get flamed, let me just say that this is all my OPINION. Having worked in law enforcement and as a bail enforcement agent some years ago, I have one ADA friend from DeSoto County that was nice enough to sit down with me and talk about this case with me and my wife. She believes that a plea bargain to manslaughter will be entered if forensic evidence supports that Parker was unconscious for the five shots to the abdomen. If not, she believes that Ersland will probably be cleared of criminal charges (or receive a number of possible misdemeanors) but will loose horribly in the following civil court case. She helped me understand the legal possibilities, and I believe the outcome will be manslaughter and a loss in civil court.
That's all just me, though.
Now, there is a great question I would like to see talked about more. Maybe I'll start a thread in the Law and Civil Rights section on it. How do you limit possession of firearms by people who are mentally unstable without infringing on other people's 2nd Amendment right?
Murder one is not an appropriate charge. Here is why. Murder must be accompanied by premeditation. Given Ersland's evidenced mental instability and drug induced state of mind, I find it extremely unlikely that anyone can make a serious case that in the 10 seconds he left and came back that he made a malicious plan to execute the boy on the floor. The event happened fairly quick, so I think manslaughter is a more appropriate charge.
Is he guilty of wrong doing? Yes.
Did he do something reprehensible? Yes.
Is he someone who should be carrying or keeping a gun nearby? No!!!
Is Murder in the First Degree an appropriate charge? Not if you can't disprove his altered state of mind under the morphine. It would be a crime of passion, manslaughter.
Before I get flamed, let me just say that this is all my OPINION. Having worked in law enforcement and as a bail enforcement agent some years ago, I have one ADA friend from DeSoto County that was nice enough to sit down with me and talk about this case with me and my wife. She believes that a plea bargain to manslaughter will be entered if forensic evidence supports that Parker was unconscious for the five shots to the abdomen. If not, she believes that Ersland will probably be cleared of criminal charges (or receive a number of possible misdemeanors) but will loose horribly in the following civil court case. She helped me understand the legal possibilities, and I believe the outcome will be manslaughter and a loss in civil court.
That's all just me, though.
Now, there is a great question I would like to see talked about more. Maybe I'll start a thread in the Law and Civil Rights section on it. How do you limit possession of firearms by people who are mentally unstable without infringing on other people's 2nd Amendment right?
Not in the state of Oklahoma. In the death of a minor it requires no premeditation, only that Ersland used unreasonable force to cause his death. Having said that, premeditation doesn't presuppose a long period of time to consider it either.
§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.
Actually, if you want to be correct, Ersland was out of the store almost 30 seconds...some of the time was clipped from footage that has been posted on the internet.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
It could easily be argued as premeditated. Premeditation does not mean it had to be planned days or weeks in advance, just in advance. The DA could argue that in fact premeditation occurred when Ersland came back in the shop, saw Parker on the ground, made the decision (premeditation occurs here), walked by Parker around the corner of the counter and back to his desk where he unlocked the desk drawer and pulled out the .380. He then turned around and walked back to Parker and pumped the rounds into him.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Tuttle8 said:
OuTcAsT said:
You haven't read very many of my posts, have you?
Thanks guy and gals for keeping said issue in mind.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premeditated
Premedication does not require planning for a week ahead of time but rather an intention to do it. It can easily be argued that when he came back in he decided right then to kill the boy and carried it out. His premeditation was only a few seconds but longer than just when he walked up to him. This is assuming that when the Pharmacist came back in from the street he did not see the boy going for his own gun in his backpack.
Premedication does not require planning for a week ahead of time but rather an intention to do it. It can easily be argued that when he came back in he decided right then to kill the boy and carried it out. His premeditation was only a few seconds but longer than just when he walked up to him. This is assuming that when the Pharmacist came back in from the street he did not see the boy going for his own gun in his backpack.
Sure have , just yankin' your chain
While circumstances may yet prove that to be the case with respect to the laws concerning Murder 1, there is another factor that DeltaB Has brought forward that may be harder to defend Ersland from ;
If it is proven that he used unreasonable force, even enough to elicit a charge of Manslaughter, he will, by default, be guilty of Murder 1 due to the age of the victim, under this statute. (premeditation is not necessary) The prosecution may not use this avenue,(though it may be part of the jury instructions) but it certainly is a possibility, and if the prosecutor feels he may get a lesser conviction, he might well go down this path.
Last edited:
Micahweeks
New member
What I see most people here doing is claiming that premeditation does not take minutes. They claim it can happen in seconds. You are right. It can.
However....
You are ridiculously unlikely, in a court of law, to win that argument. The men and women in the legal system just don't bite on that. In Memphis, in 2001, a 22 year old male was arrested for Murder I. He was playing a poker game. A guy at the table lost a hand and refused to pay. So, the 22 year old pulled out a gun and shot him in the face.
Was he charged with Murder I? Yes.
Did it stick? No.
It is was endlessly easier to convince the judge and jury that he pulled the gun out of a fit of anger in that 20 seconds than it was to convince them he really, really, planned it out in 16 and carried out in 4.
It might have been premeditated, sure. But, it is not likely that Ersland's attorney, if he is remotely competent, can't argue away premeditation.
As for the statue on minors, Mississippi has been known to revoke your minor status at the age of 15 or higher, depending on the severity of the crime, in cases where a minor is caught in a felonious act. This is to prevent teenagers and their parents from attempting to exploit their minor status. Since the boy was committing a felonious act, the family could find that he won't receive consideration as a minor. I don't know if Oklahoma has ever done such a thing. I can only speak for the few states where I have worked and lived.
However....
You are ridiculously unlikely, in a court of law, to win that argument. The men and women in the legal system just don't bite on that. In Memphis, in 2001, a 22 year old male was arrested for Murder I. He was playing a poker game. A guy at the table lost a hand and refused to pay. So, the 22 year old pulled out a gun and shot him in the face.
Was he charged with Murder I? Yes.
Did it stick? No.
It is was endlessly easier to convince the judge and jury that he pulled the gun out of a fit of anger in that 20 seconds than it was to convince them he really, really, planned it out in 16 and carried out in 4.
It might have been premeditated, sure. But, it is not likely that Ersland's attorney, if he is remotely competent, can't argue away premeditation.
As for the statue on minors, Mississippi has been known to revoke your minor status at the age of 15 or higher, depending on the severity of the crime, in cases where a minor is caught in a felonious act. This is to prevent teenagers and their parents from attempting to exploit their minor status. Since the boy was committing a felonious act, the family could find that he won't receive consideration as a minor. I don't know if Oklahoma has ever done such a thing. I can only speak for the few states where I have worked and lived.
This is not the same situation, however. When juveniles are tried as adults it is the state that makes that decision. If the state is trying to pin a first degree murder charge on someone for using excessive force on a minor, it seems unlikely that they would derail their own case by declaring the minor an adult.
Child offenders have been prosecuted under various levels. But this isn't about charging the child. Ersland is in fact facing murder in the first degree under §21-701.7. Any and all can apply. There is nothing in the statute that states section C is only applicable as long as the minor was not in the commision of a felony. Many local stations have had numerous legal experts making comments concerning this issue, and all of them agree that the core issue is did Ersland use "unreasonable force." And if he did, then Oklahoma statute states that in the death of a minor, that is sufficient to raise to the level of murder in the 1st degree, and nothing else except "unreasonable force" need be considered, no premeditation required. I do know law in the state of Oklahoma is very stern when it comes to the death of children under 18 when any type of abusive behaviour is concerned, including "unreasonable force."
Last edited:
Micahweeks
New member
I understand that the child is not being charged, but, in some cases in MS(not more than couple I've ever heard of), it works like this.
The child committed a felonious act. Therefore, had he lived, he would have forfeited his protection as a minor and would have been adjudicated. So, since he died, he is considered an adult casualty for the the purpose of the case.
It's pretty much like accusing the prosecutor of being out for blood. You accuse him of just dying to prosecute someone so bad that he was going to try Ersland for murder considering the kid a minor if he died or try the 16 year old kid as an adult if he lived. This creates a situation where the judge could rule that boy be considered an adult for the purpose of the trial since his felonious act immediately forfeited his protections as a minor.
The child committed a felonious act. Therefore, had he lived, he would have forfeited his protection as a minor and would have been adjudicated. So, since he died, he is considered an adult casualty for the the purpose of the case.
It's pretty much like accusing the prosecutor of being out for blood. You accuse him of just dying to prosecute someone so bad that he was going to try Ersland for murder considering the kid a minor if he died or try the 16 year old kid as an adult if he lived. This creates a situation where the judge could rule that boy be considered an adult for the purpose of the trial since his felonious act immediately forfeited his protections as a minor.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Really? How many cases have you tried to provide us with that analysis.
Any trial is a crapshoot. The cases take on a life of their own once that first witness is sworn. Ask OJ, Lucky Luciano, Bruno Hauptman, John Gotti, Lizzie Borden, Sacco and venzetti and all the other strange and wierd ones.
The key to this case is the Defendant. He MUST TESTIFY. And if he does, he's toast. if he doesnt, he's burnt toast
WildthisisagreatthreadAlaska TM
Micahweeks
New member
Um, Wildalaska? Did you keep reading? I did give an example in the next sentence.
Look, you don't like what I'm saying. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities. Disagree if you want, but try to remain a little more civil. This isn't personal.
And, for the record...
http://www.sunherald.com/412/story/1399633.html
In this case he was initially charged with murder, but, due to the instantaneous nature of the crime, manslaughter was an accepted plea. The lawyer said it wasn't a habit, but then admitted that he charged the shooter inappropriately in the first place, precisely what I think happened to Mr. Ersland.
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/02/judge-sentences-man-to-prison-in-shooting/news-local/
Another reduced plea from murder I.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/dec/10/charge-reduced-to-manslaughter-in-fatal-shooting/
That's a crime of passion example because the shooter believe the victim had beaten his daughter.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/wylam_man_pleads_guilty_to_man.html
Reduced charge of manslaughter yet again.
Now, is it really necessary to keep this up? There are some good examples of murder 1 reduced to manslaughter for a number of reasons. So, we'll see. And, if you want more examples of murder being reduced to manslaughter, there are dozens upon dozens. Just put it in your search engine.
Oh, and there is no reason he MUST testify. He can plead the fifth.
Look, you don't like what I'm saying. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities. Disagree if you want, but try to remain a little more civil. This isn't personal.
And, for the record...
http://www.sunherald.com/412/story/1399633.html
In this case he was initially charged with murder, but, due to the instantaneous nature of the crime, manslaughter was an accepted plea. The lawyer said it wasn't a habit, but then admitted that he charged the shooter inappropriately in the first place, precisely what I think happened to Mr. Ersland.
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/02/judge-sentences-man-to-prison-in-shooting/news-local/
Another reduced plea from murder I.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/dec/10/charge-reduced-to-manslaughter-in-fatal-shooting/
That's a crime of passion example because the shooter believe the victim had beaten his daughter.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/wylam_man_pleads_guilty_to_man.html
Reduced charge of manslaughter yet again.
Now, is it really necessary to keep this up? There are some good examples of murder 1 reduced to manslaughter for a number of reasons. So, we'll see. And, if you want more examples of murder being reduced to manslaughter, there are dozens upon dozens. Just put it in your search engine.
Oh, and there is no reason he MUST testify. He can plead the fifth.
Oh I am not gonna say what reduced charge may be used in the end but in this case what most of us are saying is that the murder 1 charge is an acceptable initial charge. At the end of the trial he may only be found guilty of manslaughter or a lower level of murder.
Brent
And 28 pages now!
Brent
And 28 pages now!
Last edited:
No doubt, this happens quite frequently, however, in this particular case I would think it would be highly unlikely given that ;
That, coupled with the fact that he (Parker) was the victim in this instance, I cannot believe that the prosecutor will not use this particular tool. Also, in the beginning of this investigation, this might likely have been done but, since all of the bad publicity, and the dubious nature of the defendant have come to light, I don't think the prosecutor is likely as reluctant to see this man locked up as he was on day one, speculation of course.
While he certainly does have a right to invoke his 5th amendment protections, I think WA is probably correct. Even if no other evidence is presented, other than what we have seen, the fact remains that Ersland is the only eyewitness to the last few seconds of Parker's life. As such, he is really the only one who can attempt to justify his final shots. Either way, he is already his own worst enemy.
Micahweeks
New member
In that I agree with you. It is probably in his best interest to testify, depending on the evidence and the way it is presented. I was just pointing out that he isn't compelled to say anything that might incriminate himself even further.
I understand what you are saying about Parker being the victim, and it very well might happen that way. I suspected that the prosecution might take the route of considering Parker an adult because of his reluctance in the beginning of the case, as you mentioned. He seemed somewhat sympathetic to Ersland in a couple of of the news reports I found, so I figured that maybe he doesn't really want to take it to the point of trying to convict him of murdering a "child."
Oh, and here is a question I just haven't asked yet. What is the most recent news on the boy that ran away? The last I read he was being tried as a juvenile, atrocious indeed, IMO.
I understand what you are saying about Parker being the victim, and it very well might happen that way. I suspected that the prosecution might take the route of considering Parker an adult because of his reluctance in the beginning of the case, as you mentioned. He seemed somewhat sympathetic to Ersland in a couple of of the news reports I found, so I figured that maybe he doesn't really want to take it to the point of trying to convict him of murdering a "child."
Oh, and here is a question I just haven't asked yet. What is the most recent news on the boy that ran away? The last I read he was being tried as a juvenile, atrocious indeed, IMO.
Wildalaska
Moderator
You can't plead the 5th amendment if you take the stand voluntarily.
WildryetoastAlaska ™
Changed my mind
In DeltaB's post #590
Based upon this, and Outcast’s comments to my posting, I have concluded that I am wrong on the Voluntary Manslaughter decision and, based upon this Oklahoma definition, Ersland should indeed be convicted of Murder in the First Degree. Still, it is an excellent and tragic example that should be studied in any use of lethal force for self defense class.
Thanks to everyone for this very enlightening discussion! And may God keep us from making the same tragic choice if confronted with the use of lethal force!
In DeltaB's post #590
Based upon this, and Outcast’s comments to my posting, I have concluded that I am wrong on the Voluntary Manslaughter decision and, based upon this Oklahoma definition, Ersland should indeed be convicted of Murder in the First Degree. Still, it is an excellent and tragic example that should be studied in any use of lethal force for self defense class.
Thanks to everyone for this very enlightening discussion! And may God keep us from making the same tragic choice if confronted with the use of lethal force!
- Status