Drugist in OKC convicted of murder

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sundog

New member
Read it here.

It wasn't the initial contact with the perp that the jury did not like. It was what happened after. Gotta be careful about how you handle yourself if you carry.
 
Just goes to reemphasize that every shot you fire has to be justifiable. Once the immediate threat of death or serious injury goes away, so does the legal justification for you to shoot.

And Ersland didn't do himself any favors by repeatedly lying to police during the investigation either. The police were able to determine he way lying and the prosecutor used those statements to bury any sympathy the jury might have had for him.
 
Just goes to reemphasize that every shot you fire has to be justifiable. Once the immediate threat of death or serious injury goes away, so does the legal justification for you to shoot.
Click to expand...

To be quite honest, I don't think that Ersland ever thought what he did was self defense. Given that he lied the way he did, he knew he was executing the suspect. He just figured that nobody would know the difference if he finished off the suspect that was already down.

So much for playing the wounded warrior/veteran card.
http://jeromeersland.org/
 
Wow, I've never seen that site before, DNS. That's just wrong. They're soliciting donations for this guy and out right lying to do it.

Anyway, I find it fascinating that 4 people are convicted of 1st degree murder for this and the one who most directly caused it by robbing a pharmacy with a firearm will get the least punishment. That just ain't right.
 
I have to agree. I couldn't get a very clear sequence of events from the article, but from what I could get, it sounded much, much more like an execution than anything else. Shooting someone 45 seconds after they go down . . . that's a lifetime in a gunfight.

Bartholomew Roberts said:
Just goes to reemphasize that every shot you fire has to be justifiable. Once the immediate threat of death or serious injury goes away, so does the legal justification for you to shoot.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
He should have been convicted. He fired 5 shots into the suspect after he retrieved another pistol was unconscious. As said by Bart once the threat ceases so does your right to use deadly force.
 
Shooting someone 45 seconds after they go down . . . that's a lifetime in a gunfight.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw it; but the link has video of the actual shooting from both the inside and outside cameras. The two criminals come in, with one wielding a gun and the other digging around in some type of backpack/bag. Ersland shoots the criminal with the backpack in the head and the other one flees. Ersland walks past the criminal he shot and follows the one with the gun outside the store. He then returns to the store, walks past the other criminal again. Goes to the back of the pharmacy, gets a new gun and comes back and calmly shoots the criminal on the ground 5 times.
 
I'm kind of surprised he was convicted of first degree murder. That usually calls for premeditated malice. Maybe the prosecutor was able to show that 45 seconds amounted to that, but I'd have thought that second degree murder or manslaughter would have been more likely.

But then, if a jury of your peers slaps that on you after trial, the prosecutor made the case.
 
Sorry but I'm with the jury on this one. There is ZERO reason for the pharmacist to have come back and shot the guy again. That smacks of vigilante justice. Once the robber was down and no longer a threat that should have been the end of it.

This is the old lesson of "Don't behave like your enemy lest you become them". The guy was probably dead anyway and shooting him 5 more times after the amount of time that went by was just stupid. If he'd shot the guy 5 times first thing we wouldn't be having this conversation. That would have been chalked up to adrenalin or being scared. Returning to "finish the job" was an execution. :(
 
flyinpolack said:
The Pharmacist shouldn't be charged at all, he did not Act, he merely RE-ACTED to a bad situation that he was Forced into....
Click to expand...
Nope. When he first shot BG1, he was reacting. Once he chased BG2 for a bit, and then calmly got another gun, went over to BG1 and shot him five more time, he was acting and not reacting.
 
The Pharmacist shouldn't be charged at all, he did not Act, he merely RE-ACTED to a bad situation that he was Forced into.
Click to expand...
Actually, I, in my hard line approach to criminal acts against innocent folks, feel he did go beyond self defense.

However, I feel that with the EXTREME EMOTIONAL STRESS he just endured, he should have been convicted of a lesser charge and sentencing should reflect this stress.

One of the manslaughter charges or at worst... 2nd degree murder.

You cannot just walk by a downed man, "give him your back" to produce the second firearm and go back to finish off the man you didn't fear enough to keep an eye on as you walked past to get the second gun.

Brent
 
No surprise here, we pretty much called this one back in 2009, when it first happened. Glad to see justice served.
 
Ersland would have been in a more legal position if he had initially fired multiple shots. IMHO that could have been justified in his angst and fear for his life. And if he had a deep seated desire to permanently take the BG out of circulation, that would have done the job. The other BG was long gone, but Ersland may have been looking for a vehicle ID to assist cops in apprehension.
 
There's also a thread on this over in Tactics & Training. This issue overlaps the two subforums a bit.

There are some supporting Ersland as a vigilante, and some of us condemning him on the same grounds. Personally, I think murder one seems harsh, but I can't call anything past Ersland's first shot self-defense.

For those just tuning in, Pax had a good summation of the facts here.
 
The thread in T&T is closed. I would've gladly merged the two, but at this point both have too many replies for that. Doing so would've made the thread disjointed and confusing.

As the focus on both seems to approach the legal angles more than tactical, it seemed best to close that one and let this one remain.
 
As I posted in the other, now closed, yet first in time, thread:

I win.

Screech all ya want, for whatever motivation floats your boat, but its:

WildjustanotherscumbagofftotheslammerAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
The prosecution secured a guilty verdict on the charge of First Degree Murder against Ersland.

The prosecutor must have persuaded the jury that Ersland's act of retrieving a second gun, walking over to the unconscious Antwun Parker and firing 5 shots into the abdomen of the unconscious Antwun Parker (and unarmed as perceived by Ersland); amounted to a pre-meditated (malice aforethought) act against someone who was no longer a threat (unlawful) and thus murder.

Would you feel justified, claiming self-defense, shooting an unconscious person? One basic tenant of self-defense is that there be an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. How can there be a threat if that person is unconscious and unarmed?
§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
Click to expand...
 
The first degree murder charge is appropriate for his behavior. If you go back and grab another pistol and shoot a guy who is out of five more times it sounds premeditated to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top