Drugist in OKC convicted of murder
- Thread starter sundog
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
New member
Yeah, you gotta like the part about how one of the robbers' bullets struck Ersland. That is a bit of a stretch. As I recall, he claimed on the news that he had been wounded, but was never able to prove he had a wound. Apparently it turned out that he had a hole in his trousers. In other words, maybe he was almost shot, assuming a shot from the suspect was proven. He did sport a bandage on his forearm where he claimed he was grazed by a bullet, but apparently nobody in authority ever saw the wound and it was healed by the time he was arrested. So he had 2 possible wounds or near wounds from being shot at? See below...
I went back and reviewed the old thread on the case when it came out.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359176&highlight=ersland
If you read the accounts Ersland gave, the story continually morphs until which time the video comes out and all of a sudden it become apparent how much stuff he made up and how his descriptions of his glorious gun battle weren't anything like what he described, especially given as pax noted in post #184 of the thread that,
So where did premeditation come from? I think it came from the fact that Ersland had to go to his desk drawer, unlock it with a key, then get out the gun that he used to murder the downed suspect. Up until that time, he had done all his shooting with his Judge revolver and had to get a .380 out of the drawer of his desk.
carguychris
New member
I disagree; I would argue that it was premeditated. First, here's the definition of premeditation, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/:
Here are my two arguments:
- Elapsed time is not a factor in the definition. Ersland performed several intervening deliberate actions between initially shooting Parker and returning to shoot him again. This indicates planning and intent, even if only a few seconds elapsed.
- Premeditation does not necessarily need a specific target when the planning and intent occur. It can be generalized, e.g. "if some scumbag tries to rob my store, I'm going to get my gun and kill him". This is planning and intent, even if it the actor is not targeting a specific person when he or she makes this statement.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Exactly. It's the correct verdict. And Mr. Parker was in fact unarmed; the detectives at the scene found no weapons on him.Mello2u said:
And the autopsy report describes the head wound he received when Mr. Ersland shot him the first time around as a "non-fatal gunshot entrance/graze wound." It was the subsequent five shots to the chest and abdomen that killed him.
Mr. Ersland surely didn't help himself by lying about what happened: he initially claimed he shot Mr. Parker before he left the pharmacy to go after the other suspect, but this was clearly contradicted by the video record; he also falsely claimed to have been shot himself. These lies suggest that he knew what he did was wrong.
He also told detectives a series of elaborate lies about his military record, claiming that his back problems were from a combat-related injury and that he suffered from PTSD (he not only was never in combat, he never served in a war zone).
The jury took 3 1/2 hours to reach a verdict and recommend a sentence of life in prison... so they didn't need a lot of convincing.
Just so...
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
He executed a defenseless 16 year old who had a survivable head wound.
--emphasis mine. I might even change possibly to hopefully.
I agree. He should have caught his breath, regained his senses for a few minutes (maybe a half hour) and then phoned 911. He should have made it obvious during th half hour that he was extremely shaken and perhaps unable to dial the phone very well. But he was wrong in firing the additional shots. That made him guilty of murder.
dreamweaver
New member
was that the autopsy ruling?
i mean, it DOES make a difference, right?
if the perp was already dead, before he was shot again, the charge wouldn't be 1st degree, right?
i wonder what the charge WOULD be for shooting a dead person?
Wildalaska
Moderator
As would leaving a mortally wounded man to die:barf:
Espeically when you lie to justify it.
WildsomeofyouguysneedtotakeanethicscourseAlaska ™©2002-2011
I don't know. However we have a guy here who was first convicted of Murder 1 and has a hard life sentence. Then he was convicted of assault on a witness (his wife) with intent to kill. I don't remember the exact sentence, but I think it was around 17 years to be served consecutively. So I guess that means after the SOB dies the first time, they will keep his corpse in the cell for another 17 years unless he qualifies for good behavior. In that case he might be dragged out in 10 or 12 years.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Yeah. I get it. You are advocating witholding assistance from a mortally wounded man and covering it up with some bullpucky excuse.
Doesnt cut it with me. Its wrong, criminal, immoral and scumbaggy and if you truly beleive that is a correct way to handle a shoot, you should not own a gun.
Period.
WildwhatplanetareyouondudeAlaska ™©2002-2011
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Yes. As I wrote above, the autopsy report described the head wound as a "non-fatal gunshot entrance/graze wound."dreamweaver said:
Mr. Parker might have survived it. We'll never know. The main point is that he was alive when Mr. Ersland returned and shot him again. Deliberately shooting a living, defenseless human being, more or less in cold blood, sounds a lot like murder, does it not?
Yes, we do get it, and it's a course of action that would be taken, or recommended, only by someone who is, umm, seriously ethically challenged.Eagle Eye said:
mikejonestkd
New member
Eagle Eye, what part of your suggested course of action is in line with the firing line's main purpose " The mission and purpose of TheFiringLine has always been that of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by promoting Responsible Firearms Ownership. " ?
I personally think that Ersland just executed this guy.
I know this is off-topic strictly speaking, but it has been so long since Gary Kleck wrote his first book on the effects of firearms ownership and crime rates.
In the intervening time the Internet has come along, video surveillance is cheaper and better - now potential criminals can see other criminals getting killed, it gets plastered on the Internet and on YouTube. I would think armed citizens and their use of the firearm in self-defense would be a bigger deterrent than at any other time in human history.
Kleck is coming out with a new book:
“Deterrence and macro-level perceptions of punishment risks: is there a “collective wisdom?” Crime and Delinquency (forthcoming, c. July 2011).
I know this is off-topic strictly speaking, but it has been so long since Gary Kleck wrote his first book on the effects of firearms ownership and crime rates.
In the intervening time the Internet has come along, video surveillance is cheaper and better - now potential criminals can see other criminals getting killed, it gets plastered on the Internet and on YouTube. I would think armed citizens and their use of the firearm in self-defense would be a bigger deterrent than at any other time in human history.
Kleck is coming out with a new book:
“Deterrence and macro-level perceptions of punishment risks: is there a “collective wisdom?” Crime and Delinquency (forthcoming, c. July 2011).
Rifleman1776
New member
I don't buy first degree murder. But "premeditation" can be anywhere from months to seconds. That is a legal matter.
I do belive it was wrong of him to chase the guy down for the purpose of shooting him, much less five times.
Once the threat is gone, stop shooting.
Sad, bad case of misjudgement.
I do belive it was wrong of him to chase the guy down for the purpose of shooting him, much less five times.
Once the threat is gone, stop shooting.
Sad, bad case of misjudgement.
When I was 16 I did some stupid things. Not quite as stupid as armed robbery. But one time while driving friends, I decided the driver in front of me was going 55mph was going too slow, so I passed him - going up hill, against a double yellow, and I was probably doing 70 when I crested that hill.
I was just lucky no one was coming the other way.
In retrospect - I don't know how to explain such colossal stupidity on my part. I could have killed myself and at least 4 other people doing what I did.
I'm glad I didn't have to pay for that stupidity.
What this 16 year old did was dangerous, and stupid and wrong. But he was just 16.
Yes there are other ways the store owner could have killed him, when he came back in he could have looked startled and shot the kid again and claimed that when he re-entered the store the kid made a "furtive" movement and he was in fear of his life so he shot. Yes he could have found a way to withhold assistance - delayed reporting it.
Here's one - he could even have FAKED giving the kid medical assistance, all the while the clock is ticking because instead of dialing 911 - he's supposedly giving medical assistance.
So often when statistics are sighted for why CC or OC is actually GOOD for society, we portray gun owners not only as law-abiding, but as good law abiding citizens.
I hope that the law abiding tax-paying citizens who carry and use firearms for self defense have retained their humanity enough that they reject pursuing a scheme to execute a criminal in such a way that it is defensible in court, and instead just do the right thing.
I was just lucky no one was coming the other way.
In retrospect - I don't know how to explain such colossal stupidity on my part. I could have killed myself and at least 4 other people doing what I did.
I'm glad I didn't have to pay for that stupidity.
What this 16 year old did was dangerous, and stupid and wrong. But he was just 16.
Yes there are other ways the store owner could have killed him, when he came back in he could have looked startled and shot the kid again and claimed that when he re-entered the store the kid made a "furtive" movement and he was in fear of his life so he shot. Yes he could have found a way to withhold assistance - delayed reporting it.
Here's one - he could even have FAKED giving the kid medical assistance, all the while the clock is ticking because instead of dialing 911 - he's supposedly giving medical assistance.
So often when statistics are sighted for why CC or OC is actually GOOD for society, we portray gun owners not only as law-abiding, but as good law abiding citizens.
I hope that the law abiding tax-paying citizens who carry and use firearms for self defense have retained their humanity enough that they reject pursuing a scheme to execute a criminal in such a way that it is defensible in court, and instead just do the right thing.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
A good question.mikejonestkd said:
And here's another way to think about it.
If Mr Ersland had stopped shooting when the threat was ended -- one suspect lying unconscious and bleeding, the others having fled the scene -- and called 911 right then, he would have behaved in an entirely ethical manner, and he would be a hero today and not a convicted felon.
But he didn't "chase him down." He shot him once in the head, entirely justifiably, and then returned nearly a minute later, with a different gun, and and shot him while he lay unconscious on the floor.Rifleman1776 said:
The interval, the different gun, and the unconscious victim reasonably add up to premeditation.
First degree murder usually is that in which person takes the life of another person with malice and aforethought. Malice is the deliberate intention to take away a persons life with circumstances that can be proved.
He had to come back into the shop and go get another gun out of locked storage. Then he deliberately fired 5 shots into the guy. If that isn't malice aforethought I don't know what is.
We are a nation of law. Which means that even the worst thug or criminal is entitled to those rights. If you want your rights then it has to be an all or none proposition. If you would deny rights to others don't be surprised when you are denied your rights.
He had to come back into the shop and go get another gun out of locked storage. Then he deliberately fired 5 shots into the guy. If that isn't malice aforethought I don't know what is.
We are a nation of law. Which means that even the worst thug or criminal is entitled to those rights. If you want your rights then it has to be an all or none proposition. If you would deny rights to others don't be surprised when you are denied your rights.
Last edited:
- Status