Drugist in OKC convicted of murder

[NJgunowner]

I'm with Wildalaska on this one.

Anyone advocating or believing what this guy did was right should have their firearms permanently taken away. Same goes for anyone who leave someone to die intentionally.

 

[Evan Thomas]

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 propisiton. If you would deny rights to others don't be suprised when you are denied your rights.

Yes! Bravo!

I try not to post just to say "+1," but this time... it had to be said.

 

[Spats McGee]

I finally got to watch the video. (Then my computer started acting up, crashed, and was inoperable for half the day . . . )

Anyway, that event may have started as a self-defense shooting, but it ended as an execution. As far as the issue of premeditation, it's well-settled that premeditation may be formed in an instant.

Here, the first shot was at least arguably justified. The rest were not even close to justified. From what I saw in the video, the jury got it right.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

i wonder what the charge WOULD be for shooting a dead person?

Desecration of a corpse.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

The summary execution represented by the follow-up shots with the second weapon were clearly wrong and a conviction is IMHO appropriate. But I don't think I'm on board with first degree murder.

IANAL. My understanding of the difference between first and second degree murder is that both involve intent to kill (as opposed to manslaughter), but first degree also involves premeditation. I remember a case reported on several forums a few years ago in which the prosecutor argued that "premeditation can be formed in an instant." I didn't buy that then, and I don't buy that now.

I think it is obvious that Mr. Ersland intended to make sure the BG was dead. But I don't accept that in the excitement of an armed robbery attempt, having just fired a shot and then pursued a second robber outside, that Mr. Ersland was acting on [/i]premeditation[/i]. I think he was acting on adrenalin. I think he was agitated and angry, and that the follow-up shots were a (unjustified) part of his reaction continuum to the situation.

How is this significantly different from a guy who comes home early and finds his wife in bed with the neighbor, so he shoots them? They don't represent a threat, so it's not justified. He intends to kill them, so it's murder. But "premeditated"? I don't think so for a case of a cuckolded husband, and I don't think so for Ersland.

I think it should have been second degree murder. JMHO

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

.

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.

The interval, the different gun, and the unconscious victim reasonably add up to premeditation.

Yeah, I have never heard of chasing down an unconscious person who is laying motionless on the floor. It was quite a chase as Ersland walked by him twice, the second time apparently whilst in the process of chasing down a motionless pistol locked inside a desk drawer for which he first had to chase chase keys from his pocket.

Sad, bad case of misjudgement.

...which translated clearly into a clear case of 1st degree murder.

 

[Wildalaska]

I remember a case reported on several forums a few years ago in which the prosecutor argued that "premeditation can be formed in an instant." I didn't buy that then, and I don't buy that now.

Unfortunately for you view, that issue is well settled since the time of Blackstone IIRC. Read up on "Malice aforethought", a good case is Mullaney v. Wilbur, google it.

Wildgettingcloseto3daysoffformeAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[markj]

What was he thinking? Some folks act without any thought of the consequences. Kid was down on the ground why shoot him again?

If we dont strive to take the high road we are no better than the thugs we are trying to protect ourselves from.

I question the society I live in when Iread some of these posts. I have read stuff this week that is so completly wrong on any level. Shoot an unarmed man lying on teh ground after he was already shot? Come on now, that is an act of a bully and not anyone I wish to associate with in any way.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Some of you folks above do not understand sarcasm. You dish it out, but when it comes in your direction you just cannot handle it. Of course I would have acted ethically and morally. But the clerk screwed up big time. I would love to know how many times he has been robbed at gun point and I would not be surprised it he was pushed well beyond his tolerance. He very well could have been thinking that these guys would return madder than ever and finish him off the next time.

None of this justifies murder and I would not condone it. But WildAlaska, you especially dish out sarcasm and criticism and show much agression through many of the other threads. I am educated and understand your sarcasm. But please learn how to read it -- not just to write it. Responsible? Yes I am. Ersland correct in his actions? I was being sarcastic. It is kind of like seeing some politician that you do not like crossing the street and saying "come on truck." Does it mean that I am immoral? Heck no. It is sarcasm. You do not get it, so I will try harder to live by my signature.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Oh yeah, WildAlaska: When I made the crack about keeping the corpse in prison after a life sentence for the consecutive sentence, I was also being sarcastic. Just in case you thought I really meant it. :barf:

 

[hogdogs]

Eagle eye, When you do a good job masking sarcasm as your true feelings in writing, you might consider this little internet forum code trick... Works perfectly...
[sarcasm]were you REALLY being sarcastic then or are you trying to backpeddle now?[/sarcasm]

Try that next time okay?
Brent

 

[Evan Thomas]

[sarcasm]were you REALLY being sarcastic then or are you trying to backpeddle now?[/sarcasm]

Try that next time okay?

Another, relatively charitable, interpretation is that someone has a bit of a reading comprehension problem...

Guilty as charged. Good job. He executed a defenseless (and possibly mortally wounded) man.

I believe the "Good job" refers to the conviction, not to the execution...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Unfortunately for you view, that issue is well settled since the time of Blackstone IIRC. Read up on "Malice aforethought", a good case is Mullaney v. Wilbur, google it.

Ken, I know it is "well settled," but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I may not be a lawyer, but I AM a technical writer with a whole pile of English classes under my belt, and I remember enough high school Latin to know that the "pre" part of "premeditation" means "before," not "during."

Which is why we have jury nullification.

It ain't like Ersland got out of bed that morning and decided "I think I'll kill the first punk who walks in the store today." His actions were not planned out before the incident unfolded ... which to me is the test of what "premeditated" really means. If the two would-be robbers had not entered the store and pulled a gun, Ersland wouldn't have gone looking for someone to shoot.

Was it a bad shoot? Yes, it certainly was and I'm not trying in any way to justify or to excuse it. I just don't think that first degree murder is the appropriate charge. Second degree murder? Absolutely. But ... I wasn't on the jury, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Unfortunately for you view, that issue is well settled since the time of Blackstone IIRC. Read up on "Malice aforethought", a good case is Mullaney v. Wilbur, google it.

Hmmm ...

From this site, which explains fundamental principles of criminal law: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim02.htm

In Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975), the homicide statute under which the defendant was tried defined "unlawful" killing as "neither justifiable nor excusable." At trial the defendant presented evidence supporting his claim that he killed the victim "in the heat of passion on sudden provocation." The trial judge instructed the jury that if the prosecution proved that the defendant killed the victim unlawfully and intentionally, then the killing was murder, but if the defendant persuaded the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing was "in the heat of passion on sudden provocation," it constituted the lesser offense of manslaughter. The Court found that the instruction violated the Winship doctrine, as it essentially shifted to the defendant the burden of disproving an element of the offense – that the homicide was not "unlawful" as defined in the statute.

Which takes us to Winship. From the same site:

Prosecution’s Burden of Persuasion (the Winship doctrine) – Pursuant to the due process clause, a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent and, to enforce this presumption, the Supreme Court held in In re Winship [397 U.S. 358 (1970)] that the prosecution must persuade the fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt of "every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." This rule has come to be known as "the Winship doctrine."

If the prosecution fails to meet its burden of persuasion, the defendant must be acquitted. Procedurally, the acquittal may occur in either of two ways. First, after the prosecution completes its presentation of evidence or immediately before the case is due to be submitted to the jury, upon motion of the defendant, the trial court must direct a verdict of acquittal if the evidence, viewed in the manner most favorable to the prosecution, can support no reasonable verdict other than acquittal. Alternatively, if the judge believes that reasonable minds can differ and, therefore, permits the case to go to the jury, the jury must acquit if it possesses a reasonable doubt regarding one or more elements of the offense charged.

In fact, Mullaney isn't a good case for your argument, because the defendant prevailed at the SCOTUS and the appeal was upheld. The ruling was that the State had a duty, since it was arguing that the act was NOT "in the heat of passion," to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. In Mullaney the State did not prove that -- they reversed it and asked the defendant to prove that it WAS "in the heat of passion."

 

[Eghad]

Premeditation is not based on any time limit it is based on the intent and the period that happened after the intent to commit the act and was the person fully conscious of the intent and to have thought about the act.

Ersland had to come back to the shop when he considered shooting the individual again then went and got another pistol from locked storage and shot the guy 5 times again.

sounds like he met the criteria for premeditated and malice aforethought

Sounds like the prosecution met both of your examples to me because the jury found him guilty of first degree muder beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh Dear - isn't clear that we don't promote blood lust and posturing. The suggestions by Eagle Eye are quite inappropriate and thus to avoid continuing such - CLOSED.

I suggest that the faq and esp. the sticky for T and T might be good reading before one suggests such.

We also don't joke about killing people.