You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison
- Thread starter thump_rrr
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not in all cases. John addressed that already:Posted by huntinaz: You're lying to yourself if you think shooting someone is not trying to kill them.
People shoot attackers in self-defense to make them stop attacking. Who cares if the attacker dies if he kills you or one of your loved ones first? Who cares if he lives if you and those you care about survive uninjured.
The prognosis of the attacker is irrelevant to a person who is LEGALLY using deadly force in self-defense. As long as the attack is stopped it shouldn't matter what the long-term outcome is. And once the attack is stopped the justification for deadly force ends.
It was the fact that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that Ersland was trying to kill the guy that made his act a felony.
He was one of four men who played a role in starting the fight, but he was murdered after the fight was over.No matter what the pharmacist was feeling, the other facts remain that the perp started the fight with deadly force and he died for it.
You got it.Assuming the perp was no longer a threat (and evidence suggests just that), the next 5 shots weren't necessary.
Yep. Similar to the robbery at hand: Jevontai Ingram and Antwun Parker entered the pharmacy in an armed robbery attempt, which put the occupants in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and Ersland lawfully defended himself.Somebody comes into your home and threatens your life, fight or flight kicks in (fancy name for adrenaline rush) and you stop the threat.
But he did not stop there.
It could have turned out that way. He might have expired after having been shot while attemping a robbery. Or not.That guy died on someone else's property, threatening someone else's life, it was his decision. He forced the issue and paid the price.
But that's not what happened at all. He was shot by someone who clearly intended to kill him while he posed an imminent threat to no one.
Nor did the jury.I'm not sentencing the pharmacist for the perp's actions.
Your average murder is more clear cut than this case.
How much more clear cut can you get than videotape showing a person shooting an unconscious person five times? As many people on TFL have tried to show, the fight had ended when Ersland fired the last five shots. He chose to make himself an executioner.
An adrenaline rush, anger, or fear of some later event are not reasons to kill. If they were, thrill killings would be legal, as would be killing over any event that displeased a potential killer, as would be every base act of vigilantism. That is not a civilized society. Self defense is a reasonable act in a civil society; murder, for any excuse, is not.
Double Naught Spy
New member
..., but he was murdered after the fight was over.
Right, I don't see why it is that folks do not understand this major facet of the case. Ersland might as well have gone to the guy's home and shot him dead there on the following day.
I have to wonder: If a police officer was assaulted by someone with a deadly weapon and managed to render that person unconscious, then sauntered over to his cruiser and got his shotgun, went back over to where the unconscious person was laying and put 5 buckshot rounds into him, all on video, would the people who are defending Ersland's action take the same position with the officer's actions? Or is this more a case of situational ethics because some of the posters here identify with Ersland as a person defending himself/his property/his business/others and don't think he could do any wrong in that situation?
The fight was over, but Ersland didn't necessarily know that. I'll cut him some slack there. Here's my opinion of where he really went wrong:
When you take an "affirmative defense" (I did what would ordinarily be illegal but it was justified or permitted in this instance) you have to take the stand and testify to have any real hope. Ersland couldn't do that because he had lied repeatedly and been found out. He had no credibility left to testify. So the jury never heard his side of the story, and they wouldn't have believed it anyway.
When you take an "affirmative defense" (I did what would ordinarily be illegal but it was justified or permitted in this instance) you have to take the stand and testify to have any real hope. Ersland couldn't do that because he had lied repeatedly and been found out. He had no credibility left to testify. So the jury never heard his side of the story, and they wouldn't have believed it anyway.
Didn't Erlsand use a Taurus Judge to shoot the guy the first time? Maybe there's a lesson there someplace. (use a gun that will make your first shot or two count) I could be misremembering about the Judge.I know how the game is played. It isn't over till it is over. Like it or not, many youth of today do not accept that others have a right to resist someone forcibly taking something from you. That you have the gall to "disrespect" carries the obligation to retaliate. I have seen it and been the victim of it.
OldMarksman
Staff
No matter. The jury decided unanimously that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in his circumstance would have reasonably believed that "the fight was over" and that he was no longer in imminent danger.Posted by zxcvbob: The fight was over, but Ersland didn't necessarily know that.
OldMarksman
Staff
He used a Judge, but his first shot did count. Parker was stopped by one shot pellet to the head. The objective was not to kill the guy.Posted by zxcvbob: Didn't Erlsand use a Taurus Judge to shoot the guy the first time? Maybe there's a lesson there someplace. (use a gun that will make your first shot or two count) I could be misremembering about the Judge.
I really do not like the Judge very much, myself.
How about using one to shoot at the fleeing felon? If those were shot loads also, he had little chance of success. And while the lethal range was probably not vey long, it could still case serious injury to others.
You're lying to yourself if you think shooting someone is not trying to kill them.
I hope you never have to face a prosecution.
NO LAW allows killing.
SOME laws allow the use of lethal force under limited circumstances,
Lethal force is force that MAY result in death (not WILL result in death).
It may seem a meaningless distinction to you, but in the law it matters.
You are NOT trying to kill someone, you ARE trying to STOP THEIR ACTIONS.
If that then results in their death you have NOT commuted a crime.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
I should have thought that two video recordings, the forensic evidence, the testimony of the expert witnesses, and the Oklahoma uniform jury instructions would have been more than sufficient to convict.Posted by zxcvbob: Of course the actions got him charged, but the lies got him convicted and a harsh sentence.
Have any of the jurors commented on what got him convicted?
Is there anyone else in the world who can know?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Juror comments?
http://www.news9.com/story/15063505...-made-the-right-decision?clienttype=printable
Only one has commented that I can find...
http://www.news9.com/story/15063505...-made-the-right-decision?clienttype=printable
Only one has commented that I can find...
"In this case, it is a very thin line between self defense and murder," said Juror Number Four. "We looked at all of the evidence and there were things other people didn't see. We looked at the judge's instructions and we followed them. Until you are in there and saw what we saw, you can't say. I am comfortable knowing I did the right thing."
I haven't read through anything but the last page of this thread. Obviously he went too far. I couldn't sit on a jury and convict him of 1st degree murder. In the heat of the moment he made a mistake, but he never intended to set out and kill anyone that morning. Manslaughter would have been a more appropriate sentence in my opinion from the little I know about the case, but 1st degree murder???
GoOfY-FoOt
New member
I wonder...I have an old friend who practiced law for many years and according to him, a jury can do what they feel is right and don't necessarily have to strictly adhere to the judge's instructions. But the problem with that is, it sets new precedent, and causes problems with the law and future trials, and whatnot, so most judges no longer expain this part of their rights as jurors. Was this an accurate statement? And if so, what is the real reason that judges conceal that option for jurys?
On another note, I have had several LEOs tell me that if one is in a justified gun fight, that the CW carrier would be better off, making sure the assailant is dead. I'm not condoning this, simply pointing out fact from my experience. Is this common for them to say? And, how would it have affected the outcome of the situation in this thread, if so?
On another note, I have had several LEOs tell me that if one is in a justified gun fight, that the CW carrier would be better off, making sure the assailant is dead. I'm not condoning this, simply pointing out fact from my experience. Is this common for them to say? And, how would it have affected the outcome of the situation in this thread, if so?
In the heat of the moment he made a mistake, but he never intended to set out and kill anyone that morning.
But after he returned from chasing the gunman he retrieved another gun, and then shot a person lying on the floor who was no longer a threat.
He planned a murder when he returned and retrieved another weapon.
It is called self control.
When you use lethal force the loss of control can have really bad consequences.
I believe shoot them dead attitude is a danger to CCW in general since that is the fear of the libs who oppose CCW in the first place. Shoot to stop is the correct approach and in such this man went beyond what was right.
However, I don't believe that he had malice of forethought. When I went through my Idaho CCW class, the instructor who is retired military and part time cop in our town spoke of a local shooting at a store in the town next door. It was almost an identical shooting in many respects to the one in question where the robber who was armed was shot by the clerk in the heart. After he fell on the floor in his last dying breaths, he went into a seizure from lack of blood to the brain. The clerk out of fear pumped several more bullets into an essentially dead man after seeing his involuntary movements which she interpreted as an attempt to act aggressively to her once again.
In this case, the prosecution chose to not prosecute her for shooting a dead body. I believe that they should have cut this guy some slack since he probably just responded out of fear and adrenalin when he saw the creep moving on the floor and interpreted that as an attempt at aggressive actions once again. We all know that in this situation with the adrenalin rush that the brain shuts down, you have tunnel vision and react instinctively out of muscle memory and all reason and rational thought ceases. I didn't follow his trial at all, just brief news clips in the gun forums here and there, but the physiology of a shooting should have been his first defense.
I would not have held him responsible to 1st degree murder and likely would not have even voted for any criminal culpability since it was the intruders that set off his adrenalin response, they themselves were responsible for what followed.
Sadly, this is just one more example of having a lawyer that understands the physiology of shootings and an affirmative defense as well a s client that should NOT make any statements at all without express permission from his lawyer. With a good set of expert witnesses and a good lawyer and a smart client, should not this case have had a different outcome.
I have experienced an adrenaline dump twice in my life, the first from a German Shepherd that charged me and in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light right into me. In both instances I became quite disoriented and distorted in my reasoning immediately after the event and if faced with a second adrenaline dump from a moving suspect, I could easily see how the pharmacist reacted by shooting him a second time.
My goodness, if a jury can acquit that Anthony woman, why not see some room for compassion for this man. We no longer have any common sense in America and good luck finding justice from a jury of our peers in this country anymore. I believe his actions are completely understandable when you look at it through the eyes of the Adrenaline dump and the changes on physiology and psychology in such a situation. It is easy to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and criticize this man, but think of how you would react with not one, but two adrenalin dumps back to back and see how you would fare in such a situation.
I believe he more than likely just shot a corpse out of fear like the lady in my example above. He is not a murderer, he was simply under the influence of the adrenaline dumps that these creeps instigated, they are to blame for their outcomes, not him.
However, I don't believe that he had malice of forethought. When I went through my Idaho CCW class, the instructor who is retired military and part time cop in our town spoke of a local shooting at a store in the town next door. It was almost an identical shooting in many respects to the one in question where the robber who was armed was shot by the clerk in the heart. After he fell on the floor in his last dying breaths, he went into a seizure from lack of blood to the brain. The clerk out of fear pumped several more bullets into an essentially dead man after seeing his involuntary movements which she interpreted as an attempt to act aggressively to her once again.
In this case, the prosecution chose to not prosecute her for shooting a dead body. I believe that they should have cut this guy some slack since he probably just responded out of fear and adrenalin when he saw the creep moving on the floor and interpreted that as an attempt at aggressive actions once again. We all know that in this situation with the adrenalin rush that the brain shuts down, you have tunnel vision and react instinctively out of muscle memory and all reason and rational thought ceases. I didn't follow his trial at all, just brief news clips in the gun forums here and there, but the physiology of a shooting should have been his first defense.
I would not have held him responsible to 1st degree murder and likely would not have even voted for any criminal culpability since it was the intruders that set off his adrenalin response, they themselves were responsible for what followed.
Sadly, this is just one more example of having a lawyer that understands the physiology of shootings and an affirmative defense as well a s client that should NOT make any statements at all without express permission from his lawyer. With a good set of expert witnesses and a good lawyer and a smart client, should not this case have had a different outcome.
I have experienced an adrenaline dump twice in my life, the first from a German Shepherd that charged me and in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light right into me. In both instances I became quite disoriented and distorted in my reasoning immediately after the event and if faced with a second adrenaline dump from a moving suspect, I could easily see how the pharmacist reacted by shooting him a second time.
My goodness, if a jury can acquit that Anthony woman, why not see some room for compassion for this man. We no longer have any common sense in America and good luck finding justice from a jury of our peers in this country anymore. I believe his actions are completely understandable when you look at it through the eyes of the Adrenaline dump and the changes on physiology and psychology in such a situation. It is easy to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and criticize this man, but think of how you would react with not one, but two adrenalin dumps back to back and see how you would fare in such a situation.
I believe he more than likely just shot a corpse out of fear like the lady in my example above. He is not a murderer, he was simply under the influence of the adrenaline dumps that these creeps instigated, they are to blame for their outcomes, not him.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.