Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison

[cracked91]

Why explore "possibilities" that you admit are inconsistent with the evidence?

I dunno, It just seems to me that "I put him out of his misery" might not have looked to good in writing. Again, I don't believe thats what happened, but, I wasn't there. Were any of you?

You are NOT trying to kill someone, you ARE trying to STOP THEIR ACTIONS.

In a case I recall reading on this board, a cop got into a gunfight with a BG. After said BG fell in front of him, Officer Jared Reston pulled him in close put his pistol to his head and shot him 3 times. In my super humble and honest opinion, I believe shooting someone 3 times in the head in rapid succession is saying die! Die! DIE! I know intelligences above mine will probably disagree. But Reston had been shot what, 6 - 7 times? He had every right to think "damned if im going to let this kid put one more hole in me". I believe he did the right thing. I also believe he intentionally KILLED the suspect.

Back to the topic. I do find it complicated. Very complicated. As do a huge population of gun owners. But thats because we can't allow the written law to be our morality compass. A criminal scumbag is someone again, in my very low and humble opinion, who goes looking for a looking for someone to victimize.

It is called self control.

Bingo. This is what I think actually happened. He lost self control. Maybe out of fear, more likely out of anger. And thats why we find it complicated.

Ersland was put in a situation where he lost self control by criminals. Had he never been put in this situation, I believe he would have lived out the rest of his loony life, without committing a felony.

But because the criminals chose to victimize him, one is dead, he is behind bars, and alot of other ones are probably going to be rich.

I know what he did was wrong. I know why he was convicted. I also know that there are several people in AZ who legally carry a concealed firearm who have never taken a CCW class (because we no longer have to) that would probably do something similar if they were put in a similar circumstance. I don't call these people evil.

What Antwun Parker had originally planned to do was evil. Forcibly take money from someone who had worked hard for it. Kill him if he did not comply. I believe he got what he had coming, just as Jerome Ersland did. But now he is a martyr for the criminal society, and Jerome Ersland is a martyr for many in the gun owning society. It is a complicated situation. Legally, no. Not a bit. Morally and ethically, quite a bit. To me anyway.

 

[m.p.driver]

Two local punks walked into a local mart at 5:30 am.Made the 55 year old clerk lay on the floor.Emptied the till and got mad because of the total,so one walked over to her and shot her twice in the back of the head with a .357.One was out in 8 they other in 12 years.It makes you wonder about the judicial system and whether its time to go back to 1800's justice.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's avoid wishing to go back to eras before we had decent legal protections.

It's very nice to posture that a BG should get short shrift. However, if they came for you, you would be wanting your modern rights. Those were not golden days for everyone.

 

[Alaska444]

You need to watch the WHOLE video. Tell me if you see ANY adrenaline dump.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ&feature=fvwrel

I have seen the whole video, but what is on the video does not in the least show what is going on in his mind and body. I have heard statements that he thought he was going for a gun again and that is why he shot him the last 5 times. That my friend is exactly the same situation as the lady in the Idaho store I noted above from my CCW class. His statements are that he never intended to kill anyone, just stop them.

Secondly, how can you see an adrenaline dump on video? That is an internal event and who knows what he perceived. If his testimony was that he thought the man was reaching for his gun, then that is the only evidence of it happening. Sadly, he made so many pretrial statements that were interpreted as lying that he could not assume and affirmative defense. He probably had a poor choice of attorneys who did not proceed with an affirmative defense. That once again is just one more reason you don't speak to ANYONE but an attorney after such an event, PERIOD.

The physiology of the Adrenaline dump are quite well documented and the effects take several minutes to wear off. In the psychological aftermath of the original shooting where he WAS shot at first, is there not indeed an element of doubt as to his motives in shooting the creep the second time? was it intentional premeditated murder or a physiologic reaction limiting his ability to reason. I have never had anyone point a gun and SHOOT at me, but the two times I have had an adrenaline dump in my life, my judgement right after the event was definitely impaired. Folks that are in a life or death situation get "jumpy" and we cannot judge them in the same manner outside of the effects of getting shot at first and then reacting pumped up with super physiologic levels of adrenaline.

Sorry, but all of those folks condemning this man's action should walk in his shoes for a moment. Murder 1?? I suspect that he will have that reduced one of these days if not commuted entirely. What the video does not show is whether the punk did have any involuntary or voluntary movements that could have been interpreted as reaching for his weapon. In that case, the first and SECOND shooting should be justified. Simply on the basis of stress physiology, this man should have been given the benefit of the doubt and God forbid, if I am ever in such a situation, I would hope for that benefit of the doubt as well.

 

[icedog88]

As a combat vet, I have seen and experienced adrenaline. After putting down bg, and they still move, I have NEVER seen one of my fellow Marines empty his mag, run back to ammo man, get more ammo, go back and shoot more. No shots were fired at him, and the perp he shot was unarmed. If you think bg poses a threat, you don't turn your back on him calmly,then step over him lol. And no, he is not a martyr. A martyr gives their lives for a cause. Not try to weasel out of trouble with lies.

 

[Don H]

What the video does not show is whether the punk did have any involuntary or voluntary movements that could have been interpreted as reaching for his weapon.

What weapon is that?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I doubt modern legal doctrine would regard an adrenaline dump as sufficient for a diminshed capacity defense. Esp. with his planned actions which don't speak to the irrational and immediate.

I've read lots of reviews of self-defense law and haven't seen that raised.

 

[Alaska444]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska444
What the video does not show is whether the punk did have any involuntary or voluntary movements that could have been interpreted as reaching for his weapon.
What weapon is that?
__________________
Don

Oklahoma City Pharmacist Jerome Ersland faced this situation on May 19, 2009. He was 57 years old (now 58) retired military. Two female friends/co-workers were in the store as well and were horrified by the robbers who burst in wearing ski masks. Ersland had a gun he fired one bullet which hit one robber in the head then proceeded to chase the other one out of the store. On returning back into the Pharmacy Ersland believed that the downed robber was moving and trying to get back up while reaching for something behind his back. Ersland believed that the robber had a gun and fired 5 more shots into the robber. The entire incident lasted 46 seconds.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2547467/posts

Sadly, without his testimony in his trial, we don't have his side of the story. Is it a good shooting? Absolutely not. Is it murder 1? Not in my mind.

 

[Alaska444]

Glenn E. Meyer
Staff

Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 8,967
I doubt modern legal doctrine would regard an adrenaline dump as sufficient for a diminshed capacity defense. Esp. with his planned actions which don't speak to the irrational and immediate.

I've read lots of reviews of self-defense law and haven't seen that raised.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a physician and the physiology of such a situation is extreme as Masaad Ayoob describes in several of his books, writing and speaking. If anyone has access to him by email, it would be interesting to see his opinion on this case.

On the other hand, the person that killed Harvey Milk got off on the "twinkie" defense!!

The fact that White had killed Moscone and Milk was not challenged, but — in part because of the testimony from Blinder and other psychiatrists — the defense successfully convinced the jury that White's capacity for rational thought had been diminished; the jurors found White incapable of the premeditation required for a murder conviction, and instead convicted him of voluntary manslaughter. Public protests over the verdict led to the White Night Riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense


If I was on this man's jury, voluntary manslaughter is more like the maximum I would invoke. Sorry, but if you have ever been in a situation where you get "whited out" from an adrenaline dump, you ain't a normal rational being for quite some time.

After my car accident, even though I suffered only a few bumps and bruises, I was completely disoriented for a few at least a minute or more and unable to remember a couple seconds of the encounter. Obviously, I saw the other car before it hit me, but that part of the episode is completely gone from my memory. I remember starting through the intersection with the green light, then all of a sudden I was in slow motion even though I had yet to see the car about to hit me. Obviously, I had seen him but that is blanked out.

I remember hearing his tires screeching and the shadow of his car as it hit my left rear wheel. My SUV did a complete summersault in the air and I did have a falling sensation but did not realize that I was actually up in the air spinning and then landing fortunately on my left front tire first and then the rest came down. I thought I was on my side but actually the car was upright. It took me a few seconds to get oriented and I couldn't speak for a few seconds. When I got out of the car, I had to ask a bystander what had happened even though I was "there" all the time in the front seat so to speak of the whole thing.

Adrenaline rushes are something to behold and they do give you tunnel vision, a white out sensation from the vascular response in the eyes and brain and loss of rational thought with disorientation. If the twinkie defense works for diminished capacity, what of this situation. Who knows if anger was also behind this pumped up with adrenaline as well. Sorry, that is not premeditation even though he did go and get another gun. I can readily testify that his physiology was greatly altered at the time of the second shooting. Voluntary manslaughter if anything should have been the max in my opinion. Folks are certainly welcome to their own opinion, but that is mine. I believe that there is sufficient doubt for the murder 1 conviction.

Now, who is responsible for his adrenaline dump? The folks that robbed him. How much blame should we assess to them for causing this entire incident?

When I was charged by the dog, after he charged, I never saw him again. When he charged, I was fortunate to have had a 2x4 right beside me from the last house in the area to be completed. I had already picked it up before he charged me. When he charged, I lifted it up over my head and charged at him. He blinked and ran away. When I came to my senses in a few seconds he was gone but out of rage I smashed the 2x4 into the street as hard as I could. If the dog was still before me, I doubt I would have stopped as long as the stimulus was there.

Sorry, I just don't get the murder 1 charges and I doubt I ever will no matter what other folks believe. I would not convict murder 1. The only person who knows or may know what was going through his mind is the pharmacist and we didn't hear his side in trial. I don't like this verdict and that is just my opinion. As I said, folks are welcome to their own opinion, but mine won't change.

God bless,

Alaska

 

[Double Naught Spy]

No, the vid does not show the suspect, but forensic evidence indicated he was flat on his back, hands out, unmoving. He wasn't reaching for anything, voluntarily or otherwise.

 

[icedog88]

The same laws that say it's illegal for them to rob, states it's illegal to kill an unarmed, defenseless human. We want the robbers to serve max sentence, why not a murderer?

 

[Alaska444]

icedog88
Member

Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 47
The same laws that say it's illegal for them to rob, states it's illegal to kill an unarmed, defenseless human. We want the robbers to serve max sentence, why not a murderer?
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]

I don't believe it was murder 1. If you wish to argue for manslaughter, so be it. Murder 1, no, I don't believe it for a minute. Just my opinion, you are welcome to your own opinion.

God bless,

Alaska

 

[Alaska444]

Surprise Ending to Ersland Case

On one hand, the state of Oklahoma has passed legislation supporting the right to keep and bear arms and Oklahoma even has a member of the Congressional Delegation who serves on the the Board of the National Rifle Association. But a jury of 8 women and 4 men found a man guilty of 1st Degree Murder for defending his business, his employees' lives and his own life from men trying to rob them at gunpoint.

Friends, this is alarming on many levels. We have had the case where Demetrius Johnson dies mysteriously while in police custody and it is largely overlooked by the media and now, we're seeing a man who should have been tried for manslaughter being convicted of 1st Degree Murder.

http://mickeyhomsey.blogspot.com/2011/05/surprise-ending-to-ersland-case.html

 

[icedog88]

I guess you are right to point. you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I for one am glad the people who were in the jury saw it differently. The prosecution had all the evidence that was needed. And because someone decides to right an article in the news, doesn't make him a credible source for the rule of law either.

 

[Alaska444]

#214
icedog88
Member

Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 48
I guess you are right to point. you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I for one am glad the people who were in the jury saw it differently. The prosecution had all the evidence that was needed. And because someone decides to right an article in the news, doesn't make him a credible source for the rule of law either.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]

When I was in high school, I woke up hearing the radio speak of the arrest of my brother's best friend for committing the first murder in our small town. He was a bully no doubt and an incredible all American football player that live to drink, party, play football and fight. This time, at a party, the brother of the girl who threw the party at their house kicked him out the door for being too rowdy. He turned around and stabbed him in the heart with a hunting knife at the door. He was convicted of manslaughter and got a 5 year sentence. Not a good outcome in my opinion but manslaughter was the charge. I could go along with a manslaughter charge for this guy due to diminished judgement from the stress of the situation, but murder 1? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

 

[MLeake]

huntinaz selectively quoted me, and responded to his version of the quote:

Quote:
If the guy had killed Ersland's pharmacy tech, I might see a lesser charge
Why? He may very well have killed somebody, but the pharmacist happened to shoot first. So it's ok to off somebody for murder, but not for attempted murder? There is no difference whether somebody else died or not. If he ended the fight with the first shot, then other casualties make no difference.

I never said it would be "ok to off somebody." I said that, given those theoretical circumstances, I could have seen Ersland's emotional state having been reasonably driven to a point where Murder 2 or Manslaughter might have been more appropriate.

However, given the circumstances as they were, Murder 1 was appropriate.

If you're going to partially quote somebody, you should ensure that what you leave of the quote actually carries the original meaning, and not the one you would like to have as a straw man.

 

[OldMarksman]

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?

No. and therefore no.

The only thing that can establish a precedent is a ruling by a higher court on a point appealed after a trial or an appeals court ruling, or in some rare cases after a request for an opinion on something like the constitutionality a law or regulation.

 

[GoOfY-FoOt]

OldMarksman, if you remove the precedent part, is the rest true? Does a jury in fact have to strictly adhere to the judge's directions? Or, do they have leeway in such things, that are not necessarily black and white? And, if they do, why have judges stopped giving them this information?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Alaska444: don't believe it was murder 1.

...murder 1? Sorry, I just don't buy it

So, you are saying that you do not believe that Ersland specifically intended to kill Parker.

Just what is it that you think he was trying to accomplish?

 

[redstategunnut]

A jury can return any verdict that twelve people unanimously agree upon.

They are not given the instruction that they can ignore the law because the law matters.