JohnKSa
Staff
Join Date: February 11, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 14,447
Quote:
1st Degree Murder
...
Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.
Just out of curiosity, what do you call it when someone walks across the room to retrieve a loaded gun, walks back across the room to where a man lies unconscious on the floor and then shoots the man multiple times at point blank range.
If that's not causing the death of a human being with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being then I don't know what else to call it.
Based on the information you quoted, it sounds like murder 1 was exactly the right verdict.
Quote:
He secured the weapon and went back to the creep to see if he was still a threat.
The surveillance video in the link below clearly shows that he didn't consider the man on the floor to be any threat at all. At about 0:36 in the video Ersland returns to the shop, walks past the man on the floor, turns his back to him and never even looks back to verify that he's still on the floor and that he's not moving.
During the few seconds it takes him to retrieve the gun he's visible on the video and you can see that he never so much as glances over in the robber's direction.
Then after getting the gun, he walks directly over to the victim and shoots him multiple times at point blank range even though he certainly could have easily shot him from across the room from behind cover if he wished.
It's clear he wasn't worried about the robber getting up off the floor while he had his back turned or while he was retrieving his gun and it's also clear that he had no concerns about approaching the robber to shoot him at point blank range.
There's nothing to suggest that he thought the man on the floor might be a threat and lots to indicate that he didn't consider him to be a threat.
http://bcove.me/neqajbxi
Quote:
Perhaps their verdict was based on ignorance of OK manslaughter laws and perhaps they were not instructed on that as an option.
Based on the video evidence it is clear that Ersland didn't consider the unconscious robber to be a threat and that he caused the death of a human with deliberate intent. From the information you quoted that qualifies as murder 1.
The verdict appears to be based on the evidence and on proper instruction of the jury about the correct definition of murder 1.
You seem to be pretty good at mind reading. I have given an alternative view of what he was thinking that is based on a likely scenario. Sorry, I don't know how to read someone's mind but apparently all of the folks that found him guilty knew exactly what he was thinking and intending.
When I had my car accident, I got out of the car, stared at the car, stared at all of the people staring at me but couldn't respond. A lady I actually knew from the local hospital came up to me stating my name and asking if I was OK. I couldn't answer her for about 30 seconds and she looked at me and said, he is in shock.
I would dearly like to hear from someone who has actually shot a person in self defense. The one person who I heard describe his actions was one of my CCW instructors from Las Vegas. He pursued a suspect who got boxed in an alley. When he got close, the man turned with a gun in his hand. That is the last thing the cop remembered until quite a bit after the shooting was over. He had no idea how many times he shot the man nor had any memory after seeing the gun in his hand for quite bit of time. In fact, he thought he had shot twice but he emptied his clip, I believe 12 shots killing the suspect. The man was armed and it was a good shoot.
From what I have heard and read from such experts such as Masaad Ayoob, the physiologic reaction renders rational thought mute. Anyone that takes a look at the video should be able to draw an alternative to malice and forethought which his attorney I hope presented. Without an affirmative defense, how could those mitigating factors come forth?
I can't read his mind based on the video alone. He stated he thought he was reaching for a gun. Call me dumb and naive if you wish, why is that not a believable scenario? !st degree murder is all about intent, a rational mind and malice. I would contend that at 46 seconds into this event, he was not in his normal, rational mind. Is it rational to commit a deliberate act of murder on video tape that he put there in the first place? If you wish to declare heat of passion manslaughter, then so be it. I cannot come to the malice and forethought since that requires he has a rational mind which would be physiologically impossible at 46 seconds in my opinion of an ongoing gun battle.
I have too many questions about what was going on in his brain at the time to find him completely in charge of all his faculties. Anger and fear could certainly overwhelm his rational thought, but then it was not by rational thought would it.
In any case, that is my opinion and the reason why I don't like this verdict nor the sentence especially given the disparity in many repeat offenders who have killed in the act of a crime and got off with much less. Do we really have justice here in America any longer? I don't think so. It all goes by appearances and suppositions instead of direct facts.
Last edited: