Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison

[Alaska444]

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.

 

[JohnKSa]

You seem to be pretty good at mind reading.

No mind reading necessary, you can just watch the video and draw the obvious conclusions from Ersland's actions.

It's not hard to tell from the video that Ersland isn't acting like he considers the robber to be a threat.

He doesn't watch the robber while he's retrieving his gun.
He doesn't use caution nor cover when approaching the robber to shoot him.
He turns his back to the robber for several seconds without so much as glancing at the robber to check on his status or activity.

All the evidence indicates that Ersland was able to tell immediately upon returning to the store that the robber was not a threat and from that point on his actions never indicated that he had any concern about any threat from the robber.

I couldn't answer her for about 30 seconds and she looked at me and said, he is in shock.

Being in shock isn't the same thing as an "adrenaline blast" and neither one causes people to commit murder.

From what I have heard and read from such experts such as Masaad Ayoob, the physiologic reaction renders rational thought mute.

You're misinterpreting their conclusions. If what you claim could be proven or even suggested with enough credibility to create a reasonable doubt it would make it impossible to convict anyone of any really serious violent crime because the stress involved would be sufficient to exonerate the person by proving that he couldn't think rationally.

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?

Because it's plain in the video that he isn't the least bit worried about any threat after he re-enters the store. It's not a believable scenario because his actions make it unbelievable. That's why he was convicted. If his story had been believable enough to create any reasonable doubt the jury would have been OBLIGATED to find him innocent.

It obviously wasn't and they obviously didn't.

Do we really have justice here in America any longer?

The irony of this question is that you're asking it in the context of a trial where justice was clearly served and yet you feel it was too harsh.

If there's a problem with the justice system it's that the people involved too often try to make excuses for the criminals passed through the system instead of giving them the just due for their actions--the fair penalty for their crimes. Ersland is getting what is due him. Those who really care about justice should be rejoicing, not bemoaning the outcome.

Justice is one thing. Alignment of court case outcomes with one's personal opinion is another thing entirely and the two MUST NOT be confused with each other.

 

[Catfishman]

This is a good debate. I respect all of the opinions expressed.

For me it boils down to this.

Many here believe that the first 30 seconds of the video have nothing to do with the last 10.

I feel that the first 30 expain the killing. They don't excuse it but to ignore the fact that the pharmacist was the victim moments before the killing is just plain silly.

This case is not simple.

 

[Alaska444]

Dear JohnKSa,

Why is the heat of passion manslaughter not a viable option? I understand that this man made quite a few lies about his past record that killed any chance of an affirmative defense, but the definition of heat of passion seams much better to me. I still have difficulty declaring premeditation in this circumstance. that is the argument that I can't accept, nor am I alone in this assessment. My brother's friend started the fight that ended in the other persons death and deliberately turned and stabbed the kid at the door when he couldn't beat him up. He got manslaughter in that case. If he was in OK, I suspect that they would have given him murder 1 under this definition.

As far as my car accident, when I did get to the point where I could speak, and I wasn't in shock from any injuries, just the situation and stress response, the first thing I said to the lady who came over to me, I asked her, "did I run a red light" because I was disoriented and completely at a loss to what had actually just happened. I simply didn't know nor could I remember what had just occurred a few seconds before.

Everyone reacts to physiologic stress in a different manner. Fortunately, the Lord gave me four witnesses at the scene who testified that the other guy was the one that ran the red light. If I had to depend on my own testimony to clear myself, I would have been in trouble since the creep did claim I ran the light not him in his sworn statement to the cops. He was declared at fault based on the witness testimony, once again, that the Lord for that since I would have been my own worst witness.

I simply cannot get past this being at most manslaughter. I believe if they gave the guy 5 years in the tank that would be a reasonable decision, but I don't get the life sentence myself. Was it a bad shoot, absolutely. Was it murder 1 with malice and forethought? I can't go that far despite how bad the video looks.

In any case, I don't think anyone is going to change the other's mind. Thank you for the excellent discussion and I hope and pray none of us ever have to use our CCW to defend ourself or our family. I truly believe that many decisions made in court rooms are based on impressions and suppositions instead of facts and that places all of us at risk. If nothing else, this is an example of what not to do from many different points of view and I am sure this case will be a part of just about all of the upcoming CCW classes around the nation as it should be.

 

[Alaska444]

Catfishman
Senior Member

Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 521
This is a good debate. I respect all of the opinions expressed.

For me it boils down to this.

Many here believe that the first 30 seconds of the video have nothing to do with the last 10.

I feel that the first 30 expain the killing. They don't excuse it but to ignore the fact that the pharmacist was the victim moments before the killing is just plain silly.

This case is not simple.

+1, very well stated!!

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Alaska444: Not sure what the definition of premeditated or first degree murder is in OK, ...

The definition of murder in the first degree in Oklahoma is best described in the jury instructions, which are based on court decisons. One more time, here it is:

OUJI-CR 4-63 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE -PROOF OF MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

The external circumstances surrounding the commission of a homicidal act may be considered in finding whether or not deliberate intent existed in the mind of the defendant to take a human life.​

The question is, did, or did not, Ersland deliberately intend to take the life of Parker?

If not, just what did he intend to do when he fired five shots into the person who was lying immobile on the floor?

After having been presented with the evidence, an Oklahoma jury required only about three an one half hours to decide, unanimously, that Ersland had committed murder in the first degree.

 

[Catfishman]

So what's 2nd Murder? And Manslaughter?

 

[Alaska444]

I just spent quite a bit of time going over video taped statements by Ersland and if nothing else, he is guilty of being stupid giving interviews to police and local media without an attorney present. Unfortunately, he changes his statements which is not good. He was on Fox news on the factor and told a different story again.

I believe his own statements did him in. If he had kept his mouth shut, he might have worked out a manslaughter deal. Oh well, dumb is dumb I guess.

As far as adrenaline rush goes, he seems to have perfect recall of all of the events completely which would go against my adrenaline rush theory. The two times I had the reaction, I lost a few seconds of memory of the event completely which is a physiologic response to stress. Ersland appears to have perfect recall of too many details during his police interview which is not the usual response to such a stressful event. The Las Vegas cop blanked out as well during the shooting and could not recall any major details whatsoever about the shooting past the time when he saw the creep with a gun. The rest was a complete blank to him.

In any case, good case to discuss and to AVOID doing anything this guy did. With all of his off the wall statements filled with significant factual errors, what really was in his mind? The boy obviously wasn't trying to get up as his police statement noted and since he didn't have a gun, no one else was injured. Too many inconsistencies in his statements.

Terrible case, terrible shooting. I would still consider in the heat of the moment since this guy doesn't seem to be in charge of his reasoning even after the shooting for several months. I doubt he will get a pardon, the whole black community would be up in arms over that despite the number of people who support him. Nor will he get an appeal, so I guess that seals his future. Terrible, terrible case that will serve as the what not to do for CCW classes. Stop means stop and dead is not the goal. Is this manslaughter or 1st degree murder? I will let the jury have their say which is final for him anyway. If I was on the jury, would I go for murder 1?

All I can say is the guy should have copped a plea to keep the sentence down as so many repeat offenders learn to do.

 

[cracked91]

Second, the situation was extremely critical. Reston was badly wounded and couldn't get away from the attacker or even rise to his feet. He would have been unable to reload because the attacker was grappling with him. The attacker had already shot him multiple times and Reston couldn't afford to wait to see if he could survive being shot some more.

In his interview, Reston mentions grappling with the suspect prior to being shot, not after. But I do agree that the circumstances were dire, and that nothing more could be expected from anyone in that situation. He did good IMHO.

My point only being that sometimes the only way immediately stop a threat, is to, like you said, take out the CNS. Which equals killing someone.

Anyway, I understand this was a much different circumstance either way.

I just wanted to say that I did not intend any of my posts to offend or insult anyone. I hold everyone's opinions in very high regards on this thread, and on this forum in general. In my opinion it is by far the most professional, educational, and well moderated firearms forum on the net. I have learned more about firearms and laws in the last few years that I have read this forum than I could have imagined.

As to this thread, there are some extremely strong, and extremely valid points and opinions being made. But, at this point, I would be surprised if any opinions are going to be changed, so I am punching out of this one.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I just spent quite a bit of time going over video taped statements by Ersland and if nothing else, he is guilty of being stupid giving interviews to police and local media without an attorney present. Unfortunately, he changes his statements which is not good. He was on Fox news on the factor and told a different story again.

I believe his own statements did him in. If he had kept his mouth shut, he might have worked out a manslaughter deal. Oh well, dumb is dumb I guess.

As far as adrenaline rush goes, he seems to have perfect recall of all of the events completely which would go against my adrenaline rush theory. The two times I had the reaction, I lost a few seconds of memory of the event completely which is a physiologic response to stress.

Ersland changed his story at least 6 times from the original (the DA said he had provided 7 different versions). None of the stories matched the forensic evidence. His stories did not do him in. The forensic evidence did. All the stories did was to affirm that Ersland was attempting to hide the fact that he committed murder and that he knew it.

All I can say is the guy should have copped a plea to keep the sentence down as so many repeat offenders learn to do.

Let's see. He committed murder. Lied about it. Lied about his military history. I am not sure that Ersland is of the mind set to think that as a military hero that he needed to cop a plea...but of course, he is no military hero.

 

[thallub]

I just spent quite a bit of time going over video taped statements by Ersland and if nothing else, he is guilty of being stupid giving interviews to police and local media without an attorney present. Unfortunately, he changes his statements which is not good. He was on Fox news on the factor and told a different story again.

I believe his own statements did him in. If he had kept his mouth shut, he might have worked out a manslaughter deal. Oh well, dumb is dumb I guess.

The lying by Ersland is the point that lots of folks are missing. Folks are also missing the fact that Ersland went on TV, with and without his sorry lawyer. Ersland injured his arm and claimed that two pieces of a .22 bullet hit him in the arm: Fired by a gun in the hands of the late perp. Ersland claimed to find .22 casing/s near where the body of the late perp lay. Ersland even lied about his military record.

The Ersland and his lawyer got the first judge relieved from the case. Then Ersland and his lawyer claimed that the second judge assigned to the case made a racist comment in court. This second judge is the one who tried Ersland.

Let's see what we have here:

1. Ersland initially had the police on his side until he told a plethora of lies.
2. Then Ersland went on TV and told more lies.
3. Ersland and his sorry lawyer badmouthed the judge assigned to hear his case.
4. Finally the DA had seen enough and charged Ersland with murder.

i don't know how this kind of stuff plays out in other states, but:

1. Here in OK if you lie to the cops they get p'od. There is a good chance they will give the prosecutor a bad report.
2. If the prosecutor gets a bad report from the cops and then sees you on TV telling lies about a shooting you committed he gets p'od fast.
3. If you try to get the judge off your shooting case based on trumped up trash he may get p'od. P'od judges can do subtle little things that can have a grave impact on the defendant in a murder trial. i'm not saying this judge did that....just saying.

 

[icedog88]

Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in! Even if he didn't say anything, I'm pretty sure the forensic evidence spoke for itself.

 

[icedog88]

And the jury convicted on the evidence, not the judge.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Looking at that perspective, are you so cool headed that you would not "lose control" with a gun pointed at your head and that you could stop the hormonal fight or flight response and be a cool hand Luke in that situation.

In a word...Yes.

 

[OuTcAsT]

I think Ersland did commit Murder 1, and got what he deserved.

I Agree.

 

[pax]

It's a shame no one gets in schoolyard fights anymore. Back in the day, every young man was expected to develop enough self control to NOT kick the other guy when he was down. You might be mad enough to beat him to a bloody pulp, but no matter how mad you were or how badly you wanted to mash his nose into jelly, you wouldn't kick him in the head when he was on the ground and couldn't fight back.

Darn this modern life that's allowed so many men to reach adulthood without knowing they could control their murderous impulses like that.

pax

 

[hogdogs]

Darn this modern life that's allowed so many men to reach adulthood without knowing they could control their murderous impulses like that.

I never once thought of that aspect!!!

Having been the "butt kicker" and "butt kickee" plenty and I can say I have a respect for those that beat me fair and square!

Brent

 

[jgcoastie]

+1 Pax!

 

[pax]

You may think one act driven by fear and anger, in what was originally a survival situation, makes a person a scumbag.

But when you do, you lose sight of the fact that violent repeat criminal defenders don't make bad decisions. They make choices when they're as rational as they'll ever be.

Nnobby, that brings us back to something JohnKSa wrote earlier in this thread:

I think a lot of people... are completely missing the point of this thread.

NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO THINK CLEARLY.​

NOW is the time for you to make decisions about what you will and won't do in a deadly force encounter. You can choose NOW to do the right thing or you can persist in the idea that it's simply out of your hands once the adrenaline starts coursing through your system. Or worse you can decide right now that you're going to kill your attacker whether you have to break the law to do it or not.

Right now, everyone participating in this thread is as rational as we will ever be. So right now is the time we need to decide that, if we are ever in a similar situation, we will NOT keep going after the threat is down... that we will STOP when the threat stops and that we will shoot only to protect and defend innocent life.

Creating a criminal mindset in advance leads to criminal choices under stress. Creating a good mindset in advance leads to good choices under stress.

Thanks for bringing that up. It was a good point even though I took it in a direction you almost certainly didn't intend.

pax

 

[jgcoastie]

Excellent post Pax!

Gives me a moment's pause to think a few things over. I'm sure your words had the same effect on others as well. Thank you.