Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison
- Thread starter thump_rrr
- Start date
- Status
So the two armed youn MEN came into his store and threaten him with his life and instead of pacifically giving in to it like the media suggests we all do, he stood up for himself. And now he's going to jail.
I'm so disappointed that the message people take away from this is to not defend themselves. The media says "Let the thieves take your possessions and what you've worked so hard for, it's not worth somebody's life (except maybe yours)." I say BS to that. I think the message should be more like: DON'T ROB PEOPLE.
From what I hear people say about the video ( it stopped half-way for me) it sounds like it wasn't necessary that he pumped 5 more rounds into the criminal. But I think it's a little hard to judge someone in that spot. You know how much adrenaline is running thru you at that point? You are undoubtedly outside your mind. The verdict of first degree murder is the travesty here in my opinion. The man's getting life in prison. Life in prison with a bunch of animals. I did a clinical rotation in a maximum security prison...if that's the worst thing that pharmacist has ever done, he doesn't belong in there with those monkeys.
"The rat catcher's too hard on the rats..."- the important word in that sentence is rat, in my opinion.
I'm so disappointed that the message people take away from this is to not defend themselves. The media says "Let the thieves take your possessions and what you've worked so hard for, it's not worth somebody's life (except maybe yours)." I say BS to that. I think the message should be more like: DON'T ROB PEOPLE.
From what I hear people say about the video ( it stopped half-way for me) it sounds like it wasn't necessary that he pumped 5 more rounds into the criminal. But I think it's a little hard to judge someone in that spot. You know how much adrenaline is running thru you at that point? You are undoubtedly outside your mind. The verdict of first degree murder is the travesty here in my opinion. The man's getting life in prison. Life in prison with a bunch of animals. I did a clinical rotation in a maximum security prison...if that's the worst thing that pharmacist has ever done, he doesn't belong in there with those monkeys.
"The rat catcher's too hard on the rats..."- the important word in that sentence is rat, in my opinion.
Well that's just BS, you can't tell that without having a live specimen. The guy that said that ought to be ashamed of himself. There is no way you can evaluate that on a dead guy.
The bell tolls for us all my friend, a little sooner for that armed robber. I'll not have my person or possessions molested if I can help it, and I'll not come the the aid of those who do so to my neighbors.
That's the problem I have with the law. Folks wanna talk about justice...if that prick had lived he should have swung at the gallows. The guy whose life was threatened carried out the sentence instead. The First degree murder just makes me sick. The end result, justly, was a dead guy. If it was willful and just with the first shot, maybe the next five really weren't so unjust.
youngunz4life
New member
I bet he wishes he could have that moment back
he was emotional, his adrenaline was at an all-time high, and he did something he shouldn't have done.
If robber had a weapon he should've kicked it and kept 16yr old at gunpoint. I do hope the age of robber wasn't a factor in the sentence. I do also feel the punishment might not be held up for that length of time.
he was emotional, his adrenaline was at an all-time high, and he did something he shouldn't have done.
If robber had a weapon he should've kicked it and kept 16yr old at gunpoint. I do hope the age of robber wasn't a factor in the sentence. I do also feel the punishment might not be held up for that length of time.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Thanks for showing us how law abiding gun owners think
WildimsurethatthelawdisagreeswithyouAlaska ™©2002-2011
It hasn't. I'm a pharmacist in a hospital. My degree says doctor on it. This is the brain we're talking about. You can't know for sure, you can't look at brain trauma on an x-ray or even an autopsy and say "oh, that wouldn't be fatal." You can make assumptions, yes, but saying something definitive is something you cannot do. They are assumptions. My guess is that the actual testimony was something to that effect actually, like "this may very well have not been fatal..." But if the bullet went thru the skull and thru the brain, it's real tough to say it definitely wasn't fatal.
But my argument is that it doesn't matter. His intent was to kill him, and I agree with his intent. The robber left him no choice.
Would I have done the same thing? I hope not, but mostly because I don't want to go to jail. I wouldn't convict someone of first degree murder or issued a life sentence given the evidene I've seen.
The "law" obviously does disagree with me, or rather me with it. In this particular instance anyway. This is America man, we're allowed to say what we think. Some folks think that's pretty important. It may get a few people to reason thru their beliefs. That's why the first amendment comes before the second
LockedBreech
New member
redstategunnut said:
First response of the thread and it said it all.
People in this thread are trying to attribute this verdict to this vast culture war. "They want us not to defend ourselves!" is the clarion cry. I believe one poster said "If the first shot was just, so were the next five!" Understandable emotions. I believe in the ability of the businessman to defend himself, his customers, and his business...however...as for the justice of the shots...
That is not true. That is not how the law, or a reasonable human being (reasonableness here not my subjective term, but in the legal sense), behaves or processes. If I am threatened by a man with a knife and shoot the suspect, this is just. If I find out where he lives and drive to his house and shoot him there because the first shot failed to kill him, it doesn't matter that the first shot was just, at all, in either common sense terms nor in the letter of the law. At that point, I become the aggressor.
Tens of thousands every year defend themselves with force, and tens of thousands of times courts find in their favor or no charges are pressed at all. Why? Because law-abiding folks retaliate until the threat is neutralized. They have no desire to seek trouble, only to repel it. Once the trouble is repelled, what is the need for the violence?
Being a gun owner in no moral, legal, or rational sense makes an individual judge, jury, and executioner. On the contrary, the gun owner, possessing a lethal tool and knowledge of how to use it, assumes greater responsibility for self control and reasonable behavior.
When the victim disabled the attack capability of his aggressors, the proper response was to remain on-guard, reload and contact the authorities. Had the young man resumed a threatening capacity or had accomplices entered the pharmacy, the need for lethal force would resume, along with Mr. Ersland's legal protections.
Instead, based on my viewing of the video, and based on a jury of peers reviewing the available evidence, Ersland methodically reloaded, paced about, and then shot a boy lying on the floor. He murdered him. First degree, second degree, semantics and a difference in sentencing. I personally believe the sentence was just, and that the period reloading and pacing offered time for reflection and calming, making the murder a deliberated act.
Americans, contrary to the pessimism often expressed by those of us on the wrong side of political correctness, are a rational people by and large, and rarely will punish a man for behaving in a reasonable, civilized fashion, even if it means defending himself with lethal force. However, even the most ardent pro-gunner, as I see myself, for instance, draws the line and steps back when the citizen, armed in self-defense or defense of others, becomes an active aggressor.
I believe Ersland's actions have harmed all law-abiding gun owners by presenting for the public viewing a gun owner that turned defense into attack. I believe that the jury knows better than we do exactly what degree of murder this case fits into. I also believe that Ersland has at least some chance on appeal.
To me, from my humble standpoint, knowing the limited things I do, understanding the law as I do (which is admittedly still very fledgling), and understanding morality and reasonable behavior to the best of my ability, this case was justly resolved.
TheKlawMan
Moderator
I agree with the verdict. The worse thing the dead guy did was to attempt an armed robbery. Had the first shot to the head killed him, that would have been just, but you do not execute an unconsicous human being for attempted armed robbery. I am surprised that the pharmacist's attorney wasn't able to plea him out to 2nd degree. This was clearly premeditated, but the DA would have been worried about jury nullification. My guess is the pharmacist ran his mouth too much when the police arrived and hung himself with his own words.
There's something that's too simple in claiming it was just an armed robbery imho. The real deadly intent is your money or your life and some have paid with both. Unless any information comes to light stating otherwise it doesn't appear that Jerome has experience taking a life. Wonder if there was something more to it along those lines. Was he really thinking that straight right after the incident before making a decision which has proven to be a poor legal one?
Reads more like the criminal one or another got to control the situation. Both before and after the robbery. Who was to say that robber wasn't going to come back with more people/guns. It just doesn't sit right that someone trying to defend their life and property is the one going to jail. Like people who successfully defend themselves against charges but end up out of pocket. There's an lesson there for all to heed.
Reads more like the criminal one or another got to control the situation. Both before and after the robbery. Who was to say that robber wasn't going to come back with more people/guns. It just doesn't sit right that someone trying to defend their life and property is the one going to jail. Like people who successfully defend themselves against charges but end up out of pocket. There's an lesson there for all to heed.
In my opinion the worst he should have been charged with was manslaughter 3. I looks more like a panic shooting, or a outrage that this SOB tried to kill me. Different states different laws, I was not there to hear the arguments nor a juror. But my personal opinion is that the justice system failed this was obviously a robbery and an attempt to rob or kill the man making a living by drug thugs. Once again the guy protecting himself is wrong and the criminal is in the right. Time for the courts to rethink the law! I understand the thinking of others that when the threat has been stopped do not shoot again, however we can not see in the video if the individual attempted to move or retrieve his firearm. I also agree with the truth that a individual legally armed for protection needs to maintain a cool and subjective state of mind. Yet how many can stay that way when their life, livelihood
and means of support for family are on the line? This again could be a crime of passion. Meaning as I stated above anger or fear.
And now the ATFE wants to get a list of multiple long gun purchasers, lets screw over citizens rights once again.
"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."
"An armed person is a citizen and unarmed one is a subject."
Mace
Last edited:
It's obvious that some of you either:
A) didn't watch the video up to the point of the second round of shots (as at least one of you has admitted);
and/or
B) has no idea what the laws are with regard to an affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense).
Also, realize that Oklahoma is not an anti- state, and that in the same timeframe that this incident went down, a woman was NOT charged for shooting three would-be home invaders, in the same general area.
The first shot Ersland fired was with the vaunted Judge, with a shot shell. It wasn't a "bullet" that entered the 16yo's skull, it was a single pellet; he was out, but the medical community not only felt he wouldn't have died, but felt he would have had very good odds of higher level recovery.
As others (who did watch the whole video of the encounter) have noted, Ersland then walks out of field of view; he walks back into field of view, paying little if any attention to the kid on the ground. He doesn't call 911; he doesn't cover the kid on the ground from behind the counter or any other concealment or cover. He walks to a drawer, opens it, while shooting an occasional, casual glance to where the kid is lying, and draws a small pistol (I believe a .380 but am not sure). While he's been doing this, his back has mostly been to the "threat."
He then casually walks back around the counter, points the gun toward the kid on the floor, and pops him five times in the chest in a manner that looks almost bored.
I'd have said "Guilty," myself - even if the guy hadn't followed up this act by lying about events that occurred in the shop (claiming he'd been shot at, for instance) and prior (he was a decorated combat veteran, etc).
And it would have had nothing to do with the age of the victim.
For those who are saying, what if the partner had returned? If that was Ersland's worry, he should have called the police sooner than he did, while covering the downed kid and the door. His body language, on the video, does not suggest any such fear.
And Ersland wouldn't have had to say anything to the police, as the video said it all for him. The fact he did say things to the police didn't help, as just about everything he said undermined his credibility, but in this case he could have lawyered up, shut up, and still had the same end result.
A) didn't watch the video up to the point of the second round of shots (as at least one of you has admitted);
and/or
B) has no idea what the laws are with regard to an affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense).
Also, realize that Oklahoma is not an anti- state, and that in the same timeframe that this incident went down, a woman was NOT charged for shooting three would-be home invaders, in the same general area.
The first shot Ersland fired was with the vaunted Judge, with a shot shell. It wasn't a "bullet" that entered the 16yo's skull, it was a single pellet; he was out, but the medical community not only felt he wouldn't have died, but felt he would have had very good odds of higher level recovery.
As others (who did watch the whole video of the encounter) have noted, Ersland then walks out of field of view; he walks back into field of view, paying little if any attention to the kid on the ground. He doesn't call 911; he doesn't cover the kid on the ground from behind the counter or any other concealment or cover. He walks to a drawer, opens it, while shooting an occasional, casual glance to where the kid is lying, and draws a small pistol (I believe a .380 but am not sure). While he's been doing this, his back has mostly been to the "threat."
He then casually walks back around the counter, points the gun toward the kid on the floor, and pops him five times in the chest in a manner that looks almost bored.
I'd have said "Guilty," myself - even if the guy hadn't followed up this act by lying about events that occurred in the shop (claiming he'd been shot at, for instance) and prior (he was a decorated combat veteran, etc).
And it would have had nothing to do with the age of the victim.
For those who are saying, what if the partner had returned? If that was Ersland's worry, he should have called the police sooner than he did, while covering the downed kid and the door. His body language, on the video, does not suggest any such fear.
And Ersland wouldn't have had to say anything to the police, as the video said it all for him. The fact he did say things to the police didn't help, as just about everything he said undermined his credibility, but in this case he could have lawyered up, shut up, and still had the same end result.
MLEAKE Well said I agree with your assessment as you describe after a second look and your obvious knowledge of the case. Yet I still can not assume to know law or justification only opinion and mine is that of a layman, and victim of a violent crime leaving me disabled.
Thank you for your wisdom and clarification
Mace
Thank you for your wisdom and clarification
Mace
Does he look bored or does he look determined? How about resigned? That's where that comment in particular reads like editorializing. Don't mean to single out your words MLeake to make some non existant point or to skew your meaning in anyway. That quoted passage was used as an atypical example of various points of contention. Leading to how I don't draw such a clear conclusion as to his motives. Can't walk away from some notion of self-defence.
All just a personal opinion but makes me wonder how easy it is for laws to over-ride something it shouldn't. Like the intruders/robbers that can sue the occupant of a home after being fired upon.
Might have to look at the video again to make sure all of it was watched. Will say that clearer videos of other self defence cases have come to light in the past.
DRBoyle, what he does NOT look is frightened or highly adrenalized.
He does not give any cues that suggest his behavior would be that of a reasonble person.
The only defense for his actions that I might have bought would have been an affirmative defense for a psychotic break. However, as mental defenses go, I believe the standard in most states is not about overall processing of reality, but rather knowing whether an action is right or wrong.
In that sense, lying about events and motives would suggest knowledge that actions weren't right.
He does not give any cues that suggest his behavior would be that of a reasonble person.
The only defense for his actions that I might have bought would have been an affirmative defense for a psychotic break. However, as mental defenses go, I believe the standard in most states is not about overall processing of reality, but rather knowing whether an action is right or wrong.
In that sense, lying about events and motives would suggest knowledge that actions weren't right.
youngunz4life
New member
I never said this man was in the right nor is that the point here(as in I am not saying you said I did - just making a statement).
I DO find it hard to believe that this pharmacist did not have a lot of adrenaline flowing thru his blood after the first shot and subsequent events. The adrenaline is not a defense in any shape or form, but it definately was flowing(unless this guy was a complete, cold-hearted sociopath).
I don't want this post to distract against what your 1st post said though mleake, as I have to definately sway towards the reasoning in your original post. I don't disagree with you, but I think maybe that is sort of what drboyle is getting at: sometimes things might look and feel different than what they are. Sound on the video would've been nice.
Thanks for the further response MLeake. What you have had to say both here and in your initial post definitely sounds reasonable. No doubting that and should have clarified.
The part in bold is where we can definitely agree that he very much made the wrong decision in a legal.
youngunz4life said it better than I had attempted to. Though still have an issue with what can only be the legalities in this case. Even if the legalities appear to have been adhered to.
Double Naught Spy
New member
huntinaz said,
I see that you have no understanding of cause and effect or have opted to trivialize that which does not suit you. Ersland did very well up until the time he got the second gun and executed the robber on the ground. The DA even said so. Then he broke the law, tried to cover it up, but was caught via the video, though I am confident forensics would have produced the same results because the events as he described didn't make sense.
So no, he isn't going to jail for not doing what the media said he should do. He is not going to jail for standing up for himself. He IS going to PRISON for murder.
----
For everyone who thinks that Ersland may have been acting in self defense when he put those last 5 rounds into the robber with a second gun, consider this. If Ersland feared for his life and if the robber was truly posing a threat (neither of which is apparent in the video), the only testimony that would substantiate Ersland's views is his own. However, he lied six ways to Sunday about the events. He lied about getting shot. He lied about the sequence of events. He lied about the use of his guns. He lied about the robbers even shooting a gun. He lied about both robbers having guns. So Ersland is no longer a credible witness, even for his own behalf. As noted by MLeake, what is the point lying if not to cover up the illegal actions?
There was no indication justified in the video, forensic evidence, etc. that the shots fired from Ersland's second gun were necessary. None of the hallmarks are present to indicate the situation warranted the use of lethal force at that time.
I see that you have no understanding of cause and effect or have opted to trivialize that which does not suit you. Ersland did very well up until the time he got the second gun and executed the robber on the ground. The DA even said so. Then he broke the law, tried to cover it up, but was caught via the video, though I am confident forensics would have produced the same results because the events as he described didn't make sense.
So no, he isn't going to jail for not doing what the media said he should do. He is not going to jail for standing up for himself. He IS going to PRISON for murder.
----
For everyone who thinks that Ersland may have been acting in self defense when he put those last 5 rounds into the robber with a second gun, consider this. If Ersland feared for his life and if the robber was truly posing a threat (neither of which is apparent in the video), the only testimony that would substantiate Ersland's views is his own. However, he lied six ways to Sunday about the events. He lied about getting shot. He lied about the sequence of events. He lied about the use of his guns. He lied about the robbers even shooting a gun. He lied about both robbers having guns. So Ersland is no longer a credible witness, even for his own behalf. As noted by MLeake, what is the point lying if not to cover up the illegal actions?
There was no indication justified in the video, forensic evidence, etc. that the shots fired from Ersland's second gun were necessary. None of the hallmarks are present to indicate the situation warranted the use of lethal force at that time.
Last edited:
- Status