Terminus009
New member
I'm with TylerD45ACP on this: call 911 from cover, gun trained on the suspect, wait for the cavalry and EMTs to arrive. This is a very sad and disturbing case. Very sad.
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.
micromontenegro
New member
I, for one, don't know anything about the case except for watching the video. And from that video, one can only conclude: Guilty! IMHO.
Judge and jury do know more, and I trust they arrived to the right conclusion.
But I want to say something about the pharmacist's apparent demeanor: Surely I am not the only one here who has seen people that were panicked out of their skulls but seemed totally calm, even methodic, as they did absolutely crazy things out of fear?
Judge and jury do know more, and I trust they arrived to the right conclusion.
But I want to say something about the pharmacist's apparent demeanor: Surely I am not the only one here who has seen people that were panicked out of their skulls but seemed totally calm, even methodic, as they did absolutely crazy things out of fear?
The facts of the case have been covered well by MLeake and others. The lesson we all need to learn, some apparently having confronted it for the first time, is that there is a difference between shooting to stop the threat and shooting to kill. That is the essence of the difference between acting legally in self defense and acting illegally as a vigilante executioner. All indications in the video and in the jury's verdict are that Ersland crossed that line by making a conscious decision to kill a person that was not at the time a legitimate threat. That is pretty much the definition of first degree murder.
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
1 st Amendment yes you are correct. If you should do as the pharmacist did you would suffer the same fate. Murder is murder
chadstrickland
New member
Imho the first shot was right the other 5 where not...this is not a foreign war where soldiers best each other in battle and rightfully kill there enemy...I think the robber deserved his fate..but the guy did break the law..which is there for a purpose..I think it brings shame to the responsible gun community..but at the same time...in this day and age the way the laws are set up you will probably be fighting law suits the rest of your life if you do have to shoot someone..and like someone said..the robber would have lived but had mental problems if he had only been shot in the head..the pharmacist would be fighting his family until his dieing day.....its a damn screwed up place we live in so it almost boils down to if you have to use your weapon and you have the slightest tiniest bit of doubt that a jury may find you guilty of murder or somthing then your own your own
Unless you were watching a different video clip from the one posted, I don't know how you can make any judgements about the pharmacist's emotional state based on the video. That grainy, blurry, choppy clip barely shows the man, and you can't make out his features or tell much of anything about him. I could barely even see his gun in the clip (although I did clearly see the first robber's gun).
The video clip also freezes not quite halfway through, when the voiceover is saying, "The ironic part is that if the first shot had been fatal--". It froze like that every time I tried to watch it.
It would really be nice if people had security cameras that actually showed a clear picture, in which you could actually identify a person. I'm sure the technology is available...cost issues?
It's a shame that the victim of a crime has to go to prison, but it does sound like he went too far. Anyone know what reason the pharmacist gave for shooting the robber on the ground? Did he say that he was moving, possibly reaching for a weapon? Even the police wouldn't know that the robber was unarmed until after they searched him.
The video clip also freezes not quite halfway through, when the voiceover is saying, "The ironic part is that if the first shot had been fatal--". It froze like that every time I tried to watch it.
It would really be nice if people had security cameras that actually showed a clear picture, in which you could actually identify a person. I'm sure the technology is available...cost issues?
It's a shame that the victim of a crime has to go to prison, but it does sound like he went too far. Anyone know what reason the pharmacist gave for shooting the robber on the ground? Did he say that he was moving, possibly reaching for a weapon? Even the police wouldn't know that the robber was unarmed until after they searched him.
Anyone know what reason the pharmacist gave for shooting the robber on the ground?
He's still breathing comes to mind
chadstrickland
New member
Any thinking that all robbers should be killed is nonsensical, illegal, immoral....unless they are stealing food to survive and not starve to death then we are in disagreement...just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong....if a thief chooses to enter my house while im home..then he accepts the fact that he may leave in a body bag.....oh wait a minute I forgot..the poor thief..it wasn't his fault he was sneakin around in my house putting my life and family life in danger..we should feel sorry for him and blame those evil gun nuts for shooting him with that evil black rifle...how dare they..don't they know he cannot help it...it isn't his fault..
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.
i agree.
i've followed the Ersland case from day one. Ersland lied to the police: He claimed the perp had a gun; then he claimed to find .22 ammo or .22 shell casings near where the perp fell. Police have a tendency to become perturbed when lied to. Then Ersland went on TV; a really big mistake on his part.
Ersland and his lawyer forced one judge off the case. Then they tried to get the second judge off the case; to no avail. Judges sometimes get bent out of shape when defendents and lawyers accuse them of being racist. Judges can do subtle things from the bench that can have a big impact on the outcome of a trial. i'm not saying the judge did that....just saying.
This site has a plethora of links related to Ersland:
http://www.koco.com/news/27109600/detail.html
The two adult perps who planned the pharmacy robbery were sentenced to life in prison for murder plus about 40 years on related charges.
Last edited:
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Some of us have followed this case quite closely from the beginning; others have not. Before opining as to the justice of the verdict or sentence, those in the latter group would do well to be sure they understand the facts, both as to the shooting itself and the aftermath, in which Mr. Ersland did, indeed, lie about nearly everything.
The original thread on this case makes interesting reading, but at 33 pages, it's a lot to digest. Those who are coming to this without having followed that thread should at least read this post by Pax, which gives an excellent summary of the facts, and links to several news reports.
And as I wrote in the thread started this May discussing the conviction:
The original thread on this case makes interesting reading, but at 33 pages, it's a lot to digest. Those who are coming to this without having followed that thread should at least read this post by Pax, which gives an excellent summary of the facts, and links to several news reports.
And as I wrote in the thread started this May discussing the conviction:
The jury took 3 1/2 hours to reach a verdict and recommend a sentence of life in prison... so they didn't need a lot of convincing.
As stated by many already,I am in COMPLETE agreement with the verdict. I thought long and hard about how to post responsibly as some of the posts I've read sound bizarre to say the least. Would i have shot the would be robbers? Yes, if they were armed, and posed a credible threat. The terms "escalation of force" and "deadly force" need to be explained to some out there. First shot he took was ok if the robber was armed. After he left by his own admission to chase robber 2 and came back, stepped over the the downed robber 1, clearly indicating the threat was minimal at this point, deadly force is NOT authorized. He posed no immediate threat.
redstategunnut
New member
WW2, that's an interesting theory, about the victim's age making it 1st degree murder, but I have to call shenanigans. Please cite ANY law that says the victim's age is what determines the existence of premeditation.
I do not practice in Oklahoma, but if WW2 is correct about the age of the victim being a reason for the first degree murder verdict, then you are conflating two separate grounds upon which a first degree murder could rest. Premeditation could be one ground, but not the only, and not even a requisite element of the verdict.
By statute in many places, there are other grounds upon which a first degree murder charge could be based regardless of premeditation. For example, in my state "felony murder" is first degree murder. Felony murder is a murder committed in the act of another, unrelated specified felony. For example, if a robber in the act commits a murder, even completely accidentally, he would be responsible for "felony murder" which is first degree murder. Say these two guys come in to rob the place but one of the robbers accidentally shoots and kills the other. The shooter is guilty of "felony murder" or first degree murder because he committed a homicide in the commission of robbery. This would be the case even if the murder was demonstrably not premeditated.
Therefore, if by statute in Oklahoma the homicide of a minor is classified as a first degree murder, then the issue of premeditation is irrelevant to the verdict. Absent an affirmative defense like self-defense, which in this case the jury obviously (and in my opinion, properly) rejected then the verdict of first degree murder was the result of the aforementioned statute.
There have been a number of misstatements about self defense.
Self defense is an affirmative defense.
You affirm you shot the person, intended to shoot the person, and then must present evidence that the shooting was within the law.
You are no longer 'innocent until proven guilty."
You have admitted guilt in the shooting.
You have admitted to the act of shooting and possibly of killing someone.
Depending on the actual law in the state you may have admitted to some level of homicide.
You do not get to than sit back, but must prove you acted within the law and did NOT commit a criminal act (different states have different statute and common (case) law that defines when you may use lethal force).
We tread a fine line in using lethal force.
It is a crime to kill another person.
The law makes limited exceptions to it being a criminal act.
Simply claiming "self defense" is NOT the end of the of the issue.
You will need to present evidence and convince a court (or jury) your actions did not fall outside the law.
Self defense is an affirmative defense.
You affirm you shot the person, intended to shoot the person, and then must present evidence that the shooting was within the law.
You are no longer 'innocent until proven guilty."
You have admitted guilt in the shooting.
You have admitted to the act of shooting and possibly of killing someone.
Depending on the actual law in the state you may have admitted to some level of homicide.
You do not get to than sit back, but must prove you acted within the law and did NOT commit a criminal act (different states have different statute and common (case) law that defines when you may use lethal force).
We tread a fine line in using lethal force.
It is a crime to kill another person.
The law makes limited exceptions to it being a criminal act.
Simply claiming "self defense" is NOT the end of the of the issue.
You will need to present evidence and convince a court (or jury) your actions did not fall outside the law.
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.
Uh, not quite. Only one perp was armed. Ersland shot the unarmed perp and then chased the gunman out of the store. There was no legal problem with Erslands shooting of the unarmed perp.
Erslands big problem started when he returned to the store and shot the wounded perp several more tmes.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Self defense is an affirmative defense.
Actually in many jurisdictions it is a defense, which means one you adduce sufficient evidence to raise it, the gov't must disprove it BARD.
WildidontknowhowokclassesitAlaska ™©2002-2011
Good post Vanya!
After reading the interview, it seems to me that he was lying and knew what he did was wrong. Everything he reported that happened did not, and seemed to be fabricated in order to protect himself from what he actually did. As opposed to an elaboration of the facts under a stressful situation.
After reading the interview, it seems to me that he was lying and knew what he did was wrong. Everything he reported that happened did not, and seemed to be fabricated in order to protect himself from what he actually did. As opposed to an elaboration of the facts under a stressful situation.
MLeake...
See at http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/OklahomaStatutes.html
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 24
Section 701.7 - Murder in the First Degree
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child. [Emphasis added]
D. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
E. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.
See at http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/OklahomaStatutes.html
WW2, looks like you were right, at least in part - the age of the decedent could have resulted in a first degree murder charge in its own right, even if Ersland hadn't met the criteria for premeditation (which, in most people's opinions, he did).
However, had the shooting of the minor itself been deemed justified, as it would have if Ersland had not decided, well after the first shot, to get another gun and finish the job, then there would have been no murder charge, and the decedent's age would not have been a factor.
So, I'm still not sympathetic.
However, had the shooting of the minor itself been deemed justified, as it would have if Ersland had not decided, well after the first shot, to get another gun and finish the job, then there would have been no murder charge, and the decedent's age would not have been a factor.
So, I'm still not sympathetic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.