Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is kinda messed up I didnt see that it was different. He did something very stupid. I still dont think life in prison is right though. It just seems TOO harsh for a SD shoot he did not cause. He would have not had to use any weapon had not criminals tried to rob him. Maybe he should do 20 yrs with parole or something. I still dont think this man deserves life in prision. I dont know though tough call.
 
Tyler, he isn't in jail for a SD shoot he didn't cause. That event ended when he gave up chase on the suspect outside of the pharmacy. Instead, Ersland is in PRISON for a murder that he did cause. You see, after the self defense situation ended, he came back in his store and committed outright murder, having to go as far as to get a gun out of his locked desk in order to shoot a defenseless and unconscious person who was unarmed.

Yeah, he deserves it.
 
Your right. I mean what he did is horrible I guess he deserves whats coming to him. I just was thinking of the SD aspect. It really did end once the armed suspect was gone and the guy was down, no need to kill the man. He did walk over calmly like This guy is dead. The more I think about it the more this guy looks like he just felt like popping some one so I agree. I mean as soon as they get in the stoor his gun is out, head shot.
 
Does anyone have a theory as to why the pharmacist acted so illogically? Why change guns? Why shoot a downed man while on camera? Why move about in such an unusual manner? Drugs maybe? I dunno?

BTW. No way was this premeditated. This guy went from filling scripts to shooting a robber to death in less than a minute. Seeing every horrible detail makes it seem like a long time, but it wasn't.

I expect he got 1st degree murder because the robber was a minor. And that is about the stupidest...

Stop calling the dead robber a kid. Age has nothing to do with it. He was part of an armed robbery.
 
Catfishman, I use the term "kid" because calling a 16yo a "man" sounds weird. That said, had he lived, I'd have expected and wanted him to be tried as an adult for armed robbery. I don't use "kid" as a sympathetic expression, but as a short-hand descriptor.

Once again, if Ersland had only fired the first shot, and left it at that, we would not be having this conversation. I don't think a single person in the thread(s) has suggested that Ersland should be in any trouble at all for shot #1. I don't think anybody has said he should be in trouble because of the decedent's age, or because he shot the unarmed one.

Quite frankly, if there had only been the one, unarmed kid, I'd have had no problem with Ersland taking the first shot when he saw the kid pull the mask onto his head. I would also have assumed a robber would bring some sort of weapon.

I am pretty sure that all of us who feel Ersland got what he deserved, feel that way because of his retrieval of the second gun, and firing of shots # 2-6.

There's case history out there that says premeditation doesn't require more than a few seconds' time. Around a minute? Plenty of time for Ersland to realize the threat had ended. And it's obvious he did realize that, or he wouldn't have stepped over and turned his back on the decedent while going to retrieve the second gun.

Was he still full of adrenaline? Sure.

Did the decedent contribute to his own demise? Definitely.

Does that really matter? No.
 
Does anyone have a theory as to why the pharmacist acted so illogically? Why change guns? Why shoot a downed man while on camera?
Click to expand...

1 - He acted so illogically because he really-and-truly thought that shooting a robber would make him a hero to everyone. The first interviews he gave after the event (not available online anymore) are very revealing about that.

His mindset was almost certainly the same mindset we see on here a lot: "I live in a pro-gun area, very conservative, so I won't have to worry about a thing if I need to use my gun. And if I need to use it, I will keep shooting until the perpetrator is dead -- no need for those silly euphemisms like 'stopping a threat'! If I shoot at all, I'm going to kill the assailant..."

2 - He changed guns because he'd emptied the revolver.

3 - Almost certainly forgot there was a camera in the first place, but also living a bit of fantasy IMO. I think he really thought he would be praised for killing an unconscious bad guy, since it was a bad guy after all.

Why move about in such an unusual manner? Drugs maybe? I dunno?
Click to expand...

Three answers.

1) His movements were restrained by a back brace.

2) According to one of his early interviews (might be true, might not), at the time of the incident he had recently had back surgery.

3) As for drugs: he's a pharmacist, and addiction is a common occupational hazard in that profession. I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that, but I do tend to turn a skeptical eye toward those who act irrationally & tell inconsistent stories about their lives.

To me, the entire incident simply underscores the need to guard your mind! Don't let thoughts creep in about killing the sumbich. Keep your focus on surviving the encounter and going home to your family afterward. Do whatever you need to do in order to survive -- no more, no less, and no other.

pax
 
i saw the video in question. you can't see the robber on the ground because the counter's in the way, and you can only see the pharmacist shooting him. how do we know the robber wasn't still a threat pointing a gun at him while lying on the ground?

i say give the hard working business owner the benefit of the doubt, rather than the scumbag robber.
 
I agree with you Don, I would give the hard working businessman the benefit of the doubt. Up until the point where his various stories become inconsistent with the known facts of the case. Its easy to give someone the benefit of the doubt, until the lie to you.
 
I believe the deceased robber wasn't armed, which at the point of the 5 shots being fired is an execution. Don't get me wrong, I am not excusing in any way the perp's actions. I just think that a case like this where a gun (2 really) is used, more and more liberals will try use this against us. Trying not to get too personal, but even in combat, immediately after being shot at from God knows where, by God knows who, adrenaline IS coursing through you. As soon as the firefight is OVER, you HAVE to dial it back no matter how intense it was. So I get the adrenaline argument. What I don't get is defending the position that because the perp was still moving he was a legit threat.
 
i saw the video in question. you can't see the robber on the ground because the counter's in the way, and you can only see the pharmacist shooting him. how do we know the robber wasn't still a threat pointing a gun at him while lying on the ground?

i say give the hard working business owner the benefit of the doubt, rather than the scumbag robber.
Click to expand...

I saw a video of a press conference with one of the prosecuting attorneys in this case. I think it was the lead DA for the city.

He specifically said that based on the evidence of how the 16 year old was laying on the ground they determined that he was not moving and couldn't have been a threat. Something about "palms up" and other details that I can't remember.
 
I agree that it was poor judgment to go back and pump 5 more rounds into the kid. Is it nice to hear some scumbag got taken out? Yeah. Could the pharmacist been so angry that he lost control and went back to annihilate this human filth... maybe.

Had the kid not been there to rob the place to begin with no lives would have been ruined. They pharmacist should have also practiced a little better restraint and contacted the authorities while keeping his distance and watchful eye / weapon drawn on the downed robber.
 
1) His movements were restrained by a back brace.

2) According to one of his early interviews (might be true, might not), at the time of the incident he had recently had back surgery.
Click to expand...

Apparently, he did have a back injury of some sort, but it was not a back injury that came as a result of him being in Desert Storm and being injured during a morter attack as he claimed. He wasn't in Desert Storm, but in Oklahoma, managing medical supplies for the war effort. He also claimed to have killed a lot of people during the war and have PTSD from it, but that didn't happen either.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggist-jerome-erslands-record-in-doubt/article/3388041

Why the clarification on pax's post? It fits with is whole hero legend she noted, one where he was trying to spin, "War Hero Saves the Day Again!"
 
i saw the video in question. you can't see the robber on the ground because the counter's in the way, and you can only see the pharmacist shooting him. how do we know the robber wasn't still a threat pointing a gun at him while lying on the ground?

i say give the hard working business owner the benefit of the doubt, rather than the scumbag robber.
Click to expand...

They did, but Ersland lied so blatantly and poorly that they could not overlook anything. As professionals, they could not overlook anything either, especially given that this was a homicide.

We can't see the robber, but we do know that the robber did not have a gun, or that if he did, then Ersland must have stolen it as it was nowhere to be found when the cops arrived. The robber was unarmed. He apparently was the bag man for the robbery and the other robber was the muscle.

Was the robber moving? The coroner says NO. Pooled blood from the head wound and related evidence no doubt also showed that there had been no significant movement, otherwise the defense would have mentioned this attribute.

What you fail to realize is that there were three scumbags involved in that robbery and only 2 were robbers.
 
(Pulling the moderator hat on for a moment )

Hey guys,

In your replies here, you might want to remember that it's a bad idea to broadcast your intent to commit MURDER if you think you can get away with it. That's not just likely to land you in prison someday; it's also likely to get you banned from TFL based on our forum rules.

pax
 
redstategunnut said:
From the video, it appears he executed a defenseless man who no longer posed a threat. The sentence is just.
Click to expand...

+1

Another sad hit to responsible gun owners. It will no doubt be used by the antis as an example of why we all should be disarmed. :(


-Jeremy
Sent from my iPod
 
how do we know the robber wasn't still a threat pointing a gun at him while lying on the ground?
Click to expand...

Because Ersland casually walked by him and took his time? And because the robber was unarmed (as seen in the video and concluded from the evidence)

i say give the hard working business owner the benefit of the doubt, rather than the scumbag robber.
Click to expand...

1) There is no doubt

Mr. Ersland shot a harmless (at that moment) teenager 5 times with the clear intention to kill him.

2) Why immediately make a "hard working business owner" of him? We don't know him...
 
2) Why immediately make a "hard working business owner" of him? We don't know him...
Click to expand...

We don't know him, but we are certain he committed murder. There is nothing wrong with the hard working moniker, but it doesn't change the fact that he murdered. Lots of hard working people break the law and many do commit murder. Hard working and legal behavior are not necessarily relevant to one another, nor is being a vet, an officer in the military, a doctor in his field, gun owner or CCW person.

Besides, there were plenty of interviews with people who worked with him to indicate he was a hard worker. He has an award fronm the military (during Desert Storm) for his hard work. From the news article I cited above...

A citation for an Air Force Commendation Medal described his service during the 1990-91 conflict.

"During Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM, he worked many nights and weekends coordinating the uninterrupted flow of medical supplies, nerve agent antidotes and immunizations,” the citation states. "Under strenuous working conditions, with low manning and high demand, his leadership enabled the pharmacy to keep their error rate at an all-time low.”
Click to expand...

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-dru...record-in-doubt/article/3388041#ixzz1S07LdHj9

It would appear that he was indeed hard working.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top