Should he "plea out"?

Should a plea deal happen in the pharmacist case?

  • ABSOLUTELY NOT!

    Votes: 30 51.7%

  • Yes, if it is a reduced charge and minimal jail time.

    Votes: 23 39.7%

  • Yes, But only if it is probation only no jail time.

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Total voters
    58
In regards to the court case (reason for seperate thread)
Irrelevant. As part of a group that attempted armed robbery, he is a legit target.
Click to expand...
he is a legit target
Click to expand...
BUT NOT A LEGIT BULLET OPERATED PINATA!!!
Contrary! I agree he was part and parcel, an armed man, legally when the first shot was fired. But it is still beside the point on the second shooting. I do feel that in this case we have 2 separate shooting events, not one. The first was a very legit SD use of lethal force. The second event is what is in question and being prosecuted.
One thing the ME is going to see is spatter evidence. If it lines up with arms laying down, than it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't aware enuff to posture defensively. If the guy was moving, crawling, trying to right himself doesn't, in and of it self, make him a threat. If the kid has a face full of .410 pellets and is unable to see, and has no weapon drawn, he is not a threat.
Brent
 
Last edited:
unless this guy can make a reasonable case that he felt threatened when he dropped the 5 .380 slugs in the kids chest, I pray that he doesn't walk. That video just gave all of the antis 5 reasons to argue against the right to defend ourselves. Not to mention it's a shame that this kid is dead. Yeah, the kid was in the wrong. Got it. It's obvious he's not an experienced criminal based off of his fumbling in the video. Were the kid NOT EXECUTED as we saw in the video, he could have went on and done well in life.

I'm all for someone having the right to defend themselves. I'm of the frame of mind that if a criminal dies while attempting a crime which someone defends against, then the criminal took that chance and his death is on him. If the first headshot would've killed him, oh well. The 5 to the chest against an unarmed, unconcious, FORMER assailant though? Come on folks, we have more sense than this... right?
Click to expand...

5whiskey has nailed my position, Well said !
 
After reading most of the stuff from the links posted, I have this to say:

Reasonable doubt. One event with two possible explanations, neither one can be fully ruled out.

For other things

Does anyone HONESTLY expect someone to remember things 100% how they happened in such a fast, dynamic, and traumatic event? That would seem really suspicious to me .

When I hit a deer last year, the dents on my car, position of my car, and position of the deer did not match the memories I have of the event and the description of the event I gave. I remember the deer going under the car when I hit it, but the damage to the car clearly shows that the deer went onto the hood and over the car.

Stuff happens, memories get garbled. Just because someones memory aint the best doesn't mean he is lying.
 
Because of memory failures, etc. - almost every professional will tell you to keep quiet until you talk to your lawyer. Police have procedures for that after their shootings.

Also, how come folks don't misremember things in the direction that is not in their benefit?

Yes, there may be some hypercomplex frame by frame analysis of the action to support the pharmacist like was done in the Rodney King case. That is going to cost him every cent he is has.

It is clear that after the first shot - he had the chance to avoid further conflict - independent of your moral stance on bad guys, etc. - you need to keep your head. That's why training and stress inoculation is so important.

And keeping your mouth shut about how you are a commando and cleaning of scum. Like we see here from folks.

1. I'm cleaning the scum
2. If I shoot, they will be dead
3. I will take risks as I have my little friend.

All recent posts from TFL.

Anyway, the guy should entertain a good plea offer. And if he doesn't get jail time, he needs to find another job in another location. Or he can posture that he is ready for the next one.
 
Remember that the standard for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The following facts have been confirmed by the prosecution AND the defense:

1 The deceased was participating in an armed robbery
2 The deceased was shot once in the head by the shopkeeper
3 The shopkeeper left the vicinity of the deceased
4 the shopkeeper returned, and shot the deceased multiple times
5 The initial shooting was justified, the charges stem from a question of whether or not the second set of shots was, as well
6 The deceased was not armed

So the question here is whether or not the second set of shots was legally justified. The deceased is not visible on the video, and the only witness was the shopkeeper, who claims he was moving. Forensic evidence can tell you whether or not the deceased moved from the point where he fell, but the reasonable doubt, in my mind, enters when we ask if the deceased could possibly have moved his hands or arms, and whether or not a subject's arm twitching could reasonably be perceived as a threat.

I think there is plenty of room there for reasonable doubt, if the pharmacist has a good lawyer. Keeping in mind that the pharmacist is presumed innocent, and that it is the job of the prosecutor to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant unlawfully killed the decedent, I think the prosecutor has a difficult case ahead of him.

ETA: As a paramedic who has seen hundreds of head injuries, and dozens of shootings (at least in the three digits) I can tell you this: A severe head injury does not cause a person to collapse and go limp. Frequently, a severe head injury causes the person to "posture." The two types of posturing are called decorticate and decerebate posturing. The decedent was very likely to have been moving after being shot, and this would not be a conscious movement, but could easily be mistaken for one.
 
Last edited:
I think it's almost certain this case will never see a jury, unless external forces (ie community pressure on the prosecutor) come into play. The defense would be criminally stupid for not accepting a reasonable plea deal (say, manslaughter for 2-5 year minimum sentence), because the alternative is to go to a jury trial and look at a minimum of 25 years or more should the jury use their eyes and ears and not their emotions in reaching a verdict.

The prosecution has to also weigh the very real possibility of running into a jury that might side with the pharmacist and acquit him. This is a defendant who many may find sympathetic and want to side with.
 
The jury question will be interesting - there can easily be a panel of jurors who are unsympathetic to him. His lawyer will need to determine if they can get a change of venue.

In the Diallo case, the officers charged got the case moved to Albany. It was an ambiguous shoot with racial overtones and the original venue was not police friendly but Albany, NY was historically sympathetic to police.

Quite the crap shoot.
 
Can't really vote on this one, given the choices, but...

Should Mr. Ersland's lawyer be trying to get a deal for him? Yes, of course -- given what the evidence against him seems to be, if this goes to a jury, unless he's very lucky with jury selection, he's toast.

Should the DA offer a deal? My personal opinion is that he shouldn't. Again, based on the evidence there's a good chance the man committed murder and he ought to go down for it... but given that the DA doesn't seem to be all that keen on prosecuting, I'd be surprised if a deal were not made. I'd hope it would be for not less than second degree murder, and substantial jail time, assuming the medical examiner is correct that Mr. Ersland shot an unconscious man.
 
In voir dire, no potential jurist will be allowed onto the panel that is against self defense in principle. Therefore, no anti's will be on the jury unless they lie to get there.

The question here is whether or not the second set of shots were legal. Anyone who believes that neither set of shots should have happened because the pharmacist should not have had a gun will be dismissed for cause.
 
When I hit a deer last year, the dents on my car, position of my car, and position of the deer did not match the memories I have of the event and the description of the event I gave. I remember the deer going under the car when I hit it, but the damage to the car clearly shows that the deer went onto the hood and over the car.
Click to expand...

But you didn't forget in which direction you were traveling, that you were driving, where you were going or that you hit a deer instead of a bear did you. There is a difference between being confused and total distortions of the whole story. I think he was just plain lieing especially to the media.

As for the blood splatter proof, lay off watching CSI and turn over to NCIS. At least NCIS doesn't try to make you think that what they do is real.
 
This guy committed a crime, he killed a man who appears not to have been a threat to him ... if he gets a lenient plea offer, he should jump at it ... if I was on the jury, he's going down ... manslaughter would be a gift ... I'm licensed to carry a gun ... and have been taught in every class I've taken that lethal force can only be used to counter lethal force, not to finish off a wounded and unconscious man ...
 
Bill- How do you KNOW he was unconscious? Can you be sure that the pharmacist who took the shot knew that he was unconscious and no longer a threat? Could there be a reasonable doubt that the man on the ground was moving? If he was, is it reasonable to believe that the pharmacist saw this movement, and believed the downed man was drawing a weapon?
 
deep $^@#%( because Mr. Ersland took 5 more shots. Like he was
going for the big bear prize at the carnival target shoot.

more hot water because if Mr. Ersland felt threatened, why hadn't he
taken cover. He's running up and down the street and now he can't get
away from a guy lying on his back 1/2 out of it who "might" still be a
threat.

Like many, I'm all for the pharmacist protecting himself and the BGs meeting
whatever lead poisoning they do.

But he's in hot water here. Not warm, HOT
 
If I was in his shoes I would consider a 2 year prison term a mercy sentence...
I would jump on a plea deal like a bulldog on a hogs ear!
Brent
 
If it were me, I'd beg for a deal and be grateful for it. Reading up on the case and watching the video, it seems like this guy did so many things wrong that it will be hard for him to make a valid self-defense claim. The first shot he fired was unquestionably justified, and then he screwed the pooch a couple of ways and wound up doing something that looks a whole lot like murder.

Once he left the store, the guy he shot was no longer a threat to him. He could have and should have called the police from somewhere else. By going back into the store, he escalated the situation. From that point it wasn't self-defense anymore.
 
In his defense returning to the store to protect the others is admirable... but unfortunately for him he failed to acknowledge their existence upon return...
Brent
 
I was thinking about this as a nuance - one debate is whether the type of gun you use will influence a jury. Folks say - NOT IF IT IS A GOOD SHOOT!

But this one is certainly iffy from our discussion. Do you think if the pharmacist came back with an AR or a Tac shotgun and fired five rounds into the guy - would take look worse in court than the 380 already did. Would it change the mind of those who were on the fence?
 
Why? So that other mentally-defective/drug-addled people can feel free to abuse their right to bear arms and murder people?
Click to expand...

Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. According to the law, this man is guilty of murder. According to my moral standards he is not because killing the person in question was not unjustified. Therefore, IF I were on the jury I would be forced to return a verdict of not guilty, exercising the power of a juror to object to an immoral law.

Now, I do not advocate breaking the law. But if a person does break and accomplishes what is in my mind a good thing, then I see no reason to keep them from what I consider immoral punishment if I have it in my power do so. Of course, I've made a generalization here based on this one specific case. Every individual case would have to be judged differently depending on the circumstances.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my reasoning. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm accused of being a blood thirsty, mall ninja, hero-wanna-be. Oh, well. :rolleyes: I've been accused of far worse and managed to go on with my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top