Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[Kyo]

the pharmacist is an easy target everywhere now that the judge screwed him. Who wants to bed he's gonna get a drive by before he even goes to court? This is so sad. stupid judge. He's not guilty yet you idiot, how can you put a bull's eye on his head? DA seems like he was made to press charges. I don't think he wanted to. He sounded regretful and was strongly advocating that it is ok to defend yourself.

[Trooper Tyree]

Kyo, you're letting your age show through here. Buck up.

He screwed himself. The fight was over, the perps had split and the remaining one, unarmed from the start, was lying incapacitated on the floor.

This is a great example of what not to do. I would like to think most of us wouldn't need this example of what not to do. You don't walk back inside, walk past a downed perp, walk over to a locked drawer, unlock it, retrieve your other gun, then walk over to the downed perp and empty it into him at close range. That's not self defense, that's an execution.

He had prepared extensively for another robbery, and I think he had thought over what he would do so much that he just went overboard neutralizing the threat. He seemed to be operating under the delusion that it was OK for him to do so. He very calmly finished the kid off, then promptly called the police. Very business like. I'd say he was gravely uneducated and ignorant of what he could and couldn't do. I'd venture the guess that perhaps he was thinking an armed robbery = a right to terminated anyone evolved. Unfortunately he was either uneducated on when his right to use deadly force stopped, or he was flustered and steamrolled right into what appears to have been a cold blooded murder.

It's an unfortunate event, as even the DA pointed out, if he just hadn't done that one last act he would have been fine. He stepped over a line. What's scary is any one of us could find ourselves in a similar place.

I have empathy for him, when these things go down everything hits the fan. Things speed up, things slow down, the world turns upside down and spins all around, it's ****ty.

It looked like his field of vision was somewhat obstructed from his location, he saw two masked robbers, a gun, they were screaming at him, it's reasonable for him to assume they were both armed, and once he started shooting it's going to be hard to tell if one or both are shooting or in this case, if you're just shooting yourself. It's possible what he did was just a terrible misjudgment made in the heat of the moment. That's no excuse for what he did though.

You have to educate yourself and make certain you know your laws and what you can and cannot do to defend yourself, and you can't loose control like that and murder someone, even out of ignorance or heat of the moment. Something in your head should click when you're looking down at an incapacitated person with a gun in your hand, if you go ahead and empty your weapon into them then you have some issues. Not only that, but you will have some issues, legal ones. The law doesn't care if you know it or not, saying you're sorry you didn't know won't cut it, saying I'm sorry I thought I was following the law won't cut it. Not on this scale at least.

[Shadi Khalil]

I still can't make sense of the gun switch.

[GSUeagle1089]

Ouch... just watched the video. That was an execution... I really hope the NRA or any other gun rights group does not try to back this guy or it's going to make for great ammo for Brady & Co.

EDIT:

I know that sounds cold and selfish that the only thing I am concerned about is how this will affect my rights but I'm pretty confident that everyone involved will get what they deserve. While it is sad and regrettable that someone had to die because of this Parker knew (or should have known) that he was gambling his life when he decided to become an accomplice to armed robbery. He suffered the consequences of his actions. In regards to Ersland, common sense should dictate that shooting a person who is incapacitaed while they are on the ground is 1) morally wrong and 2) illeagle.

Some may argue that he acted in the "heat of the moment" and was not thinking clearly but the fact that he went and retrieved another handgun and very calmly approached Parker and proceeded to finish him off as opposed to rushing back directly to him and using the remaining rounds in the original gun as he reentered the store shows that this was no longer an issue. Also, even if he acted in the "heat of the moment" there are plenty of husbands who came home too early sitting in jail for the same reason... no excuse.

[David Armstrong]

Also, when animals defend, and dominance is made the predator leaves, and if he doesn't he gets killed. The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.
Once again, that is factually incorrect.

[David Armstrong]

if i were to need legal advice i would much sooner seek it from Irvin Box than any of the internet experts involved in this thread.
Irvin is about as good as they come in that area. I remember him from back when he was doing public defender work, and most of the guys at the S.O. agreed that if they were in trouble they would want him on their side.

[David Armstrong]

What else would give a "cripple" the energy and fearlessness
Maybe I missed it in the noise, but why do yo usay he was a cripple? He's wearing a back support, but for about a year my Dad wore one that appears to be much the same and he walked, worked in the garden, and did other assorted physical activity without too much trouble.

[surg_res]

There is a hint of sarcasm there, being that the man is a self-proclaimed "cripple" in one of his interviews--a term I often reserve for someone with one eye, no arms, and no legs.

You guys (esp PBP) might be right, he does look quite comfortable as he strolls through the room. He wouldn't have turned his back to the downed intruder if he were still a threat. I must be in denial to think that someone who is presumably honorable would have the upper hand in such an encounter and use that to enact his own will. I'm still disturbed, however, that this professional's life will be forever disrupted because of an event initiated by a criminal. Without details of the dead boy's injuries, I'd hope that a manslaughter-type charge could be reached. Even with the video evidence, there are still a lot of details we don't know; some of which might support his actions.

If the head shot were fatal--that is causing instant brain death--they could argue that the remaining shots were at a brain-dead body (not a person). Depending on the state's laws about brain death, once someone is brain dead, the living body is more like property of the next of kin. Of course, most states require that brain death be pronounced by a physician after the usual bedside and ventilator tests. IOW this case is a forensic nightmare.

[garryc]

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,1136511.story



He went back and casually finished the guy off, this dude is toast.

[Double Naught Spy]

Maybe I missed it in the noise, but why do yo usay he was a cripple? He's wearing a back support, but for about a year my Dad wore one that appears to be much the same and he walked, worked in the garden, and did other assorted physical activity without too much trouble.

He is crippled in that he has lost function of his back. That isn't to say he has lost all function as he isn't totally crippled, but he has lost some function as a result of some sort of insult and has to wear a brace to compensate. His mobility is not fully functional. In fact, he appears significantly impaired in his ability to move normally, so he is in fact, crippled, though certainly not completely crippled just like not all handicapped people are completely handicapped.

a term I often reserve for someone with one eye, no arms, and no legs.

My grandmother had all of her eyes, arms, and legs, and yet she was crippled by arthritis. There were a tremendous amount of things she could not do as a result, yet she refused to be put into an assisted living facility, drove herself around, and made all sorts of compensations in her behavior to overcome her physical deterioration. She could walk, but to call her ambulatory would have been generous.

Several of us have mentioned the ease at which he strolls around. My guess is that may be his best speed as a result of the brace. He never runs and seems to proceed everywhere in a stiffened fashion.

With that said, being crippled, previously injured, handicapped, or whatever you want to call it, has no real bearing on Ersland's secondary shooting of Parker. Parker had been "crippled" by Ersland's first shot to the head, rendered unable to function.

[Xrayeyes]

Virtually all animals do not continue aggressive actions against others in their species when the threat is over and dominance established.


This brings up a question I have. I have recently become a hand gun owner. I have had several gun owners tell me that it is NATURAL to empty your gun into a perp when you are threatened because of adrenalin. In fact, the LEO often look at that as a sign that the gun owner truly felt fear.

There have been several cases where LEO opened fire on perps, only to hit them with tens of bullets, obviously an adrenalin rush. And in most cases I've read, have been exonerated.

I recognize this situation is a bit different, the pharmacist seemed more calculating, but is it really? I have been in situations that the adrenalin rush lingered well after the issue had resolved, and yet, I could not calm down for quite a while.

Another point..you all that condemn this pharmacist based on this video alone...how do you feel about the gent in Texas that shot the burglars in his neighbor's yard last year?

[OuTcAsT]

This is also pure speculation, but it may turn out that the public has not seen the entire security video that is available. More often than not there will be cameras placed so that there are several views of a storefront, in this case we have seen only a couple. Hint: There is usually a face-on view from the register area. I would not be surprised that if this goes to trial, there may not be an angle which shows the final moments of the event in more detail. These would be kept out of the public domain for obvious reasons.
usually things of this nature may not surface until well into the trial process.

[garryc]

These would be kept out of the public domain for obvious reasons.


True, Rodney King comes to mind, where they only show enough to inflame the public.

[OuTcAsT]

I have had several gun owners tell me that it is NATURAL to empty your gun into a perp when you are threatened because of adrenalin. In fact, the LEO often look at that as a sign that the gun owner truly felt fear.

There have been several cases where LEO opened fire on perps, only to hit them with tens of bullets, obviously an adrenalin rush. And in most cases I've read, have been exonerated.

There is no doubt that this happens frequently, but you have answered your own question;

the pharmacist seemed more calculating,


I will venture that had Mr. Ersland fired several rounds into the suspect during the initial attack we would not be discussing this much more than the first page or two.

The fact that he scored a head shot with his first volley, then strode past the downed suspect calmly, and without little more than a glance twice (once while changing the weapon into his off-hand and digging in his strong side pocket) returned to retrieve a second weapon, then calmly strode over and fired to slide-lock does not support the "fear" factor, nor the adrenaline rush.

[OuTcAsT]

where they only show enough to inflame the public.

Actually I was thinking just the opposite, imagine how inflammatory the view of a motionless suspect being hosed by a .380 shown repeatedly on the news (especially after the initial public outrage) would be.

[skydiver3346]

Wow, I can't believe it but I have to agree with David Armstrong on that comment.

The pharmacist (who did state that he was a cripple), sure did not look like a person who was a cripple in the video, (that I have watched numerous times). To me, his gait and deliberate movements do not indicate any disability (to my unprofessional eyes). Also, after watching it again this morning, I have to agree with PBP's comments as well.

We will probably never know what was really going on in the pharmacist's mind at this time (he may have been extremely scared and wanted to end the threat no matter what). But to me, its getting harder and harder to disagree with the video. Everytime I watch it, it just seems the pharmacist is so calculated and professional and does not look as threatened as I originally thought.

[David Armstrong]

He is crippled in that he has lost function of his back. That isn't to say he has lost all function as he isn't totally crippled, but he has lost some function as a result of some sort of insult and has to wear a brace to compensate. His mobility is not fully functional. In fact, he appears significantly impaired in his ability to move normally, so he is in fact, crippled, though certainly not completely crippled just like not all handicapped people are completely handicapped.
True, one does not need to be completely handicapped to be considered handicapped, but I'd suggest crippled is generally considered to have lost the ability to use a limb, as opposed to handicapped with its connotation of reduced ability. Looks like a semantics issue, thanks.

[GSUeagle1089]

He wouldn't have turned his back to the downed intruder if he were still a threat.

This is an excellent point that will undoubtedly come up in court if the DA is worth is salt. If he felt comfortable enough to turn his back on Parker while no other potential threats were in the store then he showed that he had little fear of any further action from Parker.

Edit:

However, I must revise my earlier statements that I believe it was in fact an execution. When Ersland retrieved the other handgun and walked over to Parker I would say if Parker was moving at all Ersland was justified. I say that because of the stories I've heard about cops who have believed they had a suspect down after shooting them and were shot and killed because the suspect had a concealed weapon. The only way Parker was still a threat was if he was moving.

Regardless of what the law says I think Ersland being found innocent in this case will send a good clear message to criminals (something that the federal/state/local governments have not done nearly an adequate job of) about the possible consequences of their actions.

[Shadi Khalil]

An autopsy determined Parker was still alive after being shot in the head.

He wasn't pumping bullets into a corpse.

[GSUeagle1089]

Edit: nevermind, had my facts wrong. I think Ersland was using the Judge (but was he using .45 or .410?) first and not the .380 Kel-Tec. Still, not to start a caliber war here but I will never trust my safety to a .380.

[Trooper Tyree]

I think a lot of our posters need to watch the video. It's the DA's release, they show the surveillance tapes twice from two different cameras with different vantage points, he points out the reasons why he chose to charge him, his feelings on the matter of self defense and concealed carry (He supports it), and what constitutes self defense.

Before making anymore comments, watch the tapes, watch his body language, get a feel for the situation. A lot of the hot water he is in is because in the videos he walks past the downed perp with no apparent concern for his safty, shifting his Judge from his right to left hand as he walked past, walked with his back to the subject over to a drawer with his second gun locked in it, retreived said gun, walked back to the subject on the ground where it appears he leans forward and empty's the gun into the subject at close range from above. He then calmly proceeds back to the counter and calls the police.

This isn't to say he's guilty, that's for the judge and jury. However, the surveillance tapes do not support his version of events and present him in a very bad light.


http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid1766638491?bctid=24432794001

Above is the video link.

[David Armstrong]

However, I must revise my earlier statements that I believe it was in fact an execution. When Ersland retrieved the other handgun and walked over to Parker I would say if Parker was moving at all Ersland was justified. I say that because of the stories I've heard about cops who have believed they had a suspect down after shooting them and were shot and killed because the suspect had a concealed weapon. The only way Parker was still a threat was if he was moving.
So you would think it OK for LEOs to execute anyone they have in a similar situation? They shoot someone, and the guy is still twitching a bit when they come up to him, you would support them emptying their guns into him because he might have a concealed weapon on him?

[Wildalaska]

Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

WildperhapsweneedapollAlaska ™

[GSUeagle1089]

So you would think it OK for LEOs to execute anyone they have in a similar situation? They shoot someone, and the guy is still twitching a bit when they come up to him, you would support them emptying their guns into him because he might have a concealed weapon on him?

Honestly, I don't know. It's a tough call because there are situations in which officers die because they let their guard down. Maybe emptying your weapon into a downed perp isn't the best course of action but I think Ersland may be able to reasonably argue that if Parker was still moving that he was justified.

[Shadi Khalil]

Trooper, thanks for posting that link.

[Trooper Tyree]

Philosophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

No. No problem at all. Tactically I think that would have been the best place for him to be. The phone was right there, he could have called the police while maintaining a firing position on both the downed perp and the front entrance.

That's where I would have been, gun trained on downed perp with one eye on him and another eye on the door. Although it wasn't likely the two armed perps he chased off would have came back, that was still a threat.

Mr E expended all of his ammo in his Judge, then emptied his second gun into a downed perp, totally ignoring what I view as the biggest threat, leaving himself unarmed and defenseless should the two other armed attackers have came back.

A waste of five good bullets I say, they should have stayed in his gun where he could have used them.

IMO, he should have never left the store or even the counter area. You have to remember he had two defenseless women behind him to protect. He left them inside with the downed perp while he ran outside after the other perps.

In the video the DA talks about what would have happened had Mr E shot the perp in the back as he ran away, and surprisingly he didn't seem to think that would have been a major issue, contrary to most of what I've heard on the subject of shooting fleeing perps in the back.

I'm kind of surprised on how reasonable and understanding of consealed carry and use of deadly force the DA is, but I suppose this is Oklahoma after all. :)

He did apparently fire two round outside at the fleeing perp though. I shudder at the thought of this, firing at a fleeing perp running down a city street. This could have been much worse, what if Mr E had hit the second perp as he ran away, or worse a civilian on the street. :(

[Daugherty16]

This has been hashed, rehashed, and more over 11 pages and i probably won't come up with anything new. When i first heard this story, I thought the guy was right on! A wounded vet, defending 3 women in the store, shoots and kills a robber with a single headshot. DRT. I'd like to think i'd respond under similar circumstances with that same valour and courage. But then the sordid details began to come out.

Hardly anything Ersland said happened is supported by what i think i'm seeing in the video. I really wonder if he believes he is telling the truth, and that his truth is distorted from what we've all now seen on video by the adrenaline surge, and his fear, anger, and elation (at not being killed)?

Anyway, shooting a gun at anyone is using lethal force, whether you miss, wound or kill. It doesn't matter one bit if the guy was already fatally wounded (mutilation of a corpse is also a crime, fyi), or that Ersland got another gun and stood over the BG; his crime was committed by pulling the trigger again. That particular perp had no ability, no opportunity, and no intent to harm Mr. Ersland AT THAT MOMENT. The first round he fired, from the Judge over the counter, was totally justified and the D.A. said as much.

That BG dude dropped like a rock from the headshot. He just simply folded. Whether he would have recovered or not eventually is a guess, but he was unconscious from impact, well before he hit the floor. Ersland actually turned his back to him twice, on the way out the door, then again on the way to get the .380. Certainly suggests he thought the threat was gone. Now here's the point - why did he go back and shoot some more? Surely he could have called police with his right hand, and held the gun on the BG with his off hand. He could have asked his wife to call the police.

The lesson here is remembering where the line is, the line that separates us erstwhile defenders of life and family from the BG. Ersland needed to be responding to an imminent threat, where the BG possessed those three factors - ability, intent, and opportunity. He did it very, very well up to the point he went out that door. There is an excellent explanation of the necessary factors on The Cornered Cat website, complete with concrete examples. Basically, an unconscious guy, laying on your floor bleeding from the headshot you gave him, with no weapon visible, doesn't meet any of the three. That is why Ersland is now charged with murder. If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

I am not saying he is guilty of murder. There are certainly facts that have not been made public yet, as always. The trial won't even be about his guilt or his innocence. It will be about what the DA can prove, what doubts the defense can raise, and eventually it will be about the personal beliefs and biases of the members of the jury and their perception of the truth, and of justice.

I am sorry that young man lost his life, and am sorry Ersland may have thrown his away. It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.

Oh yeah, there's one more lesson here: Never talk to the cops. Or especially the press. Even most LEOs will tell you (if they are being candid) the same thing.

[Xrayeyes]

It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.


That is why this forum is an invaluable tool, especially for newbies like me that need guidance and experience as well as opposing points of view to understand the consequences of these life altering decisions!

[OuTcAsT]

If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.


Respectfully, he likely would Not have been charged (additionally) had he shot the other perp while he was fleeing. Watch the DA's explanation in the link Trooper provided, His firing on the other suspect would likely have been protected under the ability to use "deadly force to stop someone from fleeing the commission of a felony" or similar wording. The fleeing suspect would also be an armed threat to anyone outside the store. Not that he had the responsibility, but likely a lawful means, to use deadly force.

Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

I would think that would have been the best possible tactical decision.

People who make wise tactical decisions are usually called heroes, people who make unwise tactical decisions are usually called "the deceased" or "the defendant".

[Daugherty16]

Well said, Xray

[Wildalaska]

I would think that would have been the best possible tactical decision.

Im not talking tactical, I'm talking philosophical

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

WilddoesitoffendyourinnermanlinessAlaska ™

[Shadi Khalil]

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

I'm a coward so the cowering comes naturally. Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with that decision, in both a tactical and philosophical sense.

[OuTcAsT]

I see nothing wrong with that decision, in both a tactical and philosophical sense.

Ditto.

[Kyo]

you can seem very calm under duress. Ayoob even explains that in talking about stretching. You can seem in serenity while your blood is pumping buckets of adrenaline into you. Everyone is different. This guy was trained to seem calm under crazy circumstances. It doesn't mean his mentality isn't affected.

[anythingshiny]

it was a coup de grace.

his actions in the vid are WAY different from his STATEMENT to the police. ( the correct answer here is to say NOTHING other than 'i feared for my life and the evidence is over there.')

although we cannot see whether the bg has a knife or gun to determine if he is still even possible a remote threat, the pharmacist certainly does not appear to be in any jeopardy as he walks PAST the bg to relative safety...only to return and put 5 in his belly.

1/2 me says hell yes...go home, get MORE guns to shoot him with, light him on fire and kick him in the crotch.

the other half says bad shoot and hes going to serve some serious time for a bad bad call.

[Playboypenguin]

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?
I remember a quote from MASH where a young guy lying in a bed severely wounded says to Hawkeye "I'm a Marine...we're the best." To which Hawkeye quite proudly responds "Really? I'm a coward...we're the worst."

Hawkeye pretty much summed it up for me too. :)

[TailGator]

I have largely been in WildAlaska's camp in this case, and perhaps I am just taking his bait (clever fellow that he is), but I disagree with his choice of words.

From dictionary.com: cower: "verb (used without object)
to crouch, as in fear or shame."

If I was behind that counter, one assailant down by my defensive fire and the other fleeing, I would see remaining behind the counter as taking a positive tactical position, from which I could continue to assess and respond to both the down robber and the still-open door. That isn't the same as cowering "in fear or shame," that would be controlling a very bad situation to the best of my ability. Letting the robbers be in charge of the situation, including whether the innocents that work for me lived or died and whether I sent home to my wife that night standing up or in a bag, is cowering.

As I and others have expressed previously, the initial shoot appears to be justified, but the pharmacist caused himself legal and tactical and, IMHO, moral problems with his subsequent actions.

So, philosophically, I am opposed to cowering but in favor of good defensive tactics.

[markj]

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

I would not be cowering there, but watching the door and the downed BG as I dialled 911, sort of a defensive type of thing.

[csmsss]

This is the first time I think I've ever heard the proper use of cover as "cowering".

[OuTcAsT]

This is the first time I think I've ever heard the proper use of cover as "cowering".

and perhaps I am just taking his bait

Yup :D

[Wildalaska]

This is the first time I think I've ever heard the proper use of cover as "cowering".

Now y'all dont think that there are some folks here who would call it cowering?;)

WildnowyaknowwhyichosethatwordAlaska ™

[Double Naught Spy]

If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

Actually, the DA covered that in the press conference specifically and said he did not think so because it could well be argued that the gunman was a danger to others on the street and that Ersland could have been argued to be protecting them, but that isn't what happened with Parker. Parker was down and unconscious, not some guy running with a gun from a crime.

[hogdogs]

Tactically it would look good on film to have "hid" behind cover...
Cower... I don't think cowering is anything but a tactical move!
Brent

[surg_res]

Someone mentioned that the dead guy was still alive when he was shot again. They can detect this by the fact that he would have hematoma and bleeding of his latter injuries, which requires a beating heart pushing blood.

I can say with my personal experience with head trauma that with anything short of a decapitation, the heart would continue to beat for several minutes (and possibly years) following a brain-lethal event. Even with severe hemorrhage, the blood pressure drops so that the primary bleeding stops, but the heart continues to pump blood at a lower pressure to areas of lower resistance.

There is a full spectrum of outcomes following a head shot ranging from a scratch to temporary loss of consciousness, to TBI and coma, to delayed or instant brain death. Again, despite the fact that he had a beating heart, he could have been brain dead on the spot. Only the pathologist or M.E. knows at this point.

I think that if the initial injury was non-survivable, the subsequent actions have zero meaning and there would be no case, that is unless there is a law against shooting corpses (whether out of frustration or for target practice). If it was a survivable injury (as many are), this dude is in deep.

[hogdogs]

Surg, I am willing to bet a dollar against a doughnut that it is not legally just a corpse until pronounced dead by a doctor or ME... Thus it is a person fired into even if no pulse or other sign of life...
Brent

[Deaf Smith]

The Pharmacist is in deep do. I saw the video. He will get manslaughter at the minimum. Never should have reloaded and then gone back to shoot the downed robber again, FIVE TIMES. The Judge revolver only holds five, so you can guess what any jury will think.

Nope, he should have stayed with the ones in back. It is not a move of a coward but one to protect others.

His only hope is the fallen robber was already dead, and thus it could not have been murder (can't murder anyone who is dead.)

But not only will he spend time in jail, he will be pennyless.

[Shadi Khalil]

His only hope is the fallen robber was already dead, and thus it could not have been murder (can't murder anyone who is dead.)

But they can still show intent.

[TMA-1]

If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

Actually, the DA covered that in the press conference specifically and said he did not think so because it could well be argued that the gunman was a danger to others on the street and that Ersland could have been argued to be protecting them, but that isn't what happened with Parker. Parker was down and unconscious, not some guy running with a gun from a crime.
__________________

That's odd. Under the Oklahoma SDA (Self-Defense Act), a licensed concealed carrier may use deadly force to defend only when in imminent danger, and only to defend self, spouse, child, parent, employer, or employee.

With this being the case, Ersland could have faced additional charges had he hit the fleeing suspect, as he was neither defending himself or anyone on the "approved list."

[Playboypenguin]

That's odd. Under the Oklahoma SDA (Self-Defense Act), a licensed concealed carrier may use deadly force to defend only when in imminent danger, and only to defend self, spouse, child, parent, employer, or employee.
It would not be a huge stretch to say he shot the armed fleeing suspect in the defense of bystanders. The fleeing subject may have shot a passer by, car jacked someone to escape, etc.

[DonR101395]

Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

WildperhapsweneedapollAlaska


It's going to shock you Ken, but no I wouldn't have an issue if that would have been his reaction. I wasn't the one there getting a gun stuck in my face, so I'm not going to judge him guilty of cowardice or of being an executioner.
Now for the not so shocking, I will support one response over the other, but either could be a viable tactic depending on the situation.

[OuTcAsT]

If it was a survivable injury (as many are), this dude is in deep.

On the long version of the DA's news conference he states that the medical examiner concluded that the head injury was survivable as the bullet fragmented, and the larger portion was deflected. He was emphatic in the fact that the five subsequent shots were the "kill" shots, hence the charges.

[Deaf Smith]

Then insanity is his only real defense. He was badly injured in the military (notice the back brace) and he took pain killers.

That, I suspect, will be his defense. I.E. he flipped.

[supergas452M]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland? I live in a neighboring state and can give some of my time in this cause. Just wondering?

[Shadi Khalil]

Then insanity is his only real defense. He was badly injured in the military (notice the back brace) and he took pain killers.

That, I suspect, will be his defense. I.E. he flipped.

I hardly think thats a sound defense stratagy. I thought "flipping" ment to become state evidence, what do you mean?

[Wildalaska]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland?

Dont think that most folks here want to be bodyguards for accused murderers.:D

I live in a neighboring state and can give some of my time in this cause.

Well hell Clem, head over to your local jail and bail out a gangbanger then and guard him...no difference :p

WildyoumustbejokingAlaska TM

[GSUeagle1089]

Well hell Clem, head over to your local jail and bail out a gangbanger then and guard him...no difference

I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Forget the video, all it shows is that Ersland fired several shots in a downward direction, Parker could have been trying to get up, and in that case he's a legitimate threat.

I completely agree that if he fired while Parker was motionless on the ground then that is legally wrong and unnecessary for the purpose of self defense.

However, in any case, I would hate to see Parker convicted. Even if he did execute Parker I think it served a good purpose (so long as he's found innocent) as it should most certainly make criminals think twice before pulling crap like this.


The only thing that can prevent crime is to reduce the will to commit it not the ability to do so. The best way to reduce the will to committ crime is to increase the certainty and severity of punishment. If a criminal has to constantly worry about losing his life to carry out his trade common sense says he would consider a career change. Convicting Ersland will only embolden criminals like Parker (cut the "kid" crap, he was a criminal

[G-man 26]

Wow. I can’t see the BG on the floor in either view. If I were on a jury, and it were argued (by the defense) that our pharmacist guy was going over to investigate a sound, and the BG started to rise, I would now have a doubt.

Is my doubt of murder 1 “reasonable”? I might be inclined to believe that the fatal shots to the abdomen were a continuance of his self-defense, were the bg rising. I can’t see the bg in the tape, or what he is doing. The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim? I do have a doubt because of this lack of a view. Is my doubt "reasonable"? I have a hard time believing him after his first account was so wildly off from the videos. How much of a stretch would I give this guy, were I a juror?

You don’t need one peta creep to convict; you need one of me to get him off on this charge. I think I lived in OK long enough to know, finding a group of 12 “not me’s” in that area will be difficult, to say the least.

As a side note… I’m not saying that Wild Alaska has never said anything useful on here before, I’m saying I’ve never seen it. That I don’t read as much here as I would like, and still consider myself new on this forum, has as much to do with that as anything. At first I was in the “hero” camp, with only minor doubts. The fact that the only posts I’ve seen by WA were sarcastic one-liners, gave me cause to dismiss him. I have gleaned a little respect for you sir, due to this one, and will read your posts with renewed interest. It is good to remember that thing about being an ambassador, and yes, you can say I was cowering when I went behind the counter, it would not bother me one bit.

I don't mean to offend, merely enlighten.

[Wildalaska]

I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

I think I have been pretty circumspect with respect to the ultimate issue of guilt here....I could easily construct a defense for mr Erland by the way...many of them have been alluded to by other members here...in fact, I gave it to you several pages ago viz:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we know the pressure that the DA is under from some members of the community to resolve this tragedy at the expense of my client. My client, a law abiding and respected veteran, did not precipitate these tragic events, rather, he was a victim forced into this situation by the violent and criminal acts of the decedant."

1. Politics.
2. Veteran/cripple
3. Initial justification

My only question would be whether to use PTSD. Goal being an aquittal based on justification or at the worst, some degree of manslaughter. Good case to try, especially in light of what the video doesnt show.



The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim?

I betcha...its called.....an autopsy! Complete with trajectories!

WildhowsthatforasarcasticonelinerAlaska TM

[G-man 26]

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? I would have a hard time buying a marginal measurement from a doctor, over an eye witness. Not that this guy was a great eye witness.

All things being the same, I think yours is a good one. It still LOOKS like he did what the DA says. I think one or more of those jurors will be looking for even the smallest of reasons to let him off. I also think the DA went for the harder to prove charge so the guy could more easily be let go. Is he trying to lose? Maybe.

What would you think as a juror if your defense were presented in a convincing way. I feel my doubt, as stated, is reasonable. As a Juror, I would have to hear it presented in a convincing way, or no go.

G-Afineexampleman26!

[Wildalaska]

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? .

Yes, inferentially.

I also think the DA went for the harder to prove charge so the guy could more easily be let go.

NO. The DA charged appropriately, especially in light of the legal requirement of lesser included offenses. Hes playing it smart, prosecuting without seeming vengeful

WildhestryingtoblockthedefendantsanticipatedpoliticalargumentsAlaska TM

[Playboypenguin]

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? I would have a hard time buying a marginal measurement from a doctor, over an eye witness. Not that this guy was a great eye witness.

Wow, I love how selectively people choose what evidence is acceptable when they wish to not believe the truth of the matter.

As for innocent until proven guilty, it seems everyone is very ready to assume that the person shot was guilty and deserved to die based solely on a few seconds of video tape where all he does is put a tobogan cap on his head .

[TMA-1]

It would not be a huge stretch to say he shot the armed fleeing suspect in the defense of bystanders. The fleeing subject may have shot a passer by, car jacked someone to escape, etc.

I agree - Ersland could very well have been thinking just that.

However, under Oklahoma law, he could not come to the aid of "bystanders" that are not related to him by blood or employer/employee relationship. As my SDA instructor put it, "other people are on their own!" If this was Ersland's goal in chasing down the second robber, he cannot use the law to protect his actions.

The only time it is acceptable to use armed force to defend "just anybody" is if you are in your own home, in which case the castle doctrine protects your actions.

This point of the law was intended to cut down on vigilantism and the possibility of "bad shoots" on undercover cops, innocent bystanders, etc.

It's an important point of Oklahoma law that residents like myself must constantly keep in mind when carrying concealed outside the home.

[Creature]

based solely on a few seconds of video tape where all he does is put a tobogan cap on his head .

Do you wear a toboggan cap over your head when you visit your local pharmacist? Its all about context, isnt it?


As for innocent until proven guilty,
Thats only in the courts. As a former LEO, you should know that already.

[Double Naught Spy]

I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

With Saints, it is guilty until proven innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal issue, not a reality issue.

Of course if we are going to go with the "innocent until proven guilty" business here, then we need to realize that Antwun Parker was a completely innocent man who apparently was shot and the shot several more times moments later by another supposedly innocent man.

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing?
Blood spatter evidence certainly could. If the arms are splayed out as described when he was shot, that will be able to be discerned.

However, under Oklahoma law, he could not come to the aid of "bystanders" that are not related to him by blood or employer/employee relationship. As my SDA instructor put it, "other people are on their own!" If this was Ersland's goal in chasing down the second robber, he cannot use the law to protect his actions.

That would be contrary to the DA's statements at about 10:56-11:30. http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

[TMA-1]

That would be contrary to the DA's statements at about 10:56-11:30. http://www.news9.com/Global/category...clipId=3804065

Yep, I know what he said in the press conference. And that's what is bugging the heck out of me. Oklahoma has castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws that give you free reign to defend yourself with no duty to retreat. There's nothing about pursuing someone that is no longer an imminent threat.

Perhaps he was speaking as someone who has influence over the law (i.e., his arguments can influence a judge to interpret the law one way or the other). Guess that's why he's the DA and I'm not! :-)

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, how about citing some statutes that say you can't defend another in OK outside of the home.

[TMA-1]

Okay, how about citing some statutes that say you can't defend another in OK outside of the home.

Well, I can't. :-) There are statutes that state when you can shoot (i.e., standing your ground anywhere you have a right to be, or in your own home). Without such a statute, I would conclude that I am taking a legal risk if I act outside those explicit permissions. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on tv, etc).

I did some looking, and it seems that what I'm referring to is not in the SDA act itself. However, it is what is taught in the state-mandated CLEET training course that all concealed-carry licensees must attend prior to the issue of permit. Whether these guidelines carry force of law or are just good legal advice, I can't say. Either way, I personally won't take the risk - if the perp decides to flee, I will let him!

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, it doesn't really matter what you would do. That wasn't the point. The point was that you said it was illegal to defend another in OK - coming to the aid of bystanders, as it were, and that it was to cut down on vigilanteism. However, you can't produce an statutes to support your claim. Obviously, if it is illegal, you should be able to find some law to prove this. I say this because I can't find any law that says you can't either.

Me thinks either your instruction was in error or that your memory was in error on this matter.

[TMA-1]

Okay, it doesn't really matter what you would do. That wasn't the point. The point was that you said it was illegal to defend another in OK

You're correct - I erred in saying it was illegal. (Historical note - I usually only admit error to my wife).

My original intent in all of this was to question Ersland's decision to chase the second perp after he had ceased to be an imminent threat. Perhaps it was legal, perhaps not, but it seems like a bad idea, especially if the behavior could be used to bolster the other legal arguments against him. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm spewing hogwash here, granted.

Me thinks either your instruction was in error or that your memory was in error on this matterNope, that's the actual instruction from the state-certified course, and I only took the class two weeks ago.
The criteria was mentioned several times (twice an hour, I think!) My memory can be questionable at times, but not that questionable! :-)

Other SDA licensees whom I know have mentioned the same thing, so I don't believe it is faulty instruction. The class is "book-taught" and the instructor was plainly reading from the CLEET materials. It would be curious to know the origin of the guideline, but until I know for sure, I'm going to assume that if it isn't grounded in actual statute, it's either due to legal precedent from previous court cases or simply intended to keep me out of legal trouble. As a lawyer friend once told me, "You don't ever want to be a test case."

By the way, Mr. Ersland has my sympathies. Regardless of his actions and their legality, he did not ask to be placed in that position, and that sucks no matter what his guilt or innocence may be.

[GSUeagle1089]

I betcha...its called.....an autopsy! Complete with trajectories

Agreed, just wish we could see the report from that. Trajectory = closer to perpendicular to the plane of Parker's abdomen = Ersland was justified. The closer to parallel to aforementioned plane the trajectories are = the flatter on the ground Parker was = Ersland guilty.

I also think that the PTSD argument may be a more viable route for Ersland other than arguing that he was justified. Does Ersland actually have PTSD? I'm not a big fan of lying.

[OuTcAsT]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland?

I would think that if the defendant were that concerned with his own safety, he would not have been so quick to bail out of, what would amount to "protective custody" until he is tried.

The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim?

I will offer the video evidence once again, it is quite clear that the defendant was shooting at something of which he had no fear. He was not "cautious" about approaching quickly (closing the distance between himself and the target exponentially) Nor was he "startled" by a sudden movement and begin to retreat as he fired. There are going to be other pieces of forensic evidence that will be offered , but this video, shows an execution style murder, everything else will be icing on the cake.

what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

That's for court, this is public opinion, no such standard exists.

Face reality here folks, what started off looking like a good SD shoot turned into a murder, it does not matter that the defendant was forced to defend himself, he initially did that within the law. The question becomes; "Are you going to continue to defend someone who crossed the line from self defense, to murder" ? Another question; Ask yourself,
"If the downed robber had lived to go to trial for his crime, would you be in favor of his execution as a punishment"?

As much as we hate to see something like this incident happen, all the rationalizations in the world are not going to justify what the defendant did in the last few seconds of that tape. I would suggest you go back to the OP and read the defendants statements, then watch the video , Was it a poor recollection due to stress? Or was it an intentional lie?

[OuTcAsT]

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the defendants statement, with commentary and emphasis mine

From the defendants own account:

Rubbing an oversized bandage on his left forearm, where he said he was grazed by a robber’s bullet,


Evidence has shown that the only shots fired were by the defendant.

Ersland related details of a highly organized hit on the Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

Notice on the tape that the “highly organized” robber that was shot spent his entire time in the store attempting to put on, and adjust his mask.

"We have a very good security system,” Ersland said, motioning to the magnetic door locks that won’t let anyone in or out of the store without permission.

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m. two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing. The robbers came in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

These statements are conflicting each other, and the statement about the robbers waiting for someone to leave and grabbing the door are false. Video evidence shows that no one exited the pharmacy immediately prior to the robbery, It also shows that the female employee on the left “buzzed in” Parker.

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Physical evidence does not support this, the only shots fired were by the defendant.

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

The weapon in his pocket was a revolver.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

It did indeed slow down Parker, the other gun was not retrieved until much later.

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear. The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus Judge. After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

Again, both total fabrications as compared to video and physical evidence.

But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

This is not consistent with the evidence.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.
When he went back in the pharmacy, Ersland said, he called police.

Not one of these statements is factually accurate with respect to the video or the physical evidence at the scene.

[Double Naught Spy]

But otherwise, I thought his story well fabricated! :D:barf::D:barf:

You notice how Ersland's injury was so not evident in the video. He never flinches from an impact. He never favors the injured arm. You never see any blood or signs of wounding. As noted, you never see the bad guy shoot at him.

You should not have to lie when you are in the right and have done right. Ersland lied. What does that tell you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, it is the first successful use of a Taurus Judge that I know about, certainly the only one on video I know, and Taurus can't taut it as a positive thing because the event turned into {alleged} murder and hence would not be a positive image for the company.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other SDA licensees whom I know have mentioned the same thing, so I don't believe it is faulty instruction. The class is "book-taught" and the instructor was plainly reading from the CLEET materials. It would be curious to know the origin of the guideline, but until I know for sure, I'm going to assume that if it isn't grounded in actual statute, it's either due to legal precedent from previous court cases or simply intended to keep me out of legal trouble. As a lawyer friend once told me, "You don't ever want to be a test case."

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.

[GSUeagle1089]

You should not have to lie when you are in the right and have done right. Ersland lied. What does that tell you?


I'm afraid Mr. Ersland is going to fry.

[Wildalaska]

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the defendants statement, with commentary and emphasis mine


A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding speaketh not to the press

WildesltonewillgethoseremarksshoveduptheproverbialAlaska ™

[Wagonman]

For what its worth,I was taught in my police academy class, ( thirty five years ago ), in a gun fight, after you downed the perp with a shot, you empty your sidearm into him.

I call BS also, no department authorizes coup de grace

[TMA-1]

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.

Sorry, I don't have the text available. As far as I know, the textbook is available to CLEET instructors only.

It's an interesting conundrum. Oklahoma-approved classroom materials say you can't, but the DA infers that you can.

[OuTcAsT]

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.
Sorry, I don't have the text available. As far as I know, the textbook is available to CLEET instructors only.

It's an interesting conundrum. Oklahoma-approved classroom materials say you can't, but the DA infers that you can.


In the interest of settling this debate, here are the Olahoma statutes Title 21, to wit; (emphasis mine)

§21 733. Justifiable homicide by any person.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,
2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.


The DA is correct, your booklet is incorrect. (or at least not all-encompassing) It has nothing to do with self defense, rather, the apprehension of a felon. Armed robbery is a felony , thus the defendant would have been justified had he shot the fleeing suspect(s).

[TMA-1]

I'm glad you found that, because I was really wondering from where the info came. In my own defense (no pun intended!) I will point out that item #2 speaks directly to what I was taught in the class:

2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Item 3 does seem to cover what the DA said, but the part about "necessarily committed" isn't as clear as I would like. Under what circumstances would a person be considered necessarily committed? (I'm just asking, not debating, because I really don't know).

[Wagonman]

Just saw video on O'Reilly, he was on the side of the angels until he chased the other offender. I want empathize with him and do, but he is jammed up.

Hopefully there will be a plea deal and suspended sentence.

I keep saying don't talk to the Police without a lawyer and especially don't talk to the media.

[Playboypenguin]

I call BS also, no department authorizes coup de grace

We were taught quite the opposite in my LEO days. We were always told we were responsible for each and every bullet that left our weapon and would be held accountable for each of them. Every shot had better be a matter of life and death as far as any DA would be concerned.
Hopefully there will be a plea deal and suspended sentence.

Why would you hope a man that executed an unarmed person gets off? Is it okay to kill certain people? Like i have said, I am okay with the perp being shot during the robbery but the subsequent execution makes the defendant just as big a piece of trash as any other criminal.

[OuTcAsT]

but the part about "necessarily committed" isn't as clear as I would like. Under what circumstances would a person be considered necessarily committed? (I'm just asking, not debating, because I really don't know).

3. When(the Homicide is) necessarily committed / in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person / for any felony committed; or / in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

The lawful part will be subjective, not to your own judgment, but to the police, DA, and the Court.

Hope that helps.

[GSUeagle1089]

Anyone else tired of this thread? I think we're just beating a dead horse now.

[Wildalaska]

Anyone else tired of this thread? I think we're just beating a dead horse now.

Now that the screeching has died down, there are still some lessons to be learned as things develop

WildcarryingagunisanawesomeresponsibilityAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

Hopefully there will be a plea deal and suspended sentence.


A crime such as this should not be "mitigated" away simply because it was committed during a failed robbery attempt.

I hope there is a fair trial, and an equally fair sentence.

[jjyergler]

I usually enjoy your trademarked taglines because they are funny, however...

WildcarryingagunisanawesomeresponsibilityAlaska ™

This one is serious, and is too often forgotten by some on these boards. Every night when I unlock my bedside gunsafe, I pray it won't be needed.

Also, everyone should remember something. If you are ever involved in a shooting, be certain that the DA will investigate. EVERY POST YOU HAVE EVER TYPED WILL BE READ! DOUBT NOT THAT IF YOU CAN BE PORTRAYED AS A NUT WHO IS "WAITING" OR "LOOKING" FOR TROUBLE, YOU WILL BE!

[GSUeagle1089]

there are still some lessons to be learned as things develop

To me the lessons seem pretty clear, don't shoot unarmed unconscious people and don't lie (to the cops or anyone).

Not trying to be a jerk, I just think we've reached about every intelligent conclusion and gleaned every bit of relevant information possible from this subject. Now when the trial gets started and new information becomes available I am all for firing this one back up again... until then I think the horse is dead and has been beaten into a fine puree`

Edit: I usually enjoy your trademarked taglines because they are funny, however...


Quote:
WildcarryingagunisanawesomeresponsibilityAlaska ™

This one is serious, and is too often forgotten by some on these boards


I second that and also agree with you Alaska (redundant?). While I think most here on TFL seem to be very responsible gun owners it is something that we all need to think very hard about every day.

[Wagonman]

Why would you hope a man that executed an unarmed person gets off? Is it okay to kill certain people? Like i have said, I am okay with the perp being shot during the robbery but the subsequent execution makes the defendant just as big a piece of trash as any other criminal.


Because he did not go to work that day to kill the armed robbery offender. I liken it to entrapment. He is legally wrong and it is proper for him to be sanctioned, however, let's look at the totality of circumstances.

You do not forfeit a life of being a "good guy" by making a mistake on the worst day of your life. But for the lowlifes this guy would be living out his life in anonymity, so the term piece of trash does not apply.

Do not play semantic games he wasn't an unarmed person he was an accomplice in an armed robbery.

[Wildalaska]

Not trying to be a jerk, I just think we've reached about every intelligent conclusion and gleaned every bit of relevant information possible from this subject. Now when the trial gets started and new information becomes available I am all for firing this one back up again... until then I think the horse is dead and has been beaten into a fine puree`

Really? Well when you hit more than 20 years on this earth, you will learn that you never stop learning, viz:

You do not forfeit a life of being a "good guy" by making a mistake on the worst day of your life.


Couldn't you say this about young Mr. Antwan? Could he have been a Jean Valjean?

Haven't I heard screeches from folks here that the no gun for felons rule penalizes folks who just made a "mistake"...

A whole bunch of lives are ruined here and tu quoque or "he started it" or "yes but" doesn't change that. Thats why y'all see me cruising this Board being a jerkoff whenever I am confronted with ramboism. The last thing you ever want to do is shoot someone and you better be damned sure of what you are doing before you do it......

WildonhishighhorseagainAlaska ™

[Double Naught Spy]

The last thing you ever want to do is shoot someone and you better be damned sure of what you are doing before you do it......

Therein lies the problem. It looks like Ersland was damn sure of what he was doing all the way down to fabricating a cover story.

[OuTcAsT]

You do not forfeit a life of being a "good guy" by making a mistake on the worst day of your life.

Good thing this particular call was not yours to make !


Are ya gonna tell me you are gonna let someone slide on your next patrol if he "mistakenly" murders someone?

I think not.

[Playboypenguin]

Because he did not go to work that day to kill the armed robbery offender.
Actually, if I had to make a professional statement of opinion I would be very likely to think he did exactly that. I would be of an opinion that someone capable of such an act went to work each day thinking "If anyone breaks in here I am going to kill them and this is how I will do it..."

Someone that does what this man did is not a good guy and does not deserve much benefit of the doubt. I supported him fully at the beginning of this thread, but his actions changed all that.

[Creature]

I would be of an opinion that someone capable of such an act went to work each day thinking "If anyone breaks in here I am going to kill them and this is how I will do it..."

Pure speculation.

[Playboypenguin]

Pure speculation.
Not exactly...it is educated theory. That will play a big part in the trial. Experts and specialists will be asked to attest to his likely state of mind based on his action. His actions and reactions are indicative of a man that has thought this through very thoroughly.

[GSUeagle1089]

Really? Well when you hit more than 20 years on this earth, you will learn that you never stop learning, viz:



Only four months to go and I wholeheartedly believe that, but I also believe that's a statement that applies more to all of life in general than one specific event.

I do believe there is a point that can be reached for a subject as narrow as this at which all discussion is merely previous points being rehashed over and over.

If anyone has anything new, please, let him speak it but I don't think anything productive is going to come of this thread for at least another few days. We need more information, quotes from the DA, etc.

Relevant Information that We Know:
1) There was a robbery on the Reliable pharmacy commited by 2 people, Ersland fired, Parker received 1 wound to the head and five to the abdomen and according to the coroner died of the subsequent 5 shots.
2) The five shots were .380 from a Kel-Tec, the 1st from a Taurus Judge (.410 or .45?)
3) Ersland turned his back on Parker twice.
4) Ersland is seen on camera firing in a downward direction in the area that Parker fell.
5) Ersland made a statement to the police that contained some false iformation. In this statement he said Parker was trying to get up, prompting him to shoot Parker 5 more times.
6) The Pharmacy had been attacked before.
7edit)The coroner also stated that Parker would have recovered from the initial shot to the head.

Common Opinions:
1) Ersland acted in self defense
2) Ersland commited murder
3) Ersland is technically guilty under the law but should not be convicted because he was still acting in self defense and Parker was not murdered but suffered the consequences of his actions.
4) Awaiting more evidence to form an opinion.

Possible Outcomes:
1) Ersland is found innocent/hung jury
2) Ersland is convicted and goes to jail for a very long time
3) Plea bargain (not sure if his attorney is considering that though) and Ersland still goes to jail for a while but maybe not quite so long.

Things We Need to Know for Intelligent Debate to Continue:
1) Was Parker in fact trying to get up
2) What, if anything, did the other two Pharmacy workers see
3) Possible changes in the court proceedings

I'm sure there's probably a point or two that I missed so if need be repost with aforementioned point(s) added in the appropriate category.

[Playboypenguin]

2) The five shots were .380 from a Kel-Tec, the 1st from a Taurus Judge (.410 or .45?
I am betting it was .410 shot that he fired into the perps head/face. Just based on the speed he fired the shot and circumstantial evidence. Anyone else agree or disagree?

[GSUeagle1089]

I am also inclined to believe it was .410, .45 ACP fragmenting on impact just seems unlikely to me. The again, there have been stranger occurences regarding wounds (bullets and otherwise) to the head.

Assuming it was .410 this then begs the question: What .410 load was he using? Slug? Buck? It is really inconsequential to the outcome of this case as it was both legally justified according to the DA and not the fatal shot nor would it have been fatal according to the coroner.

[Playboypenguin]

Assuming it was .410 this then begs the question: What .410 load was he using? Slug? Buck? It is really inconsequential to the outcome of this case as it was both legally justified according to the DA and not the fatal shot nor would it have been fatal according to the coroner.
I am betting it was buck shot. It makes sense to me that he would use the Judge as a sort of "mini shotgun" to optimize his chances of a hit on his first shot.

[OuTcAsT]

Pure speculation.
Not exactly...it is educated theory. That will play a big part in the trial. Experts and specialists will be asked to attest to his likely state of mind based on his action. His actions and reactions are indicative of a man that has thought this through very thoroughly.

I think this might possibly be one of the most germane comments on this topic thus far. ^^

I have no formal training in mental health related fields, but if the defendants calculated, and indifferent responses are as obvious to me, they are certainly (with expert testimony) going to be a glaringly obvious albatross for the defense. Points to Mens rea.

[Playboypenguin]

I think this might possibly be one of the most germane comments on this topic thus far.
I am going to have to look that up, but I feel like I might have just been insulted. ;)

[TailGator]

I am a veterinarian, so I know just enough neurology to know how much I don't know. Question: How likely is it that a gunshot wound to the head could cause enough neurologic damage to render a patient comatose and immobile for the period of time we see on the tape, and still expect (1)survival, or (2) a full recovery as, if I recall correctly, was said by the DA.

[Shadi Khalil]

I am betting it was .410 shot that he fired into the perps head/face. Just based on the speed he fired the shot and circumstantial evidence. Anyone else agree or disagree?

I've been wondering the same thing.

Wild, did you/do you practice law?

[OuTcAsT]

How likely is it that a gunshot wound to the head could cause enough neurologic damage to render a patient comatose and immobile for the period of time we see on the tape, and still expect (1)survival, or (2) a full recovery as, if I recall correctly, was said by the DA.

Respectfully, I realize the question was directed at another member but, we are talking about the guy being immobile for ( by the tape clock) 3 minutes, or less, from time of impact until the final shots were fired. I have seen folks punched by a fist stay out longer than that. But I digress, the good Doctor can speak on this much better than I.

[Lost Sheep]

(Truncated for brevity)
Things We Need to Know for Intelligent Debate to Continue:
1) Was Parker in fact trying to get up
2) What, if anything, did the other two Pharmacy workers see
3) Possible changes in the court proceedings

GSUeagle1089,

Thanks for the excellent summary.

Questions to ask:

Some reports specifically state there was no gun recovered from Parker, or anywhere on the scene except the two used by Ersland. Is it possible the other perpetrator took it with him? The only other conclusions is that Parker was not armed or someone took the gun away (which would require some sort of conspiracy, I think, and is pretty far-fetched).

There has been a suggestion that Ersland's arm wound was cause by a ricochet of his own first shot. Is the wound consistent with that interpretation? Is there a slug embedded in a wall somewhere behind where Ersland was standing or an empty casing from the perpetrator's gun? That is, what physical evidence is there that either robber actually fired a shot, and is it conclusive? (The arm wound is strong evidence, but not conclusive without the actual slug or examination of the wound.)

Did Ersland shoot Parker (the second time, the 5 shots to the body) before or after he returned to the pharmacy from chasing the other perpetrator? The investigating detective's report strongly suggests "after".

Was it a good idea to kill the only person who could name the other robber?

Another question not particularly probitive from a legal aspect, but interesting nonetheless:

Ersland used the 45/.410 Taurus Judge first? Then he chose the lesser .380 ACP to put the next 5 rounds into Parker. Ballistically that does not make sense to me, unless perhaps the Taurus did have shotshells in it, or Ersland completely emptied it. How many bullets did the 380 have? Did Ersland empty it?

I have seen the video. I have read the D.A.'s charging document. I have read a couple of the newspaper accounts. I have not seen or heard the other videos (my computer does not do sound at the moment).

Please label your submissions as known fact (with source) or supposition/speculation/hypothesis. Not that the latter is worthless. But we need to keep things properly identified.

Lost Sheep

[lefteye]

If you cannot satisfy yourself completely that the defendant acted totally within the law then he is guilty.


Because I do not KNOW all of the admissible evidence, I do not yet have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but I am curious - where is this the standard of proof in a criminal case?

[OuTcAsT]

where is this the standard of proof in a criminal case?

The sentence is quite unambiguous, and it was never represented to be a standard of proof in a criminal case. However, it is a logical conclusion in an internet discussion forum. :rolleyes:

[Playboypenguin]

Respectfully, I realize the question was directed at another member but, we are talking about the guy being immobile for ( by the tape clock) 3 minutes, or less, from time of impact until the final shots were fired. I have seen folks punched by a fist stay out longer than that. But I digress, the good Doctor can speak on this much better than I.
I have routinely seen instances of persons loosing consciousness for longer periods from minor wounds or concussive impacts.

[lefteye]

Quote:
where is this the standard of proof in a criminal case?

The sentence is quite unambiguous, and it was never represented to be a standard of proof in a criminal case. However, it is a logical conclusion in an internet discussion forum.


Technically, the logical conclusion is that your opinion is that IS is the standard of proof - at least the standard you are applying in this case. I don't want to debate the legal consequences of this tragic event, but it struck me that someone with apparent experience and knowledge would offer such a statement.

[OuTcAsT]

but it struck me that someone with apparent experience and knowledge would offer such a statement.

Me ? I must admit this is the first time I have ever been accused of having either of those characteristics be "apparent" :D

[mpage]

There has been a suggestion that Ersland's arm wound was cause by a ricochet of his own first shot. Is the wound consistent with that interpretation? Is there a slug embedded in a wall somewhere behind where Ersland was standing or an empty casing from the perpetrator's gun? That is, what physical evidence is there that either robber actually fired a shot, and is it conclusive? (The arm wound is strong evidence, but not conclusive without the actual slug or examination of the wound.)

The DA stated that there is no evidence that the suspect fired any shots.


Did Ersland shoot Parker (the second time, the 5 shots to the body) before or after he returned to the pharmacy from chasing the other perpetrator? The investigating detective's report strongly suggests "after".

He fired after he came back inside and retrieved the second pistol. It's also on the tape.

[surg_res]

My opinion on head shots: full spectrum of possibility. Fortunately I've only dealt with a handful--a couple of which were self-inflicted. One a teenager shot in the face with a 410 w/ birdshot--survived but later pronouced a non-survivable injury by a neurosurgeon and care w/drawn. Another birdshot to the face was wide-awake with globe rupture and multiple intra-cranial pellets left in place, as there was no benefit to removing them.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, being shot is nothing like the movies where a person just drops and its lights out, even if shot in the head. There can be gargling of blood, avulsed ears, and ruptured globes--along with any possible soft tissue mutilation you can dream of and a variable change in mental status.

My thoughts are that consciousness in this case would be related to any of several things. Were there bullet fragments in, or did they pass through the brain, violating the dura. Was there (on autopsy) contusion or intracranial hemorrhage which would signify a significant blunt force injury to the brain. Did the patient have signs of stroke or vascular compromise from traumatic dissection. What kind of projectile hit where and were there skull fractures, CSF leaks, etc. The sinuses and maxilla can act like the crunch zone of a car and absorb a modest amount of injury, protecting the brain. Obviously the skull is a sphere, which is the most resiliant shape a structure can have (remember the squeeze an egg trick). Was the intruder on drugs? That can clearly affect mentation after an injury or the threshold at which one loses consciousness.

For the injury to be labeled simply "survivable" to me is meaningless, as anyone can survive with a brainstem, ventilator, tube feeds and a 16 year-old's heart/lungs. As mentioned, though, the autopsy could show signs of intracranial trauma (either blunt or penetrating) which would most likely correlate with state of global impairment (or threat neutralization). In the absence of intra-cranial contusion or hemorrhage (to me the "full recovery" group), however, one could never prove that he wasn't wide awake, screaming "I'm going to kill you", and searching for a weapon while down on the floor.

I think that the pathology is going to be the deciding factor for this guy, should it conclude that there was significant head trauma, which would have rendered this man unquestionably "out of commision," he has no case for finishing him off. If the trauma was minor, however (such as that sustained from bird shot), he could very clearly be justified in neutralizing a potential threat.

I hope that my opinion is unbiased. As an aside, IMO, BB and smaller sized shot are a poor choice for self defense.

[OuTcAsT]

Excellent opinion Doc, very enlightening.
I would like to ask a couple of questions, from a purely hypothetical standpoint.

A.) Is it within the realm of possibility that someone could receive a blunt force trauma to the head, from a projectile, that could render them unconscious for 3 to 5 minutes, and, leave little permanent impairment ?

B.) In such a blunt force trauma, how long might it take for capillary damage to manifest as a significant intra-cranial contusion?

C.) Would/Could such capillary leakage continue post-mortem?

Thanks.

[vox rationis]

How likely is it that a gunshot wound to the head could cause enough neurologic damage to render a patient comatose and immobile for the period of time we see on the tape, and still expect (1)survival, or (2) a full recovery as, if I recall correctly, was said by the DA.

This is a really difficult question. Part of my residency training involved managing traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, so I'll try to add a few, hopefully helpful comments to shed some light on this issue.

Like surg_res wrote, "survivable" is really pretty meaningless. It is the post-traumatic cognitive and functional deficits that are key. Following a traumatic brain injury, e.g. from a direct injury to the brain, increased intracranial pressure or mass effects from brain edema/hematoma formation/intracranial bleeding/etc, and resultant brain/brain stem herniation, resultant brain ischemia, etc., the range of outcomes varies all the way from death, to profoundly decreased consciousness states such as coma, a vegetative state, or a minimally conscious state, to various degrees of cognitive and functional deficits.

Based on the exact nature of the brain trauma and associated findings postmortem, I think that a pathologist ought to be able to provide some basic idea of just how mortal or debilitating the brain injury component was (degree and location of damaged brain tissue, amount of brain herniation, etc.), but in the way I see it, based on what we see on the tape, one cannot draw many conclusions at all about either the degree of the injury, nor about the likelihood of any recovery.

First of all we cannot even see what is happening to the shot individual, i.e. does he even have any vital signs (he could be dead already), what exactly is his level of consciousness, is he unconscious and posturing (decerebrate, decorticate), etc., etc.,?

Lastly, should he have survived the injury but still remained unconscious, if the patient is still unconscious at 1 month post TBI (i.e. a GCS of < 8) there is only around a 50% likelihood of regaining consciousness by 1 year post injury.

So, in conclusion, it is rather difficult to know what the situation with the shot individual was based only on what we see on that tape.

[Wildalaska]

To get a qualified Pathologist and Neurological Expert (would have to be a neurosurgeon IMHO) to testify as experts for the defense will cost a minimum of $20,000

Lets not minimize the financial consequences to the Pharmacist

WildniceexplorationofthemedicalissuesAlaska TM

[Stevie-Ray]

You're correct - I erred in saying it was illegal. (Historical note - I usually only admit error to my wife).Do you really do that? You're my hero.:D Interesting handle also, reminds me of the book 2001: A Space Odyssey.;)


Ersland used the 45/.410 Taurus Judge first? Then he chose the lesser .380 ACP to put the next 5 rounds into Parker. Ballistically that does not make sense to me, unless perhaps the Taurus did have shotshells in it, or Ersland completely emptied it. The DA said he fired at least 2 rounds outside. It could have been empty.

[GSUeagle1089]

GSUeagle1089,

Thanks for the excellent summary.


Thankyou.

Just to give my opinion in a nutshell so everyone knows where I stand I will say this. If it is found that Parker was attempting to get up I believe that Ersland would be totally justified as he had no idea whether or not Parker had any concealed weapons on him and Parker was becoming a threat again.

If it is found that Parker was still unconscious or not making any significant attempts to regain his footing as Ersland fired the .380 into him I believe that Ersland should face some sort of jail time. However, I highly oppose an out and out homicide conviction as that would entail a life sentence which I do not believe is right for Ersland and would send a very dangerous message to other scumbags like Parker, I am more in favor of a negligent homicide or manslaughter conviction.

Also, isn't giving a false statement to the police a crime? The video clearly show that Ersland did this. I believe that he should also face some sort of charge for this. Lying is for children, adults should stand behind and own up to their actions.

[surg_res]

I agree w/ SOVT.

I am not a pathologist but my best answers would be yes, minutes to days, and no.

Once the kid was dead, the intracranial pressure equals the blood pressure and the blood coagulates without further leak. Some contusions "blossom" over a couple of days, but this is a radiographic description--describing contusion evolution. He could very eaily have been knocked unconscious from blunt force, and have a potential full recovery. People have concussions and head injuries all the time and return to normal. This is much less likely w/ penetrating injury to brain or acute mass effect (i.e. hematoma), as these would destroy tissue which the body cannot replace.

Too many variables and too little info in this case to know.

Lastly, should he have survived the injury but still remained unconscious, if the patient is still unconscious at 1 month post TBI (i.e. a GCS of < 8) there is only around a 50% likelihood of regaining consciousness by 1 year post injury.

Good point, though I would have guessed much less. So many also die from complications during that time, especially when ventilator-dependent.

To get a qualified Pathologist and Neurological Expert (would have to be a neurosurgeon IMHO) to testify as experts for the defense will cost a minimum of $20,000

Wildthatshowmuchyoudhavetopaymetosufferthroughthatcaseinsteadofoperatingonthesick

[OuTcAsT]

Thanks to our resident experts' opinions (thanks Docs :) )

I can now postulate the following;

It is within the realm of reasonable possibilities that Parker could have received a wound sufficient to incapacitate him temporarily, with some or no permanent effects.

That it is possible that he could have received these injuries, been incapacitated, and unless there was sufficient time between the injury, and death, the injury might not be detectable during autopsy.

OuTcircumstantialevidenceisabitchcAsT

[Wagonman]

Good thing this particular call was not yours to make !


Are ya gonna tell me you are gonna let someone slide on your next patrol if he "mistakenly" murders someone?


No, I am not saying that. I am saying that absent the lowlifes coming into his place of business and committing armed robbery he would still be a free man.

I say a plea of GUILTY for voluntary manslaughter with a short or suspended sentence would be a proper punishment.

Don't start nothing won't be nothing as the kids say.

Actually, if I had to make a professional statement of opinion I would be very likely to think he did exactly that. I would be of an opinion that someone capable of such an act went to work each day thinking "If anyone breaks in here I am going to kill them and this is how I will do it..."

Someone that does what this man did is not a good guy and does not deserve much benefit of the doubt. I supported him fully at the beginning of this thread, but his actions changed all that.


I agree the coming back and shooting absent a threat from the downed offender is wrong. However, you cannot make assumptions about the man's life and day to day mindset. What makes him not a good guy, that he screwed up on the worst day of his life after enduring a traumatic experience that he had no choice in participating in.

I don't condone lying to the Police in any situation and to my mind is the worst thing he did that day. Shut up and get a lawyer.

He is the victim, an imperfect victim, but a victim nonetheless.

[Wildalaska]

He is the victim, an imperfect victim, but a victim nonetheless.

Doesnt that apply to every criminal?

WildorjusttheonesyousupportAlaska TM

[hsccox]

No.

[hogdogs]

As the puncher and punchee in scraps that left the receiver (me or them) totally out cold I have never seen a fist leave a guy out more than 90 seconds with the average being 20-40 seconds... 3 minutes out cold is a real lucky shot! Heck I thought I killed a guy when he was out 20-30 seconds! Don't claim a fist thrown shot does this routinely... Body lock up is immediate and convulsions follow after 20-30 seconds the norm... 45 seconds is a stretch and one minute is a rarity!
Brent

[Playboypenguin]

I agree the coming back and shooting absent a threat from the downed offender is wrong. However, you cannot make assumptions about the man's life and day to day mindset
Actually you can do just that. A trial will pretty much be a group of people doing just that same thing based on the evidence provided.

[dipper]

He is the victim, an imperfect victim, but a victim nonetheless.

Doesnt that apply to every criminal?

Er, um, you lost me on that one Wild.
Are you saying that every criminal is a victim??

[TailGator]

>I have seen folks punched by a fist stay out longer than that.<

With equal respect, the prognosis for recovery is, absent significant intracranial bleeding, going to be significantly poorer from a penetrating wound that for blunt trauma - more tissue damage, more bleeding, etc. The severe brain damage and fatalities that occasionally occur in boxing are due not to the initial trauma, but to a sort of crushing effect the brain when a significant amount of blood is introduced under pressure to a closed vessel, the skull, that is shaped and sized to hold ONLY the brain. Most blunt trauma injuries don't have that amount of bleeding. Many more penetrating wounds will. Also, I have been given to understand that bullets can ricochet inside the skull - essentially, they use up enough kinetic energy in entering that they don't have enough to penetrate the skull a second time and leave. Although it is not my choice of methods, I have colleagues who euthanize horses with a well-placed .22 round, taking advantage of this effect. Also, I believe it fair to say that the prognosis starts to go down with duration of neurologic symptoms. The boxer who is KOed but back up in 20 or 30 seconds, not without exception mind you, often recovers more fully than the one who is down for several minutes or who has to be helped back to the locker room where he collapses again.

I am also glad that surg res noted the variability in recovery from neurological wounds. I had hoped to elicit that, because I found the DA's statement that a full recovery could have been expected was too certain. There are indications from autopsy that certain outcomes may be more likely than others, but in situations like that, doctors dealing with live patients speak more often in terms of percentages rather than absolutes.

Those are the issues that our MD friends addressed better than I could. I brought them up because they could be weaknesses in the DA's pursuit of first degree murder case, and because in the discussion of tactics they could have a bearing on whether the down man was making purposeful movements or not. I appreciate the responses of the folks who have medical knowledge more specific to this case than I.

[Creature]

Playboypenguin wrote: Not exactly...it is educated theory. That will play a big part in the trial. Experts and specialists will be asked to attest to his likely state of mind based on his action. His actions and reactions are indicative of a man that has thought this through very thoroughly.

No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip. A psychologist who is interested in protecting their professional reputation will only give an opinion in court after MULTIPLE interviews with the defendant before forming an opinion on the shooters state of mind during the shooting. And even then, many opinions are ruled inadmissible. Most courts these days rely on eye witness testimony. Not educated opinions or guesses from psychologists.

Trials are not guessing games about what someone did or didn't do. Its about proving what someone did or didnt do. There are strict rules regarding reasonable doubt and evidence.

[OuTcAsT]

...Withdrawn...

[DonR101395]

At any point in this equation does the shot suspect become a victim

No

[surg_res]

If it weren't a close call, there wouldn't be 16 pages of debate on the subject. Fortunately, if this goes to court, there will be a jury that will have to sit there and digest all of the details instead of us. As for now, I think we've clearly been given just enough rope to "hang ourselves" so to speak on this topic. Now it is time to give it up and just wait for the legal system to do its thing. I think jury selection is going to be a very decisive factor, should it come to that.

[OuTcAsT]

Agreed, further debate is only going to be a sliding toward this otherwise informative thread being locked due to bickering over personal bias, and random speculation.

I will withdraw and wait for further legal developments.
This has been an interesting discussion. :)

[Playboypenguin]

No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.
I hate to break it to you, but there are behavioral psychologists that not only do just that, but specialize in doing it. There is an entire discipline devoted to doing it that believes body language is more important than actual verbal language when discerning the truth.

[Wagonman]

doesnt that apply to every criminal?


Absolutely not

[Creature]

I hate to break it to you, but there are behavioral psychologists that not only do just that, but specialize in doing it.

And I hate to break it to you, but more often than not, their testimony doesn't even make it into evidence ... and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opinion. Happens all the time. This is why eye witness testimony rules the day when it comes to trial. Prosecuting attorneys are very reluctant to bring psychologists into court and only do so because they have no alternative. I know ... I'm married to one. A behavioral psychologist who was also an experimental psychologist that is.

[Playboypenguin]

And I hate to break it to you, but more often than not, their testimony doesn't even make it into evidence ... and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opi
And just where are you getting these statistics? I testified many times when I worked for CPS and it almost always remained as evidence. I think you are confusing professional testimony with affidavits.

[Creature]

And just where are you getting these statistics? I testified many times when I worked for CPS and it almost always remained as evidence. I think you are confusing professional testimony with affidavits.

Uh, no... I know the difference.

[Playboypenguin]

Uh, no... I know the difference.
Then where are you getting your information? Professional testimony is seldom stricken since the jury has already heard it so judges, defenders, and prosecutors are very careful about what is allowed in to begin with. Once something has been said it is very hard to have it unsaid.

[Creature]

I will take my wife's word and experience at face value. I am sure her professional experience is just as "expert" as your stint as a CSP psychologist ...

[Playboypenguin]

I will take my wife's word and experience at face value. I am sure her professional experience is just as "expert" as your stint as a CSP psychologist ...
First, it is "CPS" and second, you do not have to accept my word for it at all. You see all those reports on the news regarding professional testimony? Those are generally only made available once the testimony has been entered into the record.

Just what is it your wife does that makes her think that professional witnesses are somehow stricken from the record more often than not after they have been called to testify?

[David Armstrong]

No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.
To the contrary, it happens quite a bit. The testimony will probably be restricted in some manner as opposed to an in-depth interview, but it can be and is done a lot.
and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opinion.
No, expert testimony is not handled that way. Generally when an expert is approved as an expert by the court, all of their testimony i admissable unless shown to be not relevant, and even then only the not relevant portion is stricken, the rest of the testomony is allowed. And testimony is not thrown out because another expert offers a countering opinion. The jury gets to review both testimonies and determine how much weight they give to each.

[skydiver3346]

Quote: "At any point in this equation, does the shot "SUSPECT" become the victim"?

The shot "suspect" is a victim of stupidity, period. He and his robber buddy caused this from the get go. When you make those kind of stupid decisions, anything can happen and ususally does. IT IS THEIR FAULT that any of this went down, no matter what happened.

With that said, the pharmacist did "go the extra mile as they say" and will stand trial for his actions. Some say he is guilty and some say he is not. Either way, the jury will make the final decision on his guilt.

I must admit, that he could have handled this better than just matter of factly, walking over and pumping (5) bullets into the robber. But I wasn't there and none of us really know what was going on in the pharmacist's mind at that exact time. The video will not be the pharmacist's friend when this goes to trial. Unless the pharmacist and/or his attorney can somehow prove or convince the jury that the suspect was moving (or presenting some kind of threat) at the time of the last (5) shots), then it doesn't look good for him.

[Donn_N]

And I hate to break it to you, but more often than not, their testimony doesn't even make it into evidence ... and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opinion.

But, if...

No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.

then where does the testimony come from that doesn't even make it into evidence.

I'm confused.

[GSUeagle1089]

Unless the pharmacist and/or his attorney can somehow prove or convince the jury that the suspect was moving...

They don't have to "prove" anything, only create reasonable doubt, which I see an excellent window for in Parker's not being on the video and the possible argument that he was attempting to get up. I think Ersland's biggest problem is going to be the fact that he lied to the police. His credibility has all but gone out the window.

[skydiver3346]

Thanks, you make a good point there.

[Sixer]

"reasonable doubt"

Enough said.

[Playboypenguin]

Establishing reasonable doubt is going to be difficult due to the fact the perp was unarmed, probably unconscious (according to evidence which will be made more clear later). and the fact that the defendant has been exposed as a liar through his own ill chosen actions and statements. He really did become his own worst enemy in this case.

This is all dependent on it even making it to a jury trial. I am putting my money on a plea deal for a lesser charge with a probable short (2-10 year) sentence.

[Double Naught Spy]

No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.

To the contrary, it happens quite a bit. The testimony will probably be restricted in some manner as opposed to an in-depth interview, but it can be and is done a lot.

Right. I don't know about this business of "risk his or her professional reputation" given that these expert witnesses do it for a living or supplement their living by doing it. They make more money doing it in court than they make giving comments to TV programs and many are willing to do that as well for free.

No doubt both sides will be able to come up with psychological experts with opinions that favor their respective courtroom positions.

[hogdogs]

Not to play devils advocate at all...
I ran a pretty ruff young life and did many things I do not discuss but I never preyed upon "uninvolved participants"...
I had the oppurtunity to do so but had a few moral and ethical limitations I placed on myself... But I did know the cliche, "If you live by the gun you die by the gun"... anyone involved in nefarious folly must realize this. The guy shot, no matter how many rules and laws the shooter broke, deserved every round he had pumped into his body...
Brent

[Playboypenguin]

Hogdogs,

It is hard to run "rough" and not have some victims in your wake...otherwise how "rough" were you really running? :)

I am betting most everyone agrees with what you said to a degree. I doubt anyone would claim that the perp did not deserve the first, disabling shot...even if it had killed him.

[TailGator]

>The guy shot, no matter how many rules and laws the shooter broke, deserved every round he had pumped into his body.<

>I am betting most everyone agrees with what you said to a degree.<

On the contrary, a considerable number of posts have made it clear of their doubts in that regard and in the propriety of extending self defense to an executioner's role.

[Playboypenguin]

On the contrary, a considerable number of posts have made it clear of their doubts in that regard and in the propriety of extending self defense to an executioner's role.
But no one is really saying that the perp did not deserve to be shot. They are simply saying he did not deserve to be executed afterwards. If the first shot had killed him I would be "too bad so sad."

I would even be okay with him being shot again if he presented a further threat later on. That just does not seem to be the case though.

[hogdogs]

From a less than sympathetic side, I mean only to say that in this case it is a pure case of laws that are broken... Morally if you kick my dog, and I can "take care of business" I am gonna gun hard for ya...
Legally I know I will likely have to take you to civil court.
My level of ruff behavior was not crimes that involved folks who didn't voluntarily involve them self. I was never a burglar, robber, thief or other such crook that requires preying on innocents. I wasn't even a good 1%er biker as I didn't prey on the uninvolved so I will say I was, at best, a 2%er or 3%er:o...
Brent

[TailGator]

>But no one is really saying that the perp did not deserve to be shot. They are simply saying he did not deserve to be executed afterwards. If the first shot had killed him I would be "too bad so sad."<

>I would even be okay with him being shot again if he presented a further threat later on. That just does not seem to be the case though.<

I'm with you on all that.

My "Quote" button disappeared for some reason.:confused:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

About testimony - there are lawyers who will ask you to testify to their theory of the case and wave the money. I've seen it and there have been some rather nasty examples. The laws on expert testimony have been tightened to avoid such things. Licenses have been lost, etc.

All professions have folks without ethics and act for the money. What else is new.

[Ricky B]

Surg Res said:

I think that if the initial injury was non-survivable, the subsequent actions have zero meaning and there would be no case, that is unless there is a law against shooting corpses (whether out of frustration or for target practice). If it was a survivable injury (as many are), this dude is in deep.

I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if this has already been addressed.

It doesn't matter legally if the robber's injury was survivable or not; it only matters if he was alive and if the subsequent shots shortened his life, even by minutes. If so, then it's a homicide, and if there is no excuse or justification (legally speaking), it's a criminal homicide. Whether it be manslaughter or murder will depend on the facts.

[Playboypenguin]

I think that if the initial injury was non-survivable, the subsequent actions have zero meaning and there would be no case, that is unless there is a law against shooting corpses (whether out of frustration or for target practice). If it was a survivable injury (as many are), this dude is in deep.
I cannot imagine any medical professional would be capable of making such a judgement without examining the victim in the first place. I have known of multiple cases in the service were men survived shots to the head and I have seen more than one suicide attempt were someone self inflicted a head wound and survived. Many of those also suffered unconsciousness after the initial injury. In fact, I have personally witnessed people lose consciousness after only thinking they have been shot when in fact they had not.

[Lost Sheep]

TailGator

My "Quote" button disappeared for some reason.

TailGator, I never had a "quote" button. In order to perform the quote function, I type this before and after the quoted passage.

Before:

[_QUOTE=TailGator]

The passage to be blocked out as quoted

[_/QUOTE]

(take out the underscores, "_", immediately after the "["s. I had to put them in to make the commands inoperative.

It works for quoting quotes, too.

Lost Sheep

[surg_res]

I cannot imagine any medical professional would be capable of making such a judgement without examining the victim in the first place.

Who made a judgement? I was speaking 'what ifs,' as articulated by the use of the word "IF."

I'll simplify... IF the kid's brains were splattered across the ceiling and on the walls, with the first shot, I wouldn't get too excited about the rest of the story.

IMO, PBP needs a break from this thread...

[GSUeagle1089]

IMO we all do [need a break from this thread].

[Playboypenguin]

Who made a judgement? I was speaking 'what ifs,' as articulated by the use of the word "IF."
Sorry, I meant to get the rest of the post as a quote inside a quote and screwed it up. I was saying to the person that responded to you that i doubt any physicians would even be called by the defense that were not involved in the actual investigation because they would not want to make such a statement without examining the body...so even if the perp would have lived or died from his first wound or if he was conscious or not will probably be irrelevant anyway. It will all come down to what the coroner reports and I doubt any medical professional that did not examine the body will contradict their report.

[hogdogs]

I may be wrong but I think a person is still a "person" until "declared" by a physician or Medical examiner...
Brent

[Al Norris]

No Brent. I don't believe you are wrong.

[pax]

At 17 pages, this thread is a miracle of longevity and civility -- congratulations & thank you to all.

As several members alluded to above, a break from the thread may be in order to keep it so. But closing it is a drastic move, therefore I have a request of our members:

Please refrain from posting in this thread for awhile, unless and until there are new developments in the case.

We'll leave it open in expectation that there will be new developments and placing them here should maintain continuity.

Thanks,

pax

[kamsinc]

http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-oklahoma-city-shooting-case-gives-up-guns-to-defense-attorney-but-wont-say-how-many/article/3374244

What business is it of the judge, how many guns Ersland gave up?

[Double Naught Spy]

Accountability.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Pax, stop this line if you think it is weird but - do folks think that Ersland's appearances in the brace make him look more sympathetic or less?

The reason I ask is that oddity in appearance sometimes acts against you.

[Playboypenguin]

do folks think that Ersland's appearances in the brace make him look more sympathetic or less?
To be honest, seeing him move the way he did while wearing the brace negatively affected my opinion of the man.

This is mainly because I come from a medical family and married into a medical family and I know SOOO many pharmacists that are drug addicts and wear back braces and other orthopedics to make there pill addictions seem more legitimate. My perspective is a bit skewed because of this personal knowledge.

[OuTcAsT]

do folks think that Ersland's appearances in the brace make him look more sympathetic or less?

Excellent question, thought provoking...


The brace alone might garner sympathy from some,
however, the brace, together with his self proclamation as a "cripple" and taken in context with his other statements, may prove to be... pejorative to a jury.

This looks more akin to a "neck brace" in a whiplash suit when taken in context. Since he was wearing it during the alleged murder, and IMO had little
diminished mobility, it may not play well.

[Creature]

I have seen more than one person walk ....and even jog....on a broken leg.

[KingEdward]

brace make more sympathetic or less?

I'm not sure the brace matters much.

If it's true that he stood over basically an unarmed and unconscience person and fired 4 or 5 more rounds into him, then he's got some explaining to do and the jury won't care what he's wearing.

Would it matter if he was handicapped to the point that he rode over to the robber in a hoveround scooter and did the same thing?

Probably not.

[Shadi Khalil]

He seemed to get around ok in that brace. I think the execution portion of the video washes out all brace sympathy I may have had earlier on.

[Trooper Tyree]

This appears to be the affidavit.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

[Ricky B]

From the affidavit of probable cause:

The Medical Examiner preformed [sic] an autopsy on Parker's body, and found that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area, and died from these injuries.

It's a bit ambiguous the phrase "these injuries."

If Parker died from the head shot but not the stomach wounds, there's no criminal homicide. If Parker died from the stomach wounds, there is. If Parker died as a result of both the head shot and the stomach wounds, also criminal homicide.

I would not be surprised to see the pharmacist present an expert at trial who will testify that the head wound (lawfully inflicted) was what did in Parker. The jury might have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the stomach wounds were the cause of death.

[lefteye]

Another perspective on the upper body brace: Watching the video several times last week, my perception of Ersland's movements was and is that his upper torso was restricted by the brace. He did not twist his body, bend over at the waist, or display any other upper body movement that I would expect of a person facing a pair of armed robbers and attempting to defend himself, his employees, and his business with two handguns. (He didn't know if both or only one was armed.) In other words, I (at this point) think it is a stretch to conclude his posture throughout the episode implies he executed the deceased. This doesn't mean he didn't unlawfully kill the deceased - it means only that, in my opinion, his posture is not very persuasive evidence of an unlawful shooting.

[hogdogs]

Okay, this is now lookin' reopened against Kathy "pax" Jackson's request. the question posed was simply asking opinion on how the brace affects your sympathy...

RickyB, You are 100% wrong I am guessing. The when and what killed the BG is not assumable by lay persons.
Until a "person" is "declared" dead by a doctor or medical examiner they are a "person". After declared dead I am sure there are charges for pumping bullets into the deceased akin to desecration or mutilation of a "body"...
This may not be everywhere but you may have missed the fact that rarely is a person "declared" dead at the scene of accident or homicide... Usually it will be reported "... The victim was (declared) dead at the hospital..." Until the moment the doc says the words and looks at the clock, it is a person, not a body.
Brent

[Double Naught Spy]

Pax, stop this line if you think it is weird but - do folks think that Ersland's appearances in the brace make him look more sympathetic or less?

The reason I ask is that oddity in appearance sometimes acts against you.

He doesn't look sympathetic to Antwun Parker even though like Ersland, Antwun was apparently mobility impaired after being shot the first time. Even in a Dr. Kavorkian way, he doesn't look sympathetic to Parker.

Or do you mean will people have sympathy for Ersland because he looks in some way pitiful with the brace on? Maybe, maybe not. While his upper body movements were restricted somewhat, I am sure the prosecution will point out that Ersland managed to do everything movement-wise you might see with other shop keepers involved in fights including drawing a gun, making use of available cover by crouching behind it, shooting, giving pursuit to a fleeing suspect, etc. He just doesn't appear to bend or twist at the waist and doesn't appear to actually run, assuming he would have run.

It's a bit ambiguous the phrase "these injuries."
It may seem that way in the affidavit, but it wasn't in the interview Prater gave where he said the ME told him that Parker was unconscious but alive at the time he was shot in the gut and that he would have survived the shooting had he not been shot after that first time.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I wasn't struck by the idea of him being impaired as generating sympathy but that he look like an oddity. Most folks might cover the brace - as a pharmacist with a white coat - for example.

To put my psychologist hat on - when someone violates the norm in appearance - blame sometime accrues to them. Not being attractive, having an odd name - things like that act against you when you are judged.

Sounds weird but I'd downplay that strange looking brace. If I were the defense attorney, I'd get a focus group to judge how best to present him.

Of course, that costs quite a buck to do right.

[Shadi Khalil]

I disagree, Glenn.

As a defense attorney I would play that brace up. It could be be sold as a consent reminder of his disability and vulnerability. It doesn't justify the shooting but it might help when the jury is deciding between man and murder.

[Ricky B]

this is now lookin' reopened against Kathy "pax" Jackson's request.

Just to be clear, I commented based on new information, which is the affidavit in Trooper Tyree's post (or the link to it, that is). I took that as a new development.

Mea culpa if it isn't.

Until a "person" is "declared" dead by a doctor or medical examiner they are a "person". ... Until the moment the doc says the words and looks at the clock, it is a person, not a body.

If I'm understanding you right, if a safe had somehow fallen onto Parker and cut off his head and then the defendant pumped rounds into his headless body, the defendant could still be convicted of murder because at that point Parker was still a person because no doctor had yet declared him dead. (I'm not trying to twist your words but simply taking my understanding of what you said to its logical conclusion).

Here's how it works. The DA will put on the ME to testify as to the cause of death. Based on the affidavit, we can expect that the ME will testify that Parker was alive when he was shot repeatedly in the stomach and that the stomach wounds either caused the death by themselves or hastened his death. If the jury buys that, then the defendant can be found guilty of a criminal homicide.

BUT if the defense can raise a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind as to whether the stomach wounds caused the death by themselves (or hastened his death), or if the jury can't come to a conclusion to a reasonable certainty that Parker was alive at the time he was shot in the stomach by the defendant, the jury will (or is supposed to) acquit the defendant of any homicide. Quite frankly, if Parker was alive when he was shot in the stomach (something that I believe an ME can tell quite readily), I would be hard pressed as a juror to believe that shooting him five times in the stomach did not hasten his death.

The fact that doctor did not "declare" Parker dead until, say, an hour later does not mean that Parker was in fact alive (or legally alive for that matter) at the time he was shot in the stomach. If the head shot killed Parker, then shooting him in the stomach can not possibly be a homicide.

[hogdogs]

First I am apologetic for not realizing you were replying to info in a link...
In this...
If I'm understanding you right, if a safe had somehow fallen onto Parker and cut off his head and then the defendant pumped rounds into his headless body, the defendant could still be convicted of murder because at that point Parker was still a person because no doctor had yet declared him dead. (I'm not trying to twist your words but simply taking my understanding of what you said to its logical conclusion).
I am not educated to all the nuances of the legal system I am but a dumb ol'redneck;)...:o
As to this...
Here's how it works. The DA will put on the ME to testify as to the cause of death. Based on the affidavit, we can expect that the ME will testify that Parker was alive when he was shot repeatedly in the stomach and that the stomach wounds either caused the death by themselves or hastened his death. If the jury buys that, then the defendant can be found guilty of a criminal homicide.
Here we have 2 possibilities...
1)Me says bullets entered basically straight in front of torso with bullets or dents in floor showing BG was flat on his back... Murder verdict likely.
2)Holes are in the side of BG as if he was turning to possibly rise... Could go not guilty altogether or possibly a lesser charge if jury feels he may have shot again in an adrenaline induced panic. Or they may stick with original charge finding him guilty of the 1st. degree murder.

As for the back brace, I don't know his ailment but I am in constant pain if I stood all day but wear no brace as I don't get the relief to justify the irritations of a brace. So I can't expect folks to automatically feel sorry for my pain. I am so neutral an nonjudgmental That I am pretty much apathetic to others with the exception of going out of my way to assist the mobility impaired or other obvious common handicaps.
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It could be that the brace would make him sympathetic. That's why I asked - but people are strange and that's a strange looking gadget.

That's why I suggested a little focus group. Interesting.

[DeltaB]

Concerning the issue of "was Parker dead when Ersland shot him the 2nd time", Ersland's own testimony states that he was still moving, and the rational was that he "could" have hurt him, so he fired. Using deadly force on an incapacitated, subdued, disabled, surrendered or cooperative suspect, you are then culpable, and went too far under the Castle Defense and no longer sheilded from prosecution.

[Trooper Tyree]

I don't mean to reopen this prematurely, but I found this article interesting and perhaps insightful somewhat into his nature and mentality.

http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-oklahoma-pharmacists-case/article/3375757


In his last divorce, he wanted "The Green Berets,” "Forrest Gump,” "Red Dawn” and all Clint Eastwood movies. "You can keep the other 100 movies,” he told his wife.

Ersland had more than 100 guns in his home, a source told The Oklahoman. This year, he bid $11,054 to buy two historic Marlin rifles, according to a gun broker newsletter. He told The Oklahoman many of his guns were from the Civil War. He once testified that his collection included machine guns.

Ersland and his second wife, Wanda Jean Ersland, divorced in 2006 after 23 years of marriage. A psychologist who treated his son said the boy’s mother reported Ersland "displayed paranoid behavior, abused drugs and displayed other inappropriate behavior,” records show.

Hester reported Ersland "repeats himself quite often and insists on volunteering information about himself, particularly regarding his injury, that neither Jeremy nor I have solicited. Mr. (Ersland) appears fully engaged in conversation when he is talking or when/if he is the subject of conversation but ... seems distracted ... when either Jeremy or I are speaking. ... Jeremy has repeatedly told me during visits, in his father’s absence, that he does not enjoy being with his father because his father is strange or crazy.


On the shooting


Pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland has made some unusual statements about the robbery.


In one interview with The Oklahoman, he described the events as nightmarish, then gave a detailed description of the two robbers’ masks.


"They were nice gray masks. They were homemade, made out of a velvet-like material. And they were exactly alike. They were nice. Somebody had — a female, who knew what she was doing — made them, it looked like,” he said.


He also has given accounts of his actions that conflict with surveillance video of the shooting.


He told an Oklahoma City TV station, KFOR, he had a gun in each hand at one point. "Yes, I had to,” he said. "They were shooting at me from both sides so I shot at them from both sides as well.”


In the video, he can be seen shooting one robber in the head and chasing a second robber from the store. The video shows he returns to the store, puts his gun down and gets out a second gun from a drawer. He uses the second gun to shoot the wounded robber again. He never had both guns at the same time. Also, prosecutors say the robber who died was unarmed, and the other robber did have a gun but never fired.

[OuTcAsT]

Hester reported Ersland "repeats himself quite often and insists on volunteering information about himself, particularly regarding his injury, that neither Jeremy nor I have solicited. Mr. (Ersland) appears fully engaged in conversation when he is talking or when/if he is the subject of conversation but ... seems distracted ... when either Jeremy or I are speaking.

This goes right back to the question posed by Glenn, This kind of behavior suggests that the brace is as much a "psychological crutch" as it is a physiological one. A "conversation piece" This kind of behavioral "evidence" that is being fed into the media trial, makes that brace even more likely to have a negative impact on his defense.

His eccentric behavior will likely be a part of this trial, and just may be his undoing.

While this is just plain media spin, you can bet the prosecution will use some of this same spin in their own case.

[Playboypenguin]

This goes right back to the question posed by Glenn, This kind of behavior suggests that the brace is as much a "psychological crutch" as it is a physiological one. A "conversation piece" This kind of behavioral "evidence" that is being fed into the media trial, makes that brace even more likely to have a negative impact on his defense.
It is also a perfect example of typical behavior of drug addicts who use overblown conditions as an means to legitimize their drug addiction.

Also, the accusations of paranoid behavior (if true) would support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times. That would help explain the cold and calculated manner in which he performed the execution.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That was useful new information for us.

Shows us that things are more complicated than one gets from the first blurbs.

[pax]

Keep in mind, he did just have a back surgery 6 weeks before the shooting. Doctors do not generally perform major spinal surgery on people who do not need it, nor on people whose physical exams and xrays do not support the diagnosis.

That news article was a hit piece, but I think there's a lesson here for all of us: if you're involved in an "iffy" shooting, or in a good shooting that becomes of interest to the media, you can reasonably expect that every person you've ever offended in your life will want to talk to the press about you. Knowing it's likely to happen might help keep you on a more even keel when it does.

And OuTcAsT is quite right about some of this becoming part of the trial. That all goes to the mindset of the defendant, something that does pertain in a criminal case.

pax

[peetzakilla]

...support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times.

Indeed. His reaction and behaviors seem more consistent with a "Here's my chance." attitude instead of "Oh crap, I'm being robbed."


The more we find out about this guy the more it seems like he's another one of those people that everyone had a bad feeling about but nobody wanted to "cause trouble" or "seem paranoid" or "get involved".

[Sixer]

A psychologist who treated his son said the boy’s mother reported Ersland "displayed paranoid behavior, abused drugs and displayed other inappropriate behavior,” records show.

Well no kidding!? How many ex-wives go out of their way to say GOOD things about former husbands?

The idea (or fact) that this gentleman may not be the "perfect" model citizen, or that he had alot of guns, should not factor into what transpired during the 30 seconds that his life and others where in immediate danger.

Now, I agree that he would have been better off shooting himself in foot instead of firing those last shots. What concerns me, is that if any one of us were ever unfortunate enough to have to defend ourselves with deadly force, would we be subjected to the same defamation?

Let's say two thugs walk into my office and open fire. I use deadly force to protect my life. I may have been justified in the shooting but the prosecution is going to say " Well he had x number of guns, x amount of ammo, enjoyed "violent" movies, and his ex-girlfriends had nothing good to say about him " :D

Those kinds of practices don't help anyone. This man should be judged, but he should not be judged based on his character alone. He should be judged on his actions that day.

[peetzakilla]

Those kinds of practices don't help anyone. This man should be judged, but he should not be judged based on his character alone. He should be judged on his actions that day.

Those things are impossible to separate. He acted that day BECAUSE of his character.


Let's say two thugs walk into my office and open fire. I use deadly force to protect my life. I may have been justified in the shooting but the prosecution is going to say " Well he had x number of guns, x amount of ammo, enjoyed "violent" movies, and his ex-girlfriends had nothing good to say about him "

The number of guns, statements from his ex, all may be irrelevant in another situation. When a man shoots a defenseless person 5 times with no sense of danger or rationale then there may be any number of otherwise extraneous details that play a role.

[Ricky B]

Also, the accusations of paranoid behavior (if true) would support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times.

An interesting notion. Not quite the mantra of "as you train, so shall you fight" since training is designed to make simple physical movements more automatic when under stress, but similar to that mantra on a mental and emotional level.

I doubt that Ersland thought everyone was out to get him or even that the bad guys were out to get him (the laymen's idea of paranoia--I don't know what the correct psychiatric definition is), but I think he had a hyper-sensitivity to danger.

When I took a hunter safety course, "Buck fever" was described as hunter wanting to find his quarry (a deer) and so the hunter's mind makes him see movement in the bushes as a deer and he shoots. The idea here is that the eagerness to find what one is looking for can alter perceptions.

Erlsand may have suffered a variant of buck fever (or maybe I should call it "bad guy fever"). This, of course, is not acceptable in deer hunting, much less when deliberately shooting at targets known to the shooter as being human, but it could affect the nature of his intent and thus whether it is murder one or a lesser offense.

[hogdogs]

Sixer, Had these thugs come in and opened fire on the pharmacist, likely he would not have been charged at all even with him finishing off the thug. Had shots been fired at him, they wouldn't have been so fast to question it as an execution... It also would have helped if the downed thug had had a firearm too...
Brent

[Ricky B]

Doctors do not generally perform major spinal surgery on people who do not need it, nor on people whose physical exams and xrays do not support the diagnosis.


Having read up on this topic, I think that you have a greater confidence in physical exams and X-rays than physicians do. Patients with seemingly identical X-rays can report radically different symptoms. One might report "Oh, I have some lower back pain sometimes but it's really nothing" and the other might report "OMG, I can't live with this back pain." Back pain can be incredibly subjective. Many of us have bulged discs and don't know it, but our X-rays coupled with reports of pain could easily justify surgery. It's not at all like a broken arm.

[Wildalaska]

I need to digest this new info, I feel a real long winded rant rumbling around:cool:

Wildthetrckistomakesureisaywhatineedtoandonlyoffend20%insteadofeveryoneAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

Keep in mind, he did just have a back surgery 6 weeks before the shooting. Doctors do not generally perform major spinal surgery on people who do not need it, nor on people whose physical exams and xrays do not support the diagnosis.

Actually, back surgery is one of the most abused forms of medical treatment. Back pain and trauma is something that you often cannot prove or disprove by x-ray or exam. Therefore it is very commonly used by pill seekers and frauds. The surgery is common and often done multiple times on patients that never showed any physical signs of trauma simply because they demand it and have insurance.

It is often so hard for healthy minded people to fathom that someone would go to such extremes for drugs or attention, but never try and figure out an addict. :)

[PT111]

His actions started out with a good shoot, totally defending himself and others. However after that 5 seconds was over he has done nothing to help himself and a lot to hurt his case. He talked to the police and even talked to the media. To top it off he lied to both. Now his history is coming out and as Pax said you better believe that this will be brought out in his trial as state of mind when the shooting happened.

Two things can be learned from this, first don't talk but if you do don't lie. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging. This fellow is calling in contractors to help him dig.

[KingEdward]

my .02 from having just watched the video again...

store owner appears to have justification (two masked robbers / one pointing weapon) for the first shot.

as for the remaining shots, the trial will sort through that.

just from watching it, I think the owner allowed some anger to take over
and thus he fired off 5 more to downed BG.

A lesson here that if ever one shoots to protect life/others, there is a chance that anger and rage could set up shop in one's head if a BG is down but not totally out.

Obviously Mr Ersland decided to make sure the BG was out of commission before he called police. I believe he let emotion get the best of him.

Who are we to say we aren't succeptible to that.

was it pre planned in his head? I don't know. I think the video shows more of
a "you won't rob me or anyone else again ever" type mentality.

Mr Ersland will be asked every which way from Sunday what he was thinking and why he did what he did. And the jury will decide as to his guilt or innocence.

[OuTcAsT]

Mr Ersland will be asked every which way from Sunday what he was thinking and why he did what he did. And the jury will decide as to his guilt or innocence.

Given the outright lies he has already told the media, and police, unless the defense attorney is a complete moron I doubt the defendant will take the stand in his own defense.

The last thing the defense counsel will want is for this man to be questioned on direct.

Then again, if the media feeding frenzy continues, and more damning facts come to light, he might not have a choice. Either way, I hope the trial is televised, this will be quite entertaining. (in a disturbing sort of way)

[spacemanspiff]

A psychologist who treated his son said the boy’s mother reported Ersland "displayed paranoid behavior, abused drugs and displayed other inappropriate behavior,” records show.

And that statement above could easily have been describing Ersland having a couple of Bug Out Bags packed, and taking pain pills for his back pain, and maybe he stuck his tongue out and said 'Nyaaahh Nyaaah Nyaaaahhhh!' when his exwife was taking him to court.

Theres a lot of information just released there, but I think much of it is just to sensationalize and twitterpate everyone. "Ooooo noooo he is a nutjob, he owned a lot of guns and had interest in collectible Marlins! And Civil War weapons! That proves he was racist and only wanted to kill those poor black boys!"

Hester reported Ersland "repeats himself quite often and insists on volunteering information about himself, particularly regarding his injury, that neither Jeremy nor I have solicited. Mr. (Ersland) appears fully engaged in conversation when he is talking or when/if he is the subject of conversation but ... seems distracted ... when either Jeremy or I are speaking.
So he doesn't know how to interact with his child? Big deal, millions of parents out there struggle with the same problem. And what child would give an honest answer, when asked 'which parent do you want to be around?' You know his mother was pushing her bias against Ersland and the child only wanted to please his mom.

Nothing is proven with all this 'new information'. I hope most of it is deemed 'inadmissable'. The trial should focus on what Ersland did that is caught on camera. Not on anything previously.

[Sixer]

Sixer, Had these thugs come in and opened fire on the pharmacist, likely he would not have been charged at all even with him finishing off the thug. Had shots been fired at him, they wouldn't have been so fast to question it as an execution... It also would have helped if the downed thug had had a firearm too...

Wait I'm confused. I thought that is exactly what the thugs did....

Also, the accusations of paranoid behavior (if true) would support the notion that I put forth earlier of this being an event that the shooter has planned out thoroughly in his head many times.

Read through this very forum and you'll find endless examples of people planning or rehearsing what to do in this type of situation. Nothing wrong with that.

[peetzakilla]

Wait I'm confused. I thought that is exactly what the thugs did....

The thugs never fired a shot. Specifically, the dead guy was not armed in any way.

Read through this very forum and you'll find endless examples of people planning or rehearsing what to do in this type of situation. Nothing wrong with that.

Rehearsing the legal and moral action is one thing, rehearsing an execution is quite another.

[hogdogs]

That is what the pharmacist claimed but there is absolutely no evidence the only one with a gun fired. He didn't need to warrant lethal force against them but he ran off and the other wasn't armed with a firearm and was down when shot 5 more times. Had the one with a gun poked a hole in the wall the DA may not have been forced to review the video so hard to decide it was 1st degree murder charge material. Not to mention the pharmacist is caught redhanded in several blatant lies that cannot be attributed to just a little factual error due to stress...

Brent

[hogdogs]

Nothing is proven with all this 'new information'. I hope most of it is deemed 'inadmissable'. The trial should focus on what Ersland did that is caught on camera. Not on anything previously.
And if this is handled by a jury of FAIR HONEST LAW ABIDING PEERS... It will likely end in a 1st degree murder or 1st degree manslaughter guilty verdict as he clearly stands over an unarmed, downed adolescent thug and "FILLS 'EM FULL O' LEAD..."
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

Nothing is proven with all this 'new information'. I hope most of it is deemed 'inadmissable'. The trial should focus on what Ersland did that is caught on camera. Not on anything previously.

In a perfect world this might be true but, it has no basis in reality. The defendants state of mind will come into play here, his behaviors both past, and present are going to be dissected, some of the hearsay stuff from the Ex, and such will be inadmissible but, there will be plenty of other fodder that will be. What is on the tape will be but a part of the picture the prosecutor will paint for the jury. As if the tape weren't bad enough.

[Playboypenguin]

Read through this very forum and you'll find endless examples of people planning or rehearsing what to do in this type of situation. Nothing wrong with that.
Rehearsing the legal and moral action is one thing, rehearsing an execution is quite another.
Yes, there is a huge difference between practicing tactics and rehearsing an execution. If you include "finishing off" your assailant in your tactical plan, you deserve to rot in jail.

[DeltaB]

If many of you were asked to do a profile of the type of person who would act in the manner we have seen from Ersland from the very beginning, especially in the reports he gave to investigators and to media, how he was a hero, how he was saving someone else, how he stood up so bravely in overwhelming fire, how "crippled" he was...and then of course watching the video and just how accurate he was describing the actual events... It really doesn't surprise me in the revelations coming from the Oklahoman in this latter report. It will certainly play a part, and both the defense and the prosecution will use it in court.

The sad part for me, is that while I will fight to the death for the rights of the Constitution, especially the 2nd amendment, this case sadly proves not everyone should have deadly weapons in their control.

[hogdogs]

And another point I can make...
How would the general populace perceive this if it were a big burly biker guy at a bar he tended that did the same exact moves? Or a middle eastern or oriental shop keep of a small convenience store?
I know as prejudice as it may sound... I would give the pharmacist a few bonus points as it would seem he is in a "profession"...
Brent

[Ricky B]

my .02 from having just watched the video again...

store owner appears to have justification (two masked robbers / one pointing weapon) for the first shot.


The DA said as much in announcing the charges. The first shot by Ersland is not at issue in any way and will not be an issue in the trial.

[Ricky B]

And if this is handled by a jury of FAIR HONEST LAW ABIDING PEERS... It will likely end in a 1st degree murder or 1st degree manslaughter guilty verdict as he clearly stands over an unarmed, downed adolescent thug and "FILLS 'EM FULL O' LEAD..."

I think if we polled the members of TFL who have watched the video and who have watched or read his interviews, most would find him guilty of some crime. The trial is going to be over the degree of culpability, not whether it was self-defense.

[Ricky B]

The last thing the defense counsel will want is for this man to be questioned on direct.


Small correction: Defense counsel would be happy for his client to testify on direct provided there was no cross-examination.

[Donn_N]

I know as prejudice as it may sound... I would give the pharmacist a few bonus points as it would seem he is in a "profession"...

Wow. Really?

[Wildalaska]

OK here is my rant. Hogdogs asked me to keep it short.

Rant: Some otherwise law abiding folks should not own guns due to psychological deficiencies. Unfortunately, the only way to keep them from having guns is to wait till they abuse them.

I cringe when I read comments on this Board indicative of the same problems this guy had. I'm glad some of our mods and more well respected members have been taking these comments to task.

WildrantfinishedAlaska TM

[Wildalaska]

Small correction: Defense counsel would be happy for his client to testify on direct provided there was no cross-examination.

The Pharmacist is at the mercy of the DA now. If he goes to trial and does not testify, he will be convicted of 1st Degree murder. If he testifies, a law student could eat him alive on cross and he will be convicted of 1st degree murder.

His only hope. Testify, look wacked out, and bring in shrinks to try to diminish his culpable mental state. He's going to jail, is going to be bankrupted and his life is over.

Now y'all think about all of these multiple pages before ya strap on your gat, spare mags, BUG and flashlight to go to DQ.

WildandwatchwhatyousayonthenetAlaska TM

[STAGE 2]

The Pharmacist is at the mercy of the DA now. If he goes to trial and does not testify, he will be convicted of 1st Degree murder. If he testifies, a law student could eat him alive on cross and he will be convicted of 1st degree murder.

The DA still needs to show premeditation and deliberation and I don't think thats cut and dry in this case. Part of me thinks that this might be the reason why he was charged with 1st degree rather than 2nd degree murder. The state can say they tried but he will be rightfully acquitted.

[samurai30047]

Lets just hope the jury is made up of the mans peers and not guys that think a prepared person with a nasty ex-wife is automatically guilty.
I've been working prisons and law enforcement for about 22 years and can tell you it's good to get rid of scumbags if you can. They'll eventually get out of prison and when they do 80% of the time they aren't real worried about victims rights. In my state a killer with life can get out in 20 years. Murder one. I talked to a criminal about what he'd do if a mark were to pull a gun. He said he'd just spin around and put his back to the guy and continue to close the distance. That way the victim would probably have second thoughts of shooting him in the back illegally! That's how they think. That's what the judicial system has taught them. That they are really just a victim as well.

[MauiDoc]

If Ersland was taking drugs for pain and/or control of mood/emotions (PTSD, bi-polar, whatever), that could definitely be a defense opportunity. If you look at the stats on public shootings, there is a HIGH incidence of prescription drug usage-either at the time or sometime before the violence. Here's a link:

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

IMHO, unless he cops a crazy or at least impaired defense, he's gonna be screwed.

[PT111]

His only hope. Testify, look wacked out, and bring in shrinks to try to diminish his culpable mental state. He's going to jail, is going to be bankrupted and his life is over.

That pretty much sums it up. Even if he doesn't wind up in jail he will be bankrupted and his life as a pharmacist or normal person is over.

[DeltaB]

I've been working prisons and law enforcement for about 22 years and can tell you it's good to get rid of scumbags if you can.

I'm a fierce advocate of private citizens arming themselves. It's provided by the Constitution. I'm not, however, an advocate of vigilantism. Private citizens don't get to be law enforcement, judge, jury and executioner simultainiously. Under the Castle Doctrine, we are given the right to defend ourselves until the threat is removed. I respect your right to your opinion, but I cannot support it.

[Shadi Khalil]

Lets just hope the jury is made up of the mans peers and not guys that think a prepared person with a nasty ex-wife is automatically guilty.
I've been working prisons and law enforcement for about 22 years and can tell you it's good to get rid of scumbags if you can.

Unreal. When I was 15, a friend form my neighborhood who I had known all through elementary school/middle school robbed a local flower shop. He took his grandfathers gun and a ski mask then an otherwise good kid walked up the local strip mall and committed and armed robbery for 35 dollars (it was 9 in the morning, the place had been open for all an hour). Now he didn't hurt anyone and was caught less than an hour later. Lucky for him, he came from a great family who was able to get him help and set him on the right path. He went to school, played football and is now a Senior partner for a Major international consulting firm.

Now I tell this story because I wonder if the author of the above quote thinks someone should have executed him that day in the flower shop?

[peetzakilla]

I've been working prisons and law enforcement for about 22 years and can tell you it's good to get rid of scumbags if you can.

Plain English translation:

"You should murder people who are doing bad things if you get the chance."

If I knew someone under my direction had that mindset.... they wouldn't have a job in prison or law enforcement.

[pax]

The Pharmacist is at the mercy of the DA now. If he goes to trial and does not testify, he will be convicted of 1st Degree murder. If he testifies, a law student could eat him alive on cross and he will be convicted of 1st degree murder.

Wild, I think you're a bit premature here.

1) None of us have seen the forensic evidence the DA alluded to. If that evidence does not strongly support ("prove") that Parker was down and unmoving at the moment the fatal shots were fired, Ersland will probably walk.

2) If the jury votes with their feelings instead of going by the law, Ersland will probably walk.

If I were a betting woman, I'd put money down on a conviction for some lesser offense. I think the jury will reject murder 1, on feelings.

pax

[hogdogs]

Pax is right about the forensic and physical evidence. If there are bullet chips in the floor and vinyl tile particles around the exit wounds the guy is a goner!
I do see a lesser verdict but it would take 12 folks willing to overlook all that makes our system the best to let the guy walk if the evidence is at all decent.
Plus the DA seemed to not want to prosecute much so I am guessing the forensic and physical evidence gave him quite a knuckle noogie. Now he could do his best to botch up the presentation so the jury could question his case... Unethical? Yes. Impossible? Hardly...
Brent

[peetzakilla]

Bill O'reilly said that he thinks the DA went for Murder 1 because he knows the guy will get off but he (DA) wanted to look like he was going after him.

[GSUeagle1089]

I tend to agree with hogdogs and WA on this. The camera footage alone is incriminating enough, but the fact that he has lied to the police in his statement has absolutly shot (pardon the pun) his credibility and if I were a member on this jury I would have to wonder why an innocent man would lie.

For everyone else, I think a good protocol to follow in home and self defense situations is this: If you have a clear opportunity NOT to kill then take it. The list of scenarios that this could apply to are a mile long I'm sure but as a general rule shooting bad guys in the back, while they're laying down, or when their hands are full of your TV are all situations where you had a clear opportunity NOT to kill.

12 May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. ~ 1st Samuel 24:12

[pax]

peet ~

That's ... not credible. The jury typically receives instructions regarding "lesser and included" offenses before they withdraw for deliberation. The DA charged with the highest offense that could get a conviction, but the jury can choose to convict on anything below that. They aren't constrained to consider only murder 1; they can convict on any lesser and included offense such as manslaughter.

It's possible and even probable that the DA charged high hoping for a lesser plea. But the evidence could certainly support the charge he chose.

pax

[peetzakilla]

peet ~

That's ... not credible.

It seemed strange to me but I'm no lawyer, I was watching the show when he said it though. His sort of "closing statement" on the issue was that the DA knew that "no jury in Oklahoma" would convict the guy.

[doh_312]

If someone points a gun at me, I'm assuming they intend to kill me. If there are two of them, and the other guy is showing a gun, I'm still assuming the second guy is just as much a threat. It is just as easy for him to conceal a weapon as it is you. Guilty by association? You bet your butt, especially if your in a ski mask, as your buddy waves a gun and demands my cooperation. A person with one shot in their head, lying on the ground, can still pull a firearm and get you. Even kids.

This situation is sketchy yes, but I do not think he is all that wrong for thinking anyone who is still alive is a threat. I certainly know if I ever take a shot (from a BG) and go down, I'll do everything I can to still be a threat.

Besides, if you participate in the wrong side of an armed robbery, then you assume the risks, which include a gun weilding victim who kills you. One gun, two people, still equals the ability to shoot you and kill you. And at the time, how was the hero of this pharmacy to know that the kids didn't have a weapon hidden from view?

I say he gets off with a simple apology to the family of the kid. A simple "I'm sorry but I though your kid was going to kill me." I've seen worse video of police "murdering" people for no apparent reason other than adrenaline was flowing and the popo thought there was a threat. If that is good enough for police, why not for citizens?

[peetzakilla]

Here's the quote from the show archive:

MILLER: Listen, 14 or 16 (years old), the key thing here is the handgun pointed at the guy. When you come in with a handgun pointed at a guy, you are changing the pharmaceutical prescription over from mortar and pestle to mortar and pistol. You unleashed chaos theory there. And I have to tell you, on my list of things that bothered me that day, somebody pulling a gun on a pharmacist and getting shot, like eight billionth and forty-second on my list, right above global warming. You cannot pull guns on people and expect it to go well. This pharmacist's only mistake, it would appear, is not being an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield shooting at our troops. Of course, he's going to pull a gun if he's got one. Of course, he's going to shoot the guy. I don't know what he saw down there on the floor. But if he was scared, if he was threatened, then what are you going to do?

I remember years ago when Bernie Getz went freakazoid. What are you supposed to do? You're getting rolled by a kid with a handgun. Are you supposed to all of a sudden be the master of discretion? You don't know. You're in unnatural territory there. I think they've given the pharmacist an out though, Bill, with the murder one. I can see that. This is a premeditated murder one case? I don't think they could prove that.

O'REILLY: No, I think that was either a very dumb mistake by the prosecutor or intentional so the guy gets off, because I agree with you. In Oklahoma, there's not a jury in Oklahoma going to convict this guy of murder one. There isn't. Manslaughter?

MILLER: I don't think so.

O'REILLY: Go ahead.

MILLER: You know, maybe they could have gotten him on an environmental misdemeanor for putting too much lead in the air, but they're not going to get him on murder one. So I think in essence they've given him a pass here.

[cloud8a]

Good for the Pharmacist it did not happen in New York.

[pax]

doh ~

Actually, that's the very point under discussion here: did Ersland reasonably believe Parker was a threat at the moment he fired those fatal shots? It doesn't really matter whether or not Parker was, in fact, a threat -- only whether Ersland reasonably believed Parker was a threat at that moment. That's what the jury will be asked to consider. To do that, they'll look at the totality of circumstances.

In Ersland's favor:

1) Parker was part of a gang or group of people threatening violence, and Ersland did in fact see a firearm in the hands of one of those people. Courts have ruled that in cases where a victim is attacked by a group, each member of the group shares in creating the fear that the intended victim experiences, and thus each member of the group shares in the danger created by the intended victim's reasonable response to that danger. In the heat of the moment, it would be perfectly reasonable for Ersland to believe that Parker was armed, even if he did not specifically see a firearm in Parker's hand.

2) The backpack. If, in his last moments of life, Parker was reaching into his backpack, Ersland's belief that Parker was armed and a threat might be quite reasonable.

3) Where were his hands? If Parker's hands were underneath his body, and he was rolling around or moving such that his hands were not visible to Ersland during the moments before he fired, Ersland might reasonably believe Parker was armed and a threat.

Against Ersland:

1) The DA was very specific that there was "forensic evidence" showing that Parker was down and not moving at the moment those fatal shots were fired. If (for example) there was a straight line of blood from the head wound to a puddle on the ground beneath Parker's head, with no sign that Parker's head had ever moved once he hit the ground, Ersland's story of Parker shouting, moving, and rolling around would be inconsistent with the physical evidence.

2) Ersland's own body language on the video, which may not be consistent with body language one would expect if he was truly in fear for his life at the moment those final shots were fired.

3) Ersland's state of mind as evidenced by things he might have written or said to others before the lethal encounter took place. There's been at least one newspaper story (probably dozens by now) that went into this, and some of what was reported will probably be admissible in court as evidence of Ersland's mindset and prior intent. If the newspaper report is even 1/4 accurate, those things won't work in his favor.

Kathy

[spacemanspiff]

The DA still needs to show premeditation and deliberation and I don't think thats cut and dry in this case
And what was concocting a fabulous story full of falsehoods?


Suppose the injured Parker was conscious, and rummaging around his body or backpack and was saying "Yo Moses I'm still going to kill you and then I'm going to robs this store and then I'm going to ravage those women back there and pour one out for all my dead homiez."
Suppose he did pose a threat. Were the other employees of the pharmacy still in the line of supposed fire? Could Ersland have taken cover? If so, why did he choose not to?

[Playboypenguin]

That whole O'Reilly exchange is pretty disgusting. I think it is a sad state of affairs that these guys will sit on national television and make statement that boil down to unadulterated racism. What they are saying, with a smug attitude no less, is that no jury is going to convict a white man for executing a black criminal. There just isn't any valid reason, after seeing the video, to support this criminal. Except for ones born of personal prejudice and bias. It is so reassuring that they feel the entire state will share their prejudice.

[cloud8a]

It is not about racism. it is about people bending the law in favor of someone shooting a piece of crap thug.

Is it fair? maybe not
is getting robbed fair?

[Ricky B]

Well put, Pax.

Some additional observations. I don't know if your #2 against included the following but it bears expanding upon.

Ersland went past Parker (exposing his back to Parker) to chase the gunman down the street. At that point, the gunman had broken off the attack, and Ersland was acting aggressively.

Erlsand then comes back and walks past Parker. If Parker were acting in a manner that was threatening, one would have expected Ersland to have backed off or used the gun he had in hand. Unless it were empty. But if Ersland is counting the rounds used, he is a lot cooler in a gunfight than most cops, which isn't helpful to his defense.

Ersland gets a new gun and (instead of going to the back of the store to protect the female employees and perhaps exit the rear of the store or simply staying put and using counter as cover) goes back to confront Parker.

The video I saw wasn't all that clear, but the movements of Ersland appear to be that of a person who was going back to shoot Parker as opposed to someone who was checking on him and was startled by unexpected motion and shot in self defense.

Having said all that, I don't believe that Ersland is guilty of premeditated murder. There is no question in my mind that had Parker not come into the store with an accomplice to rob Ersland, none of this would have happened. Ersland over-reacted to a situation not of his own making, and I have no doubt that Ersland was greatly agitated. Killing in the "heat of passion" will reduce the degree of a homicide. The DA is correct to charge murder 1 since it should be up to a jury to decide what Ersland's state of mind was.

I don't put much stock in the theory that the DA is looking for political cover by charging murder 1. If the DA charges too low (here, say, manslaughter), the jury can not convict even if the evidence shows a higher level of offense. Simply put, you can't be convicted of a crime that you were not charged and tried for. Therefore, it is customary for DA's to charge the highest possible offense and let the jury sort it out.

We have a similar situation here in the SF Bay Area where a BART cop shot a young man, Oscar Grant, who was lying prone on the train platform. Grant was thought by the cops to have been in a fight on the BART train or otherwise being rowdy. The cop warned another cop that he was going to taser Grant but ended up pulling out his firearm and shooting Grant in the back and killing him. The DA here charged the cop with murder 1 too. And, yes, you could say that the DA did that for political reasons since the black community was up in arms over the shooting, but I think its SOP for most prosecutors.

[Playboypenguin]

It is not about racism. it is about people bending the law in favor of someone shooting a piece of crap thug.
Wow. :barf:

So it is not about prejudice or racism. It is just okay to shoot certain people.

[Wildalaska]

It doesn't really matter whether or not Parker was, in fact, a threat -- only whether Ersland reasonably believed Parker was a threat at that moment. That's what the jury will be asked to consider. To do that, they'll look at the totality of circumstances.


Thats a mistatement of the law IIRC. The jury must consider the objective standard too.

WildpleaseseeapostwaybackwhenAlaska ™

[peetzakilla]

I think it is a sad state of affairs that these guys will sit on national television and make statement that boil down to unadulterated racism.

I don't see the racism.:confused: No mention of race or creed or color or religion or anything else.

Miller says the guys mistake is pulling a gun on a pharmacist. (Inaccurate technically)

O'reilly says no jury will convict a pharmacist of shooting a guy who tried to rob him of Murder 1.


I don't see any reason to label any part of the exchange "racist".

[cloud8a]

Playboypenguin

didn't say it was fair

didn't say getting robbed was fair either

[Playboypenguin]

Thats a mistatement of the law IIRC. The jury must consider the objective standard too.
Correct. You can't just walk down the street, shoot someone, and then say "I felt he was a threat." The facts of the situation have to bear out your feelings.

[Ricky B]

Thats a mistatement of the law IIRC. The jury must consider the objective standard too.


You're right and you're wrong! You're right in that one's subjective belief is not enough. The facts must justify it objectively. But you're wrong in that the poster said "reasonably" believed. And that's the "objective" qualifier. Not "actually" believed, which is essential but also that the belief be reasonable.

But I'm quibbling with your quibble. :D

[Playboypenguin]

I don't see the racism. No mention of race or creed or color or religion or anything else.

To not see the prejudice and racism you would have to squint pretty tightly. If this had been a "down on his luck" white male who committed the robbery and the shooter had done what he did he would be portrayed as a monster who killed someone son, father, brother. I know a lot of people on here have never know discrimination or prejudice and might not be able to see it when it is under the surface but those of us that have can. One big clue is the fact that it is almost always racism when the people spouting the stuff feel the need to say "this is not about race." I have lived in this part of the country and it is indeed very racist.

[cloud8a]

So are you mad that a black man was shot by a white guy or are you mad that O'rielly and Miller are letting go something that was obviously racist. Like the racist pharmacist and jury.

[pax]

Having said all that, I don't believe that Ersland is guilty of premeditated murder. ... Killing in the "heat of passion" will reduce the degree of a homicide.

Premeditation does not have to happen days or weeks in advance. It can happen in just a few moments. For instance, if Ersland saw the guy was down and unconscious (eg, realized he wasn't a threat), but still walked over to retrieve a different firearm from a locked drawer and then walked back to the downed attacker to fire at him, premeditation could very well be established by the break in the action, by the fact that he disengaged and then re-engaged, by time it took for him to do the whole series of actions and by the apparently calm way in which he did it.

On the other hand, if Ersland had simply emptied his still-loaded firearm into the guy, without any break in the action and without disengaging at any point, it would be very very difficult to establish premeditation even if forensic evidence showed the guy was not a threat at that point.

Again, the complete totality of the circumstances would need to be taken into account. But I think the evidence that has come out in the press so far would support murder 1 -- provided the evidence that hasn't yet come out does not contradict it.

As for racism vs no racism, please, guys, let's not go there. Suffice it to say that the race card is gonna get played by some people whether we like it or not -- but we don't have to play that card on TFL.

pax

[peetzakilla]

Sorry, posted while Pax was posting....


WITHDRAWN

[pax]

hats a mistatement of the law IIRC. The jury must consider the objective standard too.

That's why I used the phrase "reasonably believed." Of course it's true that he can't simply say "I just felt as if ..." and walk free. On the other hand, if he can establish that a reasonable and prudent person, in the same circumstances, knowing what he knew at the time (and no more!) would have believed the same thing he did (that Parker was a threat), then it would not matter what other physical facts came to light after the dust settled.

It'll be interesting to see what the jury thinks, when & if it gets that far.

pax

[peetzakilla]

Premeditation does not have to happen days or weeks in advance. It can happen in just a few moments.


I'm curious about that interpretation. Wouldn't such a thing seem to make ALL killings premeditated? Except for accidents of course, you MUST decide to kill someone before doing so, therefore "premeditated"?

I guess I'm saying that it seems to me that, if such an idea was widely held in court, any time someone killed another person with malice it would ALWAYS be considered premeditated.

[cloud8a]

I cannot find anywhere that says what the pharmacist said he was doing when he went back in and shot the robber. Has he made a statement?

[Micahweeks]

To all of the people who think it was a bad decision to shoot the boy while he was getting up:

You are forgetting the Disparity of Force statute. The robber is young and able bodied while the other man is older and a hinder by a back injury and recent surgery. If he feels threatened, and he has every right to after being shot at, than he has much more leeway to respond with lethal force than most of the rest of us. A jury is most likely going to clear him based on that alone.

[peetzakilla]

Has he made a statement?

He's made several. Most of them are provably, indisputably wrong, based on the video.

[hogdogs]

Pre-planned course for self defense and pre-meditated murder are 180 degrees apart. If you spend your days spouting off at the ol' cake grinder about hoping someone tries to mug you so you can try out your new .45 loaded with the "black talons" and posting similar wishes on the WWW you may face murder charges.
If you spend that time professing to never want to take a life and you do your best to help others understand responsible gun ownership and CCW practices, it will be much easier to see your actions as self defense.
If you do have to use your gun and you drop the BG on his keester and them hold him covered until LE arrives, you are "golden" if he makes a move and you show an involuntary physical response such as a rearward lurch before re-engaging with additional shots, it wouldn't be too easy for a DA to charge you even if on camera and BG is out of view.
Brent

[Wildalaska]

On the other hand, if he can establish that a reasonable and prudent person, in the same circumstances, knowing what he knew at the time (and no more!) would have believed the same thing he did (that Parker was a threat), then it would not matter what other physical facts came to light after the dust settled.

And to do that...he has to testify.

And if he testifies, hes a goner. The guy suffers from a mouth in 4th gear whilst his brain is in 1st.

WildbetyadinnerinvegasAlaska ™

PS.....I commented originally because you used the word subjective