Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[pax]

Cloud ~

Here's the initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy") Pay attention to what he says in that interview, and then watch the videos below with his words in mind. (This is what he said before he was charged.)

Here's the raw surveillance camera footage: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

Here's the affadavit of probable cause: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

Here's a short, edited version of an interview with the prosecuting DA, which includes a few statements from Ersland's defense attorney: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Here's the extended interview with the DA, uncut. It is hard to hear in spots, and it is WELL worth the 20 minutes it takes to view: http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

And here's an article about this DA's view of the 2nd Amendment: http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148 (The money quote: "I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” ... the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”)

Interestingly, at the bail hearing, the DA (prosecutor) strongly objected to the judge's order forbidding the defendant to own firearms until after the case was resolved. See http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fatal-oklahoma-city-shooting-released-on-100000-bail/article/3373194 for that whole story.

This link (http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-says-he-feared-for-life-during-shooting/article/3374434) reports on the O'Reilly interview which happened after he was charged with murder.

There's also a good page here (http://www.newsok.com/pharmacyshootings) with ongoing local coverage of the situation.

And finally, here's a link to the best in-depth analysis article I've yet seen: here. (www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4098/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Kathy

[Playboypenguin]

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"?
That comes down to state of mind and conditions. It is the same as the difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill." If you are shooting to stop an attack it is not premeditated murder since your goal was to end a situation. If you shoot to kill it can be premeditated murder because your objective was to end the life of your attacker. There is a very legitimate legal reason for never using the term "shoot to kill."

IMHO, with his first shot the shooter can be seen to be "shooting to stop." That might not be the actual case but it is reasonable. In his later act he is "shooting to kill." That is premeditated murder.

[Micahweeks]

Peetzakilla, premeditation is NOT done in a few moments. You are right to question that interpretation Premeditation does not just require a desire to kill and the means to do it. It requires significant planning to use that ability. Someone who decides to shoot the guy across the poker table because he just caught him cheating is not committing murder. That is manslaughter and considered a "crime of passion" in some states. If he had left the poker table, loaded his gun, waited for the cheater to walk out to his car and then shot him, you might be closer to premeditation there, but not likely. You have to make a cold decision to kill for it to be premeditation, not a heat-of-the-moment decisions. Heat-of-the-moment is voluntary manslaughter. (At least around here, anyway).

Now, I should clarify that you'll probably be arrested for murder. You might even have a hearing to answer for murder charges. But, by the time you get into court, you'll probably be looking at manslaughter, not murder. It is highly unlikely that a murder charge will stick through trial over a crime of passion.

[hogdogs]

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?
In fact he did make several and they contradict one another. He made one with his lawyer present that I watched and it was disgusting even to a hard nose like me...
The "crippled" guy ran pretty dang good after the armed man to be so crippled!
Don't play the cripple card after you sprint on camera. He claimed he was shot with a grazing wound to the arm yet no casing was found nor was there a whole or bullet slug found anywhere in the store!
BUSTED!
Brent

[Playboypenguin]

To all of the people who think it was a bad decision to shoot the boy while he was getting up:
What evidence have you seen to indicate he was getting up? The coroner, DA, and the physical evidence on the tape do not support that idea.

[pax]

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

Actually, if the boy was, in actual fact, getting up -- Ersland does not have a problem. However, the surveillance video does not appear to support his statements in several particulars, and the DA reported that there was "forensic evidence" at the scene that suggested the robber on the floor was unconscious and unmoving at the time the fatal shots were fired.

I fully support the idea of shooting until the threat stops, including the idea of shooting a renewed threat if the attacker makes a threatening move and the defender reasonably believes innocent lives (including his own) are in danger at that moment.

However, shooting an unconscious and unmoving person -- that's bad. Very bad.

pax

[Wagonman]

That comes down to state of mind and conditions. It is the same as the difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill." If you are shooting to stop an attack it is not premeditated murder since your goal was to end a situation. If you shoot to kill it can be premeditated murder because your objective was to end the life of your attacker. There is a very legitimate legal reason for never using the term "shott to kill."


It was right around the time I started in LE that the terms started to change.

Shoot to kill became shoot to stop the threat

Tap--Rack---Bang became Tap--Rack--assess.

[peetzakilla]

If you are shooting to stop an attack it is not premeditated murder since your goal was to end a situation.

But what about illegal killings? I mean, say you get drunk and happen to walk past a homeless man, you decide to push him into a river and he drowns. You had to have thought of that prior to doing it, even if it was only 3 seconds. Wouldn't that be "premeditated".

Or a wife sees her husband with another women and shoots him. Ten minutes ago she loved him, now she killed him. Wouldn't THAT be premeditated?

I'm asking seriously. It seems like, based on that definition, ALL illegal killing would be "premeditated."

[hogdogs]

Or a wife sees her husband with another women and shoots him. Ten minutes ago she loved him, now she killed him. Wouldn't THAT be premeditated?
"crimes of passion" often get a pass on premeditated murder.
I mean, say you get drunk and happen to walk past a homeless man, you decide to push him into a river and he drowns.
That is premeditated murder but often lack of presentable evidence will cause the DA to go for a reduced charge so you will be convicted at least!
Brent

[Micahweeks]

Ah, I was unaware of any forensic evidence that said that the boy was unconscious, and I really didn't want to sift through 21 pages of commentary to see if anything like that had been mentioned. lol.

If the boy was out cold, then, yes, Earl has a major problem on his hands. He can probably get off easier than most people, though, considering Disparity of Force and the unwillingness of most judges to incarcerate defendants with back injuries. In Mississippi, you don't go to prison if you have a back injury. You actually serve in local houses that specifically handles inmates with injuries that would prevent any attempt to flea.

[cloud8a]

What about the other clerks? Did they witness the robber get up, move, or anything? Or do all we have is the camera and the Pharmacist?

[pax]

Presumably, witness testimony comes out at trial. The last link in my post above - the one with local coverage - has some interviews with local people. I did not notice any eyewitnesses among them, but may have missed it.

It appears from the video as though the two women who were in the store were around the corner from Parker, and probably would not have seen any movement he might have made. They would have heard any shouting he did, though. Early on, I saw a report that suggested someone else was also in the pharmacy at the time (a customer), but don't know whether that person has given media interviews or not. Again, it'll come out at trial.

pax

[hogdogs]

with injuries that would prevent any attempt to flea.
Micah, Did you see that ol' cripple run after BG #1? He can run jist fine:D!
Brent

[cloud8a]

Gunman exchanges fire with Security at Holocaust museum in D.C. right now FOX

[peetzakilla]

Gunman exchanges fire with Security at Holocaust museum in D.C. right now FOX

It's all over. Gunman fired on security guards just ahead of security. Gunman and one guard injured. Approximately 5 shots fired. Reported that the BG had "a long gun".

Perps name "James W Von Brunn", the apparent germanic name is probably not coincidental, given the location. Aged somewhere between 60 and 80.

BG reportedly "seen lying motionless", "hit in the head"...

[pax]

Guys ~

Start a fresh thread for those, probably down in the Gen Disc area (if there's not one going already).

pax

[PT111]

After seeing the edited interview with the DA and the video from the other camera in the store it just makes me wonder even more what the heck was the fellow tininking. We can talk about adrenline and fear but he looked very calm as he walked by the boy lying there, not showing any fear and calmly got the other gun and walked back execution style.

A couple of questions I have is I understand that the first shot was from a Taurus Judge. Was it a 45LC or a .410 shell. Did he fire only once or several times. Why did he go back to get a different gun. A P3AT whould have had 7 rounds so why did he only fire 5 times. Lots of nitpicky questions but overall he is in big trouble.

[hogdogs]

Having thought about it a bit... Most of us see a gross misuse of self defense laws and gun use. But what I see as the most blatant use of poor judgement was talkin'...
For cryin out loud folks... Keep yer cake grinder shut until you speak to your lawyer and then severely limit where you run it after the lawyer consultation!:rolleyes:
Heck OJ Simpson got off on the criminal charges because he kept his mouth shut and didn't change his story 15 times in a week!:eek:
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

considering Disparity of Force

This will hardly be a consideration in this particular case, someone who is shot in the head is likely to be considered equally, if not more "impaired" than a fully ambulatory, self proclaimed "cripple".

I really didn't want to sift through 21 pages of commentary to see if anything like that had been mentioned. lol.

Perhaps you should reconsider, many fine points have been brought out and, discussed at length. Much better than asking for a recap that would hardly do the topic justice.;)

[STAGE 2]

And what was concocting a fabulous story full of falsehoods?

I'm not sure that I understand your statement.


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?

If memory serves, in OK you don't have a duty to retreat so whether he could have taken cover is irrelevant. I don't know what other people being in the line of fire have to do with anything either. All that matters is this guys state of mind. Different states define premeditation and deliberation differently. Some have it as being instantaneous with your actions. Others require some discernible length of time.

If this guy came back into the pharmacy, adrenaline pumping, believed he saw the perp moving/getting up/reaching for something, and shot as a result, I don't think murder 1 is applicable.

Even if its the case that the perp didn't move, given the stress he was under its still reasonable to believe that he could have percieved the perp as still a threat and percieved he was moving. So either way, the elements of murder 1 arent met.

[STAGE 2]

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

Thats what the woodshed is for.

[wickedrider]

The newspaper reported that the pharmacy had been robbed a few years prior to this incident. Does anyone know whether Ersland was present when the first robbery occurred?

[WW2]

There is a third video angle that is shot from behind the counter and from behind Ersland after he retrieved the second gun. Parker is still not visible, however as Ersland is approaching Parker he suddenly flinches to his left (only a quick, couple of inches at most) as if to take cover and then returns to his forward direction toward Parker. I have noticed that this third video angle is NOT being shown any where at this time. I have been unable to find it again.

As a defense attorney I would point out that this is evidence that Parker indeed did move and it would be reasonable to believe that he was a threat again. At best forensics can only say Parker's position at the moment of the last 5 shots, and not his position just 1 second earlier. Perhaps this flinch in the video and the fact that forensics cannot state Parker's EXACT position until the first of the last 5 shots were fired is enough for the jury to have reasonable doubt.

How can the ME state he was unconscious and immobile? Can the ME also state that Parker did not twitch, flinch, or moan just before being shot the last 5 times? Would even a slight movement by Parker make a reasonable person believe he was a threat again?

Parker was on his back with both hands spread out to the sides. Could the movement have been just one hand starting to move? Is that enough to consider him a threat again?

The trial will be interesting; terrible but interesting.

I believe that Ersland went beyond reasonable self defense. I would probably go for voluntary manslaughter. Please see the definitions below for more information.

For a second degree murder, or first degree murder charge I would need unquestionable evidence that Parker did not move AT ALL and that Ersland had indeed planned to kill anyone that tried to rob him.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

“In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.”

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/second+degree+murder

“second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state. (See: murder, first degree murder, manslaughter)”

And finally from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/first%20degree%20murder

“first degree murder n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill. (See: murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, felony murder doctrine)”

[PT111]

Here's a short, edited version of an interview with the prosecuting DA, which includes a few statements from Ersland's defense attorney: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

From Pax's post earlier this has some of the third angle that you are talking about. I didn't see the flinch you are referring to but it is not the entire video.

[pax]

WW2 ~

All three angles are available here: http://www.kfor.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=pharmacy&target=video

There may be a 4th video somewhere, but if so I've not seen it.

If the video you're talking about is among these, I believe it would be Angle 3 -- and I believe you're seeing him step around the corner of the counter, as can be seen from the primary angle.

pax

[Wildalaska]

As a defense attorney I would point out that this is evidence that Parker indeed did move and it would be reasonable to believe that he was a threat again

Thats for summation. You cant cross examine a tape. The only one who can testify to make that tape favourable is the Defendant.

A loose cannon :)

WildroolinginanticipationAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

There is a third video angle that is shot from behind the counter and from behind Ersland after he retrieved the second gun. Parker is still not visible, however as Ersland is approaching Parker he suddenly flinches to his left (only a quick, couple of inches at most) as if to take cover and then returns to his forward direction toward Parker.
Not seeing that at all. All I am seeing is him moving slightly to the left to clear the entrance of the counter. Just as he moved slightly to the right going the other direction at the exact same location.

[pax]

Here's a link to an awesome series of articles by Austin "Gun Rights Examiner" Howard Nemerov. The articles look at two pharmacy shootings with different legal outcomes, and explore the legal issues surrounding them:

Intro (www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d31-Two-pharmacy-robberies-two-different-outcomes)

"Part 1" (www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Justifying-deadly-force-Part-1) (actually Part 2, since the intro is integral)

"Part 2" (www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d3-Justifying-deadly-force-Part-2)

"Part 3" (www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d4-Justifying-deadly-force-Part-3)

Well worth the read.

pax

[doh_312]

The one guy was down, perhaps the pharmacist thought he wasn't a threat, so he chased the other guy (short chase because he is crippled) and retrieved a bigger gun. I certainly would get my bigger gun if I'd just been in a gun fight. I could see how he may have tunnel visioned on the second guy because he was still on his feet openly displaying a firearm. Sure the kid turns as if to run, which he did, but he could have just been looking for cover, or an exit to shoot from. Nothing stopping the kid from turning at the door and spraying bullets back into the store.

After getting his bigger gun he noticed the kid on the floor moving or something. Or maybe his tunnel vision turned to him. Perhaps his mind could only focus on one thing at time, why not? Do you think you could multi-task in a fire fight? Plus he has a history in the armed forces where you shoot to kill because that is how you guarentee the threat is neutralized.

I'd say because we cannot see on the video, he gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure how this "evidence" the kids was unconcsious and not moving can be proved. Someone would have to spend quite a bit of time convincing me as a jurist that they can prove the kids was not moving and not a threat with out me being able to see the kid in that state with my own eyes ie:video tape.

It is unfortunate he cannot keep his story inline with the video, but remember this is a truamatic even he just went through. I can see how a little confusion can go hand in hand with pulling the trigger to shoot someone.

[pax]

doh,

Well, that's what the jury trial is for. They'll get to see the forensic evidence we're just guessing at. We can look at the videos ourselves and judge whether Ersland's body language is consistent with fear as he glanced at the downed man, transfered the gun to his non-shooting hand in a non-shooting grip, turned his back on the downed man, walked to the end of the counter, retrieved another gun from a locked drawer, and walked right up to the downed man to fire at him from a very close distance without ducking or flinching or even looking over at the guy as he retrieved the second gun from the drawer. But they'll get to see whether the blood splatter, bullet trajectories, and other physical evidence on-scene supports Ersland's story.

One thing, though: Ersland said he used the smaller gun first, then retrieved the bigger one. However, Angle 3 of the surveillance cameras sure looks to my eye as if he's using the Judge (large revolver) first, and if that's the case, he then transitioned to the small .380, inconsistent with his statements to the media. That would be consistent with the DA's statements in the extended interview (link at top of page 21 of this thread), where the DA said the stomach shots were done with a .380 caliber pistol.

pax

[doh_312]

I can not see which gun he uses first. It makes sense to me that the smaller gun was on him at the time, and the larger gun was in the drawer. But because it makes sense to me doesn't mean that is how he does it.

Regarding the evidence the kid was not moving. I'm sure they have something, but I do not see how anything other than video footage of the kid can be proof he wasn't moving. You can keep your head perfectly still and be moving your hands and arms, you do it to type. I'm sure the kid was well able to keep his head straight so as not disturb and blood trails and what not.

I would like to be a fly on the wall for this trial. It would be interesting to see how they "prove" the kid was unconscious and not moving, there for not a threat. I just do not see it happening with a logical jury.

Edit: Just noticed the part about the smaller .380 being the rounds found in the stomach

[surg_res]

Thanks for the links Pax, I enjoyed the article.

I was a little taken back by the whole concept of a knife-toting thug being potentially more lethal than a gun-carrier within 21 feet. Totally believable, but a little concerning.

[PT111]

In video #3 you can plainly see that the first gun was the Judge. Now if you want to say that a P3AT is a bigger gun than a Judge that is OK and I don't know whether he was shooting .410 or .45 at first or how many times he shot but the Judge was first.

[hogdogs]

Can the ME also state that Parker did not twitch, flinch, or moan just before being shot the last 5 times?
None of these actions deem a man a threat to life, limb or liberty!
Sorry not even in my "REDNECK BOOK OF SELF DEFENSE" have I learned this...
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

I would probably go for voluntary manslaughter.

That is a curious statement, is this from the angle of defense or prosecution? You state that you are a defense attorney so, I can only speculate that you are speaking from that angle. The reason I find that statement curious is that, by your own provided material the manslaughter description is ;

“In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.”

Whereas the differential given is ;(parsed)

second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.

I would think that 5 shots to the abdomen, at close range, would suggest quite plainly that there was an intent to kill, rather than harm, to any reasonable juror. Thus, ruling out a large part of the manslaughter argument.

And out of curiosity, how would you "spin" the completely fabricated statement the defendant made to the police concerning the events? Particularly the fact that the defendant claimed that he was fired upon ? "faulty recollection due to trauma"? or the "gunshot wound" he received? Isn't the defendant's statement direct evidence? Please elaborate (if you wish) on how you would get past this work of fiction? How will you convince me, as a juror, that a righteous man has to lie? And by all means feel free to contrast that with the video, and other available direct evidence.

[Trooper Tyree]

In angle 3, from about 50-56 sec are particularly disturbing. Do you see how he leads with his right foot and extends his left arm to keep his balance as he bends over the subject? :o

This does not bode well for him in a courtroom.

[DeltaB]

Keep in mind when it comes to a jury, and the instructions given, the Judge will instruct the jury that they can give as much or as little weight to any of the testimony given by witnesses by reason of the veracity of that witness. Ersland has already given so much testimony which is blatently false, if I were in on that jury, none of his testimony would be given any weight. I wouldn't be able to trust a single thing he said. So in the end, the camera footage, in it's entirety and not edited as is done on all of the websites (time missing, especially the nearly 30 seconds while he was outside chasing the 14 year old) would be the direct testimony I would use as the primary consideration for formulating my opinion. Having said that, it wouldn't be good for the defendant. It would be my assertion that intially, while in what he saw as a threat to life when he was presenting his weapon in a ready to fire state, anything after that, in his mind he did not see himself in imminent threat and was the aggressor, which is not defendable under the Castle Defense. And yes, I live in OKC....

[Double Naught Spy]

Ah, but as a juror, you would be instructed to not pay any attention to anything not in evidence in court, inclusive of the news events preceding the trial where Ersland made statements.

[DeltaB]

Ah, but as a juror, you would be instructed to not pay any attention to anything not in evidence in court, inclusive of the news events preceding the trial where Ersland made statements.

Detectives will testify concerning his false testimony given to investigators. Anything you say to law enforcement can and will be used against you in a court of law. It mirrors what we read in the media. That will certainly be introduced as direct evidence to impeach his testimony. The camera footage will certainly be introduced, and I see no way for the defense to quash that testimony. The footage doesn't lie, it has no bias. Ersland's own actions testify against him.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well that would be in court, would it not, assuming he gave the same statements to detectives that he gave to the media? I have certainly seen more than one case where what was said publically didn't reflect what was said to investigators.

The footage doesn't lie, it has no bias.
The footage doesn't tell the truth either, and it most definitely has some bias. The footage is what it is, a record of the event. It neither tells the truth or lies about the truth. It presents limited perspectives of what happened.

Given the arguments noted thusfar in this thread, the notion that the footage doesn't lie is interesting because not everyone agrees one what the footage is "saying." You see, the footage, like real life, is being interpreted. We interpret Ersland's behaviors in that footage as to what he is doing. There isn't even any sound to coincide with the footage, nor does it cover the whole of the events. It is nothing more than an incomplete accounting.

[hogdogs]

DNS,
Well that would be in court, would it not, assuming he gave the same statements to detectives that he gave to the media? I have certainly seen more than one case where what was said publically didn't reflect what was said to investigators.
If his "tale" of what took place changed half as many times with half the deviation story to story, to the police as it did with the media, he is damned. Not to mention his story doesn't jibe with the video.
Keep in mind, one of the main things that the jury heard in the Mr.Fish case was his memory of time line didn't jibe with folks a long way off hearing the shots.
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As far as juries ignoring outside evidence or evidence objected it and instructed not to pay attention to, there's evidence in jury simulations that they are influenced anyway. It's in the psych and law texts - which I returned to the library - so the name isn't at my finger tips.

[OuTcAsT]

Well that would be in court, would it not, assuming he gave the same statements to detectives that he gave to the media? I have certainly seen more than one case where what was said publically didn't reflect what was said to investigators.


The DA clearly stated that the main reason he was charged was due to the statement he made to investigators and, the fact that it was 180 degrees from the video, and physical evidence at the scene.

The footage doesn't tell the truth either, and it most definitely has some bias. The footage is what it is, a record of the event. It neither tells the truth or lies about the truth. It presents limited perspectives of what happened.

Given the arguments noted thusfar in this thread, the notion that the footage doesn't lie is interesting because not everyone agrees one what the footage is "saying." You see, the footage, like real life, is being interpreted. We interpret Ersland's behaviors in that footage as to what he is doing. There isn't even any sound to coincide with the footage, nor does it cover the whole of the events. It is nothing more than an incomplete accounting.



While this is true to a point, let me ask this, In how many murder cases have you seen the DA present ALL of the evidence to the media prior to the trial? I would venture none. No sound you say ? Certainly not on the copy we have seen thus far, Camera angle does not show the downed suspect ? Correct, not on the version in the media, it also does not show about 25-30 seconds of video at all, Could it be possible that the prosecutor does not want to show all his cards until the discovery phase of the trial ?

There are 2 reasons the DA went to the media with such an unprecedented amount of detail. First is the outrage that was shown by the ethnic community over the shooting, Would you, as a DA want to show, in full view, a video of the suspect being shot ? Not if you wanted to keep any kind of civil order.
Second reason for media coverage was the outcry from other citizens over the arrest of an alleged "hero" Again, you are only going to show or tell enough to justify your charges, and keep the peace.

I will not be surprised if there is a different video angle, that shows clearly, the final few seconds. I will be very surprised if there is not also a sound track to the entire video.

Much like everything else in this thread this is, of course, speculation. But, you can bet that the prosecution has not shown it all...IMHO

[hogdogs]

I will not be surprised if there is a different video angle, that shows clearly, the final few seconds. I will be very surprised if there is not also a sound track to the entire video.
Not in a pharmacy! HIPAA law. Customers are in there discussing protected health concerns/conditions. I doubt any Pharmacy is allowed to record audio. Also it is a thin line for a business of any type to be legally allowed to record audio. It is very close to the rules regarding "wire taps" IIRC.
The vids of the 3 angles I watched had no missing moments.
It clearly shows what appears to be the getaway car out front with 2 persons outside of it. They were there when the 2 walked up, dropped a board in the doorway to avoid being locked in. They were there when the guy fired a gun, they were still there when he ran out. While he was out of the store these 2 guys were pointing at the store front and calmly closed the trunk and drove off...
Brent

[peetzakilla]

Also it is a thin line for a business of any type to be legally allowed to record audio. It is very close to the rules regarding "wire taps" IIRC.

Probably depends on where you are and may require posting notices. I record video and sound in the pizzeria. I have signs on the doors and wall behind the register stating such.

[DeltaB]

The footage doesn't tell the truth either, and it most definitely has some bias. The footage is what it is, a record of the event. It neither tells the truth or lies about the truth. It presents limited perspectives of what happened. Given the arguments noted thusfar in this thread, the notion that the footage doesn't lie is interesting because not everyone agrees one what the footage is "saying." You see, the footage, like real life, is being interpreted. We interpret Ersland's behaviors in that footage as to what he is doing. There isn't even any sound to coincide with the footage, nor does it cover the whole of the events. It is nothing more than an incomplete accounting.

Footage of the event has no prejudice so therefore cannot be biased. In the case of Ersland's argument, using the Castle Defense, the footage shows with great detail Ersland's actions inside the pharmacy. You can debate until the cows come home about "did Parker move or not," but in the end, Ersland shows us early on what he looks like in the face of an imminent threat. Using the rational posed by Ersland's attorney, that "in military training, you shoot a threat until dead, and no longer capable of posing a threat" won't cut it either. This isn't the military. The Castle Defense provides no protection to using deadly force on a subdued, disabled, incapacitated, cooperative or surrendered suspect. Most folks who I have spoken with are taking one of two polarizing positions. Either one, his actions show he clearly crossed over that line of responding to an imminent threat, or two, since he was being robbed, Parker got what they see as "what he deserved" and had license to murder. I have already stated my position clearly.

[skydiver3346]

I have been following all the comments for this subject on the last 22 pages. Never seen so many different opinions: guilty, not guilty, justifiable homicide, racist, etc, etc. A lot of them make good sense and some do not any sense.

Here is the bottom line in my opinion. First of all NONE of us here on The Firing Line knows EXACTLY what was going on in the pharmacist's mind during those few seconds from first to last shots. Sure, we can all comment on the video and give our deductions on how "it really went down", etc. But you were not there and neither was I. We do have laws on the books as to when and where you can defend yourself and when when enough is enough to end the threat, etc. They were drawn up for obvious reasons and why this particular incident is drawing so much attention. In the end, a jury will decide Mr. Ersland's fate. Probably a nationwide predcedent will be set after this decision at the end of the trial. How far can we go to end a threat and/or use deadly force. This is one big trial and one big decision. I don't belive that the issue of race had anything to do with his actions. Someone pointed a gun in his face and threatened him and his staff. His actions and account of the story (and his fate) is in the hands of the jury.

Let's all remember this, no matter what: He was minding his own business and running his pharmacy. He had nothing to do with how this started, only in how it ended. When someone puts a gun in your face and threatens to kill you and/or steal your money, (or both as it sometimes goes down) that someone loses the benefit of "getting fair treatment" with regards to the way most people think.

If you don't belive me, just ask any of your friends this question (do not mention this incident in Oklahoma): If someone walks up to your out of the blue and sticks a gun in your face and threatens your life and/or robs you, "should they get fair treatment from you in return"? Hello?? I don't think so"....

I'm not saying Mr. Ersland was right in how he ended the threat by taking the robber's life. As a matter of fact, (in my opinion from viewing only the video, he probably went to far) but I wasn't there and know nothing of what he was actually thinking and or seeing.

When it's all said and done, he was the victim of an armed robbery and his life was threatened (as well as his staff's lives). Plus, he had already experienced being the victim of an armed robbery previously and put in fear of his life. Add those things together and you just don't know what you would do in those few terrifying seconds. Tough decision for the jury!

[hogdogs]

You are right about our varying opinions on TFL. But remember... we are not limited to factual law as will be the jurors. Nor do we have the state's evidence in total. And we have NO FACTUAL evidence presented by the defense either.

Probably a nationwide predcedent will be set after this decision at the end of the trial. How far can we go to end a threat and/or use deadly force.
Precedent has been set many times... Currently, "execution" is legal only by the government and only on convicted persons after all appeals have been tried.
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

Not in a pharmacy! HIPAA law. Customers are in there discussing protected health concerns/conditions. I doubt any Pharmacy is allowed to record audio. Also it is a thin line for a business of any type to be legally allowed to record audio. It is very close to the rules regarding "wire taps" IIRC.

Not quite , A pharmacy's printed materials are protected under HIPPA but, they are not bound by any laws that would prohibit recording of sound and video, nor are any other establishments. Posting and notification requirements likely vary by jurisdiction. Video with sound is perfectly acceptable in the public domain such as any business open to the general public. As such you have no implied expectation of privacy. Otherwise, you would not walk up to a counter, or drive thru , at a pharmacy, in public, but would have a separate room for conversations. If you buy that Blue Star, everyone knows why. :p

[skydiver3346]

Are you an attorney? You sound like one anyway.

By the way, you mention "Execution" and I thought this was going to be decided in a trial.......

[hogdogs]

Okay... I am going by hearsay... My wife worked at a mental health care provider and they did not record audio with their security cameras as the hipaa thing was what my wife was told by directors... It may not be quite ture there and I assumed (I know it is wrong to do that) that pharmacy would fall into that as we are encouraged to ask our pharmacists about drug related concerns...
Brent

[Playboypenguin]

Not quite , A pharmacy's printed materials are protected under HIPPA but, they are not bound by any laws that would prohibit recording of sound and video, nor are any other establishments. Posting and notification requirements likely vary by jurisdiction. Video with sound are perfectly acceptable in the public domain such as any business open to the general public. As such you have no implied expectation of privacy. As security video is not generally accessible by anyone other than the same pharmacy staff that discussed with you your protected health co
Not here in Oregon. You cannot even record sound without consent on private property. In our old home we had to set up cameras when we were trying to protect our cars in our driveway when we were having trouble with a neighbor that was dealing drugs. The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera. I also cannot have a sound option on the security system I just spent a fortune installing into our new business. because, according to the security company, it violates state laws.

[OuTcAsT]

Okay... I am going by hearsay... My wife worked at a mental health care provider and they did not record audio with their security cameras as the hipaa thing was what my wife was told by directors

And this is likely true, just as in a Doctors office, you would have an implied expectation of privacy.

Not here in Oregon. You cannot even record sound without consent on private property. In our old home we had to set up cameras when we were trying to protect our cars in our driveway when we were having trouble with a neighbor that was dealing drugs. The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera. I also cannot have a sound option on the security system I just spent a fortune installing into our new business. because, according to the security company, it violates state laws.


As I said;

Posting and notification requirements likely vary by jurisdiction.


Of particular interest though is the fact that almost all "Big Name" pharmacies have a close camera angle directly over the area where scrips are filled, to keep employees "honest" It will be interesting to see if OK has laws prohibiting audio, I will research it.


ETA: Oklahoma State law only requires single party consent for audio recordings from all sources I can find.

[OuTcAsT]

The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera. I also cannot have a sound option on the security system I just spent a fortune installing into our new business. because, according to the security company, it violates state laws.

I wont argue with someone who surely knows the law better than I do, but Oregon is only a "single party" (only one of the parties has to consent) State, much as the rest of (but not all) States which echo Federal law.


In our old home we had to set up cameras when we were trying to protect our cars in our driveway when we were having trouble with a neighbor that was dealing drugs. The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera

Ah, I did not read this well at first, I would assume that you installed the cameras to be as "surreptitious" as possible, and likely not posted that surveillance was underway ? As such, parties could have no warning that conversations were being recorded. I don't think, from my limited perspective, that the problem is so much the recording, as the proper notification. YMMV

[spacemanspiff]

I'm not sure that I understand your statement.
Ersland deliberately lied on camera, to police, and in front of the media.

Just because your state says there is 'no duty to retreat' doesn't mean one should not retreat if it is possible.

[Wildalaska]

Just because your state says there is 'no duty to retreat' doesn't mean one should not retreat if it is possible.

Excellent point Big Fella, legal duty should be differentiated from moral duty. I feel a new thread rumbling in the recesses.

WildyoubringoutthebestinmefatboyAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

Ah, I did not read this well at first, I would assume that you installed the cameras to be as "surreptitious" as possible, and likely not posted that surveillance was underway ? As such, parties could have no warning that conversations were being recorded. I don't think, from my limited perspective, that the problem is so much the recording, as the proper notification. YMMV
I do not think it is a "notification" issue...it is a "consent" issue. We cannot record sound in our bar no matter how many signs we put up. He said we could record sound, but then we would not be able to use the tapes if we were ever robbed since they would not be admissible.

[peetzakilla]

I do not think it is a "notification" issue...it is a "consent" issue.

It looks to me as if Oregon is a "single party consent" state. As such conversations between employees and customers would be recordable if the employee is aware. I think your specific problem is that most of the audio would be between customers, none of which are necessarily aware of the recording. It would seem like posting signage would give you implied consent, it does in NY, but all states are different, as we all know.

[OuTcAsT]

Lets not derail the thread further, please.

OK There may, or may not be audio, it will be interesting to see if that is the case.

[Playboypenguin]

I think the audio question is valid. Audio would probably not do much as far as determining if the perp was moving but it would make it easier to determine tthe number of shots fired.

[WW2]

Outcast, please go back and read my post again. I did not say I was a defense attorney. I am a computer professional. I said that if I were a defense attorney I would... Of course many people rebutted the movement as simply a movement around the counter, so no hint of a threat renewed.

I said if I were on the jury I would go for Voluntary Manslaughter since this is intent to kill without premeditation. I would reject Second Degree Murder because that says there was no intent to kill, just to harm, and no premeditation. It appears to me that there was intent to kill as Ersland approached Parker. To convict on 1st degree the prosecution would have prove Ersland had premeditated to kill. So, based on the legal definitions and the little evidence we have seen, I believe that Voluntary Manslaughter is the crime that was committed.

Putting myself in Ersland’s place, and regarding a movement of the a person just trying to rob me as part of am armed team, whom I shot and was down after the first shot, how much movement would be considered a renewed threat? If I were in a gun fight and one of the persons I had shot moved even a little I am certain my heart rate would jump and my adrenalin would pump. So, how much and what type of movement would signal a renewed threat? Please base you answers on the situation as if you were there and had no more time that Ersland to respond to the situation.

[hogdogs]

I am certain my heart rate would jump and my adrenalin would pump.
If this were a fair defense, than the police could kick the snot out of everyone after a pursuit?:eek:
My heart rate and adrenaline is amped to the max when I arrive at a dog caught hog but I don't go nuts and inhumanely treat it and it is just a stinkin', mean boar hog that is trying to kill my dogs...:rolleyes:
Brent

[Crosshair]

Ersland deliberately lied on camera, to police, and in front of the media.
So you can say with 100% certainty that he was intentionally lying? Or is it that memories become smeared and distorted during such a quick and traumatic event.

I gave a description to an officer about what happened when I hit a deer last year. I said at the time and, I still remember it as such, the deer going under the car, but the evidence clearly shows that it went up and over the car. I wasn't lying to the officer, I was telling him what I remembered of the event. Those memories turned out to be incorrect.

I agree that we don't have all the evidence. The DA probably released just enough to keep most people quiet. We'll get everything in the courtroom. The problem is that we don't see what the perp was doing. Lots of reasonable doubt in the whole thing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I said to another similar comment. We do know that memories can be distorted. If the gentleman is unbalanced - then he could become quite convinced of whatever he confabulated.

If he admits to that, then he admits that he did wrong and constructed a positive bias to his statements. Same deal as a diminished capacity defense.

But it does show, that you are an fool if you start to blab away. Every self-defense expert I've run across stresses the need to shut up.

[wickedrider]

I had asked the question earlier whether or not anyone knew whether Ersland was in the pharmacy when the first robbery occurred. Glenn mentioned a potential diminished capacity defense. That was the reason that I asked my question. If in fact Ersland had been robbed in the pharmacy, then the defense could argue, (with mental health expertise and testimony), that Ersland was visualizing the first robbery when he shot the kid. In other words Ersland saw the movement from the BG because in his mind he saw the first robbery. I'm not sure what the proper mental health term is currently. I remember it is Post-traumatic stress syndrome (PST). Usually it referred to servicemen who returned from battle. Just a thought.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If he goes that way, he admits to wrong doing. You don't necessarily go scott-free if you pull this off. If he doesn't have a documented history of stress symptoms - that might be difficult. There are strict standards for PTSD to be diagnosed.

He is not in a good place with some type of psychological malfunction defense but I ain't his lawyer - just from my reading of this stuff.

It might help in a plea.

[Taptap]

Hey now, wait just a minute. I've been out of the threads for a bit, but I could of sworn this guy was an American hero?
Oops. Guess some foot n mouth disease is going round.
Harhar. Jk

Moral of the story: even in such situations, we must remember that action brings reaction and your case better hold, or you might get a KB in the face.

Stay cool out there guys. Really, it sounds simple, but it is important.

[OuTcAsT]

WW2

Sorry if I mis-understood, but you said;

As a defense attorney I would point out
^ ^ ^

Also;

I said if I were on the jury I would go for Voluntary Manslaughter since this is intent to kill without premeditation. I would reject Second Degree Murder because that says there was no intent to kill, just to harm, and no premeditation.

You might want to re-read the material you posted,
2nd Degree murder is an intentional homicide, where the intent was to kill, just without the premeditation.

Manslaughter is a homicide that occurs when the intent was to harm, rather than kill but death occurred as a direct result. Your materials are a bit "contradictory".

I believe you have the terms a bit confused. ;)

[Playboypenguin]

Sorry if I mis-understood, but you said;

Quote:
As a defense attorney I would point out
I think he meant it more along the lines of "if I was his defense attorney..."

[OuTcAsT]

I think he meant it more along the lines of "if I was his defense attorney..."

Um...yeah, he sorta pointed that out, but thanks.

[WW2]

Just re-read the definitions at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter and I stick to my original post since the definition of voluntary manslaughter is:

Voluntary Manslaughter In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing (emphasis added) that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

It is my opinion that the four conditions are met as follows:

(1) The armed robbery was sufficient provocation to cause rage or fear in Ersland or any other reasonable person.

(2) The defendant was actually provoked as seen in the video.

(3) Although time had passed, it was measured in seconds, certainly less than one minute, and most people I know do not calm down that quickly.

(4) Ersland did not cool off during that period (will be brought out in trial most likely).

To my mind, Ersland's actions are a good example of Voluntary Manslaughter.

[WW2]

I just want to add that this case, upon its conclusion, will be one that should be studied in any use of lethal force class.

Perhaps the best information I have gotten from this forum is from a poster that put links to a site called "The Cornered Cat" at http://www.corneredcat.com/ . That is you site isn't it PAX?

Read the site and see how it would have made a difference if Ersland had followed the recommendations their.

[OuTcAsT]

From your own material:

And finally from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...egree%20murder

“first degree murder n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.



(2) The defendant was actually provoked as seen in the video.

This is the part that will be the most subjective in the trial. While he was certainly provoked into his initial response, the provocation does not appear to exist for the final assault, He will be hard-pressed to claim that fear was the catalyst for the attack, and anger would certainly be a negative direction to take his defense.

[DeltaB]

Just as I said before about Ersland's ability to discern what is real and having any truth in him, it is coming out today after loosing his battle to quash a subpoena filed for his military records, it is coming out that he is not, in fact, a Gulf War veteran, and his claim of being injured in the Gulf War to be as fictitious as his being fired upon 15 times......go figure...

[Wildalaska]

Thats important! Got a link?

WildwowAlaska ™

[DeltaB]

Thats important! Got a link?

KTOK radio reported it just an hour or so ago...I'll keep everyone posted as soon as I see something in print...

[Playboypenguin]

KTOK radio reported it just an hour or so ago...I'll keep everyone posted as soon as I see something in print...

That is not surprising at all. He so far fits into the very profile I described earlier for drug addicted medical professionals.

[hogdogs]

Several links from this one... including records release article.
http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Jerome_Ersland.html
Brent

[Playboypenguin]

I wonder if there has been any evidence of his "surgeries" and the justification for them.

[peetzakilla]

That is not surprising at all. He so far fits into the very profile I described earlier for drug addicted medical professionals.

Or a person who lies so pathologically that they believe, in fact live, their own lies. I've known people like that before. Everything they say, to everyone they speak to, is a lie and they believe it. Ironically, usually they're the only ones who do.

[DeltaB]

Ersland, 57, has described himself as a disabled Gulf War veteran, but The Oklahoman has learned he left the U.S. Army before the war began.

Ersland left active duty with the Army in February 1989, according to military records. That is more than a year before the first Gulf War began.

Ersland admitted last week he had misrepresented his military service.

courtesy of the Oklahoman

I hate to say "I told you so" but like I said, I don't believe a single word that comes from the man's mouth... I don't believe him when he said he thought he was in imminent danger when he shot Parker, in fact his actions and body language show exactly the opposite, and I don't believe he thought that Parker was going for anything, and it will more than likely be found what investigators and the DA assert is true...and I guess that would preclude him claiming PTSD from the Gulf War as well....

[Crosshair]

He aint the first one to "exaggerate" his military service. I have several uncles who stretch the truth about their military service and other things. I only "know" one uncle who doesn't and that's only because his name is on the Vietnam Memorial.

Everyone has done something similar to a varying degree. Not trying to make excuses for him, just pointing that you. It's not like he was trying to steal VA benefits, just sound "cooler" to the people around the office.

A dumb question. It has probably been answered, but I can't find it.:confused:

1. How lethal was the first shot to the head? (The unquestionably justified shot.) Was that wound survivable or was his brain already dead and his body didn't realize it yet?

2. Were the other shots, the ones that may or may not have been justified, lethal by themselves or were they lethal in combination with his head wound?

Thanks.

[OuTcAsT]

That is not surprising at all. He so far fits into the very profile I described earlier for drug addicted medical professionals.

I wonder if there has been any evidence of his "surgeries" and the justification for them.

It would not surprise me to find that they are likely looking into his medical history both past, and present.

The "cripple" aspect could well prove to be a ruse.

This guy is a house of cards.....

[DeltaB]

1. How lethal was the first shot to the head? (The unquestionably justified shot.) Was that wound survivable or was his brain already dead and his body didn't realize it yet?

2. Were the other shots, the ones that may or may not have been justified, lethal by themselves or were they lethal in combination with his head wound?

Not trying to make excuses for him, just pointing that you. It's not like he was trying to steal VA benefits

The first shot hit Parker and split the bullet, and the smaller portion entered the cranium. It was not fatal. There is no evidense of shots fired by the 14 year old (his weapon had no bullets) Parker was never armed.

It is reported that Ersland emptied the revolver he was carrying outside of the pharmacy in efforts to hit the 14 year old armed suspect. Had he hit the 14 year old, it may have been justifed by Oklahoma Law, but not as far as Castle Defense is concerned.

The fatal wounds (as indicated by the ME) were the shots fired into Parkers torso. He was still alive prior to the fatal shots and could have recovered from his head wound. (again as asserted by the ME)

You are correct, he's not trying to steal VA benefits, he's lying to cover a cold blooded murder.....

[brair]

Too bad the pharmacist's name isn't Clinton.Then he could just say he 'misremembered' or his personal definitiion of killing does not include shooting someone in the stomach.( think sniper fire and oral sex)

He not only would be instantly forgiven and but maybe even get to run for president.

And let's not forget that old but still useful phrase from president R.'I have no memory of that.'It served him well too!!

Just kidding but it sure will be interesting to find out how this plays out.

Regards,
brair

[GSUeagle1089]

it is coming out that he is not, in fact, a Gulf War veteran, and his claim of being injured in the Gulf War to be as fictitious as his being fired upon 15 times......go figure...

Wow... just my prediction but this guy's gonna fry unless Johnnie Cochran comes back to life and take's his case.

[Kmar40]

inclusive of the news events preceding the trial where Ersland made statements. Not exactly.

Hearsay, it's definitions (somethings are excluded definitionally as "not hearsay") and its exceptions take up about 1/2 of a law school evidence class. However, the opponent party's statements are admissible. So anything he said to the media and anyone else can be admitted (with the exception of certain privileges, such as atty/client, physician, husband/wife, priest/penitent and a few others in some states).

[Lost Sheep]

I have read the charging document (link http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf)
or if the link does not work, past this into your web browser
s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf
or look in the posts on page 7 of this thread. The D.A. (Prater) has charged only Murder in the First Degree (as I read it, unless it has been amended since filing).

It is my understanding that if a prosecutor charges a defendant with a crime, the Jury can find guilty or not guilty.

1 On that charge and that charge only

2 On that charge or the jury can opt for lesser charges.

If Oklahoma allows only option 1), and the OK D.A. charges First Degree Murder only and if the jury is not inclined for the full boat, they have to let him go.

If Oklahoma allows option 2) the jury has the option of Second Degree or Third Degree, making the likelihood of a guilty verdict on the lesser charge more likely.

Am I right in my logic? Which way does Oklahoma do it, Option 1 or Option 2 or another option I have not though of?

It is a way of "gaming" the system (to increase or decrease likelihood of conviction) or to encourage a plea bargain.

Does anyone know how Oklahoma does it?

Lost Sheep

[Lost Sheep]

It seems obvious that Ersland (should have) shot with the intention of hitting the robber with the gun. He missed, and hit the other one.

Does it matter at all?

Lost Sheep

[DeltaB]

The D.A. (Prater) has charged only Murder in the First Degree (as I read it, unless it has been amended since filing).

R.L.1910, § 2312.
§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.

I don't think anyone argues that Ersland used "reasonable force" initally, what comes into play is the use of "unreasonable force" even deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. Under Oklahoma law, no premeditation is required in the death of a minor, all that is required is that he prove that Erlsand used unreasonable force.

§21-701.9. Punishment for murder.
A. A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole or by imprisonment for life. A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to murder in the first degree, as described in subsection E of Section 701.7 of this title, shall not be entitled to or afforded the benefit of deferment of the sentence.

§21-701.10. Sentencing
A. Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of murder in the first degree, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, life imprisonment without parole or life imprisonment. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the same trial jury as soon as practicable without presentence investigation.
B. If the trial jury has been waived by the defendant and the state, or if the defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before the court.
C. In the sentencing proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any mitigating circumstances or as to any of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Section 701.7 et seq. of this title. Only such evidence in aggravation as the state has made known to the defendant prior to his trial shall be admissible. In addition, the state may introduce evidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the family of the victim.
D. This section shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitutions of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma. The state and the defendant or his counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death.

[Double Naught Spy]

Does this make any difference?
It seems obvious that Ersland (should have) shot with the intention of hitting the robber with the gun. He missed, and hit the other one.

Does it matter at all?

Lost Sheep

Nope. They were both participants in an armed robbery in which Ersland was defending himself against a lethal threat(s). As such, they were both subject to suffering his efforts at self defense.

While Ersland "should have" shot the suspect with the gun, if you watch the video closely, the one with the gun was not a viable target for Ersland by the time he was able to get to cover and start firing. So he shot the threat that posed the greatest immediate known risk to himself and his employees, the one that he could see, which was Parker.

I sincerely doubt he missed one suspect and hit Parker in the head. They were many feet apart when Parker was struck by that first round.

Up until that point, Ersland did well.

[Hornett]

It was not fatal. There is no evidense of shots fired by the 14 year old (his weapon had no bullets)

I hadn't heard that yet.
How do we know the 14 year olds gun had no bullets?
Was he caught?

(apologies in advance if this is old news since I haven't read all the references yet.)

[hogdogs]

Hornett, I had not heard of a capture. He possibly dropped his weapon.
Brent

[PT111]

While we are all debating everything on this I thought it might be a good time to repost the original report of the incident so we can be reminded of what really happened. :)

http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m5d24-Oklahoma-pharmacist-kills-armed-robber-saves-the-lives-of-his-staff


Oklahoma pharmacist kills armed robber, saves the lives of his staff

A little before 6:00 p.m., last Tuesday, two armed men rushed into the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City, and demanded money and drugs. The store had been robbed two years earlier, a robbery in which the store’s employees had been forced into a back room and severely beaten.

However, this time the store had a security system with doors armed with magnetic locks, which could only be opened from the inside. The masked-men apparently knew this and waited for someone to exit, at which time they pushed a board in front of the closing door and rushed into the pharmacy.

Once inside, they demanded all of the cash and narcotics, two female technicians ran into the back room. But the pharmacist, Jerome Ersland who wears a large back brace, and is still recovering from recent surgery, could not run. But he could defend himself.

The robbers began shooting at him, with one bullet grazing him on the arm, he said he heard another round whiz past his ear.

Ersland recalled: "All of a sudden, they started shooting. 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.”

Ersland grabbed the semi-automatic Kel-Tec .380 in his pocket.

"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.”

Ersland also kept a much larger pistol in a nearby drawer, which he was able to retrieve, a Taurus Judge revolver. At that point, the second robber took off. However, the other robber was now getting up off of the floor, despite the head wound.

Ersland emptied his clip into the chest of the wounded robber, who turned out to be 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” said Ersland. Once outside, he saw a third black male sitting in a car with what appeared to be a shotgun.

Ersland said: "I pulled out my ‘Judge’ and pointed it right between his eyes and he floored it.”

Police arrested the man in the car which turned out to be stolen, after he crashed it a few blocks away. The other robber is still at large, he is described as a black male in his 20s, 5 feet, 7 inches tall, and weighing 175 pounds. The suspect was last seen wearing a red shirt and dark pants.

Ersland went back into the store and found his two technicians safe but shaken.

Ersland said: "I asked if the girls were all right, and they were in the back crying. I was glad to know they were alive. We were lucky and I’m glad I defended us, because I feel that a person has a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people that want to take money when they don’t work for it.”

As if the attempted robbery was not enough, an angry black mob gathered outside the pharmacy later that night, shouting and accusing Ersland of being a racist because he had killed the teenaged thug, who was black.

"I just regret anybody would get killed. But if I wouldn’t have been here, there would have been three people killed — the other pharmacist and the two techs.”

"I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.”

[Playboypenguin]

While we are all debating everything on this I thought it might be a good time to repost the original report of the incident so we can be reminded of what really happened.
Does it not bother you that almost none of that actually happened the way he said it did and that he has been looking more and more like an unstable person and habitual liar with drug abuse issues as time has gone on? You just going to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and pretend he is some type of hero simply because you want to believe that regardless of the evidence? What would motivate you to do that?

[hogdogs]

reminded of what really happened
I call poo-poo on a shoe!:barf:
The story begins to be an untruth ie:BALDFACED LIE right after this part...
A little before 6:00 p.m., last Tuesday, two armed men rushed into the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City, and demanded money and drugs.
Statements made by ersland begin right after this part too... Heck even the getaway story is false... It was 2 guys, ersland was gone runnin (not a cripple) after BG#1 when BG's #3 and4 drove off after seein' the shot BG#1 layin' on the floor.
Brent

[Double Naught Spy]

While we are all debating everything on this I thought it might be a good time to repost the original report of the incident so we can be reminded of what really happened.

Reposting the original news account is a waste of space. As for it being what really happened, did you bother watching the videos? Did you not hear the DA's statements? Ersland's statements are BOOOOOOGUS!

[Hornett]

hogdogs: If he dropped it I would have expected Ersland to pick it up.

PT111:
I think the whole original report is in question here.
Ersland is obviously not telling the facts as they happened.
For example, From camera angle 3, the first handgun he uses is clearly not a P3AT. It's the judge. And he gets it out from under the counter not his pocket.
It goes even further downhill from there.:o

[DeltaB]

I hadn't heard that yet. How do we know the 14 year olds gun had no bullets? Was he caught?

In the testimony of investigators, "Morrison gave (the 2 minors) clothes to wear during the robbery. (the 14 year old) advised that he was given a gun that did not have bullets in it, but he wasn't sure what kind of gun it was. (the 14 year old) advised he was not familiar with guns and he only knew the gun had a slide on the top and the magazine was taped to the gun"

Taken directly from investigators testimony entered into court documents concerning the 14 year old's testimony to them.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/0905/charges%20mitchell.pdf

The weapon was actually recovered in the back of one of the hondas.

[hogdogs]

not enuff fact for my post
Brent

[DeltaB]

The car parked in front of the store was in no way affiliated or involved. Mitchell, one of the persons also charged with Parker's muder, was driving a stolen silver honda, which he was arrested in. Morrison was in a black honda and was parked on the east side of the pharmacy, in which he drove away as Ersland was chasing the 14 year old down SW 58th street.

[hogdogs]

After reading the warrant request, I opted to delete my post as I was under impression that was the getaway car as it seemed suspicious to be there with open trunk etc...
Brent

[goldfacade]

Does it not bother you that almost none of that actually happened the way he said it did and that he has been looking more and more like an unstable person and habitual liar with drug abuse issues as time has gone on?

I havent been following this thread real close, so I may have missed that report. If that is the case the slippery slope seems to be morphing into a cliff

[DeltaB]

Sickens me to see supposed gun owners throwing this guy to the wolves with so little evidence and so little expertise.

What it does prove is that "shoot/no shoot" scenarios can have ominous consequences. And owning a deadly weapon carries with it an awesome responsibility. There is no place for vigilantism, no calling a bullet back once it's left the pipe, and life and death hangs in the balance.

[Trooper Tyree]

I hate all the Monday- Sunday morning quarterbacking from people with no prior experience in shootings. If anyone could be bothered to pick a book about stress and shootings they would find out that with extreme stress situations like this, the good guy inevitably has distorted time lines and actually they see things that aren't there. I remember a situation I was in myself. A large Brindle Pitbull was stalking my neighborhood and I came face to face with it three different times. My wife had to correct my recollection as I had to correct hers as well. I then ran into das later and actually pulled my weapon. The account given to the police was to the best of my memory but days, months later I'd remember more details.
Sickens me to see supposed gun owners throwing this guy to the wolves with so little evidence and so little expertise. My ex motherinlaw argued with me that a crazy woman with a knife out in Lancaster California years ago, was killed needlessly. The woman had a knife and threatened to use it. For a long time she held the police at bay and then charged them. She was shot and killed. Her stance was they should've shot the gun out of her hand(this was before tazers were so popular). To many episodes of gunsmoke and t.j. hooker.

That's not a good excuse considering the magnitude and number of discrepancies that are apparent in this case. I'm basing this judgment off of the statements HE gave the media right after the shooting, and their conflict with the released surveillance tapes and the DA's report. Some of us have been following this case and the data very carefully.

Just a few pretty significant discrepancies off the top of my head...

He claimed they came at him shooting and saying they were going to kill him.

Did they even fire a shot? No.

They were coming around the counter at either end. He had to have a gun in either hand to repel them.

Were they? No. Did he ever have a gun in either hand? No.

He was shot, once in the arm and he heard one shot go past his head.

Did they fire any shots at all? Again, no.

He claimed to have shot the first one in the head, then emptied the .380 in him as he chased the other robber out the door because he was getting back up.

Did he? No, he chased the second robber down the street, came back in, walked past the downed subject without concern for his safety, walked over, unlocked a cabinet, retrieved his second gun, walked back to the downed subject, still not exhibiting any concern or fear for his safety, bent down and fired the gun until slide lock into the downed robbers torso. That's a pretty significant deviation from his version of what occurred.

It was also stated that he stayed out front and engaged them because he was too crippled to retreat to the saferoom with the other employees. I would think if you can chase a perp down the street and back that you could lay down covering fire and step the 6' to the saferoom entrance.

Then you have the recent revelation that he's not really a Gulf war veteran.

This case just keeps getting worse and worse. I had a very open mind at first, and was ready to chalk some of the discrepancies up to stress, but there's just too much evidence stacking up against him. :o

[Wildalaska]

Sickens me to see supposed gun owners throwing this guy to the wolves with so little evidence and so little expertise.

Don't know about your expertise, but I spent a great deal of my younger days doing criminal defense work, and based on that Court experience, this guy deserves the wolves.

But then again, I try to be reasonable :) I'm a gun owner, not a gunwoobie owner

WildicantrbelievewestillhavepostslikethatAlaska ™

[Trooper Tyree]

What it does prove is that "shoot/no shoot" scenarios can have ominous consequences. And owning a deadly weapon carries with it an awesome responsibility. There is no place for vigilantism, no calling a bullet back once it's left the pipe, and life and death hangs in the balance.

Worthy of repeat.

Also worthy of noting that YOUR life hangs in the balance as well, as in how you spend the rest of your life. :o

[OuTcAsT]

Sickens me to see supposed gun owners throwing this guy to the wolves with so little evidence and so little expertise.

1. As to evidence, If you would read back through this discussion, you will find that there has been released, a substantial amount of direct evidence. It may not be enough to persuade you in either direction, but it is there, and it is somewhat compelling.

2. As to Expertise, That is a fairly bold statement, considering you know nothing of the backgrounds of the LEO's, Physicians, mental health professionals, scientists, Lawyers, Gunsmiths, and the plethora of other fields that are represented by the posts in this thread.

Perhaps a bit of reading, rather than ranting, would be more constructive. ;)

[hogdogs]

Trooper said...
It was also stated that he stayed out front and engaged them because he was too crippled to retreat to the saferoom with the other employees. I would think if you can chase a perp down the street and back that you could lay down covering fire and step the 6' to the saferoom entrance.
To add salt to the wound...
The guy not only was lying in all the other aspects, but he was not so crippled after pumpin' the guy full of lead aspirins... he calmly returned to behind the counter and put his guns down and picked up the phone...

I am a sufferer of back injuries and is one reason I have so many hours to waste on TFL. Had I just ducked, dodged and run out and back into the store I would be really showing signs of pain, such as using a hand to put pressure on lower back or massaging my now painful neck all while bent over. Don't get me wrong I am able to "suck it up" for a few romps in the woods but I am hurting to do so.
Anyone notice the guy did not make any attempt to go to check the others or even face in their direction and holler back to them?
Screwed Blued and Tattooed!
Brent

[hogdogs]

Ye' ol' hogdogs is temporarily at an utter loss of words to form a proper, fair, TFL approved reply...:eek:
Brent

[Trooper Tyree]

I for one think this is a very serious case and am very interested in seeing how it will play out, both for Ersland and for concealed carry/self defense in Oklahoma. Lets not get this thread locked over petty rubbish shall we? ;)

There is a reason Mr. E was charged with murder I, and saying, "the DA's a twit, Mr. E should have never been charged, Free Mr. E", won't change the fact that if we went out and pulled the same stunt, we too would find ourselves behind bars looking at a murder I charge. :o

Let's keep this thread constructive.

(just so everyone doesn't take me for a complete idiot, the last few posts were posted while I was typing this reply)

[Catfishman]

This guy deserves the wolves? Why is anyone responding to this guy? He is why they say 98% of the attorneys give the other 2% a bad name.

This thread is now important in his mind only. Don't respond, that is what he wants.

[Wildalaska]

This guy deserves the wolves?

Well yes, are there some articulable facts you can point to that shows that he is not...

Ooops there I go being like a bad atty again, analyzing facts and law instead of just thumping mah chest and bellowing hell yeah, he shot the bad guy, goody goody, Neca eos omnes, Deus suos agnoscet.


WildodearsuchlanguageAlaska TM

[Shane Tuttle]

So far, I've deleted over 16 posts in just the last 1.5 pages alone. Although there was ONE member providing inflammatory remarks, several other members fed the fire by responding resulting in mass deletions.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL. Hit the report button and we'll take care of the rest. It will make my job easier, your blood pressure lower, and leave an important thread open.

[hogdogs]

Tut, At first we thought we were responding to a person with just a little off base opinion. I was trying to enlighten until late tonite... Sorry we frazzled yer hair...:o
Brent

[R1145]

Yeah, he's got some 'splaining to do, alright.

A tragedy, not for the robbers, but for the pharmacist. Lethal force is a huge responsibility. Once the round(s) go down range, your life is changed forever, perhaps not as drastically as the target's, but changed nevertheless.

Having a clear-cut case where lethal force is reasonable and justified does not give an absolute right to kill, not in combat, not in the streets, not in the home.

We'll see what the jury does, given the extenuating circumstances, and what the lawyers kick up, but it appears this guy just lost everything for a moment's foolishness.

[Shane Tuttle]

Tut, At first we thought we were responding to a person with just a little off base opinion. I was trying to enlighten until late tonite... Sorry we frazzled yer hair...

Just doin' my job. :)

[Playboypenguin]

Just doin' my job.
And we appreciate it...except for the fact that it had to happen right when I finally got to use a quote from the amazing 1979 movie "The Warriors." When is that opportunity going to come around again, huh? :D

[marsofold]

Well, one thing is clear from this case. Buy a 45acp pistol instead of a .380...

[Shane Tuttle]

And we appreciate it...except for the fact that it had to happen right when I finally got to use a quote from the amazing 1979 movie "The Warriors." When is that opportunity going to come around again, huh?

Oh, I'm sure you know as well as I do you'll have your chance before you know it...:cool:

[Wildalaska]

Well, one thing is clear from this case. Buy a 45acp pistol instead of a .380...

Really? Are you entirely certain that would have changed the outcome here?

And WODR, what does that add to this discussion.

WildisposturingreallynecessaryatthispointAlaska ™

[DeltaB]

Well, one thing is clear from this case. Buy a 45acp pistol instead of a .380

Actually, if you want to know the truth, it could be argued that Ersland was in illegal possesion of firearms under the law in the state of Oklahoma. Ersland's attorney himself said he was currently under the influence of a highly addictive Schedule 2 Controlled Dangerous Drug. (morphine) Morphine effects reduce a person's level of consciousness, harming the ability to think or be fully aware of present surroundings. Opiates do impair judgment.

Section 1289.9 Carrying Weapons Under the Influence
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols in any circumstances while under the influence of beer, intoxicating liquors or any hallucinogenic, or any unlawful or unprescribed drug, and it shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols when under the influence of any drug prescribed by a licensed physician if the aftereffects of such consumption affect mental, emotional or physical processes to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior. Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

[Wildalaska]

Whoa Delta B that is an awesome point that cuts BOTH WAYS in this case......

Defense: He was in pain and not in full possession of his faculties..
Prosecution: Not a true decent citizen, a hopped up doper Rambo carrying his gun in flagrant violation of the law

WildibetweseethisoneintheayoobfilessomedayAlaska ™

[hogdogs]

That dern lawyer is sure doin' a good job!!!
With a lawyer like that, who needs a prosecutor?
Brent

[Larry D.]

Does this Pharmacist have a history of shooting customers?
No.
Does he have a habit of shooting robbers?
No.
Does he have a history of shooting black people?
No.

The fact remains that a tremendously crappy situation now exists that simply wouldn't eist had these young men not entered the premises to commit a crime.

[hogdogs]

Does he have a history of drug use?
YES!
Does he have a history of seeming creepy? Even to his son?
YES!
Does he have a history as a liar?
I bet he does!
Brent

[DeltaB]

The fact remains that a tremendously crappy situation now exists that simply wouldn't exist had these young men not entered the premises to commit a crime.

When you choose to arm yourself with a deadly weapon, you cannot blame other's actions for your own. You will stand responsible for your own actions.

[GSUeagle1089]

Well, one thing is clear from this case. Buy a 45acp pistol instead of a .380...


Just so you know, the initial shot that struck Parker in the head was fired from Ersland's Taurus Judge, so it was either .45ACP or .410.

[hogdogs]

Just so you know, the initial shot that struck Parker in the head was fired from Ersland's Taurus Judge, so it was either .45ACP or .410.
Sorry but a .45acp will not work in the judge... The rimmed .45colt however will work;)
Brent

[GSUeagle1089]

my bad :o... never liked that gun much anyway

[Trooper Tyree]

The fact remains that a tremendously crappy situation now exists that simply wouldn't eist had these young men not entered the premises to commit a crime.

The fact of the matter is that Ersland crossed a line when he retrieved that second gun and emptied it into a downed subject who no longer posed a threat.

A second fact is that if any one of use cross the same line, we too will face Murder I charges.

This is the most important thing to get out of this case. There is a line, it's pretty clear and pretty distinct, at the very least the law thinks it is. We need to be aware of that line, we need to think about and ponder that line, and make sure we understand where that line is and try to pound it into our heads enough that in the heat of a gunfight we hopefully won't cross it, or at least won't cross it out of shear ignorance.

You can have all the feelings and opinions you want, just make sure your actions align with the letter of the law.

[surg_res]

Actually, if you want to know the truth, it could be argued that Ersland was in illegal possesion of firearms under the law in the state of Oklahoma. Ersland's attorney himself said he was currently under the influence of a highly addictive Schedule 2 Controlled Dangerous Drug. (morphine) Morphine effects reduce a person's level of consciousness, harming the ability to think or be fully aware of present surroundings. Opiates do impair judgment

If he was chemically enhanced, it sounds to me like he shouldn't have been counting pills for his customers either!

[Wildalaska]

We need to be aware of that line, we need to think about and ponder that line, and make sure we understand where that line is and try to pound it into our heads enough that in the heat of a gunfight we hopefully won't cross it, or at least won't cross it out of shear ignorance.

And thats what this thread is about...good call

WildwhatagreatthreadAlaska ™

[DeltaB]

If he was chemically enhanced, it sounds to me like he shouldn't have been counting pills for his customers either!

surg_res, what really bothers me about all of this, is some of Erslands actions and statements, both past and present. Sure, it's my assertion he crossed over the line of self defense, and in my opinion is culpable for the charges against him. But, from the early 80's a pattern of instability and documented, repeatable issues as time passes. Not from just one person, but family, social workers and physicians alike. His recent statement that "if I were not here, there would be 3 people dead.." A need to present himself in a light that makes himself the hero, self-absorbed as one professional stated. A wounded Gulf War veteran (which we know is a lie) who is "crippled" and comes and saves the day...the "Hero Syndrome." That type of mentality, drugs added in and mixed with deadly force, is an amalgam of elements that can lead to tragedy. I don't think it is an accident, I think Ersland set himself up for this type of happening.

And this is the hard question, how do we as a society deal from a 2nd amendment perspective, how do we deal with those who are by the most part, law abiding citizens but really shouldn't have deadly force in their direct control.

[DeltaB]

This is the most important thing to get out of this case. There is a line, it's pretty clear and pretty distinct, at the very least the law thinks it is. We need to be aware of that line, we need to think about and ponder that line, and make sure we understand where that line is and try to pound it into our heads enough that in the heat of a gunfight we hopefully won't cross it, or at least won't cross it out of shear ignorance.

+1 Good post

[ImprobableJoe]

And this is the hard question, how do we as a society deal from a 2nd amendment perspective, how do we deal with those who are by the most part, law abiding citizens but really shouldn't have deadly force in their direct control. This is a really important question, that gets lost in the shuffle... it is probably the only question about firearm ownership that really matters. Obviously a complete ban would "succeed" in some sense, but mostly in the "cure worse than disease" sort of way. Removing all restrictions on firearm ownership won't have any positive effect either.

That's why training and education are so important. The same way that you train so that you shoot straight under stressful circunstances, you need to train to THINK straight too.

[Crosshair]

Ersland's attorney himself said he was currently under the influence of a highly addictive Schedule 2 Controlled Dangerous Drug. (morphine) Morphine effects reduce a person's level of consciousness, harming the ability to think or be fully aware of present surroundings. Opiates do impair judgment.
That can be said of allot of drugs. The degree of the impairment depends on the individual.

Not to mention there are plenty of drugs that are schedule 2. Did you know that the Ritalin our society so readily gives our children is a schedule 2 drug with the exact same possible side effects that you list for Morphine. (Though to differing degrees of course.)

Does he have a history of drug use?
YES!
Does he have a history of seeming creepy? Even to his son?
YES!
Does he have a history as a liar?
I bet he does!

What's your point? The first and last of those points apply to the current and both previous presidents. The second does as well depending on who you talk to, though that is subjective.

[DeltaB]

That can be said of allot of drugs. The degree of the impairment depends on the individual.

This type of argument, as I see it, is only to obfuscate the issue. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says "morphine is the standard against which other analgesics are measured, and is the strongest opiate there is." Under Oklahoma law, you cannot be impaired and carry deadly weapons or use lethal force.

[hogdogs]

What's your point? The first and last of those points apply to the current and both previous presidents. The second does as well depending on who you talk to, though that is subjective.
My point? The guy shows a propensity to fits of grandeur and is not completely stable (claiming war veteran status) and was high on dope... Sorry but you may not know you are impaired but the dope is there. I have plenty of experience with prescribed narcotics. I also know myself and many others who think we are still sober after a bunch of beers...

Now what is your point? Will you be so kind as to post links to self defense situations in which former and current POTUS were involved in similar SD cases of lethal force or were you pointing out something else?

The fact that millions of americans lie, cheat, steal and do drugs everyday has nothing to do with TFL unless they kill someone with a gun and claim self defense against an unarmed gunshot victim... YES if the thug was not a threat he became a MURDER VICTIM!
BBrent

[Hank15]

The robbers were an immediate threat to the pharmacist and the people around him, no argument there.

A lot of people are saying that the pharmacist could have stopped the downed robber with non lethal methods.

What do you want the pharmacist to do? Kick the downed robber? Stomp the robber's chest to make sure he doesn't get up?

The pharmacist is wearing a back brace. And maybe he is exaggerating, but he did claim that he's "crippled".

There has been multiple cases where police officers were unable to stop suspects even with multiple shots to the COM, and as a result the police officers' lives were in danger.

If a suspect with multiple wounds endangered a trained police officer's life, wouldn't a suspect with multiple wounds be just as much a threat to a crippled pharmacist?

Also keep in mind that most officers use calibers bigger than a .380.

There's also other factors one should consider when dealing with assailants.

There's a likely chance that the robbers did not expect anyone at the store to be armed.

So maybe the other robber went outside to grab a bigger gun?

In any case, whether or not the two robbers intended to harm anyone, they did endanger the lives of everyone in that store.

Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.

And given his medical condition and physical limitations, shooting the robber that attempted to get up again is definitely justified because if the robber had just laid there, no additional shots would have been necessary.

[Donn_N]

And given his medical condition and physical limitations, shooting the robber that attempted to get up again is definitely justified because if the robber had just laid there, no additional shots would have been necessary.

There is no evidence that the BG was even conscious, much less attempted to get up. The only evidence that he attempted to get up was from the shooter who has proven to be less than truthful in his statements so far.

Besides, merely attempting to get up is not a threatening move. You can't shoot someone just because they are trying to stand up.

But all this has been hashed and rehashed. Read the statements, watch the videos, read this entire thread.

[DeltaB]

The robbers were an immediate threat to the pharmacist and the people around him, no argument there.

Initially, yes. After chasing the armed gunman who had no bullets in his gun out and firing upon him, no. As to the incapacitated, unarmed suspect left laying on the floor, no.

A lot of people are saying that the pharmacist could have stopped the downed robber with non lethal methods.

The Castle Defense doesn't provide protection for using deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. Using unreasonable force on a minor in Oklahoma is a capital offense.

The pharmacist is wearing a back brace. And maybe he is exaggerating, but he did claim that he's "crippled".

This is debatable and his actions on tape do not present him as crippled. Who cares what he claims, every claim he has made so far has been ficticious.

There has been multiple cases where police officers were unable to stop suspects even with multiple shots to the COM, and as a result the police officers' lives were in danger. If a suspect with multiple wounds endangered a trained police officer's life, wouldn't a suspect with multiple wounds be just as much a threat to a crippled pharmacist? Also keep in mind that most officers use calibers bigger than a .380. There's also other factors one should consider when dealing with assailants. There's a likely chance that the robbers did not expect anyone at the store to be armed. So maybe the other robber went outside to grab a bigger gun? In any case, whether or not the two robbers intended to harm anyone, they did endanger the lives of everyone in that store.

Totally moot to this case.

Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.

No shots were fired at Ersland, and Ersland's testimony has been to found to be totally false.

And given his medical condition and physical limitations, shooting the robber that attempted to get up again is definitely justified because if the robber had just laid there, no additional shots would have been necessary.

There is no credible indication that the suspect did, our could, regain his footing. Since he had no weapon, he posed no imminent threat to anyone.

Hank, please let me suggest that you actually read through a thread before posting. You would have found every issue you have stated addressed numerous times in the previous posts.

[OuTcAsT]

So maybe the other robber went outside to grab a bigger gun?

Ersland followed him outside, and fired at him as he was fleeing the scene. If the guy was going after a "bigger gun", Ersland was putting himself at risk by not staying inside.

Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.


Point of fact, Ersland was the only person to fire a weapon inside the store.

Nobody is making the case (even the prosecutor) that he did not have a right to defend himself, only that he crossed the line into murder by delivering the "coup de grace"

Respectfully Sir, read back a few pages into this thread, all will become clearer....;)

[Crosshair]

There is no evidence that the BG was even conscious, much less attempted to get up.
We also have no clear evidence available to us that shows that the BG was unconscious either.

We also have no clear evidence available to us that shows that the BG was just twitching from his brain shorting out.

We simply don't know. The nitty gritty into has not been released to the public.

No matter what we say or think, this man is innocent until proven guilty. Sure everything doesn't match up 100%. That happens all the time as eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. memories are dynamic and can change without our knowledge. We don't know if he is lying or if what he has said is genuinely what he remembers.

[ImprobableJoe]

What do you want the pharmacist to do? Kick the downed robber? Stomp the robber's chest to make sure he doesn't get up?

My guess is that if he could dash out of the store and down the street, there was no need for him to go back into the store, casually find a second gun, and then shoot a downed person 5 more times. None of that points to the robber being an imminent threat requiring lethal force.

My understanding of the law is that while you may not be required to retreat, you cannot leave the area of the attack, return, walk away from your assailant to get a bigger gun, and then shoot him a few more times. Once you leave and come back, you are acting as the aggressor.

[PT111]

This thread is proof that reading comprehention skills in the US have gone down the drain. Maybe Obama can revive them but No Child Left Behind sure hasn't and isn't going to.

[DeltaB]

We also have no clear evidence available to us that shows that the BG was unconscious either.

It is the ME's testimony that clearly refutes Ersland's testimony.

No matter what we say or think, this man is innocent until proven guilty. Sure everything doesn't match up 100%. That happens all the time as eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable.

I would say that upon examination, if done fairly, none of his testominy matches up. It's the reason that investigators took this matter to the DA. None of his testimony matched any of the footage. From the detailed account of how he was shot at up to 15 times to being injured in the Gulf War, all of what Ersland has asserted to investigators and the media, has set a pattern of blatently false statements. While I agree that in the courts eyes, to the execution of penalty for his accused crime, he is innocent until proven guilty. But you cannot claim that for Ersland, and not extend that to all the other participants as well. It's a subtle hypocrisy to say the would-be robbers are guilty and deserved to die, as so many I have heard say, and then say Ersland's innocent until proven guilty.

[ImprobableJoe]

This thread is proof that reading comprehention skills in the US have gone down the drain. Maybe Obama can revive them but No Child Left Behind sure hasn't and isn't going to.:D The only "Three R's" we want to hear about are Ruger, Remington, and RIA.

[Hank15]

Thank you for your suggestion DeltaB.

I would love to read every post on this thread before posting, but thefiringline forums is something I can only visit on my break from my studies. And 26 pages of posts is a lot to go through.

Everything I stated in my previous post are just opinions.

If it offends anyone on this thread, I can only say that it is only my opinion based on the limited information that I and everyone else on this thread has been given.

[MLeake]

We've seen the video. We've read excerpts from the DA and ME. Multiple posters have provided links. We've had legal inputs from attorneys.

DeltaB is right, read the thread please.

[Trooper Tyree]

Reader comprehension is a massive problem on the internet, the internet is after all, entirely about your opinion and how quickly you can get your ever so important opinion out there. Facts be damned, I can see how this thing went down from page one of the thread and the original newspaper report! Free the man you ogres! :barf:

Sorry, it's a pet peave of mine. :)

I have a request.

It seems as of late people are stumbling on this thread, reading the first page or two pages or even maybe three pages, then posting their views, which of course are painfully uninformed because they haven't read all the new information that slowly trickles in over the next 22 pages.

Would it be possible for a mod to edit in a post at the start of the thread, or simply add in an edit/update to the very first post, with a brief summery of the facts and information of the case as we know it now?

I know it would be a bit of a pain, but I think it would help keep this thread on course.

Pax did basically just that about 6 pages back, but just into the thread itself. Here is what Pax did.

Here's the initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad...rticle/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy") Pay attention to what he says in that interview, and then watch the videos below with his words in mind. (This is what he said before he was charged.)

Here's the raw surveillance camera footage: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

Here's the affadavit of probable cause: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news...armdoc0001.pdf

Here's a short, edited version of an interview with the prosecuting DA, which includes a few statements from Ersland's defense attorney: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Here's the extended interview with the DA, uncut. It is hard to hear in spots, and it is WELL worth the 20 minutes it takes to view: http://www.news9.com/Global/category...clipId=3804065

And here's an article about this DA's view of the 2nd Amendment: http://newsok.com/self-defense-allow...rticle/3373148 (The money quote: "I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” ... the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”)

Interestingly, at the bail hearing, the DA (prosecutor) strongly objected to the judge's order forbidding the defendant to own firearms until after the case was resolved. See http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fata...rticle/3373194 for that whole story.

This link reports on the O'Reilly interview which happened after he was charged with murder.

There's also a good page here with ongoing local coverage of the situation.

And finally, here's a link to the best in-depth analysis article I've yet seen: here.

Kathy

If we could even just cut and paste this into first post, it would be helpful. This way people who don't want to read all 26 pages will at least be given a fair chance to educate themselves on the case before posting their opinions based off of the now painfully incorrect and misleading first reports in the first pages of this thread.

Thank you,

[DeltaB]

If it offends anyone on this thread, I can only say that it is only my opinion based on the limited information that I and everyone else on this thread has been given.

I don't think it's offensive, and everyone has their right to their opinions. You will find numerous links to various reports, news stories, and court documents as well as some valuable commentaries to be gleaned from the previous posts.

[Crosshair]

It is the ME's testimony that clearly refutes Ersland's testimony.
I don't see the ME making his statements with 100% certainty. Please show me where the ME has said as such as it is entirely possible I have been wrong.

I don't think anyone has been able to answer my other question about how lethal/surviveable the first shot was, how lethal the second round of shots were and if either was survivable on their own?

If the damn video would show the BG this issue would be allot simpler.

[Trooper Tyree]

Thanks for your suggestion DeltaB
Thank you for your suggestion DeltaB.

I would love to read every post on this thread before posting, but thefiringline forums is something I can only visit on my break from my studies. And 26 pages of posts is a lot to go through.

Everything I stated in my previous post are just opinions.

If it offends anyone on this thread, I can only say that it is only my opinion based on the limited information that I and everyone else on this thread has been given.

Hank, if you want to get a good overall summery of the situation watch the DA's release. It explains why he decided to press the murder I charge, it shows the surveillance vids from two different views twice, and he points out interesting and insightful bits as the video plays.

That video can be found here. http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Other disturbing things have come to light since then, but that will cover the basics.

[Shane Tuttle]

OK folks. A controversial, yet common problem when encountering heavily posted threads: Lots of opinions and angles discussed and intertwined within the original post. There are valid points to both sides of the argument regarding "Read the thread before posting" and "There's entirely too much content to read in the short time I have available".

Here's my suggestion:

1. For the "Read the posts" crowd: Take into consideration that members actually don't have time to read all 600+ posts which sometimes entail thesis statements from members. I don't think it's fair for members that don't have time to read and absorb ALL posts to condemn them from participating. If this happens, you'll quickly see that you might be left with barely a handful of contributers and the thread dies out. I'd suggest pointing to a post or two (politely) where said issue is already brought up or to show the correct context of the discussion.

2. For the "So much content, so little time" crowd: Take into account other members that have been engaged heavily in this type of thread. It's frustrating to see posts popping up with comments that were already answered/thoroughly disputed. Think of it as you just walked up to a group of people already discussing said issue for several minutes and you pipe up and make an ignorant statement all because you didn't ask the full context of the discussion. I'd suggest at least skimming over the thread at hand and get a decent picture of what's going on. If you take issue with a specific member's statement, research his/her posts in that thread to see what he/she is trying to convey.

I know it's frustrating on both sides of the token. But let's try to understand where each person is coming from for the sake of keeping the discussion alive and the spread common courtesy.

[MLeake]

You are correct, we should be more tolerant of others. That in mind, I apologize for the way my indirect reply to the gentleman with limited time and access came across. I had not intended for my response to sound as brusque as it did; however, I felt the poster's defensive attitude toward DeltaB was causing him to miss the point that the info really was available in the body of the thread.

I like the idea Trooper Tyree put forward of putting a general recap at the beginning of longer threads.

[DeltaB]

Tuttle, duly noted.

[DeltaB]

I don't see the ME making his statements with 100% certainty. Please show me where the ME has said as such as it is entirely possible I have been wrong. I don't think anyone has been able to answer my other question about how lethal/surviveable the first shot was, how lethal the second round of shots were and if either was survivable on their own? If the damn video would show the BG this issue would be allot simpler.

When it comes to the verasity of the testimony, I'm compelled to give great weight to the ME's statements over what Ersland has stated for reasons I have already made known. Concerning the shots, and their impact on Parker, forensic evidense which the DA has made statements on, have been what I have reported to this thread. It's certainly your right to discount the ME's reports, but forensics is what will be seen as the de facto standard in this case in court. While you cannot see Parker on the floor, you can see that no one ever rises up from that floor. No hands ever come up. You don't see his legs or feet move. You never see his head rise up. You don't see anything of Parker. Which in itself tends to give me more weight of credibility to the ME's report, than that of Ersland. And that in itself tends to be more revealing than you are giving it credit for. I can understand your position.

[OuTcAsT]

which sometimes entail thesis statements from members.

I think I may have just been insulted..:eek:

I know it's frustrating on both sides of the token. But let's try to understand where each person is coming from for the sake of keeping the discussion alive and the spread common courtesy.

Good suggestion, and duly noted. I too apologize if my response was construed as terse.

[Hank15]

I may not have time to read all the posts, but I do have time to google. That idea just didn't come up when I made my post. I hope this makes up for any impolite or defensive attitude I may have demonstrated earlier.

From now on, for topics like this, I'll research twice, post once to help alleviate flooded threads.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/

http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12471775

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

Though the sources disagree on some parts (such as whether or not Parker was unconscious), they do agree on one thing: the pharmacist chased the other assailant out the store, and came back to shoot the downed assailant five additional times in the abdomen. I think that's only because there was video proof, otherwise the media would have tried to manipulate that as well.

I can't say I agree with the pharmacist's action (running back to the store and putting 5 more rounds in the assailant's abdomen), but I must say that his previous actions did prevent potential risks to his life and the employees' lives. I personally believe that if a person's good deeds outweigh his evil deeds, he is still essentially good. That's just me though, others may disagree.

My condolences to Parker and his family though, I don't think he even knew what he was doing. He was trying to put on his mask while his accomplice was waving a gun around....

[hogdogs]

Admirable of you to take the higher road and not try to stand by your original opinion due to pride...

I personally believe that if a person's good deeds outweigh his evil deeds, he is still essentially good. That's just me though, others may disagree.
I couldn't agree more!
There are a lot of essentially "good" people doing time in prison for a single mistake or transgression.
Brent

[Micahweeks]

Ok. I've read through about 16 to 18 pages of this thread. I've looked at every link and read the articles. I've done my own research and watched every angle of the surveillance videos. Here is my opinion/prediction.

Murder one is not an appropriate charge. Here is why. Murder must be accompanied by premeditation. Given Ersland's evidenced mental instability and drug induced state of mind, I find it extremely unlikely that anyone can make a serious case that in the 10 seconds he left and came back that he made a malicious plan to execute the boy on the floor. The event happened fairly quick, so I think manslaughter is a more appropriate charge.

Is he guilty of wrong doing? Yes.
Did he do something reprehensible? Yes.
Is he someone who should be carrying or keeping a gun nearby? No!!!
Is Murder in the First Degree an appropriate charge? Not if you can't disprove his altered state of mind under the morphine. It would be a crime of passion, manslaughter.

Before I get flamed, let me just say that this is all my OPINION. Having worked in law enforcement and as a bail enforcement agent some years ago, I have one ADA friend from DeSoto County that was nice enough to sit down with me and talk about this case with me and my wife. She believes that a plea bargain to manslaughter will be entered if forensic evidence supports that Parker was unconscious for the five shots to the abdomen. If not, she believes that Ersland will probably be cleared of criminal charges (or receive a number of possible misdemeanors) but will loose horribly in the following civil court case. She helped me understand the legal possibilities, and I believe the outcome will be manslaughter and a loss in civil court.

That's all just me, though.

Now, there is a great question I would like to see talked about more. Maybe I'll start a thread in the Law and Civil Rights section on it. How do you limit possession of firearms by people who are mentally unstable without infringing on other people's 2nd Amendment right?

[DeltaB]

Murder one is not an appropriate charge. Here is why. Murder must be accompanied by premeditation.

Not in the state of Oklahoma. In the death of a minor it requires no premeditation, only that Ersland used unreasonable force to cause his death. Having said that, premeditation doesn't presuppose a long period of time to consider it either.

§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.

Given Ersland's evidenced mental instability and drug induced state of mind, I find it extremely unlikely that anyone can make a serious case that in the 10 seconds he left and came back..

Actually, if you want to be correct, Ersland was out of the store almost 30 seconds...some of the time was clipped from footage that has been posted on the internet.

[Double Naught Spy]

Murder one is not an appropriate charge. Here is why. Murder must be accompanied by premeditation.

It could easily be argued as premeditated. Premeditation does not mean it had to be planned days or weeks in advance, just in advance. The DA could argue that in fact premeditation occurred when Ersland came back in the shop, saw Parker on the ground, made the decision (premeditation occurs here), walked by Parker around the corner of the counter and back to his desk where he unlocked the desk drawer and pulled out the .380. He then turned around and walked back to Parker and pumped the rounds into him.

[Shane Tuttle]

which sometimes entail thesis statements from members.

I think I may have just been insulted..

You haven't read very many of my posts, have you?:(

Thanks guy and gals for keeping said issue in mind.

[PT111]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premeditated


Main Entry: pre·med·i·tat·ed
Function: adjective
Date: 1590
: characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning <premeditated murder>
— pre·med·i·tat·ed·ly adverb

Premedication does not require planning for a week ahead of time but rather an intention to do it. It can easily be argued that when he came back in he decided right then to kill the boy and carried it out. His premeditation was only a few seconds but longer than just when he walked up to him. This is assuming that when the Pharmacist came back in from the street he did not see the boy going for his own gun in his backpack.

[OuTcAsT]

You haven't read very many of my posts, have you?


Sure have , just yankin' your chain :cool:

Murder one is not an appropriate charge.


While circumstances may yet prove that to be the case with respect to the laws concerning Murder 1, there is another factor that DeltaB Has brought forward that may be harder to defend Ersland from ;

§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.


If it is proven that he used unreasonable force, even enough to elicit a charge of Manslaughter, he will, by default, be guilty of Murder 1 due to the age of the victim, under this statute. (premeditation is not necessary) The prosecution may not use this avenue,(though it may be part of the jury instructions) but it certainly is a possibility, and if the prosecutor feels he may get a lesser conviction, he might well go down this path.

[Micahweeks]

What I see most people here doing is claiming that premeditation does not take minutes. They claim it can happen in seconds. You are right. It can.

However....

You are ridiculously unlikely, in a court of law, to win that argument. The men and women in the legal system just don't bite on that. In Memphis, in 2001, a 22 year old male was arrested for Murder I. He was playing a poker game. A guy at the table lost a hand and refused to pay. So, the 22 year old pulled out a gun and shot him in the face.

Was he charged with Murder I? Yes.

Did it stick? No.

It is was endlessly easier to convince the judge and jury that he pulled the gun out of a fit of anger in that 20 seconds than it was to convince them he really, really, planned it out in 16 and carried out in 4.

It might have been premeditated, sure. But, it is not likely that Ersland's attorney, if he is remotely competent, can't argue away premeditation.

As for the statue on minors, Mississippi has been known to revoke your minor status at the age of 15 or higher, depending on the severity of the crime, in cases where a minor is caught in a felonious act. This is to prevent teenagers and their parents from attempting to exploit their minor status. Since the boy was committing a felonious act, the family could find that he won't receive consideration as a minor. I don't know if Oklahoma has ever done such a thing. I can only speak for the few states where I have worked and lived.

[Donn_N]

As for the statue on minors, Mississippi has been known to revoke your minor status at the age of 15 or higher, depending on the severity of the crime, in cases where a minor is caught in a felonious act. This is to prevent teenagers and their parents from attempting to exploit their minor status. Since the boy was committing a felonious act, the family could find that he won't receive consideration as a minor. I don't know if Oklahoma has ever done such a thing. I can only speak for the few states where I have worked and lived.

This is not the same situation, however. When juveniles are tried as adults it is the state that makes that decision. If the state is trying to pin a first degree murder charge on someone for using excessive force on a minor, it seems unlikely that they would derail their own case by declaring the minor an adult.

[DeltaB]

As for the statue on minors, Mississippi has been known to revoke your minor status at the age of 15 or higher, depending on the severity of the crime, in cases where a minor is caught in a felonious act. This is to prevent teenagers and their parents from attempting to exploit their minor status. Since the boy was committing a felonious act, the family could find that he won't receive consideration as a minor. I don't know if Oklahoma has ever done such a thing. I can only speak for the few states where I have worked and lived.

Child offenders have been prosecuted under various levels. But this isn't about charging the child. Ersland is in fact facing murder in the first degree under §21-701.7. Any and all can apply. There is nothing in the statute that states section C is only applicable as long as the minor was not in the commision of a felony. Many local stations have had numerous legal experts making comments concerning this issue, and all of them agree that the core issue is did Ersland use "unreasonable force." And if he did, then Oklahoma statute states that in the death of a minor, that is sufficient to raise to the level of murder in the 1st degree, and nothing else except "unreasonable force" need be considered, no premeditation required. I do know law in the state of Oklahoma is very stern when it comes to the death of children under 18 when any type of abusive behaviour is concerned, including "unreasonable force."

[PT111]

You are ridiculously unlikely, in a court of law, to win that argument. The men and women in the legal system just don't bite on that. In Memphis, in 2001, a 22 year old male was arrested for Murder I. He was playing a poker game. A guy at the table lost a hand and refused to pay. So, the 22 year old pulled out a gun and shot him in the face.

Was he charged with Murder I? Yes.

Did it stick? No.

I could easily see how that wouldn't stick and can't believe they even considered premeditation in that. In SC both of them would be in the act of committing a crime since playing poker for money is illegal.

[Micahweeks]

I understand that the child is not being charged, but, in some cases in MS(not more than couple I've ever heard of), it works like this.

The child committed a felonious act. Therefore, had he lived, he would have forfeited his protection as a minor and would have been adjudicated. So, since he died, he is considered an adult casualty for the the purpose of the case.

It's pretty much like accusing the prosecutor of being out for blood. You accuse him of just dying to prosecute someone so bad that he was going to try Ersland for murder considering the kid a minor if he died or try the 16 year old kid as an adult if he lived. This creates a situation where the judge could rule that boy be considered an adult for the purpose of the trial since his felonious act immediately forfeited his protections as a minor.

[Wildalaska]

You are ridiculously unlikely, in a court of law, to win that argument. The men and women in the legal system just don't bite on that.

Really? How many cases have you tried to provide us with that analysis.

Any trial is a crapshoot. The cases take on a life of their own once that first witness is sworn. Ask OJ, Lucky Luciano, Bruno Hauptman, John Gotti, Lizzie Borden, Sacco and venzetti and all the other strange and wierd ones.

The key to this case is the Defendant. He MUST TESTIFY. And if he does, he's toast. if he doesnt, he's burnt toast

WildthisisagreatthreadAlaska TM

[DeltaB]

So, since he died, he is considered an adult casualty for the the purpose of the case.

The second youth (the one who had the weapon) is being charged as a youthful offender, and not an adult. Since Parker was unarmed I don't know that would be done, but it is pure speculation at this point...

[Micahweeks]

Um, Wildalaska? Did you keep reading? I did give an example in the next sentence.

Look, you don't like what I'm saying. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities. Disagree if you want, but try to remain a little more civil. This isn't personal.

And, for the record...

http://www.sunherald.com/412/story/1399633.html

In this case he was initially charged with murder, but, due to the instantaneous nature of the crime, manslaughter was an accepted plea. The lawyer said it wasn't a habit, but then admitted that he charged the shooter inappropriately in the first place, precisely what I think happened to Mr. Ersland.

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/02/judge-sentences-man-to-prison-in-shooting/news-local/

Another reduced plea from murder I.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/dec/10/charge-reduced-to-manslaughter-in-fatal-shooting/

That's a crime of passion example because the shooter believe the victim had beaten his daughter.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/wylam_man_pleads_guilty_to_man.html

Reduced charge of manslaughter yet again.

Now, is it really necessary to keep this up? There are some good examples of murder 1 reduced to manslaughter for a number of reasons. So, we'll see. And, if you want more examples of murder being reduced to manslaughter, there are dozens upon dozens. Just put it in your search engine.

Oh, and there is no reason he MUST testify. He can plead the fifth.

[hogdogs]

Oh I am not gonna say what reduced charge may be used in the end but in this case what most of us are saying is that the murder 1 charge is an acceptable initial charge. At the end of the trial he may only be found guilty of manslaughter or a lower level of murder.
Brent
And 28 pages now!

[OuTcAsT]

The child committed a felonious act. Therefore, had he lived, he would have forfeited his protection as a minor and would have been adjudicated. So, since he died, he is considered an adult casualty for the the purpose of the case.


No doubt, this happens quite frequently, however, in this particular case I would think it would be highly unlikely given that ;

The second youth (the one who had the weapon) is being charged as a youthful offender, and not an adult.

That, coupled with the fact that he (Parker) was the victim in this instance, I cannot believe that the prosecutor will not use this particular tool. Also, in the beginning of this investigation, this might likely have been done but, since all of the bad publicity, and the dubious nature of the defendant have come to light, I don't think the prosecutor is likely as reluctant to see this man locked up as he was on day one, speculation of course.

Oh, and there is no reason he MUST testify. He can plead the fifth.

While he certainly does have a right to invoke his 5th amendment protections, I think WA is probably correct. Even if no other evidence is presented, other than what we have seen, the fact remains that Ersland is the only eyewitness to the last few seconds of Parker's life. As such, he is really the only one who can attempt to justify his final shots. Either way, he is already his own worst enemy.

[Micahweeks]

In that I agree with you. It is probably in his best interest to testify, depending on the evidence and the way it is presented. I was just pointing out that he isn't compelled to say anything that might incriminate himself even further.

I understand what you are saying about Parker being the victim, and it very well might happen that way. I suspected that the prosecution might take the route of considering Parker an adult because of his reluctance in the beginning of the case, as you mentioned. He seemed somewhat sympathetic to Ersland in a couple of of the news reports I found, so I figured that maybe he doesn't really want to take it to the point of trying to convict him of murdering a "child."

Oh, and here is a question I just haven't asked yet. What is the most recent news on the boy that ran away? The last I read he was being tried as a juvenile, atrocious indeed, IMO.

[Wildalaska]

While he certainly does have a right to invoke his 5th amendment protections, I think WA is probably correct.

You can't plead the 5th amendment if you take the stand voluntarily.

WildryetoastAlaska ™

[WW2]

In DeltaB's post #590

Quote:
The D.A. (Prater) has charged only Murder in the First Degree (as I read it, unless it has been amended since filing).

R.L.1910, § 2312.
§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.

Based upon this, and Outcast’s comments to my posting, I have concluded that I am wrong on the Voluntary Manslaughter decision and, based upon this Oklahoma definition, Ersland should indeed be convicted of Murder in the First Degree. Still, it is an excellent and tragic example that should be studied in any use of lethal force for self defense class.

Thanks to everyone for this very enlightening discussion! And may God keep us from making the same tragic choice if confronted with the use of lethal force!

[DeltaB]

What is the most recent news on the boy that ran away? The last I read he was being tried as a juvenile, atrocious indeed, IMO.

That's not exactly true. There is various levels in trying a minor in Oklahoma, and he is actually being charged as a "youthful offender" which doesn't place him in the class of "juvenile" but does not rise to the level of charging him as an adult. I would suppose this is done to remove the death penalty from the table.

[Playboypenguin]

It would be real interesting to see a public poll of forum members with the options being...

I would convict shooter of Murder 1.

I would convict shooter of lesser Manslaughter charge.

I would acquit the shooter of all charges.

So far the majority of opinion on this forum appears to be of an "I would convict" nature. If that is true on a forum such as this, I am afraid it would be even more popular in a public jury.

[DeltaB]

I would convict him of using "unreasonable force" and the statutes define that as murder one.

[OuTcAsT]

If a poll were taken now, and given only the evidence that we have available via this thread, It would be impossible for me to be swayed from the conclusion that this was, at the least, a use of unreasonable force. The charge would be dependent on the jury instructions. If the statute concerning a child were included, then he would, without a doubt, be guilty of murder 1. If not, then likely murder 2, as premeditation would be "problematic" if not impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA: Or, they could put this guy on the stand and "Darwin" will do the rest.


OuTwithcornedbeefkrautandswissandakosherpicklecAsT...oh, and an ice cold beer !

[Lost Sheep]

Quote:
While he certainly does have a right to invoke his 5th amendment protections, I think WA is probably correct.
You can't plead the 5th amendment if you take the stand voluntarily.
Wildalaska, I believe you CAN invoke the 5th amendment protections agains self-incrimination even after taking the stand. It just LOOKS really bad to do that in front of a jury.

I am not a lawyer, so my usual caveat applies:

Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet.

Do your own independent, confirming research when ANYONE gives you new facts on the web.

Lost Sheep

[PT111]

IANAL either but maybe one on here can straighten us out but the DA is allowed under cross examination to question you on anything related to your testimony or the testimony of any witnesses that you have supplied. If it is something not related to the case then you may not have to but you cannot provide your testimony voluntarily and then refuse to be cross examined.

[Ricky B]

Wildalaska, I believe you CAN invoke the 5th amendment protections agains self-incrimination even after taking the stand. It just LOOKS really bad to do that in front of a jury.


You are technically correct to a limited extent, but Wildalaska is more correct. A defendant can take the stand, be sworn, and refuse to answer questions, but no one would do that. As you say, It is really bad to do that in front of a jury, and the jury will correctly infer that your answers really would incriminate you. It amounts to an in-court, voluntary confession.

Once the defendant testifies, he waives the 5A protection against self-incrimination as to anything he has testified to or otherwise "opened the door" to with his testimony. And his credibility may be impeached, as with any witness, by showing he has made prior inconsistent statements (and if relevant, prior convictions and, sometimes, prior bad acts).

So taking the stand is risky, particularly so with this defendant, who I think will have trouble connecting with the jury on an emotional level.

OTOH, the defendant may have to testify as to his confusion and explain away as best as possible why his prior statements were inconsistent and hope the jury comes back with a lesser included offense, such as manslaughter.

Some of you may remember Dan White, the ex-supervisor of the SF board of supervisors (city council), who sneaked into city hall with a gun and murdered the mayor, George Moscone, and fellow supervisor (and gay activist), Harvey Milk. He was convicted of manslaughter (triggering a riot among the gay population in SF). If not,here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone-Milk_assassinations

[PT111]

You are technically correct to a limited extent, but Wildalaska is more correct. A defendant can take the stand, be sworn, and refuse to answer questions, but no one would do that. As you say, It is really bad to do that in front of a jury, and the jury will correctly infer that your answers really would incriminate you. It amounts to an in-court, voluntary confession.

I suppose you are correct there but seeing that the defendant gets to call his witnesses and cannot be called by the prosecution why would a defendant call himself (actually his lawyer would call him in real life) to the stand and then refuse to testify. As you say that could happen but the worst thing he could do. Once he opens his mouth then he is pretty much fair game for the DA.

[Wildalaska]

You are technically correct to a limited extent, but Wildalaska is more correct. A defendant can take the stand, be sworn, and refuse to answer questions, but no one would do that.

What happens is is that the Defendant will take the stand, testify on direct and take the 5th on cross. All his testimony is then stricken, and his layer gets reamed out. I have seen mistrials called for that trick

WildirefusetoanswerAlaska TM

[OuTcAsT]

What happens is is that the Defendant will take the stand, testify on direct and take the 5th on cross. All his testimony is then stricken, and his layer gets reamed out. I have seen mistrials called for that trick


And I can see why, even though the defendant's testimony is "technically" stricken, it is very difficult to "un-hear" direct testimony...particularly from the defendant :eek:

[Wildalaska]

Wildalaska, I believe you CAN invoke the 5th amendment protections agains self-incrimination even after taking the stand. It just LOOKS really bad to do that in front of a jury.

You can, but that results in your material direct testimony getting stricken

WildsonogoAlaska TM

[Ricky B]

What happens is is that the Defendant will take the stand, testify on direct and take the 5th on cross. All his testimony is then stricken, and his layer gets reamed out. I have seen mistrials called for that trick

IMO, it would be within the judge's discretion to rule that the defendant waived his 5A privilege and order the defendant to answer questions on cross, and failing compliance by the defendant, to instruct the jury that it is permitted to infer that the answers would have incriminated the defendant. Whether a judge would do that or whether a mistrial would be declared would depend on the case law of the jurisdiction and the inclinations of the particular judge. Federal judges are probably more likely than state court judges to stick it to the defendant who voluntarily testifies and then claims privilege on cross.

[Playboypenguin]

This is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. If he does not testify then the only side of the story is the physical evidence since the only support for his story is his own account. If he does testify he is going to be torn apart so badly that no jury would believe a word he ever said.

[broncobob]

I may Be wrong.
But I was told that A person that is considered a threat when three things
are present.Intent,Opportunity,and Ability.If all three things were present
then there is just cause for A proper defence.I would say that if this gentleman had been through the many hours of rigorous training that law enforcement officers go through then he probably would have had some
texbook,situation that he could have applied and been totally exonerated.
But being civilians,with the ability to take life without the training that would satisfy the D/A,we are nothing more that sheep waiting to be sheared.
I wish this man the very best outcome possible.

[hogdogs]

BroncoBob,
Ignorance is no defense in a court of law. It is our job as citizens who intend to defend our lives if need be to know the laws regarding such use of force. All the little nuances aside, blatant misuse of lethal force is criminal. Had this guy commenced firing and didn't stop 'til slide lock, I doubt it would have gotten him any charges even if BG was down by the time he got to the last round in the gun.
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

I may Be wrong.
But I was told that A person that is considered a threat when three things
are present.Intent,Opportunity,and Ability.If all three things were present
then there is just cause for A proper defence.

No, broncobob, you are correct, and, all three requirements were met in the initial shooting.

There is little doubt, in anyone's mind that had the pharmacist stopped shooting after his initial shot, or sustained his fire until his firearm was empty, either way we would not be discussing this case other than as a good SD shoot.

It is what happened next that is the reason for the charges, and the topic of this discussion.

Have you, by chance, seen the security video of the incident ? If not, it is linked several times in this thread.

[DeltaB]

Well, Ersland lost his appeal today concerning the military records...I guess we'll have to wait and see if anything emerges...

[Wildalaska]

Link?

WildwouldliketoreaditAlaska ™

[DeltaB]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2476814&db=Oklahoma

arraignment is the 26th

[Trooper Tyree]

What's the procedure in a case like this? Would it be open to the public?

OK city is only a couple hours from me, I'd kind of like to see this one up close and personal.

[Wildalaska]

All trials are open to the public. You can be the boots on the ground ;)

Wildillsendya$20forgasAlaska TM

[Dually]

He did the right thing, those thugs ment to kill him. I'm tired of people throwing the racist card whenever they think it may work to their advantage.

[Playboypenguin]

He did the right thing, those thugs ment to kill him
So you know that they went in there to kill him...with their one unloaded gun?

[Beentown71]

I think someone forgot to study before the quiz;)

Beentown

[Mello2u]

I wonder if the best defense for the Ersland is some sort of diminished capacity.

I do not know Oklahoma law, so if there is a charge that would be proper for someone who acted "in the heat of the moment" or "in hot blood" that is sometimes called manslaughter in some jurisdictions, that might be the best and fair.

Maybe some sort of post traumatic stress syndrome defense from his injuries during his service during Desert Storm? Temporary insanity?

I'm assuming facts not in evidence (since there has been no trial) about the time period when Ersland fired the five shots into the decedent:
the decedent was not conscious
the decedent was not armed

[21CFA]

""" this guy stood over this shot kid and pumped rounds into his chest why he was struggling"""". For whom do you work up there? ABC news?? You bin readin' too many Miami CSI scripts. "Paucity"??? Were you in Army Intell in the 60s?? And on this paucity you base wild surmises!! Stay put in AK. ("Bovine Scatology" originated in the USAFSS 69xx Squadrons in communications between DaNang and Udorn, in SITREPS, about 1966) All the Rx employee needs is a good attorney to back him up on "I thought he would kill us all." Reflex. He'd already been shot ONCE, according to a previous thread.

[Playboypenguin]

He'd already been shot ONCE.
Are you saying he had been shot once during this encounter?

[OuTcAsT]

Maybe some sort of post traumatic stress syndrome defense from his injuries during his service during Desert Storm?

His service records indicate that he was not in the military during Desert Storm, nor was he injured. (this is one of a multitude of un-truths this man has claimed)

He'd already been shot ONCE.

No, he had not, at least not by either of the robbers,
the evidence at the scene proved that there were no shots fired by anyone other than the pharmacist.

It was also later revealed that the robbers entered the store with an empty firearm.


Perhaps you guys should spend a few moments of "quality time" actually reading some of the posts and links provided in this thread, you might find it educational, and, it will put you in a more informed position to discuss this incident. :)

[21CFA]

"........shooting death of a would-be robber." What!?!? "Would be" ?? What happened to the description of the dead BG that said, "...who had just shot and wounded the pharmacist before the felon (supposed) himself was also shot." ?? Why is this depressed blond with the distressed eyebrows so sympathetic to the dead felon?? "....after the head-shot..." Why did she not say "...the first shot..."? The Rx guy was also still alive after the" first shot." Oh yeah, let's not forget that the Rx guy used an "AUTOMATIC" pistol! And the plot thickens as the "would be robber" becomes "the wounded robber."

To hogdogs:"twitch, flinch, or moan just before being shot the last 5 times? None of these actions deem a man a threat to life, limb or liberty!" Well, let's see if you remember that notorious video of a G.I. shooting a Taliban fighter who "moved" out of the corner of his eye. Training takes over, and reflex follows. I haven't seen ANY clear, plain video of this incident. And as for "Supposedly disabled" pharmacist, you who demean his wounds would be obliged to put up YOUR own DD214 or shut-up. "He scoffs at scars, who never felt a wound" Wm Shakespeare.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's a good idea, Outcast. :D

Rather than repeating myths - reread the info threads. Also, this has been a good thread - remember to keep the tone civil. If you look around, you will see that some long time participants of T and T are not longer with us.

If you have a personal problem with a post, report it.

[21CFA]

I was going on early quotes in posts, and not on later evidence. And WOWZEEE, did they ever pick up on the pharmacist's DoD records in lightning time!!!!! I was not aware that DoD records were public access when pertaining to certain medical conditions, unless the inquirer is professionally licensed and duly recommended to access. News sources are HARDLY professional. No such thing as "professional journalist." Mea culpa again. Also, to OuTcAsT : Re post #708. Howz about some citations and sources for the "facts" you state in this post? " His service records indicate that he was not in the military during Desert Storm, nor was he injured. (this is one of a multitude of un-truths this man has claimed)" ¿¿ Source please ?? "... he had not((been shot)), at least not by either of the robbers, the evidence at the scene proved that there were no shots fired by anyone other than the pharmacist. " ¿¿Source please?? "It was also later revealed", does not hack it as a reliable source.

[hogdogs]

To hogdogs:"twitch, flinch, or moan just before being shot the last 5 times? None of these actions deem a man a threat to life, limb or liberty!" Well, let's see if you remember that notorious video of a G.I. shooting a Taliban fighter who "moved" out of the corner of his eye. Training takes over, and reflex follows. I haven't seen ANY clear, plain video of this incident. And as for "Supposedly disabled" pharmacist, you who demean his wounds would be obliged to put up YOUR own DD214 or shut-up. "He scoffs at scars, who never felt a wound" Wm Shakespeare.
Bud, You have no clue at all... While US Military trained I am not... I have spent my time "in battle" I have also spent more time in ICU for various accidental injuries than most of the American population.
Well, let's see if you remember that notorious video of a G.I. shooting a Taliban fighter who "moved" out of the corner of his eye.
Real soldier... Real battle... Our pharmacist is a liar of the most low life type that claim active duty battle experience when it never happened! I have 5 expletives to describe this puke but I like my membership here! Any human that claims US military active duty battle experience that did not happen is 3 rungs lower than a crack dealer to me!
I haven't seen ANY clear, plain video of this incident. The only footage shows our "soldier poser" standing point blank over the punk and filling him full of lead while obviously not distressed in the least...
And as for "Supposedly disabled" pharmacist, you who demean his wounds would be obliged to put up YOUR own DD214 or shut-up
I don't know what a DD214 is but I never claimed battle hours in a war I never was in the service to take part in! As for the "SHUT UP" aspect... you have the right to 1st amendment as do I. I support real vets.. not liars who claim battle hours that they were not even in the service for! Had he spoken such BS in my presence and I known him a liar, he would have faced physical retribution for such fraudulent claims.
ONLY REAL SOLDIERS SHOULD CLAIM THEY WERE THERE!
Brent

[DeltaB]

Howz about some citations and sources for the "facts" you state in this post? " His service records indicate that he was not in the military during Desert Storm, nor was he injured. (this is one of a multitude of un-truths this man has claimed)" ¿¿ Source please ?? "... he had not((been shot)), at least not by either of the robbers, the evidence at the scene proved that there were no shots fired by anyone other than the pharmacist. " ¿¿Source please?? "It was also later revealed", does not hack it as a reliable source.

Simply take some time and review the posts and you will find the links. They took the time to research the issue and give the posts.

[Mello2u]

OuTcAsT

Maybe some sort of post traumatic stress syndrome defense from his injuries during his service during Desert Storm?
His service records indicate that he was not in the military during Desert Storm, nor was he injured. (this is one of a multitude of un-truths this man has claimed)

He'd already been shot ONCE.
No, he had not, at least not by either of the robbers,
the evidence at the scene proved that there were no shots fired by anyone other than the pharmacist.

It was also later revealed that the robbers entered the store with an empty firearm.

Perhaps you guys should spend a few moments of "quality time" actually reading some of the posts and links provided in this thread, you might find it educational, and, it will put you in a more informed position to discuss this incident.
__________________

I missed the two posts (#574 and 581) out of over 700 in this thread which mentioned the news report about Ersland admitting he had misrepresented his military service.

DeltaB raises several important issues throughout this thread.

You've got to realize that to read all of the posts on this tread and the links takes at least 3 hours. I read at about 600 words per minute too.

I was trying to contribute something thoughtful to the thread. I'm sorry that I did not read each and every word of each posting or follow each and every link.

[OuTcAsT]

Howz about some citations and sources for the "facts" you state in this post?

Respectfully Sir,

Let us attempt to use something that resembles the English
language, as we discuss this incident further, shall we ?

" His service records indicate that he was not in the military during Desert Storm, nor was he injured. (this is one of a multitude of un-truths this man has claimed)" ¿¿ Source please ??

... he had not((been shot)), at least not by either of the robbers, the evidence at the scene proved that there were no shots fired by anyone other than the pharmacist. " ¿¿Source please??

"It was also later revealed", does not hack it as a reliable source.


Again, respectfully Sir, Many of us have spent countless hours researching this incident, poured over every available detail, and weighed the possibilities ad nauseum,

It is only out of the sheer humor of your hubris, that I assemble the links for you, and others to peruse. If you do not find the sources "hack" to your satisfaction, then by all means feel free to post sources of your own.

Here's the initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy") Pay attention to what he says in that interview, and then watch the videos below with his words in mind. (This is what he said before he was charged.)

Here's the raw surveillance camera footage: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

Here's the affadavit of probable cause: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

Here's a short, edited version of an interview with the prosecuting DA, which includes a few statements from Ersland's defense attorney: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Here's the extended interview with the DA, uncut. It is hard to hear in spots, and it is WELL worth the 20 minutes it takes to view: http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

And here's an article about this DA's view of the 2nd Amendment: http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148 (The money quote: "I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” ... the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”)

Interestingly, at the bail hearing, the DA (prosecutor) strongly objected to the judge's order forbidding the defendant to own firearms until after the case was resolved. See http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fatal-oklahoma-city-shooting-released-on-100000-bail/article/3373194 for that whole story.

This link (http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-says-he-feared-for-life-during-shooting/article/3374434) reports on the O'Reilly interview which happened after he was charged with murder.

There's also a good page here (http://www.newsok.com/pharmacyshootings) with ongoing local coverage of the situation.

And finally, here's a link to the best in-depth analysis article I've yet seen: here. (www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4098/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)


The stories about his service record are contained in this thread somewhere, and I have neither the time, nor inclination, to do your research for you.

Hopefully, you will find the answers which you seek, otherwise, I have nothing to prove to you, and you may research on your own, to refute my statements if you must.

Respectfully submitted in the interest of a continuing discussion,

OuTcAsT

[21CFA]

Thanks for high-browing us with meagre command of the language (obvious obfuscation) but I requested of you and any others, if you put a post quoting "facts", at least carry the citation forward along with those "facts." I am guilty of being led to crappy assessments of the incident by equally crappy (or merely out-of-date) posts that have bombarded this item lately. I'm taking two steps back, and apologizing for commenting on other unverified "facts" and being too lazy and quick on the trigger with my comments.

[Shane Tuttle]

News sources are HARDLY professional. No such thing as "professional journalist."

Then why are you so inclined to request for sources? If a member provides his/her source, what good is it if you'll automatically dismiss it?

One other thing: post #706 is hardly beneficial by claiming BS in no certain terms on another member.
I'd HIGHLY recommend thinking twice, posting once from here on out, sir.

[PKato]

But I do think more was made out of the situation because it was a white shooter and a young black male. I do agree that more facts would be needed, but just from the scenario described, honestly and I was a cop in the military...that if I was on a jury, there is no way I am going to convict this guy of any wrong-doing. Just my opinion. Bottom line though...the kid who was killed COULD have avoided the entire rotten scene! He did have control over that, he could have chosen not to rob the place.

[21CFA]

Quote, "why are you so inclined to request for sources? If a member provides his/her source, what good is it if you'll automatically dismiss it?" Answer: I would not "automatically diss" it. If it's the D.A., I'm more inclined to believe it than if a Katy Couric-type news-reader said it. Unless, of course, there is a following video clip. THAT'S a citation. O.K. . . . . Need a little help on finding the surveillance video that shows the Rx guy "pumping bullets" into the fallen alleged perp. (BTW, since the perp had dropped his "unloaded" gun, was he not then unarmed? If it were not loaded, was he unarmed? (And ANY gun pointed at ME I'll consider loaded, and take appropriate actions. How do you feel about it, yourself?) I've seen cameras #1, #2, and #3, but can't see the "execution" video. Any help??

[PKato]

If there is more facts, like you say...I would like to read them, but when I tried using the links they wouldn't work for me...the story was either expired or the links were incorrect...am interested though.

thanks

[PT111]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536377&postcount=501

Look back to post #500 on page 21 for the original post by PAX. Those links should work.

[OuTcAsT]

I would like to read them, but when I tried using the links they wouldn't work for me

I tried them, and they seemed to work, sorry you are having difficulties PKato. the original source is from a site by the "Oklahoman" newspaper. http://newsok.com.

You may have to search a bit, but they have a section devoted entirely to this incident. Hope that helps. :)

[OuTcAsT]

(BTW, since the perp had dropped his "unloaded" gun, was he not then unarmed? If it were not loaded, was he unarmed?

If you indeed watched the video as you claim;

I've seen cameras #1, #2, and #3

Then you, undoubtedly, through the same powers of observation that the rest of us relied on, saw that the only armed "perp" fled the store, with gun in hand, and the pharmacist in pursuit. The "perp" that was shot only had a mask, which he spent his entire conscious time in the store, attempting to put on.

If not, might I suggest a re-viewing is in order ?

was he unarmed?

Yes, as in; "had no armament" empty handed, save, of course, a mask.

[21CFA]

to make a call either way, but listening to the D.A, I'd say the Rx Guy's goose is cooked. Yes, I've watched it several times (NOT over the "countless hours" - - - - c'mon man!) and can't see it for the darkness. D.A. has to be right, tho'.

[hogdogs]

21, Maybe your video viewer could be set too dark. The 3 in store vids are bright and fairly high def color jobbies.
I understand, I REALLY DO, that many getting involved in this discussion are newer to TFL than the discussion at hand. I also realize it is time consuming to read all at once. Take yer time read a page or 2 at a time. Then jump in. We that have been involved in the discussion from the onset actually have more time invested as we continuously update ourselves both here and with the news sources.

I also take high offense at a suggestion that this thread has been biased due to race of either involved party. I, personally, couldn't care less if the down BG was a purple polka dot poodle and the shooter a pitbull or vice versa... I am all for legal self defense of the most barbaric and bloody sort so long as it is within the law!
But you can't just walk up and "Clint Eastwood" a downed wounded punk on cameras!
Brent

[Al Norris]

All the links in OuTcAsT's re-posting of Kathy's post are now fixed. And because we're now on a new page, I'm gonna post them again! :D

From this (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536377&postcount=501) post by pax:
Here's the initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy") Pay attention to what he says in that interview, and then watch the videos below with his words in mind. (This is what he said before he was charged.)

Here's the raw surveillance camera footage: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

Here's the affadavit of probable cause: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

Here's a short, edited version of an interview with the prosecuting DA, which includes a few statements from Ersland's defense attorney: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Here's the extended interview with the DA, uncut. It is hard to hear in spots, and it is WELL worth the 20 minutes it takes to view: http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

And here's an article about this DA's view of the 2nd Amendment: http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148 (The money quote: "I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” ... the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”)

Interestingly, at the bail hearing, the DA (prosecutor) strongly objected to the judge's order forbidding the defendant to own firearms until after the case was resolved. See http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fatal-oklahoma-city-shooting-released-on-100000-bail/article/3373194 for that whole story.

This link (http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-says-he-feared-for-life-during-shooting/article/3374434) reports on the O'Reilly interview which happened after he was charged with murder.

There's also a good page here (http://www.newsok.com/pharmacyshootings) with ongoing local coverage of the situation.

And finally, here's a link to the best in-depth analysis article I've yet seen: here. (www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4098/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

[Lost Sheep]

hogdogs, DD214 (Department of Defense Form 214) is the discharge papers any member of the U.S. Military (all branches) receives when he or she leaves adtive duty.

It also specifies some details of the member's service and the type of discharge (Honorable, General, Dishonorable and another status I don't remember right now.)

source, my memory and this site:
http://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/dd-214.html
or if the link does not work paste this into your browser
archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/dd-214.html

fron which this is clipped
The Report of Separation contains information normally needed to verify military service for benefits, retirement, employment, and membership in veterans' organizations. Information shown on the Report of Separation may include the service member's:

* Military job specialty
* Military education
* Decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign awards
* Total creditable service
* Foreign service credited
* Separation information (type of separation, character of service, authority and reason for separation, separation and reenlistment eligibility codes)

The report of separation form issued in most recent years is the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Lost Sheep

P.S. I would have p.m.'ed this but thought since one TFL member had the question, others might, too.

[Ricky B]

If you're joining this discussion and don't want to read through over 700 posts, I don't blame you. I haven't read all of them myself.

But that doesn't mean you can join a conversation in progress and not concern yourself with what has already been discussed.

So for your convenience, here is a summary. This, coupled the links in post 726, will allow you to participate without looking like an idiot.

Undisputed Facts:

Two men enter a pharmacy store with the intent to rob it. One robber is armed and displaying a gun. Jerome Ersland, a pharmacist, draws a gun and shoots the other robber, Antwun Parker, in the head. The armed robber flees. Ersland gives chase but then returns to the store. He walks past the prostrate Parker in an unconcerned manner. Ersland retrieves a second gun and walks back to Parker. Ersland fires five shots into the abdomen of Parker, killing him.

Ersland's Defense

Ersland's principal defense (and what we have been discussing) is a claim of self-defense.

The DA charges Ersland with murder. The DA expressly declares the the first shooting by Ersland, the one where Parker was shot in the head, was justified. The murder charge is ONLY for the five additional shots fired into Parker.

It does not matter legally whether Parker would have survived the head wound. The ME says yes, but it's irrelevant. The only legal issue is whether Parker was alive, and the ME's opinion that he was in fact alive at the time of the second shooting and that the five shots to the abdomen were fatal is probably going to be conclusive on that issue.

No one on TFL claims that the first shooting by Ersland is at issue. The ONLY issue is whether Ersland was justified in shooting Parker an additional five times.

Inculpatory Facts

Facts against Ersland that are apparent from viewing the surveillance video:

He goes past Parker, exposing his back, as he chases the other robber outside the store.

He returns to the store, again going past Parker and exposing his back to Parker as he goes behind the counter.

He retrieves a second gun and with seeming nonchalance walks over to Parker and bends over and shoots Parker five times.

He then, again with seeming nonchalance, walks behind the counter and picks up a phone to call the police

Additional facts against Ersland (which come from the initial article "Man has no regrets defending Oklahoma City pharmacy"):

He claimed to be a veteran of the Gulf War and to have been injured in the war. But he was discharged before the Gulf War began.

He claimed that he was shot at during the robbery, but according to the police, Ersland was the only who fired a shot.

He claimed that a robber grabbed his hand, but the video shows neither of the robbers was anywhere close enough to grab his hand.

He claimed that he got the second gun before the second robber fled, but the video shows that he retrieved the second gun after he chased the robber down the street and returned to the store.

He claimed that as he started to chase after the second robber, he looked back to see Parker getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the .380 into Parker's chest as Erlsand kept going after the second robber. The video shows that Ersland did not look back as he chased the second robber and that he did not keep his eye on Parker when he returned to store and went behind the counter to get the second gun.

Additional evidence, in the form of opinion, will be the ME's testimony that Parker was alive but unconscious when Ersland pumped the five rounds into his abdomen.

Exculpatory Facts

In Ersland's defense:

1. This never would have happened if Parker and his accomplice had not tried to rob the store.

2. Participants in high-stress situations often mangle the facts in the retelling.

3. According to at least one post by an EMT in this thread, even dead men can twitch. So it is possible that Parker twitched or otherwise moved even though unconscious. The versions of the video that I have seen do not show Parker on the floor.

The Basic Issue

The issue is not whether a store employee is justified in shooting a robber. Please don't waste everyone's time with that. We all know it.

And if you believe that once a robber enters a store, his life is forfeit and he becomes your personal property even if he ceases to be a threat, well, think what you like, but that's not the law and that's not how most people think.

The questions to be decided by the jury in connection with self-defense are:

1. Whether Ersland truly feared for his life (or feared great bodily injury). If not, there's no self-defense.

AND

2. Whether Ersland's fear for his life (or great bodily injury) was reasonable under the circumstances. If not, there's no self-defense.

This is sometimes referred to as the subjective and the objective tests for self-defense. BOTH must be present to carry the day with a self-defense claim.

An "imperfect" self-defense can reduce a charge from murder. So if Erlsland truly believed that death or great bodily injury were imminent, but his belief was unreasonable, that can reduce the severity of the offense to murder 2 or manslaughter.

[Cincy_Ron]

Thanks Ricky, good synopsis.

[DeltaB]

So for your convenience, here is a summary.

Ricky B, there are a few more issues, which start with the fact was Ersland in criminal possession of a firearm under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act. Anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs, illegal or legal are prohibited from carrying or using a firearm. Concerning Ersland's "mangling" the facts doesn't even come close to what is at issue in this case, and will certainly play a vital part of the verasity of his testimony. The claim was he was shot in the arm, then it moved to shot in the hand. Investigators testified that no one shot inside the pharmacy except Ersland. Ersland claimed he was thrown against the wall, and that was found to be false by the footage. You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others.

I would disagree with your synopsis of the legal outcomes as well. If you cause the death of a minor in Oklahoma by use of "unreasonable force" that rises to the level of murder in the first degree.

[OuTcAsT]

If you cause the death of a minor in Oklahoma by use of "unreasonable force" that rises to the level of murder in the first degree.

Ricky, good recap, however, do not underestimate the above law, If the Judge finds that the 16 year old decedent qualifies as a minor, the only legal question is going to be one of the use of "unreasonable force".

[Ricky B]

You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others.

If you mean to suggest that I don't have the facts right or that my post is misleading, I don't think that is a correct characterization of my post. You haven't mentioned any facts that I misstated. And having labeled my post as a summary, no one should think that I have listed all the facts. The purpose of my post was not to foreclose anyone from adding facts or arguing interpretations of the facts but simply to recite a commonly accepted nucleus of facts. And of course, if I have misstated any facts, anyone is free to correct that.

I also did not state that there were no legal issues beyond self-defense.

Whether Ersland was legally in possession of his handguns can certainly be an issue, but I don't know that it is relevant to whether he committed murder, which is the most important issue we have been discussing. Bernard Goetz, the "subway vigilante," was found not guilty of all charges except an illegal firearms possession count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

If you cause the death of a minor in Oklahoma by use of "unreasonable force" that rises to the level of murder in the first degree.

That indeed is another issue. I suspect however that if the defendant is found to have a valid self-defense claim, he is entitled to be acquitted. If the defendant is found to have an "imperfect" self-defense claim but used "unreasonable force," it might not suffice to reduce the offense.

[surg_res]

3. According to at least one post by an EMT in this thread, even dead men can twitch. So it is possible that Parker twitched or otherwise moved even though unconscious. The versions of the video that I have seen do not show Parker on the floor.

Dead humans do not twitch. Dying humans: perhaps.

As I mentioned in this thread last month, a head shot could be fatal--but not instantly fatal, thus the ME's conclusion that he was still alive does not equate to guarantee to survive. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the dead boy was or was not unconscious.

[Ricky B]

I am assuming that the following quote is a correct statement of OK law:

§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.

There is a basic principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which literally means something like "of the same kind." In construing a statute that uses a string of terms, the courts will often use the more specific terms to limit the meaning of more general terms. So the use of the terms "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming" in the statute can be interpreted by a judge as qualifying the term "using of unreasonable force" and thus limiting the meaning to one that is similar to "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming."

If that interpretation applies, then the term "using force" in connection with self-defense might have a different meaning that the term "using of unreasonable force" in the murder statute.

I suspect that the legislators were intending to address the shaken baby syndrome where a care-giver shakes a baby so hard that he or she kills the baby but doesn't actually hit the baby.

Assuming Parker is held by the court to be a "child," it is possible that the statute would apply to Ersland's actions, not because Ersland used unreasonable force but because the shooting could be found to be a "willful or malicious injuring." Of course, if Ersland was acting in self-defense, it would not be willful or malicious as most people (and I think an OK judge) would use those terms.

[DeltaB]

You haven't mentioned any facts that I misstated.

Actually, I did. See next..

He claimed that a robber grabbed his hand, but the video shows neither of the robbers was anywhere close enough to grab his hand.

I have tried to research all that Ersland had asserted, and I know he reported that he had been shot in the forearm initially, and even went as far as to wear an oversized bandage on his arm. He then changed his story that he felt a sting in his hand and his watch fell off when he was shot in the hand. Neither proved true. He stated early on that the suspects charged the counter and forced him in to the wall, which is when he stated he pulled a .380 automatic pistol from his pocket and began to fire. If you know of where he stated they grabbed his hand, can you please provide a source?

I suspect that the legislators were intending to address the shaken baby syndrome where a care-giver shakes a baby so hard that he or she kills the baby but doesn't actually hit the baby.

§21-701.7. (C) MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE INVOLVING - DEATH OF CHILD - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a child under the age of eighteen;
Second, the death resulted from the willful or malicious injuring/torturing/maiming or using of unreasonable force;
Third, by the defendant.

Unreasonable force is defined as any action more than that ordinarily used as a means of discipline.
Willful - Purposeful. "Willful" is a willingness to commit the act or omission referred to, but does not require any intent to violate the law or to acquire any advantage.
Malicious - The term imports a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person.
Torture - Infliction of either great physical pain or extreme mental cruelty.
Maiming - Infliction on another of a physical injury that disables or disfigures or seriously diminishes physical vigor, performed with the intent to cause any injury.

Concerning the issue of him carrying and using a deadly weapon in violation of the statutes of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, if it is found that he was under the influence of opiates at the time of the crime (which his defense team has already stated) it could be difference between life (in prison) or death.

[GSUeagle1089]

It also specifies some details of the member's service and the type of discharge (Honorable, General, Dishonorable and another status I don't remember right now.)


I think that other one is a Section 8... usually reserved for folks who are mentally unfit for duty.

[OuTcAsT]

There are actually 5 distinct types of discharge one can receive from military service;

TYPES OF DISCHARGE The five types of discharge are as follows: 1. Honorable 2. General (under honorable conditions) 3. Other than honorable 4. Bad conduct 5. Dishonorable

[OuTcAsT]

There is a basic principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which literally means something like "of the same kind." In construing a statute that uses a string of terms, the courts will often use the more specific terms to limit the meaning of more general terms. So the use of the terms "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming" in the statute can be interpreted by a judge as qualifying the term "using of unreasonable force" and thus limiting the meaning to one that is similar to "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming."

If that interpretation applies, then the term "using force" in connection with self-defense might have a different meaning that the term "using of unreasonable force" in the murder statute.

I suspect that the legislators were intending to address the shaken baby syndrome where a care-giver shakes a baby so hard that he or she kills the baby but doesn't actually hit the baby.

Assuming Parker is held by the court to be a "child," it is possible that the statute would apply to Ersland's actions, not because Ersland used unreasonable force but because the shooting could be found to be a "willful or malicious injuring." Of course, if Ersland was acting in self-defense, it would not be willful or malicious as most people (and I think an OK judge) would use those terms.

That was an interesting, and, informative analysis, I am, however also interested in the ELEMENTS that DeltaB posted;

No person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a child under the age of eighteen;
Second, the death resulted from the willful or malicious injuring/torturing/maiming or using of unreasonable force;
Third, by the defendant.


The first element, the death of a child under the age of eighteen, has been met.

The third element, by the defendant, has also been met.

The second element, remains the questionable part. Keeping the explanation that RickyB provided in mind, there is one thing that sticks out, that is the word OR that I highlighted. This would seem to indicate that the factors were intended to be tested exclusive of one another. The death was either from the malicious torture, etc. OR the use of unreasonable force. Thus either being met,(along with the other elements) would be cause for a conviction. At least that is my understanding of what I am reading. YMMV :)

[Ricky B]

From the source I cited in my post:

[initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad...rticle/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy")]

"They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall ...


I had read "that's when he got my hand" and "thrown against a wall" to mean that one of the robbers had grabbed his hand and as a result he was thrown against the wall. Consistent with your own post, I had read elsewhere that "the suspects charged the counter and forced him in to the wall," though I don't recall where I read it. Re-reading the article I quoted, I now assume he meant that the shot that he claimed the robbers had gotten off had hit his hand and threw him against the wall.

Of course, neither claim (grabbed his hand/forced to the wall) was true so I don't think that makes my post "misleading." Otherwise you haven't cited a fact that I got wrong, only that I didn't mention all the facts that you think I should have added to the summary. Again, at the risk of stating the obvious, a summary does not include all facts.

Therefore your statement "You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others" was not only uncalled for but also offensive.

[DeltaB]

Ricky B, there was no offense intended. If taken then please accept my apology. Thanks for providing the clarification.

[DeltaB]

OuTcAsT, I would suppose that "willful" would be applicable in all of the consideration. It would be hard for me to think that someone who was forced to commit a murder not of their own volition would be applicable...

[Shane Tuttle]

Therefore your statement "You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others" was not only uncalled for but also offensive.

...OR this issue is getting dissected so deep with details abound that even facts are beginning to look a bit complicated.

[pax]

Whew! This thread is amazing.

People, I'm very proud of y'all. This is a hot, contentious topic with lots of room for extreme differences of opinion. But you have all managed to keep it on topic, lively, interesting, and polite. Lots of good intelligent discussion backed up by facts, almost no knee-jerk emotional responses.

At 30 pages and over 740 meaningful posts, this thread has got to be a record.

Keep it up, folks. :cool:

pax

[Ricky B]

Delta B, I did take offense. Your apology is accepted, and I thank you for that.

[Ricky B]

the word OR that I highlighted. This would seem to indicate that the factors were intended to be tested exclusive of one another. The death was either from the malicious torture, etc. OR the use of unreasonable force. Thus either being met,(along with the other elements) would be cause for a conviction.

That reading would be correct (subject to any decisions of the OK courts construing the statute). So it would be death of a child by means of:

1. willful or malicious injuring, OR

2. torturing, OR

3. maiming, OR

4. using of unreasonable force.

Torture and maiming imply malice.

But what is "unreasonable force"? In Delta B's post, he says: "Unreasonable force is defined as any action more than that ordinarily used as a means of discipline." I didn't see that when I made my earlier response. I don't know that this undercuts my earlier response, though.

Taking that as a statutory definition, I would say that the implication is that "unreasonable force" is applicable to someone who is trying to get a child to "behave" (as they see it). I would expect Ersland's lawyer to argue that the "unreasonable force" aspect is inapplicable to Ersland as he was not trying to discipline a child. Again, however, Ersland might be found to have willfully or maliciously injured Parker.

An interesting question is whether Ersland's prior statements as to Gulf War service will come into evidence against him if he does not testify. My bet is no. It's a lie about a collateral matter, and it's extremely prejudicial. My proof of the prejudice is the post made by Brent (hogdogs):

"Had he spoken such BS in my presence and I known him a liar, he would have faced physical retribution for such fraudulent claims."


The jury could be inflamed by his lie about something that has little to do with the central issue of the case.

His prior statements about what happened in the robbery will probably come in as that is directly relevant.

P.S. Brent, I think you were unfair to Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character. He would give the BG a chance to go for his gun before he shot him. I don't recall any movie where he would go up to an unconscious BG and just shoot him five times in the abdomen.

[Lost Sheep]

Ricky B,

Great summary. Thanks. I have been following the thread from the beginning and it is hard to keep it all together. You did a great job.

One additional thing I would point out is that there was no firearm recovered from Antwun Parker, or near him. You said that, but not explicitly. It was in the charging document, though.

Lost Sheep

[21CFA]

Which I was just too lazy or busy to do for myself. This Rx guy will have no chance at all of avoiding forced residence among a lot of "brothers" in Greybar facilities, unless his defense can show reasonable doubt that the dead BG was indeed dead from the headshot before receiving the five .380 bullets in the body. As for the shop owner lying about his claimed Sandbox duties, I do pity his psychology for needing to lie, but pity more any super-patriot who would state that "I'd beat him to a pulp" if they could get close enough. You'd pay dearly if you did that. Justification for that attitude may also be the kind of psych-kinks that drove Mr Rx guy to unload on a downed perp. Lots of good and stimulating conversation on this item. MODS: does it set any records? ? And thanks MODS for letting it range a freely and sometimes hotly as you did. Like true gentleman. I'll forever keep your admonitions in my mind. My $0.02. Before inflation.

[hogdogs]

unless his defense can show reasonable doubt that the dead BG was indeed dead from the headshot before receiving the five .380 bullets in the body.
Then he will be charged with some sort of "abuse of a corpse" type thing:D
With preliminary evidence presented by the ME saying the kid died from the 5 .380 shots (very easy to prove) and a subsequent burial, I doubt the proof the defense attorney needs will come to fruition. Guy is "powdered toastman"...
Brent

[easyG]

surg_res:
Dead humans do not twitch. Dying humans: perhaps.
It is possible for dead humans to twitch.
Ever seen a pacer fire in a dead body?
I have.

[surg_res]

2 words... Rigor Mortis

Pacers pace. Automatic internal cardiac defibrillators fire--and only when they detect V-fib or unless they malfunction, either of which causes contraction of live tissue. Dead tissue does not spontaneously twitch, however, it does contract.