Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[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]

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

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...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

[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/oci...14&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.