Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison

[Double Naught Spy]

Not sure what the definition of premeditated or first degree murder is in OK,...

Well there's yer problem right there! How can you be arguing the guy didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted when you don't even understand what the components of the crime mean?

Arguing from ignorance is not a good position to argue from. Creating a hypothetical to explain what you don't understand about and actual and knowable set of information does not actually replace that actual and knowable set of information.

[Nnobby45]

Criminals aren't born scumbags, they create themselves by making bad decisions and by performing criminal acts. ANYONE can make himself into a criminal scumbag by making one or two bad decisions and by performing just one criminal act. The pharmacist did just that.

That you would now place the pharmacist in the same scumbag category as those who committ one violent criminal act after another is sad to see.

He failed to control his adrenaline fueled fear and anger, and the system will hold him accountable for that. He'll serve more time in prison than many violent repeat offenders.

And he'll probably be the most decent inmate in the whole prison.

You may think one act driven by fear and anger, in what was originally a survival situation, makes a person a scumbag.

But when you do, you lose sight of the fact that violent repeat criminal defenders don't make bad decisions. They make choices when they're as rational as they'll ever be.

Criminal activity becomes the context in which they live. The context in which the pharmacist lived was one of a responsible individual who provided a service to his community and of being a good citizen.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[icedog88]

So at what point is the cutoff to become a bona fine scumbag? Two armed robberies? One smash and grab? One drug deal plus one assault? Guilty by a jury of his peers. Evidence reviewed and judged according to the law. One murder qualifies for a scumbag to me.

[MLeake]

Some people in this thread seem to have an issue with comparing Ersland with his robbers; some of the same people seem to think that those of us who believe Ersland did in fact commit first degree murder are sympathetic to his robbers.

I think Ersland did commit Murder 1, and got what he deserved.

OTOH, I am not sympathetic to the robbers. I think they should all be up on Murder 1 charges (the 3 survivors), but I don't know if OK law makes accomplices to a crime liable for the results of their crime, as do many other states.

And, if a civil suit were to ensue, I would not decide in favor of the survivors of the decedent. He was part of an armed robbery, and I have no sympathy.

However, I would not have shot him while he lay, unconscious, on the ground. Ersland did, despite what should have been sufficient cooling-off time to realize he really should not do that.

So, I also have no sympathy for Ersland. And I'm really not sure why so many of you do.

[icedog88]

Agree

[JohnKSa]

That you would now place the pharmacist in the same scumbag category as those who committ one violent criminal act after another is sad to see.

I can understand the difference between a criminal and a habitual criminal, but in my opinion that's not nearly as important a distinction as the difference between law-abiding person and criminal.

Criminal activity becomes the context in which they live. The context in which the pharmacist lived was one of a responsible individual who provided a service to his community and of being a good citizen.

No, I don't buy it. A murderer doesn't get a break for being otherwise responsible or for providing a service to the community.

If that were true then we should be outraged because the BTK killer got life in prison. He was a murderer and a rapist, but he was otherwise a responsible citizen and provided various services to the community when he wasn't killing, torturing and raping.

Besides, the law provides for lenience in cases where it's warranted because the act was seen as a one-time abberation or when it's truly seen as an understandable and momentary lapse in judgement. The judge & jury decided that it wasn't warranted in this situation based on the evidence. Based on what is seen in the video I have to agree with them.

I think they should all be up on Murder 1 charges (the 3 survivors), but I don't know if OK law makes accomplices to a crime liable for the results of their crime, as do many other states.

I agree and so do the OK courts. The two surviving accomplices were convicted of murder 1 and sentenced accordingly.

[MLeake]

JohnKSA, I thought there was another minor (the one with the gun) plus two adults who were all part of it.

Was I mistaken?

If not, what happened to the third?

[Double Naught Spy]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-ph...ry?id=14053802

If there was a fourth, he was never caught.

[Alaska444]

Here is a website with the OK definition of 1st degree murder

1st Degree Murder —There are three ways to commit 1 st Degree murder:

Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.

1 st Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of one of several crimes. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

Child Abuse Murder —the state must prove the death of a child under the age of eighteen occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of child abuse or willfully permitting of child abuse. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death of the child.

http://www.oklahomacriminallaw.com/h...nformation.htm

Double Naught Spy
Senior Member

Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 7,807
Quote:
Not sure what the definition of premeditated or first degree murder is in OK,...
Well there's yer problem right there! How can you be arguing the guy didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted when you don't even understand what the components of the crime mean?

Arguing from ignorance is not a good position to argue from. Creating a hypothetical to explain what you don't understand about and actual and knowable set of information does not actually replace that actual and knowable set of information.
__________________
Texas BorderWatch www.blueservo.net

Dear Doublenaught,

Take a look at the definition of OK manslaughter and you tell me which applies best:

1 st Degree Manslaughter— There are three ways to commit 1 st Degree Manslaughter they are as follows;

Misdemeanor Manslaughter — the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of a misdemeanor. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death. (Even though called Misdemeanor Manslaughter this is the felony offense of 1 st Degree Manslaughter.)

Heat of Passion Manslaughter —the state must prove the non-excusable or non-justified death of a human that was inflicted in a cruel and unusual manner while the defendant was in the heat of passion. Or the state must prove the non-excusable or non-justified death of a human that was inflicted by means of a dangerous weapon while the defendant was in the heat of passion.

Resisting a Criminal Attempt —the state must prove the death of a human perpetrated unnecessarily by the defendant while resisting an attempt by the deceased to commit a crime.

Looking directly at the above definitions, I see the best fit as heat of passion manslaughter if you feel he is criminally culpable. Since we don't know what was in his mind, let's view it this way as an alternative explanation to all of you folks who are crucifying this man and seem to know exactly what his intentions and thoughts were in this whole experience. Let me give an alternative reality.

He engaged the creeps and followed outside to make sure there were no further threats that could come inside. When his weapon was empty, his thoughts were to re-arm, which is the right decision. He walked past the creep on the floor because his thought was to protect the two women in the pharmacy and he needed his second weapon to do so. He secured the weapon and went back to the creep to see if he was still a threat.

He testified prior to trial that he saw the robber move and thought he was reaching for a gun. He then fired 5 shots.

Following someone outside to see if there is any more imminent threat coming your way is something a lot of folks have done. Not a good idea, but a common reaction. Securing the second weapon is a good idea and if that was his only thought, he may not have even seen the creep in his mind when he walked past, he was intent on getting the second gun. Seeing the creep move, I find it understandable that he could have perceived that as a continued threat even though we now know it was not.

Putting all of these elements together with the known fight of flight physiology, do we really still call that 1st degree murder? I think at most, heat of passion manslaughter could be a possible outcome but then what about mitigating circumstances? What about manslaughter resisting a criminal attempt? And all the jury could do was go for 1st degree?

Sorry, I would not go for that myself.

[Alaska444]

MLeake
Senior Member

Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: NW Georgia
Posts: 4,860
Some people in this thread seem to have an issue with comparing Ersland with his robbers; some of the same people seem to think that those of us who believe Ersland did in fact commit first degree murder are sympathetic to his robbers.

I think Ersland did commit Murder 1, and got what he deserved.

OTOH, I am not sympathetic to the robbers. I think they should all be up on Murder 1 charges (the 3 survivors), but I don't know if OK law makes accomplices to a crime liable for the results of their crime, as do many other states.

And, if a civil suit were to ensue, I would not decide in favor of the survivors of the decedent. He was part of an armed robbery, and I have no sympathy.

However, I would not have shot him while he lay, unconscious, on the ground. Ersland did, despite what should have been sufficient cooling-off time to realize he really should not do that.

So, I also have no sympathy for Ersland. And I'm really not sure why so many of you do.

Really, cooling off period? When, all I saw was a man engaged, returned and reengaged erroneously because of a false interpretation of what he thought was a purposeful movement of a severely brain injured man. If you have never seen brain injured people performing involuntary movements, you could easily mistake these reflexes as a directed movement.

Is there not room for reasonable doubt that he intended to maliciously and with malice of forethought deliberately intend to kill this boy just to kill him?Why not go with the heat of passion manslaughter which has a much better fit to the situation? There is something wrong with our current system where the jury is not allowed to consider heat of passion manslaughter but only given the other options.

Perhaps their verdict was based on ignorance of OK manslaughter laws and perhaps they were not instructed on that as an option.

[JohnKSa]

1st Degree Murder
...

Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.

Just out of curiosity, what do you call it when someone walks across the room to retrieve a loaded gun, walks back across the room to where a man lies unconscious on the floor and then shoots the man multiple times at point blank range.

If that's not causing the death of a human being with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being then I don't know what else to call it.

Based on the information you quoted, it sounds like murder 1 was exactly the right verdict.

He secured the weapon and went back to the creep to see if he was still a threat.

The surveillance video in the link below clearly shows that he didn't consider the man on the floor to be any threat at all. At about 0:36 in the video Ersland returns to the shop, walks past the man on the floor, turns his back to him and never even looks back to verify that he's still on the floor and that he's not moving.

During the few seconds it takes him to retrieve the gun he's visible on the video and you can see that he never so much as glances over in the robber's direction.

Then after getting the gun, he walks directly over to the victim and shoots him multiple times at point blank range even though he certainly could have easily shot him from across the room from behind cover if he wished.

It's clear he wasn't worried about the robber getting up off the floor while he had his back turned or while he was retrieving his gun and it's also clear that he had no concerns about approaching the robber to shoot him at point blank range.

There's nothing to suggest that he thought the man on the floor might be a threat and lots to indicate that he didn't consider him to be a threat.

http://bcove.me/neqajbxi

Perhaps their verdict was based on ignorance of OK manslaughter laws and perhaps they were not instructed on that as an option.

Based on the video evidence it is clear that Ersland didn't consider the unconscious robber to be a threat and that he caused the death of a human with deliberate intent. From the information you quoted that qualifies as murder 1.

The verdict appears to be based on the evidence and on proper instruction of the jury about the correct definition of murder 1.

[Alaska444]

Malice Aforethought

(n) Malice Afterthought is the intention to kill, or assassinate or otherwise inflict sever bodily harm to some person with full consciousness and presence of mind, while doing a wrongful act .Eg. Carrying a loaded gun to stop resistance by killing the opponents while looting a palace.

http://www.legal-explanations.com/de...orethought.htm

Now that we have looked at the definitions, I would contend that he did not possess full consciousness and presence of mind, due to the adrenaline blast he was undergoing. I see absolutely no "cooling off period" as alleged above. The half life of epinephrine or adrenaline is at least two minutes and the entire event occurred in 46 seconds. He was still greatly under the physiologic effects of an adrenaline surge. Sorry, I don't see malice and forethought, he was in the heat of battle if anything. I believe he deserves our reasonable doubt.

[cracked91]

This is a VERY badly flawed description of what happened. The officer had been severely wounded to the point that he could not stand and the two were grappling when the shots were fired. The fight was still VERY much in progress at that point.

Yes that excerpt of my actual post would have left many details out. I am quite certain that I went on to point out that Reston had been shot multiple times already though.

Either way Reston "stopped" the suspect by intentionally KILLING him. Reston was on his knee, and the suspect collapsed in front of him, facing away from him. Reston pulled him in close, put his Glock to his head, and shot him 3 times. Executing him. Reston does not mention in his interview anything happening between the time the gunman collapsed, and the time he pulls him in and shoots him.

[JohnKSa]

did not possess full consciousness and presence of mind, due to the adrenaline blast

If that's true then no one could ever be convicted of murder 1.

Any sane person would experience an "adrenaline blast" in any situation that might result in a charge of murder 1 and would therefore be exonerated.

It's totally unreasonable to define "full consciousness and presence of mind" so that it excludes anyone under stress. The term has a legal definition and I can assure you that definition is not met simply by being under stress or by experiencing an "adrenaline blast".

This has been an interesting discussion but it's beginning to deteriorate to folks grasping at straws in order to attempt to impeach a verdict that's clearly consistent with the laws cited and the evidence presented.

Either way Reston "stopped" the suspect by intentionally KILLING him.

Reston stopped the suspect by shooting him in the head. As pointed out more than once on this thread, that doesn't always result in death. In fact, Reston was shot in the head at the beginning of the encounter and yet he survived.

Second, the situation was extremely critical. Reston was badly wounded and couldn't get away from the attacker or even rise to his feet. He would have been unable to reload because the attacker was grappling with him. The attacker had already shot him multiple times and Reston couldn't afford to wait to see if he could survive being shot some more.

Reston needed an instant stop and with a handgun the only way to do that (if it's possible) is to try to take out the CNS. It's important to understand that while a defender shouldn't be focused on killing his assailant, he certainly isn't obligated to try to PRESERVE the life of the attacker. If a CNS hit is possible and likely and seems like the best or only chance to avoid serious injury or death for the defender/defended then it's certainly justifiable if the other criteria for the use of deadly force are satisfied.

[MLeake]

Alaska444, I'm with JohnKSa on this. The video does not show the actions of a man who perceives an acute threat. Such a man would not turn his back on the threat, and would not deliberately walk back toward the threat instead of using cover or concealment.

His actions, on video, make it perfectly clear that this was a killing by choice, not necessity.

His lies, after the fact, make it perfectly clear that he knew the situation, as it went down, would not pass the smell test.

Either that, or they prove he's in his own world somewhere, in which case his defense team should have tried to prove mental defect.

Your reactions under adrenaline argument don't cut it. I've been in car wrecks, been run off the road while on a bike, had to deal with fires in flight... yet I never killed anybody, or even struck them in anger, as a result.

I did have to defend myself against a road rager, once, as he physically assaulted me post-accident (his fiancee found at fault for failing to yield right of way when entering a highway, BTW). But he went down at my first palm-heel, and I did not inflict any further injury on him, since he discontinued the attack. Miracle of miracles, based on the adrenaline surge I was experiencing, right?

Tell you what, why not expend your energy on defending an SD shooter who actually deserves such support? Rather than wasting it on somebody who has made us all look bad, and who has committed deliberate murder?

[Alaska444]

JohnKSa
Staff

Join Date: February 11, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 14,447
Quote:
1st Degree Murder
...

Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.
Just out of curiosity, what do you call it when someone walks across the room to retrieve a loaded gun, walks back across the room to where a man lies unconscious on the floor and then shoots the man multiple times at point blank range.

If that's not causing the death of a human being with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being then I don't know what else to call it.

Based on the information you quoted, it sounds like murder 1 was exactly the right verdict.
Quote:
He secured the weapon and went back to the creep to see if he was still a threat.
The surveillance video in the link below clearly shows that he didn't consider the man on the floor to be any threat at all. At about 0:36 in the video Ersland returns to the shop, walks past the man on the floor, turns his back to him and never even looks back to verify that he's still on the floor and that he's not moving.

During the few seconds it takes him to retrieve the gun he's visible on the video and you can see that he never so much as glances over in the robber's direction.

Then after getting the gun, he walks directly over to the victim and shoots him multiple times at point blank range even though he certainly could have easily shot him from across the room from behind cover if he wished.

It's clear he wasn't worried about the robber getting up off the floor while he had his back turned or while he was retrieving his gun and it's also clear that he had no concerns about approaching the robber to shoot him at point blank range.

There's nothing to suggest that he thought the man on the floor might be a threat and lots to indicate that he didn't consider him to be a threat.

http://bcove.me/neqajbxi
Quote:
Perhaps their verdict was based on ignorance of OK manslaughter laws and perhaps they were not instructed on that as an option.
Based on the video evidence it is clear that Ersland didn't consider the unconscious robber to be a threat and that he caused the death of a human with deliberate intent. From the information you quoted that qualifies as murder 1.

The verdict appears to be based on the evidence and on proper instruction of the jury about the correct definition of murder 1.

You seem to be pretty good at mind reading. I have given an alternative view of what he was thinking that is based on a likely scenario. Sorry, I don't know how to read someone's mind but apparently all of the folks that found him guilty knew exactly what he was thinking and intending.

When I had my car accident, I got out of the car, stared at the car, stared at all of the people staring at me but couldn't respond. A lady I actually knew from the local hospital came up to me stating my name and asking if I was OK. I couldn't answer her for about 30 seconds and she looked at me and said, he is in shock.

I would dearly like to hear from someone who has actually shot a person in self defense. The one person who I heard describe his actions was one of my CCW instructors from Las Vegas. He pursued a suspect who got boxed in an alley. When he got close, the man turned with a gun in his hand. That is the last thing the cop remembered until quite a bit after the shooting was over. He had no idea how many times he shot the man nor had any memory after seeing the gun in his hand for quite bit of time. In fact, he thought he had shot twice but he emptied his clip, I believe 12 shots killing the suspect. The man was armed and it was a good shoot.

From what I have heard and read from such experts such as Masaad Ayoob, the physiologic reaction renders rational thought mute. Anyone that takes a look at the video should be able to draw an alternative to malice and forethought which his attorney I hope presented. Without an affirmative defense, how could those mitigating factors come forth?

I can't read his mind based on the video alone. He stated he thought he was reaching for a gun. Call me dumb and naive if you wish, why is that not a believable scenario? !st degree murder is all about intent, a rational mind and malice. I would contend that at 46 seconds into this event, he was not in his normal, rational mind. Is it rational to commit a deliberate act of murder on video tape that he put there in the first place? If you wish to declare heat of passion manslaughter, then so be it. I cannot come to the malice and forethought since that requires he has a rational mind which would be physiologically impossible at 46 seconds in my opinion of an ongoing gun battle.

I have too many questions about what was going on in his brain at the time to find him completely in charge of all his faculties. Anger and fear could certainly overwhelm his rational thought, but then it was not by rational thought would it.

In any case, that is my opinion and the reason why I don't like this verdict nor the sentence especially given the disparity in many repeat offenders who have killed in the act of a crime and got off with much less. Do we really have justice here in America any longer? I don't think so. It all goes by appearances and suppositions instead of direct facts.

[JohnKSa]

You seem to be pretty good at mind reading.

No mind reading necessary, you can just watch the video and draw the obvious conclusions from Ersland's actions.

It's not hard to tell from the video that Ersland isn't acting like he considers the robber to be a threat.

He doesn't watch the robber while he's retrieving his gun.
He doesn't use caution nor cover when approaching the robber to shoot him.
He turns his back to the robber for several seconds without so much as glancing at the robber to check on his status or activity.

All the evidence indicates that Ersland was able to tell immediately upon returning to the store that the robber was not a threat and from that point on his actions never indicated that he had any concern about any threat from the robber.

I couldn't answer her for about 30 seconds and she looked at me and said, he is in shock.

Being in shock isn't the same thing as an "adrenaline blast" and neither one causes people to commit murder.

From what I have heard and read from such experts such as Masaad Ayoob, the physiologic reaction renders rational thought mute.

You're misinterpreting their conclusions. If what you claim could be proven or even suggested with enough credibility to create a reasonable doubt it would make it impossible to convict anyone of any really serious violent crime because the stress involved would be sufficient to exonerate the person by proving that he couldn't think rationally.

He stated he thought he was reaching for a gun. Call me dumb and naive if you wish, why is that not a believable scenario?

Because it's plain in the video that he isn't the least bit worried about any threat after he re-enters the store. It's not a believable scenario because his actions make it unbelievable. That's why he was convicted. If his story had been believable enough to create any reasonable doubt the jury would have been OBLIGATED to find him innocent.

It obviously wasn't and they obviously didn't.

Do we really have justice here in America any longer?

The irony of this question is that you're asking it in the context of a trial where justice was clearly served and yet you feel it was too harsh.

If there's a problem with the justice system it's that the people involved too often try to make excuses for the criminals passed through the system instead of giving them the just due for their actions--the fair penalty for their crimes. Ersland is getting what is due him. Those who really care about justice should be rejoicing, not bemoaning the outcome.

Justice is one thing. Alignment of court case outcomes with one's personal opinion is another thing entirely and the two MUST NOT be confused with each other.

[Catfishman]

This is a good debate. I respect all of the opinions expressed.

For me it boils down to this.

Many here believe that the first 30 seconds of the video have nothing to do with the last 10.

I feel that the first 30 expain the killing. They don't excuse it but to ignore the fact that the pharmacist was the victim moments before the killing is just plain silly.

This case is not simple.

[Alaska444]

Dear JohnKSa,

Why is the heat of passion manslaughter not a viable option? I understand that this man made quite a few lies about his past record that killed any chance of an affirmative defense, but the definition of heat of passion seams much better to me. I still have difficulty declaring premeditation in this circumstance. that is the argument that I can't accept, nor am I alone in this assessment. My brother's friend started the fight that ended in the other persons death and deliberately turned and stabbed the kid at the door when he couldn't beat him up. He got manslaughter in that case. If he was in OK, I suspect that they would have given him murder 1 under this definition.

As far as my car accident, when I did get to the point where I could speak, and I wasn't in shock from any injuries, just the situation and stress response, the first thing I said to the lady who came over to me, I asked her, "did I run a red light" because I was disoriented and completely at a loss to what had actually just happened. I simply didn't know nor could I remember what had just occurred a few seconds before.

Everyone reacts to physiologic stress in a different manner. Fortunately, the Lord gave me four witnesses at the scene who testified that the other guy was the one that ran the red light. If I had to depend on my own testimony to clear myself, I would have been in trouble since the creep did claim I ran the light not him in his sworn statement to the cops. He was declared at fault based on the witness testimony, once again, that the Lord for that since I would have been my own worst witness.

I simply cannot get past this being at most manslaughter. I believe if they gave the guy 5 years in the tank that would be a reasonable decision, but I don't get the life sentence myself. Was it a bad shoot, absolutely. Was it murder 1 with malice and forethought? I can't go that far despite how bad the video looks.

In any case, I don't think anyone is going to change the other's mind. Thank you for the excellent discussion and I hope and pray none of us ever have to use our CCW to defend ourself or our family. I truly believe that many decisions made in court rooms are based on impressions and suppositions instead of facts and that places all of us at risk. If nothing else, this is an example of what not to do from many different points of view and I am sure this case will be a part of just about all of the upcoming CCW classes around the nation as it should be.

[Alaska444]

Catfishman
Senior Member

Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 521
This is a good debate. I respect all of the opinions expressed.

For me it boils down to this.

Many here believe that the first 30 seconds of the video have nothing to do with the last 10.

I feel that the first 30 expain the killing. They don't excuse it but to ignore the fact that the pharmacist was the victim moments before the killing is just plain silly.

This case is not simple.

+1, very well stated!!

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Alaska444: Not sure what the definition of premeditated or first degree murder is in OK, ...

The definition of murder in the first degree in Oklahoma is best described in the jury instructions, which are based on court decisons. One more time, here it is:

OUJI-CR 4-63 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE -PROOF OF MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

The external circumstances surrounding the commission of a homicidal act may be considered in finding whether or not deliberate intent existed in the mind of the defendant to take a human life.

The question is, did, or did not, Ersland deliberately intend to take the life of Parker?

If not, just what did he intend to do when he fired five shots into the person who was lying immobile on the floor?

After having been presented with the evidence, an Oklahoma jury required only about three an one half hours to decide, unanimously, that Ersland had committed murder in the first degree.

[Catfishman]

So what's 2nd Murder? And Manslaughter?

[Alaska444]

I just spent quite a bit of time going over video taped statements by Ersland and if nothing else, he is guilty of being stupid giving interviews to police and local media without an attorney present. Unfortunately, he changes his statements which is not good. He was on Fox news on the factor and told a different story again.

I believe his own statements did him in. If he had kept his mouth shut, he might have worked out a manslaughter deal. Oh well, dumb is dumb I guess.

As far as adrenaline rush goes, he seems to have perfect recall of all of the events completely which would go against my adrenaline rush theory. The two times I had the reaction, I lost a few seconds of memory of the event completely which is a physiologic response to stress. Ersland appears to have perfect recall of too many details during his police interview which is not the usual response to such a stressful event. The Las Vegas cop blanked out as well during the shooting and could not recall any major details whatsoever about the shooting past the time when he saw the creep with a gun. The rest was a complete blank to him.

In any case, good case to discuss and to AVOID doing anything this guy did. With all of his off the wall statements filled with significant factual errors, what really was in his mind? The boy obviously wasn't trying to get up as his police statement noted and since he didn't have a gun, no one else was injured. Too many inconsistencies in his statements.

Terrible case, terrible shooting. I would still consider in the heat of the moment since this guy doesn't seem to be in charge of his reasoning even after the shooting for several months. I doubt he will get a pardon, the whole black community would be up in arms over that despite the number of people who support him. Nor will he get an appeal, so I guess that seals his future. Terrible, terrible case that will serve as the what not to do for CCW classes. Stop means stop and dead is not the goal. Is this manslaughter or 1st degree murder? I will let the jury have their say which is final for him anyway. If I was on the jury, would I go for murder 1?

All I can say is the guy should have copped a plea to keep the sentence down as so many repeat offenders learn to do.

[cracked91]

Second, the situation was extremely critical. Reston was badly wounded and couldn't get away from the attacker or even rise to his feet. He would have been unable to reload because the attacker was grappling with him. The attacker had already shot him multiple times and Reston couldn't afford to wait to see if he could survive being shot some more.

In his interview, Reston mentions grappling with the suspect prior to being shot, not after. But I do agree that the circumstances were dire, and that nothing more could be expected from anyone in that situation. He did good IMHO.

My point only being that sometimes the only way immediately stop a threat, is to, like you said, take out the CNS. Which equals killing someone.

Anyway, I understand this was a much different circumstance either way.

I just wanted to say that I did not intend any of my posts to offend or insult anyone. I hold everyone's opinions in very high regards on this thread, and on this forum in general. In my opinion it is by far the most professional, educational, and well moderated firearms forum on the net. I have learned more about firearms and laws in the last few years that I have read this forum than I could have imagined.

As to this thread, there are some extremely strong, and extremely valid points and opinions being made. But, at this point, I would be surprised if any opinions are going to be changed, so I am punching out of this one.

[Double Naught Spy]

I just spent quite a bit of time going over video taped statements by Ersland and if nothing else, he is guilty of being stupid giving interviews to police and local media without an attorney present. Unfortunately, he changes his statements which is not good. He was on Fox news on the factor and told a different story again.

I believe his own statements did him in. If he had kept his mouth shut, he might have worked out a manslaughter deal. Oh well, dumb is dumb I guess.

As far as adrenaline rush goes, he seems to have perfect recall of all of the events completely which would go against my adrenaline rush theory. The two times I had the reaction, I lost a few seconds of memory of the event completely which is a physiologic response to stress.

Ersland changed his story at least 6 times from the original (the DA said he had provided 7 different versions). None of the stories matched the forensic evidence. His stories did not do him in. The forensic evidence did. All the stories did was to affirm that Ersland was attempting to hide the fact that he committed murder and that he knew it.

All I can say is the guy should have copped a plea to keep the sentence down as so many repeat offenders learn to do.

Let's see. He committed murder. Lied about it. Lied about his military history. I am not sure that Ersland is of the mind set to think that as a military hero that he needed to cop a plea...but of course, he is no military hero.