Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison

[huntinaz]

If the guy had killed Ersland's pharmacy tech, I might see a lesser charge

Why? He may very well have killed somebody, but the pharmacist happened to shoot first. So it's ok to off somebody for murder, but not for attempted murder? There is no difference whether somebody else died or not. If he ended the fight with the first shot, then other casualties make no difference.

Or do they? In the eyes of the law, no. But how do you really feel? Seems like there is a point where the pharmacists actions would have been justified. That's my argument, this isn't as black and white as people are making it out to be and if you're ok with bending the law sometimes then maybe the law isn't the end all, be all or what is right and wrong. It's just what happens to be legal in this society.

[JohnKSa]

So it's ok to off somebody for murder, but not for attempted murder?

It's not ok in either case. I agree that the robbers killing someone would still not have justified Ersland's actions.

... maybe the law isn't the end all, be all or what is right and wrong. It's just what happens to be legal in this society.

Like it or not, it's the dividing line between "law-abiding citizen" and "criminal scumbag". As much as some might want to have it both ways, it just doesn't work like that.

Those who set aside the law can't reasonably call themselves law-abiding and it's hypocritical for them to deride other criminals as scumbags.

[huntinaz]

It may help your argument to make it sound like using a gun in self-defense, or even actually shooting someone in self-defense, is a death sentence but nothing could be farther from the truth.

You're lying to yourself if you think shooting someone is not trying to kill them.

A momentary lapse in judgement is one thing. Walking back to the store, checking the robber, going to retrieve a second gun, and walking back over to shoot an unconscious man repeatedly is NOT a momentary lapse in judgement. That's called carrying out a plan.

...under the influence of a massive amount of adrenaline that your body in not used to. How long is a "moment?" It varies between who you talk to. If you think the adrenaline wore of in the 30 seconds it took him to fetch the other pistol you are dead wrong.

That's pure speculation. As we know from the Gabby Giffords case, and others, being shot in the head with a handgun is not a death sentence.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying IF he would have died with the first shot or the sixth, he'd be just as dead. No matter what the pharmacist was feeling, the other facts remain that the perp started the fight with deadly force and he died for it. You're basing life in prison on the pharmacist's mindset during a very traumatic 2 minute period of his life, and not on the results. Depending on the pharmacists mindset, which is extremely hard to evaluate given the circumstances, the actual result is either perfectly ok or worthy of life in prison???

This is not complicated stuff, folks.

Hell if it isn't. Morality makes it complicated, as does natural human physiology (ADRENALINE). Fight or flight. You are not thinking clearly.

If the attacker dies in the process, that's acceptable to the law. But the law does NOT give anyone the right to TRY to kill someone in self-defense

That's my point. The law is not an reasoning entity. You are basing morality from the law which is what I'm having a problem with. Laws should be based on morality, not the other way around. Breaking the law is not what made this act immoral, if that's what it was. Not optimal in my opinion, but in the context not exactly heinous.

And I'm not saying the pharmacist's decision was the best decision. Assuming the perp was no longer a threat (and evidence suggests just that), the next 5 shots weren't necessary. I just think the end result was acceptable given the circumstances, and that this momentary lapse in judgement is not worthy of an otherwise law-abiding citizen rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

[huntinaz]

Like it or not, it's the dividing line between "law-abiding citizen" and "criminal scumbag". As much as some might want to have it both ways, it just doesn't work like that.

No, that is a poor perception. Speeding is illegal. Jaywalking is illegal. Littering is illegal. I bet you have been guilty of these things from time to time, and I also bet you are not what most would call a "criminal scumbag." As far as having it both ways, that's not the issue. There is a gray area sometimes, as shown in this case. Your average murder is more clear cut than this case. Deciding when and how killing someone is allowed is a gray area. Judgement is gray area, 'cause ain't nobody gonna think exactly the same.

First of all, there is no need for biased jury members in a legal self-defense case.

First of all, there's no such thing as a non-biased human being. I don't care that this guy was a pharmacist, was a gun owner, was an american...what I care about is that his life was directly challenged and when the dust settled he won a fight he didn't start. He was ultimately the defendant. Probably didn't handle it the best given the law of the land.

Let me ask you all this:
Somebody comes into your home and threatens your life, fight or flight kicks in (fancy name for adrenaline rush) and you stop the threat. I don't know about you but one of the very first emotions I'm gonna have is anger. Anger that this happened, that this guy had the nerve to try and hurt me. Anger is natural, and you aren't thinking real clearly. So you should go to jail if you make a rash decision in this circumstance, when the other prick is the guy who caused it all? That's what the law doesn't take into account, that's what the jury didn't take into account, and I absolutely don't agree with the sentence from the evidence I've seen.

That guy died on someone else's property, threatening someone else's life, it was his decision. He forced the issue and paid the price. I'm not sentencing the pharmacist for the perp's actions. If the perp didn't like the reaction he got, then he can go kick rocks. Or in this case push daisies. He caused the reaction, why punish the guy who was forced to the decision against his will??????

[icedog88]

Some very extreme thoughts here. But based on my view, do we want people who cant think clearly with wires crossed running around playing hero? With guns. Really? The excuse about adrenaline doesn't wash. His actions were calculated after he came back. If he kept his mouth shut. If there was no video. If I had a bajillion dollars. All the hypothetical things in the world don't change the FACTS. If you think it's ok to end someone's life when and if they are defenseless, let's hope you don't find yourself in hot water for emulating this character. The talk of soldiers in combat? We have rules of engagement as well that govern our actions. If we break those, then we find ourselves in violation of the Geneva convention and the UCMJ. Laws are there to protect us,and if we break them we shouldn't be surprised or outraged when we get punished to the extent of said laws. EVERY gun owner should be versed in the laws that govern us. As stated before, 17 round mag, you pop off 16. Adrenaline. Shooting one robber, chasing another (running by the way), WALKING back into the store, stepping over (for the sake of argument), a moving, wounded robber, turning your back on this "threat", retrieving second gun from a LOCKED drawer, walking back to the "threat", pumping 5 rounds into the chest of "crawling threat", MURDER in the FIRST. If he was so concerned about this perp being dangerous after he came back, why take your eyes off him? Without even telling my 16 yr old niece why, she was shown this video in it's entirety. Her first words were "He just murdered that guy on national TV!" If a 16 yr old understands plain as day, that seals it for me!

[icedog88]

If I was speeding and killed someone, jaywalked and knifed someone, littered by dropping a bowling ball on someone's head, yeah, I would be a criminal scumbag. You can't even begin to equate those misdemeanors you speak of, with murder or even justifiable homicide.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by huntinaz: You're lying to yourself if you think shooting someone is not trying to kill them.

Not in all cases. John addressed that already:

People shoot attackers in self-defense to make them stop attacking. Who cares if the attacker dies if he kills you or one of your loved ones first? Who cares if he lives if you and those you care about survive uninjured.

The prognosis of the attacker is irrelevant to a person who is LEGALLY using deadly force in self-defense. As long as the attack is stopped it shouldn't matter what the long-term outcome is. And once the attack is stopped the justification for deadly force ends.

It was the fact that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that Ersland was trying to kill the guy that made his act a felony.

No matter what the pharmacist was feeling, the other facts remain that the perp started the fight with deadly force and he died for it.

He was one of four men who played a role in starting the fight, but he was murdered after the fight was over.

Assuming the perp was no longer a threat (and evidence suggests just that), the next 5 shots weren't necessary.

You got it.

Somebody comes into your home and threatens your life, fight or flight kicks in (fancy name for adrenaline rush) and you stop the threat.

Yep. Similar to the robbery at hand: Jevontai Ingram and Antwun Parker entered the pharmacy in an armed robbery attempt, which put the occupants in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and Ersland lawfully defended himself.

But he did not stop there.

That guy died on someone else's property, threatening someone else's life, it was his decision. He forced the issue and paid the price.

It could have turned out that way. He might have expired after having been shot while attemping a robbery. Or not.

But that's not what happened at all. He was shot by someone who clearly intended to kill him while he posed an imminent threat to no one.

I'm not sentencing the pharmacist for the perp's actions.

Nor did the jury.

[TailGator]

Your average murder is more clear cut than this case.

How much more clear cut can you get than videotape showing a person shooting an unconscious person five times? As many people on TFL have tried to show, the fight had ended when Ersland fired the last five shots. He chose to make himself an executioner.

An adrenaline rush, anger, or fear of some later event are not reasons to kill. If they were, thrill killings would be legal, as would be killing over any event that displeased a potential killer, as would be every base act of vigilantism. That is not a civilized society. Self defense is a reasonable act in a civil society; murder, for any excuse, is not.

[Double Naught Spy]

..., but he was murdered after the fight was over.

Right, I don't see why it is that folks do not understand this major facet of the case. Ersland might as well have gone to the guy's home and shot him dead there on the following day.

[Don H]

I have to wonder: If a police officer was assaulted by someone with a deadly weapon and managed to render that person unconscious, then sauntered over to his cruiser and got his shotgun, went back over to where the unconscious person was laying and put 5 buckshot rounds into him, all on video, would the people who are defending Ersland's action take the same position with the officer's actions? Or is this more a case of situational ethics because some of the posters here identify with Ersland as a person defending himself/his property/his business/others and don't think he could do any wrong in that situation?

[zxcvbob]

The fight was over, but Ersland didn't necessarily know that. I'll cut him some slack there. Here's my opinion of where he really went wrong:

When you take an "affirmative defense" (I did what would ordinarily be illegal but it was justified or permitted in this instance) you have to take the stand and testify to have any real hope. Ersland couldn't do that because he had lied repeatedly and been found out. He had no credibility left to testify. So the jury never heard his side of the story, and they wouldn't have believed it anyway.

I know how the game is played. It isn't over till it is over. Like it or not, many youth of today do not accept that others have a right to resist someone forcibly taking something from you. That you have the gall to "disrespect" carries the obligation to retaliate. I have seen it and been the victim of it.

Didn't Erlsand use a Taurus Judge to shoot the guy the first time? Maybe there's a lesson there someplace. (use a gun that will make your first shot or two count) I could be misremembering about the Judge.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zxcvbob: The fight was over, but Ersland didn't necessarily know that.

No matter. The jury decided unanimously that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in his circumstance would have reasonably believed that "the fight was over" and that he was no longer in imminent danger.

[icedog88]

Beat me to it! It wasn't his lies that got him murder charges. It was his actions. I believe the weapon was a Judge.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zxcvbob: Didn't Erlsand use a Taurus Judge to shoot the guy the first time? Maybe there's a lesson there someplace. (use a gun that will make your first shot or two count) I could be misremembering about the Judge.

He used a Judge, but his first shot did count. Parker was stopped by one shot pellet to the head. The objective was not to kill the guy.

I really do not like the Judge very much, myself.

How about using one to shoot at the fleeing felon? If those were shot loads also, he had little chance of success. And while the lethal range was probably not vey long, it could still case serious injury to others.

[zxcvbob]

Of course the actions got him charged, but the lies got him convicted and a harsh sentence.

[brickeyee]

You're lying to yourself if you think shooting someone is not trying to kill them.

I hope you never have to face a prosecution.

NO LAW allows killing.

SOME laws allow the use of lethal force under limited circumstances,

Lethal force is force that MAY result in death (not WILL result in death).

It may seem a meaningless distinction to you, but in the law it matters.

You are NOT trying to kill someone, you ARE trying to STOP THEIR ACTIONS.

If that then results in their death you have NOT commuted a crime.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zxcvbob: Of course the actions got him charged, but the lies got him convicted and a harsh sentence.

I should have thought that two video recordings, the forensic evidence, the testimony of the expert witnesses, and the Oklahoma uniform jury instructions would have been more than sufficient to convict.

Have any of the jurors commented on what got him convicted?

Is there anyone else in the world who can know?

[Double Naught Spy]

Juror comments?

http://www.news9.com/story/15063505/...type=printable

Only one has commented that I can find...

"In this case, it is a very thin line between self defense and murder," said Juror Number Four. "We looked at all of the evidence and there were things other people didn't see. We looked at the judge's instructions and we followed them. Until you are in there and saw what we saw, you can't say. I am comfortable knowing I did the right thing."

[icedog88]

He didn't receive a harsh sentence, he got a just sentence. His lies didn't convict.

[Alaska444]

I haven't read through anything but the last page of this thread. Obviously he went too far. I couldn't sit on a jury and convict him of 1st degree murder. In the heat of the moment he made a mistake, but he never intended to set out and kill anyone that morning. Manslaughter would have been a more appropriate sentence in my opinion from the little I know about the case, but 1st degree murder???

[GoOfY-FoOt]

I wonder...I have an old friend who practiced law for many years and according to him, a jury can do what they feel is right and don't necessarily have to strictly adhere to the judge's instructions. But the problem with that is, it sets new precedent, and causes problems with the law and future trials, and whatnot, so most judges no longer expain this part of their rights as jurors. Was this an accurate statement? And if so, what is the real reason that judges conceal that option for jurys?

On another note, I have had several LEOs tell me that if one is in a justified gun fight, that the CW carrier would be better off, making sure the assailant is dead. I'm not condoning this, simply pointing out fact from my experience. Is this common for them to say? And, how would it have affected the outcome of the situation in this thread, if so?

[icedog88]

WHAT?? Everyone one says stuff off the cuff, but it's not them standing trial. Didn't work out so well for Ersland. And if I'm not mistaken, The jury is given instructions so they WON'T do what they want.

[brickeyee]

In the heat of the moment he made a mistake, but he never intended to set out and kill anyone that morning.

But after he returned from chasing the gunman he retrieved another gun, and then shot a person lying on the floor who was no longer a threat.


He planned a murder when he returned and retrieved another weapon.

It is called self control.

When you use lethal force the loss of control can have really bad consequences.

[Alaska444]

I believe shoot them dead attitude is a danger to CCW in general since that is the fear of the libs who oppose CCW in the first place. Shoot to stop is the correct approach and in such this man went beyond what was right.

However, I don't believe that he had malice of forethought. When I went through my Idaho CCW class, the instructor who is retired military and part time cop in our town spoke of a local shooting at a store in the town next door. It was almost an identical shooting in many respects to the one in question where the robber who was armed was shot by the clerk in the heart. After he fell on the floor in his last dying breaths, he went into a seizure from lack of blood to the brain. The clerk out of fear pumped several more bullets into an essentially dead man after seeing his involuntary movements which she interpreted as an attempt to act aggressively to her once again.

In this case, the prosecution chose to not prosecute her for shooting a dead body. I believe that they should have cut this guy some slack since he probably just responded out of fear and adrenalin when he saw the creep moving on the floor and interpreted that as an attempt at aggressive actions once again. We all know that in this situation with the adrenalin rush that the brain shuts down, you have tunnel vision and react instinctively out of muscle memory and all reason and rational thought ceases. I didn't follow his trial at all, just brief news clips in the gun forums here and there, but the physiology of a shooting should have been his first defense.

I would not have held him responsible to 1st degree murder and likely would not have even voted for any criminal culpability since it was the intruders that set off his adrenalin response, they themselves were responsible for what followed.

Sadly, this is just one more example of having a lawyer that understands the physiology of shootings and an affirmative defense as well a s client that should NOT make any statements at all without express permission from his lawyer. With a good set of expert witnesses and a good lawyer and a smart client, should not this case have had a different outcome.

I have experienced an adrenaline dump twice in my life, the first from a German Shepherd that charged me and in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light right into me. In both instances I became quite disoriented and distorted in my reasoning immediately after the event and if faced with a second adrenaline dump from a moving suspect, I could easily see how the pharmacist reacted by shooting him a second time.

My goodness, if a jury can acquit that Anthony woman, why not see some room for compassion for this man. We no longer have any common sense in America and good luck finding justice from a jury of our peers in this country anymore. I believe his actions are completely understandable when you look at it through the eyes of the Adrenaline dump and the changes on physiology and psychology in such a situation. It is easy to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and criticize this man, but think of how you would react with not one, but two adrenalin dumps back to back and see how you would fare in such a situation.

I believe he more than likely just shot a corpse out of fear like the lady in my example above. He is not a murderer, he was simply under the influence of the adrenaline dumps that these creeps instigated, they are to blame for their outcomes, not him.

[icedog88]

You need to watch the WHOLE video. Tell me if you see ANY adrenaline dump.