Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland sentenced to life in prison - Page 5

Wildalaska · July 13, 2011, 07:00 PM

Quote:

where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted

Killing someone for the "right" reasons leads to genocide

WildwhatsrightaintalwaysrightAlaska ™©2002-2011

icedog88 · July 13, 2011, 07:18 PM

chadstrickland, I think you are missing the point whether by choice or otherwise. This isn't a diatribe on society's ills or perceived wrongs. It's about the legality of one's actions. Has nothing to do with being in your words 'an illiterate redneck'. Or anything else really. Simply stated, you cannot walk up to an unarmed, incapacitated human being and murder them. I agree force must be met with force, up to the point where force is no longer NECESSARY because the fight is over.

thallub · July 13, 2011, 07:25 PM

Ersland lied to the police numerous times and went on local TV where he acted like he had just saved the world for posterity: Then he went on Fox News with his sorry lawyer. Perhaps, just perhaps, had he not lied to police and gone on TV; he might be out on the street today. When a person lies to the police they may dig deeper until the truth is discovered.

It matters not that one perp was unarmed. It matters not that the armed perp never fired a shot in the store. The lies mattered. Then there was an autopsy of the late perp.

This afternoon a person came to our door soliciting signatures on a petition asking OK governor Fallon to pardon Ersland. i was not at home: My wife politely declined to sign that petition.

One of the Ersland police interviews:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-...tory?track=rss

More Ersland stuff:

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...d0ys3a7i?from=

Then there were the faked gunshot wounds.

http://oklahomacounty.kfor.com/news/...-ersland/79063

MLeake · July 13, 2011, 08:06 PM

chadstrickland,

1) You can name me among those who feel the pharmacist is a bad guy. I'm not sure if he's evil, sociopathic, or just detached from reality. He seemed to have no qualms about killing or lying, and he also seemed to believe his own BS. Some kind of mental defect would not be surprising at all.

2) That doesn't mean I excuse the behavior of the robbers.

3) You can try to justify the pharmacist's behavior all you want, but I'll lay you very heavy odds that should you, or one of your buddies, ever choose to emulate his actions, another jury will surprise you with a conviction for something unpleasant, with commensurate time behind bars.

4) North Hollywood.... both BG's were killed by head shots. Based on triage principles, the seriously injured who had decent odds to be saved should have been (and were) dealt with first. Also, the other wounded were innocent civilians and officers. I'm pretty sure EMS gave priority to the wounded good guys, while following triage principles, as opposed to there having been a conspiracy to just leave the robbers lying around awhile just to make sure they died.

5) Based on the arguments you are making to justify shooting a downed robber, on an internet forum, you had better hope you never get involved in a self-defense shooting. A DA would have a field day, presenting your self-avowed mindset.

Sigasaurus Rex · July 13, 2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted

Throughout man's history, this has always been a troublesome idea. First of all, who gets to decide what "the right reasons" are? God? The government? A few rich and powerful families? Does anyone have the right to come kill you because their government or religious text says the reasons are right? This is why I am glad we live under the rule of law and due process.

The whole reason many of us own firearms is because one day, someone may come through our doors to kill us "for the right reasons". We all come from different backgrounds and belief systems here. I guarantee that somewhere in the world is a person who has what they think are "the right reasons" to kill you based on some factor in their own minds.

chadstrickland · July 13, 2011, 09:15 PM

wrong on the north hollywood shooters bud..one did die from head shot the other was shot in the lower legs by swat officer and laid on the ground and he did bleed to death..go look at the vidoes and see how much help theyu gave him...and then come tell me they didnt methodically let him die....feel free to look it up...and i am well aware of what i post on hear...and what people may take from it...and i do not agree with him lieing and prancing around like a hero...but as far as the encounter between himself and the robber went..i have no objections or problems with it...and i think maybe i am lost in that train of thought Sigasaurus Rex...i believe in the idea of law and what it stands for.but no sane person cannot tell me that it has been manipulated and perverted over the years....and thank you mleak for your attempt to educate me i have however had 2 times where i could have shot someone and it had been legal..one was at our one and only gas station..the second was at the river while launching a boat...they both had melee weapons ( pocket knife and hatchet )....i had a 22 rifle on my atv at the store and shotgun in the boat..both times all i had to do was make them aware of the weapons and the problem was solved...killing them over some old family fude which ment a great deal to them was not what i would call a right reason...it would have been legal..but not right...now if someone eles would have been in my shoes i would have said it was wrong for them to shoot those people when they did it...because really it would have been...however it would have been legal so all of yall would be telling him how he did such a good job and how glad we are that he is ok....is that right just because it is legal ( and im not trying to put words in yalls mouth..if you wouldnt be that way then ok )

zxcvbob · July 13, 2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

This afternoon a person came to our door soliciting signatures on a petition asking OK governor Fallon to pardon Ersland. i was not at home: My wife politely declined to sign that petition.

Come back in 5 years and I'd probably sign it.

ExMP · July 13, 2011, 09:20 PM

Do I agree with the verdict, yes. Can I see extenuating circumstances for killing the perp, yes.

I did my stint in the Army as an MP, and worked in Indiana as a patrol officer in Indianapolis, guard at the Governor's mansion and finally as a State Trooper. In that time I saw some stuff that made me sad, and will show my view on why I see extenuating circumstances.

There was an independent pharmacy on S. East St @ I465 on the south end of town. Two men entered the building, both armed, in an attempt to rob the store. The cashier started screaming (could see on surv. video) and the perps got distracted. The pharmacist pulled a gun and started shooting (horrible shot, just hit the walls). The perps ran out of the store, robbery averted. We (IPD) responded to the 911 call, took statements, yada yada and took the surv. video. About 30 min after we left, and the pharmacist was the last one out, closing the store, he was shoved back into the building, knocked down, and executed by the same criminals. He was discovered about 90 min later by a security patrol, checking why his alarm wasn't activated.

I wonder if such a scenario was going through his mind when he shot the unconscious criminal. You never know if they're going to come back to kill you for "disrespecting" them, and making them look bad in front of others.

People no longer will take their defeat and move on, they want to get even.

Do I agree with the verdict, yes. Can I see why he shot the perp again, yes. A sad truth, but yes. Ersland, no matter his thoughts and feelings did break the law. It is sad that fear of retaliation could, IMHO, precipitate a similar action anywhere in the country today.

Catfishman · July 13, 2011, 09:53 PM

Is murdering someone always absolutely wrong? Yes is the easy answer. But, as with most things the details matter, a lot. And the degrees of wrongness vary.

If your answer is, "YES!" Consider the murder of Bin Laden and his family and friends. Was that murder? Absolutely! Was it wrong? Hell No!

If your answer is, "YES!" Consider the mother that smuggled a gun into a courtroom and shot the man who molested her son. Was that 1st degree murder? Absolutely! Was it wrong? Maybe, somewhat. Clearly she could have been found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. But, if I remember correctly she got a slap on the wrist. As she should have.

Did the pharmacist murder the robber? Yes. But this doesn't rise to life in prison. Imagine the rage and helplessness he felt during previous robberies. I would imagine that he decided to himself something like, "I will not cower and beg for my life and the lives of my employees again!"

When it happened, he was ready and in the end he exacted revenge on the robber on the floor. Shooting a defenseless robber isn't as wrong as kicking in someone's door and killing and robbing someone.

I completely agree that he has to be punished, but life in prison is absurd.

I also understand that this is about the worst press imaginable for the law abiding gun comunity. But that doesn't change that it is wrong to treat a business owner who took fighting off a robbery way too far, like a serial killer.

Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.

**JohnKSa** · July 13, 2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

us think back to the north hollywood bank robbers and how the cops swat team guys and every one eles turned a blind eye to the wounded guy laying on the ground and let him bleed out...

Paramedics would not respond because there were reports that a third shooter was at large. Standard procedure, no conspiracy to let the wounded robber die.

Quote:

a very harsh and backwooded area...where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted...

What you're not getting is that the disagreement is more fundamental than where you were raised and whether or not killing someone for the right reasons is accepted.

The state of Texas kills a lot of people for the right reasons and it's well accepted here. Same with the state of Oklahoma. Ersland isn't in trouble because of where he is or because people where he lives don't believe in killing people for the right reasons. He's in trouble because he killed someone for the wrong reason.

There is no "right reason" for someone to repeatedly shoot an unconscious person lying on the floor. Doesn't matter whether it's in a harsh area. Doesn't matter what the people there accept.

Quote:

Shooting a defenseless robber isn't as wrong as kicking in someone's door and killing and robbing someone.

The guy was tried by a jury of his peers, and we ain't talking about Chicago, IL or NYC. This happened in Oklahoma TX, the state that performed the first execution in 2011. Whether it's "as wrong" or not, it's wrong enough.

I hope LOTS of people get the message.

THE LEGAL USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS ONLY FOR STOPPING/PREVENTING CERTAIN VERY SERIOUS CRIMES THAT ARE IMMINENT OR IN PROGRESS AND THEN ONLY IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES!

It's not for revenge or retribution. It's not for punishment. It's not to rid the world of scumbags. It's not to do what the courts can't or won't. It's not even to provide a deterrent to other criminals. It's not to prove anything to anyone.

If you intentionally shoot someone and you're not doing it to stop a serious crime that's currently in progress or immediately about to begin, then you're either a murderer or an attempted murderer.

The pharmacist's actions prove he is a murderer. He got what murderers get in the state of OK and I believe that's exactly what he deserves.

Quote:

Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.

What he did is beyond "too far". It's cold-blooded murder.

He had plenty of time to cool down on his walk back to the store and during the time he was getting his second gun out. He didn't just slip and go a little too far. At some point--my guess, based on his actions, is that it happened during his walk back to the store--he decided he was going to kill the guy on the floor if he wasn't already dead. When he got back to the store the guy on the floor was still breathing--Ersland checked--and so he methodically went about doing precisely what he had already decided to do.

What many people on this thread don't seem to understand is that what separates "us" from "them" is that we respect the law and demonstrate our respect for the law with our actions and they don't. It's not like criminals are born criminals and we're somehow better than they are from the start. Our decisions and our actions make us what we are in EXACTLY the same way that a criminal's actions and decisions make him what he is.

If we demonstrate by our actions that we have no respect for the law then we destroy the barrier that separates "us" from "them". If a person's decisions and actions demonstrate that he has the same disrespect for the law that a criminal does then guess what that makes him.

This case is two very simple cases but many can't seem to separate them or work out the simple details.

1. A crime victim legally defended himself against armed robbery with a handgun by shooting one of the assailants.
2. A murderer methodically retrieved a gun and then used it to repeatedly shoot a defenseless human being who was lying on the floor unconscious.

Everyone needs to understand that in a matter of a few minutes or even seconds, a person can go from being a crime victim to becoming a murderer by making the wrong choices.

Everyone needs understand that they won't get a free pass and don't deserve a free pass just because they were a crime victim shortly before deciding to become a murderer.

Double Naught Spy · July 14, 2011, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.

Okay, I have the former and definitely do not with the latter. Even if I had sympathy, it would not matter. What Ersland did was murder. Whether you murder a good person or murder a bad person, the law does not differentiate as it is still just plain old murder, in the first degree in this case.

icedog88 · July 14, 2011, 06:21 AM

Does the state in question have the death penalty? If so, then could the jury have been lenient in giving him life? Seems like he did get a break. As far as being in different scenarios, mine goes like this. After serving in the Corps from 1990 to 98, seeing action in 3 separate conflicts, I returned home unscathed only to be hit in a drive by shooting at 6 in the morning loading trucks for delivery. My left femoral artery was severed and if not for a former Army medic who worked with me, I would have bled to death. My point is, after talking with police, and much soul searching, if i had jumped in my car (if able) and chased the car down (which I wanted to do at the time), engaged and killed the assailants, I would have been tried for murder. Justly so as the threat was OVER. In combat, the weapon is for both offense and defense. In the civilian world, weapons that we carry,own, are for DEFENSE. Taking that responsibility and abusing it can have dire consequences as Ersland found out. Not a religious man, but i do pray I never have to draw on, point at, or actually shoot at another human again. I WILL however DEFEND without hesitation, my home, my person, loved ones. Key word being defend. When you put the threat down and have the advantage over an unarmed, unconscious perp and continue the attack, that is offense and offensive.

chadstrickland · July 14, 2011, 06:37 AM

I do agree that he needs to be punished for lieing to the cops and acting the way he did after the fact....and I do respect the law to a degree..but nobody hear cannot truthfully say that innocent people have spent life in prison some. 30 or 40 years because the jury found the wrong guy guilty...I hope y'all are not naive and think its a perfect system...I was looking at attempted murder charges when I was 11 years old and my brother was hit by a ricochet 22 bullet...and even after they pulled the 3 pieces of the bullet out of him still had a story saying it was me..only and I say only after my brother woke up and told them what happened did they start slapping me on the back for calling 911.and doing cpr on him until the ambulance arrived ...and then they even gave me a heroism award..signed by the governor ( ill gladly post pics )...I was even on the local channel 5 news...now had he died I would probably be sitting in some damn little cell with a bunch of nut jobs having to see some sort of therapist...all those fancy detectives had there perfect evidence saying it was me...I learned at a early age that no my friend the law is anything but perfect...and if they cannot tell the difference from me shooting him than me throwing bottle rockets at minnows in a creek while my brother was shooting pie plates nailed to a tree... then how are they expected to do any real work....im not trying to bad talk law enforcement officers as I have couple of them are my pals but they are simply people as well....and no..no matter what is said I cannot and will not view the pharmacist equal to that of someone who would sneak into my house in the dead of night and slit my throat..because that's what he got charged for..its wrong what he did afterwards I will agree...but shooting him on the floor was his decision and he alone should only be able to judge what he did was right or not...as someone has already said..if that robber had lived..the pharmacist might be dead now...so no.I will not scream murderer at my tv when I see him on there...I just cannot do it...sorry

**OldMarksman** · July 14, 2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Posted by chadstrickland: ...that robber deserved his fate...

Had he not been murdered, and had he not expired as a result of the first and only justified shot, his fate would have been determined by a jury and a judge.

Does anyone believe that he would have received the death penalty in any state in the union? Remember, he was unarmed.

Quote:

...and now a man is going to prison for the rest of his life for finishing a fight hed did not start ...

No, no, NO!

Ersland did not finish a fight by emptying his firarm into the man on the floor.

The "fight" was over when the armed robber fled.

Ersland was not charged for defending himself.

Nor was he charged for firing at the armed robber as he fled, though he could have been. He is extremely fortunate that he did not hit anyone.

He was charged with the crime of first degree murder, and he was convicted.

His crime involved returning to get a second weapon and finishing off an unarmed person who posed no threat. The evidence clearly shows that the shooting was neither immediately necessary for the defense of the actor or third persons nor immediately necessary to prevent a forcible felony.

After having reviewed the evidence, which included video recordings from two separate cameras, and after having received from the judge instructions regarding their duty, twelve jurors decided unanimously that Ersland was guilty of first degree murder as defined in the laws of the state of Oklahoma. It did not take them very long to reach their verdict.

Quote:

...i believe in the idea of law and what it stands for.

So do I.

Double Naught Spy · July 14, 2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Nor was he charged for firing at the armed robber as he fled, though he could have been.

No, he could not. The DA even noted that Ersland was well within his rights to give chase and fire on the fleeing suspect who posed a threat to society. The DA even praised Ersland for his actions up until the time he emptied the gun into the downed robber.

Quote:

He is extremely fortunate that he did not hit anyone.

Really? I thought that hitting our target was usually our goal and the fleeing robber would have been Ersland's target.

brickeyee · July 14, 2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Well I guess you have to examine Article 10 and Article 35 of the NYS penal Code.

It does NOT define HOW the case is treated in court, and THAT is the common place that self defense becomes an 'Affirmative defense.'

You freely admit to the act, and them point to mitigating circumstances allowed under the law for your actions.

Failure to present the mitigation argument means you are found guilty of the now affirmed crime.

The burden of proof has changed.

chadstrickland · July 14, 2011, 10:02 AM

To each there own..I believe what I do and I stand behind it 100 percent...and lol man double naught spy...you are extremely intelligent bud I got to give you props for that...and love reading your post even when they are different from mine..but I got what he was trying to say..he ment ( atleast I think he did ) that he was lucky not to have hit any innocent people walking around.....I don't know if you actually miss the simple stuff..or you just like to make people like me and old marks feel stupid...either way I find it funny

TailGator · July 14, 2011, 10:08 AM

Bravo to Pax for her posts, and to JohnSKa:

Quote:

What many people on this thread don't seem to understand is that what separates "us" from "them" is that we respect the law and demonstrate our respect for the law with our actions and they don't. It's not like criminals are born criminals and we're somehow better than they are from the start. Our decisions and our actions make us what we are in EXACTLY the same way that a criminal's actions and decisions make him what he is.

If we demonstrate by our actions that we have no respect for the law then we destroy the barrier that separates "us" from "them". If a person's decisions and actions demonstrate that he has the same disrespect for the law that a criminal does then guess what that makes him.

**OldMarksman** · July 14, 2011, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Posted by Double Naught Spy: No, he could not [(have been charged for firing at the armed robber as he fled)].

Oh yes he could, though he might well have been found innocent.

Quote:

The DA even noted that Ersland was well within his rights to give chase and fire on the fleeing suspect who posed a threat to society.

One has to ask how many DAs would believe that. One could present an opinion justifying shooting at the fleeing felon, or one could decide to prosecute. It's a judgment call.

At that point, sympathy would have been on the side of Ersland. And even if the DA might have considered charges, diffusing the focus from the important criminal case at hand would not have been a good idea.

The legal question is whether Ersland had reason to believe that the felon would pose an immediate threat if he escaped; I doubt that he did believe that, because I doubt that the idea ever entered his mind, but that does not matter. In the event, since he did escape and did not harm anyone, it is clear that he did not pose much of a threat.

Quote:

The DA even praised Ersland for his actions up until the time he emptied the gun into the downed robber.

Yep. Why, one wonders.

No DA in his right mind would want others to follow the example and fire shots in an urban area at someone who is running out of handgun range. Maybe, just maybe, the DA was trying to turn up the contrast between the justifiable actions, the gray areas, and the clearly felonious actions to reduce the chance of sympathy for the former coloring the opinion of the jurors on the latter. Probably an effective strategy.

Quote:

Really [(referring to "He is extremely fortunate that he did not hit anyone")]? I thought that hitting our target was usually our goal and the fleeing robber would have been Ersland's target.

Had he hit the target, the DA's considered opinion would have been at least tested; there's no way to know whether Ersland would have been prosecuted, though it may have been unlikely.

Had he hit someone else, however, civil liability would probably have been a slam dunk, and the possibility of criminal negligence would have had to be addressed.

Maybe Ersland would have been OK on the criminal side. With a different DA, maybe not. But I seriously doubt that the DA would want his words to be interpreted as encouragement for a civilian firing a Taurus Judge in an urban area without knowing his backstop.

And in any event, while one DA may elect to not file charges, his successor may decide otherwise, unless the stature of limitations has expired.

As pax pointed out in Post #65, running out the door and firing at the fleeing suspect is the sort of thing anyone might do in the heat of the moment, However, it is the kind of thing against which we must program ourselves.

chadstrickland · July 14, 2011, 11:50 AM

I agree to not firing into a unknown area risking innocent lives

Double Naught Spy · July 14, 2011, 11:58 AM

Quote:

As pax pointed out in Post #65, running out the door and firing at the fleeing suspect is the sort of thing anyone might do in the heat of the moment, However, it is the kind of thing against which we must program ourselves.

It is that which against apparently some of us program ourselves, but that does not make it illegal.

Don P · July 14, 2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

It is that which against apparently some of us program ourselves, but that does not make it illegal.

Illegal, no and as stated when #2 robber fled the store threat over. He could have been chased all the way to FLA. Illegal no shooting him at that point yes. No justification to shoot as the chaser could very well become the chased, and shot in self defence by the original person chased. He should have not left the safety of the store. IN MY OPINION.

**OldMarksman** · July 14, 2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

...that does not make it [shooting at a fleeing robber] illegal.

No, but Oklahoma case law and the jury instructions reflecting same do seem to strongly indicate that if he had hit anyone, either intentionally or through reckless disregard of foreseeable risks, it would have been illegal, unless he had reason to believe that the robber still presented an immediate threat to him.

That does not mean that he would have been prosecuted. District Attorneys in Oklahoma and Ohio and other states have declined, or stated that they probably would decline, to prosecute persons who shot at fleeing felons who had shot at them. Also, a grand jury in Lake County, IL recently declined to indict a shopkeeper who shot a robber with a pellet gun riding away on a bicycle.

That illustrates something. It is a commonly held misconception that states where it is hot and dry or hot and humid or some of each, where one can get a permit to carry a firearm on a shall issue basis, have use of force laws that are less restrictive than those "up east". That is not necessarily true. New York State, for example, actually provides more instances in which the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon is justified than do many of the southern and southwestern states.

As previously mentioned, a prosecutor's decision to not prosecute a case is not binding. The same prosecutor can change his or her mind, and prosecutors are always replaced by new ones at some point in time. Unless and until one has been tried and acquitted or pardoned, or until the statute of limitations has expired (that won't happen for murder), or until one dies, one can always be charged and tried.

I have been peripherally involved in too many cases in which that happened.

That's one case, by the way.

Double Naught Spy · July 14, 2011, 02:26 PM

No, but Oklahoma case law and the jury instructions reflecting same do seem to strongly indicate that if he had hit anyone, either intentionally or through reckless disregard of foreseeable risks,

Quote:

it would have been illegal, unless he had reason to believe that the robber still presented an immediate threat to him.

I do believe that self defense statutes are still in place in OK that state one may act in the defense of others. See what DA Prater has to say about it here. Ersland could have shot the fleeing suspect in the back and justifed it as being in defense of others. See starting about 10:54.
http://www.news9.com/video?C=116601&...edirected=true

So what specific case law do you have to the contrary?

markj · July 14, 2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted.

I have travelled all over the country and I have never found this to be true. Everywhere I go I see laws that dictate what is OK and what is not, never do I see any form of law says it is OK to shoot the guy after he is down and out of the fight. No where. Thats like hitting a guy after you have knocked hom out.

Quote:

laid on the ground and he did bleed to death..go look at the vidoes and see how much help theyu gave him..

I watched them again and again, not once did Isee anyone take a pistol and empty it into that guy. Not even close to being the same thing. Paramedics cannot go into a fire fight to help someone is down. They are always kept off the scene until it is secured so no harm may come to them. The guy died, so what, he maybe shoulda gone to the park that afternoon....

July 13, 2011, 07:18 PM	#102
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	chadstrickland, I think you are missing the point whether by choice or otherwise. This isn't a diatribe on society's ills or perceived wrongs. It's about the legality of one's actions. Has nothing to do with being in your words 'an illiterate redneck'. Or anything else really. Simply stated, you cannot walk up to an unarmed, incapacitated human being and murder them. I agree force must be met with force, up to the point where force is no longer NECESSARY because the fight is over. __________________ "The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]

July 13, 2011, 07:25 PM	#103
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	Ersland lied to the police numerous times and went on local TV where he acted like he had just saved the world for posterity: Then he went on Fox News with his sorry lawyer. Perhaps, just perhaps, had he not lied to police and gone on TV; he might be out on the street today. When a person lies to the police they may dig deeper until the truth is discovered. It matters not that one perp was unarmed. It matters not that the armed perp never fired a shot in the store. The lies mattered. Then there was an autopsy of the late perp. This afternoon a person came to our door soliciting signatures on a petition asking OK governor Fallon to pardon Ersland. i was not at home: My wife politely declined to sign that petition. One of the Ersland police interviews: http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-...tory?track=rss More Ersland stuff: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...d0ys3a7i?from= Then there were the faked gunshot wounds. http://oklahomacounty.kfor.com/news/...-ersland/79063 Last edited by thallub; July 13, 2011 at 07:50 PM.

July 13, 2011, 09:15 PM	#106
chadstrickland Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2011 Location: alabama Posts: 537	wrong on the north hollywood shooters bud..one did die from head shot the other was shot in the lower legs by swat officer and laid on the ground and he did bleed to death..go look at the vidoes and see how much help theyu gave him...and then come tell me they didnt methodically let him die....feel free to look it up...and i am well aware of what i post on hear...and what people may take from it...and i do not agree with him lieing and prancing around like a hero...but as far as the encounter between himself and the robber went..i have no objections or problems with it...and i think maybe i am lost in that train of thought Sigasaurus Rex...i believe in the idea of law and what it stands for.but no sane person cannot tell me that it has been manipulated and perverted over the years....and thank you mleak for your attempt to educate me i have however had 2 times where i could have shot someone and it had been legal..one was at our one and only gas station..the second was at the river while launching a boat...they both had melee weapons ( pocket knife and hatchet )....i had a 22 rifle on my atv at the store and shotgun in the boat..both times all i had to do was make them aware of the weapons and the problem was solved...killing them over some old family fude which ment a great deal to them was not what i would call a right reason...it would have been legal..but not right...now if someone eles would have been in my shoes i would have said it was wrong for them to shoot those people when they did it...because really it would have been...however it would have been legal so all of yall would be telling him how he did such a good job and how glad we are that he is ok....is that right just because it is legal ( and im not trying to put words in yalls mouth..if you wouldnt be that way then ok ) __________________ Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..

July 14, 2011, 06:21 AM	#112
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	Does the state in question have the death penalty? If so, then could the jury have been lenient in giving him life? Seems like he did get a break. As far as being in different scenarios, mine goes like this. After serving in the Corps from 1990 to 98, seeing action in 3 separate conflicts, I returned home unscathed only to be hit in a drive by shooting at 6 in the morning loading trucks for delivery. My left femoral artery was severed and if not for a former Army medic who worked with me, I would have bled to death. My point is, after talking with police, and much soul searching, if i had jumped in my car (if able) and chased the car down (which I wanted to do at the time), engaged and killed the assailants, I would have been tried for murder. Justly so as the threat was OVER. In combat, the weapon is for both offense and defense. In the civilian world, weapons that we carry,own, are for DEFENSE. Taking that responsibility and abusing it can have dire consequences as Ersland found out. Not a religious man, but i do pray I never have to draw on, point at, or actually shoot at another human again. I WILL however DEFEND without hesitation, my home, my person, loved ones. Key word being defend. When you put the threat down and have the advantage over an unarmed, unconscious perp and continue the attack, that is offense and offensive. __________________ "The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]

July 14, 2011, 06:37 AM	#113
chadstrickland Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2011 Location: alabama Posts: 537	I do agree that he needs to be punished for lieing to the cops and acting the way he did after the fact....and I do respect the law to a degree..but nobody hear cannot truthfully say that innocent people have spent life in prison some. 30 or 40 years because the jury found the wrong guy guilty...I hope y'all are not naive and think its a perfect system...I was looking at attempted murder charges when I was 11 years old and my brother was hit by a ricochet 22 bullet...and even after they pulled the 3 pieces of the bullet out of him still had a story saying it was me..only and I say only after my brother woke up and told them what happened did they start slapping me on the back for calling 911.and doing cpr on him until the ambulance arrived ...and then they even gave me a heroism award..signed by the governor ( ill gladly post pics )...I was even on the local channel 5 news...now had he died I would probably be sitting in some damn little cell with a bunch of nut jobs having to see some sort of therapist...all those fancy detectives had there perfect evidence saying it was me...I learned at a early age that no my friend the law is anything but perfect...and if they cannot tell the difference from me shooting him than me throwing bottle rockets at minnows in a creek while my brother was shooting pie plates nailed to a tree... then how are they expected to do any real work....im not trying to bad talk law enforcement officers as I have couple of them are my pals but they are simply people as well....and no..no matter what is said I cannot and will not view the pharmacist equal to that of someone who would sneak into my house in the dead of night and slit my throat..because that's what he got charged for..its wrong what he did afterwards I will agree...but shooting him on the floor was his decision and he alone should only be able to judge what he did was right or not...as someone has already said..if that robber had lived..the pharmacist might be dead now...so no.I will not scream murderer at my tv when I see him on there...I just cannot do it...sorry __________________ Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..

July 13, 2011, 08:06 PM	#104
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	chadstrickland, 1) You can name me among those who feel the pharmacist is a bad guy. I'm not sure if he's evil, sociopathic, or just detached from reality. He seemed to have no qualms about killing or lying, and he also seemed to believe his own BS. Some kind of mental defect would not be surprising at all. 2) That doesn't mean I excuse the behavior of the robbers. 3) You can try to justify the pharmacist's behavior all you want, but I'll lay you very heavy odds that should you, or one of your buddies, ever choose to emulate his actions, another jury will surprise you with a conviction for something unpleasant, with commensurate time behind bars. 4) North Hollywood.... both BG's were killed by head shots. Based on triage principles, the seriously injured who had decent odds to be saved should have been (and were) dealt with first. Also, the other wounded were innocent civilians and officers. I'm pretty sure EMS gave priority to the wounded good guys, while following triage principles, as opposed to there having been a conspiracy to just leave the robbers lying around awhile just to make sure they died. 5) Based on the arguments you are making to justify shooting a downed robber, on an internet forum, you had better hope you never get involved in a self-defense shooting. A DA would have a field day, presenting your self-avowed mindset.

July 13, 2011, 09:20 PM	#108
ExMP Member Join Date: June 21, 2011 Posts: 34	Do I agree with the verdict, yes. Can I see extenuating circumstances for killing the perp, yes. I did my stint in the Army as an MP, and worked in Indiana as a patrol officer in Indianapolis, guard at the Governor's mansion and finally as a State Trooper. In that time I saw some stuff that made me sad, and will show my view on why I see extenuating circumstances. There was an independent pharmacy on S. East St @ I465 on the south end of town. Two men entered the building, both armed, in an attempt to rob the store. The cashier started screaming (could see on surv. video) and the perps got distracted. The pharmacist pulled a gun and started shooting (horrible shot, just hit the walls). The perps ran out of the store, robbery averted. We (IPD) responded to the 911 call, took statements, yada yada and took the surv. video. About 30 min after we left, and the pharmacist was the last one out, closing the store, he was shoved back into the building, knocked down, and executed by the same criminals. He was discovered about 90 min later by a security patrol, checking why his alarm wasn't activated. I wonder if such a scenario was going through his mind when he shot the unconscious criminal. You never know if they're going to come back to kill you for "disrespecting" them, and making them look bad in front of others. People no longer will take their defeat and move on, they want to get even. Do I agree with the verdict, yes. Can I see why he shot the perp again, yes. A sad truth, but yes. Ersland, no matter his thoughts and feelings did break the law. It is sad that fear of retaliation could, IMHO, precipitate a similar action anywhere in the country today.

July 13, 2011, 09:53 PM	#109
Catfishman Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2009 Location: Mississippi Posts: 727	Is murdering someone always absolutely wrong? Yes is the easy answer. But, as with most things the details matter, a lot. And the degrees of wrongness vary. If your answer is, "YES!" Consider the murder of Bin Laden and his family and friends. Was that murder? Absolutely! Was it wrong? Hell No! If your answer is, "YES!" Consider the mother that smuggled a gun into a courtroom and shot the man who molested her son. Was that 1st degree murder? Absolutely! Was it wrong? Maybe, somewhat. Clearly she could have been found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. But, if I remember correctly she got a slap on the wrist. As she should have. Did the pharmacist murder the robber? Yes. But this doesn't rise to life in prison. Imagine the rage and helplessness he felt during previous robberies. I would imagine that he decided to himself something like, "I will not cower and beg for my life and the lives of my employees again!" When it happened, he was ready and in the end he exacted revenge on the robber on the floor. Shooting a defenseless robber isn't as wrong as kicking in someone's door and killing and robbing someone. I completely agree that he has to be punished, but life in prison is absurd. I also understand that this is about the worst press imaginable for the law abiding gun comunity. But that doesn't change that it is wrong to treat a business owner who took fighting off a robbery way too far, like a serial killer. Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.

July 14, 2011, 10:02 AM	#117
chadstrickland Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2011 Location: alabama Posts: 537	To each there own..I believe what I do and I stand behind it 100 percent...and lol man double naught spy...you are extremely intelligent bud I got to give you props for that...and love reading your post even when they are different from mine..but I got what he was trying to say..he ment ( atleast I think he did ) that he was lucky not to have hit any innocent people walking around.....I don't know if you actually miss the simple stuff..or you just like to make people like me and old marks feel stupid...either way I find it funny __________________ Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..

July 14, 2011, 11:50 AM	#120
chadstrickland Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2011 Location: alabama Posts: 537	I agree to not firing into a unknown area risking innocent lives __________________ Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search