Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[OuTcAsT]

If it was a survivable injury (as many are), this dude is in deep.

On the long version of the DA's news conference he states that the medical examiner concluded that the head injury was survivable as the bullet fragmented, and the larger portion was deflected. He was emphatic in the fact that the five subsequent shots were the "kill" shots, hence the charges.

[Deaf Smith]

Then insanity is his only real defense. He was badly injured in the military (notice the back brace) and he took pain killers.

That, I suspect, will be his defense. I.E. he flipped.

[supergas452M]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland? I live in a neighboring state and can give some of my time in this cause. Just wondering?

[Shadi Khalil]

Then insanity is his only real defense. He was badly injured in the military (notice the back brace) and he took pain killers.

That, I suspect, will be his defense. I.E. he flipped.

I hardly think thats a sound defense stratagy. I thought "flipping" ment to become state evidence, what do you mean?

[Wildalaska]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland?

Dont think that most folks here want to be bodyguards for accused murderers.

I live in a neighboring state and can give some of my time in this cause.

Well hell Clem, head over to your local jail and bail out a gangbanger then and guard him...no difference

WildyoumustbejokingAlaska TM

[Tucker 1371]

Well hell Clem, head over to your local jail and bail out a gangbanger then and guard him...no difference

I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Forget the video, all it shows is that Ersland fired several shots in a downward direction, Parker could have been trying to get up, and in that case he's a legitimate threat.

I completely agree that if he fired while Parker was motionless on the ground then that is legally wrong and unnecessary for the purpose of self defense.

However, in any case, I would hate to see Parker convicted. Even if he did execute Parker I think it served a good purpose (so long as he's found innocent) as it should most certainly make criminals think twice before pulling crap like this.


The only thing that can prevent crime is to reduce the will to commit it not the ability to do so. The best way to reduce the will to committ crime is to increase the certainty and severity of punishment. If a criminal has to constantly worry about losing his life to carry out his trade common sense says he would consider a career change. Convicting Ersland will only embolden criminals like Parker (cut the "kid" crap, he was a criminal

[G-man 26]

Wow. I can’t see the BG on the floor in either view. If I were on a jury, and it were argued (by the defense) that our pharmacist guy was going over to investigate a sound, and the BG started to rise, I would now have a doubt.

Is my doubt of murder 1 “reasonable”? I might be inclined to believe that the fatal shots to the abdomen were a continuance of his self-defense, were the bg rising. I can’t see the bg in the tape, or what he is doing. The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim? I do have a doubt because of this lack of a view. Is my doubt "reasonable"? I have a hard time believing him after his first account was so wildly off from the videos. How much of a stretch would I give this guy, were I a juror?

You don’t need one peta creep to convict; you need one of me to get him off on this charge. I think I lived in OK long enough to know, finding a group of 12 “not me’s” in that area will be difficult, to say the least.

As a side note… I’m not saying that Wild Alaska has never said anything useful on here before, I’m saying I’ve never seen it. That I don’t read as much here as I would like, and still consider myself new on this forum, has as much to do with that as anything. At first I was in the “hero” camp, with only minor doubts. The fact that the only posts I’ve seen by WA were sarcastic one-liners, gave me cause to dismiss him. I have gleaned a little respect for you sir, due to this one, and will read your posts with renewed interest. It is good to remember that thing about being an ambassador, and yes, you can say I was cowering when I went behind the counter, it would not bother me one bit.

I don't mean to offend, merely enlighten.

[Wildalaska]

I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

I think I have been pretty circumspect with respect to the ultimate issue of guilt here....I could easily construct a defense for mr Erland by the way...many of them have been alluded to by other members here...in fact, I gave it to you several pages ago viz:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we know the pressure that the DA is under from some members of the community to resolve this tragedy at the expense of my client. My client, a law abiding and respected veteran, did not precipitate these tragic events, rather, he was a victim forced into this situation by the violent and criminal acts of the decedant."

1. Politics.
2. Veteran/cripple
3. Initial justification

My only question would be whether to use PTSD. Goal being an aquittal based on justification or at the worst, some degree of manslaughter. Good case to try, especially in light of what the video doesnt show.

The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim?

I betcha...its called.....an autopsy! Complete with trajectories!

WildhowsthatforasarcasticonelinerAlaska TM

[G-man 26]

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? I would have a hard time buying a marginal measurement from a doctor, over an eye witness. Not that this guy was a great eye witness.

All things being the same, I think yours is a good one. It still LOOKS like he did what the DA says. I think one or more of those jurors will be looking for even the smallest of reasons to let him off. I also think the DA went for the harder to prove charge so the guy could more easily be let go. Is he trying to lose? Maybe.

What would you think as a juror if your defense were presented in a convincing way. I feel my doubt, as stated, is reasonable. As a Juror, I would have to hear it presented in a convincing way, or no go.

G-Afineexampleman26!

[Wildalaska]

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? .

Yes, inferentially.

I also think the DA went for the harder to prove charge so the guy could more easily be let go.

NO. The DA charged appropriately, especially in light of the legal requirement of lesser included offenses. Hes playing it smart, prosecuting without seeming vengeful

WildhestryingtoblockthedefendantsanticipatedpoliticalargumentsAlaska TM

[Playboypenguin]

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing? I would have a hard time buying a marginal measurement from a doctor, over an eye witness. Not that this guy was a great eye witness.

Wow, I love how selectively people choose what evidence is acceptable when they wish to not believe the truth of the matter.

As for innocent until proven guilty, it seems everyone is very ready to assume that the person shot was guilty and deserved to die based solely on a few seconds of video tape where all he does is put a tobogan cap on his head .

[TMA-1]

It would not be a huge stretch to say he shot the armed fleeing suspect in the defense of bystanders. The fleeing subject may have shot a passer by, car jacked someone to escape, etc.

I agree - Ersland could very well have been thinking just that.

However, under Oklahoma law, he could not come to the aid of "bystanders" that are not related to him by blood or employer/employee relationship. As my SDA instructor put it, "other people are on their own!" If this was Ersland's goal in chasing down the second robber, he cannot use the law to protect his actions.

The only time it is acceptable to use armed force to defend "just anybody" is if you are in your own home, in which case the castle doctrine protects your actions.

This point of the law was intended to cut down on vigilantism and the possibility of "bad shoots" on undercover cops, innocent bystanders, etc.

It's an important point of Oklahoma law that residents like myself must constantly keep in mind when carrying concealed outside the home.

[Creature]

based solely on a few seconds of video tape where all he does is put a tobogan cap on his head .

Do you wear a toboggan cap over your head when you visit your local pharmacist? Its all about context, isnt it?

As for innocent until proven guilty,

Thats only in the courts. As a former LEO, you should know that already.

[Double Naught Spy]

I agree with you on most things Alaska but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

With Saints, it is guilty until proven innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal issue, not a reality issue.

Of course if we are going to go with the "innocent until proven guilty" business here, then we need to realize that Antwun Parker was a completely innocent man who apparently was shot and the shot several more times moments later by another supposedly innocent man.

Would trajectories into the abdomen show what the shoulders and arms were doing?

Blood spatter evidence certainly could. If the arms are splayed out as described when he was shot, that will be able to be discerned.

However, under Oklahoma law, he could not come to the aid of "bystanders" that are not related to him by blood or employer/employee relationship. As my SDA instructor put it, "other people are on their own!" If this was Ersland's goal in chasing down the second robber, he cannot use the law to protect his actions.

That would be contrary to the DA's statements at about 10:56-11:30. http://www.news9.com/Global/category...clipId=3804065

[TMA-1]

That would be contrary to the DA's statements at about 10:56-11:30. http://www.news9.com/Global/category...clipId=3804065

Yep, I know what he said in the press conference. And that's what is bugging the heck out of me. Oklahoma has castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws that give you free reign to defend yourself with no duty to retreat. There's nothing about pursuing someone that is no longer an imminent threat.

Perhaps he was speaking as someone who has influence over the law (i.e., his arguments can influence a judge to interpret the law one way or the other). Guess that's why he's the DA and I'm not! :-)

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, how about citing some statutes that say you can't defend another in OK outside of the home.

[TMA-1]

Okay, how about citing some statutes that say you can't defend another in OK outside of the home.

Well, I can't. :-) There are statutes that state when you can shoot (i.e., standing your ground anywhere you have a right to be, or in your own home). Without such a statute, I would conclude that I am taking a legal risk if I act outside those explicit permissions. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on tv, etc).

I did some looking, and it seems that what I'm referring to is not in the SDA act itself. However, it is what is taught in the state-mandated CLEET training course that all concealed-carry licensees must attend prior to the issue of permit. Whether these guidelines carry force of law or are just good legal advice, I can't say. Either way, I personally won't take the risk - if the perp decides to flee, I will let him!

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, it doesn't really matter what you would do. That wasn't the point. The point was that you said it was illegal to defend another in OK - coming to the aid of bystanders, as it were, and that it was to cut down on vigilanteism. However, you can't produce an statutes to support your claim. Obviously, if it is illegal, you should be able to find some law to prove this. I say this because I can't find any law that says you can't either.

Me thinks either your instruction was in error or that your memory was in error on this matter.

[TMA-1]

Okay, it doesn't really matter what you would do. That wasn't the point. The point was that you said it was illegal to defend another in OK

You're correct - I erred in saying it was illegal. (Historical note - I usually only admit error to my wife).

My original intent in all of this was to question Ersland's decision to chase the second perp after he had ceased to be an imminent threat. Perhaps it was legal, perhaps not, but it seems like a bad idea, especially if the behavior could be used to bolster the other legal arguments against him. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm spewing hogwash here, granted.

Me thinks either your instruction was in error or that your memory was in error on this matter

Nope, that's the actual instruction from the state-certified course, and I only took the class two weeks ago.
The criteria was mentioned several times (twice an hour, I think!) My memory can be questionable at times, but not that questionable! :-)

Other SDA licensees whom I know have mentioned the same thing, so I don't believe it is faulty instruction. The class is "book-taught" and the instructor was plainly reading from the CLEET materials. It would be curious to know the origin of the guideline, but until I know for sure, I'm going to assume that if it isn't grounded in actual statute, it's either due to legal precedent from previous court cases or simply intended to keep me out of legal trouble. As a lawyer friend once told me, "You don't ever want to be a test case."

By the way, Mr. Ersland has my sympathies. Regardless of his actions and their legality, he did not ask to be placed in that position, and that sucks no matter what his guilt or innocence may be.

[Tucker 1371]

I betcha...its called.....an autopsy! Complete with trajectories

Agreed, just wish we could see the report from that. Trajectory = closer to perpendicular to the plane of Parker's abdomen = Ersland was justified. The closer to parallel to aforementioned plane the trajectories are = the flatter on the ground Parker was = Ersland guilty.

I also think that the PTSD argument may be a more viable route for Ersland other than arguing that he was justified. Does Ersland actually have PTSD? I'm not a big fan of lying.

[OuTcAsT]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland?

I would think that if the defendant were that concerned with his own safety, he would not have been so quick to bail out of, what would amount to "protective custody" until he is tried.

The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim?

I will offer the video evidence once again, it is quite clear that the defendant was shooting at something of which he had no fear. He was not "cautious" about approaching quickly (closing the distance between himself and the target exponentially) Nor was he "startled" by a sudden movement and begin to retreat as he fired. There are going to be other pieces of forensic evidence that will be offered , but this video, shows an execution style murder, everything else will be icing on the cake.

what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

That's for court, this is public opinion, no such standard exists.

Face reality here folks, what started off looking like a good SD shoot turned into a murder, it does not matter that the defendant was forced to defend himself, he initially did that within the law. The question becomes; "Are you going to continue to defend someone who crossed the line from self defense, to murder" ? Another question; Ask yourself,
"If the downed robber had lived to go to trial for his crime, would you be in favor of his execution as a punishment"?

As much as we hate to see something like this incident happen, all the rationalizations in the world are not going to justify what the defendant did in the last few seconds of that tape. I would suggest you go back to the OP and read the defendants statements, then watch the video , Was it a poor recollection due to stress? Or was it an intentional lie?

[OuTcAsT]

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the defendants statement, with commentary and emphasis mine

From the defendants own account:

Rubbing an oversized bandage on his left forearm, where he said he was grazed by a robber’s bullet,

Evidence has shown that the only shots fired were by the defendant.

Ersland related details of a highly organized hit on the Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

Notice on the tape that the “highly organized” robber that was shot spent his entire time in the store attempting to put on, and adjust his mask.

"We have a very good security system,” Ersland said, motioning to the magnetic door locks that won’t let anyone in or out of the store without permission.

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m. two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing. The robbers came in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

These statements are conflicting each other, and the statement about the robbers waiting for someone to leave and grabbing the door are false. Video evidence shows that no one exited the pharmacy immediately prior to the robbery, It also shows that the female employee on the left “buzzed in” Parker.

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Physical evidence does not support this, the only shots fired were by the defendant.

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

The weapon in his pocket was a revolver.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

It did indeed slow down Parker, the other gun was not retrieved until much later.

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear. The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus Judge. After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

Again, both total fabrications as compared to video and physical evidence.

But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

This is not consistent with the evidence.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.
When he went back in the pharmacy, Ersland said, he called police.

Not one of these statements is factually accurate with respect to the video or the physical evidence at the scene.

[Double Naught Spy]

But otherwise, I thought his story well fabricated! :barf::barf:

You notice how Ersland's injury was so not evident in the video. He never flinches from an impact. He never favors the injured arm. You never see any blood or signs of wounding. As noted, you never see the bad guy shoot at him.

You should not have to lie when you are in the right and have done right. Ersland lied. What does that tell you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, it is the first successful use of a Taurus Judge that I know about, certainly the only one on video I know, and Taurus can't taut it as a positive thing because the event turned into {alleged} murder and hence would not be a positive image for the company.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other SDA licensees whom I know have mentioned the same thing, so I don't believe it is faulty instruction. The class is "book-taught" and the instructor was plainly reading from the CLEET materials. It would be curious to know the origin of the guideline, but until I know for sure, I'm going to assume that if it isn't grounded in actual statute, it's either due to legal precedent from previous court cases or simply intended to keep me out of legal trouble. As a lawyer friend once told me, "You don't ever want to be a test case."

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.

[Tucker 1371]

You should not have to lie when you are in the right and have done right. Ersland lied. What does that tell you?

I'm afraid Mr. Ersland is going to fry.

[Wildalaska]

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the defendants statement, with commentary and emphasis mine

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding speaketh not to the press

WildesltonewillgethoseremarksshoveduptheproverbialAlaska ™