The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

View Poll Results: Should a plea deal happen in the pharmacist case?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! 30 51.72%
Yes, if it is a reduced charge and minimal jail time. 23 39.66%
Yes, But only if it is probation only no jail time. 5 8.62%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 12, 2009, 03:46 PM   #51
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,377
This guy committed a crime, he killed a man who appears not to have been a threat to him ... if he gets a lenient plea offer, he should jump at it ... if I was on the jury, he's going down ... manslaughter would be a gift ... I'm licensed to carry a gun ... and have been taught in every class I've taken that lethal force can only be used to counter lethal force, not to finish off a wounded and unconscious man ...
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old June 12, 2009, 04:27 PM   #52
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Bill- How do you KNOW he was unconscious? Can you be sure that the pharmacist who took the shot knew that he was unconscious and no longer a threat? Could there be a reasonable doubt that the man on the ground was moving? If he was, is it reasonable to believe that the pharmacist saw this movement, and believed the downed man was drawing a weapon?
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old June 12, 2009, 04:33 PM   #53
KingEdward
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
deep $^@#%( because Mr. Ersland took 5 more shots. Like he was
going for the big bear prize at the carnival target shoot.

more hot water because if Mr. Ersland felt threatened, why hadn't he
taken cover. He's running up and down the street and now he can't get
away from a guy lying on his back 1/2 out of it who "might" still be a
threat.

Like many, I'm all for the pharmacist protecting himself and the BGs meeting
whatever lead poisoning they do.

But he's in hot water here. Not warm, HOT
KingEdward is offline  
Old June 12, 2009, 04:40 PM   #54
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
If I was in his shoes I would consider a 2 year prison term a mercy sentence...
I would jump on a plea deal like a bulldog on a hogs ear!
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 10:40 AM   #55
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
If it were me, I'd beg for a deal and be grateful for it. Reading up on the case and watching the video, it seems like this guy did so many things wrong that it will be hard for him to make a valid self-defense claim. The first shot he fired was unquestionably justified, and then he screwed the pooch a couple of ways and wound up doing something that looks a whole lot like murder.

Once he left the store, the guy he shot was no longer a threat to him. He could have and should have called the police from somewhere else. By going back into the store, he escalated the situation. From that point it wasn't self-defense anymore.
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 10:52 AM   #56
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
In his defense returning to the store to protect the others is admirable... but unfortunately for him he failed to acknowledge their existence upon return...
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 04:31 PM   #57
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
One can hope for jury nullification, not that it's likely.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 05:01 PM   #58
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
One can hope for jury nullification, not that it's likely.
Why? So that other mentally-defective/drug-addled people can feel free to abuse their right to bear arms and murder people?
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 05:13 PM   #59
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,834
I was thinking about this as a nuance - one debate is whether the type of gun you use will influence a jury. Folks say - NOT IF IT IS A GOOD SHOOT!

But this one is certainly iffy from our discussion. Do you think if the pharmacist came back with an AR or a Tac shotgun and fired five rounds into the guy - would take look worse in court than the 380 already did. Would it change the mind of those who were on the fence?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 08:16 PM   #60
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
Quote:
Why? So that other mentally-defective/drug-addled people can feel free to abuse their right to bear arms and murder people?
Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. According to the law, this man is guilty of murder. According to my moral standards he is not because killing the person in question was not unjustified. Therefore, IF I were on the jury I would be forced to return a verdict of not guilty, exercising the power of a juror to object to an immoral law.

Now, I do not advocate breaking the law. But if a person does break and accomplishes what is in my mind a good thing, then I see no reason to keep them from what I consider immoral punishment if I have it in my power do so. Of course, I've made a generalization here based on this one specific case. Every individual case would have to be judged differently depending on the circumstances.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my reasoning. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm accused of being a blood thirsty, mall ninja, hero-wanna-be. Oh, well. I've been accused of far worse and managed to go on with my life.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 09:01 PM   #61
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Where is the good in committing murder?
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 09:07 PM   #62
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
From what I have seen I am not sure that I would go along with Murder 1, but offer anything less and he is toast. If the DA only lets the jury choose from Murder 1 and nothing else he has a slight chance of beating it.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:02 AM   #63
Doggieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
I'd acquit him no matter what But that's just me.

However, as an attorney, I know this is a difficult one. It's a total crapshoot, most people are pretty weak minded and tend to do what they're told to do, so you get one loud person on a jury and he/she can sway everyone.

Of course you only need 1 strong-willed person to hang a jury, and something tells me the prosecutors don't want to do it twice... I would try to bargain for the best plea deal I could, then let the defendant decide.

Not an easy decision. As a lawyer you need to leave the major decisions to the client and his family.
Doggieman is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:24 AM   #64
DeltaB
Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Posts: 70
As I've said before in other threads, Oklahoma law looks quite harshly when the death of a minor is involved. No premeditation is required for a conviction on murder in the 1st degree, and all that need be proven is that Ersland used unreasonable force on Parker.

It really doesn't matter if Parker was moving, twitching, speaking or not. The Castle Defense doesn't allow you to continue to use deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. There was no force from Parker to justify Ersland to return deadly force. Ersland's own actions provide all the information that is needed to realize what he looked like as he presumed himself in imminent threat. He shows us clearly on tape what that looks like. His body language, his tactical mannerism, his presenting of his weapon. And then he shows us how he can use unreasonable force on a downed suspect.
DeltaB is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:42 AM   #65
Doggieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, I'd acquit him no matter what.

Problem with most jurors is they listen to the judge , who always tells you that you're just a 'fact finder' as a member of the jury. That's what the courts WANT you to be. You can, however, choose to be anything you want as a juror. Judges want you to believe they have the power, when in fact, you do.

Jury nullification RARELY happens. And I always get booted from voir dire within about 30 seconds 'cause I'm a lawyer.. it's no wonder why, I can't be fooled like so many others
Doggieman is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:43 AM   #66
DeltaB
Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Posts: 70
Quote:
But if a person does break and accomplishes what is in my mind a good thing, then I see no reason to keep them from what I consider immoral punishment if I have it in my power do so.
Vigilantism is no better. It's anarchy in a civil society. If you don't like the law, then use your rights as a citizen and seek to change the law.
DeltaB is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:46 AM   #67
Doggieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
viva anarchy

I've got my guns. I can protect myself.

I visited the bay area once years ago, and I vividly remember an old homeless guy saying "The police are far more likely to hurt me than help me." I have a feeling there are lots of people who fall into that same category.
Doggieman is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:47 AM   #68
DeltaB
Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Posts: 70
Quote:
Do you think if the pharmacist came back with an AR or a Tac shotgun and fired five rounds into the guy - would take look worse in court than the 380 already did. Would it change the mind of those who were on the fence?
Good point. What if he had came back in with a baseball bat and bludgeoned him to death...or an axe and hacked at his body 5 times.
DeltaB is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:57 AM   #69
DeltaB
Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Posts: 70
Quote:
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, I'd acquit him no matter what.
I don't feel nullification is applicable to this case. If you feel the need to nullify capital statute providing protection for minors in lieu of setting a person free who is of highly questionable background, instability, to even blatent disregard to law, then I would question your reasoning ability.

I don't agree with your position or your summation.
DeltaB is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 08:43 AM   #70
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
Quote:
Where is the good in committing murder?
I don't believe he unjustifiably killed anyone. I think the law, in this case, is defining 'murder' incorrectly.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 08:50 AM   #71
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
Quote:
Vigilantism is no better. It's anarchy in a civil society. If you don't like the law, then use your rights as a citizen and seek to change the law.
I am using my rights as a citizen to work to change the law. However, jury nullification is an accepted and legal way of refusing to be used by government in order to enforce punishment for a law one believes to be immoral.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 09:05 AM   #72
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
It really doesn't matter if Parker was moving, twitching, speaking or not. The Castle Defense doesn't allow you to continue to use deadly force on an incapacitated suspect.
Just because he is down does not mean that he is incapacitated. I can easily see where a person could see a subject whose hands are moving towards his waistband and perceive a threat.

In a self defense case, the jury must be able to see the incident through the eyes of the shooter. There are a number of questions that must be answered, and I do not think the tape shows us those answers.

The subject was on the ground with a bullet wound to the head. Was he moving? Were his hands moving towards his waistband? Could they have been? If so, could the reasonable person see that movement as a reach for a weapon?

As the defense attorney, I would be tying to do just that- convince the jury that the teen, with his head injury, was posturing. I would show them what decerebate and decorticate posturing looks like. I could use my own expert witness, or better yet, I would get the Medical Examiner to cooborate for the jury what posturing is, and whether it was possible for the teen to have been posturing.

I just think there is a lot of room here for reasonable doubt. This case is not the slam dunk many of you here think it is.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 09:06 AM   #73
DeltaB
Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Posts: 70
Quote:
However, jury nullification is an accepted and legal way of refusing to be used by government in order to enforce punishment for a law one believes to be immoral.
Since you don't live in the state of Oklahoma the point is really moot. The moral duty to obey a given law is "the duty to do as the law states by reason that it is the law." It is immoral to not follow the law. Now if you are saying a law is unethical, please explain to me, from your ethical framework, how you see a law that gives the state prosecutorial rights to bring charges against someone who takes the life of a minor using unreasonable deadly force, how is that unethical. Are you advocating the position that someone who unlawfully uses deadly force on a minor should be allowed to stand free of the consequences of that choice?
DeltaB is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 09:15 AM   #74
DeltaB
Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Posts: 70
Quote:
I just think there is a lot of room here for reasonable doubt.
If you throw enough crap over on the wall maybe some of it will stick. I've said it before, Ersland's own actions show us what he looked like when he "perceived" imminent threat. The issue you raise doesn't pass the smell test.

"Legally Incapacitated"
Person temporarily or permanently impaired by mental and/or physical deficiency, disability, or illness to the extent he or she lacks sufficient understanding to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions.

Last edited by DeltaB; June 14, 2009 at 10:01 AM.
DeltaB is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 08:21 PM   #75
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Remember that the question is not whether or not the robber was incapacitated, but whether the shooter reasonably believed that he was a threat. I would say that a perp who is moving his hands towards his waistline is still a viable threat, and shooting to engage such a person is still a good shoot.

As a paramedic with over 20 years experience, there are still times when I have trouble immediately identifying a person who is truly incapable of action. Sometimes it takes me a few seconds, and that is more than the shooter had in this case. It is much harder to identify an incapacitated person than you think it is.

For example, about 5 years ago I ran on a police officer whose motorcycle was struck by a car, and it knocked him into the path of another car. When I got there, I thought he was dead. As soon as I touched him to check his pulse, he tried to draw his weapon.

A second one: I saw a man who was partially ejected from his pickup truck who was moving and trying (or so it seemed) to open the car door. When I reached him, all of his brains were lying on the passenger side seat. Obviously dead, yet still moving.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14096 seconds with 8 queries