|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 12, 2011, 12:49 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Some of us have followed this case quite closely from the beginning; others have not. Before opining as to the justice of the verdict or sentence, those in the latter group would do well to be sure they understand the facts, both as to the shooting itself and the aftermath, in which Mr. Ersland did, indeed, lie about nearly everything.
The original thread on this case makes interesting reading, but at 33 pages, it's a lot to digest. Those who are coming to this without having followed that thread should at least read this post by Pax, which gives an excellent summary of the facts, and links to several news reports. And as I wrote in the thread started this May discussing the conviction:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
July 12, 2011, 01:51 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
As stated by many already,I am in COMPLETE agreement with the verdict. I thought long and hard about how to post responsibly as some of the posts I've read sound bizarre to say the least. Would i have shot the would be robbers? Yes, if they were armed, and posed a credible threat. The terms "escalation of force" and "deadly force" need to be explained to some out there. First shot he took was ok if the robber was armed. After he left by his own admission to chase robber 2 and came back, stepped over the the downed robber 1, clearly indicating the threat was minimal at this point, deadly force is NOT authorized. He posed no immediate threat.
__________________
"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 12, 2011, 02:07 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 2009
Location: see name
Posts: 405
|
Quote:
I do not practice in Oklahoma, but if WW2 is correct about the age of the victim being a reason for the first degree murder verdict, then you are conflating two separate grounds upon which a first degree murder could rest. Premeditation could be one ground, but not the only, and not even a requisite element of the verdict. By statute in many places, there are other grounds upon which a first degree murder charge could be based regardless of premeditation. For example, in my state "felony murder" is first degree murder. Felony murder is a murder committed in the act of another, unrelated specified felony. For example, if a robber in the act commits a murder, even completely accidentally, he would be responsible for "felony murder" which is first degree murder. Say these two guys come in to rob the place but one of the robbers accidentally shoots and kills the other. The shooter is guilty of "felony murder" or first degree murder because he committed a homicide in the commission of robbery. This would be the case even if the murder was demonstrably not premeditated. Therefore, if by statute in Oklahoma the homicide of a minor is classified as a first degree murder, then the issue of premeditation is irrelevant to the verdict. Absent an affirmative defense like self-defense, which in this case the jury obviously (and in my opinion, properly) rejected then the verdict of first degree murder was the result of the aforementioned statute. |
|
July 12, 2011, 02:47 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
That guy made a mistake in going to the drawer and getting another gun then calmly shooting the guy on the ground. Bad choice of actions on his part.
|
July 12, 2011, 03:48 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
There have been a number of misstatements about self defense.
Self defense is an affirmative defense. You affirm you shot the person, intended to shoot the person, and then must present evidence that the shooting was within the law. You are no longer 'innocent until proven guilty." You have admitted guilt in the shooting. You have admitted to the act of shooting and possibly of killing someone. Depending on the actual law in the state you may have admitted to some level of homicide. You do not get to than sit back, but must prove you acted within the law and did NOT commit a criminal act (different states have different statute and common (case) law that defines when you may use lethal force). We tread a fine line in using lethal force. It is a crime to kill another person. The law makes limited exceptions to it being a criminal act. Simply claiming "self defense" is NOT the end of the of the issue. You will need to present evidence and convince a court (or jury) your actions did not fall outside the law. |
July 12, 2011, 04:09 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Erslands big problem started when he returned to the store and shot the wounded perp several more tmes. |
|
July 12, 2011, 04:29 PM | #57 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildidontknowhowokclassesitAlaska ™©2002-2011 |
|
July 12, 2011, 05:07 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 6, 2011
Posts: 320
|
Good post Vanya!
After reading the interview, it seems to me that he was lying and knew what he did was wrong. Everything he reported that happened did not, and seemed to be fabricated in order to protect himself from what he actually did. As opposed to an elaboration of the facts under a stressful situation. |
July 12, 2011, 08:06 PM | #59 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
|
MLeake...
Quote:
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns! Luke 22:36 Quote:
|
||
July 12, 2011, 09:03 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
WW2, looks like you were right, at least in part - the age of the decedent could have resulted in a first degree murder charge in its own right, even if Ersland hadn't met the criteria for premeditation (which, in most people's opinions, he did).
However, had the shooting of the minor itself been deemed justified, as it would have if Ersland had not decided, well after the first shot, to get another gun and finish the job, then there would have been no murder charge, and the decedent's age would not have been a factor. So, I'm still not sympathetic. |
July 12, 2011, 09:19 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 1,654
|
That is kinda messed up I didnt see that it was different. He did something very stupid. I still dont think life in prison is right though. It just seems TOO harsh for a SD shoot he did not cause. He would have not had to use any weapon had not criminals tried to rob him. Maybe he should do 20 yrs with parole or something. I still dont think this man deserves life in prision. I dont know though tough call.
|
July 12, 2011, 09:56 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Tyler, he isn't in jail for a SD shoot he didn't cause. That event ended when he gave up chase on the suspect outside of the pharmacy. Instead, Ersland is in PRISON for a murder that he did cause. You see, after the self defense situation ended, he came back in his store and committed outright murder, having to go as far as to get a gun out of his locked desk in order to shoot a defenseless and unconscious person who was unarmed.
Yeah, he deserves it.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
July 12, 2011, 10:03 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 1,654
|
Your right. I mean what he did is horrible I guess he deserves whats coming to him. I just was thinking of the SD aspect. It really did end once the armed suspect was gone and the guy was down, no need to kill the man. He did walk over calmly like This guy is dead. The more I think about it the more this guy looks like he just felt like popping some one so I agree. I mean as soon as they get in the stoor his gun is out, head shot.
|
July 12, 2011, 11:59 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 727
|
Does anyone have a theory as to why the pharmacist acted so illogically? Why change guns? Why shoot a downed man while on camera? Why move about in such an unusual manner? Drugs maybe? I dunno?
BTW. No way was this premeditated. This guy went from filling scripts to shooting a robber to death in less than a minute. Seeing every horrible detail makes it seem like a long time, but it wasn't. I expect he got 1st degree murder because the robber was a minor. And that is about the stupidest... Stop calling the dead robber a kid. Age has nothing to do with it. He was part of an armed robbery. |
July 13, 2011, 12:08 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Catfishman, I use the term "kid" because calling a 16yo a "man" sounds weird. That said, had he lived, I'd have expected and wanted him to be tried as an adult for armed robbery. I don't use "kid" as a sympathetic expression, but as a short-hand descriptor.
Once again, if Ersland had only fired the first shot, and left it at that, we would not be having this conversation. I don't think a single person in the thread(s) has suggested that Ersland should be in any trouble at all for shot #1. I don't think anybody has said he should be in trouble because of the decedent's age, or because he shot the unarmed one. Quite frankly, if there had only been the one, unarmed kid, I'd have had no problem with Ersland taking the first shot when he saw the kid pull the mask onto his head. I would also have assumed a robber would bring some sort of weapon. I am pretty sure that all of us who feel Ersland got what he deserved, feel that way because of his retrieval of the second gun, and firing of shots # 2-6. There's case history out there that says premeditation doesn't require more than a few seconds' time. Around a minute? Plenty of time for Ersland to realize the threat had ended. And it's obvious he did realize that, or he wouldn't have stepped over and turned his back on the decedent while going to retrieve the second gun. Was he still full of adrenaline? Sure. Did the decedent contribute to his own demise? Definitely. Does that really matter? No. |
July 13, 2011, 12:20 AM | #66 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
His mindset was almost certainly the same mindset we see on here a lot: "I live in a pro-gun area, very conservative, so I won't have to worry about a thing if I need to use my gun. And if I need to use it, I will keep shooting until the perpetrator is dead -- no need for those silly euphemisms like 'stopping a threat'! If I shoot at all, I'm going to kill the assailant..." 2 - He changed guns because he'd emptied the revolver. 3 - Almost certainly forgot there was a camera in the first place, but also living a bit of fantasy IMO. I think he really thought he would be praised for killing an unconscious bad guy, since it was a bad guy after all. Quote:
1) His movements were restrained by a back brace. 2) According to one of his early interviews (might be true, might not), at the time of the incident he had recently had back surgery. 3) As for drugs: he's a pharmacist, and addiction is a common occupational hazard in that profession. I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that, but I do tend to turn a skeptical eye toward those who act irrationally & tell inconsistent stories about their lives. To me, the entire incident simply underscores the need to guard your mind! Don't let thoughts creep in about killing the sumbich. Keep your focus on surviving the encounter and going home to your family afterward. Do whatever you need to do in order to survive -- no more, no less, and no other. pax |
||
July 13, 2011, 03:45 AM | #67 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 16, 2010
Posts: 1,141
|
i saw the video in question. you can't see the robber on the ground because the counter's in the way, and you can only see the pharmacist shooting him. how do we know the robber wasn't still a threat pointing a gun at him while lying on the ground?
i say give the hard working business owner the benefit of the doubt, rather than the scumbag robber. |
July 13, 2011, 04:11 AM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Good response, pax.
Geetarman |
July 13, 2011, 04:21 AM | #69 |
Member
Join Date: July 8, 2011
Location: The Far East
Posts: 34
|
I agree with you Don, I would give the hard working businessman the benefit of the doubt. Up until the point where his various stories become inconsistent with the known facts of the case. Its easy to give someone the benefit of the doubt, until the lie to you.
__________________
"Is this gonna be a stand-up fight sir? Or just another bug hunt?" |
July 13, 2011, 05:33 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
I believe the deceased robber wasn't armed, which at the point of the 5 shots being fired is an execution. Don't get me wrong, I am not excusing in any way the perp's actions. I just think that a case like this where a gun (2 really) is used, more and more liberals will try use this against us. Trying not to get too personal, but even in combat, immediately after being shot at from God knows where, by God knows who, adrenaline IS coursing through you. As soon as the firefight is OVER, you HAVE to dial it back no matter how intense it was. So I get the adrenaline argument. What I don't get is defending the position that because the perp was still moving he was a legit threat.
__________________
"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, 05:45 AM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
He specifically said that based on the evidence of how the 16 year old was laying on the ground they determined that he was not moving and couldn't have been a threat. Something about "palms up" and other details that I can't remember. |
|
July 13, 2011, 07:17 AM | #72 |
Member
Join Date: July 23, 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 99
|
I agree that it was poor judgment to go back and pump 5 more rounds into the kid. Is it nice to hear some scumbag got taken out? Yeah. Could the pharmacist been so angry that he lost control and went back to annihilate this human filth... maybe.
Had the kid not been there to rob the place to begin with no lives would have been ruined. They pharmacist should have also practiced a little better restraint and contacted the authorities while keeping his distance and watchful eye / weapon drawn on the downed robber.
__________________
ZCORR Products 10% Forum Member Discount Code ZCORR-FORUM2013 Free shipping on all domestic & APO/AFO orders over $75 |
July 13, 2011, 07:40 AM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-drug...rticle/3388041 Why the clarification on pax's post? It fits with is whole hero legend she noted, one where he was trying to spin, "War Hero Saves the Day Again!"
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
July 13, 2011, 07:47 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
We can't see the robber, but we do know that the robber did not have a gun, or that if he did, then Ersland must have stolen it as it was nowhere to be found when the cops arrived. The robber was unarmed. He apparently was the bag man for the robbery and the other robber was the muscle. Was the robber moving? The coroner says NO. Pooled blood from the head wound and related evidence no doubt also showed that there had been no significant movement, otherwise the defense would have mentioned this attribute. What you fail to realize is that there were three scumbags involved in that robbery and only 2 were robbers.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
July 13, 2011, 08:05 AM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Very well said Double.
__________________
"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] |
|
|