Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man
OKLAHOMA CITY – Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.
Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.
Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.
"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."
District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.
Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.
But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.
Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KTOK, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.
"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."
Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."
Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.
Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8 1/2 months in jail.
Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."
The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.
The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.
Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.
Irven Box, Ersland's attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: "I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree."
Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.
"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."
Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."
If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.
Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.
The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ersland should be cleared of all charges and given an award. I think that Parker got what he deserved.
I'm not taking sides here, but for the sake of conversation, how is that different from the cop who kicked the bad guy in the head? If Ersland had already shot the idiot kid in the head and he was on the floor, wasn't that enough? Why 5 more shots? People will really take sides on this one. You know more about O.K. law than I do, but is there a restriction or law about shooting someone when they are already down?
Was it enough...not if the guy wasn't dead.
Why the 5 more shots...maybe Erslands testosterone was pumping, maybe he was getting tired of being robbed.
Why the concern for the dead criminal?
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on May 30, 2009, 11:16:13 AM
Was it enough...not if the guy wasn't dead.
Why the 5 more shots...maybe Erslands testosterone was pumping, maybe he was getting tired of being robbed.
Why the concern for the dead criminal?
hmm i'm not sure about this one. I think everyone has the right to defend themselves and i believe in gun ownership. Shooting an unarmed, injured, teenager is a little bit different than defending yourself. The difficulty i have is that I can't really put myself in the store clerks shoes. It could be argued that he still felt fear, and was still in the mindset that he was defending himself. It could also be that he was upset and wanted to take the law into his own hands. One is cloudy, the second is outright murder. Does anyone have a link to the video?
I have no concern for the dead criminal...I was just making a point that it could be seen differently by some.The police officer could have kicked that other guy in the head 5 more times. Maybe his "testosterone" (I think adrenaline might be the word) was pumping too, because he was sick of bad guys rabbiting on him and refusing to stop at a police officer's command. First you were mad at the cop and on the side of bad guy, and now you're glad the drug store kid was killed. Criminal rights for some and not others? I'm glad he shot the kid once, sorry he didn't get the other one too. I'm glad I won't have to be on that jury!
I see in here a former military man who has been trained to shoot back when threatened, especially when his own life is at stake. I also seem to remember that sometimes that training is hard to get away from and can come back in times of stress. I wonder if this can be considered when he comes to trial. I am not saying he was justified or that he was not justified, but I do wish it had not happened.
Quote from: Wilma on May 30, 2009, 02:12:38 PM
I see in here a former military man who has been trained to shoot back when threatened, especially when his own life is at stake. I also seem to remember that sometimes that training is hard to get away from and can come back in times of stress. I wonder if this can be considered when he comes to trial. I am not saying he was justified or that he was not justified, but I do wish it had not happened.
The pharmacist isn't ex-military. The guy talking about Adrenaline was the ex-military guy.
The Pharmacist is Ex-Military, a Retired Air Force Lieutenant.
The pharmacist had served in the military during the first Desert Storm.
Besides all of the unfortunate details in this case, the 16-year-old who was killed and the other robber, a 14-year-old, were set up by a couple of adult guys (ages 31 and 43) to perform the robbery and then were going to pick the teenagers up in a stolen getaway car.
Here is the latest to come out of this: Two adults armed these kids and sent them in to do the dirty work.
Pharmacy shooting controversy continues
Published: 5/30/2009 8:49 AM
Last Modified: 5/30/2009 8:53 AM
OKLAHOMA CITY — Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.
Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.
Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.
"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."
District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.
Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.
But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.
Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KTOK, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.
"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."
Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."
Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.
Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8½ months in jail.
Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."
The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.
The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.
Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.
Irven Box, Ersland's attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: "I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree."
Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.
"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, 'You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."
Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."
If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.
Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.
The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.
--
close
Reader Commen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: patyrn on May 30, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
The pharmacist had served in the military during the first Desert Storm.
Besides all of the unfortunate details in this case, the 16-year-old who was killed and the other robber, a 14-year-old, were set up by a couple of adult guys (ages 31 and 43) to perform the robbery and then were going to pick the teenagers up in a stolen getaway car.
I went back and read it again, my mistake. Missed the whole back brace thing. I guess that does put a spin on things.
I do want to see t he video though, because the article says the pharmacist had to go in the back and get a different gun. Did he turn his back on the criminals? did he walk casually or was he running and ducking? I think those are the kinds of questions that really need to be asked.
Whew, that's tough one. At least they do have the 2 yahoos, who as adults should face at least life too. I suspect they thought they could profit from the kids being "juvies." So now we have one dead teenager, two adults in deep doo-doo and one pharmacist who may face jail time. When will the race card be played on this? Certain head line seekers probably already have their plane tickets.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 30, 2009, 03:46:37 PM
Whew, that's tough one. At least they do have the 2 yahoos, who as adults should face at least life too. I suspect they thought they could profit from the kids being "juvies." So now we have one dead teenager, two adults in deep doo-doo and one pharmacist who may face jail time. When will the race card be played on this? Certain head line seekers probably already have their plane tickets.
You know it will. The newspapers make more money. Notice the line in there that says something along the lines of " pharmicist was white, the assailants were black"
I don't know about OK law but here in Missouri this guy would have been fully covered by our law..............until he went back, got the other gun and shot the last five shots. If the assailant is down and no longer a life threat to you then no more shots are justified. The devil here would be in the details of the video as someone else said.
Is the wounded teenager conscious and aiming a weapon around? Then he would probably be justified in shooting some more. If he is just laying there still and wounded and the pharmacist steps over him, gets the gun and just lets it go, I think that would be considered murder here.
God knows I sympathize with this man. I can see how the adrenaline would be pumping beyond belief. But our training here is to be very careful if we have to shoot someone...not to make any kinds of comments or actions that would show that we wanted to settle a score or get revenge on someone. The attitude that one might express at that time can hurt them in a court of law.
You know maybe you guys are right. Maybe the Drugist should've checked for a pulse, asked that punk if he was going to threaten anybody some more, or asked him if he intended to harm somone or just rob the place.
Give me a break. So what if the druggist went back and double tapped that guy. This is a prime example of putting criminals rights above the victims. And don't give me any crap about these punks being talked into it by adults, those kids are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.
I suspect those kids will be tried as adults, depending on the law out there, so what does it matter? In capital cases Juvie doesn't necessarily mean they can skate like it did years ago....They probably aren't the brightest bulbs in the lamp either. I wasn't aware that anyone was giving you a hard time about any of this.The law and a jury will dictate the outcome of this, not any of our opinions.
Diane, I know the law and a jury will decide this outcome. I just don't see that the druggist did anything wrong. I don't think he should've been arrested.
I'm sure this trial will be 'way down the road, but how will you feel if the druggist gets any jail time. He already has an ankle bracelet and has been refused access to guns. At least he is out on bail. That could have been denied.
If the druggist gets any jail time I feel that that would be another huge injustice. This guy killed some punk that tried to rob him. So what.
Did you mean so what to me? or so what in general? I really don't have any more to add.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 31, 2009, 02:55:40 PM
I'm sure this trial will be 'way down the road, but how will you feel if the druggist gets any jail time. He already has an ankle bracelet and has been refused access to guns. At least he is out on bail. That could have been denied.
He should have never been arrested.
Quote from: srkruzich on May 31, 2009, 07:05:32 PM
He should have never been arrested.
That is one of the most ridiculous statements that I have ever heard. My apologies but excessive force is excessive. Perhaps I could have understood shooting the assailants but the moment they we down and he went to get another gun, it became clearly excessive/intent to kill and not self defense at that point. Intent to kill and then killing is 1st degree murder, plain and simple. Law enforcement officers are under an obligation at that point to arrest the man, now he can choose to defend himself in court using a self-defense claim but the validity of that claim rests with the jury of his peers.
Here we go again. Jerry, before I jump to any wrong conclusions, you do know it wasn't me that said he shouldn't have been arrested. When people copy things that way it sometimes isn't clear who said what. I already got in a jam over that once. That was Steve's opinion attached to my post. People sometimes read very fast and it can get scrambled.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 01, 2009, 08:24:47 AM
Here we go again. Jerry, before I jump to any wrong conclusions, you do know it wasn't me that said he shouldn't have been arrested. When people copy things that way it sometimes isn't clear who said what. I already got in a jam over that once. That was Steve's opinion attached to my post. People sometimes read very fast and it can get scrambled.
I was responding to the person that made the last remark. I will edit out your statement if that is helpful.
Jerry, thank you very much.
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 01, 2009, 07:47:50 AM
Quote from: srkruzich on May 31, 2009, 07:05:32 PM
He should have never been arrested.
That is one of the most ridiculous statements that I have ever heard. My apologies but excessive force is excessive. Perhaps I could have understood shooting the assailants but the moment they we down and he went to get another gun, it became clearly excessive/intent to kill and not self defense at that point. Intent to kill and then killing is 1st degree murder, plain and simple. Law enforcement officers are under an obligation at that point to arrest the man, now he can choose to defend himself in court using a self-defense claim but the validity of that claim rests with the jury of his peers.
Jerry, when those guys went in with the intent to kill someone for their money, and yes their intent was to kill, then they forfeited all rights to their life. I am a pro gun, pro defence and quite frankly i would have emptied my gun into them too. 2 chest and 1 to the head. Thats standard shooting if your going to kill someone. THe objective is to make sure they do not have opportunity to get up and finish their intent.
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 01, 2009, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 01, 2009, 08:24:47 AM
Here we go again. Jerry, before I jump to any wrong conclusions, you do know it wasn't me that said he shouldn't have been arrested. When people copy things that way it sometimes isn't clear who said what. I already got in a jam over that once. That was Steve's opinion attached to my post. People sometimes read very fast and it can get scrambled.
I was responding to the person that made the last remark. I will edit out your statement if that is helpful.
I said he should not have ever been arrested. it was a clear case of self defence. They came in armed and robbed him, he defended himself and made sure that they could not possibly get up and finish their intent.
and He did so saving the taxpayors a ton of money prosecuting them if they had lived which would have done absolutely no good cause they would have only gotten a slap on the wrist.
I wish they would call me up as a juror in his trial!
The druggist was doing great when he got the second gun but when he used it to shoot a kid down on the floor then was more then self defense, it became murder.
Quote from: srkruzich on June 01, 2009, 12:07:32 PM
I said he should not have ever been arrested. it was a clear case of self defence. They came in armed and robbed him, he defended himself and made sure that they could not possibly get up and finish their intent.
and He did so saving the taxpayors a ton of money prosecuting them if they had lived which would have done absolutely no good cause they would have only gotten a slap on the wrist.
I wish they would call me up as a juror in his trial!
I am aware that you said he never should have been arrested. It is not a clear case of self defense upon the acquiring of the second weapon and then shooting the kid on the floor. It is irrelevant that it would save taxpayers money and it is disturbing that you think justice should be decided in any case based on the cost to taxpayers. Let's hope you would feel the same way should you come into contact with justice.
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 01, 2009, 12:32:46 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on June 01, 2009, 12:07:32 PM
I said he should not have ever been arrested. it was a clear case of self defence. They came in armed and robbed him, he defended himself and made sure that they could not possibly get up and finish their intent.
and He did so saving the taxpayors a ton of money prosecuting them if they had lived which would have done absolutely no good cause they would have only gotten a slap on the wrist.
I wish they would call me up as a juror in his trial!
I am aware that you said he never should have been arrested. It is not a clear case of self defense upon the acquiring of the second weapon and then shooting the kid on the floor. It is irrelevant that it would save taxpayers money and it is disturbing that you think justice should be decided in any case based on the cost to taxpayers. Let's hope you would feel the same way should you come into contact with justice.
I have no problem with it. I don't go out and rob someone or threaten to kill them for their money. nor do i go out and commit crimes. I however have no problem dispatching someone that might commit a crime against me.
I do have a problem when people start pitying the criminals. Their the ones who went into that store with weapons and threatening law abiding citizens. They are not innocent vicitms here.
I have honestly tried to be quiet here, but. All my sympathy is for the victim, the man that was at the point of a gun in a robbery attempt, but. When he returned, found another gun, loaded it and emptied it into a prone body, it ceased to be self defense, it became premeditated murder. There I have said it. But, with all my heart I hope they can find some defense that will let him off with a slap to the wrist. Nobody, and I mean nobody should have to be subjected to a situation like this. I would bet even money that he is now regretting what he did. As to what I would do in a situation where I felt my life was threatened, I cannot say, having never been there. I, too, am glad that I will not be called for jury duty on this case. I would have a hard time finding him guilty even if all the facts that we have heard can be proven to be true.
Steve and Jerry I'm getting lost here, unless something has changed. Wasn't there just one death? The other 3 got away and were captured later, I thought. That's 4 people will who still have to go to trial over this awful mess. Not much $ savings there.
I wonder how the police knew there were two separate shootings? Different kinds of weapons? The number of shots fired? The statements of the other employees? It must have come out somehow during the police investigation.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 01, 2009, 01:45:58 PM
Steve and Jerry I'm getting lost here, unless something has changed. Wasn't there just one death? The other 3 got away and were captured later, I thought. That's 4 people will who still have to go to trial over this awful mess. Not much $ savings there.
I wonder how the police knew there were two separate shootings? Different kinds of weapons? The number of shoots fired? The statements of the other employees? It must have come out somehow during the police investigation.
Usually each one gets a trial. As a person that has been at the other end of a gun before, i have no sympathy for the individual that was shot. He knew the risks of taking a weapon and using it against someone in order to rob them. As far as the druggist grabbing another gun and shooting him again, good for him. Its better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6. It was not premeditated murder sorry but that won't fly in any court. Unless you have been in that situation then not a single person can say they wouldn't shoot him til he stopped moving. The simple fact is dead means no threat.
I believe that the druggist believed his life was in peril even with that one individual in a prone position. A gun can be fired from a prone position just as easily as from a standing position.
Now I will be ridiculously picky...What Billy had written back in the first post had the kid unconscious on the floor on his back. (supine) Prone would be lying on his stomach. I would not care to be shot from either position, but if either position has an advantage, which would it be? I've done prone and standing firing at the range, even between my legs, but I can't say I was brave enough to try it on my back.
What did he shoot him with the first time?
Steve, I hope that argument will stand up in court. But a person, lying on the floor, apparently helpless, doesn't present much of a threat. It is possible that the druggist perceived him as a threat, but if he did in fact, turn his back on him while he was loading another gun, it is going to be hard to prove. I am talking about fact and what the law says, not what I wish or hope.
Diane, it is my understanding that the entire episode was recorded on surveillance tape. This should remove many doubts/arguments when it comes time for court. I do think that excessive force was used, but there were probably extenuating circumstances also. We shall see what Lady Justice decides.
If you want to see the surveillance tape here is the link,
http://www.kfor.com/news/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,7291159.story
To me it shows the druggist getting the second gun with his back turned and out of sight of the downed kid and then he walks back and shoots him like you would a varmint. IMO clearly murder.
I just watched the video, and unfortunately I think the pharmacist used excessive force.
That is just creepy.... how calmly he walked over and killed that boy.
It does not show the boy at all on the floor, there is no way of knowing if he was trying to dig in his pocket, or if he was making movements that made the Pharmicist think he was trying to pull a weapon. This happened in a bad part of Oklahoma City and it would be difficult to know what this Pharmicist has been thru before or in a similar situation.
Well crap frank. I just watched it..and was typing an when I went to post.. you beat me to the punch..
Your post was basically what I said...
Frank and Teresa also posted before I could click on "POST", but I spent way too much time typing to delete this now. So, here it is:
Thank you for posting the link, DeeGee. It's one thing to read about an event and quite another to see it happen with your own eyes. Not that I'm saying that witnessing something is entirely reliable -- in fact, many sociology experiments show the opposite to be true -- but I did find it informative, albeit sickening, to watch. I kept wishing I could scroll down to the bottom and to the right of the video screen so I could have a better look at what the suspect on the floor was doing. Was he lying motionless? Was he writhing? Was he attempting to get up? That last possibility is the only one in which I could halfway justify the repeated shooting as self-defense. But if that were the case, would the pharmacist appear to be almost nonchalant as he walked past the suspect, retrieved another weapon (or reloaded) and returned to continue firing? I have to agree with those who say that he went over the line. Had I seen him firing repeated shots while the hold-up was occurring, I would say it was self-defense, but to shoot once, walk away then return to shoot again? Nope, can't see that as anything but murder. It should be an interesting trial.
Teresa, could you give an educated guess about the handgun/s the pharmacist used? Or has it been written up out there? I couldn't even begin to tell. Not that it really matters.
I can't believe that there are folks calling this murder!!! I wonder if the situation were different, like say, if a woman was being raped, shot her rapist with one gun, then got another and shot him again, should she be treated the same as the druggist?
Probably not as well.
Diane, I have tried every way I can to see if the gun(s) were distinguishable, I even put a magnifying glass up to the monitor but that didn't help. I have checked everyway I can and the have not identified anything definite about the weapons. I am not sure what difference it makes in the whole scheme of things.
Here is another video on it with the DA commenting. And I have really watched this.. several times... Here's my take on it:
And I'm going to be windy here... Since I take self defense courses...and hopefully will never face this kind of situation.. I still have to know that someday..I may be there....so I have lots going on in my head that I want to talk out.
Unfortunately you all have to see it in print.
This will be an interesting trial.. I think what will be important in this case is which shot the medical examiner determines to be the cause of death. In other words, if he was already dead from the first (justified) shot, then the others can hardly be termed "murder". Abuse of a corpse, perhaps, but murder?? I don't know.QuoteDistrict Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
[
IF that second sentence is true, (most especially the unconscious part) the criminal was no longer a threat. Problem here is you do have an adrenaline-filled man that apparently had enough and just continued to act under duress.
OK law states 'shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill' is 1st degree murder. If the DA can prove the threat was removed, so is the self-defense situation. What a jury will do with this will be interesting. My honest opinion is the DA might be overreaching and eventually may decide to go with voluntary manslaughter as the charge.
Here's another statement from the DA (he seems a reasonable man) where he backs self defense - the DA's beef with the pharmacist is based on his belief the assailant is no longer a threat when the pharmacist returned.
QuoteEven though he decided to charge a pharmacist with murder for killing a would-be robber, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said he supports people's right to defend themselves as allowed by state law.
David Prater Oklahoma County district attorney
Pharmacist faces murder charge
May 27 An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.
Advertisement
"I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant," Prater said Wednesday in a news conference.
He said the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person."
State law allows people to use deadly force if they're threatened somewhere they have a right to be, he said.
Ersland was not justified in killing robbery suspect Antwun Parker because the 16-year-old was already incapacitated from a bullet to the head, prosecutors said.
Surveillance video from Reliable Discount Pharmacy and court papers indicate Ersland walked by the unconscious Parker at least twice before retrieving another gun and firing five shots into his abdomen. Those injuries caused Parker's death.
Prater said it appears city homeowner Scott Henson was justified Tuesday when he shot a burglar inside his home because the other man made an aggressive move toward him.
Ersland, on the other hand, shot a suspect who was unarmed and unconscious. "It's a good example of what not to do," Prater said.
http://newsok.com/feed/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148?custom_click=pod_headline_news (http://newsok.com/feed/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148?custom_click=pod_headline_news)
Many unseen variables are actually involved.....would be nice to have audio to go with the video.
The unseen perp on the floor, if he was not dead from the head-shot may have been still until the clerk walked past him the second time. He may have been trying to get up and caused the clerk to panic...(but to me.. he didn't look panicked which won't help his case any.
Was it justifiable? Shot #1 most certainly. I'd woulda popped him too.
Was the follow-ups overkill? I don't know where the info comes that the kid was still alive. If he was dead it should come down to some sort of desecration of a human body. If it can be proven he was still alive it will be his attorney's job to prove the "reasonable man" theory in the act of fear or emotional distress.
From what I COULD GATHER from the video, and not having been a witness to the fracas, I would conclude that the pharmacist stepped (jumped) over the line of reasonableness when he fired the five round coup de gras. That being said...I wasn't in his shoes at the moment. Taking that one step further, were I on the jury, I would still vote to acquit. I am all about personal responsibility.
The two "innocent youths who are misunderstood by society, and merely victims of their surroundings" ::) took the decision to commit a violent felony and rob the pharmacy, thereby WILLFULLY endangering and threatening innocent people who were simply doing their job. My feeling is that if YOU decide to commit a crime of this nature and you get blasted to little pieces...YOU also made the choice to die in the commission of that crime. Shame on you for being stupid.
I could not, in good conscience, vote to convict the pharmacist. Was he totally justified in the first shot? Yep. Was he justified in the last five? LEGALLY...no. MORALLY...no. I know all the arguments about WHY he was wrong, but I just can't see myself putting the pharmacist in prison because someone CHOSE to victimize him, and got the tables turned. I would give him a pass on this one, even though (in my opinion) he did break the law.
Two thugs standing side by side and a gun in hand makes both targets. Remember that the unarmed one was putting on his mask which made him identifiable as "bad."
And to the mother of the dead boy who was saying "He didn't have to shoot my baby like that".., I'd like to say, "Yes, he didn't have to shoot your baby like that. Unfortunately, the baby you knew didn't walk into the pharmacy that day, Your baby...despite your efforts..... was an armed robber putting people in fear of their lives. He lost.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on June 01, 2009, 06:53:06 PM
I can't believe that there are folks calling this murder!!! I wonder if the situation were different, like say, if a woman was being raped, shot her rapist with one gun, then got another and shot him again, should she be treated the same as the druggist?
Just as guilty. Spoke to my wife to get a woman's point of view, said "Once she went to get a gun, intent to kill, murder"
Jerry, I don't think if you were the one that got raped you would say that. I think if some crazy rapes a woman she has every right to shoot him and to make sure he is dead.
I agree if she goes after a gun that would be intent to kill.
I really think that the damning part of the video is the fact that the pharmacist came back into the store, walked up to the downed perp, turned his back and went into the back of the store. Had he entered the store and went to the back by the same route he used when he came out shooting the first time, it would have been possible that the downed perp was threatening even after being shot. Does that make sense? It is obvious to me that the man no longer felt threatened, and was not trying to protect himself, but was interested in doing a little revenge.
Honestly, I can't see why the druggist is being treated like this. Look at the situation...
1- Criminal walks into a store with the intent of committing a felony
2- threatens the life of people working there
3- ends up dead
Thats pretty much it. Another criminal off the streets.
It ain't that cut and dried and you know it. Yeah he had the first one comin for sure, but from what I saw the next ones were just like choppin a snake in pieces even tho it's already dead just because it's a snake and it scared you. Overkill.
If you are gonna dance you gotta pay the band, think the pharmacist had an extra dance.......
Actually, for me it is cut and dried. That punk deserved to die.
Billy.. believe me.. I agree that the more scum bags off the streets feet first , the better off we are...but unfortunately the law abiding citizen is the one that has to account for their actions.
Normally you have a gun that has a magazine or clip that holds more than one shot. We are trained to shoot, not once, but until all doubt of a critical threat to your life is over. But when is that? After one round? Six rounds? Ten rounds, a reload, and five more?
Remember.... This is in a crime ridden part of OK. Store has been robbed before.
Talking with LEO friends of mine they all have said shoot until the threat is over!!!
The store owner..had he used a gun with a loaded clip.. could have emptied it in the perp.. and all would have been ok.
But..............once again...
This fella turned his back a few times to the threat. It doesn't look like he felt threatened in the least after he came back into the store. He actually almost calmly walked to get another gun..and came back and unloaded it into the belly of the perp..
IF he wasn't dead..one more shot between the eyes would have been enough...
I wasn't there but that evidence is hard to refute... tough tough call....
Well I won't debate this one any longer, and I will watch to see what other evidence comes out at the trial. I can tell you if a person breaks into my house I fully intend to see that he is dead, and I won't hesitate to protect my family, in anyway I can. I can't judge the Pharmicist at this point as there are to many unknowns, I just don't see all of the evidence that most of you are talking about. The Pharmicist was cool but remember he was Retired Lieutenant Colonel with possibly 30 years in the Military, he was trained to be cool under fire. None of you know how you would have reacted under the same circumstances.
Being ex-military, he was also trained to react without thinking about it. If he was in actual combat, he has probably faced the enemy and the only way he lived was by killing that enemy. Past training could have kicked in and in a way he wasn't responsible for his reaction. I am still looking for a way to get around that premeditated murder. I hope someone can do it.
Being ex-military means that he is in fact a trained killer and is held to a higher standard because he knows what he is capable of. They also train them to have restraint, how to restrain an enemy or incapacitate him without killing him. Think about that.
Good point Jerry.
Thats a bit of a stretch ain't it? Yes, he was retired Air Force, but that is all we know. Maybe if he was a Ranger, Green Beret, SEaL, Marine Force Recon..I could see the trained killer bit. Not only that but this guy was wearing a back brace..I don't see too many trained killers sporting one of those. Just because the guy is retired military doesn't make him a lethal weapon.
What you all have just said is exactly why I am really glad I'll not be called to be on that jury. Frank, The reason I asked about the gun, and no it doesn't matter, was to try to predict the amount of damage the head shot could have done. At one point when the pharmacist was on the phone you could see him look over from the counter. In my mind I could just about hear the call taker asking "Is he conscious, is he breathing?"
This Morning's paper carried this update:
Druggist Jerome Ersland says he feared for life during shooting
Man remains free on bail after turning weapons over to his attorney
Published: June 2, 2009
A pharmacist charged with first-degree murder said Monday he shot a robber again on the city drugstore's floor because he thought the robber was about to get up and kill him.
He said he thought the robber, Antwun "Speedy" Parker, 16, had shot him and killed a female employee when the holdup began.
He said he wanted to protect himself and the other female employee crying in the back.
"I went up to him. And he seemed to be just dazed. And he started talking to me, and he started turning to the right," he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor." "I'm crippled. ... I thought I was going to get killed in the next few seconds."
He said the two employees were a mother and daughter. "The mother was yelling, 'Megan, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry,'" he said.
Jerome Jay Ersland, 57, is accused in the first-degree murder case of going too far in defending himself May 19 during the robbery at Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City.
Prosecutors allege physical evidence proves Parker was unarmed, unconscious and on his back when the pharmacist shot him five times in the abdomen. They allege Parker already was incapacitated because Ersland had shot him in the head.
Attorney says guns have been turned over
The interview Monday was Ersland's first to the media since he was charged Wednesday.
"I still think he had a gun," Ersland said Monday. "Because he was closer to me, and I felt a sting on my hand and my watch fell off. I had a shot in my hand, and I thought it came from that side and that was the side that the girls were on and I thought ... that he shot Megan."
Prosecutors contend only Ersland fired any shots during the holdup.
A police detective said Ersland gave statements to the media earlier and to police that do not match a drugstore video depiction of the shooting.
Ersland is free on $100,000 bail.
Oklahoma County District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure on Thursday allowed him to be released from jail on bail as long he no longer has any access to any weapons.
The judge questioned him Monday to determine if he had complied with the restriction.
"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them."
The attorney, Irven Box, said Ersland gave him ownership of the weapons as a down payment on the legal fees in the murder case.
The attorney said he personally picked up the weapons Friday at Ersland's home in Chickasha. "It took several hours," Box said.
Ersland had been expected to turn over the guns to his attorney for safekeeping until the trial was over.
Instead, the attorney said he took the weapons as payment toward his legal work.
Box said he has accepted other unusual payments in the past, including comic books in one case.
Box said he will keep the guns for now because he is too busy with Ersland's case to sell them.
What's next for pharmacist?
Ersland will return to work today, his attorney later told The Oklahoman. The pharmacy's owner has hired an off-duty police officer to guard the store whenever Ersland is there, the attorney said.
Ersland on Monday began wearing an ankle bracelet that monitors his location, the attorney also said. Ersland can only be away from home to be at work, to be in court, to shop for groceries, to eat, to worship at church, to see doctors or to meet with his attorneys.
The hearing Monday turned tense when the judge asked Ersland how many weapons he had owned. Box told Ersland not to answer, and the judge warned them Ersland would go back to jail unless he gave her the total. "This is so unfair!" Box said to the judge.
The judge let Ersland stay free, though, after both the defense attorney and District Attorney David Prater argued he shouldn't have to answer. They said requiring Ersland to answer would violate his constitutional rights. Box said Ersland has a right under the Fifth Amendment not to incriminate himself.
Prater said a statement about the number of weapons could be used against Ersland at trial.
The judge, however, said she will never again let a defendant turn over his weapons to his defense attorney. "I learned a valuable lesson," she said.
Ersland's supporters have dropped off more than $2,000 at the pharmacy toward his legal fees, his attorney said.
Box said a cab driver stopped at his law office Monday to contribute $20.
Box said on Fox News on Monday a drugstore surveillance video shows the incident lasted 46 seconds.
The video showed Ersland first shot Parker as Parker pulled on a ski mask. The pharmacist then chased an armed robber out of the store, returned to get a second gun and shot Parker again.
Prosecutors say the two guns Ersland used in the shooting were collected as evidence.
Two ex-convicts and a 14-year-old boy also have been charged with first-degree murder in the case.
Under Oklahoma's felony murder law, conspirators in a robbery can be charged with first-degree murder if someone dies during the robbery.
Thanks Frank, now if I were on the jury, I'd like to know which weapon/s had indeed been fired. Did the kid who ran really have a gun? Why did Mr. Ersland think the female employee had been "killed?'' If so, why didn't he stop to help her and call 911 then, instead of going out the door to try to catch the other kid? Did he hear gunfire and if so, how many shots did he hear? Did the girls who were hiding hear any shots, if so how many? At the beginning of the robbery or later on? Who were the people in the blue car? What, if anything did they see and hear? If they were not the getaway drivers, why didn't Mr. Erskin ask them for help, to call 911? I'd like to see the watch. Did he really have a shot in his hand? Which hand? What did the wound look like? Where is the bullet? If Antwun's body hadn't been moved, how was he positioned when the police and ambulance arrived? After the head shot, if Antwun was talking to the Pharmacist, what did he say? ( the autopsy will likely show whether he would have been capable of speech after the head shot.) and on and on.
Diane, I think that you just disqualified yourself from being on this panel. Sorry, maybe next time? ;)
Just like any other case, the account of what happened keep changing as it progresses. I don't think the first or the current account agrees with the video tape. I wouldn't want to be on the jury because I would have vote with the laws for conviction with what I have seen and heard so far.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 02, 2009, 08:28:21 AM
didn't Mr. Erskin ask them for help, to call 911?
What good does 911 do? Seriously think about this. Seconds count in a situation like this. it is over with usually in the time it takes to dial 911. The police can't do anything. their miles/minutes away when you need immediate action.
The police are not required to protect us either. The supreme court has ruled on this. THeir job is to protect public property and serve warrants. Not protect us from anything. The fact that they try is above what their duty calls for.
Diane this statement should answer one of your questions.
QuoteLast week Ersland told NewsChannel Four he had no other choice.
"All of a sudden the first thing I know there's gunfire, and I feel a sting on my left arm, and I pull out my keltec 380 out of my pocket," Ersland said. "They were firing at me from so close, and I could feel the bullet go by my right ear."
That is interesting Dale, the Keltec 380 has a 6 shot Magazine capacity, there must have been more than one shot fired in the first volley. I am sure in that enclosed area it was difficult to tell who was shooting, the sound would have been deafening and added to an already confusing and difficult situation. The shooting, the woman screaming, must have been terrifying.
Yes Frank, it would have a confusing few seconds, I read in one of the reports there were at least fifteen shots fire and with the druggist having to get another gun or reload to do the final shooting I would say he had emptied his first weapon.
Were there shots fired outside the building? It seems that Mr. Ersland knew he was out of ammo when he came back into the building. There must have been shots fired outside, otherwise that puts him going out there with an empty gun.
Thanks guys for the new information. Steve, it may be different there, but here that 911 call would have brought at least 2 ambulances, 2 Paramedics and 2 or 3 EMTs. We would have been staged a couple of blocks away and brought in after the police had secured the scene. The police would be called to secure the scene regardless. No, they can't stop what has already happened, but when the scene is secured it is safer for everyone and it prevents a lot of extraneous people from contaminating the crime scene. We, the ambulances, have a whole serious of protocols we follow too, at any crime scene. If the employee had been shot and was injured, if the pharmacist had an injury or the shooter was still alive, we would have taken care of them. If nobody called 911 what were those poor people in the drugstore supposed to do with the body? As it is I hope those women were offered CIS defusing and debriefing.
Video from Fox:
The state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly video might cause at least one juror to give him the "reasonable man" benefit of the doubt. And one is all it takes.
We all are looking at this situation with the benefit of hindsight.
I think the real question then maybe, did the pharmacist know when the perp no longer/never were a threat to them/ others? Was he sure..... sure enough to place his and his employees lives in serious risk? Is it reasonable to expect that he could have known? Is it reasonable to think that this is murder, while a soldier in Iraq shoots a suspected insurgent, who is wounded and slumped over in the corner, for merely twitching. In both cases you could say its justified. Cause if you rob someone at gun point, they're probably not in the mood to play possum.
Now I'm not 100% saying the pharmacist was right, but based upon the state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly interview, I can't say that he was wrong, either. I simply can't say one way or the other......I wasn't there. And therein lies the pertinent question: What would a "reasonable man" perceive as a threat in that situation? Not after reviewing the tape countless times, but at that moment in time.
I suspect that one's perspective might be a tad bit different without the benefit of hindsight.
And like I said before, he only has to convince ONE juror that he was acting as a "reasonable man" would act "under the same circumstances".
Quote from: Teresa on June 02, 2009, 03:08:42 PM
Is it reasonable to think that this is murder, while a soldier in Iraq shoots a suspected insurgent, who is wounded and slumped over in the corner, for merely twitching. In both cases you could say its justified. Cause if you rob someone at gun point, they're probably not in the mood to play possum.
Teresa THIS incident of the insurgent, I can comment on. My Son josh was there when it happened. The terrorist was playing possum and was armed and he was a threat to not just one team but three squads that were there. A squad consists of 5 men each. The first and second one went in, secured the building while the third team guarded the secured outside to prevent terrorists from surrounding them. When the marine shot that terrorist, it was because he was wounded and armed and didn't follow orders.
The teams were under rules of engagement and they did their jobs. That marine was aquitted of any wrong doing.
I would call the robbery a similar situation. There are rules of engagement and the premise to that is that the enemy dies and the marine/pharmacist lives. There really is no middle ground in this. How many times have we seen massecres in businesses? 45 seconds is not very long to secure a target area. My sons squad squad could do a building in under 2 min. IF anyone thinks were not in a war situation when we are being robbed by 4 individuals their sadly mistaken. I am truely amazed that the employees and the pharmacist were not the ones killed in this situation.
Everyone needs to think about something that has caused them to fight or flee. The adrenalin that surges into their bodies. then start counting 1 2 3 ...44 45 it isn't very long.
When we found Ember the other day in her crib, the time from when she was found to the time we started cpr on her was approximately 45 seconds. It took that long to get her in a place where we could administer it to her and to calm down enough to administer it to her. It was another minute or two before I could get everyone calm enough to dial 911. Literally when everyone realized Ember was dying, they were in a panic situation and people tend to run around in circles when their panic'd. Its normal human reaction.
I would feel comfortable with his statement that he felt in fear of his life. 45 seconds is not enough time to go from zero to 100 and then back to zero.
I personally ahve to say give this man a benefit of the doubt. First of all because it was the criminals that put him into this situation not him, and secondly, he did not have time to premeditate a murder!
Quote from: srkruzich on June 02, 2009, 04:08:28 PM
I personally have to say give this man a benefit of the doubt. First of all because it was the criminals that put him into this situation not him, and secondly, he did not have time to premeditate a murder!
I agree...... but I still wouldn't want to be on the jury... This outcome will take some heavy looking into..
I can't imagine why this man went on TV. What was his lawyer thinking? The national press will make it nearly impossible to have a neutral, impartial jury. OJ all over again. Steve, speaking as a member of the jury, not my own feelings, this man is no longer in the service. They were all civilians. How can there be "rules of engagement?" Did Mr. Ersland order the kid to not move or he'd be shot again? Did he shout orders that weren't followed? You mean any post military vet is likely to shoot because he is good at it? ( I've always wondered how anybody who is a warrior Marine can just turn that off when they are discharged. )
Speaking for myself, I think the DA overcharged Mr. Ersland in the first place. If it's first degree or nothing, he'll most likely get off. If there is a chance for a lesser charge, he might be convicted of manslaughter or some such because of what was going on.
As far as your nephew's situation, I probably would have finished the job too..... That's real war. Steve, apparently only 2 perps. went inside the drug store and apparently there was only one gun and it left the building. ( No, of course Mr. Ersland didn't know that.) But it turns out he had more weapons than they did.
Steve, I am so sorry about sweet little Ember. I can't imagine how awful you all felt. But I can relate being on the ambulance and arriving at that scene. I've had to do it a number of times and it breaks our hearts too when nothing works, especially when we know people have been doing CPR.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 02, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
I can't imagine why this man went on TV. What was his lawyer thinking? The national press will make it nearly impossible to have a neutral, impartial jury. OJ all over again. Steve, speaking as a member of the jury, not my own feelings, this man is no longer in the service. They were all civilians. How can there be "rules of engagement?"
Diane, what is the difference between a insurgent on the ground hell bent on killing you and a robber with the same idea? Both are lethal, both are after you. You might not like my thinking but if i were in his situation, that perp would have been shot too if he moved again. The object of self defense is to make sure that your enemy takes the great celestial dirt nap.
QuoteDid Mr. Ersland order the kid to not move or he'd be shot again? Did he shout orders that weren't followed? You mean any post military vet is likely to shoot because he is good at it? ( I've always wondered how anybody who is a warrior Marine can just turn that off when they are discharged. )
They can't.
QuoteSpeaking for myself, I think the DA overcharged Mr. Ersland in the first place. If it's first degree or nothing, he'll most likely get off. If there is a chance for a lesser charge, he might be convicted of manslaughter or some such because of what was going on.
I think the DA has his nipples in the wringer so to speak. He's charging him with 1st deg and nothing else knowing that he can't win that conviction. That will prevent further charges from being brought against this men.
QuoteAs far as your nephew's situation, I probably would have finished the job too..... That's real war. Steve, apparently only 2 perps. went inside the drug store and apparently there was only one gun and it left the building. ( No, of course Mr. Ersland didn't know that.) But it turns out he had more weapons than they did.
I'll tell ya it is war either way. You have to have come under fire before to realize it.
QuoteSteve, I am so sorry about sweet little Ember. I can't imagine how awful you all felt. But I can relate being on the ambulance and arriving at that scene. I've had to do it a number of times and it breaks our hearts too when nothing works, especially when we know people have been doing CPR.
Oh Don't get me wrong. The EMT's, the Sherriff, everyone did their best!!! They did everything humanly possible. It was just logistically impossible to respond in a timelly manner. 45 min from time of call to time they arrived. we have volenteeer department.
Steve back in the beginning of this post I was speaking about what a juror might hear the prosecution say. It has nothing to do with your thinking or mine. Now about the rest of that crowd, am I right that they were charged with first degree too? I wonder how that will play out. Did we ever find out if Mr. Ersland did have a shot to the wrist? To me that doesn't quite add up. I wonder if he snagged himself on something. They said he was the only shooter.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 02, 2009, 06:38:37 PM
Steve back in the beginning of this post I was speaking about what a juror might hear the prosecution say. It has nothing to do with your thinking or mine. Now about the rest of that crowd, am I right that they were charged with first degree too? I wonder how that will play out. Did we ever find out if Mr. Ersland did have a shot to the wrist? To me that doesn't quite add up. I wonder if he snagged himself on something. They said he was the only shooter.
Well you know what, i don't see how the perps can be charged with murder much less 1st deg murder since they apparantly did not kill the guy. seems to me this da is a real idiot.
Secondly as far as mr. ersland getting wounded, it doesn't matter if he did or not. He was robbed. Thats a fact. They comitted a violent crime against him and his employees. His response was appropriate and according to the oklahoma law that was passed the law supports his right to shoot anyone that enters his premises with intent to rob or harm. In other words you don't have to wait for the criminal to shoot you before you can shoot him.
All thats left now is to determine mr erslands state of mind when he shot the perp. There is no way possible they can prove 1st deg murder. He simply could not have had enough time to formulate a plan to murder someone with malice. The MOST they possibly can get him with is manslaughter and since the DA isn't offering that, its either 1st deg or nothing and i'll lay money on a jury of 12 to say it was not murder.
The question about the other three being charged was answered earlier. I have excerpted Frank's post.
Quote from: frawin on June 02, 2009, 07:41:48 AM
This Morning's paper carried this update:
Druggist Jerome Ersland says he feared for life during shooting
Man remains free on bail after turning weapons over to his attorney
Published: June 2, 2009
A pharmacist charged with first-degree murder said Monday he shot a robber again on the city drugstore's floor because he thought the robber was about to get up and kill him.
. . . . . .
Two ex-convicts and a 14-year-old boy also have been charged with first-degree murder in the case.
Under Oklahoma's felony murder law, conspirators in a robbery can be charged with first-degree murder if someone dies during the robbery.
Quote from: flintauqua on June 02, 2009, 07:10:23 PM
The question about the other three being charged was answered earlier. I have excerpted Frank's post.
Quote from: frawin on June 02, 2009, 07:41:48 AM
This Morning's paper carried this update:
Druggist Jerome Ersland says he feared for life during shooting
Man remains free on bail after turning weapons over to his attorney
Published: June 2, 2009
A pharmacist charged with first-degree murder said Monday he shot a robber again on the city drugstore's floor because he thought the robber was about to get up and kill him.
. . . . . .
Two ex-convicts and a 14-year-old boy also have been charged with first-degree murder in the case.
Under Oklahoma's felony murder law, conspirators in a robbery can be charged with first-degree murder if someone dies during the robbery.
welllll i have to say, it is a real stretch to connect a 1st deg murder rap on the individuals in the robbery. I don't know but it seems that its a inappropriate sentence, one that will ultimately be overturned by the supreme court.
I've got an article on Oklahoma's Murder Statutes, but I'll start a new thread.