Posted on 06/02/2009 2:35:20 PM PDT by FourPeas
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with murder in the shooting death of a teenage would-be robber defended himself on national television Monday night.
Jerome Ersland appeared on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News with his attorney Irven Box.
Ersland was charged with murder last week after he shot back at two would-be robbers on May 19 at a south Oklahoma City pharmacy. Prosecutors say Ersland exceeded his legal authority to defend himself by shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker five times after a first shot rendered the teen unconscious.
In his TV appearance last night, Ersland said the teen was still a threat when he fired the five fatal rounds.
"I came back in store because I was working with two ladies and I thought the person laying on the floor had shot the younger lady Megan because the mother was yelling Megan, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry," Ersland said during the interview. "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. I'm crippled. ... I thought I was going to get killed in the next few seconds."
I saw Ersland on Fox last night. He didn’t come across very well. His attorney needs to gag him for the time being. I’d hate to seem him get convicted of anything.
I was afraid of that. When I heard him on the Cam’s show on NRA.com he didn’t come across well either.
Note that the perp shot is out of the video fields of view and there is NO audio. The pharmacist never checked the shot perp for a weapon. The initially shot perp could have easily come back to life and been a threat again. Not now though.
The MSM, predictably, decided to go with an abbreviated report which left out certain irrelevant details. Dr. Ersland’s version has remained consistent from the start: the perp was moving in a way he deemed threatening.
He should have done like Uncle Ned in South Park, he should have just yelled, “It’s comin’ right for us!!!” Then he would have been safe.
I’ll say what I did back when I first heard of the charges against this pharmacist. Murder One requires the presence of pre-meditation. I don’t know how you define it premeditated to respond to an act of violence against your own person or your fellow workers. And if just moments before you were involved in a confrontation with armed assailants, it’s preposterous to blame this man for being extremely edgy.
The justice system has bent over backwards to protect the perpetrators of crime. To me that’s just ass backwards.
If some guy comes at me with a gun, or is one person of persons who come at me at least one with a gun, I consider them all to be prime targets. I’m not going to ask, or try to determine for myself if each one is armed. If one is, they all are.
The more gang members and kids in general that realize what the outcomes will be if they commit crimes of violence, the fewer crimes of violence there will be.
I don’t shed one tear for this kid. He gambled and lost.
Speaking as a licensed attorney in Oklahoma. Box is a very good criminal trial attorney. That being said, allowing his client to go on O’Reilly serves only his interest in promoting himself not his client. His client appears to not be a very good witness on his own behalf, and putting him out there gives the DA ammunition through possibly inconsistent statements.
"I feared for my life" !
it is 24 carat Gold
__________________________________________________
If you shoot the guy while he's in your house or coming toward you as a threat then you're ok. If however the guy runs and you follow him then shoot you're cooked. The same with putting more slugs into the guy once the threat has been ended. That's the law, like it or not.
I’m not sure that IS the law in Oklahoma.
Hindsight is 20-20, but in a similar situation, just keep yelling “Put the gun down or I’ll Shoot” in between each round that you fire.
And that right there is the point of contention. Ersland says the perp was continuing to be a threat. Prosecutor says not. Video is inconclusive (it doesn't show the perp). Ersland was there, Prosecutor was not.
Who ya gonna believe?
A premeditated act only requires the perpetrator to reflect on what he is doing and decide to do it. In otherwords, once the threat was removed if he decided to shoot the perp, it was premeditated. That being said, I think the DA will have a hard time getting a conviction. As it has been said, you cannot see the perp on the video so there is no way to refute the pharmicist.Plus, this is Oklahoma and people will be sympatheitic to him.
On the DA's side of the argument, there is enough in the video to require him to bring the case. All he is saying is there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. A jury will decide whether a crime actually was committed. If he had not brought the charges, the African-American community in Oklahoma would have had a legitimate beef IMHO.
From the video it looks bad for the guy speficically for the time it took him to get the second weapon. That shows coherent thought. and that, in the law, is murder.
And that's why I just can't seem to get worked up over whether Erlsand might have crossed the line a little bit. I am so sick and tired of thug culture and street criminals, that, as I said on another thread, Erlsand could've cut the dead punk's head off and placed it on a pike in front of his store and I still wouldn't think he did anything wrong.
If you ask me, these "gangstas" with their self-inflated sense of entitlement mixed with a penchant for brutal, senseless violence are a greater threat to the American way of life than Islamic terrorists and should be treated as such.
Agree. If the kid had been home studying and not out trying to rob someone, he’d be alive today. To blame the victim is ridiculous. To prosecute the victim is criminal, but that’s where our gubmint is these days.
Why is it, that the "African-American" community selects the dregs of their race, as their "hills to die on"?
In so far as it goes, yes. It may be inconclusive.
Ersland is disabled; he wears a back-brace. I doubt he's capable of moving other than slowly. Coherent though does not mean murder if the shootee is still posing a threat. Which, again, is the point of contention.
I think some folks here are just 'way too quick to condemn the man.
In concealed carry class, we were taught to fire at the threatening person until he is no longer able to harm you.
Lawdave, I’m not so sure you aren’t right here. Perhaps it would have been better to submit this to a grand jury though. (Perhaps it was since this was a capital case, I don’t know how that works) That would have taken the pressure of the local DA, and it could have saved the state a lot of costs.
When this guy gets in the witness stand with that brace, and not looking super sharp, he’s going to get off.
That’s my take on it. I could be all wet. Who knows...
It doesn’t really matter who you believe. The man (pharmacist) is innocent until proven guilty. I don’t see much more than a speculative case here.
I feel bad for him
He didn’t ask two thugs to come into his store and start pinting a gun at him.
I bet they were suprised to see one pointed back.
Too bad both are not dead, but once he was down... 5 more shots to kill him are not going to be good in front of a jury.
I DON’T FEEL SORRY for the perps at all... I feel sorry for him.
__________________________________
Watch the video, he moves just fine. And that will also be a problem.
I don't condemn him and I have no sympathy for the dead armed robber. I'm just stating the law's view.
I do not disagree with the sentiment. But if the pharmacist executed the perp., he should be prosecuted. If the DA chose not to prosecute the pharmicist, an African-American could suspect that the kid's race was a factor in that decision.
Equal justice for all, all the time. Not just when the person is a good guy. By prosecuting, the DA is demonstrating that the law applies regardless of race. That is a good thing.
Unless there's something surprising in the autopsy report, I seriously doubt that the State will be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Frankly if you try to rob somebody and it can be proven to be fact, then I really don’t care what happens to the robber. He rolled the dice and lost. Sucks to be him.
I’m pretty close to your position on this Drew68.
If a person goes out of their way to enter my home or place of business to commit an act of violence, it’s open season. I don’t care if they are a continued threat or not. They could just as easily as not ambush me a week later to get even. Nope, better dead now than continued threat indefinitely.
What happens if his buds stand trial, or they want to get even? Wouldn’t he be likely to help them out? Hell yes!
This was nothing more or less than taking out the trash, and I don’t give a damn what his pigment status was.
I agree.
Please check out this post, and realize that I know where you are coming from. I’m addressing what my beliefs are when it comes to what ‘should’ be the law here. You are addressing what the law is and I’m not going to quibble with you. I don’t believe you’re off base at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2263244/posts?page=30#30
That is my take on it as well. Kid, you really made a poor decision here.
The robber is 100% responsible for the situation he created.
Fear is fear.
If you are purposely going to threaten someone else’s life, you get what you get when they respond out of the fear you created.
I have no sympathy for the perp period regardless of race. If you don’t want to take the chance of dying, don’t rob people.
Thanks...
Ditto and I think the pharmacist said he thought the punk was going for a weapon,not to mention that the guy
{the pharmacist } was disabled
That’s right.
Also, if that kid could have gotten up, do you think the pharmacist could have protected himself physically? The youth would undoubtedly have had the upper hand, and could have choked the guy out if nothing else. In reality, the kid could have taken the gun away and used it on more people than just the pharmacist too. These are aspects of the threat against the pharmacist, that the bleeding hearts will never get.
What is the law in OK, exactly? They aren’t a stand your ground, castle doctrine state?
Here in indiana, he would have been justified, even if the kid had run off and he shot him, because of the crime he was just committing. Until this I would have thought OK defense laws to be at least as open as ours, if not more so.
I totally agree if you commit a crime, and get hurt or killed, your blood is on your own head.
To me this case is even more ludicrous than the perps hurting themselves while committing a burglary and suing the home owner.
As it is, does the European-American community have a beef with the little s*its who held up this elderly white man’s store?
Once the guy entered the store with and armed accomplis, he became a target in my way of thinking. One that you keep shooting until it doesn’t move any more. A big strong 16 year old is a significant threat to a crippled old man..and two hysterical women. Unless they came up with a lot more..I would never vote to convict. In OK they will have a hard time finding 12 who will.
We can Monday morning quarterback this until the cows come home, but the Oklahoma Statute makes no mention of ‘reasonable force’ or ‘excessive force’. Was it stupid - yes. Was it illegal as the statute is currently on the books - no. Here’s a link to the statute.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=69782
I would have liked to hear the pharma guy say he felt like he was still in danger when he fired the second rounds, he should be fine if his jury is American and not Amerikan.
The best thing to say here is it is STILL better to be tried by twelve then carried by six! (Sorry...retired LEO from the mid 90's when we were good, honest cops. (I live by that today)
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
To meet “force with force” Parker would have had to in that moment present force, and Ersland could have used equal force, even to the point of deadly force, however, Parker presented no force, no weapon, no resistance that has been presented...actually, the facts tend to lead to believe Parker was incapacitated, unable to present a fight or force whatsoever. You then have to address was Ersland acting “reasonably.” In the quantum of evidense we have seen so far, it doesn’t appear Ersland was acting in a manner that was “reasonable” or even “rational.” Castle Doctrines, which the law you are presenting, even with the “stand your ground” clause, does not allow you to escape criminal prosecution if you continue to use deadly force on a suspect who is posing no imminent threat.
The very sad part to all of this, especially what I hear from numerous posters on varius boards, is this subtle undertow of “if you commit a crime, I can commit homicide, and I’m justifed!” Many are overtly advocating vigilantism as an accepted reasoning to commiting homicide, and that’s anarchy.
I don’t think anyone would argue that Ersland had the right to defend himself initially. Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case. Ersland states that he was shot on his left arm, then changed to left hand, which in every single picture of both his left hand and arm in numerous photos from various sources show no appearent bandage, or scarring or even abrasions if examined. Ersland stated he had bullets whizzing past his right side and could even hear them as they passed...when in truth, the only person who fired shots in the pharmacy was Ersland. It’s a self-justification, after the fact, to justify his homicide. Very little consistancy has emerged from Ersland’s testimony about this case.
In the end, I feel he simply made bad choices, and now has to make excuses to keep from being convicted. Everyone wants to ralley around someone defending himself against attack, and I applaud his intial response, however I do not stand behind him in firing on an incapacitated suspect. This isn’t Gunslinger, OK., where ordinary citizens can be law enforcement officers, judges, juries and executioners simultaneously. This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one.
Well put. Thank you.
actually, the facts tend to lead to believe Parker was incapacitated, unable to present a fight or force whatsoever.
According to Dr. Ersland, the only witness, the perp was moving on the floor in a manner Ersland believed to be threatening -- the kid could have been going for an as yet unseen gun.
Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case.
This is the first I've heard on this. Can you provide a link?
when in truth, the only person who fired shots in the pharmacy was Ersland.
As I understand, this is in dispute. Regardless, there's no reason Dr. Ersland should have to wait for an armed gunman or an accomplice to shoot before he can fire. One of the would-be robbers pulled a gun, Dr. Ersland has every right to defend himself against a present and very real threat.
firing on an incapacitated suspect
Again, the only witness says the perp on the ground was moving.
This IS Oklahoma where we have the right to be secure in our homes, vehicles and places of business, and if that safety is threatened by an armed thug, we can defend ourselves. That includes firing at someone who is down but is still a threat. Period.
This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one.
Nice try. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves that armed criminals should fear for their lives when attempting an illegal act. That's a good thing.
Ersland wasn't the only witness, camera's from various angles gives us many clues. Forensics also play their part. There were also 2 other employess as well. Concerning the rational that "he could have been going for an unseen gun" isn't a defense under the Castle Doctrine. Parker would have to first present a weapon. You are compelled by law and do have a duty to retreat once a threat ends. You don't get to continue to act or reinitiate contact or become the assaulter. Once the threat is ended, self-defense is over. Just think for a minute if every citizen who had a weapon acted on a perceived threat. If in the end the person you acted on, didn't actually have a weapon, you would also be charged with murder. A private citizen’s ability to use deadly force is much more restricted. Using a hypothetical threat is not "reasonable." Secondly, Ersland had no right to pursue the 14 year old armed suspect, under the law police are authorized to use whatever force is necessary. Police have the power to pursue a suspect, Civilians don’t. Ersland's testimony, so far as I have seen, doesn't lend to accuracy, but again, that's my opinion.
"Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case." This is the first I've heard on this. Can you provide a link?http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432
Again, the only witness says the perp on the ground was moving.
Well, again I state the Ersland isn't the only witness, but for the sake of your position, let's use his own testimony. Ersland states that Parker was "dazed." It would be a "reasonable" assumption that someone who is "dazed", especially if that person was bleeding out on the floor from their head, doesn't pose any imminent threat to your life. Parker would have had to reengage Ersland to justify deadly force again. No where in the Castle Defense does it provide you the right to continue to use dealy force on a subdued, incapacitated, disabled or cooperative suspect. In fact, it's the one thing that is able to remove your ability to claim a Castle Defense. It opens you up to, not only civil, but criminal prosecution. "He was moving" is not a "reasonable" defense. Parker would have to provide force upon Ersland, for Ersland to once again be justified to use deadly force. Ersland want's to state he's crippled as a justification for using deadly force the second time, but the "other witness," the camera, shows Ersland running through his pharmacy. If that is test for "crippled" or better said, disabled, where does that leave Parker under the same definition? It's my opinion that "reasonable" thought would preclude Parker with a brain injury, flat on his back on the floor poses no imminent threat whatsoever. That same "other witness," the camera, never shows Parker ever getting up.
"This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one." Nice try. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves that armed criminals should fear for their lives when attempting an illegal act. That's a good thing.
It's my opinion that it does. People who show no restraint or exercise poor judgment don't need to be running loose deadly weapons. You know what I'm saying is true. Now, is that to say that I'm not an advocate for gun ownership? Not at all! Am I saying people with poor judgment shouldn't have one? Absolutely!
Dr. Ersland wasn't just walking through the mall when he started shooting random people. He'd just been faced with an armed gunman in a ski mask. Now the companion of the gunman was on the floor moving, perhaps even talking to Dr. Ersland. This is far from a hypothetical threat. Dr. Ersland's life had just been substantially threatened.
It would be a "reasonable" assumption that someone who is "dazed", especially if that person was bleeding out on the floor from their head, doesn't pose any imminent threat to your life.
I've heard no evidence that the downed criminal was bleeding out. You seem to use a lot of colorful language to describe the condition of the criminal. He wasn't mortally wounded and fully capable of being a threat.
I interpret "dazed" differently. The criminal was likely surprised or taken aback that plans had gone awry.
"He was moving" is not a "reasonable" defense.
A ski mask wearing criminal who just attempted to rob you at gunpoint moving on the floor is most definitely a threat.
It's my opinion that "reasonable" thought would preclude Parker with a brain injury, flat on his back on the floor poses no imminent threat whatsoever. That same "other witness," the camera, never shows Parker ever getting up.
You are correct, the criminal is out of the view of the camera.
You know what I'm saying is true.
It's never wise to assume other people share your delusions.
Okay, let’s move out of the hypothetical then, Parker had no weapon. Parker threw no punches. Parker did not, after being shot, get off the floor. Parker produced no actual imminent threat to Ersland. Ersland is now on trial for murder because of it. If you choose to act in the same manner, I would summize you too will be charged with murder.
Your interpretation of a word makes no matter to me. Show me the actual imminent threat posed by Parker.
If you wish to call me delusional, you have your right to your opinion, but certainly doesn’t make your opinion right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.