Posted on 03/06/2011 4:26:27 PM PST by smokingfrog
When Jerome Jay Ersland, has his day in court, Oklahoma's self-defense laws will be tested too. The 57-year-old-pharmacist was charged with first-degree murder as a result of shooting death that took place May 19, 2009.
Two teenage boys entered the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City where Ersland worked, but Ersland was able to chase only one of the youths out the door of the store. The other youth, 16-year-old Antwun Parker, was shot by Ersland six times.
Oklahoma was among the first states to enact the self-defense legislation referred to as the Make My Day law. The law, named after Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry, provided that Oklahoma residents had the right to defend themselves by using deadly force, if necessary, in their homes without fear of criminal or civil action.
In 2006, State Sen. Harry Coates authored legislation that extended those rights of self-defense to include persons in or on motor-operated vehicles and at businesses. That bill, known as the Stand Your Ground law, passed the Oklahoma legislature with only nine opposing votes.
At first glance, it would seem Ersland had nothing to fear from the criminal justice system when he protected himself and his female co-workers from the two robbers. But as often happens, there is more to the story.
The store's videotape of that day shows that Ersland first shot Parker in the head. Parker went to the floor. After Ersland chased the younger of the two youths out of the pharmacy's door, he came back into the store and picked up another gun. With that gun the pharmacist shot Parker five additional times, this time in the abdomen.
The original autopsy was reported to show that Parker did not die from the head wound but from the wounds to his abdomen.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
And that’s the issue. No one knows one way or the other, and the video doesn’t tell the whole story. The pharmacist is being prosecuted due to neighborhood / racial pressure.
Involuntary Manslaughter, 10 years probation. He walks out of the coutroom.
At the end of the day, the man’s mental state from the firefight is going to be the x factor....
The defense is going to pile on example after example of cops gone wild, as one of the above posters pointed out, and will find a psychiatrist to testify that the average person cannot turn the switch on and off.
And...JFTR...He did the right thing.
You don’t know if the guy is getting back up, whatever.
A threat stops being a threat when It’s dead.
And the refusal to consider prosecution would have done more to prevent future crimes, and or killings than passing the law itself.
Then the grounds that you do have is that you believe that was murder... or are you saying that you are a capricious and wicked man with no regard for the law and you would deny justice to a man whose only failing is that you don't agree with his actions?
Furthermore, would you still consider it to be murder in similar circumstances:
Like, say, a couple of thugs breaking into a police-station where an officer grabs a gun and fights back, hitting one anf then giving chase to the other; upon his return he claims that the thug he shot made a grab for him so he shot him five more times.
Would that be murder?
I was addressing this issue, if you want to play some child’s what if game, find a kid to play with you.
Ah, so then it is murder because the pharmacist was not a cop.
Good to know that your concept of justice includes the respect of persons rather than the law.
Agreed. That was murder, not defense.
The guy he killed was unarmed. The first shot was fine, but going back to shoot an unarmed man lying on the ground with a head wound is not acceptable.
You know what they say about people that ask questions and then answer their own question and claim they made a brilliant point. What does one of those straight jackets feel like???
“He was disabled and had limited mobility.”
He moved pretty darn quick and easy for a disabled man...
Yeah, I've got a real problem with shooting attackers lying flat on their back, no longer in possession of their weapons, and with gaping bullet wounds to the head. Absolutely. Anyone with a room temperature IQ can discern that he was no longer an attacker at that point. This was an execution, and the pharmacist has to pay one way or the other.
The two critical things, to my mind:
1.) The perp who was shot is out of frame on the video. We don’t know what he was doing. Any doctor that claims he can tell you *beyond any reasonable doubt* is lying.
2.) The pharmacist is running on an adrenaline-driven fight-or-flight response. His brain barely has time to process what’s going on. If not self-defense, what is his supposed motive for shooting the guy? Remember, this is SECONDS after he is assaulted by an armed accomplice. I would not want to be judged for going into sort of an aggressive-survival psychological mode in that situation.
Above all, and everyone who owns a firearm they would use in self-defense, must know these words and these words only after a self-defense shooting: "I will not make a statement without a lawyer present".
Mr. Ersland would not be facing charges if he had said these words to the police and these words only.
The police would have had to show his attorney the video and his lawyer would have made a statement on his behalf "My client saw a threatening move from the subject and was afraid for his life and the life of his employees".
End of story, police saying have a nice day and the DA making a statement there is not enough evidence to charge Ersland.
Never, ever, ever, talk to the police without an attorney no matter how righteous you think your actions were.
Excellent advise.
In addition, I too have viewed the video, and the suspect inside on the floor moved prior to being shot the second time by robbery victim. If he moves it clearly indicates the suspect is potentially a credible threat.
End of story...
Not guilty.
How did the robbery victim know positively the suspect who moving was unarmed and was not on the verge of producing a weapon or an additional weapon?
There is no way the robbery victim would have known this.
By that standard, every robbery victim should shoot and kill every robber, and never stop until the robber is dead. That wouldn’t bother me much, but I don’t admire it either.
That is not what I said or even suggested. I said:
How did the robbery victim know positively the suspect who was moving was unarmed and was not on the verge of producing a weapon or an additional weapon?
Instead of evading the question, feel free to answer it.
Let’s see...bad guy slumped on the floor with a head wound. The owner felt comfortable walking past him and getting a second gun. If he’d been if fear of his life, he’d have clubbed the guy as he went by. No sign of fear while returning to the guy. No indication he was thinking, “This guy is pulling a gun and going to shoot me...”
Yep, and the suspect was NOT moving at that time.
The robbery suspect on the floor moved prior to being shot the second time. This would indicate the suspect was still a potential threat. No?
Again, how did the robbery victim know positively the suspect who suddenly started moving again was unarmed and was not on the verge of producing a weapon or an additional weapon?
Without addressing this case in particular, the problem is that people like yourself suggest saying such things without absolutely no respect for the veracity of the statement. I have no problem with a citizen telling the police, "I saw a threatening move" when it's the truth. I do however have a huge problem with using it as a stock defense even when the citizen did not see a threatening move. Call me old fashioned, but I value honesty over expedience. Lying to get your ass out of a sling is still lying.
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.