Almost sounds like you'd rather he'd gotten away with it. : )

Not saying I would have lost any sleep over it. I can point to three other shooting cases in the last couple of years that had similar facts that did not result in charges. But, charges were filed in this case, so I gotta take a side.

I should think that a police officer would be less startled or horrified to suddenly find himself/herself facing a violent criminal. Knowing you have backup, knowing that there is a protocol and a way to handle these things, thinking about what they would do ahead of time, generally coming in responding to an ongoing situation puts a police officer in a whole different category than a civilian who suddenly is thrust into a situation with a violent criminal who is pointing a gun at them and threatening to blow their head off.

I know, like I said it's a horrible situation to be in. But that doesn't all of a sudden make him not guilty for executing someone.

Then he's an idiot for not remembering there is a video camera in his own store.

Only situation I could see was the first shot to the kid's head. Fatal or not. Jury has to decide, even tho the ME should be the one to decide, I guess the jury is the one to agree or not, but ME is the professional, so I'm not sure how the jury are even given that decision.

He may be unconscious, but was he dead or not. I dunno. If not dead, would he been dead anyway? I dunno. This is tough for the jury to debate.

True. Just saying he could have been reaching for anything, but no exception, such reaching action warrants such force. Its like, when the police tell you to put your hand up, but you reach into your pocket to get a pen or whatever, police will empty their chambers onto you.

I cannot "empty my chambers" into you if you reach into your pocket. You will be covered by a weapon until I can determine further.
Emptying said chambers will send me to prison as well if its later proven.

I know, like I said it's a horrible situation to be in. But that doesn't all of a sudden make him not guilty for executing someone.
No, it doesn't. The jury will have to decide if he executed him or just freaked out or what.

Hey, i dont know much about law or what really happened in this case, but isn't there a "make my day" law in oklahoma? why doesn't this apply for the pharmacy and pharmacist, maybe it should.

Hey, i dont know much about law or what really happened in this case, but isn't there a "make my day" law in oklahoma? why doesn't this apply for the pharmacy and pharmacist, maybe it should.

Add, you don't know much about "make my day" and the legal elements it requires.

Make my day simply reinforces your right to defend yourself from immanent danger.

On a side note.... Looks like a potential juror is facing perjury charges for claiming she didn't know anything about the Ersland case, but her Facebook page proved different.

Hey, i dont know much about law or what really happened in this case, but isn't there a "make my day" law in oklahoma? why doesn't this apply for the pharmacy and pharmacist, maybe it should.

Part of me agrees with the notion that if someone tries to rob someone, they ought to be agreeing to be gunned down. Part of me. Not all of me. And this was a kid, for heaven's sake - used by an older man who was a gutless b*stard.

I'm not sure that prosecuting someone for this serves much of a purpose, actually. The kid is just as dead and the next kid is certainly not going to think, "Hey, if he shoots me, at least he'll go to jail!"

On a side note.... Looks like a potential juror is facing perjury charges for claiming she didn't know anything about the Ersland case, but her Facebook page proved different.

Who checks the facebook pages? Is that standard? I hope they do hit her with some charge - that is ridiculous.

Who checks the facebook pages? Is that standard? I hope they do hit her with some charge - that is ridiculous.

Don't know who caught it. But I've been hired to do checks on jurors before to see if they lied or have an undisclosed bias.

Who checks the facebook pages? Is that standard? I hope they do hit her with some charge - that is ridiculous.

To answer your question, if they have a brain in their heads, both sides do more thorough backgrounds nowadays. Also, twitter, myspace, hi5, etc., etc., etc. Especially in higher profile matters.

No one, criminal case or civil case, wants to seat a juror who looks you in the eye and tells you 'sure, you get a fair shake from me, solely on what I hear here, absolutely' when that person may well be predisposed to the position of the other side of the case.

Part of me agrees with the notion that if someone tries to rob someone, they ought to be agreeing to be gunned down. Part of me. Not all of me. And this was a kid, for heaven's sake - used by an older man who was a gutless b*stard.

I'm not sure that prosecuting someone for this serves much of a purpose, actually. The kid is just as dead and the next kid is certainly not going to think, "Hey, if he shoots me, at least he'll go to jail!"

Maybe, just maybe, the next guy who's business is held up, will protect himself as the law requires. Then he will simply leave the place of business and not come back to unload on the robber who's no longer a threat.

Hey, i dont know much about law or what really happened in this case, but isn't there a "make my day" law in oklahoma? why doesn't this apply for the pharmacy and pharmacist, maybe it should.

If I had a dime for every time I've heard this... regardless of the "Make my day law," you still must be able to articulate that your or your loved one's life was in immediate danger or that you or another were in immediate danger of serious bodily injury.
Only other exception I can think of is to prevent rape.

If I had a dime for every time I've heard this... regardless of the "Make my day law," you still must be able to articulate that your or your loved one's life was in immediate danger or that you or another were in immediate danger of serious bodily injury.
Only other exception I can think of is to prevent rape.

Right. And Ersland was not in any kind of danger from Parker when he left the building. He should have stayed outside. Ersland choosing to re-enter the building I'm sure will be one of the biggest points of the prosecution.

Right. And Ersland was not in any kind of danger from Parker when he left the building. He should have stayed outside. Ersland choosing to re-enter the building I'm sure will be one of the biggest points of the prosecution.

Not really. He had to come back in to make sure the ladies inside is safe. The kid could have something in his pocket/clothes.

Not really. He had to come back in to make sure the ladies inside is safe. The kid could have something in his pocket/clothes.

You can't fire five hits into someone because the "might" have something in their pocket... especially when they're lying motionless.

I don't remember seeing the boy's hands in the video. I dunno.

Not really. He had to come back in to make sure the ladies inside is safe. The kid could have something in his pocket/clothes.

Has he actually ever said that? You also can't just shoot whomever walks in because they "could" have something in their pocket or clothes. Well, I guess you "can," but it would put you in jail.

Has he actually ever said that? You also can't just shoot whomever walks in because they "could" have something in their pocket or clothes. Well, I guess you "can," but it would put you in jail.

Don't twist it. This was happening after all the robbery attempt and shootout. He doesn't know if that kid had a gun or not.

Don't know who caught it. But I've been hired to do checks on jurors before to see if they lied or have an undisclosed bias.

I think it is a great idea. I used to do things like that in custody cases. All I can say is that some people are idiots... I was just wondering if it was a prosecution policy or was left up to the individual to decide if they want to do that.

Are there differences in the make my day law in a place of business as opposed to a homeowner?

Maybe, just maybe, the next guy who's business is held up, will protect himself as the law requires. Then he will simply leave the place of business and not come back to unload on the robber who's no longer a threat.

And just maybe he'll say a prayer on his way out, hoping the would be robber doesn't pull a gun from his pocket and shoot him in the back as he walks out the door.

[/B]

And just maybe he'll say a prayer on his way out, hoping the would be robber doesn't pull a gun from his pocket and shoot him in the back as he walks out the door.

Do you simply ignore the facts of this case to stir things up, or are you that ignorant? The guy left the building, then came back, then turned his back to the kid to get a gun, walked over and unloaded on him. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Do you simply ignore the facts of this case to stir things up, or are you that ignorant? The guy left the building, then came back, then turned his back to the kid to get a gun, walked over and unloaded on him. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I'd say Temporary Insanity. With that, no one know what one would do under such situation. We all react differently.

[/B]

And just maybe he'll say a prayer on his way out, hoping the would be robber doesn't pull a gun from his pocket and shoot him in the back as he walks out the door.
Must be what Ersland did.

I see where Antwuns mother filed a wrongful death case against Mr Ersland today. This isnt suprising that shes trying to hit the lotto maybe she can pay the numerous landlords who have filed suit against her for rent past due. And she wonders why her "good boy who loved to draw and play basketball" was out robbing pharmacies.

I see where Antwuns mother filed a wrongful death case against Mr Ersland today. This isnt suprising that shes trying to hit the lotto maybe she can pay the numerous landlords who have filed suit against her for rent past due. And she wonders why her "good boy who loved to draw and play basketball" was out robbing pharmacies.

Exactly. She just want the money, but not to pay landlords. We all know what she will obviously do with the money...

He may have "loved to draw and play basketball," but he chose the life of doing harm toward others. The price of that is death.

None of us should ever feel sorry for him or the mother.

As for the Pharmacist, its back 'n forth with all these mixed opinions.

Do you simply ignore the facts of this case to stir things up, or are you that ignorant? The guy left the building, then came back, then turned his back to the kid to get a gun, walked over and unloaded on him. Why is this so difficult to understand?


Like Brian, you both claim to know/have all the facts whcich is pure BS. I wasn't there, and neither were you, Brian or MattB, and if anyone say's without a doubt exactly how they would react, they are being dishonest at the least.

Just like you, I'm entitled to and have and voice my opinion, and it's my opinion that Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong and should be found not guilty.

Like Brian, you both claim to know/have all the facts whcich is pure BS. I wasn't there, and neither were you, Brian or MattB, and if anyone say's without a doubt exactly how they would react, they are being dishonest at the least.

Just like you, I'm entitled to and have and voice my opinion, and it's my opinion that Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong and should be found not guilty.

I've been involved in dozens of armed confrontations... and I've been shot, too. Speak for yourself.

I've been involved in dozens of armed confrontations... and I've been shot, too. Speak for yourself.

Don't know where or when you have served the public as an officer, and thanks for you service, but I still think Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong, and should be found not guilty.

Don't know where or when you have served the public as an officer, and thanks for you service, but I still think Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong, and should be found not guilty.

I am curious, exactly what was it that you think he did nothing wrong of?

Don't know where or when you have served the public as an officer, and thanks for you service, but I still think Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong, and should be found not guilty.
Thank you for the support.
Lets just say (Not that I think one of your family members would do so) that your son falls in with a wrong crowd, gets hooked on drugs, whatever. I wind up in a confrontation with him where he points a gun at me, and I shoot him, knocking him to the ground, lying motionless, gun thrown clear of his hand. Are you saying you'd be okay with me walking over and shooting him five more times?

Thank you for the support.
Lets just say (Not that I think one of your family members would do so) that your son falls in with a wrong crowd, gets hooked on drugs, whatever. I wind up in a confrontation with him where he points a gun at me, and I shoot him, knocking him to the ground, lying motionless, gun thrown clear of his hand. Are you saying you'd be okay with me walking over and shooting him five more times?

Talk about comparing apples to oranges !!, he was inside a business with another robber (armed) and his co-workers. Again, while you may have watched more footage than we have, you can't claim to have all of the facts and evidence that will be presented.

Talk about comparing apples to oranges !!, he was inside a business with another robber (armed) and his co-workers. Again, while you may have watched more footage than we have, you can't claim to have all of the facts and evidence that will be presented.

People on this forum was saying in official report, the dead guy was not armed.

I cant help but think back in the day this whole thing woulda been swept under the rug. One less criminal off the street gone and forgotten. But in todays world of political correctness and multiculturism the hero here is actually made out to bad guy while Antwun is looked upon as the poor misguided youth while the mother is looking for a payday by filing a wrongful death suit.
This whole thing makes me sick.

I cant help but think back in the day this whole thing woulda been swept under the rug. One less criminal off the street gone and forgotten. But in todays world of political correctness and multiculturism the hero here is actually made out to bad guy while Antwun is looked upon as the poor misguided youth while the mother is looking for a payday by filing a wrongful death suit.
This whole thing makes me sick.

You're losing your perspective. Antwun was a POS, but Erland went too far by executing him. Defending yourself is acceptable. This isn't.

So it looks like Erslands best defense is to claim that the first shot offed him therefore any remaining shots would not matter. I cant help but feel sorry for the poor guy. He seems like he may be a tad off kilter and i recall hearing he had been robbed before and was tired of if...not that that would matter in the case. He was put in horrible situation.

Don't twist it. This was happening after all the robbery attempt and shootout. He doesn't know if that kid had a gun or not.

Then don't you twist it, either. You're speculating.

So it looks like Erslands best defense is to claim that the first shot offed him therefore any remaining shots would not matter. I cant help but feel sorry for the poor guy. He seems like he may be a tad off kilter and i recall hearing he had been robbed before and was tired of if...not that that would matter in the case. He was put in horrible situation.

He can't do that now since he's already justified his actions by stating on the record that he shot Parker because he was still moving and trying to get up. Also, the ME's report contradicts that and is clear Parker was alive when Ersland shot him 5 more times.

Speaking of, I noticed Trant is not on the list to be called to testify even though he was the Chief ME at the time and did the autopsy and concluded the first shot to Parker's head was not life threatening.

Like Brian, you both claim to know/have all the facts whcich is pure BS. I wasn't there, and neither were you, Brian or MattB, and if anyone say's without a doubt exactly how they would react, they are being dishonest at the least.

Just like you, I'm entitled to and have and voice my opinion, and it's my opinion that Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong and should be found not guilty.

Why does it matter if no one knows how we would react? Many of us don't know how we would react to much of anything. So he's not guilty because no one knows how we would react? Brilliant

This is a pretty good article that sums up how screwed Ersland is......

http://newsok.com/article/3568497

Do you simply ignore the facts of this case to stir things up, or are you that ignorant? The guy left the building, then came back, then turned his back to the kid to get a gun, walked over and unloaded on him. Why is this so difficult to understand?


Like Brian, you both claim to know/have all the facts which is pure BS. I wasn't there, and neither were you, Brian or MattB, and if anyone say's without a doubt exactly how they would react, they are being dishonest at the least.

Just like you, I'm entitled to and have and voice my opinion, and it's my opinion that Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong and should be found not guilty.

They don't have to know "everything" to see that the video clearly shows Ersland leaving the store, returning, walking right past the kid on the floor (which should mean he wasn't too worried about the kid attacking him), getting the second gun and unloading it. I wish he weren't guilty. I'd really like to see him get a medal. But the law is the law and in my opinion he broke it.

Don't twist it. This was happening after all the robbery attempt and shootout. He doesn't know if that kid had a gun or not.

What shootout? The robbers never fired a shot.

Don't know where or when you have served the public as an officer, and thanks for you service, but I still think Mr. Ersland did nothing wrong, and should be found not guilty.

I don't know if you've watched the store video but when do you think the imminent threat was over?

This guy sounds like he was cracked long before the robbers showed up. Part of me wants to take the position that when you rob someone, you take the chance that they won't be rational/merciful. That would be an excellent deterrent. But the bigger part of me is that this was a stupid kid who was sent in there by a middle aged coward brought into the kid's life by negligent family members. The deck was stacked against him and you might just as well have sent in an 8 year old for all the judgment he was capable of. Had this been an adult, I don't think I would be nearly as sympathetic. Killing kids when you don't have to - I can't get past that.

Makes you wonder why he didn't set up shop in a nicer part of town ^^

Makes you wonder why he didn't set up shop in a nicer part of town ^^

Ersland? He was probably pretty lucky to have had the job at Reliable Discount Pharmacy. He has zero social skills and only works part time. Plus RDP pays pharmacists a lot less than other pharmacies.

Its really amazing to see the amount of people that seem to be against Mr Ersland. There is something called cause and effect and action and reaction. If the thugs didnt decide to commit a felony none of this would even matter. What if Ersland wasnt carrying that day? Would we be talking about a pharmacist and female employess lined up and shot in the back room? And shouldnt the mother take some responsiblilty in this instead of proclaiming my son was a hero and looking for a payday? Regardless whether or not Ersland has any social skills or works full or part time hes surely making a better contribution to society then commiting felonys or having numerous cases against you for unpaid rent I have also heard that Antwun already had a lenghty rap sheet but i cant find anything online to confirm/deny this.
Everything in this case is so twisted so upside down its enough to make your head swim. Dosnt anyone have the guts to speak up and tell the mother that her son was comitting a violent felony and sometimes when you put yourself in these types of situations the outcome can be tragic?

Achilles, everything you said, IMO, has truth in it. But I can't go for killing an unarmed teen who was down - just can't.

The fact is, the whole situation is twisted, as you say. The kid did wrong, and not like in cheating on a math test. He was engaged in a violent, outrageous act and if I were a betting woman, I'd wager that prison or death was in his future no matter what - just a question of time. His family is a perfect example of how our society props up and enables families that have no business having children. We pay them to continue a lifestyle that damns a child to a world where he/she is surrounded by criminals and/or predators. Education is not stressed. The kids are bounced around. Yank out the public financial support for a family like that and the child would end up in foster care or they'd straighten up and get a job. If the kid had been taken from his mother and put into foster care, it would have been hard but he'd have had a far better chance at getting an education and staying alive. All the do gooders want to help by giving the mother public funding but all they do, most of the time, is trap a kid in an awful situation. If it was their own child living like that, they'd wake up every night screaming from nightmares that probably were pretty close to what was actually happening to their child.

Its really amazing to see the amount of people that seem to be against Mr Ersland. There is something called cause and effect and action and reaction. If the thugs didnt decide to commit a felony none of this would even matter. What if Ersland wasn't carrying that day? Would we be talking about a pharmacist and female employess lined up and shot in the back room? And shouldn't the mother take some responsibility in this instead of proclaiming my son was a hero and looking for a payday? Regardless whether or not Ersland has any social skills or works full or part time hes surely making a better contribution to society then committing felonys or having numerous cases against you for unpaid rent I have also heard that Antwun already had a lenghty rap sheet but i cant find anything online to confirm/deny this.
Everything in this case is so twisted so upside down its enough to make your head swim.Doesn'tt anyone have the guts to speak up and tell the mother that her son wascommittingg a violent felony and sometimes when you put yourself in these types of situations the outcome can be tragic?

I actually agree with you completely. The kid was scum and, as I've said before, I'd like to see Ersland get a medal. But, the courts are supposed to uphold current law, not do what might be morally right. And Ersland broke the law that the court is supposed to uphold. I also agree, if he hadn't had a gun at all it might have been the end for three innocent people. But, he went too far in re-entering the building, walking almost over the kid, getting a second gun and unlaoding it. As it is, if Ersland is found not guilty it could set up a precedent that could be used for anti-personal defense activists to use to try to overturn "Make My Day" and concealed carry. I don't want to see that happen.

Its really amazing to see the amount of people that seem to be against Mr Ersland. There is something called cause and effect and action and reaction. If the thugs didnt decide to commit a felony none of this would even matter. What if Ersland wasnt carrying that day? Would we be talking about a pharmacist and female employess lined up and shot in the back room? And shouldnt the mother take some responsiblilty in this instead of proclaiming my son was a hero and looking for a payday? Regardless whether or not Ersland has any social skills or works full or part time hes surely making a better contribution to society then commiting felonys or having numerous cases against you for unpaid rent I have also heard that Antwun already had a lenghty rap sheet but i cant find anything online to confirm/deny this.
Everything in this case is so twisted so upside down its enough to make your head swim. Dosnt anyone have the guts to speak up and tell the mother that her son was comitting a violent felony and sometimes when you put yourself in these types of situations the outcome can be tragic?

I'm not against Ersland, I'm against his actions. Actions that were not justified by Ingram and Parker's criminal behavior.

Ersland had every opportunity to do the right and legal thing and he made a conscious choice not to. Then, after the fact he tried to coverup his illegal actions with a multitude of lies.

I may market myself as a 'Vigilante' but in reality my actions are limited to what is allowed by law. Ersland was a Vigilante that day in the same vain of vigilantes who would work outside and in contrast to the law by shooting, burning or stringing up those they deemed guilty of a crime without the benefit of a judge or jury and they imposed the death penalty.

'Cause and effect' is not a legal defense by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is "what if?" Also the mother's role is of no concern to the court.

Actually the gutsy thing is being brave enough to know how despicable Ingram and Parker were but still be able to hold Ersland to a higher standard ~ and that standard being the law. I'm not saying all laws should go unquestioned, but this one obviously exists for a very good reason.

I'm not against Ersland, I'm against his actions. Actions that were not justified by Ingram and Parker's criminal behavior.

'Cause and effect' is not a legal defense by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is "what if?" Also the mother's role is of no concern to the court.

Actually the gutsy thing is being brave enough to know how despicable Ingram and Parker were but still be able to hold Ersland to a higher standard ~ and that standard being the law. I'm not saying all laws should go unquestioned, but this one obviously exists for a very good reason.

People are emotionally involved with the case, and you really can't be. You have to look at the facts here, and the law. Just because someone is "bad" or "made a bad decision" doesn't mean that anyone else can execute them at will. There are laws for a reason, and those laws weren't put into place lightly.

Why does it matter if no one knows how we would react? Many of us don't know how we would react to much of anything. So he's not guilty because no one knows how we would react? Brilliant

Thank you, I thought so myself.

I'm not against Ersland, I'm against his actions. Actions that were not justified by Ingram and Parker's criminal behavior.

Ersland had every opportunity to do the right and legal thing and he made a conscious choice not to. Then, after the fact he tried to coverup his illegal actions with a multitude of lies.

I may market myself as a 'Vigilante' but in reality my actions are limited to what is allowed by law. Ersland was a Vigilante that day in the same vain of vigilantes who would work outside and in contrast to the law by shooting, burning or stringing up those they deemed guilty of a crime without the benefit of a judge or jury and they imposed the death penalty.

'Cause and effect' is not a legal defense by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is "what if?" Also the mother's role is of no concern to the court.

Actually the gutsy thing is being brave enough to know how despicable Ingram and Parker were but still be able to hold Ersland to a higher standard ~ and that standard being the law. I'm not saying all laws should go unquestioned, but this one obviously exists for a very good reason.

Now that's funny, I (and probably most), remember a different situation not that long ago.

Now that's funny, I (and probably most), remember a different situation not that long ago.

Sounds like you remember the facts around my situation about as well as you remember Ersland's (which isn't saying much). Lets see, mine was all dropped and I never skipped a beat. Don't see Ersland's ending quite the same way.

As it is, if Ersland is found not guilty it could set up a precedent that could be used for anti-personal defense activists to use to try to overturn "Make My Day" and concealed carry. I don't want to see that happen.

Not at all, Sooner. He was gold up until he executed the kid. He was completely within the law in shooting him, and would have been in shooting Ingram. He could have kept himself safe by covering Antwun with his weapon from cover and calling 911. Instead, he made sure the kid had no chance for survival. He exceeded his rights with action, and no one ever had that right.

Thank you, I thought so myself.

That people are in a high stress situation doesn't absolve them of their actions. You don't get a free pass to follow any and all impulse because your flight or fight response has been triggered.

Tune in to FOX25 tonight. I gave them an exclusive tip regarding a juror's misconduct that I believe Phil Cross is reporting on tonight.

Tune in to FOX25 tonight. I gave them an exclusive tip regarding a juror's misconduct that I believe Phil Cross is reporting on tonight.

Brian, what does a juror's private life have to do with the case? And, why in the world are you giving FOX25 an interview/tip? That is stepping over the line a bit, Brian, as it does not really concern you. I do not know why you would put yourself in this situation. Please, explain to me.