Jerome 'The Vigilante Pharmicist' Ersland - not a Gulf War veteran?

[nighttrain12]

This guy may need to be locked up at the 'funny farm' rather than in jail. He sounds like he may have been sampling the merchandise at work.

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-...adlines_widget

[Bostonfan]

This guy may need to be locked up at the 'funny farm' rather than in jail. He sounds like he may have been sampling the merchandise at work.

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-...adlines_widget

I'm glad I never defended this clown.

[kevinpate]

well, in fairness, like me, he's a wee past prime in age. And the older we get, the more we tend to forget. In this instance though, at least he is consistent.

He dinna remember he was on camera when he spun a version contrary to the footage.
He dinna remember the military keeps records of where he served, and that those might be accessible.

It does, a wee bit anyways, cause one to wonder what he might not remember next week until it's trotted out to bite at him.

[dismayed]

More came out today....

http://www.newsok.com/druggist-jerom...adlines_widget

[Midtowner]

Some people forget the value of their 5th Amendment right to (in internet parlance) STFU.

[PennyQuilts]

Well, all this is consistent with what the video. Honestly, he sounds unbalanced.

[Midtowner]

Maybe they're going for an insanity plea.

-- in that case, they're doin' it wrong.

[PennyQuilts]

Maybe they're going for an insanity plea.

-- in that case, they're doin' it wrong.

I saw the guy interviewed on TV - he sounds mentally deficient. Not necessarily crazy, but very limited. Just my impression.

[possumfritter]

I for one really don't care what his military file shows; whether he served in the Army or the Air Force; or whether he was stationed in Oklahoma, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Tijuana.

In my opinion the video pretty much says it all.

I have a question though. Midtowner, maybe you can answer this? Does the family of the young boy that died have any legal basis to file suit against Ersland or the business establishment?

[Midtowner]

I have a question though. Midtowner, maybe you can answer this? Does the family of the young boy that died have any legal basis to file suit against Ersland or the business establishment?

The cause of action would be for wrongful death. If Ersland is found guilty or pleads out to a homicide crime, I think the only question is going to be damages. Damages in wrongful death cases are measured by an estimate of the lost income the kid would have produced over his lifetime and a number of other items. There can also be substantial punitive damages.

I think the pharmacy should also be on the hook as well. While ordinarily, an employer won't be held liable for the acts of its employees which are intentional torts or crimes which exceed the scope of its employment, here, I think the facts might paint a different picture. If Ersland was allowed to keep a number of firearms on the premises, then the employer seems to be validating the wrongful behavior. Further, the pharmacy might be held liable for negligent hiring and possibly negligent entrustment of a firearm. Here too, substantial punitive damages can come down as well.

The ground here for civil liability is fertile. I imagine "Speedy's" family is just waiting until the criminal aspect here wraps up.

[possumfritter]

Thank you Midtowner. And good point ECO, about OJ. But I do hope, in this case, the Jury comes back with a conviction.

[PennyQuilts]

If they could avoid some sort of intervening cause they might be able to go after the business. But it is pretty hard to imagine that someone working at the pharamacy would do something that egregious so my guess is that the pharamcy has some defenses - but an Oklahoma tort lawyer could respond better than I could.

I don't know why they couldn't go after the pharmacist, civily. Think OJ.

[BBatesokc]

I've found that basically anyone can sue anyone else for just about any reason.

I'd like to hear their argument though on damages, considering the public was probably better off with this kids death as he was headed down a very dark path.

The pharmacist's lies only strengthen my belief he should be prosecuted. In the absence of the defendant's ability to recount the events truthfully then it should be left up to a jury.

[mugofbeer]

Just for the sake of the debate, if the perp's family would have felt so badly about what happened, wasn't it the perp's mother and her boyfriend who put him up to the robbery in the first place? To have a mother who supported you to commit a crime with a gun in hand doesn't lead me to believe she really gave a hoot about her son.

[USG '60]

Just for the sake of the debate, if the perp's family would have felt so badly about what happened, wasn't it the perp's mother and her boyfriend who put him up to the robbery in the first place? To have a mother who supported you to commit a crime with a gun in hand doesn't lead me to believe she really gave a hoot about her son.

If that is the case, THEY should be in prison. I don't recall having heard that.

[mugofbeer]

Second question - if you were on the jury, knowing what you know, would you be inclined to convict Ersland of 1ST DEGREE MURDER?

[OKCisOK4me]

Second question - if you were on the jury, knowing what you know, would you be inclined to convict Ersland of 1ST DEGREE MURDER?

I would. The act of firing on the kid and killing him was a whole other separate act. What did they say? Something like 11 minutes between when the two kids first came in and he shot the kid. Yes that was deserved because it was an act of defense. One dropped, the other ran. Eleven minutes later you can go and put more bullets in an unconscious body?

I don't know, I think that if he had done that while in the armed forces he would have violated some form of the rules of engagement. I think he just wanted to 'bust a cap in dat a$$' because he never got a chance to do so in the war he was apparently never in!

[fuzzytoad]

I would. The act of firing on the kid and killing him was a whole other separate act. What did they say? Something like 11 minutes between when the two kids first came in and he shot the kid. Yes that was deserved because it was an act of defense. One dropped, the other ran. Eleven minutes later you can go and put more bullets in an unconscious body?

I don't know, I think that if he had done that while in the armed forces he would have violated some form of the rules of engagement. I think he just wanted to 'bust a cap in dat a$$' because he never got a chance to do so in the war he was apparently never in!

11 minutes???? Seriously, where are you people getting this nonsense from?

[USG '60]

Didn't we all see the video in real time? If so, I would say it was 30 seconds at the most. I could be wrong about it though. Where did that 11 minute deal come from?

[OKCisOK4me]

11 minutes???? Seriously, where are you people getting this nonsense from?

That's why I said "what did they say? Something like 11 minutes?". There was a passage of time between the time he ran out after the kid in his handicapped state with that back belt on that he always wears and the time he came back in to go grab another gun out of his little stockade and the time he walked back over to shoot the kid that was laying on the ground unconscious.

So forget about the 11 minutes. Where do you get your nonsense from that it's okay to shoot someone when they're stone cold passed out? You're right, time shouldn't have anything to do with it.

USG - when they showed that video on the news it was not a straight through play and you could see where they edited parts of it out to show the most stunning parts.

[USG '60]

OK. Where can we find out how muchtime DID pass. I still think it is a pertinent issue, at least to SOME extent. We have no proof of whether the kid was moving or not, do we?

[mugofbeer]

I can't research it where I am now but I believe that's what was reported at the time of the crime. Tell me if I am wrong.

[possumfritter]

USG 60,

I do understand better where you were coming from now. I wasn't advocating that the parents should be compensated in any way. I was merely curious if Oklahoma Statutes allowed parents to file a civil suit in a case like this.

Accept my apologies if you thought I was being critical, and that's not to say you thought that.

I might have worded my earlier comment differently if I hadn't been trying to eat a bowl of chili at the same time I was commenting.

[USG '60]

USG 60,

I do understand better where you were coming from now. I wasn't advocating that the parents should be compensated in any way. I was merely curious if Oklahoma Statutes allowed parents to file a civil suit in a case like this.

Accept my apologies if you thought I was being critical, and that's not to say you thought that.

I might have worded my earlier comment differently if I hadn't been trying to eat a bowl of chili at the same time I was commenting.

NO problem. I felt like it was an honest question. And to be thoroughly honest, if I knew every single detail of the whole thing, I might feel differently.

About 30 years ago a lady friend of mine shot and killed a kid who was staring at her through a window in the middle of the night. She first screamed bloody murder reflexively but he just stood there staring without even even wincing. Terrified she found her pistol and aimed it at him. He punched the window out and she fired in a panic. It turned out to be a retarded teenager that lived near by that she had never seen before. It literally tore her to pieces that she had killed a retarded kid ....despite her state of terror. She was not prosecuted or sued but she still suffers to this day over the incident.

I can't say that Ersland will suffer inwardly to the extent that she did, but I think it will haunt him to some degree the rest of his life unless he is a sociopath. He isn't likely to do it again.

[Midtowner]

USG 60,

I do understand better where you were coming from now. I wasn't advocating that the parents should be compensated in any way. I was merely curious if Oklahoma Statutes allowed parents to file a civil suit in a case like this.

The suit would be brought by the kid's estate and any money won would in this case probably divided among the kids heirs through the process Oklahoma has for splitting up the assets of the deceased when there's no will.