Self defense - Racist style

[OKCMallen]

At best for him, I can maybe see manslaughter because he was in the heat of the moment, but there's no way he's getting off completely free.

[PennyQuilts]

You'd think that... after listening to a bit of Mark Shannon on the way back to my office after bar review classes and some of his callers, not to mention a few of the posts in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of folks have no earthly idea how what the law is regarding self-defense using deadly force and where that privilege begins and ends.

That's why I say (and repeat) someone is going to use a firearm for self-defense, they should really take a class. This is not an area where you can afford to make a mistake.

This guy is a vet. I have to suspect he is a member of the NRA - but I could be wrong, of course. If he is remotely close to an NRA member, he is going to be deluged with people, writings, etc., pointing out the difference between lawful and unlawful shooting. Nothing the NRA hates more than stupid shootings. They educate their members. The way he used that gun suggests to me that he knew firearms. Which suggests that he is a gun guy and likely goes to the range unless he is out at Dave's ranch. If he is taking the time to go to the range, he is around people who know guns and gun law.

This guy wasn't some stupid gangbanger who takes a stolen gun and shoots it like how he sees in the movies. He knows guns. He made a head shot, then finished the kid off at his widest point. That is how you're taught to shoot.

[Midtowner]

This guy is a vet. I have to suspect he is a member of the NRA - but I could be wrong, of course. If he is remotely close to an NRA member, he is going to be deluged with people, writings, etc., pointing out the difference between lawful and unlawful shooting. Nothing the NRA hates more than stupid shootings. They educate their members. The way he used that gun suggests to me that he knew firearms. Which suggests that he is a gun guy and likely goes to the range unless he is out at Dave's ranch. If he is taking the time to go to the range, he is around people who know guns and gun law.

This guy wasn't some stupid gangbanger who takes a stolen gun and shoots it like how he sees in the movies. He knows guns. He made a head shot, then finished the kid off at his widest point. That is how you're taught to shoot.

In that case, Murder in the First Degree sounds about right.

[PennyQuilts]

In that case, Murder in the First Degree sounds about right.

He also had a concealed carry permit. Doesn't that have classes that cover the law?

[Thunder]

I'm just sitting here, laughing at the DA for being an idiot and ruining his own career. I don't think the people would elect him ever again.

The video doesn't show the kid, so for the DA to say certain details is outright stupid.

I still stand with what I see, he ran out of the bullets for the first gun, went back to get another gun, just in case, and after getting the second gun, the kid was moving/getting up. Armed or not, the man had to shoot, of course, he feared of what could happen.

1. Pharm shoots (and hits in the head) unarmed perp after perp's partner has pointed weapons at the pharm and employees.

This is a bad thing....why? He was being shot at, of course, he's gonna be shooting back at them all. SELF DEFENSE

2. Pharm continues to shoot at armed perp after unarmed perp fell down and stayed down.

Again....bad thing, why?! Of course, he should continue to be shooting at the ARMED PERP!!! Who cares about the unarmed perp fallen to the floor! Stayed down?! Excuse me, moronic DA, the video doesn't show that!!!

3. Pharm chased armed perp out of store, passing by unarmed perp.

Another bad thing, why?! So, it is wrong to chase the ARMED PERP out of the store?! Moronic DA seem to be somewhere in La La Land!

4. After chasing armed perp to no avail, pharm comes back into store, where unarmed perp is still on the ground.

Yeah, duh! The kid tried to rob and threatened to kill him!

5. Pharm walks past unarmed perp without incident or apparent fear.

So, what?! Upon walking back to the counter, the kid was laying there, doing nothing, so what is there to fear about?! It's a crime to walk past the stupid kid?! Of course, the man was scared! For the DA to say he wasn't is utterly disgusting!

6. Pharm gets the other gun, calmly walks over to fallen perp, and delivers a cylinder full of bullets into his stomach, which kills unarmed perp.

So, it is a crime to get the other gun?! The video doesn't even show the said body on the ground! The kid could've easily had tried to get up, or reach to his pocket for a weapon, so that WARRANTS the 2nd round of shooting in SELF DEFENSE. The man had no clue if he was armed or not. We all definately know the man felt that the kid had a weapon. Maybe the kid was reaching for his cell phone to call for help, even with that movement, the man assumed he was reaching for a weapon. Still...SELF DEFENSE.

DA... DAVID PRATER... YOU SCREWED UP. PERIOD.

[PennyQuilts]

Maybe you're right, Thunder. We'll see.

[drum4no1]

I'm just sitting here, laughing at the DA for being an idiot and ruining his own career. I don't think the people would elect him ever again.

The video doesn't show the kid, so for the DA to say certain details is outright stupid.

I still stand with what I see, he ran out of the bullets for the first gun, went back to get another gun, just in case, and after getting the second gun, the kid was moving/getting up. Armed or not, the man had to shoot, of course, he feared of what could happen.



DA... DAVID PRATER... YOU SCREWED UP. PERIOD.

Im sorry but none of that holds any water. He didnt fear anything. If he was scared he wouldnt have turned his back.

Prater didnt break his career, he did what he is bound to do.

[Thunder]

Im sorry but none of that holds any water. He didnt fear anything. If he was scared he wouldnt have turned his back.

Prater didnt break his career, he did what he is bound to do.

I wouldn't be that scared when a body is just laying there, but when there is movement, I will finish the shots to be safe.

[drum4no1]

I wouldn't be that scared when a body is just laying there, but when there is movement, I will finish the shots to be safe.

The point is you cant do that. If he dosent pose a threat your self defense is over. Hes almost dead and dosent have a gun in his hand. Maybe the kid did move, maybe its a seizure. Either way he couldnt have posed a threat.

Self defense dosent mean you can wildly shoot a person that dosent pose a threat anymore.

First shot to the head, clean and legal, the other 5 not imo

Were not in the movies or the wild west. Gun ownership isnt a free ticket to blast away.

[so1rfan]

Thunder,

Under #5 you say the kid was lying there, doing nothing.

Under #6 you think the kid moving around trying to get up, etc.

This is what the jury is going to have to decide and will be the basis of the defense.

I say if the man walked by and turned his back to the perp, thenhe felt the perp pretty much wasn't much of a threat to him anymore.

[DaveSkater]

Just for example, what if while the pharmacist walked past, he notices that the kid's injury is survivable (which cooincides with what the DA said). And laying there stunned trying to get up says something to the effect of: I'm gonna kill you mutha#(@@#! While reaching around in his pocket?

None of the video angles can contradict this, or something equally as threatening. Either way, that vet is 100percent disabled. Even if that kid got up unarmed, he could conceivably kill the guy bare handed. (he also may be unable to turn his head, thus the turning his back on him)

Besides, this is the same store that got hit a once before. It ended badly.
These guys were ready this time....

I agree with the sentiments about having the national guard ready for the verdict. It's gonna turn into a race issue. As always.

So stupid.

[drumsncode]

I look at it this way. If it's okay to kill the robber with the first shot, then the other shots were just to compensate for the poor aim in the first place.

The cops get away with killing suspects like that all the time, they just don't stop to switch guns, they just empty their clips into a guy to make sure he doesn't survive, then claim that they felt threatened and they always get off on all charges. If it works for the cops, it should work for civilians.

Cops aren't required to shoot just once and then evaluate the health of the suspect to see if there is still a threat. You see it all the time on videos, 4 cops unloading full clips at some guy who climbs out of a car and reaches into his pocket. They're not concerned with anything but killing him.

So the guy took 11 seconds to kill the robber. Is there a standard rate at which you have to fire? How about if he fired just one gun and took two seconds between each bullet to re-aim the gun? Would that be okay or should he have taken the subject's pulse between each shot to determine if he was still a threat? Do the cops do that when unloading a clip into a suspect?

Or how about if he didn't have a gun and just decided to beat him to death with a bat? Is he allowed to strike him only a couple times before re-evaluating the robber's health?

Give me a break.

[DaveSkater]

I stand by my analysis of the available video. There's not enough evidence to convict. Much less charge with MURDER 1! It's not like that pharmacist thought, "I think I'll kill somebody today."
Quite the opposite. He went to work that day. And surely saved the lives of his two cooworkers and his own. It was the punks that decided their fate. And now possibly his.

[drum4no1]

But we all hope that the police are a little more highly trained in threat assessment and management.

Police arent perfect but im confident they would have a more level head in the same situation as Ersland was.


If Ersland dosent serve time his days are numbered. Its only a matter of time before some more of those " fine upstanding honor students" return to finish him off

[so1rfan]

Just for example, what if while the pharmacist walked past, he notices that the kid's injury is survivable (which cooincides with what the DA said). And laying there stunned trying to get up says something to the effect of: I'm gonna kill you mutha#(@@#! While reaching around in his pocket?

None of the video angles can contradict this, or something equally as threatening. Either way, that vet is 100percent disabled. Even if that kid got up unarmed, he could conceivably kill the guy bare handed. (he also may be unable to turn his head, thus the turning his back on him)

Would you turn your back on him? or would you walk backwards and keep an eye on him? drumnscode said it took 11 seconds, how long was his back turned to him?

This is going to be tough tough tough on a jury.

Be best if they let him plea it down to a lesser charge and avoid a trial. This will get ugly.

[drum4no1]

I stand by my analysis of the available video. There's not enough evidence to convict. Much less charge with MURDER 1! It's not like that pharmacist thought, "I think I'll kill somebody today."
Quite the opposite. He went to work that day. And surely saved the lives of his two cooworkers and his own. It was the punks that decided their fate. And now possibly his.

That is true. due to the fact you cant say 100% what happened behind the blocked view from the counter I would be inclined to vote not guilty. If you look at the known facts from a legal sense and get rid of opinion you cant convict. I dont think he should serve time. Just a bad call in a bad situation

[Marko]

If the bad guys would have been white this discussion would not be happening.

[so1rfan]

I stand by my analysis of the available video. There's not enough evidence to convict. Much less charge with MURDER 1! It's not like that pharmacist thought, "I think I'll kill somebody today."
Quite the opposite. He went to work that day. And surely saved the lives of his two cooworkers and his own. It was the punks that decided their fate. And now possibly his.

You may be right about that as well, a man is supposed to be proven guilty.

However, there is no time limit on pre-meditation. If he decided he was going to kill the boy inbetwwen the fourth and fifth shot, it's pre-meditated. That is the law as how it was explained to me.

And it was the punks fate, I agree. Their family should apologize to the pharmacist as well for forcing him to make the decision, regardless.

[Karried]

NewsOK

Do you think Oklahoma County DA David Prater made the correct decision in filing charges against Jerome Ersland?


Yes 19% (376 votes)

No 81% (1629 votes)

Total Votes: 2005

[PennyQuilts]

I think they will look at the statements he gave to the police and the press and contrast that with the video. If they don't match up, they'll make the argument that he just misremembered in the heat of the moment.

I am struck that he had his back to the kid when he strolled over to get the second gun. Why turn his back if he thought he might get shot? And if he didn't see the kid move until he came back, why did he get the second gun?

If he thought the kid was out of commission, he'd have been going for the phone, not to the second gun. If he thought the kid was still a threat, he might have gone for the second gun but he wouldn't have turned his back and strolled over. That is how it looks to me but it was just one viewing of the video.

[PennyQuilts]

If the bad guys would have been white this discussion would not be happening.

Total crap. TOTAL crap. The bigger part of this discussion has been whether the pharmacist was justified and the discussion has been based on the video and his statements. Plenty of us are willing to hang him out to dry. Are you suggesting that we wouldn't do that if the thugs were white? If you are, I still say it is total crap.

[DaveSkater]

That rig he wears might not allow for neck movement? I dunno.....

[MikeOKC]

To be honest, I see both "sides" making it a racial issue.

Something nobody has mentioned are the eyewitness testimonies. The staff that was in the pharmacy saw and/or heard everything. We have no idea what they said in statements to the police. I am certain DA Prater did not file Murder One charges without a lot of evidence against this guy. I am guessing the statements from the staff were damning based on the charges filed.

[MikeOKC]

I agree with East Coast Okie about the racial stuff. Most people here are discussing this case without regard to race. I think it would still be a BIG case no matter the color of the people involved.

[Midtowner]

If the bad guys would have been white this discussion would not be happening.