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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[USG '60]

What grounds would they have to sue, Midtowner?

[Midtowner]

Off the top of my head, wrongful death as to Ersland and the Pharmacy (I'm ignoring possible defenses) and as to the pharmacy only, negligent hiring and negligent entrustment of a firearm.

[possumfritter]

USG 60,

It really was only a matter of seconds. I believe the video may still be available on Fox or NewsOK. Now, the video about the State Trooper and the EMT might have been 11 minutes?????

[possumfritter]

OKC Pharmacy Shooting

http://www.newsok.com/pharmacyshootings

[legislativeResearcher]

Mr. Ersland is obviously upset and shocked by all the the turn of events,
and at times has spoken carelessly...
but
the relevent facts are:
an armed robbery at the pharmacy is the compelling event which necessitated the use of FORCE, ie use of gun....
and
the 16 year old deceased robber Antwun should not be made into a martyr or victim...
and
civil rights groups are off base making public pronouncements like this is a racial matter...
morover, they should be telling young folks this is what happens to robbers...

and
Judge Tammy Bass Jones-Lesure should recuse herself as she has actively participated in events organized by these same race based groups who now seek to politicize the trial
see: " Black Women Lead March"
in The Daily Oklahoman July 23 2006
in which the judge led a group of black women urging voting and participation.
and
these same activists are now trying to inappropriately inject race into the matter
Ersland should immediately seek a change of venue, due to the politicization factor
and
file a complaint with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints

[legislativeResearcher]

In an armed robber, the victims of the armed robbery have a right to use deadly force, am shocked
by all this talk about the armed robber's family having legal grounds for lawsuit!
Ersland is not as articulate as we would expect from a pharmacist, nor as contrite as most of us would be in this regrettable matter...
however,
Antwun chose to participate in an armed robbery
and
that is what set off the unfortunate chain of events
and
any attempts to make Antwun into a martyr or victim
is bad public policy. period

[legislativeResearcher]

Ersland should file bar complaint regarding the false and inflammatory statement by DA Prater "Antwun was unconsious, and so it was an execution"'

if the videotape doesn't show him after he was down, how could anyone determine he was unconscious?
The false and inflammatory statement by DA Prater has created a hostile environment in which Ersland, with minimal communication skills, will not likely get a fair trial.

[dismayed]

if the videotape doesn't show him after he was down, how could anyone determine he was unconscious?

You don't think a medical doctor could make such a determination? "Well look here bullet #1 sliced his head in half. Methinks he probably lost consciousness!" Not a big fan of science? But not only that, I've watched the video. Although you can't see the robber, the pharmacist casually walks across the room and stands directly over the guy, leans forward, and shoots. If he had any concern that he was going to be shot at / that the guy was still a threat I just don't see him acting that way.

The false and inflammatory statement by DA Prater has created a hostile environment in which Ersland, with minimal communication skills, will not likely get a fair trial.

I'm all for everyone having the right to self defense, but that right ends at a certain point. For example if my house is being robbed I can defend myself, but I do not have the right to chase the robber down the street, around the corner, and shoot him in the back while he flees from me. I don't see how this is any different.

[rcjunkie]

I'm still not sure about this one, it's hard to say what anyone would do in a similar situation.
It is shameful though that it appears that crooks have more rights then your honest, hard working citizen.

[dcsooner]

I'm still not sure about this one, it's hard to say what anyone would do in a similar situation.
It is shameful though that it appears that crooks have more rights then your honest, hard working citizen.

In THIS Case you are Joking, aren't you???

[kevinpate]

Hard to tell if legislativeResearcher is more of a Prater Hater or a Jerome Gnome. Not atypical of a drive-bys.

Certainly not a lot of research went into the process.

[Midtowner]

In an armed robber, the victims of the armed robbery have a right to use deadly force, am shocked

First, it is recommended that you post only when sober.

Second, don't give legal advice you're not qualified to give -- especially wrong legal advice. Your right to use deadly force ends when the threat ends.

[rcjunkie]

In THIS Case you are Joking, aren't you???

Absolutely not. Until your put in his position, you can't say with 100% accuracy how you would react.

[dcsooner]

Absolutely not. Until your put in his position, you can't say with 100% accuracy how you would react.

I observed his position and this was simply MURDER! To spin his action as anything else is simply an attempt to "justify" use of deadly force in ANY circumstance. Sad

[PennyQuilts]

I was horrified when I saw the video. I wonder if there is a different view that shows if the kiddo was moving. I hadn't heard that there was. I wouldn't want to see it.

[kevinpate]

Death is almost never pretty, no matter its cause