Ersland upset over defense fees

[rcjunkie]

But you are forwarding an opinion based on a lack of reality ~ I made mine based on the actual evidence.

How is it an argument when only one of us is relying on facts?

So you have read/watched/studied 100% of the DA's and defense attorney's evidence, how did you manage that ?

[BBatesokc]

So with the evidence that we have, its a strong probability that the criminal was dead. Those rage shots did not kill the criminal. I know there is a charge out there that applies when people do something bad to a dead body.

Is there access for us to view the bullet path in the criminal's head?

And where is the security video? I want to watch it again.

Seriously Thunder? Nobody has proclaimed that Parker was dead. He was not dead after the first shot. He was most likely unconscious, but very much alive. The only thing that was disputed by Ersland's defense team was if the shot to the head Alone would have resulted in death.

The video is all over the place. NewsOK.com has it readily accessible.

[BBatesokc]

So you have read/watched/studied 100% of the DA's evidence, how did you manage that ?

Where did I state I studied 100% of the evidence? Again, keeping this in the realm of reality would be helpful. Every bit of evidence I have discussed is 100% valid and has been disclosed to both sides as required by law.

[rcjunkie]

Where did I state I studied 100% of the evidence? Again, keeping this in the realm of reality would be helpful. Every bit of evidence I have discussed is 100% valid and has been disclosed to both sides as required by law.

So you can make an opinion without all the evidence and your correct, I have an opinion without all the evidence and I'm wrong, now I understand.

[MattB]

Prater did not take this case with any enthusiasm. He knew it was a lose-lose situation, politically speaking. After viewing the video, he had to face facts that the case for murder had sufficient prosecutorial merit that he would be derelict in his duties if he did not prosecute.
It seems some here are arguing out of emotion, and not facts and logic. I guess for those folks, only a verdict will quiet them, and it that will be forthcoming.
Its a dog of a case for Box. Politically speaking, Prater can't win, but the facts of the case almost speak for themselves. It will be a slam dunk. The only question is whether the jury will "nullify" the case, and to what extent.

[BBatesokc]

So you can make an opinion without all the evidence and your correct, I have an opinion without all the evidence and I'm wrong, now I understand.

I'm certainly making an opinion based on a much more solid foundation than you. It's safe to say most opinions are formed before all evidence is known. Your opinion was partially formed on the misinterpretation that Parker was armed. If that would have been true then I would also have been of the opinion Ersland was within his rights and should be found not guilty.

[BBatesokc]

Prater did not take this case with any enthusiasm. He knew it was a lose-lose situation, politically speaking. After viewing the video, he had to face facts that the case for murder had sufficient prosecutorial merit that he would be derelict in his duties if he did not prosecute.
It seems some here are arguing out of emotion, and not facts and logic. I guess for those folks, only a verdict will quiet them, and it that will be forthcoming.
Its a dog of a case for Box. Politically speaking, Prater can't win, but the facts of the case almost speak for themselves. It will be a slam dunk. The only question is whether the jury will "nullify" the case, and to what extent.

Well put and spot on.

[MattB]

I'm certainly making an opinion based on a much more solid foundation than you. It's safe to say most opinions are formed before all evidence is known. Your opinion was partially formed on the misinterpretation that Parker was armed. If that would have been true then I would also have been of the opinion Ersland was within his rights and should be found not guilty.

Brian,
He would have still been justified in firing the initial shots, considering he (Parker) entered with another suspect who pointed a gun, then (Parker) donned a mask. Once he was down and out of the fight, however, different story.

[MattB]

"The recordings show a masked robber, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, pointing a gun at two female employees while an accomplice, Antwun “Speedy” Parker, pulls on a mask.

The recordings then show pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland shoot Parker in the head and chase Ingram out of the store.

The pharmacist then comes back inside the store, gets a second gun and shoots Parker, who had fallen, five more times. Doctors determined the last shots were the fatal ones. Parker was 16."

Read more: http://newsok.com/jurors-see-surveil...#ixzz1MZhBsvLs

[Stew]

I have to think Ersland has a lot of skeletons in his closet. If I'm not mistaken he had court ordered supervised visitation as part of a custody order. That's kind of a red flag. The guy's a pathological liar and well just creepy.

If Ersland was a different sort I could be a more sympathetic and I think that might hold true for an informed jury as well. If you ask me the guy is a danger to society and needs to be jailed before his next eruption takes out a totally innocent bystander.

[BBatesokc]

My point is, if Parker would have been armed ~ even lying on the ground ~ Box could most likely argue successfully that Ersland still perceived Parker as a threat.

Not hard to side with Ersland if the robber was on the ground with a deadly weapon in his hand.

[BBatesokc]

I have to think Ersland has a lot of skeletons in his closet. If I'm not mistaken he had court ordered supervised visitation as part of a custody order. That's kind of a red flag. The guy's a pathological liar and well just creepy.

If Ersland was a different sort I could be a more sympathetic and I think that might hold true for an informed jury as well. If you ask me the guy is a danger to society and needs to be jailed before his next eruption takes out a totally innocent bystander.

Don't know about 'skeletons' but he can't tell the truth to save his life (literally).

[Achilleslastand]

@Stew
Now were putting Ersland in the same bag as these criminals......Nice

[rcjunkie]

I agree, and what a shame.

Come into my place of business or residence with the intent to rob or harm, I shoot to kill (or when the guns empty).

[MattB]

I agree, and what a shame.

Come into my place of business or residence with the intent to rob or harm, I shoot to kill (or when the guns empty).

Its that sort of simplistic approach that landed Ersland where he is now.

[oneforone]

Ersland could save himself time and money if he were to work a plea bargain out and just plead no contest. If he goes trial route he is going to go prison. I just don't see any Oklahoma jury sign off on a loose cannon vigilante. Most people see his case like I do sure you have right to defend yourself from a thug. However, you need to be able to apply restraint. In other words focus on the threat maintain cover and call the police. Let the police deal with the apprehension of the suspects and any accomplices. Last but not least keep your mouth shut and request an attorney if the police start asking accusatory questions. He is damn lucky he did not kill an innocent bystander when we let his rage from being robbed overtake common sense and good judgement. We expect police to use common sense when using deadly force we should expect gun owners to do the same. For the record I own a firearm and practice using it regularly.

[BBatesokc]

Ersland could save himself time and money if he were to work a plea bargain out and just plead no contest. If he goes trial route he is going to go prison. I just don't see any Oklahoma jury sign off on a loose cannon vigilante. Most people see his case like I do sure you have right to defend yourself from a thug. However, you need to be able to apply restraint. In other words focus on the threat maintain cover and call the police. Let the police deal with the apprehension of the suspects and any accomplices. Last but not least keep your mouth shut and request an attorney if the police start asking accusatory questions. He is damn lucky he did not kill an innocent bystander when we let his rage from being robbed overtake common sense and good judgement. We expect police to use common sense when using deadly force we should expect gun owners to do the same. For the record I own a firearm and practice using it regularly.

I've never inquired as to any plea deals offered, but I can see where he'd reject them as any plea on a murder charge would realistically have to require him to be a convicted felon even if they took prison off the table. I'm guessing that would mean no more pharmacist license along with a host of other lifelong obstacles.

[Bostonfan]

I agree, and what a shame.

Come into my place of business or residence with the intent to rob or harm, I shoot to kill (or when the guns empty).

Yeah, it is a shame. A shame he went back in, loaded a gun, stood over the kid, and unloaded on him.

[BBatesokc]

What i find surprising is that Prater did not do what many DA's do when they either don't want to charge someone, its unpopular to charge someone, are exercising a vendetta or you have very little actual evidence and present the case to a grand jury. Regardless of their finding (bill or no [true] bill) they wash their hands of any responsibility. In a grand jury format you could get get pretty much whatever outcome you wanted.

[Thunder]

Yeah, it is a shame. A shame he went back in, loaded a gun, stood over the kid, and unloaded on him.

They could consider temp insanity. The way Bostonfan describe it, the guy was raging at the criminal.

So, what is up with his crime partner? Did he learn his lesson after the death of his partner?

[BBatesokc]

They could consider temp insanity. The way Bostonfan describe it, the guy was raging at the criminal.

So, what is up with his crime partner? Did he learn his lesson after the death of his partner?

Yea, Ingram learned he got a pretty sweet deal and will most likely be back on the streets in a couple of years. Only time will tell if this was a wakeup call or a free pass on murder.

[BBatesokc]

Did I say that was the only factor ?
Two people entered his place of business with a loaded weapon and plans to rob said business, because of past problems/robberies, Mr. Ersland also had access to a weapon and was a better shot!

He wasn't a 'better shot' - he simply used a better shell for close combat (.410). Oh yeah, and the fact nobody else fired a shot helped too.

I do complement him on his pistol choice though, "The Judge" is an excellent choice for home, car and business protection.

[kevinpate]

Can this still be plea bargained down now that the jury trial is about underway?

Sure, starting a trial doesn't end that option. Even after all evidence is presented and the jury is out trying making up its mind, the two sides could decide to reach a plea agreement.

I don't think it's all that likely here, but it is certainly open for discussion between the state and the defense.

[BBatesokc]

They could consider temp insanity. The way Bostonfan describe it, the guy was raging at the criminal.

So, what is up with his crime partner? Did he learn his lesson after the death of his partner?

Temporary Insanity would not hold up to scrutiny based on other statements he made....
1. He was very aware of the shell capacity of each weapon and how many shots he was firing.
2. He first went for the 'pharmacy weapon' and then decided on his more deadly pistol.
3. Most damning is his statement that when he chased Ingram outside he ran into the two adults in their getaway car and the one closest to him was armed with a shotgun, but allegedly lowered it when he saw Ersland with his pistol. Ersland said he did not shoot the man with the shotgun because he had lowered it and did not pose an immanent threat to him.

Words to live by - do not, under any circumstances, talk to police without an attorney present. The less said, the better.

[kevinpate]

Actually rcjunkie, had Ersland been a better shot, and had the would be robber been killed by that first shot, Ersland would most likely never have been charged. I'm not aware of anyone trying to assert the first volley, even if it had been more than one round, was improper. the Murder I charge arose from coming back in, apparently checking on the downed robber, then going off to get a fresh weapon, apparently with one's back turned to an alleged threat, and coming back to stand over or beside the downed robber and then pump several shots into the downed robbers body. Those subsequent to re-entry to the store actions, combined with forensics indicating the downed robber was not a threat, combined with a video showing the downed robber was never armed, and helped along by the numerous inconsistencies from the defendant, both verbal statements of the incidents and background on himself, and allegations of faking an injury, are all what brought on the charge of murder 1.

If the would be robber had gone down for good on one or two initial shots, your opinion of not guilty would be embraced, in my opinion, by most everyone. It's all those other pesky factoids of what actually happened that took the man from brave champion of justice to Murder I defendant.

To BBatesokc ... I believe you are correct. if memory serves, any felony conviction would cost Ersland his pill dispensing license.
In light of a M1 charge, a plea to something less than a felony conviction would seemingly be impossible. Once charged, Prater would have more fallout on a deferred sentence for any felony than he would have gotten if no charges had been brought at all (at least in my opinion).