Oklahoma Pharmacist gets life.............

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Even if your friend, family or in this case employee was still in the store?

I probably wouldn't have ran after the guy after he started running away.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Well looking at the facts, why did he come back inside? If you look at the video it was to kill the intruder. Case closed.

I don't know if that's the relevant question. Are you legally required to flee your house/business ASAP if there's an intruder? I have no idea. If that's a crime, he's probably guilty of that. But he was charged with 1st degree murder, which one isn't necessarily guilty of even if he does something you personally think is abhorrent. Is there enough premeditation? Is there the necessary aggravating factor to make it 1st degree (or however such a thing is defined in Oklahoma?)

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if that's the relevant question. Are you legally required to flee your house/business ASAP if there's an intruder? I have no idea. If that's a crime, he's probably guilty of that. But he was charged with 1st degree murder, which one isn't necessarily guilty of even if he does something you personally think is abhorrent. Is there enough premeditation? Is there the necessary aggravating factor to make it 1st degree (or however such a thing is defined in Oklahoma?)

You are twisting my words, he left on his own and then returned the the scene, to serve his own kind of justice to the intruder.

He should have been charged for some type of killing, manslaughter, murder, whatever. He killed someone, and there are steps he could have taken to have not done it and to have avoided returning to a situation that could have led to him doing it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

You are twisting my words, he left on his own and then returned the the scene, to serve his own kind of justice to the intruder.

He should have been charged for some type of killing, manslaughter, murder, whatever. He killed someone, and there are steps he could have taken to have not done it and to have avoided returning to a situation that could have led to him doing it.

You said "case closed", which I presumed meant this case (i.e. 1st degree murder charge).

He would have done a lot of things differently, no doubt. But it's tough not to have sympathy for someone put in this situation by a couple of thugs, and who then has his emotional responses, mannerisms, physical movements, and subsequent actions in the following seconds, etc, picked apart. Are we really all sure we'd act so perfectly and know exactly the "right" things to do right after somebody threatens your life?

[molson]

It looks like Oklahoma has changed their self-defense statute, probably in reaction to this event - this doesn't go into effect until November though (this is not from an official Oklahoma law source, I'm assuming its correct):

There shall be a presumption that a homicide occurred in self-defense or in defense of others if:
1. The deceased was engaged in or attempting to engage in an armed robbery;
2. The homicide was in close temporal proximity to the armed robbery; and
3. The homicide occurred on the property where the armed robbery had taken place.This presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the homicide was not in self-defense or in the defense of others.

I have no idea what the law was before or if this would have made a difference here but that presumption is significant. "Self-defense" still isn't defined here, I'm too lazy to dig that up (if its defined at all).

[Autumn]

If this guy lied to the police and planted evidence, does that change anybody's opinion of the events?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Autumn

If this guy lied to the police and planted evidence, does that change anybody's opinion of the events?

Thought it was pretty funny how everyone just decided to ignore that link on the top of 2nd page.

He also asked his doctor to falsify his medical records.

Defense Calls 1 Witness, Rests In Jerome Ersland Murder Trial - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Jurors heard testimony from Ersland's personal physician Dr. Laura Black-Wicks. Black-Wicks testified that she was a personal friend of Ersland and that he had repeatedly asked her to change his medical records to show a gunshot wound to his wrist from the Reliable Pharmacy shooting.

"He asked me to change the records to indicate that he had a gunshot wound and that it had been infected," Black-Wicks said. "I told him I could not just change someone's medical records."

Black-Wicks said she noticed Ersland's wound appeared as if it may have been made by something metallic, but she was not sure if it was related to a bullet wound.

"It wasn't a bullet that was in his arm," she said. "But they were metallic."

Police have stated there's no evidence the robbers fired any shots in the pharmacy during the robbery.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

If this guy lied to the police and planted evidence, does that change anybody's opinion of the events?

"Lies", probably wouldn't. Victims of violent crime often have trouble remembering the events accurately. Planting evidence could be its own crime, but under these facts I don't think it has anything to do with a murder charge (unless the argument is that he lured those kids in so he could kill them or something.) He might have panicked when he realized what happened and how others might perceive the events. That would be illegal, but it doesn't prove 1st degree murder.

[TargetPractice6]

My bad.

[jeff061]

Irrelevant and potentially hate sparking conjecture? Hell's yeah, let's entertain it!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Thought it was pretty funny how everyone just decided to ignore that link on the top of 2nd page.

He also asked his doctor to falsify his medical records.

Defense Calls 1 Witness, Rests In Jerome Ersland Murder Trial - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

I'm quite sure this went a long way toward the guilty conviction.

[DanGarion]

From now on I declare that whenever anyone throws out the race card we lock the thread.

[TargetPractice6]

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but it's something I couldn't help but thinking about in a case like this. Maybe I've just lived in Kentucky too long for my mind not to go down that road. I'll remove the post so it (hopefully) doesn't derail the thread.

[jeff061]

Wasn't offensive. Just stupid.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Autumn

If this guy lied to the police and planted evidence, does that change anybody's opinion of the events?

Not really. He clearly was trying to avoid this outcome. I'd be fine with him being charged with falsifying evidence and whatnot. The issue still centers around someone pointing a gun at him and he made sure that the criminal did not kill anyone.

[TargetPractice6]

Sorry for being stupid then. I've just been thinking about this case a lot today and I explored some thoughts I should have kept private. It's a sensitive issue and I should have left it out of this thread.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not really. He clearly was trying to avoid this outcome. I'd be fine with him being charged with falsifying evidence and whatnot. The issue still centers around someone pointing a gun at him and he made sure that the criminal did not kill anyone.

To me it certainly calls his credibility into question and pretty much renders anything he says on the witness stand worthless. I have no doubt the jury considered that when weighing his testimony.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To me it certainly calls his credibility into question and pretty much renders anything he says on the witness stand worthless. I have no doubt the jury considered that when weighing his testimony.

He didn't testify.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

He didn't testify.

That seems to be like an epic mistake on his part. He gets on the stand and gets a little emotional about the fear he was facing, it seems like the jury would've let him go free.

Without his testimony, the planted evidence and attempts to get his doctor to lie look even worse IMO. There's literally nothing to explain that away. Also, people are talking about how we don't know what it's like to be in this situation. Well the jury probably doesn't either. And since he didn't testify to explain that, all the jury saw was a guy calmly putting five bullets into a person on the ground. I'm not sure how they could be expected to come up with any other verdict.

[flounder]

In other news, a trained professional who shot an unarmed man in the back while the man was lying on his belly with his hands behind him, is about to get released after 11 months.

[CrimsonFox]

It's funny that cops get off the hook for shooting people that don't even have guns and aren't even robbing anybody.

[CrimsonFox]

And Jack Warden would STILL vote with whichever side gets him to the ballgame on time...

[Dreghorn2]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

And Jack Warden would STILL vote with whichever side gets him to the ballgame on time...

Tony Danza as well.. bastages.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

It's funny that cops get off the hook for shooting people that don't even have guns and aren't even robbing anybody.

Which is something I mentioned earlier. This guy isn't a law enforcement professional. He hasn't been trained in how to handle situations like this, to know when an offender is incapacitated, and to deal with the stress of it all. He's a chubby 59-year old pharmacist who was put in a once-in-a-lifetime moment. Even if he fucked up, he is only in that position because of those two kids. There is absolutely no way that we can sit here and tell people how they should have reacted in such a high stress situation.

I've been mugged before. It's a horrible feeling when someone is holding a gun to you. I was petrified and while nothing bad ended up happening to me physically, it is a feeling that can't be described. Your mind shifts into this survival mode. Your only thought is to do whatever you can to live. You don't care about the guy with the gun, you just care about staying alive.

I'm sure there are trained professionals that encounter these situations a lot and can remain calm and can make complex, rational decisions under that kind of stress. But to expect that from this guy is just not fair. The moral of the story should be "don't pull a fucking gun on a guy or you might just get a shit ton of lead put in you".

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The moral of the story should be "don't pull a fucking gun on a guy or you might just get a shit ton of lead put in you".

That might be the appropriate moral of the story, but it's not the legal one. The physical reactions to this kind of stimulus, which is the basis for your entire defense of his actions, can be found in many other situations. If you allow those reactions as an excuse in one case because they prevent "complex, rational decisions", then you're opening the door for that excuse to be used in a whole host of situations. A major car accident will cause very similar physiological reactions that the pharmacist had in this case, but I don't think we're going to allow people to start plugging each other over fender-benders.

[Autumn]

It's not like the robber got off easy. One of them is dead. The other one is guilty of first degree murder. That's the right call, that's the legal system recognizing that he is guilty of creating the situation which ended in someone being murdered.

If that guy was going free, or if he was suing the pharmacist, we could rightly be outraged. But the legal system is handling that correctly, and it seems to me it's at the same time recognizing that being attacked doesn't remove all bonds of civilization. If you believe in there being such things as war crimes then we already recognize that even in the most stressful, dangerous edges of civilized behavior, there are things which are legal and which are illegal. Self-defense is a logical recognition of the fact that there are times where violence is an acceptable response, but there has to be a boundary to it somewhere. We can argue whether this man crossed that boundary, but I think we have to at least accept that there must be one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

It's not like the robber got off easy. One of them is dead. The other one is guilty of first degree murder.

From what I understand though, he'll be out by the time he's 18, if not sooner. Maybe by then he'll build up some strength and nerve and his future armed robberies won't be foiled by elderly men.

[Autumn]

That's unfortunate if that's the case, but I guess juvenile law is a whole other discussion. Let's hope that he takes a different path if that's the case.

[Cuckoo]

I've been out of town for a few days, but I'll chime in here as someone who has been following the case in Oklahoma. Forgive me if I cover ground that has already been covered.

The two robbers were kids, convinced by two older guys to do the robbery. The kid that wasn't killed testified against the other two, who were found guilty of murder. He is currently in a juvenile facility and, as part of the deal, will be eligible for release when he's 18 (should be fairly soon).

The kid that Ersland shot did not have a gun. As Oklahoma is a very conservative state with a number of individuals vehemently in favor of gun rights and self defense rights, it was a foregone conclusion that Ersland would not be convicted. The trial was not televised, but even those in attendance were convinced the jury would find a way, a reason, to see the defense perspective. Instead, the jury convicted, not just of manslaughter (an option they were given) but of murder, and they recommended (sentencing has not yet occurred) a life sentence. In addition, to answer something noted earlier, Ersland's team of lawyers are highly respected and not cheap.

Obviously, jurors saw something that made them believe this was more than just a reaction gone too far. Here are a couple of things that might have contributed:

- As noted above, Ersland lied repeatedly. He faked a "wound" when the robbers never even fired. He said that he shot the kid again before he ran outside, and he claimed that Parker was moving, something that was almost certainly false, based on the physical evidence.

- He ran outside following the other kid, shooting multiple times and somewhat wildly.

- When he returned, he walked beside the one he shot (and later claimed was still a threat) without so much as looking down. Rumors around here say that the jury viewed it as cold and angry.


All of that said, I'm shocked he was hit with murder. I thought at most he might be convicted of the lesser charge and serve a few years, if for no other reason than none of this even happens if not for the actions of others. Plus, if his shot hits a few centimeters from where it did, the kid is probably dead the first time, something the law absolutely allows.

As of now, there's a petition to get our governor to overturn the sentence and issue a pardon. It has garnered a lot of support, not surprisingly. Though our governor is conservative, I don't see her as a politician that would ever even contemplate stepping in on something like this. The appeals process has begun in the meantime, though, and it'll be interesting to see what happens.