Self-Defense Case: Pharmacist Guilty

Feuer Frei! · 05-29-11, 09:26 AM

And to add to an already exhaustive Debate about what constitutes self-defense, and where the lines are (supposedly) drawn, in comes this one:

A pharmacist who fatally shot a teenage robber in Oklahoma City was found guilty Thursday of first-degree murder in a jury trial that ignited debate over the limits of self-defense.
The pharmacist, 59-year-old Jerome Ersland, fired a weapon after two young men entered his pharmacy, one of them waving a gun, in May 2009. Mr. Ersland's bullet hit 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head, Oklahoma County prosecutors alleged.
Moments later, Mr. Ersland shot Mr. Parker five more times as he lay unconscious on the ground, say prosecutors who had a security surveillance video to bolster their case.
Defense lawyers argued Mr. Ersland had the right to defend himself and others in the store. But the jury, which deliberated for less than four hours, found Mr. Ersland guilty of first-degree murder, punishable by life in prison.
Prosecutors declined to comment, citing a gag order from the judge. Defense attorneys couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Oklahoma, like more than 20 other states, has encoded the right to self defense through so-called Castle Laws. Under these laws, citizens are allowed to use deadly force when they are threatened in their home—or their "castle"—or place of work.
Cases in which someone kills an intruder rarely go to trial, said Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University. That's because police usually believe the defender was acting out of self-protection, or assume there isn't enough evidence to prove that the defender shot the intruder with malicious intent.
"They rarely have the benefit of videotape," said Mr. Kleck.
In the video of the Oklahoma City shooting, Mr. Ersland can be seen firing the first shot and Mr. Parker dropping to the floor. After chasing the other robber out the door, Mr. Ersland returns, walking past the place where Mr. Parker fell to get a second gun out of a drawer. He then points down toward the floor and shoots several times.

The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law.
Mr. Ersland had said that Mr. Parker was moving after the initial shot and was therefore still dangerous. Mr. Parker was not visible on the video at that point.
The case divided many in Oklahoma City. "Hero," read a comment on a Facebook page created to support Mr. Ersland. "Should be given the key to the city, for cleaning up some of the criminal element."
Earlier this year, Ralph Shortey, a state senator who represents the area, introduced the "Jerome Ersland Act," which would increase protections for citizens who kill or wound someone in the course of protecting themselves.
"The person who came in brandishing the firearm was not the victim, but we're trying to make him the victim," Mr. Shortey said.
But others said the right to self-defense doesn't include killing anyone rendered defenseless. Some said the shooting had a racist element because Mr. Ersland is white, and the slain teenager was black.
"We don't condone robbery in any form or fashion, but we don't condone murder either," said Garland Pruitt, president of the Oklahoma City chapter of the NAACP.
Cleta Jennings, the mother of the dead man, has filed a wrongful death suit asking the court for damages and accusing Mr. Ersland of negligence. Her lawyer declined to comment on the case.

SOURCE

Bloody hell, after a head shot, he shot him 5 more times, while the perp lay on the ground unconscious.
Defense seems to have a weak case.
A intruder is still considered dangerous if moving after the first shot. Definition by law.
Defense also doesn't have the luxury of the cameras seeing the perp laying on the ground.
After the first shot.

Dowly · 05-29-11, 09:36 AM

I wouldn't exactly call shooting an incapacitated threat 5 more times self-defence. That's a bloody execution if you ask me.

Feuer Frei! · 05-29-11, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I wouldn't exactly call shooting an incapacitated threat 5 more times self-defence. That's a bloody execution if you ask me.

Exactly.
Good luck to the Defense Lawyers.

Schroeder · 05-29-11, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I wouldn't exactly call shooting an incapacitated threat 5 more times self-defence. That's a bloody execution if you ask me.

^This.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 05-29-11, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I wouldn't exactly call shooting an incapacitated threat 5 more times self-defence. That's a bloody execution if you ask me.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see what happens next. What Mr. Ersland and his lawyers are going to do now?

antikristuseke · 05-29-11, 11:49 AM

As much as I try, I can not word it any better than Dowly already has.

MH · 05-29-11, 12:09 PM

There was similar case here.
Same outcome.
Gun=responsibility.

Platapus · 05-29-11, 01:08 PM

I agree that it is murder, I am not sure I would put First Degree murder on this case. Second Degree might have been more appropriate.

For this discussion let's make sure we all have the same understanding of the law. Let's look at the law

http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html

[§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree.
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs. [/quote]

Paragraphs c-e are not applicable in this case

Second degree murder

[§21-701.8. Murder in the second degree.
Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual; or
2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act. [/quote]

Justifiable Homicide by person (non-law enforcement)

Quote:

§21733. Justifiable homicide by any person.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,
2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Unfortunately the court has not released its case decision in State of Oklahoma v Jerome Jay Ersland so until that is released we can only rely on the what the media chooses to publish. Not exactly a preferred way to form an opinion.

There is at least one media story that Ersland shot one of the robbers, then when Ersland returned to the store, picked up another handgun (he had two in the store) and then shot the first robber (who was on the floor) with the second gun. Again, this what a media chooses to publish, not the facts as entered into the trial.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/05...se-tip-stfu-2/

That may have been what put the jury to consider First Degree Murder. Taking the time and effort of picking up another hand gun and then moving back to a position to shoot a robber which appears to be incapacitated might have counted as malice aforethought. Shooting cases like this can be complicated. The difference between the "heat of the moment" and malice aforethought can be measured in seconds depending on the case.

Another factor is that Ersland talked with the police. When you are involved in a self-defense shooting situation. NEVER. TALK. TO. THE. POLICE.

The police are not on your side, nor is the District Attorney.

"Officer, my life was endangered. I would like to talk to my attorney before making any further statements. "

Keep thy trap shut.

Again without the benefit of reading the case decision (State decisions are not always published in a timely manner) it is difficult to render any opinion based on the evidence.

Based on what the media chooses to publish, I can understand the First Degree Murder conviction. I would have liked to see Second Degree. But the way the Oklahoma law is written for Second Degree Murder it may not apply.

So what is Ersland facing with First Degree Murder Conviction?

Quote:

§21-701.9. Punishment for murder.
A. A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole or by imprisonment for life. A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to murder in the first degree, as described in subsection E of Section 701.7 of this title, shall not be entitled to or afforded the benefit of deferment of the sentence.
B. A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to murder in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state penal institution for not less than ten (10) years nor more than life.

A minimum of life and a maximum of the death penalty. Pretty harsh.

Stealhead · 05-29-11, 04:08 PM

When he first shot the kid that was self defense after he clearly went down and the guy walked past him turned his back to him walked past him with the kid on the ground behind him and grabbed another gun and walked over and shot the kid several more times that was clearly not self defense.

There is a video of the whole thing out there.

I think maybe the man just got too excited and just was not thinking clearly when he shot the kid again.Obviously the kid was armed himself but the fact that the man twice turns his back on him after hitting him some shows that he no longer felt as though the kid was a threat.Of course who knows what the man was thinking at the time.

claybirdd · 05-29-11, 09:40 AM

I have always been taught that you only shoot to neutralise the threat. Pumping more rounds into an attacker that is clearly no longer a threat clearly is murder in the eyes of the law. So I have to agree with the jury's decision.

05-29-11, 10:48 AM

Shooting an unarmed unconcious person in the head after already walking past them twice in that state is simply plain cold blooded murder.
Throw the muppet in jail for life.

Skybird · 05-29-11, 04:59 PM

That man really needs to learn to control his temper.

Skybird · 05-29-11, 05:07 PM

From the corners of my mind, I remembered that there was this cartoon when writing the post above.

05-29-11, 07:25 PM

Seems like the first shot was fine ,but to then go get a second gun then put five more into the guy on the ground isn't self defence that's an execution! ,I've got absolutely no problems with someone taking out a badguy that's trying to rob you but what this guy did.....

Dowly · 05-29-11, 07:28 PM

After seeing the video a few times, it looks like the kid who got killed was not armed, atleast I couldn't see a gun. He was fiddling around with his mask/hat at the time he got shot. Kinda strange, right next to the kid was his "partner", with a gun in his hand, threatening the workers, but instead Ersland shot the (what looks to me) unarmed one.

05-29-11, 09:26 AM	#1
Feuer Frei! Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Valhalla Posts: 5,295 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 17	Self-Defense Case: Pharmacist Guilty And to add to an already exhaustive Debate about what constitutes self-defense, and where the lines are (supposedly) drawn, in comes this one: A pharmacist who fatally shot a teenage robber in Oklahoma City was found guilty Thursday of first-degree murder in a jury trial that ignited debate over the limits of self-defense. The pharmacist, 59-year-old Jerome Ersland, fired a weapon after two young men entered his pharmacy, one of them waving a gun, in May 2009. Mr. Ersland's bullet hit 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head, Oklahoma County prosecutors alleged. Moments later, Mr. Ersland shot Mr. Parker five more times as he lay unconscious on the ground, say prosecutors who had a security surveillance video to bolster their case. Defense lawyers argued Mr. Ersland had the right to defend himself and others in the store. But the jury, which deliberated for less than four hours, found Mr. Ersland guilty of first-degree murder, punishable by life in prison. Prosecutors declined to comment, citing a gag order from the judge. Defense attorneys couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Oklahoma, like more than 20 other states, has encoded the right to self defense through so-called Castle Laws. Under these laws, citizens are allowed to use deadly force when they are threatened in their home—or their "castle"—or place of work. Cases in which someone kills an intruder rarely go to trial, said Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University. That's because police usually believe the defender was acting out of self-protection, or assume there isn't enough evidence to prove that the defender shot the intruder with malicious intent. "They rarely have the benefit of videotape," said Mr. Kleck. In the video of the Oklahoma City shooting, Mr. Ersland can be seen firing the first shot and Mr. Parker dropping to the floor. After chasing the other robber out the door, Mr. Ersland returns, walking past the place where Mr. Parker fell to get a second gun out of a drawer. He then points down toward the floor and shoots several times. The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law. Mr. Ersland had said that Mr. Parker was moving after the initial shot and was therefore still dangerous. Mr. Parker was not visible on the video at that point. The case divided many in Oklahoma City. "Hero," read a comment on a Facebook page created to support Mr. Ersland. "Should be given the key to the city, for cleaning up some of the criminal element." Earlier this year, Ralph Shortey, a state senator who represents the area, introduced the "Jerome Ersland Act," which would increase protections for citizens who kill or wound someone in the course of protecting themselves. "The person who came in brandishing the firearm was not the victim, but we're trying to make him the victim," Mr. Shortey said. But others said the right to self-defense doesn't include killing anyone rendered defenseless. Some said the shooting had a racist element because Mr. Ersland is white, and the slain teenager was black. "We don't condone robbery in any form or fashion, but we don't condone murder either," said Garland Pruitt, president of the Oklahoma City chapter of the NAACP. Cleta Jennings, the mother of the dead man, has filed a wrongful death suit asking the court for damages and accusing Mr. Ersland of negligence. Her lawyer declined to comment on the case. SOURCE Bloody hell, after a head shot, he shot him 5 more times, while the perp lay on the ground unconscious. Defense seems to have a weak case. A intruder is still considered dangerous if moving after the first shot. Definition by law. Defense also doesn't have the luxury of the cameras seeing the perp laying on the ground. After the first shot. __________________ "History is the lies that the victors agree on"- Napoleon LINK TO MY SH 3 MODS

05-29-11, 09:40 AM	#10
claybirdd Frogman Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Pulaski Tennessee Posts: 290 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	I have always been taught that you only shoot to neutralise the threat. Pumping more rounds into an attacker that is clearly no longer a threat clearly is murder in the eyes of the law. So I have to agree with the jury's decision. __________________ If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you did very poor planning.

05-29-11, 04:59 PM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	That man really needs to learn to control his temper. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

05-29-11, 05:07 PM	#13
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	From the corners of my mind, I remembered that there was this cartoon when writing the post above. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

05-29-11, 09:36 AM	#2
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,052 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	I wouldn't exactly call shooting an incapacitated threat 5 more times self-defence. That's a bloody execution if you ask me.

05-29-11, 11:49 AM	#6
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	As much as I try, I can not word it any better than Dowly already has.

05-29-11, 12:09 PM	#7
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	There was similar case here. Same outcome. Gun=responsibility.

05-29-11, 04:08 PM	#9
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	When he first shot the kid that was self defense after he clearly went down and the guy walked past him turned his back to him walked past him with the kid on the ground behind him and grabbed another gun and walked over and shot the kid several more times that was clearly not self defense. There is a video of the whole thing out there. I think maybe the man just got too excited and just was not thinking clearly when he shot the kid again.Obviously the kid was armed himself but the fact that the man twice turns his back on him after hitting him some shows that he no longer felt as though the kid was a threat.Of course who knows what the man was thinking at the time.

05-29-11, 10:48 AM	#11
Tribesman Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Shooting an unarmed unconcious person in the head after already walking past them twice in that state is simply plain cold blooded murder. Throw the muppet in jail for life.

05-29-11, 07:25 PM	#14
darius359au Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Seems like the first shot was fine ,but to then go get a second gun then put five more into the guy on the ground isn't self defence that's an execution! ,I've got absolutely no problems with someone taking out a badguy that's trying to rob you but what this guy did.....

05-29-11, 07:28 PM	#15
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,052 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	After seeing the video a few times, it looks like the kid who got killed was not armed, atleast I couldn't see a gun. He was fiddling around with his mask/hat at the time he got shot. Kinda strange, right next to the kid was his "partner", with a gun in his hand, threatening the workers, but instead Ersland shot the (what looks to me) unarmed one.