Veteran-Hero "condemned to life in prison for defending his property and his employers..."

[Lucille]

American Veteran-Hero Jailed (http://barelyablog.com/?p=39852)


Dr. Jerome Ersland was recently condemned to life in prison for defending his property and his employers from a gang of armed robbers.

As abcnews.com reports,

“Ersland, 59, had been hailed as a hero for protecting two co-workers during the May 19, 2009, robbery attempt at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City. Dramatic surveillance video of the attempted burglary shows 16 year-old Antwun Parker and an accomplice running into the pharmacy in the crime-ridden neighborhood and pointing a gun directly at Ersland. The video then shows Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, firing a pistol at the two men, hitting Parker with one shot that knocked him to the ground. After chasing Parker’s accomplice out of the store, Ersland retrieved a second gun and returned to shoot Parker five more times, 46 seconds after firing the first shot.”

Ersland was accused of hastening the descent into hell of “Parker” with excess zeal.”

I guess the lesson here is, if you're going to protect your life and property, don't do it with "excess zeal."

We are frickin' doomed if we can't clean the hacks out of all three branches. But then, we're still stuck with idiot jurors:


According to CBS.com, the "Oklahoma City pharmacist was sentenced on Monday, July 11, to life in prison with the possibility of parole for the shooting death. …" On May 26, a jury (clearly not of his peers) had convicted him of first-degree murder. Although they had the discretion "of finding Ersland guilty of first-degree manslaughter instead of murder, or of acquitting him," they chose not to exercise it.

Ditto Oklahoma County District Judge Ray C. Elliott. The jurist rejected pleas for clemency, having opted to side with the prosecution throughout the trial and exclude extenuating testimony.
[...]
The agitators-in-chief against Dr. Ersland were ... the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The NAACP urged the state to show no mercy for this authentic American hero. "It's politically motivated," confirmed defense attorney Irven Box.

Make that racially motivated.

[specsaregood]

./

[aGameOfThrones]

No, the lesson is don't go and unload 5 more times into an attacker that has already been disabled and no longer a threat. AND if you are gonna do so, turn off the damn video camera first or at least destroy the tape and ask for your lawyer. aka: don't be a moron.


No, the lesson here is become a cop to get away with it.


The suit claimed that Montgomery then waited for about 10 seconds, walked over to Lopez who was still alive on the ground and shot him a fourth time, this time in the chest, killing him.

A grand jury had already ruled the shooting as justified.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297512-NM-Albuquerque-to-pay-400k-to-family-of-man-shot-dead-by-cops-after-being-subdued

[daviddee]

...

[acptulsa]

What specs said. Plus, don't turn your back on someone you intend to execute and later claim he was still a threat. Also, don't step out the door and shower the whole neighborhood with hot lead.

Parents really hate that.

This isn't the first thread on this topic...

[Reason]

No, the lesson is don't go and unload 5 more times into an attacker that has already been disabled and no longer a threat.

This.

[Paulfan05]

Having trouble feeling sorry for him, if someone is disabled in one shot you don't get to finish em off

[Revolution9]

Having trouble feeling sorry for him, if someone is disabled in one shot you don't get to finish em off

Military hairtrigger mindset training not discarded in transition to civilian life. A victim of his own instilled prejudices. The local Sheriff in the mountains here told our lady neighbor that if ya gotta shoot them ... and ya know you just gotta ... and they get off your property before they are dead ... welllll...it's your choice whether you want their dead body on your property before ya call us...if'n ya know what I mean ma'am. They take property right pretty seriously here in the North Georgia Mountains.

Rev9

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The description makes the "hero" sound guilty as sin. Was the suspect at least supine when those five additional shots were fired into his unarmed, disabled and unresisting body? Or did he get shot in the back?

[MelissaCato]

Ya and SWAT was allowed to unload 71 bullets at a Marine in his own kitchen after they busted down his door May 5th 2011, ohh but that is ok because it's the Police. :rolleyes:

God help us.

[VegasPatriot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

So he wasn't dead yet? Well he deserved it then. Maybe not that harsh.

Of course, had he been dead the 5 shots would really not matter.

[AbVag]

Ya and SWAT was allowed to unload 71 bullets at a Marine in his own kitchen after they busted down his door May 5th 2011, ohh but that is ok because it's the Police. :rolleyes:

God help us.

Understood, but then why justify what you detest just because your enemy does it? It's the action I'm opposed to. Who does it is irrelevant.

[AGRP]

Judging from his body language, he looked very stupid, bored, and was looking for any little excuse to blow holes in people. Not too much different than a cop.

[Rael]

No, the lesson is don't go and unload 5 more times into an attacker that has already been disabled and no longer a threat. AND if you are gonna do so, turn off the damn video camera first or at least destroy the tape and ask for your lawyer. aka: don't be a moron.

+1

[monte]

I know this guy fairly well. He told me so many things over the years about him that turned out to be lies. I went to court to support him once, when he was trying to get a RO against my father, because he said he more or less threatened to kill him. Not true. His military service was fabricated. His back injury was a lie. His story involving this incident has changed. He used to be like an Uncle to me, and I feel bad for him. But he is no hero or anything other than a liar. What he did is not justified. And it is obvioulsy not any different when a man in a blue costume does what he did. If he hadn't of gone back and shot the guy again, totally different story. Up to that point, he was a hero.

[libertarian4321]

American Veteran-Hero Jailed (http://barelyablog.com/?p=39852)

I guess the lesson here is, if you're going to protect your life and property, don't do it with "excess zeal."

We are frickin' doomed if we can't clean the hacks out of all three branches. But then, we're still stuck with idiot jurors:

The jurors got it 100% right. Hell, this isn't even a tough call.

He did NOT get in trouble for shooting the guy the first time. He got in trouble for going back later and murdering the unconscious robber. It was a cold blooded execution of a guy who posed no threat to him.

You don't get to execute people who are no threat to you, even if they are scum bags. That is NOT heroism.

I fully support the Castle doctrine. Anyone who breaks into my house is going to be introduced to a healthy load of buckshot.

But what this guy did was just plain wrong.

I'd have voted to convict this clown too. I doubt it took the jury more than a few minutes to figure this one out.

[AFPVet]

Just because some cops use to excessive use of force, doesn't mean that we should. We are better than that.

[Johncjackson]

No, the lesson is don't go and unload 5 more times into an attacker that has already been disabled and no longer a threat. AND if you are gonna do so, turn off the damn video camera first or at least destroy the tape and ask for your lawyer. aka: don't be a moron.

THIS. Though I'm only going to fully agree with the first part. The second sounds like something corrupt cops would do. So i can't support that for anyone.

I think if the first shot kills, that's perfectly fine as self-defense. To go back and shoot repeatedly in order to kill, that's wrong/stupid.

[bkreigh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9e_w_CYrrk&feature=related

[squarepusher]

first degree murder is too much imo, manslaughter would be right. I do not think the was right to go back and reload, it did happen in the heat of the moment (45 seconds later) and I'm sure he wasn't planning on getting robbed with a gun that day or anything.

[AFPVet]

first degree murder is too much imo, manslaughter would be right. I do not think the was right to go back and reload, it did happen in the heat of the moment (45 seconds later) and I'm sure he wasn't planning on getting robbed with a gun that day or anything.

In my state, felony murder can consist of 1. knowingly or intentionally kills another human being 2. kills another human being in the commission of another felony or 3. kills a fetus which has become viable.

Voluntary manslaughter also includes knowingly or intentionally killing another human being or viable fetus; however, also includes a mitigating factor called "sudden heat" or passion. This killing in the heat of the moment reduces the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter—so in other words, you are correct. Manslaughter would fit this case.

[TruckinMike]

Have any of you ever had your home broken into while you were sleeping? (enter jeopardy music)

Scenario: -IMAGINE an armed robber forcing you at gunpoint to take PCP and then tie you up while he rapes your wife or daughter. Then somehow you escape and find your gun, you run and in an enraged filled moment you shoot the thug to the ground, and while still under the influence of PCP, you re-load and empty a fresh 20 round magazine into his torso.

Should you be convicted of murder? Hhhmm? Something to ponder... here's a thought --- Whats the difference in being drugged with PCP or adrenaline? That pharmacy thief in effect drugged that man with a dose of adrenaline so powerful it could have killed him from heart failure alone. And yet, you expect him to think clearly? Are you kidding me?

I once was awakened by a thief that had broken into my truck, and yes, I was in the sleeper. He was rifling through my stuff up front -- My adrenaline spiked so hard that I could hardly breath much less think clearly. If I had a gun I most assuredly would have shot that bastard in the back while he was climbing out of the door---

After reading the above comments on this story I suppose most of you think that I to should be in prison if I had done that. As it stands, I think most of you are going with some delusional fantasy that YOU could have handled yourself differently.

Give me a break.

TMike:cool:

edit: Another thought - Who was the instigator of violence? Who truly is at fault? Who deserves punishment? The defiant shooter or the thief?

[AFPVet]

Have any of you ever had your home broken into while you were sleeping? (enter jeopardy music)

Scenario: -IMAGINE an armed robber forcing you at gunpoint to take PCP and then tie you up while he rapes your wife or daughter. Then somehow you escape and find your gun, you run and in an enraged filled moment you shoot the thug to the ground, and while still under the influence of PCP, you re-load and empty a fresh 20 round magazine into his torso.

Should you be convicted of murder? Hhhmm? Something to ponder... here's a thought --- Whats the difference in being drugged with PCP or adrenaline? That pharmacy thief in effect drugged that man with a dose of adrenaline so powerful it could have killed him from heart failure alone. And yet, you expect him to think clearly? Are you kidding me?

I once was awakened by a thief that had broken into my truck, and yes, I was in the sleeper. He was rifling through my stuff up front -- My adrenaline spiked so hard that I could hardly breath much less think clearly. If I had a gun I most assuredly would have shot that bastard in the back while he was climbing out of the door---

After reading the above comments on this story I suppose most of you think that I to should be in prison if I had done that. As it stands, I think most of you are going with some delusional fantasy that YOU could have handled yourself differently.

Give me a break.

TMike:cool:

edit: Another thought - Who was the instigator of violence? Who truly is at fault? Who deserves punishment? The defiant shooter or the thief?

Well now if you would've placed that thief under citizens arrest for the breech of peace and they make a threatening gesture which puts you in fear of your life, you would be good to go. Citizen's arrest can only be used for felonies and the breech of peace in my state... theft is almost a felony (class A misdemeanor) however, it can be a felony if it involves unauthorized control of a motor vehicle.

[Carehn]

I take the side of the shop keep.

[nobody's_hero]

Two in the chest, one in the head is an acceptable tactic for defense and doesn't require follow-up shots if done correctly.

[TruckinMike]

oh never mind.

[AFPVet]

Two in the chest, one in the head is an acceptable tactic for defense and doesn't require follow-up shots if done correctly.

This is true.

[Lucille]

Interesting comment over on BaB (http://barelyablog.com/?p=39852#comments):


If he appeals, it is possible to get the conviction reduced to Manslaughter. That is based on the common sense that I have seen demonstrated by the Oklahoma Court of appeals. It is possible they won’t overturn the first degree murder conviction but they have acted responsibly in the past. When I’ve been in discussions with judges and attorneys we discussed the tendency for women to empty the gun, reload and empty the mag again. It is a ‘heat of the moment’ reaction that can last a long time. The fact that he is male doesn’t change the highly emotional state ‘fight or flight’ triggers and it doesn’t go away in a flash.

By Robert Glisson on 07.16.11 4:37 am

The comments on WND (via FB) are about the same as here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=322145

I'm on Ersland's side, and stand against the state and their tool jurors, the race-baiters, and the criminals who wouldn't be dead if they didn't choose to be thieving little sh!ts.

[Lucille]

Related:

http://gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net/o1/gamestar/objects/287268_main.jpg

[AFPVet]

Related:

http://gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net/o1/gamestar/objects/287268_main.jpg

This sign made the prosecutor's case a slam dunk for a couple awhile back. Intentionally killing people is not legal... you shoot with the intention to stop the attack. Granted, they may expire as a result of being stopped; however, when you say that you shot to kill them, it tells the court that you intentionally wanted them to die rather than simply stopping them. Shoot at the center of mass... if that does not stop them, shoot for the CNS. Even though this will likely cause the subject to expire, this is shooting to stop the attack... not to kill. I hope that I am making myself clear. When I say shoot to stop, I am not talking about shooting their arm or leg... this is for legal reasons... please listen to me. You are using deadly force. Do not screw around here. Only shoot when you are in fear for your life or serious bodily injury to yourself or others. This ain't the movies.

[Acala]

Most civilized folks take killing other folks seriously. You generally can't do it except when necessary to prevent a violent crime or, depending on the State, certain other kinds of felonies. This guy clearly was not preventing anything. So he cannot avail himself of the justifiable homicide defense. So the only question is what will be the charge? Heat of passion is generally not available if there was premeditation. Premeditation exists if the defendant had the intent to kill and the intent to kill preceded the actual kiling by enough of an interval to allow reflection.

This joker took the guy down and then formed the intent to shoot him in the head a few times, went and reloaded and did the deed. Premeditation is pretty clear here. The jury got it right.

That having been said, armed robbery is a dangerous business and the dead guy and his family have nothing to complain about.

[Lucille]

This sign made the prosecutor's case a slam dunk for a couple awhile back. Intentionally killing people is not legal... you shoot with the intention to stop the attack. Granted, they may expire as a result of being stopped; however, when you say that you shot to kill them, it tells the court that you intentionally wanted them to die rather than simply stopping them. Shoot at the center of mass... if that does not stop them, shoot for the CNS. Even though this will likely cause the subject to expire, this is shooting to stop the attack... not to kill. I hope that I am making myself clear. When I say shoot to stop, I am not talking about shooting their arm or leg... this is for legal reasons... please listen to me. You are using deadly force. Do not screw around here.

Is that right about the sign?

I get what you're saying. I have no idea how I'd react under the circumstances. I haven't been trained to kill by the state, like Ersland, or been in war.

I'm curious to know how the courts and juries have treated women who've reloaded and continued to shoot. Not curious enough to google it though. Anyone?

Does the fight or flight response abate in under a minute?

I agree that manslaughter would have been enough. Alas, the state loves to throw the book at the mundanes.

[jonhowe]

Ya and SWAT was allowed to unload 71 bullets at a Marine in his own kitchen after they busted down his door May 5th 2011, ohh but that is ok because it's the Police. :rolleyes:

God help us.

What a terrible argument. NEITHER is ok. One being done does not make the other one acceptable.

[AFPVet]

What a terrible argument. NEITHER is ok. One being done does not make the other one acceptable.

Exactly.

[libertarian4321]

Is that right about the sign?

I get what you're saying. I have no idea how I'd react under the circumstances. I haven't been trained to kill by the state, like Ersland, or been in war.

I'm curious to know how the courts and juries have treated women who've reloaded and continued to shoot. Not curious enough to google it though. Anyone?

Does the fight or flight response abate in under a minute?

I agree that manslaughter would have been enough. Alas, the state loves to throw the book at the mundanes.

I might buy "manslaughter" if the guy put two clips in the victim in one event- fired all his bullets, reloaded, fired again. He could say he didn't know the robber was incapacitated.

However, the guy in this video shot the robber and laid him out, ran past the downed teen age robber, left the building to chase his accomplice down the street, fired two shots at the accomplice, came back in the building, looked at the unconscious robber, went to the back of the store, dug around to find another weapon, possibly loaded that weapon (hard to tell from the video), then walked back to the prone robber, and unloaded five more shots into him at point blank range.

That was just plain wrong. It was not "fight or flight" response. And it for damned sure wasn't something he learned in the military.

He's a dangerous criminal, just as much, if not more so, than the guys robbing him- he deserves a long stint in prison.

[libertarian4321]

I watched some of this guy's interrogation on YouTube. It sounded bogus.

Turns out he lied about his military record, saying that he had "PTSD" from all the people he killed with a .50 caliber machine gun during the Gulf War.

In reality, he was in Oklahoma during the three days of ground combat. He did fly supply missions from time to time prior to the commencement of ground operations (he was an Air Force pharmacist, not an Army Infantryman).

[Mach]

Say what you will, when two guys come into your store and put guns in your faces you do not sit around and think things through, you are instantly overloaded with adrenaline, and no, he was not trained to keep that adrenaline in check, so, manslaughter is the maximum it should have been, he didn't sit around and wish someone would rob him so he could kill them. He was one of the innocent victims of robbery in this case and that should count for something.

People do get on my nerves sitting around saying... "well, he didn't have to do that."

What, don't shoot and kill people that put guns in your face and are ready to kill you for a little cash?

Don't bother preaching, I don't see myself reloading and executing on purpose like that, I am a decent shot the first time.

Is the other robber doing any time?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

No, the lesson is don't go and unload 5 more times into an attacker that has already been disabled and no longer a threat. AND if you are gonna do so, turn off the damn video camera first or at least destroy the tape and ask for your lawyer. aka: don't be a moron.

If someone threatens my life, the last thing I'm going to worry about is how much I defend myself.

[ForLiberty2012]

People, just to clear things up... The guy he shot in the head had no weapon on him... The guy with the gun fled out of the store, he then preceded to shoot at him from outside of his store (This guy was no threat at the time and he could have hit an innocent person firing down the street like an idiot like that). He then walked past the unconscious guy's body a second time, went and grabbed a different gun, and fired 5 shots to his abdomen. Totally unnecessary... that is not what someone "defending" themselves do. He was in a fit of rage and wanted them both to die.

[Mach]

In a fit of rage that they came in and stuck guns in their faces?

How dare him.

I'm not saying what he did was right, I'm just saying he doesn't deserve the rest of his life in prison... hopefully he gets paroled on his first try, or appeals and succeeds.

See, if he walks out of prison tomorrow, it doesn't bother me, I don't feel like a dangerous criminal has just been let go, he'll go get a job/business and go about his life... just like he was before this all happened to him.

[libertarian4321]

Say what you will, when two guys come into your store and put guns in your faces you do not sit around and think things through, you are instantly overloaded with adrenaline, and no, he was not trained to keep that adrenaline in check, so, manslaughter is the maximum it should have been, he didn't sit around and wish someone would rob him so he could kill them. He was one of the innocent victims of robbery in this case and that should count for something.

People do get on my nerves sitting around saying... "well, he didn't have to do that."

What, don't shoot and kill people that put guns in your face and are ready to kill you for a little cash?

Don't bother preaching, I don't see myself reloading and executing on purpose like that, I am a decent shot the first time.

Is the other robber doing any time?

The other robber AND 2 older guys who put them up to it are also serving. The other robber, who was only 14, is in a juvenile facility. The older guys are serving life sentences for murder. Something in the law about how anyone involved in a felony can be charged with murder if someone is killed in connection with the event.

I think it should be pointed out again. The kid he shot first, then went back and shot 5 more times did NOT have a gun. And even if he did, he was prone and unconscious at the time the pharmacist started pumping rounds into him. The guy was angry, yes, but he was not "in the heat of the moment" nor was he "fearing for his life" at that point.

No one is saying the kid who was murdered was a choir boy, but you don't have the right to blow someone away just because you are angry, even if you have a right to be angry.

The pharmacist KNEW he had fucked up, because he began telling lies to set up a "traumatized veteran" PTSD defense as soon as the cops started to talk to him about the incident- even before he was considered a criminal suspect (the tapes are on youtube).