You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

There's a case brewing up in OK that is likely to become quite the controversy

Clicky the Linky

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.

Jerome Ersland, 57, was being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said in an afternoon news conference that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.

There are many angles to this issue that need considering. Most importantly is that ones right to self defense ends when the threat ends. That means you can't just keep shooting an unconscious attacker. The pharmacist claims the guy was attempting to get up, which would make it legitimate again.. but it's off camera so we will never know. DA says there was no gun found, so there was no threat. Of course, not seeing a gun and there not being a gun are two different issues, and since this guy did just participate in an armed robbery there is the potential to believe he is a threat. Goblins should stay down, it's safer for the goblin.

Then there's the question of being able to murder a dead person... with intent at that. The autopsy says that the perp wasn't dead when shot again. What it doesn't say is if the head wound was survivable. Can you really murder a guy who has already received a fatal wound? Wouldn't that just be abuse of corpse at that point?

The question of intent is interesting to me from a legal perspective since it sort of invalidates the whole case. Consider this: If the gremlin in fact wasn't moving and appeared dead, how could the pharmacist intentionally kill him?... he being dead in the pharmacists mind. Now, if the gremlin was moving about the pharmacist could clearly perceive him to be alive and have intent to kill him... but the gremlin moving around puts him back in the threat category and removes the whole murder question.

I can see abuse of corpse sticking, or manslaughter (though he was plugging a corpse) but 1st degree murder seems like an awfully hard charge to make stick here.

Agree with your assessment. I would keep shooting until the threat to me is eliminated. Some head shots are survivable. One thing is trying to get up, and the other are death spasms/twitches.

The 1st Degree Murder is BS.

I would assume that 1st degree is being used in this case to assure some type of conviction, as opposed to bringing a lesser charge and then having it dismissed.

If you point a gun at someone in the commission of a robbery you deserve whatever you get. Someone points a gun at me in my home they are going to get 30 or so .223 in their body.

America is going to the criminals


As for the "suspect", and I uses that word loosely.

1st degree is bullshit, there was no premeditation.

I myself am quite surprised this is an issue in otherwise law and order-friendly and gun-friendly Oklahoma. I am wondering if the prosecuting attorney knows something that we don't know yet, or if he sees this case as a way of making a name for himself with some high-powered New York lawfirms.

Video:
http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/ ... 4432794001

The most dangerous people on earth are prosecutors with an agenda.
Now with that being stated, after viewing the tapes, someone is in big time trouble. The only winner here is going to be the defense attorney, because everything the 57 year old pharmacist has work for is going to the attorney.

Back to the tapes, why did it take so long for the pharmacist to telephone for help?

BlueLion wrote:Back to the tapes, why did it take so long for the pharmacist to telephone for help?

Adrenaline?

You don't see the body after he is hit the first time and falls. The shooting was justified, but the follow ups; I fear he is in deep pooh.

From our Monday Morning Quarterback position, it appears as though he crossed the line of legal justification. But if I was the Pharmacist, knowing the video shows at least one subject entering that was clearly armed, both subjects with masks, having the attorney that we saw in the video, and knowing that the jurors are Oklahomans, I'd be feeling pretty good right now.

If he'd only have made the first shot, he'd be golden right now. And that was not a bad shot, heat of the moment, obstacles, no clearly defined facial features and making a successful killing head shot with a short-barreled revolver from 20-25 feet, I want that guy on my team.

I read about this case last week. There's no way, as far as I'm concerned, it was anything other than a lawful self-defense situation. Charging him with first-degree murder (a crime which potentially carries the death penalty in Oklahoma, if aggravating circumstances are met) is ludicrous.

How can first degree even be fathomed here. That would be pre-meditation. He didn't plan on shooting a robber that day.

Let me get this straight. He shot the guy in the head, then chased after the other guy. He came back, obtained a different handgun, went over to the guy he shot minutes before and shot him something like five or six more times in the belly? Hmm. Sounds really fishy.

I've yet to see someone who took a shot to the head give the impression that he was attempting to escape, let alone get up.

Mark wrote:Let me get this straight. He shot the guy in the head, then chased after the other guy. He came back, obtained a different handgun, went over to the guy he shot minutes before and shot him something like five or six more times in the belly? Hmm. Sounds really fishy.

I've yet to see someone who took a shot to the head give the impression that he was attempting to escape, let alone get up.

And how many people, in real life, have you seen get shot in the head?

The point is, you weren't there, you don't know.

From the sound of all this - the nature of the charge, who will likely be on the jury and so on - it looks like the prosecutor may have made a mistake in going after him on the wrong charge. If he's cleared of the 1st degree charge, could the DA go after him again on a different charge on the same matter, or would that violate double-jeopardy?

Tornado82 wrote:And how many people, in real life, have you seen get shot in the head?

The point is, you weren't there, you don't know.

Two dozen, give or take.

Tornado82 wrote:

Mark wrote:Let me get this straight. He shot the guy in the head, then chased after the other guy. He came back, obtained a different handgun, went over to the guy he shot minutes before and shot him something like five or six more times in the belly? Hmm. Sounds really fishy.

I've yet to see someone who took a shot to the head give the impression that he was attempting to escape, let alone get up.

And how many people, in real life, have you seen get shot in the head?

The point is, you weren't there, you don't know.

You might be surprised when Mark answers you. I have seen 6 people that have been shot in the head. 5 of them I was on scene within 5mins of the shooting. One of them was dead for a while. None of them could have gotten up.

I am not saying it isn't possible, and I think this is a justified shooting ( I have no problem with people killing other people as they are commiting an armed robbery one less scumbag on the earth ) but Mark is correct in saying that it is highly unlikely for a person to continue to be a threat after a headshot. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Allstarflyer wrote:From the sound of all this - the nature of the charge, who will likely be on the jury and so on - it looks like the prosecutor may have made a mistake in going after him on the wrong charge. If he's cleared of the 1st degree charge, could the DA go after him again on a different charge on the same matter, or would that violate double-jeopardy?

Double jeopardy would prevent him being tried again. But he could probably be convicted of a lesser included offense. From the tape, he had plenty of time for premeditation after he comes back from chasing the second guy and goes in the back.

If I was the DA, I'd take it to the grand jury and see what charge they come back with, if any...

Boris wrote:Double jeopardy would prevent him being tried again.

Not always, I have a friend who had to stand trial twice for the same murder. No mistrial, hung jury, etc.; actual acquittal the first time around. Short version is that MS prosecutors decided that the murder happened in MS, not TN where the original trial was, and charged him all over again. Same result but another chunk lost from his life and bank account.

GPIARFF wrote:
You might be surprised when Mark answers you. I have seen 6 people that have been shot in the head. 5 of them I was on scene within 5mins of the shooting. One of them was dead for a while. None of them could have gotten up.

I am not saying it isn't possible, and I think this is a justified shooting ( I have no problem with people killing other people as they are commiting an armed robbery one less scumbag on the earth ) but Mark is correct in saying that it is highly unlikely for a person to continue to be a threat after a headshot. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Unless it's just grazed the ear, gunshots to the head tend to be fairly incapacitating.