I just saw the video, and I have to say he seemed pretty calm about the whole thing. The coup de grace really seems very efficient and businesslike. Based on the video, I tend to agree with the idea that he thought about it and decided to put the guy down.
Like I said earlier, you have the luxury of MMQ’ing this thing until you are blue in the face. Ersland, had no such luxury. He felt his life was in danger and took what he felt at the time were the appropriate measures to preserve his own life. I’m sure now that he wishes he would have posted a question on SDMB prior to making any moves just so he could analyze all of his options. :rolleyes:
He was apparently unconscious according to whom? The only one who knows with any certainty is Ersland, right? It doesn’t take a supercop to cover someone, but if you have never taken any sort of training to defend yourself is this sort of situation, you have no idea how quickly things can turn to shit, or in this case, get even worse.
Ersland felt he needed to eliminate the threat that was Parsons. He did.
More supposition on your part, and plenty of it. Ersland obviously didn’t think he was wasting ammo did he? He had two guns and who knows how much ammo or loaded mags. I would suggest, without a shred of proof, that wasting ammo was the least of his concerns.
He already knew that the head shot was not sufficient. Right? Perhaps at that moment, every story he heard about the .380 not being a good choice for self defense came rushing back to him so he decided to aim for COM instead. In the end, those were the hits that killed Parsons.
I am not monday morning quarterbacking. I am evaluating his actions to determine best as possible his motivation. You give a couple of what ifs, but look at the guys actions. If he was scared of buddies coming from outside or the guy pulling a piece or whatever, he wouldn’t of done what he did. He wouldn’t walk passed the guy with his gun at his side. He wouldn’t turn his back on him. He wouldn’t reload in the wide open 10 feet from him. It’s clear from these actions that he wasn’t acting as someone facing mortal danger. He was acting like someone that saw a person that wasn’t a threat, and formed the idea in his mind to finish him off. That makes it murder.
OK, how about this. Why did he “finish him off” if he was no longer a threat?
He didn’t even lock the door to the store when he went back inside. Hell, he didn’t even kick the block of wood that the kids put down (to keep the door from closing) out of the way.
Suggestions that he was worried that the perp would come back have no reasonable basis based on what we can see in the video.
Adrenaline fueled rage at having been held up and nearly killed by a couple of punk stickup men?
This story has been major news on all three networks, every broadcast since Ersland was charged. A few things have been mentioned that are not (apparently) in the videos you’ve been getting your info from.
I’m not saying this is all true. I wasn’t there, I’m not an OKC investigator, I’m not privy to any inside info. But every news station and/or broadcast I’ve seen has mentioned:
The dead kid was 16.
The armed kid (that ran away) is 14.
The two guys in the car (that have been charged also) were of legal age (22? 25? I don’t remember exactly, just that they are not minors).
The police have uncovered no evidence that the robbers fired their gun (singular).
No gun was found at the scene.
M.E. reports the bullet wound was alongside the guys head, not through and through.
M.E. believes the dead guy was unconscious when fatal shots were fired.
The pharmacist did not reload. He got a second gun and emptied it into the unconscious man. He said the same thing in an interview (not the emptying part, just the second gun). As for why his lawyer let him do an interview, your guess is as good as mine, but I saw it.
Now I’ve seen local news get their facts wrong. But, all three of the major network affiliates and at least one of the locals are saying the same things. Maybe they are all quoting the same source, but there does seem to be a consensus on all the statements I’ve made above.
The “stand your ground” law (what OK calls it) says you can use deadly force if and only if you feel you are in “grave and imminent danger”. IANAL, I’m simply quoting the “experts” from the (endless) coverage. This law will only come into play as a possible defense for the pharmacist, who has been charged under state law.
It’s my (admittedly unreliable) understanding that the other defendants have been charged under federal laws. At least that’s the Oklahoma County D.A.‘s reason for bringing charges against them after stating the day before that no additional (homicide) charges would be filed. To be clearer, on the day the D.A. filed the charge against the pharmacist he said no other homicide charges would be filed. The next day he filed the charges against the other three suspects. When asked about this reversal, he said he was filing the second days’ charges on the behalf of Federal prosecutors.
As to the OP; The first time I saw the video I thought he was completely justified in his actions up until he decided to pick up the second gun. After that he was guilty of premeditated murder. Nothing I’ve seen or heard has changed my mind (although I will maintain an open mind, as none of this has been proven in a court).
With the coverage this has received I don’t see any way in hell this guy can get an unbiased jury.
Just for fun, let’s say that all the “facts” above are proven to be true. Does that change anyone’s mind?
ETA I think this is my first post in this forum. woo, me!
Andrew Jackson.
Thank you. When I read the story, I thought, “So what?” After I watched all three camera angles, looked like he was more interested in sending a message or simple vengeance. Certainly not self defense. Did you see how close he got to the kid to shoot?
From his first shot, it sure didn’t seem like he had bad aim.
Prediction? Ersland’s charges will be dropped.
I don’t understand which of those facts you think might change anyones mind.
It doesn’t change my mind that he’s guilty of first degree murder. A lot of the discussion here and on metafilter has made me think that, if I were involved in the sentencing phase, I would see a lot of mitigation in the circumstances.
Doesn’t change mine. I think you’re right. Only thing I couldn’t tell was if he got a second gun or if he reloaded, but what’s the difference? He walked right up to the kid and fired 5 times.
And that equals premeditated murder? Not if I was on the jury.
No, that has nothing to do with premeditated murder. I’m merely speculating about his motive. It’s premeditated because he made a decision to get the second gun and shoot Parsons five more times, and in doing so demonstrated pretty clearly that he didn’t think Parsons was a threat.
How about manslaughter?
Tom Jane wishes he looked like me.
Possibly. See, I’m not completely sold on what the guy did. He certainly would have made it easier on himself had he not threw more lead at the situation. That being said, I can see how, quite easily, Ersland could have seen a still existent threat.
Had he put those five bullets into Parsons with the first gun, before or immediately after chasing the second perp out, I’d be willing to give Ersland the benefit of the doubt. But watching the video, watching him step over Parsons with his gun at his side, watching him turn his back on Parsons, watching him come back with a second gun, walk right up and shoot five more times… that’s not dealing with an immediate threat, that’s a coup de grace.
I’m not really trying to change anyone’s mind, but it does seem to me that if (and it’s a big if) Ersland was the only one shooting and the dead guy was both unarmed and unconscious, then his claim of self-defense is at least somewhat weakened.
Posters have said he was justified because he felt threatened. It is grasping. He was no threat since he was laying on his back unarmed. But if as some stupidly think, he was justified, how much farther can he go? Would he feel threatened because one got away? Should he be allowed to hunt him down? Then he likely will piss off a family. What if they threaten him? Should he hunt them down too?
You are allowed to defend yourself and your property. This is way past the line.