Some of you may remember this case from 2009: a pharmacist in Oklahoma shot at 2 people attempting to hold up the store where he worked, hitting one and then chasing the other out of the store. He then returned inside, retrieved another gun and pumped 5 bullets into the wounded (and possibly unconscious) robber. The whe thing was captured on surveillance video. Mr. Ersland was subsequently arrested and charged with murder. For those that missed the initial discussion, you can review it here.
So far Mr. Ersland’s attorney has done a great job of dragging this case out (the trial has not yet started). However, it seems that an Oklahoma lawmaker has introduced the Jerome Ersland Act, which would legitimize and legalize future actions such as those taken in 2009. cite
I don’t think it will surprise anyone that I think this is an incredibly stupid bill, but I thought it might be an interesting debate topic if anyone disagrees with me and thinks this would be a welcome addittion to a state’s statutes.
Please explain why you think this would be a good or a bad idea.
Sounds like legalized vigilante executions to me. There’s a major difference between shooting someone in the act of burglarizing your house/business or who is a demonstrable threat to your life, and shooting someone who’s already bleeding on the floor. The latter is homicide, of one degree or another, regardless of what some grandstanding legislator wants to think.
No kidding. I’m all in favor of property owners wielding deadly force in legitimate defense of homes and businesses, but when the man is hit and down, the defense has been accomplished. Kick his weapon away and call the authorities to collect him.
Very stupid, because “shortly” is not a quantifiable period of time, among other more sinister reasons. I would be more than amazed if this gets through. Sheer insanity.
I remember that happening and debating it. I believe I said that pumping 5 bullets into a helpless robber, despite what he tried to do earlier, is wrong
Ersland should be tried for and convicted of murder based on the evidence I remember
The thread linked in the OP is over 11 pages. What was the controversy (or was there one)?? The only mitigating circumstances I can think of (from my VERY brief look at the case) is either that the robbers made some sort of threat against the pharmacist (i.e. something like ‘We are going to come back and kill your ass, man…and your family too!’), or it was some sort of temporary insanity due to the stress of the situation (I could see this…this is real life, not Hollywood after all). Other than that, it seems clear that going back to shoot someone who is already dead or dying (certainly unconscious and not a threat anymore) constitutes murder.
In the specific case, if the robber was already incapacitated, then continuing to shoot him in a separate instance seems excessive.
The bill though, while not worded well, could be good public policy if it were refined. The intent to hold harmless people who defend themselves is a good thing. Just because the bad guys starts to run away, doesn’t mean he should be immune from response.
One of the more egregious parts of this case is that the pharmacist ran down the street, gave up chasing the second guy, and then put himself back into harms way by re-entering his store, seemingly for the sole purpose to shoot the first guy. I don’t know if the new law would protect him in that case, but I don’t see any benefit to society in protecting this specific guy’s behavior.
Well, I think the guy is allowed to enter his own store.
I don’t see why a new law is a wise idea, though. If he shot the robber to avoid imminent injury to himself, then he’s fine; if not, then he committed a crime. The reasonableness of his belief that he was in danger of imminent harm is a question of fact for the jury.
In short, I don’t see any good reason for this new law.
The pharmacist’s actions were undoubtedly illegal, if true (and I’m sure it is true), according to current law.
A worthless human being is dead. This is a good thing.
The pharmacist is supposedly only into murdering robbers. He doesn’t present a threat to society, only those that have placed themselves outside of society. He puts down two-legged dogs, apparently. The man, therefore, should not be punished or removed from society.
So the Ersland Act is a good idea. It will protect those people who are working to better society by shooting and killing animals.
I can see the rebuttals now. You’re going to say “But what if it’s just a drunk person that’s not robbing you?” or “But what if a stray bullet hits an innocent bystander?” Then it’s murder and has nothing to do with the Act at all. Leave that up to the jury to decide. The point is that if my pharmacy is being robbed, then it’s fine if the robber dies. I should be able to do anything within my power to bring that about. If the cops get there first and he goes to jail, fine. If I kill him first, fine.
Don’t want to get killed robbing a place? Don’t rob places.
But you just stated the good reason for the new law. “If not [to avoid imminent injury], then he’s committed a crime”… that’s the problem the law seeks to remedy.
One reason this kind of thing is against the law is that most of us realize it’s bad for society if we’re fostering this kind of attitude. I can’t think of any reason it should be legal to shoot someone who is no longer a threat.
So it’s okay with you if the average citizen gets to decide that a burglary/robbery should carry a death sentence, regardless of threat to the homeowner/proprietor?
ETA: You’re basically saying that going from a society that sanctions self-defense/home-defense to a society that sanctions “He needed killin’” is a good thing?
