And so it was in ancient times before laws were codified. Our forebears created law to get away from a world where individuals could unilaterally slaughter anyone who allegedly insulted them.
The jury is still out on the worthless part. What the story doesn’t report is that the two young teenagers may have been forced into this robery. There were two adults waiting in the get away car that sent them in. It apaers that the adults at the very least set this robbery up.
Did you watch the video?
He’s a murderer, and he belongs in prison, full stop.
Can you see in the video whether or not the robber was dead (or going to inevitably die)? If not, how can you claim the pharmacist is a “murderer, full stop?” Don’t you have to at least kill someone wrongfully to be a murderer?
So you think it’s likely that Mr. Ersland fired 5 shots at point blank range into a corpse? Is that your position?
It’s not relevant as to whether the robber was dying anyway. Ersland shot the man with the intent of killing him, and he’s dead. That’s murder.
If someone is dying of cancer, you’re not allowed to kill them and say “Well, he was about to die anyway.” We’re all about to die, for sufficiently long definitions of “about.” Ersland INTENDED to commit murder, and he carried out the act of doing so, which is what matters.
Unless he was already full-stop dead, in which case it’s mutilating a corpse, not murder. Or are you claiming that someone can be prosecuted for attempted murder based on thinking or not knowing whether someone they shot was alive when they weren’t.
I am pretty certain you can be. If you see a person and empty your gun into them, that they were already dead (unbeknownst to you) doesn’t save you from attempted murder charges.
But criminal law was back in Spring 2003, and though I can remember the case clearly, I cannot remember the outcome.
Why are so many worried about a person who doesn’t even have any respect for the law?
If he hadn’t gone in with bad intentions, he would still be alive.
One thing for sure, is that he will not be robbing any more stores, or people.
I’m sure that the owner of the store was pretty excited.
Heat of the moment type thing.
If you have ever been to war, you would know the excitment.
I think you should write to your state senator and representative, and suggest they put in place laws which take account of such factors as how excited you are, whether you are being robbed, where you are, and the heat of the moment when you shoot someone. I think it would be a sensible and much overdue addition to our simplistic laws regarding murder which include none of such qualifiers.
Apparently it’s the position of Ersland’s defense team. Or part of their position:
Well, of naturally if you’re going to give Jerome a pass because he was “pretty excited” then you would apply the same standard to the chap he pumped 5 rounds into right?
perhaps the dead guy was also “pretty excited” about something?
But such a shame - we can’t ask him, he’s dead.
Because the law applies to everyone.
What in the world are you basing this opinion on?
There is a missing element to the Jerome Ersland case that most people don’t understand, unless (for example) they’ve been a combat medic. That element is what CAN happen in cases of a head shot. People tend to assume that a person who is shot in the head “just lays there bleeding.” NOT NECESSARILY!!!.. What I’m referring to is similar to the old expression “A chicken with its head cut off”, in that there are autonomic muscle responses which commonly occur, sometimes immediately, sometimes as the trauma spreads, which CAN make someone who has sustained a head shot appear to be trying to get back up, trying to get to a weapon, etc. When there is ANY uncertainty as to whether or not a person who has just threatened your life is still a threat, the appropriate response is to neutralize that threat. ONLY when you can comfortablly turn your back on that person and walk away is when you know for an absolute certainty that the attacker can do absolutely NOTHING to hurt you…
Just for the sake of addressing the issue: Let’s assume for a moment that Parker was NOT experiencing autonomic muscle responses. Ersland is disabled (a fact that surely did not go unnoticed by the criminals); and, was preparing to do something which would necessitate him dividing his attention - getting to the phone and dealing with the 911 operator. From watching the video, it’s apparent that Parker would be out of his view during that time. Also, I’m just assuming here, there were still other employees inside, for who’s safety he felt responsible. Better to err on the side of caution than to risk the safety of everyone who was lawfully in that pharmacy. Was his thinking 100% at that time? WHO’S WOULD BE??? Adrenaline affects the thinking process of ANYONE! It’s really easy for someone who’s never been in a life or death situation to “monday morning quarterback” such a situation; but, survival mode is exactly that - whatever it takes to make sure that you and those you need to protect survive… He didn’t bring the situation to them - they brought the situation to him… The fact that all they were expecting were a disabled guy and some female empoyees just goes to the very heart of the issue: They were PREDATORS! Most of you posting in this forum don’t seem to grasp this concept. I hope you never have the misfortune of encounting any; because, I seriously doubt that you’d survive such an encounter. If you did, it would just be blind luck.
It’s unfortunate that Parker was down just outside of the view of the security camera. If that were not the case, things might be a lot simpler; and, Erland MIGHT not be having his world turned upside down right now even more than it already had been. The taking of a life in self-defense is NEVER a pleasant experience, it’s simply necessary to prevent being a victim in cases where there’s a threat of deadly force being directed at you or another. That’s something which Ersland will have to deal with for the rest of his life, regardless of the outcome of his trial; and, the only way he can really do it is from the stand point of hoping that, by killing Parker, other lives were probably saved. (Be it from Parker not being around to grow into a career criminal; or, from causing other kids to think twice about following in Parker’s footsteps.)
People can sit around and debate all of this - from the comfort and safety of their computers - “till the cows come home;” but, unless they’ve ever been in a situation where they had good reason to believe that the lives of themself or others were threatened, it’s just a bunch of “cyber hot air.” Reading through the preceding posts, I was once again reminded of how few people really have any idea of how to survive in a less than utopian world. Too many suffer from the misconception that the bad guys play by the same rules as the good guys. Trust me on this - THEY DON’T… If you assume they will, your chances of surviving an encounter go WAY down! “Please mister bad guy, don’t hurt me…” MIGHT work on some; but, that’s NOT something you can EVER count on; and, if you do, you give up your window for a sucessful counter-attack. The ONLY valid use of that tactic is to use it JUST long enough to get the bad guy to lower his guard. ANY other use of it is playing Russian roulette with your life! It would be nice if that weren’t the case; but, that’s not “life in the real world.” One bit of insanity that I heard Prater spout recently was his putting a strong emphasis on Parker being “a teenager” - as if Ersland couldn’t have wound up just as dead at the hands of a teenager as he could have at the hands of an adult. That’s not even factoring in Parker wearing a mask; and, Ersland having no way of knowing he was “just a teenager” while the crap was hitting the fan. Sorry; but, in the real world, a 10 year old, can make you just as dead as a 50 year old in such a situation; and, probably quicker… (A potential victim is more likely to let their guard down; and, a younger criminal is more likely to react without thought.)
As for the Jerome Ersland Act: I think it’s a much needed bill; and, I’m happy that it passed. Ersland did not go to work that day with ANY criminal intent what-so-ever that day; and, Prater treating him as though he did is disgusting to the point of being nauseating. The four people who were responsible for the armed robbery are the four people who were responsible for Parker being dead. The JE Act puts criminals on notice that victims have no legal obligation to be victims - either of the criminal; or, of folks like David Prater… Simple solution - don’t get involved in the crime!!! Make something positive out of your life, instead… What Prater is doing is sending a VERY bad message to criminals: If you don’t get them, we will for you… We’re going to make your potential victims think long and hard before defending themselves from you… I had expected more from Prater, as an ex-cop; and, I’ll be EXTREMELY happy to see him get voted out of office in the next election! It’s a shame that Ersland’s attorney can’t drag things out until Prater is voted out and there’s a DA in office who has some common sense. At least, now that the bill has passed, no one else will have to have their life destroyed over such nonsense. Something else I feel is disgusting is that the 2 scumbags who planned the robbery will ever be eligible for parole. At 30 and 40, it’s entirely possible that they’ll someday be back out on the streets. Ersland, if convicted, will quite likely die in prison, given his age, health, and the general circumstances. Even if he’s acquitted, he’ll never recover financially; since, he won’t be reimbursed for this travesty. THAT’s the real crime here!
And the jury agreed. Good. I’m pleased with this verdict.
I’m also pleased with the verdict. Fear shouldn’t give anyone leeway to execute a prone and helpless figure. Ersland defended himself well with his first few shots, but he should not have come back and killed the guy
I’ve been following this case and the trial closely for 2 years now, and I was very glad to see that not only was he convicted but that the conviction was for 1st degree murder and not manslaughter.
Jerome Ersland has shown that he is a liar and a dangerous man, and he should spend the rest of his life in prison, as the jury recommended.
One of my favorite things from the trial was this subtly racist line the defense attorney, Irvin Box, used during closing arguments:
[
](The Oklahoman: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, News, Politics and Sports)
Not too surprisingly, the poll at that NewsOK page leans heavily towards Ersland not being convicted. :rolleyes:
Sentencing is set for 11 June 2011. I’m curious now as to whether or not Judge Ray Elliott follows the jury’s recommendation, and if not how he justifies the sentence.
When dealing with an armed robber in my store or home i am of the firm belief that still living = still a threat.
Which wasn’t the case here.
Why don’t you read up on the case and then make arguments germane to the topic?