Jerome Ersland. Selfish idiot.
http://www.newson6.com/story/14930877/jerome-ersland-tells-news-9-hes-suffering-in-misery
By the way, Im That Guy :)
Quote from: ZYX on June 17, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
Jerome Ersland. Selfish idiot.
http://www.newson6.com/story/14930877/jerome-ersland-tells-news-9-hes-suffering-in-misery
By the way, Im That Guy :)
And you put it perfectly. However, I don't think 1st Deg Murder was warranted. Manslaughter? Absolutely. He needs to serve time. He sounds like he wants to get off scot-free. Tough..
Quote from: Hoss on June 17, 2011, 11:33:26 PM
And you put it perfectly. However, I don't think 1st Deg Murder was warranted. Manslaughter? Absolutely. He needs to serve time. He sounds like he wants to get off scot-free. Tough..
I don't know about first degree murder, because I think that has to be premeditated, but maybe second degree. His intention was to kill this kid. That is fine with me, I would have done the same thing for the first one, two, maybe even three shots, but six times is totally uncalled for and shows agression rather than self defense.
Quote from: ZYX on June 18, 2011, 09:45:18 AM
I don't know about first degree murder, because I think that has to be premeditated, but maybe second degree. His intention was to kill this kid. That is fine with me, I would have done the same thing for the first one, two, maybe even three shots, but six times is totally uncalled for and shows agression rather than self defense.
Or an overage of adrenaline. He'd just had a gun pointed at him by the kid's partner. However, Ersland IS retired military, it's not like he hadn't been trained for stressful situations. I'd love to think I'd react a whole lot more rationally, but if the kid started to move or was rolling around on the floor, who's to say they wouldn't have done the same thing. It's a difficult deal, being a juror doesn't mean you put yourself in the suspects shoes, it means listening to the evidence and seeing how it fits the law.
My understanding is they had been robbed multiple times. He may have finally had enough. He might have also spoken to the cops more than he should have and thought the security tape and his account of the incident wouldn't implicate him in a murder. My future father-in-law also said he'd never have Irven Box represent him.
Jurors are speaking out saying we "don't understand the law" like they do. Still, I've heard no explanation how the prosecution cobbled together a 1st degree murder charge on this unless they managed to convince the jury that Ersland had been wanting to shoot a black thug in his pharmacy for years. In which case, that would be premeditated.
Conan, I'm with you on the first degree murder charge. Why is it considered first degree? I kinda wonder if there's something we were never told.
Quote from: ZYX on June 18, 2011, 03:34:04 PM
Conan, I'm with you on the first degree murder charge. Why is it considered first degree? I kinda wonder if there's something we were never told.
I believe the video showed him, after he had come back in from chasing the others, go back to behind the counter, bring the gun and then shoot this kid four or five more times when it was evident he was no longer a threat. It's possible in that 10 seconds that the prosecutor thought he was 'premeditating'.
I'm guessing it was first because he shot the kid and left, then came back later, walked by the kid, went and found a gun, and then shot him several times. He had negated the threat to his life, and seemed to be intent on coming back to finish him off. Whether that counts for first or not, I do not know.
I would imagine if these people could still speak would have wanted Ersland as their Pharmacist....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43456381/ns/us_news?gt1=43001
Quote from: Breadburner on June 19, 2011, 05:57:48 PM
I would imagine if these people could still speak would have wanted Ersland as their Pharmacist....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43456381/ns/us_news?gt1=43001
So I'm guessing from that remark you think he should get off scot-free, correct?
Quote from: Hoss on June 18, 2011, 05:40:11 PM
I believe the video showed him, after he had come back in from chasing the others, go back to behind the counter, bring the gun and then shoot this kid four or five more times when it was evident he was no longer a threat. It's possible in that 10 seconds that the prosecutor thought he was 'premeditating'.
Problem is, the ONLY evidence the wounded and/or dead robber was completely incapacitated or that he was not already dead would have to be the ME's testimony or relying on what the female caller was saying on the 911 tape and expecting someone can possibly be relating with 100% accuracy what's just happened when their life flashed before them. There is no camera angle out of the two videos which shows the robber laying on the ground, he could have been sitting up for all anyone knows (though I find it doubtful). There's no visual proof to the contrary. They could certainly figure out if the head wound came from the first shot or second round since he used two guns. IMO, if he'd have not changed guns, they could have never concluded the sequence of shots. Use a double-stack the next time or start out with the bigger artillery.
If M.E. testimony was the primary basis for the charge, his attorney should be all over that on appeal considering how well documented problems are at our M.E.'s office.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2011, 03:12:54 PM
Or an overage of adrenaline.
Or an overage of opiate based pain killers.
wonder why he stopped unloading? Did he run out of ammo?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2011, 09:56:36 AM
Problem is, the ONLY evidence the wounded and/or dead robber was completely incapacitated or that he was not already dead would have to be the ME's testimony or relying on what the female caller was saying on the 911 tape and expecting someone can possibly be relating with 100% accuracy what's just happened when their life flashed before them. There is no camera angle out of the two videos which shows the robber laying on the ground, he could have been sitting up for all anyone knows (though I find it doubtful). There's no visual proof to the contrary. They could certainly figure out if the head wound came from the first shot or second round since he used two guns. IMO, if he'd have not changed guns, they could have never concluded the sequence of shots. Use a double-stack the next time or start out with the bigger artillery.
If M.E. testimony was the primary basis for the charge, his attorney should be all over that on appeal considering how well documented problems are at our M.E.'s office.
The video I saw showed the robber laying face down on the floor and the pharmacist stepping over him to get another gun and then plugging him. That is probably what caused the jury to decide premeditation. There was little or no threat and obvious his motive was not fear.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 20, 2011, 11:20:31 AM
The video I saw showed the robber laying face down on the floor and the pharmacist stepping over him to get another gun and then plugging him. That is probably what caused the jury to decide premeditation. There was little or no threat and obvious his motive was not fear.
Link? I've seen two different camera angles and you cannot see the suspect in the ones I've seen.
Quote from: Hoss on June 19, 2011, 06:27:06 PM
So I'm guessing from that remark you think he should get off scot-free, correct?
I'm guessing your glad those people are dead and the perp is out walking the streets....
Quote from: Breadburner on June 20, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
I'm guessing your glad those people are dead and the perp is out walking the streets....
Nope, because once again you missed the fact that I said in another thread that these perpetrators got what they deserved. The guy shooting the perpetrators when he faced an imminent threat on his life is fine by me; the law allows for it. Shooting a kid when he's no longer a threat though? That takes bravery. Likely why you liked it.
And the grammar cop in me comes out..I'm not just a forum cop.
You're is a contraction of you are. Your is a possessive pronoun.
Go back to burning your yeast and grain foodmatter.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2011, 12:11:27 PM
Nope, because once again you missed the fact that I said in another thread that these perpetrators got what they deserved. The guy shooting the perpetrators when he faced an imminent threat on his life is fine by me; the law allows for it. Shooting a kid when he's no longer a threat though? That takes bravery. Likely why you liked it.
And the grammar cop in me comes out..I'm not just a forum cop.
You're is a contraction of you are. Your is a possessive pronoun.
Go back to burning your yeast and grain foodmatter.
What a guy you are..You think it's cool for innocents to get shot and killed......
Conan, I'm not much into searching out links but I think it was on the channel 6 newsfeed.
This is all I can find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ&feature=fvwrel
Wow, does he sound like Lenny from "Of Mice & Men" or is he gorked out on opiates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h0Z3kXHwqE&feature=related
On O'Reilly Factor he claims Parker was trying to talk to him and was turning his head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euluw4yGKUA&feature=related
Presser with D.A. Prater at the time. Still no view of Parker after he hit the deck. Prater explains the charges better. What he's saying is essentially Parker was no longer a threat at the time and the robbery was over with. Most of this explanation is from about 8:00 in the video and later as the media asks the DA questions. At 13:00 Prater says if the first shot had been fatal "We would not be here right now". Apparently the first shot was a fragment which went into the skull and knocked him out but was not fatal.
Again it's relying on the M.E.'s testimony on that. Take it for what it's worth.
http://www.news9.com/story/10429037/pharmacist-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-robber?redirected=true
Since Ersland had his conceal carry, he's been trained that once there is no longer a threat of bodily harm to yourself, you cannot shoot the suspect. Still hard for me to see it as more than 2nd degree murder or first manslaughter, but it does explain the thought process the DA used.
Quote from: Breadburner on June 20, 2011, 01:02:36 PM
What a guy you are..You think it's cool for innocents to get shot and killed......
And you think someone who shot a human being after he'd already disabled him SIX TIMES deserves to walk.
But of course I never said it was cool for innocents to get shot and killed. Just because you don't have an argument stop putting words in my mouth.
This ain't the Wild Freaking West, Yeastie Boy.
EDIT: And now that I re-read the entire content of the thread, I know what you're doing. I didn't read the msnbc article, so I can't comment on what happened there, and won't since I didn't read it. And still haven't read it. Especially since it was an MSNBC article YOU were linking, of all people
My point pertains to the subject at hand, not some comparison item.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2011, 04:50:49 PM
This ain't the Wild Freaking West, Yeastie Boy.
+1
Oklahoma City pharmacist convicted of murder faked back injury, examination finds
By NOLAN CLAY NewsOK.com
Published: 7/11/2011
OKLAHOMA CITY - A pharmacist convicted of murder has been faking a broken back, an examination of jail X-rays found. Jerome Jay Ersland, 59, of Chickasha, has worn a back brace for years and has been prescribed powerful medication for pain. He told the police and news media he suffers from an inoperable back injury.
X-rays of his back were taken after he was incarcerated at Oklahoma County jail May 26. A radiologist who examined the X-rays reported none of his vertebrae were fractured, sources told The Oklahoman. The doctor concluded Ersland has modest osteoarthritis of the spine, The Oklahoman learned. That is a condition men about his age often endure.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110711_12_0_OLHMIY513634
Sentenced to life per World tweet.
"Premeditation," is really not that useful a concept and doesn't have anything to do with this case. Nor does adrenaline. The elements of 1st degree murder are:
1. The death of a human
2. The death was unlawful
3. The death was caused by the defendant
4. The death was caused with malice aforethought. OUJI-CR 4-61
Lest anyone think that "malice aforethought" means a substantial amount of premeditation, the next instruction defines it this way:
"Malice aforethought" means a deliberate intention to take away the life of a human being. As used in these instructions, "malice aforethought" does not mean hatred, spite or ill-will. The deliberate intent to take a human life must be formed before the act and must exist at the time a homicidal act is committed. No particular length of time is required for formation of this deliberate intent. The intent may have been formed instantly before commission of the act.OUJI-CR 4-62.
These are the instructions the jury was given. They are straight out of the uniform instructions approved by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Murder 1 requires proof of a specific intent on the part of the defendant to kill. The jury could easily infer that intent from the fact that Erslund got the second gun, returned, and pumped a bunch of shots into the kid. And the fact that the kid was disabled defeated Erslund's self-defense claim. They apparently didn't buy the time-honored unofficial defense that the SOB needed killin'.
The
only issue that might save Erslund is whether the prosecution proved with competent evidence that the kid was still alive when Erslund returned and fired the additional shots. Remember that the ME that conducted the autopsy and concluded that the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds, including the additional shots, did not testify at trial. Other experts testified from the written autopsy report. Recent Supreme Court cases hold that although an expert witnesses written report preserved as a "business record" might be an exception to the hearsay rule, denial of the defendant's right to cross examine the author of the report is a violation of the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him, whether the evidence is deemed reliable or not. Since the original ME wasn't available for cross-examination, if Erslund's attorneys preserved the issue for appeal, I think he has a good chance of a reversal.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 20, 2011, 11:20:31 AM
The video I saw showed the robber laying face down on the floor and the pharmacist stepping over him to get another gun and then plugging him. That is probably what caused the jury to decide premeditation. There was little or no threat and obvious his motive was not fear.
Thanks for the enlightenment. I spoke without benefit of a law degree and you have rightfully corrected me. It appears malice aforethought was the critical issue.
http://www.newson6.com/story/15048928/judge-to-sentence-jerome-ersland
Maybe he's regretting those last five shots now.