Posted on 06/02/2009 2:35:20 PM PDT by FourPeas
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with murder in the shooting death of a teenage would-be robber defended himself on national television Monday night.
Jerome Ersland appeared on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News with his attorney Irven Box.
Ersland was charged with murder last week after he shot back at two would-be robbers on May 19 at a south Oklahoma City pharmacy. Prosecutors say Ersland exceeded his legal authority to defend himself by shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker five times after a first shot rendered the teen unconscious.
In his TV appearance last night, Ersland said the teen was still a threat when he fired the five fatal rounds.
"I came back in store because I was working with two ladies and I thought the person laying on the floor had shot the younger lady Megan because the mother was yelling Megan, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry," Ersland said during the interview. "I went up to him, and he seemed to be just dazed, and he started talking to me, and he started turning to the right. I'm crippled. ... I thought I was going to get killed in the next few seconds."
Once the guy entered the store with and armed accomplis, he became a target in my way of thinking. One that you keep shooting until it doesn’t move any more. A big strong 16 year old is a significant threat to a crippled old man..and two hysterical women. Unless they came up with a lot more..I would never vote to convict. In OK they will have a hard time finding 12 who will.
We can Monday morning quarterback this until the cows come home, but the Oklahoma Statute makes no mention of ‘reasonable force’ or ‘excessive force’. Was it stupid - yes. Was it illegal as the statute is currently on the books - no. Here’s a link to the statute.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=69782
I would have liked to hear the pharma guy say he felt like he was still in danger when he fired the second rounds, he should be fine if his jury is American and not Amerikan.
The best thing to say here is it is STILL better to be tried by twelve then carried by six! (Sorry...retired LEO from the mid 90's when we were good, honest cops. (I live by that today)
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
To meet “force with force” Parker would have had to in that moment present force, and Ersland could have used equal force, even to the point of deadly force, however, Parker presented no force, no weapon, no resistance that has been presented...actually, the facts tend to lead to believe Parker was incapacitated, unable to present a fight or force whatsoever. You then have to address was Ersland acting “reasonably.” In the quantum of evidense we have seen so far, it doesn’t appear Ersland was acting in a manner that was “reasonable” or even “rational.” Castle Doctrines, which the law you are presenting, even with the “stand your ground” clause, does not allow you to escape criminal prosecution if you continue to use deadly force on a suspect who is posing no imminent threat.
The very sad part to all of this, especially what I hear from numerous posters on varius boards, is this subtle undertow of “if you commit a crime, I can commit homicide, and I’m justifed!” Many are overtly advocating vigilantism as an accepted reasoning to commiting homicide, and that’s anarchy.
I don’t think anyone would argue that Ersland had the right to defend himself initially. Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case. Ersland states that he was shot on his left arm, then changed to left hand, which in every single picture of both his left hand and arm in numerous photos from various sources show no appearent bandage, or scarring or even abrasions if examined. Ersland stated he had bullets whizzing past his right side and could even hear them as they passed...when in truth, the only person who fired shots in the pharmacy was Ersland. It’s a self-justification, after the fact, to justify his homicide. Very little consistancy has emerged from Ersland’s testimony about this case.
In the end, I feel he simply made bad choices, and now has to make excuses to keep from being convicted. Everyone wants to ralley around someone defending himself against attack, and I applaud his intial response, however I do not stand behind him in firing on an incapacitated suspect. This isn’t Gunslinger, OK., where ordinary citizens can be law enforcement officers, judges, juries and executioners simultaneously. This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one.
Well put. Thank you.
actually, the facts tend to lead to believe Parker was incapacitated, unable to present a fight or force whatsoever.
According to Dr. Ersland, the only witness, the perp was moving on the floor in a manner Ersland believed to be threatening -- the kid could have been going for an as yet unseen gun.
Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case.
This is the first I've heard on this. Can you provide a link?
when in truth, the only person who fired shots in the pharmacy was Ersland.
As I understand, this is in dispute. Regardless, there's no reason Dr. Ersland should have to wait for an armed gunman or an accomplice to shoot before he can fire. One of the would-be robbers pulled a gun, Dr. Ersland has every right to defend himself against a present and very real threat.
firing on an incapacitated suspect
Again, the only witness says the perp on the ground was moving.
This IS Oklahoma where we have the right to be secure in our homes, vehicles and places of business, and if that safety is threatened by an armed thug, we can defend ourselves. That includes firing at someone who is down but is still a threat. Period.
This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one.
Nice try. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves that armed criminals should fear for their lives when attempting an illegal act. That's a good thing.
Ersland wasn't the only witness, camera's from various angles gives us many clues. Forensics also play their part. There were also 2 other employess as well. Concerning the rational that "he could have been going for an unseen gun" isn't a defense under the Castle Doctrine. Parker would have to first present a weapon. You are compelled by law and do have a duty to retreat once a threat ends. You don't get to continue to act or reinitiate contact or become the assaulter. Once the threat is ended, self-defense is over. Just think for a minute if every citizen who had a weapon acted on a perceived threat. If in the end the person you acted on, didn't actually have a weapon, you would also be charged with murder. A private citizen’s ability to use deadly force is much more restricted. Using a hypothetical threat is not "reasonable." Secondly, Ersland had no right to pursue the 14 year old armed suspect, under the law police are authorized to use whatever force is necessary. Police have the power to pursue a suspect, Civilians don’t. Ersland's testimony, so far as I have seen, doesn't lend to accuracy, but again, that's my opinion.
"Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case." This is the first I've heard on this. Can you provide a link?http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432
Again, the only witness says the perp on the ground was moving.
Well, again I state the Ersland isn't the only witness, but for the sake of your position, let's use his own testimony. Ersland states that Parker was "dazed." It would be a "reasonable" assumption that someone who is "dazed", especially if that person was bleeding out on the floor from their head, doesn't pose any imminent threat to your life. Parker would have had to reengage Ersland to justify deadly force again. No where in the Castle Defense does it provide you the right to continue to use dealy force on a subdued, incapacitated, disabled or cooperative suspect. In fact, it's the one thing that is able to remove your ability to claim a Castle Defense. It opens you up to, not only civil, but criminal prosecution. "He was moving" is not a "reasonable" defense. Parker would have to provide force upon Ersland, for Ersland to once again be justified to use deadly force. Ersland want's to state he's crippled as a justification for using deadly force the second time, but the "other witness," the camera, shows Ersland running through his pharmacy. If that is test for "crippled" or better said, disabled, where does that leave Parker under the same definition? It's my opinion that "reasonable" thought would preclude Parker with a brain injury, flat on his back on the floor poses no imminent threat whatsoever. That same "other witness," the camera, never shows Parker ever getting up.
"This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one." Nice try. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves that armed criminals should fear for their lives when attempting an illegal act. That's a good thing.
It's my opinion that it does. People who show no restraint or exercise poor judgment don't need to be running loose deadly weapons. You know what I'm saying is true. Now, is that to say that I'm not an advocate for gun ownership? Not at all! Am I saying people with poor judgment shouldn't have one? Absolutely!
Dr. Ersland wasn't just walking through the mall when he started shooting random people. He'd just been faced with an armed gunman in a ski mask. Now the companion of the gunman was on the floor moving, perhaps even talking to Dr. Ersland. This is far from a hypothetical threat. Dr. Ersland's life had just been substantially threatened.
It would be a "reasonable" assumption that someone who is "dazed", especially if that person was bleeding out on the floor from their head, doesn't pose any imminent threat to your life.
I've heard no evidence that the downed criminal was bleeding out. You seem to use a lot of colorful language to describe the condition of the criminal. He wasn't mortally wounded and fully capable of being a threat.
I interpret "dazed" differently. The criminal was likely surprised or taken aback that plans had gone awry.
"He was moving" is not a "reasonable" defense.
A ski mask wearing criminal who just attempted to rob you at gunpoint moving on the floor is most definitely a threat.
It's my opinion that "reasonable" thought would preclude Parker with a brain injury, flat on his back on the floor poses no imminent threat whatsoever. That same "other witness," the camera, never shows Parker ever getting up.
You are correct, the criminal is out of the view of the camera.
You know what I'm saying is true.
It's never wise to assume other people share your delusions.
Okay, let’s move out of the hypothetical then, Parker had no weapon. Parker threw no punches. Parker did not, after being shot, get off the floor. Parker produced no actual imminent threat to Ersland. Ersland is now on trial for murder because of it. If you choose to act in the same manner, I would summize you too will be charged with murder.
Your interpretation of a word makes no matter to me. Show me the actual imminent threat posed by Parker.
If you wish to call me delusional, you have your right to your opinion, but certainly doesn’t make your opinion right.
I guess censorship is stronger than delusion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.