Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland shot and killed a would be robber. Sounds like something he should be given a good citizen’s medal for. The only problem is that the robber was laying allegedly unconscious on the floor of the pharmacy at the time. All caught on camera.
When two robbers entered the pharmacy, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, as the wounded one lay on the floor, Ersland retrieved another gun and put five more bullets into the teenager’s stomach, killing him. An autopsy determined Parker was alive after being shot in the head and died from abdominal wounds. Ersland has now been charged with 1st degree murder.
Is Ersland a hero, a vigilante murderer or just a scared old guy making the best decision he could in one of the most stressful, traumatic situations imaginable. He has not been silent on the issue, going on talks shows such as The O’reilly Factor with his attorney to make his case.
In a Fox News interview, his attorney Irvin Box stated that the entire event only took 46 seconds and that the self-defense chain was not broken. He went on to state “your enemy is your enemy until your enemy is dead…. You have to eliminate the threat.“ He also brought out the fact that the incident occurred in a high crime area and must also be taken in that context.
Most states have statutes that govern a person’s liability when defending their home . They are generally called “Castle Doctrines” or “Make My Day” laws after Clint Eastwood’s famous line in Sudden Impact. Under Oklahoma’s “Make My Day Law” people can generally use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground Law” extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office. According to Andy Coats, Dean of the University of Oklahoma Law School and former Oklahoma County prosecutor:
Oklahoma State law says a person must have “reasonable fear of imminent peril.” Only then does that person have 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…”
What does this mean for Ersland? Should he have reasonably felt threatened by an unconscious would be robber laying wounded on the floor?
Most can agree that under pretty much any interpretation of the law, Ersland had every right to defend himself and his employer’s store when he put the 1st bullet into the robber’s head. After that it becomes a combination of a law school exam and a Law and Order episode. Was his subjective belief that he was still in danger a reasonable one? How much time passed between the time he went back and got the new gun and came back and put 5 more into the wounded and allegedly unconscious crook? If the guy is unusually susceptible to stress or has some type of diminished capacity does that matter? When you put five bullets into a guy laying wounded on the ground, it would be hard to argue you did not intend to kill him.
There has been a lot of support for Ersland under his “eliminate the threat” theory. It goes without saying that most of us don’t know what we would do in his situation and pray that we never have to find out. All I can say is that if I am sitting on that jury, while I hope I am given some options besides first degree murder, I am not letting him go free. He may be in a high crime area but we are not at war. He is not on a search and destroy” mission. He had already “elimintated the threat”. I predict at least one hung jury before this case sees a verdict if no plea is reached.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
June 5th, 2009 at 1:20 am
This is exactly why anyone who plans on using a gun for self defense needs to be well trained enough that they have the skill and ability to shoot to kill with the first shot. Had the first head shot killed the robber there would be no issue here.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Hmmmm…. 1st degree murder? Does 38 seconds of planning make it premeditated?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I have to agree with you, Brian. If you are going to own 2 guns and keep them where you can use them, you should be able to assess whether the threat is still present before shooting with the second one.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
If the guy is unconscious on the floor, surely the old man *thought* he was dead. Did he take his pulse and then put 5 bullets into his stomach? Did he fly into a rage at the thought of being robbed? We don't necessarily know this guy was scared out of his mind, though the inference is surely there. I'm with you on this one, Brian. Self defense is one thing…unloading another 5 rounds to ensure the guy will never rob his store again is not self defense – it's exacting the justice a court of law and jury should exact if it deemed it necessary.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
As a total novice to this topic, I find this information most enlightening and helpful.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Castle Doctrines are interesting. I always wonder how they affect the repo biz here in Texas. And if a repo man was killed on private premises, would the shooter get convicted? If you don't know that someone actually HAS the right to be on your property–and you shoot him in accordance with the C. Doctrine–are you a murderer?
What say you, Brian Cuban, Reader of Laws?
June 5th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hear is a question that I did not see mentioned? Mr.Ersland had mentioned that it is a bad area, has he ever been robbed before, or had a crime occur before this incident before?
June 6th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Yes, that particular pharmacy had been robbed before. And if you watch the video, the five shots go very quickly. I don't know a thing about guns, but it had to be some kind of automatice weapon that discharged very quickly. As all have said, you really can't say what you would do in that situation. Is 45 sec really long enough for the adrenaline to die down and for a sense of reasonablness to take back over? I don't know. And what we don't know for sure is IF they guy was unconscious and IF he was presented a further threat OR if for whatever reason Ersland still felt he was a threat. There were also two female employees in the store and one of them was repeating "I'm so sorry" to the other. Mr. Ersland thought one of the women had been shot. It's really a horrible situation all the way around. The other four perpitrators of the crime have all been arrested now and charged with felony murder. One young man is 16 and the other two are adults. In my mind, 1st degree is way to much for the Ersland. He didn't wake up that morning, go to work and think "I'm going to kill a kid today." However, our DA Prater was doing his job and following with law with his charge. However, he did argue against the Judge when she ordered that Erstler turn over all his weapons. He argued that Erstler would be a sitting duck. Irven Box is an oustanding criminal defense attorney and worked a way around that. Very slippery, that one. Erstler is out on bail, which pretty much never happens in 1st degree cases. So, what does that tell you? There is alot of support for him here.