Murder or Self-Defense

[auditor0007]

The case of Jerome Ersland's conviction has created a large outcry from many who feel he received the shaft for defending himself. On the other side, many believe he took the law into his own hands and became jury, judge, and executioner.

After watching the video, I have to agree with his conviction. While I support anyone's right to defend themselves and to use lethal force if necessary, his actions were well beyond defending himself. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks.

Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

The case of a white Oklahoma merchant recently convicted of killing a black teenager attempting to rob his store has sparked a national debate.

To critics, 59-year-old pharmacist Jerome Ersland is a gun-toting vigilante who dealt out his own brand of murderous justice. To admirers, Ersland is a courageous and law-abiding hero whose actions were justified. The controversial case became even more volatile Thursday when a jury found Ersland guilty of first-degree murder for the 2009 slaying of 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

Since last week's verdict, supporters of Ersland have collected nearly 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for his release. Oklahoma State Sen. Ralph Shortey (R) also pledged his assistance.

"I'm gonna spend the rest of my career, however long it may be, trying to right this wrong," Shortey told ABC News.

The division is also evident online, within several social media websites. One group in support of Ersland recently popped up on Facebook. Titled "Jerome Ersland should not have been found guilty," the group has more than 3,000 members. Groups against Ersland's release, such as the Facebook group "Do Not Free Jerome Ersland," are also starting to gain momentum, The Daily Mail reported.

The controversy in the case stems from a May 19, 2009, incident in which Parker and another young man who was armed with a handgun burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City. The men allegedly ordered two female employees working behind the counter to give them money and drugs. Instead, the two women ran to the back of the store.

The man with Parker then allegedly pointed his gun at Ersland. The pharmacist drew his own weapon, a small semiautomatic handgun he had in his pocket, and fired at Parker, who was unarmed, striking the youth in the head. Surveillance video from inside the store captured Parker's fall to the ground as Ersland chased his accomplice from the store.

Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

Read the entire story and watch the actual video. What is posted is only the beginning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Already familiar with the case. The guy was fucked because the kid he shot was lying on the ground and off camera. He shot him, chased the other kid out of the store, came back, got another gun, and then shot the first kid multiple times. Unless that guy had an uzi he was not a real threat. Probably was not a deliberate murder, but it dod not meet the criteria for self defense.

 

[Tank]

The guy is a Pharmacist is not a trained Police Officer, who knows how you would have acted after someone just tried to take you're life.

 

[Missourian]

No, I wouldn't have convicted him solely on that videotape evidence.

I have no idea what that robber is doing off frame or how badly he was injured by the first shot. If he even looked like he was reaching for a weapon, I would have done exactly what Erskand did.

In fact, Ersland walks passed the injured robber calmly but hurries back, which leads me to believe the robber was doing something to cause Ersland to be fearful.

Now, I have no access to the testimony, just the video...and based on what I could see, I would have acquitted Ersland.

 

[auditor0007]

No, I wouldn't have convicted him solely on that videotape evidence.

I have no idea what that robber is doing off frame or how badly he was injured by the first shot. If he even looked like he was reaching for a weapon, I would have done exactly what Erskand did.

In fact, Ersland walks passed the injured robber calmly but hurries back, which leads me to believe the robber was doing something to cause Ersland to be fearful.

Now, I have no access to the testimony, just the video...and based on what I could see, I would have acquitted Ersland.

If the robber is doing anything after the first shot, then the pharmacist would not have walked by him calmly in the first place on his way to get his other gun. He was reloading to execute the kid, plain and simple. Now that being said, I think a first degree murder conviction was excessive. A lot of people having a gun stuck in their face would have done the same thing, being so mad they couldn't control themselves, and just wanted to kill the fucker. I don't know if the jury was given any options as to convicting him of a lesser charge such as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The last thing was that the kid didn't even have a gun.

 

[Missourian]

No, I wouldn't have convicted him solely on that videotape evidence.

I have no idea what that robber is doing off frame or how badly he was injured by the first shot. If he even looked like he was reaching for a weapon, I would have done exactly what Erskand did.

In fact, Ersland walks passed the injured robber calmly but hurries back, which leads me to believe the robber was doing something to cause Ersland to be fearful.

Now, I have no access to the testimony, just the video...and based on what I could see, I would have acquitted Ersland.

If the robber is doing anything after the first shot, then the pharmacist would not have walked by him calmly in the first place on his way to get his other gun. He was reloading to execute the kid, plain and simple. Now that being said, I think a first degree murder conviction was excessive. A lot of people having a gun stuck in their face would have done the same thing, being so mad they couldn't control themselves, and just wanted to kill the fucker. I don't know if the jury was given any options as to convicting him of a lesser charge such as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The last thing was that the kid didn't even have a gun.

Then why calm one way, and then rushing back?

That makes no sense, unless something is happening off camera that makes him suddenly feel the need for haste, like a threatening movement from the robber.

If there are no other witnesses but Ersland and the camera, and Ersland's testified the robber appeared to be reaching for a weapon, I would have to acquit.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I wouldn't have given him 1st degree, but I def. would have given him 2nd degree. The fact is he did intend to kill the kid.

Based on the video-the kid was lying on the ground, and incapacitated. I agree that if the kid was a threat-he wouldn't have calmly walked towards the back. Now the first shot on the kid was obviously justifiable-no question about that.

I obviously don't have all the evidence-but based solely on the video, there's no way I could acquit him.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Anyone know if the jury is talking yet ?

 

[Missourian]

I wouldn't have given him 1st degree, but I def. would have given him 2nd degree. The fact is he did intend to kill the kid.

Based on the video-the kid was lying on the ground, and incapacitated. I agree that if the kid was a threat-he wouldn't have calmly walked towards the back. Now the first shot on the kid was obviously justifiable-no question about that.

I obviously don't have all the evidence-but based solely on the video, there's no way I could acquit him.

Where in that video do you see the robber on the ground OR incapacitated?

 

[Missourian]

Anyone know if the jury is talking yet ?

They are currently restrained by the judges gag order.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The case of Jerome Ersland's conviction has created a large outcry from many who feel he received the shaft for defending himself. On the other side, many believe he took the law into his own hands and became jury, judge, and executioner.

After watching the video, I have to agree with his conviction. While I support anyone's right to defend themselves and to use lethal force if necessary, his actions were well beyond defending himself. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks.

Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

The case of a white Oklahoma merchant recently convicted of killing a black teenager attempting to rob his store has sparked a national debate.

To critics, 59-year-old pharmacist Jerome Ersland is a gun-toting vigilante who dealt out his own brand of murderous justice. To admirers, Ersland is a courageous and law-abiding hero whose actions were justified. The controversial case became even more volatile Thursday when a jury found Ersland guilty of first-degree murder for the 2009 slaying of 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

Since last week's verdict, supporters of Ersland have collected nearly 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for his release. Oklahoma State Sen. Ralph Shortey (R) also pledged his assistance.

"I'm gonna spend the rest of my career, however long it may be, trying to right this wrong," Shortey told ABC News.

The division is also evident online, within several social media websites. One group in support of Ersland recently popped up on Facebook. Titled "Jerome Ersland should not have been found guilty," the group has more than 3,000 members. Groups against Ersland's release, such as the Facebook group "Do Not Free Jerome Ersland," are also starting to gain momentum, The Daily Mail reported.

The controversy in the case stems from a May 19, 2009, incident in which Parker and another young man who was armed with a handgun burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City. The men allegedly ordered two female employees working behind the counter to give them money and drugs. Instead, the two women ran to the back of the store.

The man with Parker then allegedly pointed his gun at Ersland. The pharmacist drew his own weapon, a small semiautomatic handgun he had in his pocket, and fired at Parker, who was unarmed, striking the youth in the head. Surveillance video from inside the store captured Parker's fall to the ground as Ersland chased his accomplice from the store.

Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

Read the entire story and watch the actual video. What is posted is only the beginning.

I dont think him coming back and shooting him was right. I do think his initial shooting the robber was the rigth thing to do though.

Its tough...i would find him not guilty if it was just the first shot. If the kid was reaching around for his gun off camera or still handling it i would say the extra shots were justified, if the robber wasn't doing that then the extra shots were murder.

Either way I have zero sympathy for the dead person who got shot. Don't want to die then dont pull a gun on someone, you never know who else is carrying a gun.

 

[LAfrique]

How can it not be self-defense if Jerome Ersland was up against two robbers with one obviously armed? Was Ersland supposed to wait until shot by robbers before defending himself?

I have been mugged twice, and one at gun point. Second incident was about 2 weeks after self-published flyer helped with capture of one of perpetrators and upon returning from bank to cash hard-earned paycheck. Outraged, I took off after mugger at night, jumping over ditches and going through bushes, until I was able to recover my belongings from perplexed mugger. Police and everyone thought I must have been insane to do as I did. And I can only say that unless you are victim of crime, you can never know how you would react.

How anyone defends himself or herself when threatened is subjective. I only advocate that if shooting to kill is not necessary, then please avoid by all means. You have the right to protect yourself and/or your property. But, no Joe Horn, please: If shooting or shooting to kill is not necessary, then do not shoot.

 

[kwc57]

The case of Jerome Ersland's conviction has created a large outcry from many who feel he received the shaft for defending himself. On the other side, many believe he took the law into his own hands and became jury, judge, and executioner.

After watching the video, I have to agree with his conviction. While I support anyone's right to defend themselves and to use lethal force if necessary, his actions were well beyond defending himself. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks.

Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

The case of a white Oklahoma merchant recently convicted of killing a black teenager attempting to rob his store has sparked a national debate.

To critics, 59-year-old pharmacist Jerome Ersland is a gun-toting vigilante who dealt out his own brand of murderous justice. To admirers, Ersland is a courageous and law-abiding hero whose actions were justified. The controversial case became even more volatile Thursday when a jury found Ersland guilty of first-degree murder for the 2009 slaying of 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

Since last week's verdict, supporters of Ersland have collected nearly 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for his release. Oklahoma State Sen. Ralph Shortey (R) also pledged his assistance.

"I'm gonna spend the rest of my career, however long it may be, trying to right this wrong," Shortey told ABC News.

The division is also evident online, within several social media websites. One group in support of Ersland recently popped up on Facebook. Titled "Jerome Ersland should not have been found guilty," the group has more than 3,000 members. Groups against Ersland's release, such as the Facebook group "Do Not Free Jerome Ersland," are also starting to gain momentum, The Daily Mail reported.

The controversy in the case stems from a May 19, 2009, incident in which Parker and another young man who was armed with a handgun burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City. The men allegedly ordered two female employees working behind the counter to give them money and drugs. Instead, the two women ran to the back of the store.

The man with Parker then allegedly pointed his gun at Ersland. The pharmacist drew his own weapon, a small semiautomatic handgun he had in his pocket, and fired at Parker, who was unarmed, striking the youth in the head. Surveillance video from inside the store captured Parker's fall to the ground as Ersland chased his accomplice from the store.

Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)

Read the entire story and watch the actual video. What is posted is only the beginning.

This happened about 4 blocks west and two blocks south of my parent's home where I grew up and mom still lives. My old stomping ground. I live about 6 miles away. Our DA Prater was probably between a rock and a hard place given that Ersland had a camera in the store. Without the video evidence, the DA could have probably declined pressing charges and said it was pure self defense. But the video clearly shows Ersland shooting the robber, chasing the second guy out, coming back in, walking past the robber lying on the floor, turning his back to him and going behind the counter to either reload or get another gun, coming back, leaning over him and pumping a few more rounds into him. As a DA, what do you do with that? Let him walk and you have the black community up in arms. Prosecute him for 1st degree murder and you have the rest of the community up in arms. He probably could have gone with manslaughter and asked for a reduced sentence and pleased everyone. But then you have the "law" to contend with and he is sworn to uphold it. I think Prater did what he had to....just like Ersland probably felt he was doing....and will let the chips fall where they may. I don't see Prater getting reelected after this.

Personally, I think the kid made a stoopid life decision and paid with his life. I think Ersland had every right to defend himself and his employees. I think in the passion of the moment and out of anger and fear (due to his handicap), he decided to make sure the kid was dead. That was when he stepped over the line and opened a whole new can of worms for himself and the DA. If the video didn't exist, I think this would have been a non-story and Ersland would still be at work instead of jail.

 

[Anachronism]

I am a gun owner. I carry a firearm for self-defense. I have also been an NRA certified trainer.

My problem with the man's actions comes when he returns and now shoots a defenseless individual, who no longer poses ANY threat to him, his business, or his employees an additional FIVE times. At that point it most certainly DOES become Murder in my eyes. His initial response was fine, though I'd suggest he might have been better off to shoot the ARMED assailant first; but that's a personal opinion. It was his actions AFTER returning to the store which I believe should put him on Death Row.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How can it not be self-defense if Jerome Ersland was up against two robbers with one obviously armed? Was Ersland supposed to wait until shot by robbers before defending himself?

I have been mugged twice, and one at gun point. Second incident was about 2 weeks after self-published flyer helped with capture of one of perpetrators and upon returning from bank to cash hard-earned paycheck. Outraged, I took off after mugger at night, jumping over ditches and going through bushes, until I was able to recover my belongings from perplexed mugger. Police and everyone thought I must have been insane to do as I did. And I can only say that unless you are victim of crime, you can never know how you would react.

How anyone defends himself or herself when threatened is subjective. I only advocate that if shooting to kill is not necessary, then please avoid by all means. You have the right to protect yourself and/or your property. But, no Joe Horn, please: If shooting or shooting to kill is not necessary, then do not shoot.

It gets to murder when he came back out from the back of the store and shot the kid more times after, from what i can tell in the video, the kid was incapacitated.

 

[Anachronism]

How can it not be self-defense if Jerome Ersland was up against two robbers with one obviously armed? Was Ersland supposed to wait until shot by robbers before defending himself?

It is the actions Mr. Ersland took AFTER he had already disabled the robber with one round to the head that earn him my eternal enmity as a gun owner. The proper response upon returning to the store would have been to ensure the clerks had called 911, and to simply wait for the police and EMT's to arrive. Instead, Mr. Ersland goes and gets another gun and empties 5 rounds into a defenseless man, lying on the floor, who is absolutely no threat to anyone.

The claim of Self-Defense requires an active and ongoing threat to the safety of yourself or others in the direct area. This individual was no longer a threat to anyone. What Mr. Ersland did is called an EXECUTION; and while I would have had no problem with him sitting there and not rendering aid to the wounded would-be robber, what he did fits my own personal definition of First Degree Murder with Extenuating Circumstances, for which Mr. Ersland should himself receive the Death Penalty.

 

[Missourian]

How can it not be self-defense if Jerome Ersland was up against two robbers with one obviously armed? Was Ersland supposed to wait until shot by robbers before defending himself?

I have been mugged twice, and one at gun point. Second incident was about 2 weeks after self-published flyer helped with capture of one of perpetrators and upon returning from bank to cash hard-earned paycheck. Outraged, I took off after mugger at night, jumping over ditches and going through bushes, until I was able to recover my belongings from perplexed mugger. Police and everyone thought I must have been insane to do as I did. And I can only say that unless you are victim of crime, you can never know how you would react.

How anyone defends himself or herself when threatened is subjective. I only advocate that if shooting to kill is not necessary, then please avoid by all means. You have the right to protect yourself and/or your property. But, no Joe Horn, please: If shooting or shooting to kill is not necessary, then do not shoot.

It gets to murder when he came back out from the back of the store and shot the kid more times after, from what i can tell in the video, the kid was incapacitated.

Where are you seeing that PP...the robber is outside the cameras field of view...we have no idea what he is doing.

 

[Douger]

Sentence him to 500 hours of combat pistol instruction and buy him Wilson .45.

 

[kwc57]

How can it not be self-defense if Jerome Ersland was up against two robbers with one obviously armed? Was Ersland supposed to wait until shot by robbers before defending himself?

I have been mugged twice, and one at gun point. Second incident was about 2 weeks after self-published flyer helped with capture of one of perpetrators and upon returning from bank to cash hard-earned paycheck. Outraged, I took off after mugger at night, jumping over ditches and going through bushes, until I was able to recover my belongings from perplexed mugger. Police and everyone thought I must have been insane to do as I did. And I can only say that unless you are victim of crime, you can never know how you would react.

How anyone defends himself or herself when threatened is subjective. I only advocate that if shooting to kill is not necessary, then please avoid by all means. You have the right to protect yourself and/or your property. But, no Joe Horn, please: If shooting or shooting to kill is not necessary, then do not shoot.

It gets to murder when he came back out from the back of the store and shot the kid more times after, from what i can tell in the video, the kid was incapacitated.

Where are you seeing that PP...the robber is outside the cameras field of view...we have no idea what he is doing.

You see him go down. Personally knowing the pharmacy, he only has one avenue of escape and it is out the door which is in plain view of the camera. Did you ever see him get back up and move towards the door? No. He is outside the camera's field of view because he is on the ground and not moving.

 

[Missourian]

Here are the facts:

1) Ersland has just gone toe to toe with an armed gunman. His adrenaline is pumping. I've experienced shock before as a witness to a horrendous accident...it is, to say the least, unsettling. My judgment and thought processes were totally impaired.

2) We have no idea what the injured robber is doing out of the cameras field of view...ANY movement in that situation would be perceived as threatening.

Recordings from security cameras inside the pharmacy do not show Parker again after the robber falls.

Doctor at pharmacist's murder trial testifies it is possible unconscious, wounded robber had involuntary movements | NewsOK.com​

​

3) Even if he was unconscious, or incapacitated, that doesn't mean motionless. The PROSECUTION witness testified:

A forensic pathologist testified Tuesday at an Oklahoma City pharmacist's murder trial that an unconscious robber could have moved after being shot in the head.


Under defense questioning, prosecution witness Chai Choi agreed Antwun “Speedy” Parker could have had involuntary movements or seizures that could have been perceived as a threat.


“That is possible,” the doctor testified at Jerome Jay Ersland's murder trial.

Doctor at pharmacist's murder trial testifies it is possible unconscious, wounded robber had involuntary movements | NewsOK.com​

4) Had Parker (the dead robber) have not knowingly committed armed robbery, Ersland would not have killed him.

If we had video showing Parker lying motionless, unconscious on the floor while Ersland killed him in cold blood, I would agree with you all.

But without that...ERSLAND was the victim of the crime, he gets the benefit of any doubt in this case.

Here's the scenario.

Armed robbers burst into the store.

Shoot out that all agree is legally justified.

Erslander returns to the store, gun empty..."Will that guy return to get his friend? Better get my other gun. That guy isn't moving. OK, got my other gun...SHIT...thatguysmovingaround!DOESHEHAVEAGUNTOO!!! DAMMITIdidn'tcheck,mygunwasempty...BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG.

He should have been acquitted of all charges, based on this video evidence.