Murder or Self-Defense

[Missourian]

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.

Just because you're down doesn't mean you are incapacitated or not moving.

He is out of the field of view of the camera...there is absolutely no way you could possibly know if he is moving or not...that is an ASSUMPTION on your part, not a fact.

 

[kwc57]

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.

The video evidence also shows that Ersland couldn't have felt too threatened since he chose to come back into the store, walked past the robber lying on the floor, walked with his back to him behind the counter to reload, came out, leaned over him and fired 5 more shots.

 

[Anachronism]

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

He should be sitting on Death Row based on simple common sense and logic. I say that as someone who carries a gun with me a vast majority of the time.

 

[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.

The video evidence also shows that Ersland couldn't have felt too threatened since he chose to come back into the store, walked past the robber lying on the floor, walked with his back to him behind the counter to reload, came out, leaned over him and fired 5 more shots.

It's his store! Two of his employees are in the back! He's out of bullets and his other gun and phone are inside.

He walks because he is disabled...see the back brace?

He moves just as fast when he rushes back to Parker as he does when he chases the second robber out of the store.

Watch the video @ 17 seconds

[youtube]MJZdFcDmllQ[/youtube]​

See how he is not running...just walking fast?

He does the same thing when he rushes back the Parker.

This guy is innocent.

 

[Missourian]

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

He should be sitting on Death Row based on simple common sense and logic. I say that as someone who carries a gun with me a vast majority of the time.

I disagree 100%. I can easily envision the events as I outline them above occurring. If I had the slightest indication that led me to believe Parker was possibly reaching for a weapon, I would have shot him again too. There is not a shred of evidence that that was not what happened.

What in the video evidence leads you to believe it did NOT look like Parker seemed to be reaching for a weapon?

Answer that and I'll agree with you.

 

[kwc57]

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.

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

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.

The video evidence also shows that Ersland couldn't have felt too threatened since he chose to come back into the store, walked past the robber lying on the floor, walked with his back to him behind the counter to reload, came out, leaned over him and fired 5 more shots.

It's his store! Two of his employees are in the back! He's out of bullets and his other gun and phone are inside.

He walks because he is disabled...see the back brace?

He moves just as fast when he rushes back to Parker as he does when he chases the second robber out of the store.

Watch the video @ 17 seconds

[youtube]MJZdFcDmllQ[/youtube]​

See how he is not running...just walking fast?

He does the same thing when he rushes back the Parker.

This guy is innocent.

Dude, like I said in my first post.......I've been in his store. It's blocks from where I grew up and my mom still lives. This has been on the news locally much more than it has nationally ever since it happened. I've seen the video literally hundreds of times. Yes, I know he is handicapped and wears a back brace. Yes, I know he has two employees in the store. He chased the other robber out BECAUSE he shot his buddy who is DOWN and is no longer a threat. I've been in the store, I know the landscape. He opened the door, came back in, walked past him unthreatened, turned his back on him unthreatened, reloaded unthreatened, walked up to him unthreatened, bodily LEANED over him unthreatened and pumped 5 rounds in him to make sure he was dead. Had he felt threatened, he would have kept his distance which he never did. That's crossing the line any way you cut it. Me, I think he should have walked too and that the kid got what he had coming to him. The issue is that the camera showed his actions and it doesn't lie. He moved beyond self defense. Given the law, the DA had little choice in how to handle it.

 

[Sallow]

The first shot was entirely justified. Afterwhich the police should have been called.

Ersland murdered the boy with the next 5.

I remember this when it first came out. This guy's behavior was appalling.

 

[Anachronism]

I disagree 100%. I can easily envision the events as I outline them above occurring. If I had the slightest indication that led me to believe Parker was possibly reaching for a weapon, I would have shot him again too. There is not a shred of evidence that that was not what happened.

What in the video evidence leads you to believe it did NOT look like Parker seemed to be reaching for a weapon?

Answer that and I'll agree with you.

You would have shot him FIVE additional times? At close range? Gee, you must be a pretty piss poor shot. I'm no Annie Oakley, but at that distance I can guarantee that one additional shot would have been more than sufficient to ensure myself that the suspect wasn't doing anything more.

I don't know if you have access to the court transcripts, but was he ever asked WHY he felt the need to engage a prone subject who was already seriously wounded with FIVE additional rounds? I'm all for making sure your enemy is dead, but FIVE rounds; that's a little excessive even for me.

At least where I live you have to be able to prove some level of a threat to claim self-defense. I can say without a doubt that not a single one of the six New England states would have even entertained self-defense as a legal defense in this case. Well, MAYBE New Hampshire would have, but I doubt even they would go that far.

Common Sense, Reason, and Logic. The individual is already suffering from a head wound. He's lying on the floor. The chances of him being a significant threat are minimal at best. Even if you do think he's reaching for something, one (or maybe two) shot at the most should be sufficient to end any question of the individual's ability to pose a threat. FIVE SHOTS..... sorry but in most cases where a guy with a gun comes at you, you're going to have a hard time claiming self-defense after you put the third or fourth round in their body in most cases; unless he's obviously still a significant threat.

Owning a firearm for self-defense and personal protection is about responsibility. I believe (and nothing will change my mind) that this guy went outside the bounds of that responsibility. He chose to become the aggressor after the subject was already (I have to believe) disabled. At that point he loses the protections of self-defense and becomes a murderer in my eyes.

 

[AllieBaba]

If someone points a gun at me or mine, I'm going to shoot them until there is no question of them getting back up.

It's self defense, not vigilantism.

 

[Missourian]

The video evidence also shows that Ersland couldn't have felt too threatened since he chose to come back into the store, walked past the robber lying on the floor, walked with his back to him behind the counter to reload, came out, leaned over him and fired 5 more shots.

It's his store! Two of his employees are in the back! He's out of bullets and his other gun and phone are inside.

He walks because he is disabled...see the back brace?

He moves just as fast when he rushes back to Parker as he does when he chases the second robber out of the store.

Watch the video @ 17 seconds

[youtube]MJZdFcDmllQ[/youtube]​

See how he is not running...just walking fast?

He does the same thing when he rushes back the Parker.

This guy is innocent.

Dude, like I said in my first post.......I've been in his store. It's blocks from where I grew up and my mom still lives. This has been on the news locally much more than it has nationally ever since it happened. I've seen the video literally hundreds of times. Yes, I know he is handicapped and wears a back brace. Yes, I know he has two employees in the store. He chased the other robber out BECAUSE he shot his buddy who is DOWN and is no longer a threat. I've been in the store, I know the landscape. He opened the door, came back in, walked past him unthreatened, turned his back on him unthreatened, reloaded unthreatened, walked up to him unthreatened, bodily LEANED over him unthreatened and pumped 5 rounds in him to make sure he was dead. Had he felt threatened, he would have kept his distance which he never did. That's crossing the line any way you cut it. Me, I think he should have walked too and that the kid got what he had coming to him. The issue is that the camera showed his actions and it doesn't lie. He moved beyond self defense. Given the law, the DA had little choice in how to handle it.

You can't possibly KNOW that he was unthreatened unless you are him or your were there at the time. The video doesn't show what Parker was doing at the time Ersland shot him the second time.

Why would Ersland come walking back, pick up his other gun, then hurry over and shoot Parker?

He is clearly rushing when he moves back to Parker position off camera.

So he picks up his gun and suddenly is in a hurry to kill the unmoving Parker? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Obviously Parker does something that alarms Ersland.

He has to get closer, because he CAN'T SEE Parker from where he is standing. Momentum keeps him moving until he is right on top of Parker. He see what looks to him like Parker reaching for a weapon.

Keep in mind, Parker is wearing a mask...you see him put it on at the beginning of the video. Ersland can't tell if Parker is conscious or not, mortally wounded or not, grimacing in pain or not. It just looks like the guy who was just not moving is suddenly moving again and maybe has a weapon.

I wouldn't wait to find out...his partner had a gun, what would lead me to believe this masked robber doesn't have one too?

Nothing. Adrenaline pumping BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG. Didn't mean to pull the trigger 5 times, but this is a semi automatic, it happens.

 

[Tank]

Guilty, to avoid a riot

 

[Missourian]

I disagree 100%. I can easily envision the events as I outline them above occurring. If I had the slightest indication that led me to believe Parker was possibly reaching for a weapon, I would have shot him again too. There is not a shred of evidence that that was not what happened.

What in the video evidence leads you to believe it did NOT look like Parker seemed to be reaching for a weapon?

Answer that and I'll agree with you.

You would have shot him FIVE additional times? At close range? Gee, you must be a pretty piss poor shot. I'm no Annie Oakley, but at that distance I can guarantee that one additional shot would have been more than sufficient to ensure myself that the suspect wasn't doing anything more.

I don't know if you have access to the court transcripts, but was he ever asked WHY he felt the need to engage a prone subject who was already seriously wounded with FIVE additional rounds? I'm all for making sure your enemy is dead, but FIVE rounds; that's a little excessive even for me.

At least where I live you have to be able to prove some level of a threat to claim self-defense. I can say without a doubt that not a single one of the six New England states would have even entertained self-defense as a legal defense in this case. Well, MAYBE New Hampshire would have, but I doubt even they would go that far.

I only got this far into your post. You need to go research this. It happens all the time in Fight or Flight adrenaline charged shooting...especially with semi-automatics.

Fear response in conjunction with a massive adrenaline dump effect fine motor skills and causes multiple trigger pulls.

 

[Missourian]

If someone points a gun at me or mine, I'm going to shoot them until there is no question of them getting back up.

It's self defense, not vigilantism.

Exactly...Parker and his partners made a choice under no duress whatsoever to threaten Ersland's like with a loaded weapon.

Since Parker was already a proven threat, the prosecution must prove without a shadow of doubt that Parker could no longer be perceived as a threat by Ersland when Ersland was under severe stress.

That's impossible unless the prosecutor can prove that Parker was incapacitated and motionless.

This video does neither.

Many in this thread have claimed Parker was both, but not one can point to a shred of evidence that proves that to be the case.

Not one.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your ability to use deadly force ends when the threat ends. The pharmacist is a murderer and no poster boy for the self-defense crowd.
I wish people would understand this.

 

[kwc57]

It's his store! Two of his employees are in the back! He's out of bullets and his other gun and phone are inside.

He walks because he is disabled...see the back brace?

He moves just as fast when he rushes back to Parker as he does when he chases the second robber out of the store.

Watch the video @ 17 seconds

[youtube]MJZdFcDmllQ[/youtube]​

See how he is not running...just walking fast?

He does the same thing when he rushes back the Parker.

This guy is innocent.

Dude, like I said in my first post.......I've been in his store. It's blocks from where I grew up and my mom still lives. This has been on the news locally much more than it has nationally ever since it happened. I've seen the video literally hundreds of times. Yes, I know he is handicapped and wears a back brace. Yes, I know he has two employees in the store. He chased the other robber out BECAUSE he shot his buddy who is DOWN and is no longer a threat. I've been in the store, I know the landscape. He opened the door, came back in, walked past him unthreatened, turned his back on him unthreatened, reloaded unthreatened, walked up to him unthreatened, bodily LEANED over him unthreatened and pumped 5 rounds in him to make sure he was dead. Had he felt threatened, he would have kept his distance which he never did. That's crossing the line any way you cut it. Me, I think he should have walked too and that the kid got what he had coming to him. The issue is that the camera showed his actions and it doesn't lie. He moved beyond self defense. Given the law, the DA had little choice in how to handle it.

You can't possibly KNOW that he was unthreatened unless you are him or your were there at the time. The video doesn't show what Parker was doing at the time Ersland shot him the second time.

Why would Ersland come walking back, pick up his other gun, then hurry over and shoot Parker?

He is clearly rushing when he moves back to Parker position off camera.

So he picks up his gun and suddenly is in a hurry to kill the unmoving Parker? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Obviously Parker does something that alarms Ersland.

He has to get closer, because he CAN'T SEE Parker from where he is standing. Momentum keeps him moving until he is right on top of Parker. He see what looks to him like Parker reaching for a weapon.

Keep in mind, Parker is wearing a mask...you see him put it on at the beginning of the video. Ersland can't tell if Parker is conscious or not, mortally wounded or not, grimacing in pain or not. It just looks like the guy who was just not moving is suddenly moving again and maybe has a weapon.

I wouldn't wait to find out...his partner had a gun, what would lead me to believe this masked robber doesn't have one too?

Nothing. Adrenaline pumping BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG. Didn't mean to pull the trigger 5 times, but this is a semi automatic, it happens.

Obviously a jury of his peers who were presented with the evidence clearly disagree with your assessment. Oklahomans and guns go together like peas and carrots and they found him guilty.

 

[kwc57]

I disagree 100%. I can easily envision the events as I outline them above occurring. If I had the slightest indication that led me to believe Parker was possibly reaching for a weapon, I would have shot him again too. There is not a shred of evidence that that was not what happened.

What in the video evidence leads you to believe it did NOT look like Parker seemed to be reaching for a weapon?

Answer that and I'll agree with you.

You would have shot him FIVE additional times? At close range? Gee, you must be a pretty piss poor shot. I'm no Annie Oakley, but at that distance I can guarantee that one additional shot would have been more than sufficient to ensure myself that the suspect wasn't doing anything more.

I don't know if you have access to the court transcripts, but was he ever asked WHY he felt the need to engage a prone subject who was already seriously wounded with FIVE additional rounds? I'm all for making sure your enemy is dead, but FIVE rounds; that's a little excessive even for me.

At least where I live you have to be able to prove some level of a threat to claim self-defense. I can say without a doubt that not a single one of the six New England states would have even entertained self-defense as a legal defense in this case. Well, MAYBE New Hampshire would have, but I doubt even they would go that far.

I only got this far into your post. You need to go research this. It happens all the time in Fight or Flight adrenaline charged shooting...especially with semi-automatics.

Fear response in conjunction with a massive adrenaline dump effect fine motor skills and causes multiple trigger pulls.

Yes, multiple trigger pulls at the time of the first trigger pull. Had he unloaded his weapon all at once, there would be no problem. It's the reloading, standing over the robber and putting five more in him after the fact that is the problem.

 

[Missourian]

Dude, like I said in my first post.......I've been in his store. It's blocks from where I grew up and my mom still lives. This has been on the news locally much more than it has nationally ever since it happened. I've seen the video literally hundreds of times. Yes, I know he is handicapped and wears a back brace. Yes, I know he has two employees in the store. He chased the other robber out BECAUSE he shot his buddy who is DOWN and is no longer a threat. I've been in the store, I know the landscape. He opened the door, came back in, walked past him unthreatened, turned his back on him unthreatened, reloaded unthreatened, walked up to him unthreatened, bodily LEANED over him unthreatened and pumped 5 rounds in him to make sure he was dead. Had he felt threatened, he would have kept his distance which he never did. That's crossing the line any way you cut it. Me, I think he should have walked too and that the kid got what he had coming to him. The issue is that the camera showed his actions and it doesn't lie. He moved beyond self defense. Given the law, the DA had little choice in how to handle it.

You can't possibly KNOW that he was unthreatened unless you are him or your were there at the time. The video doesn't show what Parker was doing at the time Ersland shot him the second time.

Why would Ersland come walking back, pick up his other gun, then hurry over and shoot Parker?

He is clearly rushing when he moves back to Parker position off camera.

So he picks up his gun and suddenly is in a hurry to kill the unmoving Parker? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Obviously Parker does something that alarms Ersland.

He has to get closer, because he CAN'T SEE Parker from where he is standing. Momentum keeps him moving until he is right on top of Parker. He see what looks to him like Parker reaching for a weapon.

Keep in mind, Parker is wearing a mask...you see him put it on at the beginning of the video. Ersland can't tell if Parker is conscious or not, mortally wounded or not, grimacing in pain or not. It just looks like the guy who was just not moving is suddenly moving again and maybe has a weapon.

I wouldn't wait to find out...his partner had a gun, what would lead me to believe this masked robber doesn't have one too?

Nothing. Adrenaline pumping BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG. Didn't mean to pull the trigger 5 times, but this is a semi automatic, it happens.

Obviously a jury of his peers who were presented with the evidence clearly disagree with your assessment. Oklahomans and guns go together like peas and carrots and they found him guilty.

They were wrong. There are definitely a sets of circumstances and occurrences that fit the facts of the video AND would make this justifiable self defense. If the prosecution cannot PROVE that Parker was motionless, and there could not possibly be perceived as a threat, the jury should have acquitted him.

It is not beyond reasonable doubt that events transpired very closely to the scenario I laid out above. If it is possible, then Ersland must be extended the benefit of the doubt.

 

[AllieBaba]

You would have shot him FIVE additional times? At close range? Gee, you must be a pretty piss poor shot. I'm no Annie Oakley, but at that distance I can guarantee that one additional shot would have been more than sufficient to ensure myself that the suspect wasn't doing anything more.

I don't know if you have access to the court transcripts, but was he ever asked WHY he felt the need to engage a prone subject who was already seriously wounded with FIVE additional rounds? I'm all for making sure your enemy is dead, but FIVE rounds; that's a little excessive even for me.

At least where I live you have to be able to prove some level of a threat to claim self-defense. I can say without a doubt that not a single one of the six New England states would have even entertained self-defense as a legal defense in this case. Well, MAYBE New Hampshire would have, but I doubt even they would go that far.

I only got this far into your post. You need to go research this. It happens all the time in Fight or Flight adrenaline charged shooting...especially with semi-automatics.

Fear response in conjunction with a massive adrenaline dump effect fine motor skills and causes multiple trigger pulls.

Yes, multiple trigger pulls at the time of the first trigger pull. Had he unloaded his weapon all at once, there would be no problem. It's the reloading, standing over the robber and putting five more in him after the fact that is the problem.

Not for me.

 

[WillowTree]

First degree murder? Never. Involuntary manslaughter is more like it. He didn't ask those thugs to come in there and rob him. Given the chance the thugs would have killed him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ******. 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.

The problem with that theory is the police did not find a weapon. The jury obviously believed the medical testimony that the victim was unconscious when he came back and shot him. All Ersland said was that he was moving, not that he thought he was a threat. Oklahoma law says the right to self defense ends when the threat ends.