Murder or Self-Defense

[AllieBaba]

If someone who stuck a gun in someone else's face is moving, he's a threat.

I would shoot until movement stopped.

 

[California Girl]

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.

That's what I've been taught. If you ever have to pull the trigger, keep firing until the threat is completely removed. And that is exactly what I would do. What I would probably not do (and I say probably because I don't know ALL the facts) I would not reload and carry on or go get another gun, and continue shooting. Either way, it's a very, very difficult call.

 

[Immanuel]

If he had left it at the single shot, I would have said self-defense. I think he screwed himself when he went back and fired five more shots.

From the "evidence" I have seen, I would say murder.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why do you keep saying "hurry over?" He walked back with the same speed he walked away.

I would also point out that, even if Parker had been reaching for a weapon, there was no way that he would have seen it from the back of the store, around the edge of the shelves, and through the counter.

I know you want to support this action, but there is no legal justification for it.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Regarding this and other comments, from what I read, Parker did not have a gun either before he was shot the first time or while he was on the ground. Ersland should have gone to the phone and called 911 not gone to get another gun.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

One place I disagree with you is the fact that when he came back, he didn't appear to even look at Parker. I would think someone that had just shot a man would check to see if the man was living or dead, was a threat, should he do something to help the man or what have you, instead, he never even paused but went straight to the other gun and returned to finish the man off.

Ersland sure did not look afraid for his safety when he returned. It looked more like an execution to me. I would think that if he were afraid for his safety he would have fired from behind the counter.

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

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 it can. In fact some shooting schools teach techniques which rely on that very concept, either the "double tap" or the "mozambique" (2 in the body, 1 in the head). However, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about an individual who fired ONCE during the initial addrenaline rush of the event and then CAME BACK, reloaded, and proceeded to pump five more rounds into the suspect at point blank range.

In a small way I can actually see and agree with the action. I'd be tempted to do something like that myself in that type of situation. However that's what separates gun owners like this guy from responsible and law abiding gun owners like most of us. We want to stop the attack. He decided that HE was going to punish this guy on his own. Bad move. Wrong move. Now he's going to pay for it.

I once had an interesting conversation with two self-defense shooting instructors. I asked them what they thought the most dangerous "mental" moment in a gunfight is. After thinking about it they both came up with the same answer.... The moment that the mind goes from Defense to Offense. One of them likened it to a turnover in a football game. Suddenly the Defense becomes the Offense and all too often they mess something up (commit a penalty, turn the ball over themselves, fail to pick up the fumble/catch the interception) because in that instant their mind stops doing what it's trained to do and starts freelancing. In that instant most training goes out the window unless it is very deeply engrained and that's when most self-defense shooters get themselves in trouble. The two instructors I was talking to.... Massad Ayoob and Bill Wilson.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This guy is innocent.

I would like to agree. Unfortunately, given Oklahoma’s Castle Doctrine law, it seems the events don’t comport to the intent of the law:

OSCN Found Documenthysical or Deadly Force Against Intruder

Anyone who is prepared to defend himself with potential deadly force should be familiar with the context of the law, know what is acceptable and what is not – just as one would be familiar with his weapon and tactics.

 

[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.

Why do you keep saying "hurry over?" He walked back with the same speed he walked away.

I would also point out that, even if Parker had been reaching for a weapon, there was no way that he would have seen it from the back of the store, around the edge of the shelves, and through the counter.

I know you want to support this action, but there is no legal justification for it.

I want to support it because the guy does the best he can under extreme stress. I can see this happening to someone else, like me...having to make those same decisions in the 120 seconds or so that it took for these events to transpire from start to finish, and when the guy they shot start to move unexpectedly, I don't want them to hesitate, worrying about a murder charge while he pulls his weapon and kills them.

 

[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.

Why do you keep saying "hurry over?" He walked back with the same speed he walked away.

I would also point out that, even if Parker had been reaching for a weapon, there was no way that he would have seen it from the back of the store, around the edge of the shelves, and through the counter.

I know you want to support this action, but there is no legal justification for it.

He did hurry, the guy is disabled. Look at time index 17 seconds, doesn't run out the door after the other armed robber, he walks fast.

He does the same thing when he walks quickly up to the front and shoot Parker the second time...it's not the slow walk like when he comes back inside from outside and goes to the back.

Watch and compare, use the timestamp.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Frankly, without reviewing the court transcripts, there is no way to come to a definitive resolution as to this specific case.

Let’s see it as a cautionary tale for those of us who elect to carry firearms and to employ deadly force exercising our Constitutional right to self-defense.

An attorney in my state publishes an outstanding manual with regard to our self-defense/Castle Doctrine laws – I recommend everyone seek out similar documents in his state.

 

[Missourian]

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)



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.

Regarding this and other comments, from what I read, Parker did not have a gun either before he was shot the first time or while he was on the ground. Ersland should have gone to the phone and called 911 not gone to get another gun.

Immie

How is Ersland supposed to know he doesn't have a .25 semi-auto in his waistband? You must assume that he is armed. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback after all the facts are known, but Ersland has none of this information.

He has no idea if Parker is armed.

He has no idea how seriously wounded Parker is.

He doesn't know if Parker's partner will return...perhaps with friends.

He suspects that chances are that Parker would try to kill him if he gets the opportunity.

But all he really knows is that Parker and his partner made a decision to commit an armed robbery and that Parker is wounded and wasn't moving when he came back in.

 

[whitehall]

Here's a twist. The would be robber is guilty of felony murder in many states. If someone is killed during the commission of a felony even if it's the perp's partner or a bystander hit by a Police car the perp is guilty of felony murder. I wonder if he was charged.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Regarding this and other comments, from what I read, Parker did not have a gun either before he was shot the first time or while he was on the ground. Ersland should have gone to the phone and called 911 not gone to get another gun.

Immie

How is Ersland supposed to know he doesn't have a .25 semi-auto in his waistband? You must assume that he is armed. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback after all the facts are known, but Ersland has none of this information.

He has no idea if Parker is armed.

He has no idea how seriously wounded Parker is.

He doesn't know if Parker's partner will return...perhaps with friends.

He suspects that chances are that Parker would try to kill him if he gets the opportunity.

But all he really knows is that Parker and his partner made a decision to commit an armed robbery and that Parker is wounded and wasn't moving when he came back in.

Was the pharmacist in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm at the time he shot?
No. That is clear from his behavior and the events.
That makes him a murderer. The jury reviewed more evidence than anyone here has seen and agreed. And OK is not exactly NJ.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why do you keep saying "hurry over?" He walked back with the same speed he walked away.

I would also point out that, even if Parker had been reaching for a weapon, there was no way that he would have seen it from the back of the store, around the edge of the shelves, and through the counter.

I know you want to support this action, but there is no legal justification for it.

I want to support it because the guy does the best he can under extreme stress. I can see this happening to someone else, like me...having to make those same decisions in the 120 seconds or so that it took for these events to transpire from start to finish, and when the guy they shot start to move unexpectedly, I don't want them to hesitate, worrying about a murder charge while he pulls his weapon and kills them.

Then you should point out that they have two choices. They can shoot until the guy is down and stop, or they can shoot until the gun is empty. What they cannot do is shoot, stop for 30 seconds to try to chase down someone they have no chance of catching, then empty the gun into the first guy because the second got away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why do you keep saying "hurry over?" He walked back with the same speed he walked away.

I would also point out that, even if Parker had been reaching for a weapon, there was no way that he would have seen it from the back of the store, around the edge of the shelves, and through the counter.

I know you want to support this action, but there is no legal justification for it.

He did hurry, the guy is disabled. Look at time index 17 seconds, doesn't run out the door after the other armed robber, he walks fast.

He does the same thing when he walks quickly up to the front and shoot Parker the second time...it's not the slow walk like when he comes back inside from outside and goes to the back.

Watch and compare, use the timestamp.

I did look at the video. He took exactly the same amount of time to walk in past the kid and get the gun as he did to walk back out and shoot him. He then took the same amount of time to walk back after that. You are trying to spin the story to make him seem justified, the evidence does not support that spin.

 

[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.

One place I disagree with you is the fact that when he came back, he didn't appear to even look at Parker. I would think someone that had just shot a man would check to see if the man was living or dead, was a threat, should he do something to help the man or what have you, instead, he never even paused but went straight to the other gun and returned to finish the man off.

Ersland sure did not look afraid for his safety when he returned. It looked more like an execution to me. I would think that if he were afraid for his safety he would have fired from behind the counter.

Immie

I suffered from shock once. I was the only witness to a car accident. I was driving down the interstate in my semi about a mile old house when I saw out of the corner of my eye an SUV cartwheel end over end...like a person would do it where you can see their back the whole time...well I could see the roof of the car the whole time as the hood and the trunk changed positions end over end.

I couldn't see the frontage road the car had been driving on, this car just appeared above a berm, cartwheeled through the air and disappeared over an embankment. It was surreal, my first thought was it was my imagination or a trick of the light...but I stopped anyway and walked across the road and looked down over the embankment...it dropped off about 30 feet down a steep hill and ended in someones front yard...and at the bottom of the hill, a woman was laying under a tree...and I thought...

"What a strange place for a homeless person to be sleeping."

.
.
.
.
Well of course, I live in rural Missouri...this isn't California (where I have seen this numerous times)...homeless people don't sleep under trees in other peoples front yards. But I swear, that is what my mind told me at that moment.

What had actually happened was that this poor woman had been thrown from the car that I had seen flipping thru the air, and the rest of the car had come to rest about 100 yards away behind some trees. I suppose my brain was trying to protect me from the tragedy of the truth...but it was, after the minute or two it took me to get my mind right, much more frightening to realized I wasn't able to trust my gray matter to be honest with me in an extreme, high stress situation.

Well, to make a long story even longer, I did manage with some difficulty to call 911 and luckily the homeowner heard me yelling for help and was able to explain where we were. I also managed to check the car and search the area for other injured occupants...there were none, she was alone.

I've never told my wife this story...it embarrasses me that I wasn't able to leap into action and save the day...I'd had training but this was my first real emergency situation. But the woman survived and had very little permanent injury...and I got a taste of shock...hopefully it will help me identify it's effects immediately and push it away.

Anyhow, the moral of this unbelievably long story is, when your in shock, sometimes your mind just doesn't work quite right. I've experienced it first hand and I hope you'll only ever have to take my word for it.

 

[WillowTree]

Frankly, without reviewing the court transcripts, there is no way to come to a definitive resolution as to this specific case.

Let’s see it as a cautionary tale for those of us who elect to carry firearms and to employ deadly force exercising our Constitutional right to self-defense.

An attorney in my state publishes an outstanding manual with regard to our self-defense/Castle Doctrine laws – I recommend everyone seek out similar documents in his state.

We know, we know. asswipes such as yourself think everyone should just stand there and get shot by thugs.. yea.. we know

 

[Missourian]

Why do you keep saying "hurry over?" He walked back with the same speed he walked away.

I would also point out that, even if Parker had been reaching for a weapon, there was no way that he would have seen it from the back of the store, around the edge of the shelves, and through the counter.

I know you want to support this action, but there is no legal justification for it.

He did hurry, the guy is disabled. Look at time index 17 seconds, doesn't run out the door after the other armed robber, he walks fast.

He does the same thing when he walks quickly up to the front and shoot Parker the second time...it's not the slow walk like when he comes back inside from outside and goes to the back.

Watch and compare, use the timestamp.

I did look at the video. He took exactly the same amount of time to walk in past the kid and get the gun as he did to walk back out and shoot him. He then took the same amount of time to walk back after that. You are trying to spin the story to make him seem justified, the evidence does not support that spin.

Not a chance...look at mark 27, he only takes two steps going back...then at mark 35 he take four fast steps at the same point coming back. Watch it again and you'll see

one...two going back, 1.2.3.4 rushing up front.

 

[Missourian]

Regarding this and other comments, from what I read, Parker did not have a gun either before he was shot the first time or while he was on the ground. Ersland should have gone to the phone and called 911 not gone to get another gun.

Immie

How is Ersland supposed to know he doesn't have a .25 semi-auto in his waistband? You must assume that he is armed. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback after all the facts are known, but Ersland has none of this information.

He has no idea if Parker is armed.

He has no idea how seriously wounded Parker is.

He doesn't know if Parker's partner will return...perhaps with friends.

He suspects that chances are that Parker would try to kill him if he gets the opportunity.

But all he really knows is that Parker and his partner made a decision to commit an armed robbery and that Parker is wounded and wasn't moving when he came back in.

Was the pharmacist in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm at the time he shot?

We can't know that, because we cannot see what Parker is doing.

Ersland is definitely moving faster like he was startled when he comes back up front.