Murder or Self-Defense

[The Rabbi]

It's not murder. It's still self defense. I don't buy that someone who is attacked has to understand that at some point them defending themselves stops being self defense and is suddenly, magically and inexplicably, murder.

Someone threatens you and gets killed, too bad for them. Nobody should have to go to jail for that.

Once the immediate threat ends it is no longer self defense. Nothing magical about it.

I had two kids (about 19yrs old) grab two rifles off my rack and run out with them. I went to draw my gun. But I could not. They were no threat to me, making off with property.
Now, if he had reached even for his cell phone I would have greased him right there, believing myself under threat. BUt as it was, I was not entitled to shoot him.

 

[Sallow]

You don't go from being in fear for your life to cool as a cucumber in 60 seconds...you're on high alert.

That's probably the only mitigating circumstance. And it was probably brought out in the Trial.

 

[kwc57]

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.

They were wrong? Seriously? LOL The jury sits thru the trial and is presented with actual evidence, testimony from both sides and instructions from the judge and they got it wrong? And you know this because you watched a video on the news and know different. You're amazing. Tell me, how many fingers am I holding up?

 

[kwc57]

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.

Well, not for me either. The kid got what he had coming to him. But the LAW disagrees and trumps what we think.

 

[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.

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

Im not seeing it however its a safe assumption from the video as they guy didn't even pay attention to the kid on the ground when he came back in the pharmacy.

Like I said in the post 2 posts before this one "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."

 

[bodecea]

The first shooting was totally justified and the store owner would have been a hero for that alone....and then he went and EXECUTED the down perp.

That is murder.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry bout that,


1. The perp deserved being shot multiple times, just to make sure he was, *dead*.
2. End of threat.
3. The shooter didn't know if the other crook would return and them together would some how get the advantage.
4. So the pharmacist was in the right, fill that crook on the floor with led and end his threat, then prepare for the other one to return.
5. He did what was right, and protected the other staff.
6. Anyone who can't see this is stuck on stupid.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

If he was all that concerned about the other guy coming back, why waste so many bullets? Had the other guy come back into the store, he might have really been in a bad spot.

An excellent point....the Finishing Move was an execution. That is murder.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

One thing I definitely agree with you on is that it is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback.

However, the rest of your statements don't agree with what I have always been taught when it comes to self-defense. That is that you disable your opponent and then get away from the situation. IMHO Ersland went beyond this. He took matters into his own hands and sealed his own fate.

There was no need for him to return to Parker's body and end his life. He should have gone to check on the girls that worked for him and found a safe place to wait out the arrival of the police. He was armed and able to protect himself in the event that Parker should be able to get up. There was no reason for him to go back to finish the job.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I respect your story and your beliefs in regards to this case.

On the other hand, I do still believe that Ersland committed murder in this case. Whether he was in shock or not, he went beyond what the law allows. At least the law as I understand it. Oklahoma's laws may, of course, be different, but I have always been taught that you are only allowed to return like force in these kinds of situations. He was absolutely justified when he fired the first shot. I have no doubt about that. After that, the other five shots were clearly not justified.

Seeing the video, I do not buy the excuse that he was still afraid for his life. He was too frigging calm throughout the execution... and yes, I use that word with full knowledge of what it means.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not murder. It's still self defense. I don't buy that someone who is attacked has to understand that at some point them defending themselves stops being self defense and is suddenly, magically and inexplicably, murder.

Someone threatens you and gets killed, too bad for them. Nobody should have to go to jail for that.

Once the immediate threat ends it is no longer self defense. Nothing magical about it.

I had two kids (about 19yrs old) grab two rifles off my rack and run out with them. I went to draw my gun. But I could not. They were no threat to me, making off with property.
Now, if he had reached even for his cell phone I would have greased him right there, believing myself under threat. BUt as it was, I was not entitled to shoot him.

Yeah, that's you.

I'm not shooting kids in the back. But if someone waves a gun in my face, depending upon how scared I was, I would try to kill them, and I would be single minded about it. I would not check pulses, get down to see if they had more weapons or were conscious. I would shoot them until they stopped moving. And that might take a few shots.

I mean, you never know. And it sets a very, very bad precedent to punish people for defending themselves. It sets everyone up for horrible crimes.

 

[kwc57]

It's not murder. It's still self defense. I don't buy that someone who is attacked has to understand that at some point them defending themselves stops being self defense and is suddenly, magically and inexplicably, murder.

Someone threatens you and gets killed, too bad for them. Nobody should have to go to jail for that.

Once the immediate threat ends it is no longer self defense. Nothing magical about it.

I had two kids (about 19yrs old) grab two rifles off my rack and run out with them. I went to draw my gun. But I could not. They were no threat to me, making off with property.
Now, if he had reached even for his cell phone I would have greased him right there, believing myself under threat. BUt as it was, I was not entitled to shoot him.

Yeah, that's you.

I'm not shooting kids in the back. But if someone waves a gun in my face, depending upon how scared I was, I would try to kill them, and I would be single minded about it. I would not check pulses, get down to see if they had more weapons or were conscious. I would shoot them until they stopped moving. And that might take a few shots.

I mean, you never know. And it sets a very, very bad precedent to punish people for defending themselves. It sets everyone up for horrible crimes.

Parker had no weapon. The kid who ran out of the store did. When they came in, waving a gun and pulling a mask over their face, Ersland was more than justified to pull his gun and start shooting at both of them, which is exactly what he did. Parker took a round to the head and dropped like a bag of potatoes. Was he twitching? Possibly. I've shot game before that was still twitching when I got to it. Again, if Ersland had emptied his clip in the kid then and there, no problem. I'm confident that the DA's office would have called it justified and no charges would have been brought. It was the returning to the store, walking past the "possibly twitching" body of Parker, turning his back on him to g obehind the counter and reload and then walking up to his body, standing over it and pumping five more in at close range that got him in trouble. He was not defending himself at that time. The DA was not punishing him for defending himself.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not murder. It's still self defense. I don't buy that someone who is attacked has to understand that at some point them defending themselves stops being self defense and is suddenly, magically and inexplicably, murder.

Someone threatens you and gets killed, too bad for them. Nobody should have to go to jail for that.

Once the immediate threat ends it is no longer self defense. Nothing magical about it.

I had two kids (about 19yrs old) grab two rifles off my rack and run out with them. I went to draw my gun. But I could not. They were no threat to me, making off with property.
Now, if he had reached even for his cell phone I would have greased him right there, believing myself under threat. BUt as it was, I was not entitled to shoot him.

Yeah, that's you.

I'm not shooting kids in the back. But if someone waves a gun in my face, depending upon how scared I was, I would try to kill them, and I would be single minded about it. I would not check pulses, get down to see if they had more weapons or were conscious. I would shoot them until they stopped moving. And that might take a few shots.

I mean, you never know. And it sets a very, very bad precedent to punish people for defending themselves. It sets everyone up for horrible crimes.

If someone waves a gun in your face you're way behind the curve.
As it is, the law is pretty simple and straightforward: Your ability to use deadly force ends when the threat ends. In the video the threat is clearly over, based on the pharmacist's behavior.
As far as precedent goes, we don't decide cases based on what might happen down the road. We decide based on what the law and facts are. And here the law and facts dictated he was guilty.

Surprisingly Joe Horn got off with a no true bill. By all rights he ought to be in jail. But he did shoot a man who was holding a gun towards him. Maybe that's the difference.

 

[bodecea]

It's not murder. It's still self defense. I don't buy that someone who is attacked has to understand that at some point them defending themselves stops being self defense and is suddenly, magically and inexplicably, murder.

Someone threatens you and gets killed, too bad for them. Nobody should have to go to jail for that.

Once the immediate threat ends it is no longer self defense. Nothing magical about it.

I had two kids (about 19yrs old) grab two rifles off my rack and run out with them. I went to draw my gun. But I could not. They were no threat to me, making off with property.
Now, if he had reached even for his cell phone I would have greased him right there, believing myself under threat. BUt as it was, I was not entitled to shoot him.

Yeah, that's you.

I'm not shooting kids in the back. But if someone waves a gun in my face, depending upon how scared I was, I would try to kill them, and I would be single minded about it. I would not check pulses, get down to see if they had more weapons or were conscious. I would shoot them until they stopped moving. And that might take a few shots.

I mean, you never know. And it sets a very, very bad precedent to punish people for defending themselves. It sets everyone up for horrible crimes.

And if you run out of the building...walk back...walk past the downed person, turning your back on them...go and slowly reload and walk back and at close range pump 5 more bullets into them....you'd be committing murder too.

 

[Missourian]

Once the immediate threat ends it is no longer self defense. Nothing magical about it.

I had two kids (about 19yrs old) grab two rifles off my rack and run out with them. I went to draw my gun. But I could not. They were no threat to me, making off with property.
Now, if he had reached even for his cell phone I would have greased him right there, believing myself under threat. BUt as it was, I was not entitled to shoot him.

Yeah, that's you.

I'm not shooting kids in the back. But if someone waves a gun in my face, depending upon how scared I was, I would try to kill them, and I would be single minded about it. I would not check pulses, get down to see if they had more weapons or were conscious. I would shoot them until they stopped moving. And that might take a few shots.

I mean, you never know. And it sets a very, very bad precedent to punish people for defending themselves. It sets everyone up for horrible crimes.

And if you run out of the building...walk back...walk past the downed person, turning your back on them...go and slowly reload and walk back and at close range pump 5 more bullets into them....you'd be committing murder too.

First, Ersland didn't reload, he retrieved his backup firearm.

Second, he doesn't "walk back".

Again, compare his chase shuffley fast walk at mark 16 to his mark 34, those are the same, mark 24-30 is him walking.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. When your mind is racing and everything is upside down, you really don't know what you are going to do, thats justification enough for the actions the pharmacist took.
2. Whether he shot him with a pistol or a machine gun, and cut them both in half, it would of been justified, they the two perps were in the wrong 100%.
3. Its was all on them, and their, actions that started the chain of events, there can be no other conclusion, unless he had frogged marched them both into the alley, blind folded them both and peppered them with a hail of bullets, but thats not what happened.
4. Its an open and shut case to me, he is innocent.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The thing that doesn't add up is this: if there was a potential that he was armed, then why would the pharmacist turn his back on the guy? I don't think anybody could provide a reasonable answer to this. If he was truly concerned about his life, and it was an act of self-defense (as required by the law)-there's NO WAY he would have turned his back. None. Period.

Let's even say the guy was armed. Why would you confront somebody who's on the ground, can't move towards where you are (in the back) and was shot in the head. One would just stay in the back, call the police, and wait for them to arrive.

We can't examine what was going through his head-but we can examine what his actions were. The fact that he turned his back on the guy shows that he obviously didn't feel he was threat. If he didn't feel he was a threat when he walked back into the store, then he didn't feel he was a threat when he was getting ready to shot him again. That's not self-defense. It's an offensive action-not a defensive one.

edit: And none of our opinions on what murder is, or should be are relevant. The only relevant definition is the law. Disagreeing with the laws doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Missourian]

The thing that doesn't add up is this: if there was a potential that he was armed, then why would the pharmacist turn his back on the guy? I don't think anybody could provide a reasonable answer to this. If he was truly concerned about his life, and it was an act of self-defense (as required by the law)-there's NO WAY he would have turned his back. None. Period.

Let's even say the guy was armed. Why would you confront somebody who's on the ground, can't move towards where you are (in the back) and was shot in the head. One would just stay in the back, call the police, and wait for them to arrive.

We can't examine what was going through his head-but we can examine what his actions were. The fact that he turned his back on the guy shows that he obviously didn't feel he was threat. If he didn't feel he was a threat when he walked back into the store, then he didn't feel he was a threat when he was getting ready to shot him again. That's not self-defense. It's an offensive action-not a defensive one.

edit: And none of our opinions on what murder is, or should be are relevant. The only relevant definition is the law. Disagreeing with the laws doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think Ersland thought Parker was dead...and therefore no longer a threat...when Parker started moving (to what extent we don't know, because it is out of the cameras FOV) he is a threat again...Ersland is startled, hustles back up front and shoots him.

That's is my impression of the events in the video.

EDIT - And Ersland deserves the benefit of every doubt...he is the victim...he didn't instigate this situation, he was surprised by armed intruders.

If there is an explanation of the video that meets the requirements for self defense that fits the facts...that by definition constitutes reasonable doubt.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The thing that doesn't add up is this: if there was a potential that he was armed, then why would the pharmacist turn his back on the guy? I don't think anybody could provide a reasonable answer to this. If he was truly concerned about his life, and it was an act of self-defense (as required by the law)-there's NO WAY he would have turned his back. None. Period.

Let's even say the guy was armed. Why would you confront somebody who's on the ground, can't move towards where you are (in the back) and was shot in the head. One would just stay in the back, call the police, and wait for them to arrive.

We can't examine what was going through his head-but we can examine what his actions were. The fact that he turned his back on the guy shows that he obviously didn't feel he was threat. If he didn't feel he was a threat when he walked back into the store, then he didn't feel he was a threat when he was getting ready to shot him again. That's not self-defense. It's an offensive action-not a defensive one.

edit: And none of our opinions on what murder is, or should be are relevant. The only relevant definition is the law. Disagreeing with the laws doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think Ersland thought Parker was dead...and therefore no longer a threat...when Parker started moving (to what extent we don't know, because it is out of the cameras FOV) he is a threat again...Ersland is startled, hustles back up front and shoots him.

That's is my impression of the events in the video.

EDIT - And Ersland deserves the benefit of every doubt...he is the victim...he didn't instigate this situation, he was surprised by armed intruders.

If there is an explanation of the video that meets the requirements for self defense that fits the facts...that by definition constitutes reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt has to be such-reasonable. It's not reasonable to suggest that somebody on the ground, without having a weapon on them, and was just shot in the head was a threat.

Now the guy clearly went to the back, to reload, and to go back and kill the guy. There's no denying this. But like I said if he was genuinely afraid for his life (or those of his employees)-why did he turn his back on the person, while walking towards the back of the pharmacy? Why wouldn't he just stay in the back room, and wait for law enforcement?

What reasonable doubt do you have that a person on the ground, just shot in the head, can't get up, and is unarmed can pose to a person who is at the back of the pharmacy-and (literally) out of sight of the person, could pose a danger to the person?

Reasonable =/- possible.

And we can't go based on what people thought-we have to go based upon their actions. It's also not a fact that the person on the ground started to move-we don't know that. And even if he did-it would have to be enough so he would become a threat to the other people (which being shot in the head, lying on the ground, with no weapon makes this very hard to be reasonable).

 

[Missourian]

The thing that doesn't add up is this: if there was a potential that he was armed, then why would the pharmacist turn his back on the guy? I don't think anybody could provide a reasonable answer to this. If he was truly concerned about his life, and it was an act of self-defense (as required by the law)-there's NO WAY he would have turned his back. None. Period.

Let's even say the guy was armed. Why would you confront somebody who's on the ground, can't move towards where you are (in the back) and was shot in the head. One would just stay in the back, call the police, and wait for them to arrive.

We can't examine what was going through his head-but we can examine what his actions were. The fact that he turned his back on the guy shows that he obviously didn't feel he was threat. If he didn't feel he was a threat when he walked back into the store, then he didn't feel he was a threat when he was getting ready to shot him again. That's not self-defense. It's an offensive action-not a defensive one.

edit: And none of our opinions on what murder is, or should be are relevant. The only relevant definition is the law. Disagreeing with the laws doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think Ersland thought Parker was dead...and therefore no longer a threat...when Parker started moving (to what extent we don't know, because it is out of the cameras FOV) he is a threat again...Ersland is startled, hustles back up front and shoots him.

That's is my impression of the events in the video.

EDIT - And Ersland deserves the benefit of every doubt...he is the victim...he didn't instigate this situation, he was surprised by armed intruders.

If there is an explanation of the video that meets the requirements for self defense that fits the facts...that by definition constitutes reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt has to be such-reasonable. It's not reasonable to suggest that somebody on the ground, without having a weapon on them, and was just shot in the head was a threat.

Now the guy clearly went to the back, to reload, and to go back and kill the guy. There's no denying this. But like I said if he was genuinely afraid for his life (or those of his employees)-why did he turn his back on the person, while walking towards the back of the pharmacy? Why wouldn't he just stay in the back room, and wait for law enforcement?

What reasonable doubt do you have that a person on the ground, just shot in the head, can't get up, and is unarmed can pose to a person who is at the back of the pharmacy-and (literally) out of sight of the person, could pose a danger to the person?

Reasonable =/- possible.

And we can't go based on what people thought-we have to go based upon their actions. It's also not a fact that the person on the ground started to move-we don't know that. And even if he did-it would have to be enough so he would become a threat to the other people (which being shot in the head, lying on the ground, with no weapon makes this very hard to be reasonable).

Once again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. Ersland doesn't know whether or not Parker is armed, how badly he is injured...he was wearing a mask that covered his head, whether he has the ability to attack again.

If I heard movement from the front of the store, I would certainly investigate it, and if Parker's movement even suggested he was reaching for a weapon after all Ersland had just been through, I would have shot Parker too.

No one knows what Parker was doing off camera but Ersland. No one knows whether he was conscious or unconscious, moving or not moving, trying to get up, looking like he was reaching for a weapon...except Ersland.

 

[kwc57]

I think Ersland thought Parker was dead...and therefore no longer a threat...when Parker started moving (to what extent we don't know, because it is out of the cameras FOV) he is a threat again...Ersland is startled, hustles back up front and shoots him.

That's is my impression of the events in the video.

EDIT - And Ersland deserves the benefit of every doubt...he is the victim...he didn't instigate this situation, he was surprised by armed intruders.

If there is an explanation of the video that meets the requirements for self defense that fits the facts...that by definition constitutes reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt has to be such-reasonable. It's not reasonable to suggest that somebody on the ground, without having a weapon on them, and was just shot in the head was a threat.

Now the guy clearly went to the back, to reload, and to go back and kill the guy. There's no denying this. But like I said if he was genuinely afraid for his life (or those of his employees)-why did he turn his back on the person, while walking towards the back of the pharmacy? Why wouldn't he just stay in the back room, and wait for law enforcement?

What reasonable doubt do you have that a person on the ground, just shot in the head, can't get up, and is unarmed can pose to a person who is at the back of the pharmacy-and (literally) out of sight of the person, could pose a danger to the person?

Reasonable =/- possible.

And we can't go based on what people thought-we have to go based upon their actions. It's also not a fact that the person on the ground started to move-we don't know that. And even if he did-it would have to be enough so he would become a threat to the other people (which being shot in the head, lying on the ground, with no weapon makes this very hard to be reasonable).

Once again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. Ersland doesn't know whether or not Parker is armed, how badly he is injured...he was wearing a mask that covered his head, whether he has the ability to attack again.

If I heard movement from the front of the store, I would certainly investigate it, and if Parker's movement even suggested he was reaching for a weapon after all Ersland had just been through, I would have shot Parker too.

No one knows what Parker was doing off camera but Ersland. No one knows whether he was conscious or unconscious, moving or not moving, trying to get up, looking like he was reaching for a weapon...except Ersland.

You are aware that you too are Monday morning quarterbacking aren't you? You make many assumptions to justify your opinion while not having heard or seen the evidence that the jury did. So what that Parker was wearing a mask. He is lying in a pool of blood flowing from a head shot and his hands are empty. There is no indication in the video that Ersland went to the back and was going to stay there, heard a noise and then came back to find a mobile Parker and shot him again in self defense. There is clear indication that he walked past Parker and proceeded behind the counter with his back to him, grabbed his second gun and returned to stand over him on the floor and shoot him point blank several more times in an unbroken chain of events. You can slice and dice it to your hearts content to justify his actions, but it is all Monday morning quarterbacking that does not agree with trial evidence and expert testimony.