I leave it to you, our readers, to discuss - was it wrong to shoot someone who no longer posed a threat, and who may not have been armed in the first place? Does the Castle doctrine apply? Was Ersland in the wrong to pursue one of the suspects outside the store, instead of allowing him to retreat?
Have at it! (If this video clip doesn't play for you, you can access it here.)
From MSNBC:
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'
An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.
Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.
Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."
A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.
Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.
Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.
Please don't give up hope'
Thousands of Ersland's supporters have reportedly signed petitions pushing Gov. Mary Fallin to pardon the pharmacist, or ease his sentence.
"Please people, don't give up hope. We got 17,000 signatures in a month," Ersland's friend and activist Karen Monahan told KOCO.
Monahan told the station she is selling T-shirts and collecting signatures to help save the life of her good friend.
"The last time I talked to him (Ersland), he was over-excited. He's getting letters (of support) from people he doesn't even know," Monahan reportedly said.
Fuck him, he's a murdering piece of shit. Let's hope that he lives a long and uncomfortable life surrounded by other murderous scum like himself.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that'll be okay with the gunzloonz, btw, as he's not ONE OF THEM*
*anymore.
Yeah, this guy needs to go to prison. *If* the robbers were armed, then he had a right to shoot. But once the robber is down and incapacitated, there is no reason to keep pumping rounds in him. That's just vicious and murderous, and all because of some prescription drugs.
ReplyDeleteAs a defense attorney, this would be the one and only kind of case I don't want to handle. I don't feel I would be able to vigorously push the argument that this was a justifiable homicide. Personally, I don't think there is any excuse for shooting the kid who is already down.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for sure, gun control advocates can stop calling it “shoot first” or a “license to murder”. But I suspect they won’t.
ReplyDeleteTS: It is a license to murder.
ReplyDeleteMost gunloons are physically and mentally incapable of safely handling firearms under normal circumstances. Under periods of stress, they're great dangers.
Jade: “It is a license to murder.”
ReplyDeleteThey why did he get life in prison? Maybe you should have represented his defense. Tell the judge the same thing you tell us- how castle doctrine means you can kill anyone you like with impunity.
The whole concept of the castle doctrine law is to change the doctrine of self-defence so that it becomes easier for one to use deadly force. Normally, self-defence only allows the amount of force reasonable to stop the threat. reasonbable being a question for the trier of fact since the defendant would say the force was reasonable.
ReplyDeleteAs I point out, any excessive force turns the defender to the aggressor and removes the claim of self-defence. The use of deadly force against an unarmed aggressor could lead to the person who uses that force to be prosecuted.
That would cause hesitance in those who can think in the advisability of using a firearm for self-defence purposes since they could end up being "judged by 12" with the results being unfavourable.
Personally, I find these laws repugnant and hypocritical coming from those who claim to believe in the santity of life and to respect the constitution, which includes the right of due process for criminals.
Clearly the pharmacist was in the wrong unless he still feared for his life which doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence and a jury of his peers.
ReplyDeleteContrary to what the antis would have you believe, castle doctrine does not change the tests of whether or not homicide is justifiable because of self defense. All castle doctrine does is shift the burden of proof from the defendant to the state. Castle doctrine presumes that you were justified unless the state can prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty. Nothing changes as to what exactly is justifiable though with some states, it does nullify the duty to retreat.
Obviously with this case, under OK law anyway, this was not justifiable homicide.
"All castle doctrine does is shift the burden of proof from the defendant to the state. "
ReplyDeleteNope.
The burden of proof has always been with the state. Regardless the charge, it is the duty of the state--not the defendant--to prove its case.
Instead, what the Castle doctrine does is make it far more difficult for the state by loosening reasonable force laws to the point that its ok to kill someone regardless if a threat is involved.
Jade, bullshit.
ReplyDeleteIn most states justifiable homicide is an affirmative defense. In other words you claim self defense to homicide. You then have to prove that all conditions were met for it to be self defense.
With Castle Doctrine, you are presumed to have satisfied all of those conditions unless the state can prove that one of those conditions were not met meaning that it was not justifiable as self defense.
Castle doctrine just shifts the burden of proof to the state and does not change those conditions at all.
" You then have to prove that all conditions were met for it to be self defense. "
ReplyDeleteUh uh. As I sagely noted, any charge requires the state to prove the charge. The defendant isn't required to show or prove anything.
You are so sagely full of shit too.
ReplyDelete"Contrary to what the antis would have you believe, castle doctrine does not change the tests of whether or not homicide is justifiable because of self defense."
ReplyDeleteContrary to what Fat White Man says in his comment, the "tests" are not the problem. The problem is the mistaken sense of entitlement as in the, "you steal my stereo, you forfeit your fucking LIFE!" mentality of shitheads like the defendant in this case.
Shooting someone who is incapacitated is murder, no two ways about it. The only question is degree of guilt.
I remember being in Phoenix, AZ riding in my brother-in-law's car about 15 years ago. Some shithead on a Ninja style motorsiccle was whipping in and out of traffic and, at the stop light, weaving between the autos, illegally, to get to the front of the line.
I noticed that the biker had a handgun strapped on his belt and mentioned it to my b-i-l. He said it was perfectly legal.
Iremember thinking to myself, "Hmmmm, man only wants to obey the laws he likes and he's carrying a gun. Suweeeeeeeeeeeeet!".
"The problem is the mistaken sense of entitlement as in the, 'you steal my stereo, you forfeit your fucking LIFE!' mentality of shitheads like the defendant in this case."
ReplyDeleteVery true. And we have the antis and the media to thank for this by mis-characterizing Castle Doctrine as a "Shoot First" or "Make my day" law when in fact it is not.
The law was not written that way and is not taught that way. Any perception of Castle being a vigilante law is because the media and anti freedom loons promote it that way.
Thank you antis for getting people killed. It is a good thing we don't have MikeB's shared responsibility law or several of you would be going to prison for your lies.
It is a vigilante law or as I sagely put it, a license to kill.
ReplyDeleteBasically, the Castle Doctrine removes any barrier to deadly force based on level of threat and permits the use of deadly force based on location.
Effectively, this means gunloons can shoot and kill people who come to their door such as Mormon missionaries, Girl Scouts selling cookies and FedEx delivery folks without penalty.
"Effectively, this means gunloons can shoot and kill people who come to their door such as Mormon missionaries, Girl Scouts selling cookies and FedEx delivery folks without penalty."
ReplyDeleteUh, no it does not. That is why a man who shot a robber has just been sentenced to life in prison. If Castle worked like the dipshits claimed, he would not have even been charged. You lies are goining to get people killed.
FWM: You're wrong as usual.
ReplyDeleteOK sort of has a modified Castle Doctrine for the use od deadly force that says deadly force is ok if one "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
In the Ersland case, the pharmacist had prevented the risk of death, bodily harm, and commission of a felony. But he proceeded to then pump more lead into his unconcious victim--well after the fact.
Jade: “In the Ersland case, the pharmacist had prevented the risk of death, bodily harm, and commission of a felony. But he proceeded to then pump more lead into his unconcious victim--well after the fact.”
ReplyDeleteSo you agree that Castle Doctrine is not a license to murder. Why didn’t you just say so from the beginning?
Jade: “OK sort of has a modified Castle Doctrine”
Are you suggesting he would get off Scot free in another state? Which ones?
Jade,
ReplyDeleteYou're not even listening to what FWM has to say at all. He said what he had to say twice. He has said the same thing before on this blog. Still you respond:
In the Ersland case, the pharmacist had prevented the risk of death, bodily harm, and commission of a felony. But he proceeded to then pump more lead into his unconcious victim--well after the fact.
It's like you're not even awake.
"The law was not written that way and is not taught that way. Any perception of Castle being a vigilante law is because the media and anti freedom loons promote it that way."
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to be extremely naive or cynical to expect people to believe that somebody like the defendant is listening to or reading anything that the "anti fucking morons with gunz" crowd is saying.
"You'd have to be extremely naive or cynical to expect people to believe that somebody like the defendant is listening to or reading anything that the "anti fucking morons with gunz" crowd is saying."
ReplyDeleteNeither. I was talking about the people at large, not this specific case. The media has been glad to take up the anti's mantra and describe Castle as a Make-my-day-shoot-first-vigilante-girl-scout-cookie-killing law to the point that people that don't know any better believe that if their state has Castle Doctrine, they can shoot anybody that walks into their house. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth but they continue to spread their lies anyway in hopes that more people should be killed so that they can blog about it. Sickening.
"Neither. I was talking about the people at large, not this specific case. The media has been glad to take up the anti's mantra and describe Castle as a Make-my-day-shoot-first-vigilante-girl-scout-cookie-killing..."
ReplyDeleteAnd you have citations to back up that assertion? Not anecdotes, but citations of serious, mainstream journalists and reputable publishers doing that sort of thing?
People at large, in my admittedly non scientific sampling, don't even know wtf "Castle Doctrine" is. Please furnish some citations for whre your data on that assertion comes from as well.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/national/main691124.shtml
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570233/Florida-shoot-first-law-helps-gangsters.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000735.html
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/04/27/martens/
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/121670424.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19680321/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/stand-your-ground-laws-causing-confusion/
http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/5391211.html
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-make-my-day-law-shields-murder-charge-story,0,1729610.story
http://www.kten.com/story/15043583/investigators-look-at-make-my-day-law-in-mead-shooting
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2007/12/make_my_day_laws_and_selfdefen.html
http://minnesotaindependent.com/80322/make-my-day-law-deadly-force-minnesota
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2009/05/22/shoot-first-lawunnecessary-and-dangerous/
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/shoot-first-laws
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/29/State/The_shoot_first_state.shtml
http://www.ibrattleboro.com/article.php/20051208120637600
What FWM misses is the fact the pharmacist may well have gotten away with his crime were it not for the security cams.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing that sunk the pharmacist.
The Castle Doctrine is a license to kill.
Come on, Fat White Man, is that all you got?
ReplyDeleteJade: “What FWM misses is the fact the pharmacist may well have gotten away with his crime were it not for the security cams.”
Because the ATF is in charge of ballistic forensics?
It sounds more like you believe “lack of surveillance” is a “license to kill”.
"The media has been glad to take up the anti's mantra and describe Castle as a Make-my-day-shoot-first-vigilante-girl-scout-cookie-killing law to the point that people that don't know any better believe that if their state has Castle Doctrine"
ReplyDeleteAnd Mr. Corpulent Pink Male, when challenged to provide some "citations" does so.
I only googled 4 (one link didn't work). None of them had anything remotely like the hyperbolic language of your original assertion.
Here's a hint, when you provide citations they shold do two things.
1.) Support your assertion
and
c.) Ah, get back to me when you've found some "citations" that meet the first condition.
I think Ersland would have killed that kid regardless of the exact castle doctrine policy in his area. He probably had the same disdain for young black bandits as any other white business owner. And when one of them li'l bastards dared to come into his shop, that was all she wrote.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie: “None of them had anything remotely like the hyperbolic language of your original assertion.”
ReplyDeleteWithout click on any links, I see that eight of them use either the phrase “shoot first”, or “Make my day” directly in the URL. Both of those are examples of the hyperbolic rhetoric.
TS:
ReplyDelete"Without click on any links, I see that eight of them use either the phrase “shoot first”, or “Make my day” directly in the URL. Both of those are examples of the hyperbolic rhetoric.
July 17, 2011 8:51 PM"
This would be the problem. You see the sentence "Reasonable controls on the proliferation of high-powered, rapid fire, large magazine capacity weapons might be enacted" and see, "They're coming to take MY GUNZ AWAY, 1-11!!".
Fat White Man provided links to stories which you, by your own admission, could not be troubled to actually read; stories which by my limited reading said nothing like what he claimed they said. It's been over 36 hours since he posted those links in this thread. He hasn't had time, apparently, to come up with better links, links which actually support his wild-eyed contentions. I have seen people excoriated on this and other blogs for saying something about "automatic" weapons or assault rifle, because they are WRONG and too stupid to know the truth, and shut up. You gunloverz pride yourselves on getting all the facts lined up. Guess what, this time, for sure, major fail.
Democommie: “…stories which by my limited reading said nothing like what he claimed they said.”
ReplyDeleteIf you don’t see the hyperbole in calling it “shoot first law”, then you are not going to see any of the rhetoric in the text either. You are more than happy to be a contributor to the misconception.
Democommie: ‘You see the sentence "Reasonable controls on the proliferation of high-powered, rapid fire, large magazine capacity weapons might be enacted" and see, "They're coming to take MY GUNZ AWAY, 1-11!!".’
I read that and I think the Browning M2 is already “reasonably controlled” under the 1934 NFA, what more do you want?
Question, what does “1-11!!” mean? I have seen it said a few times.
I always like to distinguish between the castle doctrine law and the castle doctrine mentality.
ReplyDeleteTS:
ReplyDeleteIf Large Pink Gunzguy wants to use this sort of language:
"The media has been glad to take up the anti's mantra and describe Castle as a Make-my-day-shoot-first-vigilante-girl-scout-cookie-killing law to the point that people that don't know any better believe that if their state has Castle Doctrine, they can shoot anybody that walks into their house."
and then provide citations that he infers this sort of language is equal he is not only being completely full of shit he's assuming that nobody's checking his work.
I notice that he's avoided this comment thread since last week, when he furnished his "citations.
I disagree with you, a lot, but I don't think you're stupid or essentially dishonest. Fat White Man does not rise to your level. He's somewhere to the north of scum like MikeW and Weer'd Beard, but well to the south of you.