Ersland petition..

[Harley1953]

While my very first reaction way back when this all occurred, was no way could Ersland be guilty of a crime. NOBODY would be dead if they had not tried to rob the store.

Ersland through his actions of the day and later statements was/is pretty well his own worst enemy.

I would offer up the suggestion that, who among us can say how they would react given the same set of circumstances as Ersland.

We all have VERY strong opinions about this whole deal. Whether you agree or not of the outcome, it would be very hard to know what testimony and other details were presented to the jury that resulted in their verdict.

Finally, in my opinion I don't see how a jury could convict Ersland of FIRST degree murder. Not in any way being an attorney, I was under the impression that first degree murder entailed a premeditation(or planning) of the crime. How could a person PLAN out a murder in a little over a minute that the whole episode at the pharmacy happened?

I would welcome some of the attorneys on the site explaining if I am even close to correct in my understanding of the statute of FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

As for signing a petition to free Ersland, I am not sure I could do that just yet until I heard a clear understanding of WHAT IS first degree murder by Oklahoma statute.

 

[jdubya]

Ersland acted outside the law. Period. He tried to cover his actions with several false stories, going so far as to push a piece of lead under his skin to make it appear as though he had been shot at. He made a bad choice and now has to suffer the consequences. I think the initial sentencing recommendation of life was a little harsh. Hopefully the judge will ammend that at the formal one.
The little turd probably got what he deserved, we'll never know. The two adults that planned the robbery should have been punished far worse.
I have to respect DA Prater for doing the unpopular thing and prosecuting Ersland according to the law. I would definitely vote to re-elect him. He has upheld his oath from what Ive seen.
Ive seen a lot of statements from people that really sound uninformed. Please do some homework on this before calling for a petition or anything else.

 

[TerryMiller]

While my very first reaction way back when this all occurred, was no way could Ersland be guilty of a crime. NOBODY would be dead if they had not tried to rob the store.

Ersland through his actions of the day and later statements was/is pretty well his own worst enemy.

I would offer up the suggestion that, who among us can say how they would react given the same set of circumstances as Ersland.

We all have VERY strong opinions about this whole deal. Whether you agree or not of the outcome, it would be very hard to know what testimony and other details were presented to the jury that resulted in their verdict.

Finally, in my opinion I don't see how a jury could convict Ersland of FIRST degree murder. Not in any way being an attorney, I was under the impression that first degree murder entailed a premeditation(or planning) of the crime. How could a person PLAN out a murder in a little over a minute that the whole episode at the pharmacy happened?

I would welcome some of the attorneys on the site explaining if I am even close to correct in my understanding of the statute of FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

As for signing a petition to free Ersland, I am not sure I could do that just yet until I heard a clear understanding of WHAT IS first degree murder by Oklahoma statute.

From Oklahoma State Court Network: First Degree Murder


http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69297

Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 24 - Homicide
Murder
Section 701.7 - Murder in the First Degree
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.

B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.

C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 843.5 of this title. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.

D. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.

E. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.


While I am not an attorney, I would surmise that "malice aforethought" has no definition as to time. Meaning that whether it was minutes or months, it would be the same. Ersland's actions do fall within that category in my opinion.

 

[JB Books]

I have suffered a bullet wound while sitting on the john when I was advising the CIA, MI6 and James Bond (a close personal friend) on how to best assist the Illuminati in instituting a New World Order grab of guns. Fortunately, I was able to use Tucks and Preperation H to save myself.

 

[Ken Martin]

Let me see if I have this correct. Some of you say if Ersland had killed the criminal with the first shot it would have been OK. But, it's not OK for Ersland to have killed the criminal with more than one shot. I'm afraid that is not logical.

 

[inactive]

Well, it's not a matter if what is "okay" and "not okay." It's a matter of what would be admissible or a crime based on a technically under our laws.

If the 1st shot killed him, then he was killed off the bat and all subsequent shots were extraneous as Ersland then simply shot a corpse. If the next shots killed him (assuming if - big if - he was unconscious after the first shot) after Esrland had left and then reentered the store, then that could be construed as murder (as was found in the court decision).

 

[Ken Martin]

As I said....not logical.

 

[claricSTi]

Let me see if I have this correct. Some of you say if Ersland had killed the criminal with the first shot it would have been OK. But, it's not OK for Ersland to have killed the criminal with more than one shot. I'm afraid that is not logical.

What these people are more than likely trying to express is that he went outside, then walked over the wounded robber to retrieve another gun. If he fired 6 shots at the suspect from the git' go this wouldn't be a case. It's the fact that he acted in the video as if the "kid" was no longer a threat (turning back to suspect) then went and "finished him off". The way Ersland handled this was about the worst way possible and I'm not referring to the incident.

 

[_CY_]

don't think anyone is defending Ersland for his actions afterwards... the fact Ersland is a scumbag and a liar still don't change the facts on the ground.

proof has been presented, thug didn't move again after going down after first shot to head. Brain matter clearly showed outside of thug's skull according to ME's report. without doubt thug sustained major brain trauma capable of instantly killing him.

since it's impossible to prove time of death within seconds. IMHO it's criminal for ME to state categorically he was alive when additional 5 shots was fired?

30 seconds later his body still could have blood pressure resulting in blood collecting in each bullet hole... regardless if his heart was still pumping or not. it's totally possible to be brain dead and still have the heart pump. the average person has about 1.5 gallons of blood at under 2.5 psi ... before getting shot 5 more times, his only blood loss would be limited to the pellet that penetrated his skull.

it's totally possible, only 30 seconds later for his brain dead body to maintain enough volume/pressure to result in pooling blood for all five additional shots. with or without his still heart pumping

so far if one ignores the fact Ersland is a liar and scumbag ... the evidence released so far just doesn't fly.

whither Prater had legal justification to prosecute for Murder1 or not ... IMHO will matter little to OKC's voters. they will judge him according to their conscience. it's my prediction Prator will be voted out of office in the next election.

Ersland acted outside the law. Period. He tried to cover his actions with several false stories, going so far as to push a piece of lead under his skin to make it appear as though he had been shot at. He made a bad choice and now has to suffer the consequences. I think the initial sentencing recommendation of life was a little harsh. Hopefully the judge will ammend that at the formal one.
The little turd probably got what he deserved, we'll never know. The two adults that planned the robbery should have been punished far worse.
I have to respect DA Prater for doing the unpopular thing and prosecuting Ersland according to the law. I would definitely vote to re-elect him. He has upheld his oath from what Ive seen.
Ive seen a lot of statements from people that really sound uninformed. Please do some homework on this before calling for a petition or anything else.

 

[inactive]

As I said....not logical.

We're not arguing that the law is in its entirety logical; oh please don't accuse us of that!

Do I think what he did, on the surface, was wrong? Yes, I do.

Do I think I would have found him guilty of First Degree Murder, without any possible doubt that one of many possible technicalities allowing an acquittal exists? No, I don't.

Do I think the guy's public actions and impact on public opinion after the trial sealed his fate, regardless of what facts were presented? Most certainly I do.