Latest in the Jerome Jay Ersland saga.

[1shot(bob)]

Seems like to me we are dotting our Is and crossing our Ts about the entire 'good shoot-bad shoot' scenario, and everyone is missing the big picture.
Why don't we step back and remember the fact that a group of men, at least one of them armed with a loaded weapon, attempted to rob a man, and possibly, or evidently, willing to use lethal force in order to do so. Said man responded to the threat with his own lethal force.
Why is it that only the man with the gun is considered dangerous? Why is he the only one that can be charged with the crime or be found fit to suffer for his actions? Aren't the others, although unarmed, just as guilty of armed robbery? Why don't they suffer the same consequences as the one holding the gun? Why do we care how many times the bad guy was shot? Let the good guy reload if he wants. Let's get these bad guys off the street.
I'm not one to advocate vigilante justice but when it's obvious who the bad guys are why do we spend so much time and money prosecuting the good guys? Sure, the pharmacist made mistakes and did some stupid things, but under the duress of the moment I'm willing to let it go. No innocents were harmed during this event (had they been, it would be a different story).
Why do we protect the guilty so fervently? Who is really the victim here? The dead guy, or the pharmacist?

 

[ez bake]

Seems like to me we are dotting our Is and crossing our Ts about the entire 'good shoot-bad shoot' scenario, and everyone is missing the big picture.
Why don't we step back and remember the fact that a group of men, at least one of them armed with a loaded weapon, attempted to rob a man, and possibly, or evidently, willing to use lethal force in order to do so. Said man responded to the threat with his own lethal force.
Why is it that only the man with the gun is considered dangerous? Why is he the only one that can be charged with the crime or be found fit to suffer for his actions? Aren't the others, although unarmed, just as guilty of armed robbery? Why don't they suffer the same consequences as the one holding the gun? Why do we care how many times the bad guy was shot? Let the good guy reload if he wants. Let's get these bad guys off the street.
I'm not one to advocate vigilante justice but when it's obvious who the bad guys are why do we spend so much time and money prosecuting the good guys? Sure, the pharmacist made mistakes and did some stupid things, but under the duress of the moment I'm willing to let it go. No innocents were harmed during this event (had they been, it would be a different story).
Why do we protect the guilty so fervently? Who is really the victim here? The dead guy, or the pharmacist?

This is exactly the problem. You go out of your way to define the bad guys and then defend Ersland as someone who "made mistakes and did some stupid things" - some of what he did was criminal (lying to police, lying about his military career, and shooting a downed suspect 5 more times is the thing that is being questioned as to if its a bad thing or good - by a jury).

Why can't both Ersland and the robbers be bad-guys?

BTW, there was only one gun - it wasn't loaded (and no shots were fired at Ersland). I'm not saying that makes a difference in the first shot, because even I would give Ersland the benefit of the doubt. That's the problem is that everyone who is an Ersland fanboy wants to lump the entire series of events into one incident and forget about Ersland's actions after the first true incident that might be criminal because he's a "gun guy" and if his actions are scrutinized, then so could all of our actions in a similar incident.

I get that - I do. But the reason his actions are being scrutinized is his own fault - the incident was done when Parker went down and the other robber ran. That was the end of the threat to Ersland's life - he had several rounds left in his gun and plenty of options to be the good guy (under his own camera's surveillance).

He chose to chase after the robber. Had anyone on this board done that, they would be crucified by the many people who know better. That was the first bad thing he did that showed that he wasn't the victim, he was the aggressor. At that point, the first incident of him being robbed was clearly over and even Prater said he could defend those actions. I don't know about you, but that's more than I would expect had I done the same thing. Then after that, Ersland comes back into the Pharmacy and steps over/past Parker who is on the floor and turns his back to him a second time and gets another gun. He then goes nonchalantly back over and leans off camera and fires 5 rounds (in what looked like one-handed shooting).

Any way you look at it, that's vigilante Justice and we should all be angry at Ersland for endangering our rights as gun owners, not just the armed robbers (their part could actually have been that they both died, and Ersland could have ended up looking like a hero had he calmed down and not acted out of vigilante justice).

When someone is down on the ground, and you step over/past them twice (turning your back on them both times), you've already indicated that they're not a threat - it looks bad (like walking into a pharmacy with a gun in your hand - or even next to a guy with a gun in his hand).

Its funny that so many people are certain of what the Robbers "would have done" based on them coming into the Pharmacy (even ignoring the fact that Parker didn't have a gun), yet no fans of Ersland want to assume anything he did.

 

[1shot(bob)]

This is exactly the problem. You go out of your way to define the bad guys and then defend Ersland as someone who "made mistakes and did some stupid things" - some of what he did was criminal (lying to police, lying about his military career, and shooting a downed suspect 5 more times is the thing that is being questioned as to if its a bad thing or good - by a jury).

The bad guys are the ones that tried to rob Ersland. Had they stayed home none of this would be an issue. I think that's an important point to remember.
I can't defend his lying. That was just stupid. The truth should be his defense.

Why can't both Ersland and the robbers be bad-guys?

Ersland made some mistakes for sure, but since when does defending yourself make you the bad guy? Yeah, the lying was stupid, but does it really make him the bad guy?

BTW, there was only one gun - it wasn't loaded (and no shots were fired at Ersland). I'm not saying that makes a difference in the first shot, because even I would give Ersland the benefit of the doubt. That's the problem is that everyone who is an Ersland fanboy wants to lump the entire series of events into one incident and forget about Ersland's actions after the first true incident that might be criminal because he's a "gun guy" and if his actions are scrutinized, then so could all of our actions in a similar incident.

Loaded or unloaded is irrelevant. Ersland did not know it was unloaded.
I only see one event. The attempted robbery. Everything that happened after they barged in with a gun is the same event IMO.

I get that - I do. But the reason his actions are being scrutinized is his own fault - the incident was done when Parker went down and the other robber ran. That was the end of the threat to Ersland's life - he had several rounds left in his gun and plenty of options to be the good guy (under his own camera's surveillance).

I have a problem with that. If I was threatened with a gun, for no apparent reason at all other than to take something from me that I legally owned, it should be up to me when the threat was relieved. The robber started the event, it should be my determination when it is over. I can give him what he wants and cower, or defend myself and my belongings. I know this isn't how it is legally, but I think it should be.

He chose to chase after the robber. Had anyone on this board done that, they would be crucified by the many people who know better. That was the first bad thing he did that showed that he wasn't the victim, he was the aggressor. At that point, the first incident of him being robbed was clearly over and even Prater said he could defend those actions. I don't know about you, but that's more than I would expect had I done the same thing. Then after that, Ersland comes back into the Pharmacy and steps over/past Parker who is on the floor and turns his back to him a second time and gets another gun. He then goes nonchalantly back over and leans off camera and fires 5 rounds (in what looked like one-handed shooting).

I disagree. Ersland was the victim. He didn't ask to be robbed. The robber was the aggressor, Ersland was the respondent. Would it be different if Ersland was a LEO and chased the perp? If so, why? Remember, all of this happened in about a minute, not hours, days, or weeks.

Any way you look at it, that's vigilante Justice and we should all be angry at Ersland for endangering our rights as gun owners, not just the armed robbers (their part could actually have been that they both died, and Ersland could have ended up looking like a hero had he calmed down and not acted out of vigilante justice).

I am not angry at Ersland for endangering my gun rights. I'm angry at Prater and government in general endangering my gun rights. Why are people judged so harshly for defending themselves? Why should we be. The aggressor was the robber, even if the robber was chased away from the scene and hunted down (he was chased but not hunted).

When someone is down on the ground, and you step over/past them twice (turning your back on them both times), you've already indicated that they're not a threat - it looks bad (like walking into a pharmacy with a gun in your hand - or even next to a guy with a gun in his hand).

They started the game when they entered the store with a gun and announced their intentions. Why do they also get to determine when the game ends? Isn't that giving the perp too much control?

Its funny that so many people are certain of what the Robbers "would have done" based on them coming into the Pharmacy (even ignoring the fact that Parker didn't have a gun), yet no fans of Ersland want to assume anything he did.

Again, the robbers announced their intentions when they walked in with a gun to the employees head. Loaded or unloaded, that's a threat to life and limb. Any LEO will drop you like a bad habit if you point an unloaded weapon at them.
I assume Ersland was feeling threatened when a gun was pointed at him, and he responded to save his own life and that of his employees. His adrenaline was flowing like a wild river and he (maybe) over-reacted. He pursued the threat to his life, both inside and out the door, and continued until he felt the threat was relieved.
What would you do in that situation? Do you really know? I would probably react more like him than like a trained responder to situations like this one.

I know a lot of this topic centers around the laws the way they are written. My point of view is why the laws are written the way they are. Why are we held to such strict uses of our weapons when the bad guys are not?

 

[_CY_]

everything posted below just solidifies my position in this mess.

again.... the word is "discretion" Prater the DA has 100% discretion to prosecute this or let it go. NOTHING so far has surfaced proving any actions by Ersland meets the burden of proof of what he's been charged with.

anyone that closely studies the video track and takes notes of timeline in seconds... knows all this took places in the span of ONE MINUTE... decisions were made in seconds under duress. Who are we to judge what happened in Ersland's mind during an armed robbery that he didn't ask to be part of.

please keep in mind Ersland was wearing braces and likely moves slow and steady. IMHO Ersland initial movement chasing robber was fueled by Adrenalin. when he came back inside a few seconds later, Ersland's stride looks like he was in no hurry. giving the impression of no danger from downed robber. For all we know Ersland could have thought robber moved and headed for back drawer to get his other gun. took about 9 seconds to secure Keltec, then another 4 seconds to pump 5 more shots into downed robber. (note: it took 11 seconds from time robbers entered the store to first shot)

facts are so cloudy with proper legal representation IMHO there is NO way Prater can win a conviction. Even if Ersland wins, his life is destroyed. bankrupt by costs of defending himself.

IMHO Prater doesn't care if he loses or wins this case. by being in the spotlight of the MASSIVE publicity this case has generated. likely this is will be the most important case of his career. He's already gotten national publicity from this.

sure hope the voters of OKC remembers this and vote him out of office. even if that happens, Prater still wins, by all the national publicity this case has generated. And if that happens He probably will get a plum Federal position or return to private practice with advertisement worth $$$$ hundred of thousands $$ if not millions $$.

again.... above is just my personal opinion... but it looks like I'm not alone.

The same argument could be made for either of the Robbers (or Parker specifically, since he was not armed or really threatening anyone the entire time he was on camera - his hands were clearly visible as he was fumbling with his hat/mask) - you can stretch "no one knows for sure" too far.

The evidence does show that Parker was not armed at any time during the whole incident - with a knife or gun. So he could have moved or started dancing for that matter - why does that make it ok that Ersland shot him (where was the threat)? Keep in mind that Ersland's defense has changed since the time he said that - he later tried to use the defense that Parker was already dead. Ersland also moves very nonchalantly over to Parker when shooting him those last 5 times.

Even if you can't see what's going on off-camera, and Ersland is innocent until proven guilty, and he never asked to be robbed... Who is to be believed as to what happened off-camera? Ersland has lied several times about the case, so his testimony is useless in my opinion.

Is Parker to be assumed to have been a threat off-camera based on his on-camera actions, or is Ersland to be believed based on his off-camera actions and his testimony?

Its not 100% what Parker or Ersland did off-camera, but there's more than enough reason to prosecute Ersland based on the evidence, the video, and his statements/actions (he is innocent until proven guilty, he's getting a trial - prosecuting someone doesn't remove their rights, especially if they've done as many stupid things as Ersland has done).

 

[Michael Brown]

Seems like to me we are dotting our Is and crossing our Ts about the entire 'good shoot-bad shoot' scenario, and everyone is missing the big picture.
Why don't we step back and remember the fact that a group of men, at least one of them armed with a loaded weapon, attempted to rob a man, and possibly, or evidently, willing to use lethal force in order to do so. Said man responded to the threat with his own lethal force.
Why is it that only the man with the gun is considered dangerous? Why is he the only one that can be charged with the crime or be found fit to suffer for his actions? Aren't the others, although unarmed, just as guilty of armed robbery? Why don't they suffer the same consequences as the one holding the gun? Why do we care how many times the bad guy was shot? Let the good guy reload if he wants. Let's get these bad guys off the street.
I'm not one to advocate vigilante justice but when it's obvious who the bad guys are why do we spend so much time and money prosecuting the good guys? Sure, the pharmacist made mistakes and did some stupid things, but under the duress of the moment I'm willing to let it go. No innocents were harmed during this event (had they been, it would be a different story).
Why do we protect the guilty so fervently? Who is really the victim here? The dead guy, or the pharmacist?

The other two ARE on trial for Felony Murder, Armed Robbery, and Possession of Firearm by a Felon and will likely be convicted, so I don't think anyone is protecting the guilty.

As far as Ersland goes, I would want to hear all the testimony before making any type of decision either way, so I am unwilling to say that Prater is right or wrong in his decision to prosecute so far.

Michael Brown

 

[MaddSkillz]

Seems like to me we are dotting our Is and crossing our Ts about the entire 'good shoot-bad shoot' scenario, and everyone is missing the big picture.
Why don't we step back and remember the fact that a group of men, at least one of them armed with a loaded weapon, attempted to rob a man, and possibly, or evidently, willing to use lethal force in order to do so. Said man responded to the threat with his own lethal force.
Why is it that only the man with the gun is considered dangerous? Why is he the only one that can be charged with the crime or be found fit to suffer for his actions? Aren't the others, although unarmed, just as guilty of armed robbery? Why don't they suffer the same consequences as the one holding the gun? Why do we care how many times the bad guy was shot? Let the good guy reload if he wants. Let's get these bad guys off the street.
I'm not one to advocate vigilante justice but when it's obvious who the bad guys are why do we spend so much time and money prosecuting the good guys? Sure, the pharmacist made mistakes and did some stupid things, but under the duress of the moment I'm willing to let it go. No innocents were harmed during this event (had they been, it would be a different story).
Why do we protect the guilty so fervently? Who is really the victim here? The dead guy, or the pharmacist?

Very well said... It should also be noted that multiple attackers certainly can be perceived as life-threatening.

And regarding the lying by Ersland. Yeah, it sucks, but maybe the lack of faith in our judicial system (and the mounds of evidence that supports that idea) is the contributor here.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal, I do feel bad for the dead criminal. But you know what, that was a really, really stupid thing to do and he found out the hard way.

I dunno if Ersland made the right decision or not. But I don't have faith that the judicial system will enlighten me on this fact either.

Good guys win, bad guys lose, imo.

 

[Shadowrider]

The other two ARE on trial for Felony Murder, Armed Robbery, and Possession of Firearm by a Felon and will likely be convicted, so I don't think anyone is protecting the guilty.

As far as Ersland goes, I would want to hear all the testimony before making any type of decision either way, so I am unwilling to say that Prater is right or wrong in his decision to prosecute so far.

Michael Brown

I'm pretty much in this camp too.

But as I see it, Prater had better have something concrete, because the proof is his burden to provide in our legal system. If he doesn't have more than the public has seen to date, and I'm sitting on the jury, his case goes down in flames. No guilty to a lesser charge, it's all or nothing. After all, Prater made the decision to go "all in" with a Murder 1 charge, he needs to prove it IMO...

 

[1shot(bob)]

The other two ARE on trial for Felony Murder, Armed Robbery, and Possession of Firearm by a Felon and will likely be convicted, so I don't think anyone is protecting the guilty.

Michael Brown

We are potentially protecting the next guilty would-be robbers though.
How many potential victims are now thinking "You know, it's just not worth it trying to protect myself. You're damned of you do and damned if you don't".
How many more people are going to lose faith in the system after seeing this?
Who are we protecting by charging Ersland with this crime?

 

[1shot(bob)]

I'm still not understanding why Ersland is on trial for anything.
Three guys came into his store, armed with a gun, and attempted to rob him. He used deadly force to stop one robber by killing him. He attempted to stop the others by chasing them out of the store (which I admit was dumb). He came back inside the store and totally removed the threat to his life (if it had not already been removed).

Those are the facts. Why do we now sit back and judge him on whether he did the right thing or if he used extreme force? Of course he used extreme force. Would they have killed him or his staff? We don't know. Should that matter? I fail to see why. They had a gun, and any LEO will tell you that is enough to warrant a shooting from them.

I'm not really arguing the case as much as I am arguing the reason for the case. We seem to be forgetting that he was protecting himself from an obvious life threat and responded in kind. I guess the whole idea of 'reasonable force' to me is ludicrous. Why do use such vague terms when a man's life depends on it's very definition.

 

[Michael Brown]

We are potentially protecting the next guilty would-be robbers though.
How many potential victims are now thinking "You know, it's just not worth it trying to protect myself. You're damned of you do and damned if you don't".
How many more people are going to lose faith in the system after seeing this?
Who are we protecting by charging Ersland with this crime?

If someone believes that they can't protect themselves because of this case, I'm not sure what to tell them........

My faith in my ability to protect myself in Oklahoma is not shaken one bit by the decision to prosecute in this case.

As I said previously, I will reserve judgement on Ersland's innocence or guilt but it doesn't affect my decision to protect myself one way or the other or cause me to hesitate in any way.

If it causes you to hesitate, I would encourage you to give it some thought.

Michael Brown