Latest in the Jerome Jay Ersland saga.

[1shot(bob)]

If we look at this case plus the Gumm case I do believe people will give pause before they decide on a means of protecting themselves. I won't because I would rather be judged by six than carried by twelve. You won't because of your training. What about others that may end up dead because they hesitated?
Why do we need to do this? Who are we protecting by prosecuting Gumm and Ersland?

 

[Michael Brown]

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.

Given your propensity to question the judgement of law enforcement in force situations, I am shocked that this is your position on the matter......

I don't think anyone is questioning the first shots.

However if there was no longer a threat (I am NOT saying there wasn't) and a reasonable man would have recognized that no threat existed (and I am NOT saying he would), then you may not continue to use force.

I don't know if that threat existed or not and I'm not sure any of us do either.

If all there is for Prater to make his decision is the single angle of the video that I have seen, then I am inclined to give Ersland the benefit of the doubt.

That said, with all the citizen justifiable shootings that have occurred in Oklahoma and the limited number of prosecutions, I am inclined to believe that the prosecutor is relying on some other evidence, since I have not seen a pattern of prosecution of justifiable shootings in Oklahoma.

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.

The rationale of the term "reasonable force" is to give the benefit to the user of force who are frequently called upon to make decisions in split seconds.

It is MUCH better than the previously used term of "minimal force" and leaves us the opportunity to acquit someone who uses force that some say is excessive but others say is reasonable under the circumstances.

Reasonableness allows us to judge on a case by case basis and is pretty well-defined by caselaw such as Graham vs. Connor, Tennessee vs. Garner, and several others.

If "reasonable" seems vague to you, I would suggest a more thorough exploration of the caselaw, as most folks have a pretty good handle on what is reasonable after reading it or having it explained by someone who has a complete understanding, which is why they have experts during trials and preliminary hearings.

Michael Brown

 

[1shot(bob)]

Given your propensity to question the judgement of law enforcement in force situations, I am shocked that this is your position on the matter......

I have a propensity to question anyone in authority since they seem to have more power. I believe power corrupts and 'we the people' need to keep it in check. It corrupts the 'little' guy as well as the 'big' one.

I don't think anyone is questioning the first shots.

However if there was no longer a threat (I am NOT saying there wasn't) and a reasonable man would have recognized that no threat existed (and I am NOT saying he would), then you may not continue to use force.

I don't know if that threat existed or not and I'm not sure any of us do either.

But that is my question: why even question the second or third shot? We don't know the motive of the perps but we have to assume it was deadly or they wouldn't have used a gun. If they can use deadly force why can't we? Why do we question the 'subsequent' shots?

If all there is for Prater to make his decision is the single angle of the video that I have seen, then I am inclined to give Ersland the benefit of the doubt.

That said, with all the citizen justifiable shootings that have occurred in Oklahoma and the limited number of prosecutions, I am inclined to believe that the prosecutor is relying on some other evidence, since I have not seen a pattern of prosecution of justifiable shootings in Oklahoma.

The problem is that all those 'justifiable' shootings go un-noticed for the most part. Shootings like this are publicized for years and that is what people remember.

The rationale of the term "reasonable force" is to give the benefit to the user of force who are frequently called upon to make decisions in split seconds.

It is MUCH better than the previously used term of "minimal force" and leaves us the opportunity to acquit someone who uses force that some say is excessive but others say is reasonable under the circumstances.

Reasonableness allows us to judge on a case by case basis and is pretty well-defined by caselaw such as Graham vs. Connor, Tennessee vs. Garner, and several others.

If "reasonable" seems vague to you, I would suggest a more thorough exploration of the caselaw, as most folks have a pretty good handle on what is reasonable after reading it or having it explained by someone who has a complete understanding, which is why they have experts during trials and preliminary hearings.

Michael Brown

How many people research the legal definition of 'reasonable' when they decide to defend themselves? I would guess not very many. Why limit the amount of force we are allowed to use to protect ourselves? I agree 'reasonable' is better than 'minimal' but I think removing limitations completely would be better.

Michael I appreciate your input and I am not trying to be argumentative. I just find incredibly frustrating that Ersland has now spent a fortune defending himself un-necessarily (IMHO). Even if he is found innocent his livelihood is ruined.

 

[HMFIC]

I believe:

- That it is RIGHT to defend myself using deadly force against armed robbers (even if the gun eventually proves to be unloaded and even if only one of them has a gun and even if they don't fire any shots)

- That it is WRONG to give chase to a robber who is getting away and continue to fire shots in the street while doing so.

- That it is WRONG to empty my Taurus Judge while performing the aforementioned chase and leaving myself unable to defend against the robber who is still in my workplace.

- That it is WRONG to leave unarmed women whom I have decided to protect in the aforementioned workplace alone with a robber whom I believe to still be a threat.

- That it is WRONG to turn my back to a robber whom I believe to still be a threat.

 

[1shot(bob)]

I agree with every one of those statements HMFIC, but are those offenses for which one should be tried in a court of law? Or are they just stupid mistakes made under duress?

 

[CASTRATE]

I won't because I would rather be judged by six than carried by twelve.

isn't it judged by 12 and carried by 6

 

[1shot(bob)]

Yes, my mistake. Doh!

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Why do we care how many times the bad guy was shot?

Thank you Bob!

I'm sorry that Ersland didn't have a Glock 17 loaded with 18 rounds to shoot the thug with. I could care less that he was unarmed. Ersland's actions in shooting him were reasonable under the circumstances. It was perfectly reasonable for Ersland to assume that the thug would draw his gun too once the clown got his mask on good and the eyeslits lined up with his eyeballs.

Remember, deadly force is justified when you have a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm. It's not a purely reasonable standard to be Monday morning quarterbacked in the comfort of a prosecutor's office. It's based equally on reason and an emotion--FEAR. These dirtbags placed a man, who was in the process of earning an honest living, in fear for his life and the lives of his coworkers for no legitimate reason. They created the volatile situation. They deserved whatever happened to them.

 

[Michael Brown]

I have a propensity to question anyone in authority since they seem to have more power. I believe power corrupts and 'we the people' need to keep it in check. It corrupts the 'little' guy as well as the 'big' one.

When a citizen straps on a firearm and uses justifiable deadly force, they possess a power that is not even awarded to the highest arm of the judiciary.

I'm not sure where we shouldn't question this one and turn around and question another.........

But that is my question: why even question the second or third shot? We don't know the motive of the perps but we have to assume it was deadly or they wouldn't have used a gun. If they can use deadly force why can't we? Why do we question the 'subsequent' shots?

If those shots had occurred in immediate succession, no one would question it.

But that's not what happened.

What happened between the shooting of the 1st suspect to the re-shooting of the 1st suspect is what is up for debate.

As I've said before, I don't know and if all the prosecutor has is the video, then I am inclined to give Ersland the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is that all those 'justifiable' shootings go un-noticed for the most part. Shootings like this are publicized for years and that is what people remember.

The prosecution is not responsible for this.

The media reports on all shootings in this part of the world so if a person chooses to only consider the controversial ones, I'm not sure how the prosecution can be blamed.

How many people research the legal definition of 'reasonable' when they decide to defend themselves? I would guess not very many. Why limit the amount of force we are allowed to use to protect ourselves? I agree 'reasonable' is better than 'minimal' but I think removing limitations completely would be better.

Michael I appreciate your input and I am not trying to be argumentative. I just find incredibly frustrating that Ersland has now spent a fortune defending himself un-necessarily (IMHO). Even if he is found innocent his livelihood is ruined.

To get a CCW permit in this state, you will get some explanation on this issue. Less than I would prefer but that's another issue.

Power and responsibility MUST be commensurate so if you choose to wield the power, you must also be responsible enough to learn what you can and cannot do.

As far as not limiting force options, I think you need to re-think that a bit and consider what would happen if we removed all force limitations. Consider the vast body of problems that could occur if no one had to consider the level of force they used when they felt threatened.

Regarding the amount Ersland has to spend to defend himself, I agree it is unfortunate but that is one of the prices we pay to live in a society that has some level of capitalism.

Someone has to make the decision on whether to prosecute a case and we elect that person. So far, the citizens of Oklahoma County appear to be satisfied with the job Prater has done and from what I hear, it is for good reason.

If he is maliciously prosecuting Ersland, then I agree it is unjust but the lack of prosecutions for citizen shootings would indicate that he is likely a fair and just man and simply believes this is an unjustifiable use of force.

Michael Brown

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

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?

Thank you Bob.

This will be a lesson that lasts in the public's mind for decades. Innocent victims will make decisions that may cost them their lives based on their perceptions of the hazards of defending themselves against criminal attack.

Too bad I'm out of state. I lived in Oklahoma County and I was a registered voter. Prater wouldn't have wanted me on the jury.