Latest in the Jerome Jay Ersland saga.

[Michael Brown]

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.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the suspect deserved shooting.

Prater agrees with this.

What the prosecution appears to disagree with is him shooting and incapacitating the suspect (debateable but that is what court is for) and then retrieving another gun and shooting him again when he was no longer a threat.

Again I don't know if the suspect was or wasn't a threat. However it is the prosecution's belief that Ersland was not and should have known that he was no longer in danger.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense and Ersland's statements leave some doubt as to his veracity and leave the prosecution to rely on what they see, which can be interpreted a number of ways.

You choose one; the prosecution has chosen another.

Fortunately, 12 reasonable people get the final say.

Michael Brown

 

[mr ed]

1shot(bob) I think it would be in your best interest to take the basic and advanced concealed carry courses.
You cannot shoot somebody for stealing something.
You can only shoot somebody if your in fear of great bodily injury or death.

In the Ersland case, once the guy with the gun left. He was no longer in fear of death or great bodily injury from the kid laying in the floor and to pump 5 more rounds into him is murder and that is why he is being tried.
Had he not pumped those extra rounds into the kid, you would have probably never even heard of Ersland and there would never have been any charges filed.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

What the prosecution appears to disagree with is him shooting and incapacitating the suspect (debateable but that is what court is for) and then retrieving another gun and shooting him again when he was no longer a threat.

I understand.

And I don't see it as an important distinction, whether he was a threat or not when he was shot with the second gun. It's a nice conceptual line that lawyers like to draw in safety and comfort, which is unreasonable in the heat of battle.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

1shot(bob)

In the Ersland case, once the guy with the gun left. He was no longer in fear of death or great bodily injury from the kid laying in the floor ...

Whether or not he was no longer in reasonable fear remains to be demonstrated. Whether or not it was reasonable to assume that the thug with the gun was the only thug with a gun remains to be seen.

We don't know what the situation looked like from Ersland's perspective. We don't have camera footage from that angle. Watching the video we have a completely different view than Ersland's. Plus, we get to rewind it and watch it over, and over, and over again, until we get it just like the prosecutor does--"right."

 

[Michael Brown]

I understand.

And I don't see it as an important distinction, whether he was a threat or not when he was shot with the second gun. It's a nice conceptual line that lawyers like to draw in safety and comfort, which is unreasonable in the heat of battle.

Which is fine with me IF it is applied to everyone.

The problem I see is that folks will not be happy with the results if we we widen the limit further.

I am fully in accord with the idea that the heat of battle gives one a skewed sense of time, space, and threat.

I'm just not sure I buy it in this case as Ersland's actions did not seem like those of someone affected by the heat of battle but possibly by some other motivation i.e. revenge.

Intent is EVERYTHING in a self defense case as it should be.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

Whether or not he was no longer in reasonable fear remains to be demonstrated. Whether or not it was reasonable to assume that the thug with the gun was the only thug with a gun remains to be seen.

We don't know what the situation looked like from Ersland's perspective. We don't have camera footage from that angle. Watching the video we have a completely different view than Ersland's. Plus, we get to rewind it and watch it over, and over, and over again, until we get it just like the prosecutor does--"right."

This is the crux of the case and why 12 people, not the prosecutor, get to decide guilt or innocence.

Michael Brown

 

[1shot(bob)]

1shot(bob) I think it would be in your best interest to take the basic and advanced concealed carry courses.
You cannot shoot somebody for stealing something.
You can only shoot somebody if your in fear of great bodily injury or death.

In the Ersland case, once the guy with the gun left. He was no longer in fear of death or great bodily injury from the kid laying in the floor and to pump 5 more rounds into him is murder and that is why he is being tried.
Had he not pumped those extra rounds into the kid, you would have probably never even heard of Ersland and there would never have been any charges filed.

I took the basic course mr ed. I understand the theory of self-protection and when you can and can not use deadly force. I disagree with it, but I know the parameters.
In this case the perps had at least a gun, maybe more, at least to Ersland. When the gun entered the picture all bets were off, since that put him in fear of his life. It was no longer a case of simple robbery. I don't see how you can murder someone that just threatened you with a gun. I call it self defense, even if his gun was unloaded.

The guy with A gun left. Did Ersland know the remaining perp had no gun? Would you assume that?

The bolded part defines my point perfectly.

 

[1shot(bob)]

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.........

That's a discussion for a different thread. I'll leave it until then.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

This is the crux of the case and why 12 people, not the prosecutor, get to decide guilt or innocence.

Michael Brown

He may beat the time, but he won't beat the ride. It will ruin him financially, which is why the prosecutor's decision is so critical.

He's in good hands with Irven Box though. Box is very experienced and has represented many LEOs. In fact, he put himself through law school working as an OCPD officer.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

I don't see how you can murder someone that just threatened you with a gun. I call it self defense, even if his gun was unloaded.

Interesting twist, eh? The state reserves the right to prosecute for murder two accomplices who didn't shoot the thug--and the victim of the robbery who did shoot the thug. So, three people committed the murder of one thug!

The State is drawing fine lines in Ersland's case as to when he shot and why he shot being elements of murder, but the lines get mighty fuzzy as to who physically caused the death of the thug when it comes to the two accomplices cases.