SR Randy Terrill Proposes "Jerome Ersland Act"

[HMFIC]

What does everyone think about this?

http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13887066

OKLAHOMA CITY -- State Representative Randy Terrill has introduced the Jerome Ersland Act in response to the pharmacist's murder case.

If the act passes, it will expand the legal use of deadly force in self defense to include anyone in the act of armed robbery, as long as the deadly force occurs shortly after the robbery and on the property where the robbery happened.

Ersland is accused in the May 2009 shooting death of Antwun Parker.

The actual bill:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20INT/hB/HB2088%20INT.DOC

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Jerome Ersland Act”.
SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 734 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
There shall be a presumption that a homicide occurred in self-defense or in defense of others if:
1. The deceased was engaged in an armed robbery at or shortly before the death of the person;
2. The homicide was in close temporal proximity to the armed robbery; and
3. The homicide occurred on the property where the armed robbery had taken place.
This presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the homicide was not in self-defense or in the defense of others.
SECTION 3. This act shall become effective November 1, 2011.

 

[Michael Brown]

We don't need this act.

This is just new mumbo jumbo that will be misinterpreted or over-ruled, although I appreciate the thought.

Laws aren't the issue; interpreters of the law are the issue.

Michael Brown

 

[NikatKimber]

I don't see where this would have saved Ersland. Prater already said the initial shoot was justified. It was returning to Parker and continuing to shoot him in light of video & other evidence that shows there was no longer a threat, that got Ersland in trouble.

 

[BadgeBunny]

So?? As long as I shoot them before they get to the curb of my front yard I'm righteous, even if they are running away?? Hmmmm ...

I think Randy Terrill wants to be associated with ANYTHING that is not about HIS misconduct ... opps ... excuse me ... his "alleged" misconduct.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Sounds like a winner to me. There should be no refuge for thugs who use fear and the threat of force to take the property of others.

 

[HMFIC]

We don't need this act.

This is just new mumbo jumbo that will be misinterpreted or over-ruled, although I appreciate the thought.

Laws aren't the issue; interpreters of the law are the issue.

Michael Brown

This was my initial take on it as well. I think the bill has made it out of committee and has a partner bill in the senate.

 

[HMFIC]

I don't see where this would have saved Ersland. Prater already said the initial shoot was justified. It was returning to Parker and continuing to shoot him in light of video & other evidence that shows there was no longer a threat, that got Ersland in trouble.

Unless the language in this bill creates more of a burden on the prosecution. It does state that the shooter is assumed acting in self defense so does that change anything?

 

[Dr_Mitch]

This is one of the most pointless pieces of legislation I've ever seen. A total diversion from his own criminality, that panders to the most uninformed bigots out there. Randy Terrill belongs behind bars.

 

[mons meg]

If it doesn't pass the House, will Terrill break everyone's legs who didn't vote for it?

 

[vvvvvvv]

If it doesn't pass the House, will Terrill break everyone's legs who didn't vote for it?

No. He'll just tell the aids of those who voted for it that each specific member who didn't vote for it is a word or phrase that includes an F-bomb or two.