• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Pharmacist Charged With First-Degree Murder For Gunning Down Wounded Robber

JimmyBoy

TMF Expert
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
580
Points
0
Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man
By TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Writer Tim Talley, Associated Press Writer – Sat May 30, 10:46 am ET


OKLAHOMA CITY – Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.

Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.

But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.

Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KTOK, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.

"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."

Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."

Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.

Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8 1/2 months in jail.

Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."

The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.

The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.

Irven Box, Ersland's attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: "I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree."

Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.

"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."

Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.

Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_re_us/us_pharmacy_shooting
 
He won't get 1st Degree. If he is convicted, 2nd Degree will be the charge.

On the other hand, this is Oklahoma. Vigilante justice is generally more accepted there than in other parts of the country.

To be honest, I'd let the guy off if I were on the jury.
 
"The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots."


If this is indeed true it's not going to look good in court.It could be argued that he should have stood at a safe distance,gun at the ready until police arrived.Of course none of us know for sure how we might react if put in a situation like that.That's one jury i'd rather not sit on.
 
I can understand self defence but pumping an unarmed wounded boy full of lead has got nothing to do with self defence. Neither with the boy being black or whatever, but it's just murder.
 
I can understand self defence but pumping an unarmed wounded boy full of lead has got nothing to do with self defence. Neither with the boy being black or whatever, but it's just murder.

I have to agree. I mean, sure, the little fuckwad was stupid for doing what he did. But he was already down on the ground and seriously wounded. It's a touchy situation and I'm glad I'm not on that jury.
 
Yeah self defense is for self defense. If the kid was unconcious at that time he was no threat thus deadly force should not have been used against him.
 
Were I Mr. Ersland's defense attorney, I would argue that he had been placed in a no-win situation. The downed assailant could have been feigning unconsciousness, waiting for an opportunity to take Mr. Ersland out and escape. Mr. Ersland is likely inexperienced at diagnosing physical trauma, he would not be able to tell at a glance just how badly the robber was injured. Meanwhile, the whereabouts of the second armed assailant were unknown. He could have returned at any moment to continue the robbery, assist his comrade, or even seek revenge. The article states that the pharmacy is located in a crime-ridden area of Oklahoma City, so heaven only knows what the police response time might be. In short, Mr. Ersland was faced with two simultaneous, potentially lethal threats: Had Mr. Ersland stopped to examine the downed robber's injuries and search him for additional weapons, the uninjured robber might have returned and killed him while he was distracted. Had Mr. Ersland focused on preventing the return of the uninjured robber, the man on the floor might have stopped faking (or simply regained consciousness) and killed him. Out of self preservation, Mr. Ersland eliminated the threat that was closest to hand in order to fully concentrate on the other.

I'm not saying that I'd necessarily buy that myself... But the guy does have a valid case for self defense. Like just about everyone else has said, I'm glad I'm not on the jury.
 
confusing situation on one hand the guy was defending himself, but on the other the kid got a bullet to the head was unconscious and unarmed. Its the kids fault for putting himself in that situation but i dont agree with the clerk shooting him after he was unconscious. I agree with everyone else that im glad im not on that jury
 
Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."
Typical media. *facepalm* Like that fact is the only reason his opinion needed to be noted....

Anyway, I'll preface by saying I have no sorrow for the robber being dead. As said before, he walked in pointing a gun at people and threatening their lives, so the fact he lost his will not make me feel sorry for him. Beyond that, I don't think the gunning down behind the counter was needed at all. This is a Lieutenant Colonel who has served in war time, not grandpa Jo who bought a pistol and has never operated it until now. The man is trained to use weapons throughout his career. Furthermore, he chased the other guy, the one with the gun, out the door. So why not lock it, return and keep the wounded robber at gunpoint for the police?

Yes adrenaline keeps running through your veins, but adrenaline doesn't make you, grab a second gun and shoot an unarmed, unconscious person five times....and that's what he is. He is no longer a threat at that point. Yes he will argue he still felt threatened, because that's what the law states has to be your argument, but proving why the person without a weapon and not moving was a threat will be a bigger issue. It's not like he shot 5 times quickly at the guy. He put the guy down, chased the other out of the store, went back, picked up another weapon and finished him off. Strictly in my opinion, he murdered the guy in the 2nd degree. I can see him possibly trying the PSTD defense, but again they may go for manslaughter charges if he claims mental instability at the time, and something tells me he's not going to go that route and that he will defend his right to do what he did. Had he killed one or both instantly in the confrontation, I'd have no problem. Again, I just see no reason to do what he did when the threat had been diminished.
 
The kid was lying on the floor shot in the head; how likely is it that he was feigning injury in order to lull the armed man into a false sense of security? Perhaps he was a zombie, or some sort of X-Man able to regenrate gunshot wounds to the head. If someone is lying pronated on the floor with a bullet in their head there is absolutely no justification for shooting them again.

All that said, if the kid was hit in the head and was lying "unconscious" on the floor, who's to say he wasn't already dead when the second lot of shots were fired? It's not murder to shoot a corpse as far as I'm aware, and if he was dead before he was shot with the second gun it's a "Make My Day" case and the bloke will walk.

If it transpires that the first shot killed him, it's a case of live by the sword, die by the sword for the young robber. If not, then Mr Ersland has committed an act of vengeful murder and should be sent to jail.
 
I firmly believe that what the Pharmacist did to the robber after he was unconscious was not right.

Having just wrapped up a self-defense class, shooting repeatedly is one thing. Shooting once and then coming back to continue shooting (let's say a minute later) is entirely another.

It's like my teacher said, kicking and hitting your attacker before you walk away is CLEARLY self-defense. Walking away and then coming back is NOT self-defense, it could get you charged for assault.
 
The kid was lying on the floor shot in the head; how likely is it that he was feigning injury in order to lull the armed man into a false sense of security? Perhaps he was a zombie, or some sort of X-Man able to regenrate gunshot wounds to the head. If someone is lying pronated on the floor with a bullet in their head there is absolutely no justification for shooting them again.

All that said, if the kid was hit in the head and was lying "unconscious" on the floor, who's to say he wasn't already dead when the second lot of shots were fired? It's not murder to shoot a corpse as far as I'm aware, and if he was dead before he was shot with the second gun it's a "Make My Day" case and the bloke will walk.

If it transpires that the first shot killed him, it's a case of live by the sword, die by the sword for the young robber. If not, then Mr Ersland has committed an act of vengeful murder and should be sent to jail.

Good point... he probably was already dead anyway. Mr. Ersland needs to find a suitable pathologist as an expert witness.
 
I firmly believe that what the Pharmacist did to the robber after he was unconscious was not right.

Then what you have to do is prove that the shots from the second gun killed the kid, rather than the initial head-shot. Sure, pumping bullets into a corpse is a bit sick, but it's not murder.
 
Then what you have to do is prove that the shots from the second gun killed the kid, rather than the initial head-shot. Sure, pumping bullets into a corpse is a bit sick, but it's not murder.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a law against shooting a corpse over here in the US


I wonder if the race card will be played
 
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a law against shooting a corpse over here in the US

There are laws against desecrating a corpse,and i'm sure pumping rounds into a body falls under that as it should.The person is already dead.What more do you want?

Perhaps we should return to the charming custom of hanging people and leaving their body on display until they rot,or cutting off their head and sticking it on a pole for all to see.I'll pass on that if you don't mind.🙂
 
In short, Mr. Ersland was faced with two simultaneous, potentially lethal threats: Had Mr. Ersland stopped to examine the downed robber's injuries and search him for additional weapons, the uninjured robber might have returned and killed him while he was distracted. Had Mr. Ersland focused on preventing the return of the uninjured robber, the man on the floor might have stopped faking (or simply regained consciousness) and killed him. Out of self preservation, Mr. Ersland eliminated the threat that was closest to hand in order to fully concentrate on the other.
Or he could have left.

Self-defense is just that: defense against an immediate threat. There was no immediate threat. Had he simply left the store - keeping his eye on the potentially-faking-but-bleeding-profusely-from-a-head-wound robber, then neither threat could have harmed him.

I'd say second degree murder at the very least. And the fact that he went and got another gun, then deliberately killed the boy, sure looks like premeditation to me.
 
There are laws against desecrating a corpse,and i'm sure pumping rounds into a body falls under that as it should.The person is already dead.What more do you want?

Perhaps we should return to the charming custom of hanging people and leaving their body on display until they rot,or cutting off their head and sticking it on a pole for all to see.I'll pass on that if you don't mind.🙂

I was responding to someone else's post about how he didn't think it was a crime to shoot a dead person

Bad wording on my part
 
I was responding to someone else's post about how he didn't think it was a crime to shoot a dead person

Bad wording on my part

Misunderstanding on my part.🙂 But we are getting off topic here.
 
Or he could have left.

Self-defense is just that: defense against an immediate threat. There was no immediate threat. Had he simply left the store - keeping his eye on the potentially-faking-but-bleeding-profusely-from-a-head-wound robber, then neither threat could have harmed him.

I'd say second degree murder at the very least. And the fact that he went and got another gun, then deliberately killed the boy, sure looks like premeditation to me.


He could have left, certainly. However, under the aforementioned Oklahoma "make my day" and "stand your ground" laws, it sounds like he wasn't required to consider leaving the premises as an option. The perpetrator was in Ersland's place of work, carrying a weapon (although he may have dropped it when he fell) and had already threatened him with severe bodily injury or death. Furthermore, the second robber was somewhere outside the building and still healthy. Leaving might not have been the greatest option.

Like I said, I don't know how I'd decide, and I'm certainly glad that I'm not one of the folks on the jury who is going to have to decide. Given that he's in a state with a law named for Dirty Harry that allows you to shoot people, though, I'd wager that he's going to end up with an at least partially sympathetic jury.
 
my take in this is that the pharmacist should not get charged with anything the crook deserved what he got i hve no simpathy for him the pharmacist was just defending him self
 
Or he could have left.

Self-defense is just that: defense against an immediate threat. There was no immediate threat. Had he simply left the store - keeping his eye on the potentially-faking-but-bleeding-profusely-from-a-head-wound robber, then neither threat could have harmed him.

I'd say second degree murder at the very least. And the fact that he went and got another gun, then deliberately killed the boy, sure looks like premeditation to me.

Premeditation generally supposes a conspiracy to murder. In other words, he would have had to plot out a course to kill someone.

Given that the situation involved a pharmacist who was just threatened by a robber, any decent defense lawyer can neutralize 1st degree charges with a simple argument that the defendant was not acting in a cold calculating way. In all likelihood, the man was both angry and scared. The strength of emotions felt during something like this makes this a crime of passion -- in other words, 2nd degree.
 
seems pretty clear cut to me. Man shot would-be robber, chased second, came back later to find the first laying in his own blood face down, picked up a second gun and executed him.
 
my take in this is that the pharmacist should not get charged with anything the crook deserved what he got i hve no simpathy for him the pharmacist was just defending him self

I'm sorry, but opinions like that one scare the living shit out of me.
 
What's New
9/26/25
Visit the TMF Chat Room! It's free to use for all members!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1704 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top