Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero

[Mark W.]

This is why you never, ever pull the trigger once a threat has ended. The first shot was justified and stopped the attack. The following shots were cold blooded murder.

To bad the Swat team in AZ didn't know this.

 

[Mark W.]

watching the video's I would have voted for conviction he walked over and killed that kid period.

 

[boxer13]

The video is damning. I feel no sympathy for any executioner, thats not self-defense.

 

[RB87]

I can't have much sympathy for the deceased in this case and putting the guy in jail for life is just insane.

 

[Kevatc]

I can't have much sympathy for the deceased in this case and putting the guy in jail for life is just insane.

What if the rolls were reveresed and it was the robber who executed the pharmacist? Executing someone as shown in the videos is the same regardless of who did it.

 

[The B]

What if the rolls were reveresed and it was the robber who executed the pharmacist? Executing someone as shown in the videos is the same regardless of who did it.

no it's not- all of this occurred with the context of a multiple armed robber robbery. do you have any idea what that kind of situation does to your mind and body? have you ever experienced an unexpected threat-to-your-life induced adrenaline dump? the body handles these situation instinctively. you don't think, you don't make decisions, you simply react. you have no idea how you'll react until you experience it. but one thing is absolutely guaranteed- you will NOT be calm, collected, nor clear-headed. and the fault for you being in this state of utter jacked upedness is the perpetrator who put you in this situation to begin with.

classic monday-morning quarterbacking.

 

[RB87]

What if the rolls were reveresed and it was the robber who executed the pharmacist? Executing someone as shown in the videos is the same regardless of who did it.

You're ignoring intent. One is self-defense, the other is killing while commiting a crime, armed robbery/theft with lethal force. While the heat of the moment regretably had the pharmacist break the law ("overkill" perhaps) and thus found legally wrong, I have a hard time finding him morally wrong. Its certainly not worth putting him in jail for life.

 

[Kevatc]

the body handles these situation instinctively. you don't think, you don't make decisions, you simply react.

So the pharmicist simply reacted when he went and loaded up again and then had to come back to the guy on the floor, stand over him, and shoot him 5 times in the tummy? Is that what you mean by react?

 

[The B]

So the pharmicist simply reacted when he went and loaded up again and then had to come back to the guy on the floor, stand over him, and shoot him 5 times in the tummy? Is that what you mean by react?

precisely. like i said above- it's quite possible the guy, in the middle of experiencing the most fear and mental disorganization he's ever experienced in his entire 65 years on Earth, simply equated still being alive with still being a threat, and so neutralized the threat.

also, as i said somewhere above, it's theoretically possible (though extremely implausible, considering the degree of mental disorganization he was experiencing- ie, inability to really think it through enough to have enough spite to "finish him off") that he's just a dick and decided to off the kid out of spite. i'm not in the dude's head, i'm just representing my own dissenting opinion here.

 

[The B]

i have a LOT of forgiveness for people who react badly when confronted with violence they never asked for to begin with.

 

[jordanvraptor]

i have a LOT of forgiveness for people who react badly when confronted with violence they never asked for to begin with.

I agree with this sentiment but what he did was just wrong. The tape doesn't even let it appear he reacted to a movement by the suspect because he was so nonchalant about retrieving the second gun and and walking over to the suspect. He didn't have any startle reaction but instead leaned over and towards the suspect like it was inconvenient to shoot the suspect, but did it anyway. Maybe not 1st degree premeditated murder but a 2nd degree heat of the moment or manslaughter charge or however their state classifies such crimes. This is why you need training so that in the worst moments you do react properly or at least have a better guideline to keep you from doing what you might want to do in anger...

 

[bdb benzino]

I followed this when it first happened, He claimed that the kid was trying to get up before the last series of shots. You can't tell on the video, so naturally we assume he is lying, that is such crap! He did'nt know if the kid was armed, and did not ask to be robbed, so he should not be held accountable for the way he reacted to save his own life.
I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but neither will I judge the way a lawful, US vetran tried to protect him self.
Bottom line for you armchair quarterbacks is you dont know how you will react either, and pray you are not in this poor guys position. Sad sad!

 

[Burt Gummer]

Too bad for the guy that he isn't a TV/movie personality or a professional sports player. He would have never done a day's jail time.

 

[The B]

Too bad for the guy that he isn't a TV/movie personality or a professional sports player. He would have never done a day's jail time.

or a cop.

oooooo....

 

[Will_Power]

Sad, this should not have been a first degree murder trial, at most voluntary manslaughter, the pharmacist never asked to be put in this situation but the criminals did. Why isn't the surviving criminal the one up for murder?

I for one have zero sympathy for the dead dirt bag.

I pray the judge has more common sense in sentencing than the jury had in convicting.

There's been a lotta lotta hooplah about this case on an Oklahoma State Cowboys sports forum I also frequent, and one of the things mentioned over there was that Ersland (the pharmacist) was offered a plea deal down to manslaughter, which he refused.

Also, it was revealed that he lied to the police about a number of things involving the shooting like he was injured, others were shot, the perp was moving when he was on the ground, that all cast Ersland in a really poor light.

Am I conflicted about this whole dagum thing? Absolutely. Am I mourning the death of that little bubblegumhead? Not one bit. BUT, that doesn't put Ersland in the ethical clear. If he was really in fear for his life, he wouldn't have re-entered the store, walked back past the threat, and turned his back to the threat to go behind the counter again.

Ersland knew what he we doing in giving that little turd a "F*** you" execution when he got the second gun. So, would manslaughter have been better under the circumstances, yeah. But, murder 1 definitely fits here, too.

 

[Mark W.]

I followed this when it first happened, He claimed that the kid was trying to get up before the last series of shots. You can't tell on the video, so naturally we assume he is lying, that is such crap! He did'nt know if the kid was armed, and did not ask to be robbed, so he should not be held accountable for the way he reacted to save his own life.
I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but neither will I judge the way a lawful, US vetran tried to protect him self.
Bottom line for you armchair quarterbacks is you dont know how you will react either, and pray you are not in this poor guys position. Sad sad!

So lets just go with what the jury who most likely heard and saw all the available evidence to base a decision on. Which was Guilty of Murder 1. Period end of discussion.

 

[The B]

So lets just go with what the jury who most likely heard and saw all the available evidence to base a decision on. Which was Guilty of Murder 1. Period end of discussion.

juries hear the evidence presented by the prosecution and allowed by the judge. there have been countless documented miscarriages of justice with judges refusing critical evidence for the defense and prosecutors with obvious agendas. and considering the extensive appeal process in this country, a conviction is very rarely "period end of discussion."

 

[Kevatc]

i have a LOT of forgiveness for people who react badly when confronted with violence they never asked for to begin with.

I agree with you. But the pharmacist didn't react so much as he took the time to make himself judge and executioner. Had he traded shots with the BG then popped back up and immediately shot him several more times that is one thing. To run out of the business, come back and take the time to reload or retrieve another gun and walk up to the BG and pump 5 more into him isn't a "reaction" it was a thought out execution.

 

[AMProducts]

If you go by the letter of the law, Ersland was totally and completely guilty of 1st degree murder by statute. If you go get a gun, come back and pump 5 bullets into someone you premeditated the act by going to get the gun, coming back and shooting that guy. Now, the statute doesn't really take into account that 45 seconds earlier you were shooting at this person and he was shooting at you.

It seems we need a new set of laws, like castle laws, "make my day" laws, that limit the criminal liability of victims of violent crime.