Oklahoma City pharmacist update - charged w/ murder

[Admin]

It's easy for us to say "should have" but extreme fear, adrenaline dump, fog O war, etc, makes people - all people - behave differently then they might otherwise. I do understand why charges were were brought in this situation, but at the end of the day, perp would not have received the additional rnds had he not gone into the store with ill intent. I understand the charges, but still hope the jury acquits if it goes to trial.

+2

 

[P-14]

I think in a Castle Doctrine situation like this, the pharmacist should walk.

However, there is the Bernard Goetz case in NYC to see where the DA is going: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

Prior to the criminal trial the media reported that Cabey had been shot on the fourth shot and then again on the fifth shot, with Goetz saying, "You don't look too bad, here's another." or "You seem all right, here's another."[12] This sequence of shots was discredited at the criminal trial when it was revealed that Cabey was shot once in the left side, however some media still reported[13] this sequence long after the criminal trial.

The Media: If it bleeds, it leads. Facts and truth are irrelevant.

Goetz was tried before a mainly white Manhattan jury,[13] six of whom had been victims of street crime.[41] He was acquitted of the attempted murder and first-degree assault charges and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree – carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon in a public place.[49]

Then, there was the civil suit after which Bernie filed for bankrupcy:

The jury of four blacks and two Hispanics found that Goetz had acted recklessly and had deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Cabey.[28][53] Jurors interviewed after the trial said that Goetz's decision to fire at Cabey a second time was a key factor in their decision.[55] The jury awarded Cabey $43 million – $18 million for pain and suffering and $25 million in punitive damages.[56]

So, the pharmacist may be right and will still go broke defending his actions.

Justice? I think not.

 

[Hillie4life]

I'd have to agree with these two statements the most, the victim was the victim until he became the executioner... regardless of whether the perp flinched or not this guy just killed some one based on an attack (and attacker regardless of whether he was armed or not) that was neutralized... the victim re-initiated the attacking and thus became perp number 3

I know it might be a long shot but it would be an equivalent of finding some one after a set period of time when they once attacked you and killing them all because at one point in time that person posed a threat to you... the threat no longer existed... lets not try to stretch this... the guy made a mistake. One that might cost him dearly.

I'm sorry, but we cant let this kind of stuff slide, this is the stuff that is going to cost us our rights. Defend yourselves, within reason.

I'm really surprised at the responses here. Shocked even. This is a great example of why I hate the herd mentality of many gun owners. There is a seeming need to defend all other gun owners, no matter how wrong or immoral their actions.

This isn't even a close case of "should he have shot the perp?" I am not second guessing, it is not hindsight-- it was an outright execution. Now, you may support executing unconscious perps, but I certainly don't.

It has nothing to do with whether he "deserved it" or "got what was coming". If the pharmacist had a 20 round magazine and unloaded the entire thing at point blank range during the robbery, I'd give him a medal. I'd give him a medal if he reloaded and shot 20 more times while there was an active threat.

That's not what happened.

What happened was he neutralized one threat with a bullet to the head and neutralized the second threat by chasing him away. Robbery is over. The unconscious perp on the floor does not have a gun and never had one. Yes, if the perp on the floor got up and made a move, fine, shoot him again. But he didn't. The pharmacist showed he didn't consider him a threat anymore by turning his back to him and walking away to look for his second gun. When he found it, he returned and executed the perp.

I must say I'm not impressed with anyone's moral character that applauds that.

In other threads here, some folks have said things like "anyone who attacks me will die" or that old favorite "dead men tell no tales."

Well, that's effectively what the victim did here. He made sure that perp died, by walking up to the prone and immobile perp and shooting him an additional 5 times. So, how's that working out for him? Not so well, I'd say.

Dead men may not tell any tales, but there will be witness that you don't see (in this case, video), and forensic evidence. You have to stop shooting after the threat is over. One extra bullet after that can turn a justifiable homicide into a murder one charge. This case is a prototypical example of that. The shot(s) fired in the initial encounter were legally justified; the extra 5 were not.

At best, the victim will spend his life savings defending himself. At worst, he'll die in jail.

Don't make the same mistake. Don't tell yourself "dead men tell no tales." Don't post it here. Don't say it to your friends. Don't even think it.

Your goal in a defensive shooting is to stop the attack. The perp may die as a result, but that is not what you are trying to achieve. Once the threat is over, stop shooting, take cover, and call the police. If the victim in this case had done that, he wouldn't be facing this horrible legal jeopardy.

 

[okie]

needless to say he wont be robbing that store again, and i bet his buddies stay the hell away also

 

[jcr]

I didn't read all the pages, but did watch the video, so sorry if this has been discussed.

Is it not possible that the guy on the ground was motionless when the Pharmiscist passed him the first time, but when he went to look later, the guy started moving?

The floor there, is off camera. Maybe the motion was just nerves twitching, but who, except a trauma expert, would know what that looks like exactly?

And as far as a shooting when someone was already down, how about the 41 shots at the guy in his NYC vestibule. One of the police shots went through the bottom of the dead guys shoe -- so the shooter surely knew that he was down. The dead guy never had any gun -- was just going home to his apartment.

It depends on what the Pharmicist said, and what other evidence that we don't know is, but if the shooter said the guy was moving and still appeared a threat, I'd go with reasonable doubt and not convict him.

 

[M1911]

I didn't read all the pages, but did watch the video, so sorry if this has been discussed.

Is it not possible that the guy on the ground was motionless when the Pharmiscist passed him the first time, but when he went to look later, the guy started moving?

There was another video, which has since been taken down, that showed a different view. In that video, it appears to me that the perp was motionless on the ground, and the Pharmacist calmly walked straight up to him, and fired several times.

It depends on what the Pharmicist said, and what other evidence that we don't know is, but if the shooter said the guy was moving and still appeared a threat, I'd go with reasonable doubt and not convict him.

From what I saw on the other video, no, the perp was not moving. The perp was not a threat.

 

[Hillie4life]

I didn't read all the pages, but did watch the video, so sorry if this has been discussed.

Is it not possible that the guy on the ground was motionless when the Pharmiscist passed him the first time, but when he went to look later, the guy started moving?

The floor there, is off camera. Maybe the motion was just nerves twitching, but who, except a trauma expert, would know what that looks like exactly?

And as far as a shooting when someone was already down, how about the 41 shots at the guy in his NYC vestibule. One of the police shots went through the bottom of the dead guys shoe -- so the shooter surely knew that he was down. The dead guy never had any gun -- was just going home to his apartment.

It depends on what the Pharmicist said, and what other evidence that we don't know is, but if the shooter said the guy was moving and still appeared a threat, I'd go with reasonable doubt and not convict him.

The pharmacist walked right by him (barely looking over his shoulder while doing so), went and got another gun/magazine. Immediately walked over to the downed man and shot him... the pharmacist didn’t hesitate, didn’t' flinch, didn't react on camera as if he was startled by any movement... He barely made it to the guy before racking off another 5 rounds and quickly turns and walks away again.

If I had just shot a guy in the head, saw him go down then saw him move 1.) You would see some surprise on my face 2.) I would then re-engage (pharmacist was practically engaged before he crested the counter) and 3.) I wouldn’t quickly turn my back to him again... even if I did put another 5 rounds in him (zombie theory aside)

The pharmacist executed the thug, and by all means, he was a thug, but now so is the pharmacist.

I wont say that the robber didn’t deserved to be shot for robbing the place, but I will say that just as the pharmacist exercised his right to defend himself he also took away the right of this would-be robber to a possibility of a trial by jury (if the headshot didn’t eventually kill him) and therefore the pharmacist has given up all his rights.

If the prosecution doesn’t win this case they’re not worth the air they breathe, sad to say, but true.

I’m all for gun rights gents, but this was murder.

 

[M1911]

Unfortunately, this tape doesn't show the correct viewpoint, but you can see some of it. At the 2:00 minute mark, he walks past the prone perp, goes to reload his gun, turns back, walks ~15' back up to the perp, leans over him, and fires.

http://krmg.com/blogging/cxr-search.cgi?tag=jerome ersland&blog_id=15&IncludeBlogs=15

 

[jcr]

I'd never seen the second view shown in this video.

Nevertheless, at most I can see only the whiteness of the kids T-shirt. I see nothing of his hands, arms.

The DA can (and will) say as often as he wants that the kid was alive, but unconscious -- but that doesn't make it so. Perhaps, the autopsy can show this, perhaps not.

I don't understand how bad tactical behavior by the old guy is "proof" that he knew the kid wasn't a threat. Do we know if the old guy took tactical shooting classes -- and that he absorbed the lessons?

I also don't understand how it is not possible that when he did look closer, and (if he) did see motion, his quick response of shooting is "proof" that he murdered the kid.

Doesn't the tactical school say that when it's time to shoot, don't hesitate? And to make sure the threat is ended?

It seems strange to argue both sides of the tactical fence.

I'll bet the NYC police who shot that other guy 41 times, are glad there was no video recording of that event. Somewhere after the 33rd shot it probably would have shown the guy was no longer a threat.

 

[Hillie4life]

Its all been said before, reading all of these posts everybody is saying the same thing "what if" ... what if's aside from what I can see (and allbeit the jury will probably see) the Pharmacist shot a man/kid/meth-head/honor roll student while he was down 5 times... and that ladys and gentlemen might be all it takes.

 

[Jaxon]

He should've turned the cameras off first.

Amen, brother.

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengenace and furious anger those who attempt to posion my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengenance upo you.

 

[jhblaze1]

Unfortunately, this tape doesn't show the correct viewpoint, but you can see some of it. At the 2:00 minute mark, he walks past the prone perp, goes to reload his gun, turns back, walks ~15' back up to the perp, leans over him, and fires.

http://krmg.com/blogging/cxr-search.cgi?tag=jerome ersland&blog_id=15&IncludeBlogs=15

I'd still vote to acquit if I was on the jury, regardless of the fact that it's clearly NOT a "justifiable" homicide. BG got what he deserved. Justice was served on that floor, no need to put a pharmacist in prison for removing a POS scumbag.

 

[M1911]

I'd never seen the second view shown in this video.

Nevertheless, at most I can see only the whiteness of the kids T-shirt. I see nothing of his hands, arms.

There is a third video, that unfortunately was taken down from the TV station's web site shortly after this whole thing started. I've searched in vain for it. The camera in that video is higher and to the left of the second viewpoint shown in the video above. In the third video you can see the perp on the floor and the pharmacist walking up to him. The perp wasn't moving.

Doesn't the tactical school say that when it's time to shoot, don't heasitate? And to make sure the threat is ended?

It seems strange to argue both sides of the tactical fence.

I don't know what schools you've been to. The ones that I've been to have all said that once the threat stops you must stop shooting, and that one additional shot fired after the perp is no longer a threat can turn a justifiable shooting into a charge of murder.

No tactical school that I've been to has ever said that you should walk up to a perp who is down and then shoot him several more times in order to "make sure that the threat is ended." I don't see anyone arguing "both sides of the tactical fence."

I don't feel bad for the perp, but I don't think that the pharmacist's actions were legal.

 

[jcr]

I don't know (can't tell) if the pharmacist's actions were legal.

I do know that the fact that he turned his back on the guy does not prove that the guy was no longer a threat (at that very moment, or ever). I'd say that turning his back was bad tactics -- nothing else.

If the guy says that when he checked back to the guy that was down, he saw the guy move, and the pharmacists feared that the attack was to resume (and you seems to have seen a video that would prove this would be false), then if I was a juror (and there was no 3rd video), I'd go with reasonable doubt -- a not guilty verdict.

Don't shoot someone who is not a threat to serious bodily harm. I go by that. Any self-defense school teaches that. I've not seen anything that would disprove the pharmicists claim that he considered the kid threat. If he did see motion that a reasonble man would consider a threat, it was tactically correct to not hesitate. That's just good tactics. Perhaps it was bad to get near the kid again, but what if he was going to make sure the kid wasn't going to his back-pack to pull out a gun (if he had been, it could have been for police when they entered the scene). And when there, he immediately say the move.

The DA says that he turned his back. The DA also says that no hesitation when he got near the kid again proves intent to murder. That's the two tactical sides.

Why would the 3rd video have disapeared? It seems to be the most relevant to the issue.

 

[M1911]

Why would the 3rd video have disapeared? It seems to be the most relevant to the issue.

I don't think it "disappeared." I think the TV station took it down. Your guess why is as good as mine. I'm sure that the DA has the original.

 

[Kalahari]

That the pharmacist's actions may have been illegal does not mean that his actions were necessarily wrong.

As others have said, I understand why charges are being brought, but I don't see society at all benefiting from putting the pharmacist away. Nor do I see justice in him going to jail.

 

[Kevlar]

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12020722

OKLAHOMA CITY – A possible new piece of evidence is raising questions in the murder case against Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland.

A security guard found a shell casing from a 22 caliber bullet at the Reliable Pharmacy almost three months after the incident, but some are debating how it got there.

The shell casing could have come from anywhere, defense attorney Irven Box said. It may have been in the pharmacy the entire time but was missed by police, Box said.

The shell casing could be significant because it could prove that Jerome Ersland was shot at by one of the suspects, something he's alleged from the beginning.

Ersland has said the suspects who entered the Reliable Pharmacy shot at him first and that's why he returned fire, ultimately killing 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

District Attorney David Prater said surveillance video at the time of the shooting proves the suspects never had a chance to get a shot off.

Prater said the new evidence is supicious and could have been planted.

"Two and half months after the shooting, after Oklahoma City police swept the pharmacy, the fact that a shell casing was found in the back of the store is very suspicious to me," Prater said.

But Ersland's attorney said it's too early to be pointing fingers.

"The idea that police, when they go through and do a sweep, look under every nook and crevice under everything it just doesn't happen," defense attorney Irven Box said. "To jump to a conclusion it was planted there just because police didn't find it is not a real good conclusion."

Box said he's also frustrated the evidence was leaked to the media.

"There are more confidential reports released in this case then any case in the history of my practice," Box said.

But information isn't only being leaked to the media. The Web site JeromeErsland.com claims to have pictures proving Ersland was in fact shot including a picture that claims to be an x-ray taken of Ersland's forearm showing bullet fragments he got from the day of the shooting.

"I would anticipate that if the items [pictures] were legitimate that the defense would already have submitted them," Prater said.

Ersland's attorney said he has no idea who created the site.

As far as whether the evidence was planted, Prater said the shell casing will be tested and matched against DNA to try and determine where it came from.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I have two words.....JURY NULLIFICATION

 

[rattletrap1970]

I agree with what was said before. Just because the BG deserved it and it was perhaps the right things to do, it doesn't make it the legal thing to do. Once he was no longer a threat, that's it. Although, the savings from not having to clothe, feed, educate, and give cable TV to the little prick is nice. Unfortunately we may now have to do that for the Pharmacist. Shot placement people! Do it with your first one.

 

[vlad]

Not sure how they will pull off murder one, doesn't that have to be premeditated. I see a very very bad case of judgment but not murder. Now I'll agree that most likely this kid would have turned out to be a career criminal and it can be argued that his death may have prevented other deaths. None of this changes the fact that this was an execution assuming there isn't evidence being held by the defense to prove otherwise, if the defense attorney can prove the perp move then the pharmacists actions were justified. This is the same as shooting suspects or perps in the back. Lethal force is be justified in the prevention of crime and protection of persons, not as punishment after the fact without trial by jury.

As far as I know they will be able to show that the heart was/or was not still beating (legal definition of alive) prior to the 5 additional shots from a medical angle. I don't know if it will be admissible in court though.

 

[Bill Nance]

I'd still vote to acquit if I was on the jury, regardless of the fact that it's clearly NOT a "justifiable" homicide. BG got what he deserved. Justice was served on that floor, no need to put a pharmacist in prison for removing a POS scumbag.

This is why I believe in jury nullification. A jury would be obligated to find this guy guilty of murder. That's clearly what it is.

A fully informed jury however, might decide that the interests of justice wouldn't be served by putting the guy away and so vote to acquit.

 

[cekim]

This is why I believe in jury nullification. A jury would be obligated to find this guy guilty of murder. That's clearly what it is.

A fully informed jury however, might decide that the interests of justice wouldn't be served by putting the guy away and so vote to acquit.

If only juries were capable of such thinking and informed of such options.

 

[M1911]

Not sure how they will pull off murder one, doesn't that have to be premeditated.

Premeditation can take place over a very short period of time -- just seconds in some jurisdictions. Since he appeared to leave the perp, go back to the counter to get something (more ammunition?), then walk back towards the perp to shoot him, an argument could be made that it was premeditated. You don't have to have planned over the period of hours for it to be considered murder one.

In such trials, the jury is sometimes allowed to consider lesser charges as well (murder two, manslaughter, etc.). Even if the jury rejects premeditation, they could still find him guilty of murder -- just murder two instead of murder one.

I see a very very bad case of judgment but not murder. Now I'll agree that most likely this kid would have turned out to be a career criminal and it can be argued that his death may have prevented other deaths. None of this changes the fact that this was an execution assuming there isn't evidence being held by the defense to prove otherwise,

It was an execution but that isn't murder? Huh?

As far as I know they will be able to show that the heart was/or was not still beating (legal definition of alive) prior to the 5 additional shots from a medical angle. I don't know if it will be admissible in court though.

Immaterial. You have to stop shooting after the threat stops.

 

[cekim]

Immaterial. You have to stop shooting after the threat stops.

As the guy who was involved in 1/2 dozen shootouts over the years after he defended himself against an armed robbery can tell you - the threat often does not stop when they submit on the floor after you stopped the robbery.

So, you are going to have to be more specific

The video sure looks damning, but I cannot say I am frothing at the mouth to waste a prison cell on this guy...

 

[M1911]

As the guy who was involved in 1/2 dozen shootouts over the years after he defended himself against an armed robbery can tell you - the threat often does not stop when they submit on the floor after you stopped the robbery.

So, you are going to have to be more specific

Sorry, but no, I don't have to be more specific. Once the threat stops, you have to stop shooting. Period. Determining if the threat has stopped may not be easy, you have just a very brief moment to make a decision, and the authorities (and keyboard commandos like me) will consider your decision at length.

In this case, the perp fell to the floor, the pharmacist walked past him, to the front door, then walked passed him again, turning his back on the perp twice, got something from the drawer in the back of the shop, and then walked back towards the perp again. The jury will determine if and when the threat stopped. But the pharmacists actions sure didn't seem to imply that he felt the perp was still a threat, right up until he walked to the prone perp, stood over him, and shot him multiple times.

The video sure looks damning, but I cannot say I am frothing at the mouth to waste a prison cell on this guy...

Neither am I. The pharmacists was an upstanding, productive citizen and the perp was a punk. But that doesn't have much bearing upon whether or not the pharmacist's actions were justified.

 

[cekim]

But that doesn't have much bearing upon whether or not the pharmacist's actions were justified.

It should have a bearing on what we do with him. The goal of our criminal justice system should always be first and foremost to make society safer. "Punishing" people isn't a goal of such a system - it's a tool used to accomplish that goal.

Which is where nullification comes in. "Murder" may indeed be the right finding. Mandatory minimums or indeed imprisonment may not be the right response.

 

[cekim]

Sorry, but no, I don't have to be more specific. Once the threat stops, you have to stop shooting. Period. Determining if the threat has stopped may not be easy, you have just a very brief moment to make a decision, and the authorities (and keyboard commandos like me) will consider your decision at length.

p.s. I was being facetious, but you have a bit of a TV-based view of the reality of "threats". The bad guy doesn't always get locked up, the key doesn't get thrown away and he knows where you live.

That doesn't change the reality that I agree what he did was wrong - but your attempt to lay it out in moral "black and white" terms of the "threat having stopped" fails when juxtaposed with reality.

 

[HooVooLoo]

...juxtaposed...

Cekim wins the word-of-the-day.

 

[cekim]

Cekim wins the word-of-the-day.

Oops! I meant to edit that out...

 

[Kalahari]

It should have a bearing on what we do with him

I don't completely agree. Our justice system isn't here to decide who has been or hasn't been a good citizen beyond the scope of the crime.