UPDATED/Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VID

[HGWC]

The autopsy report said he was alive after he was shot in the head, the five shots to the stomach killed him. He could have been grazed in the head and just knocked out and was coming to as he was shot again. You can't tell from the video if he was unconsious or not at the time he was shot the second thru fifth times.

I'm not seeing how merely being conscious gives justification for the deadly force. I don't think it will help if he testifies to the jury that the kid appeared to be alive and coming to, so he fixed that for him. I don't think what if scenarios are going to help either. What if he came to, stood up, attempted to produce a weapon, and then tried to shoot the pharmacist? It's not the what if scenario the jury needs to hear. They need to hear that is actually what happened, and it would be real good if the defense had the gun to back that up.

[bdickens]

A good lesson to take away from this is to be sure that you don't have any blind spots that are not covered by your security cameras.

[LarryH]

I'm not seeing how merely being conscious gives justification for the deadly force.

That's not what we're saying. His being unconscious totally negates justification. That's all we're saying. Consciousness would be necessary, but not sufficient. There would also have to be some movement that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening.

[srothstein]

How about from looking at the autopsy report? The kid had been shot in the head, and you know the head injury had to be looked at very closely to determine the cause of death.

Well, if the pathologist is any good at forensics, he can tell if he was conscious AND moving at the time of the second shooting. If he was unconscious, the angles of the bullets will be all the same or almost so, if he was moving, the bullets will have different impact angles and paths. Dead bodies really do tell tales, just no lies.

[Locke]

Of course if the robber was unconscious there would be no justification. But he was laying out of camera shot. The pharmacist can claim that he wasn't worried about him at first but then later he saw him move and thought he was drawing a weapon. Its just his word against what a pathologist says. Easy to build reasonable doubt. Unless he made a contradictory statement already to the police.

Always remember when talking to Police 3 things you should say and repeat often.
1. Am I under arrest? Am I free to go.
2. I do not wish to make a statement without my laywer present.
3. I do not consent to any searches.

[Frost]

Interesting analysis here:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-G ... t-outcomes

Linked in that article is a NewsOK article(link).

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear.

The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus "Judge.”

After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber, Ersland said, he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest as he kept going after the second robber.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

Outside the pharmacy, he said he saw what he thought was a third black male in a car with the engine running and reaching for what appeared to be a shotgun.

"I pulled out my ‘Judge’ and pointed it right between his eyes and he floored it,” Ersland said.

I'm trying to find the right emotion.



Anyway, read the analysis link. Its good stuff.

[Purplehood]

I have been seriously considering the acquisition of a Taurus Judge.

[dicion]

IMO It's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially for SD Carry.

Read this review to see what I mean

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, if you want to shoot clays or snakes with it, you're gold :)

[Purplehood]

IMO It's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially for SD Carry.

Read this review to see what I mean

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, if you want to shoot clays or snakes with it, you're gold :)

Well that was a dose of cold water on that idea.

[Pete92FS]

IMO It's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially for SD Carry.

Read this review to see what I mean

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, if you want to shoot clays or snakes with it, you're gold :)

Well that was a dose of cold water on that idea.

From reading the article it looks like if you keep it loaded with the .45 long you'd be OK for SD.

[Purplehood]

IMO It's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially for SD Carry.

Read this review to see what I mean

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, if you want to shoot clays or snakes with it, you're gold :)

Well that was a dose of cold water on that idea.

From reading the article it looks like if you keep it loaded with the .45 long you'd be OK for SD.

Might as well buy a .45 SA in that case.

[DoubleJ]

I find the advertisement showing it blowing up a watermelon (strategically placed so the watermelon looks like a head) to be very misleading.
shoot'em in the head, it'll explode!
ah, well. marketing

[dicion]

From reading the article it looks like if you keep it loaded with the .45 long you'd be OK for SD.

Possibly, but there's many other, better SD loads available in other Calibers.
If you look, the .45 long they tried didn't expand much at all.
You're better off going with .45ACP HST's for stopping power

[DoubleJ]

From reading the article it looks like if you keep it loaded with the .45 long you'd be OK for SD.

Possibly, but there's many other, better SD loads available in other Calibers.
If you look, the .45 long they tried didn't expand much at all.
You're better off going with .45ACP HST's for stopping power

or Speer GoldDots.
or Ranger SXT's
or Golden Sabers....

I digress.

[SlowDave]

I guess I'll throw in on this as well.

1. For my own education, lessons learned include things already metioned:

• When the threat is over, call 911, don't keep shooting.
• Careful what you say to the police. Be even more careful what you say to the media.
• Don't think I'd have fired those follow-up shots there at the end.

2. From a legal perspective for Mr. (?) Ersland:

• Imagine if there was no video. There are no living eye-witnesses (as far as we know) and it would be Mr. Ersland's word against no one's (other than forensic evidence). If he said the guy was moving, and a gun was found on the guy at the scene, he'd be pretty much off the hook, IMHO. At the moment, the video does nothing to change that situation, as it provides no conclusive evidence as to whether the BG was moving or not at the time of the 2nd shooting event. (I'm not disagreeing that it shows Mr. Ersland in an unfavorable light, but no conclusive evidence.)
• How is that in all of these reports, it is never mentioned whether the BG on the floor was found to be armed or not? (Makes me think he was not, but...?) This is an absolutely critical factor in deciding the situation.
• If the guy was moving but not armed, would Mr. Ersland still be justified in firing the 2nd volley? I mean, even without seeing a gun, he doesn't KNOW the guy's not armed, and the (moving) bad guy could be preparing to come at him with a knife or baseball bat or some other unseen object. All a reach, but enough (IMHO) to not convict Mr. Ersland of murder.
• Hard for me to believe that an autopsy can determine whether a person was conscious or not for a period of time of about one minute in between a non-fatal and a fatal shooting. If they can prove "beyond a reasonable (not "shadow of a") doubt" that the BG was unconscious at the time of the 2nd shooting, then Mr. Ersland should prepare to wear stripes for a long time as that is murder. Not saying the BG wasn't responsible for his actions, just that it's not self-defense. That would be Mr. Ersland taking the position of judge, jury, and executioner, and that is not allowed in the USA. Even BG's have the right to a trial by jury, and that's a good thing if you ever find yourself wrongly charged.

One thing tough to keep in mind in these situations is that the justice system has to work the same way when it's for you as for when it's against you, so I don't want to go overboard and give this guy a complete free ride, 'cause if I ever walk into a store and some nutcase shoots me, I don't want him getting off because he says I was there to rob him, I'm carrying a (concealed) weapon, and heck, "I probably deserved it."

I concur on the impressiveness of the civil discussion of this topic. Thanks everyone.

p.s. Hard to make out everyting in that video, but it sure looks like the shot Mr. Ersland fired from the end of the counter that dropped the BG was from a large revolver (e.g. The Judge) rather than a .380. Someone said that all the shots to the BG on the floor were with the .380 though. Am I mis-seeing something or what's up there? I can't tell whether he fired before that shot from the end of the counter, but that shot looks like the one that definitely dropped the BG.