UPDATED/Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VID

[WarHawk-AVG]

Wow!
After only watching the video i would have to deliberate against him if i were on the jury.

I am willing to bet that the jury will NOT see the kid as a threat since the owner walked past him twice, then strolled over to finish him while standing right over him.

If this guy in fact had it in his head to "finish him" knowing he wasnt a threat anymore, i hope he burns!

+1

Same here...the guy that was on the ground didn't have a gun in the beginning of the video..the guy with the gun beat feet..then he came back and shot him again.

I cant see on the video if the guy was getting up or not...but my CHL instructor told us EXPLICITLY if you shoot someone that is on the ground like a "finishing shot" you are going to burn.

I feel the video is very telling and that guy did in fact "execute" that scumbag...even though the punk deserved it...a CHL'er should NOT be doing something like that...sorry..the guy is going to burn in my book. (I thought the same thing about Joe Horn and he walked)

Hopefully the jury will exonerate this guy! (I just highly doubt it)

[HGWC]

The pharmacist's account doesn't seem to match the video. Watching the clip with the DA's commentary, it shows the pharmacist shooting the guy initially with a revolver from the back of the store. Then he leaves (didn't look too handicapped to me). Then he comes back in, and goes to the drawer. The DA's commentary is that he retrieves the .380 auto from the locked drawer. The second path through the store looks very deliberate, past the guy, straight to the drawer, straight back to the guy, shots at point blank. The pharmacist's story seems to be that he initially pulls the .380 from his pocket then gets the revolver from the drawer. Just doesn't match up with the video at all. What we don't see is why he switched from a .45 revolver to a .380 auto. Perhaps what we don't see is that he emptied the revolver?

The kid looked unarmed. He was down on the floor. Sure doesn't look like he gave any thought to avoiding having to kill the guy. Doesn't look like his intent was to defend himself. Looks like a very deliberate shooting of an unarmed 16 year old kid lying wounded on the floor. I'd say he's going to have a very difficult time in front of the jury. Was it murder? One question I had was although the head wound wasn't the immediate cause of death, was the head wound likely a fatal wound nonetheless?

[G.C.Montgomery]

why did he keep the video?

Whether he kept the video or not...The fact that the entry wounds, exit wounds and holes in the floor lined up vertically or in a manner suggesting the turdblossom was not a threat at the time pretty much sealed the deal. And I'm sure you know that intentionally hiding or discarding the video in and of itself is a crime just as it would be if an officer yanked the dash cam video from his patrol car after a shooting.

[jlangton]

unarmed 16 year old kid lying wounded on the floor.

You ABSOLUTELY DO NOT know this for a fact.
JL

[dicion]

Just remember folks. The law is supposed to be 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'

If the medical examiner says that the head wound was not fatal, and the pharmacist said he was getting up and posed a threat again, and if he did have a gun, in lack of any evidence to the contrary, unless it can be Proven that he was NOT a threat, reasonable doubt will prevail.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove that the kid was Not a threat.
At least that's how I understand it. IANAL


Now civil liability... thats a completely different story.

[stroo]

This guy has problems. His account doesn't match the video. And his actions on the video don't look good. And judges and juries will give more credit to what they see in the video than what they hear in testimony from the pharmacist. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

[HGWC]

unarmed 16 year old kid lying wounded on the floor.

You ABSOLUTELY DO NOT know this for a fact.
JL

What the prosecution is going to show as an absolute fact is that the pharmacist very deliberately armed himself and shot the kid. The burden to produce absolute facts as to self defense is going to fall on the defense attorneys. Looks like they're going to be the ones short on facts.

[HGWC]

Just remember folks. The law is supposed to be 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'

If the medical examiner says that the head wound was not fatal, and the pharmacist said he was getting up and posed a threat again, and if he did have a gun, in lack of any evidence to the contrary, unless it can be Proven that he was NOT a threat, reasonable doubt will prevail.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove that the kid was Not a threat.

Now civil liability... thats a completely different story.

That's not right is it? The prosecution has to prove the pharmacist shot the kid (1st, 2nd degree muder, manslaughter, what ever the specific charge). They'll have to work to prove the degree of the crime. The defense lawyers have the burden to prove self-defense. It's a defense to prosecution. It's their burden, not the prosecutor's. There is no presumption of self-defense. Right?

[mymojo]

What the prosecution is going to show as an absolute fact is that the pharmacist very deliberately armed himself and shot the kid who was participating in an armed robbery. The burden to produce absolute facts as to self defense is going to fall on the defense attorneys. Looks like they're going to be the ones short on facts.

Fixed the first sentence for you. And as someone else mentioned, "burden of proof" is on the accuser, not the accused.

"He was robbing me at gunpoint, I shot him, he tried to get up, I told him to stay down, he ignored me. I was afraid - I shot him again.". Thats what the prosectuion has to prove to be untrue.

Should he have finished him off? Probably not. But in a high stress situation with an adrenaline dump kicking in, things happen fast and details get blurry.

[DoubleJ]

Right or wrong, we ALL know what woulda happened if HEMIZygote had been there!!!

wouldn'ta been no discrepancies, neither!

tac-reloads and all.

[HGWC]

What the prosecution is going to show as an absolute fact is that the pharmacist very deliberately armed himself and shot the kid who was participating in an armed robbery. The burden to produce absolute facts as to self defense is going to fall on the defense attorneys. Looks like they're going to be the ones short on facts.

Fixed the first sentence for you. And as someone else mentioned, "burden of proof" is on the accuser, not the accused.

"He was robbing me at gunpoint, I shot him, he tried to get up, I told him to stay down, he ignored me. I was afraid - I shot him again.". Thats what the prosectuion has to prove to be untrue.

Should he have finished him off? Probably not. But in a high stress situation with an adrenaline dump kicking in, things happen fast and details get blurry.

Let's look at this with respect to Texas laws for a minute. It is a crime of murder in Texas to intentionally kill a person with a gun. The prosecutor only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did that. I can't say it without the double negative, but the prosecutor doesn't have to prove that it wasn't in self-defense. That's an important distinction. Self-defense is a defense to prosecution. The accused carries the burden to prove self-defense, not the accuser. It's pretty important to understand that before you get into a situation where you might have to use a gun.

Now, what evidence and proof can the defense team offer here? That the thug was committing armed robbery in the immediate instant of the second shooting? I don't see any evidence of that. He tried to get up? He had a gun? Do you see any evidence of that? I'd say that to counter the video, just his say so and vague claims of stress, adrenaline, and blurriness is going to take a pretty sympathetic jury. Should he have "finished him off?" That's murder not self defense.

[McKnife]

I can't believe the some of the folks on this forum actually feel Mr. Ersland was WRONG to shoot at group of gangbangers trying to rob and/or kill!!!

The moment the scums walked in with the gun, they ante'd up their flesh for the bet of their life.

I'd have done the same thing! -- I hope they find the others shoot them too.

Good shoot!!! Pray for Jerome Ersland, his family and crew!

[kalipsocs]

I can't believe the some of the folks on this forum actually feel Mr. Ersland was WRONG to shoot at group of gangbangers trying to rob and/or kill!!!

The moment the scums walked in with the gun, they chose they ante'd their flesh for the bet of their life.

Good shoot!!! Pray for Jerome Ersland, his family and crew!

I don't think anyone thinks he was wrong with drawing and firing his weapon initially, myself included. I do have a problem with his second string of shots given the facts presented. But the fact is, we are all taught that using deadly force is a last resort and you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill them. If they die as a result, they paid the ultimate price; we just want the threat to stop. Bottom line...no one here knows what precisely happened, so I will let it hash out in court before anyone starts casting stones.

I will say that there is enough gray area that it should go to trial and it is far from a "good shoot".

[mymojo]

Let's look at this with respect to Texas laws for a minute. It is a crime of murder in Texas to intentionally kill a person with a gun.

Not if the killing was in self defense.

The prosecutor only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did that. I can't say it without the double negative, but the prosecutor doesn't have to prove that it wasn't in self-defense.

IANAL, but I disagree. Unless there is video or some kind of irrefutable evidence showing that the perp wasnt trying to get up the prosectution WILL have to prove that it wasnt self defense.

The accused carries the burden to prove self-defense, not the accuser.

Again, "He was robbing me at gunpoint, I shot him, he tried to get up, I told him to stay down, he ignored me. I was afraid - I shot him again.". Thats what the prosectuion has to prove to be untrue.

Now, what evidence and proof can the defense team offer here? ....He tried to get up? .... Do you see any evidence of that?

the question is: Do you see any evidence to the contrary?

Unless it can be proven that he DIDNT try to get up and the pharmacist was not in fear for his life because of it, there is reasonable doubt on "murder" IMO. If I were sitting on that jury, the prosecutuion would have to prove that the law abiding pharmacist standing on his own property was not in fear for his life when he fired the fatal shot at the criminal who was trying to rob him.

For me it comes down to two questions 1) Did he try to get up?, 2) Did the pharmacist warn him to stay down?

[Locke]

We can debate wheather he was right or wrong all day, and its good to do so in case we are ever faced with a similar situation. I agree that it does look like he used excessice force. But, we weren't there so really don't know what happened just from watching a video. If I was on the jury I think he'd be a free man. If you choose to committ armed robbery then you are responsible for the consequences. This guy was only reacting to a bad situation that he did not cause. Lets not forget who the real criminals are here.