UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

#91

Post by speedsix »

...there will be another court of Supreme Justice to try that case...and all the facts will be known...as the old song goes "...He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgement seat..." in the long run, the scales will be balanced on that one...
User avatar

Jumping Frog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5488
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

#92

Post by Jumping Frog »

"I had the right to keep silent, but not the ability", Ron White

Latest issue of American Handgunner has an analysis of this case written by Massad Ayoob on page 18. If you are willing to give them an email address, you can read the issue online at http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMG ... er/AHJF12/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I learned a few new facts from the article that I hadn't seen in gun forums that are very pertinent.
  • He originally told police and reporters he was an Iraq War veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder because he killed many enemies in defense of his country, and wears a body brace because his back was broken by enemy fire in Iraq. He never served in the military.
  • He apparently attempted to fake a gunshot wound on his arm.
  • A single witness — a store employee who didn’t see the shooting — testified for the defense, which then rested. Ersland never took the stand.
  • Self-defense is an affirmative defense, in which the defendant stipulates he did indeed shoot the deceased, but maintains he was correct in doing so. In most jurisdictions, this shifts the burden of proof and requires the defense to show, more likely than not, any reasonable and prudent person would have done exactly what the defendant did. This defense works best when the defendant takes the witness stand and explains what he perceived, what he feared at the time, and why he did what he did. After all, who else can fully explain it better?
  • Since the pharmacist had made up so many lies about the encounter, the defense could not use him as a witness as he would have been destroyed on the stand.
Bottom line? Ayoob concludes if the pharmacist had never spoken to the police except while with his attorney, none of the damaging statements would have been made and Ayoob believes he never would have ended up in prison.
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”