May 27, 2011, - 5:05 pm

OUTRAGE: Jury Convicts Disabled Veteran For Defending Self, Saving Lives

By Debbie Schlussel

Although I still believe in the American jury system, there are way too many morons who rule juries and come out with the most outrageous of verdicts.  That’s the case with the jury that found pharmacist Jerome Ersland guilty of first-degree murder for shooting an armed man who entered his pharmacy waving a gun.  Ersland, who is a disabled military veteran, shot him to defend himself and his customers.  Now, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.  It’s absurd in the United States of America that a jury acquits O.J. Simpson of murder and finds Jerome Ersland guilty of it. This guy, Ersland, is a hero and saved countless lives. He should be getting medals and keys to the city, not put in the slammer. Soooooo frickin’ insane:

Travesty: Disabled Gulf War Veteran Jerome Ersland Convicted for Saving Lives

A pharmacist who fatally shot a teenage robber in Oklahoma City was found guilty Thursday of first-degree murder in a jury trial that ignited debate over the limits of self-defense.

The pharmacist, 59-year-old Jerome Ersland, fired a weapon after two young men entered his pharmacy, one of them waving a gun, in May 2009. Mr. Ersland’s bullet hit 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head, Oklahoma County prosecutors alleged.

Moments later, Mr. Ersland shot Mr. Parker five more times as he lay unconscious on the ground, say prosecutors who had a security surveillance video to bolster their case.

Defense lawyers argued Mr. Ersland had the right to defend himself and others in the store. But the jury, which deliberated for less than four hours, found Mr. Ersland guilty of first-degree murder, punishable by life in prison. . . .

Oklahoma, like more than 20 other states, has encoded the right to self defense through so-called Castle Laws. Under these laws, citizens are allowed to use deadly force when they are threatened in their home—or their “castle”—or place of work. . . .

In the video of the Oklahoma City shooting, Mr. Ersland can be seen firing the first shot and Mr. Parker dropping to the floor. After chasing the other robber out the door, Mr. Ersland returns, walking past the place where Mr. Parker fell to get a second gun out of a drawer. He then points down toward the floor and shoots several times.

The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed. . . .

Mr. Ersland had said that Mr. Parker was moving after the initial shot and was therefore still dangerous. Mr. Parker was not visible on the video at that point. . . .

Earlier this year, Ralph Shortey, a state senator who represents the area, introduced the “Jerome Ersland Act,” which would increase protections for citizens who kill or wound someone in the course of protecting themselves.

“The person who came in brandishing the firearm was not the victim, but we’re trying to make him the victim,” Mr. Shortey said.

Oh, and by the way, because the robber is Black and Ersland is White, this is somehow now a race thing. Does this mean that we should turn the fact that the Black robber had a gun and went into a mostly White business into a race thing? But, no worries. The mother of a criminal is turning her criminal thug son’s death into a litigious payday for herself. Cha-ching:

Cleta Jennings, the mother of the dead man, has filed a wrongful death suit asking the court for damages and accusing Mr. Ersland of negligence.

There is no shortage of chutzpah in America. But way too little justice.


“I just regret anybody would get killed,” Ersland said. “But if I wouldn’t have been here, there would have been three people killed — the other pharmacist and the two techs.” . . .

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m., Ersland said, two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing.

The robbers went in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

Two women who were working behind the counter ran for a back room where they would be safe, but Ersland said he couldn’t run. Ersland said he’s a veteran with disabilities . . . wears a cumbersome back brace and just had his latest back surgery six weeks ago.

“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. . . .

“Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.

“I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.”

I’m sickened by this unjust verdict. You go into a store with a gun and threaten to kill people, you deserve whatever happens. We don’t know if the initial shot incapacitated this robber thug, and if the robber got up and started killing people, then we’d be sorry he wasn’t shot to death. Also, sometimes people fire off more than one bullet in the heat of defending themselves. That’s normal.

If members of this moronic jury had been in the pharmacy that day, they’d be thanking G-d that Jerome Ersland saved their lives that day.

Jerome Ersland took the life of a criminal thug and attempted murderer to save the lives of several innocent people. He deserves a parade, not an orange jumpsuit.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

81 Responses

The punk robber was not getting off the floor. Forensic evidence proves that he did not move after the first shot. Ersland messed up by shooting five more times after that. He really messed up lying to the police about what happened and then continued to lie about having flashbacks from combat in the Gulf War. The jury was all white, so do not blame race or anything like that for the verdict. The jury did not rule on gut reaction, they ruled on the evidence and the evidence proved that Ersland killed the punk robber.

Time Wave on May 30, 2011 at 12:50 am

One day I plan on running for governor of Oklahoma. I would give this man an immediate pardon. Any future selections I would make for judgeships would be asked the question, “would you have declared this man guilty or innocent”? If they say guilty, they would be escorted out. An innocent response would warrant further consideration.

FUTURE OK GOV on May 30, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Well if that’s the case I sincerely hope you lose your election. Watch the video that another commenter posted the link to. The pharmacist just walks over to the scum, points the gun straight down POINT BLANK and shoots him five times. If he was such a threat just kick the felon’s gun away. The guy was in the right up until he decided to shoot the robber five times in a row. Then he became a murderer. The fact that they prosecuted him with first degree though I find out outrageous and very poor judgement. He had no time to plan ahead his actions.

    Z on August 3, 2012 at 11:23 pm

In self defense you shoot to stop, the kid was stopped. If the killer pharmacist was so worried about the lives of the people in the store why did he run outside after the other robber, leaving them alone in the store with the wounded/dying kid. Coming back in, walking past the kid on the floor to get another gun and shoot him again is MURDER. He was in the clear until he did that part, he started out right and crossed the line. He deserves what he gets. And as a Gulf War Vet I detest anyone trying to use that lame excuse of being a hurt veteran as the reason they committed whatever crime they did. Man up and take responsibility for your actions.

ender on May 30, 2011 at 3:12 pm

they have all the video footage from 3 cameras here:

Once you see the video you know he is guilty and is getting what he deserves.

ender on May 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm

Uh-huh. I think our pharmacist saved us the cost of feeding a worthless psychopathic maggot in prison, and providing him medical care. He deserves a medal.

Unfortunately, Debbie, most lawyers and judges I have met are not as decent as you. “Vermin T Maggot, attorney at law,” is quite common.

The reason I do not support the death penalty is because of prosecutors, juries, and judges like this. I don’t trust them to pour piss out of a boot, much less make life altering decisions.

Occam's Tool on May 30, 2011 at 3:46 pm

Look, the guy showed poor judgment; he should not have emptied his gun into he diaper stain on the floor after it was apparent that the savage was no longer a threat.

BUT — NO WAY should he have been convicted of murder. That is ridiculous. The mentality that allows moron jurors to convict people of murder who are only defending their life and property is one that prevails on the right and the left: the morality of altruism.

That armed savages have a right to life when they threaten others with lethal force is a moral idiocy. They brought this on themselves. If we as a country are going to be cowards when it comes to terrorists, armed thugs, and violent mobs, then this sort of judicial outrage is going to more, not less, common.

Isn’t Oklahoma the state with the Muslim congressman?

Don Kenner on May 30, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Since he was down with a bullet in the head a good defense attorney would have brought in experts to say that the bullet that killed him was the first one to the head, not the 5 put into his chest 2 minutes later with a different gun. There now it is self defense and not the murder of someone already dying, posing no threat on the floor.

ender on May 31, 2011 at 12:49 am

    Then why did he shoot him five more times? Ersland stated several times that the punk was getting up threatening and cussing at him. Unless he was a zombie, that would would make Ersland lying again.

    Almost nobody has a problem with the first shot. If he would have stopped there, no problem. I also believe that he would not have been in as much trouble if he told the truth from the start. I am surprised that Debbie posted his first story he told police and the press to try to defend his actions. It was a lie, the movies she reviews have more reality than that story. Ersland has nobody to blame than himself.

    Time Wave on May 31, 2011 at 8:26 am

Every town has a village idiot, Okc has 12…

larry on May 31, 2011 at 12:33 pm

This only makes those who would claim race is a factor in everything more willing to break the law. A law abiding citizen has two worries in that situation. First, is this guy going to kill me? Second, am I going to jail for defending myself? A thug like this one has no such concern.

David Steven Roberts on May 31, 2011 at 10:55 pm

i saw the video of what happened on it looks to me that he went a little to far in his defense from the bad guys. I agree in a persons right to defend himself from a criminal. you are allowed to use the same level of force that the other uses against. But, once the threat goes away you have to stop. I am sorry, but he went too far.

augiedog on June 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm

First of all no one knows what went thru the Pharmacist’s mind when all of it was going on. It all happened so fast. We cannot slow it down like on a video tape. Someone comes in with a gun, your adrenaline is going to be pumping, I don’t care who you are. The video does show the boy did move after being shot the first time. Who knows if he was trying to get up to shoot, to ask for help, or what, but the boy DID come into that place with a gun intent to kill. You don’t have a gun for anything else. So, to avoid a lawsuit you should let yourself and female employees be killed by the thugs? I think not. Where is the culpability of the boys mother? This boy should not have been in that pharmacy, period. He should have had himself in school. What is this kids’ attendance? What is his police record? Why did she let her minor son be with those thugs? If she has any other children she should be investigated by child welfare. She is responsible for what her minor children do. If they break a window, mom pays for it, etc… Any other children in that home should be removed. Live by the gun, die by the gun…. this boy was on a path to death…if it wasn’t this pharmacist, it would be someone else. His path was already chosen by his mother and the people around her…who she really should be suing is the two thugs that took her son on a crime spree, not the person her son held up at gun point. Had her son killed the pharmacist, we would be hearing all about the poor black child, with no daddy at home, and a struggling mother, and it wasn’t his fault, and boo hoo… sign of the times I guess. It has no baring whether he was black white latino or asian..he went in that store with one intent, to commit a crime. Do I think he should be dead, no, he should be in jail for the next 25 years, then he could come out early on good behavior and commit some more crimes in our city, and you would need to hope to god he didn’t kill YOU this time or one of YOUR family or friends….

Surf on June 1, 2011 at 11:35 pm


I’ve agree with you, when I thought you were right.

But, in this case, you are wrong.

This guy went too far. The dude on the ground was not a threat. He had just gotten shot in the chest 5 times and was lying there, bleeding to death, and the man shot him again, in the head.

I have just as much of a disdain for black people; as you do. After all, two black Detroit cops, who ended up losing their jobs and dying in prison, shot my cousin Michael Hill in Southwest Detroit in 1994 and then they let him die and lied about it. Not to mention the fact, that the media just took Detroit police’s word for it and reported what they were told. I also have much disdain for the crazy left, that stirs the racial pot.

But this guy went WAAAAY too far, when you shoot someone on the ground, who’s not a threat; you are basically executing them.

Most of them time, Deb; you are right. But on this one; you missed it. Now should he get life? Most likely not, and it will most likely be appealed to a lighter sentence. But, he did mess up here.

Your friend Downriver,


oldrightblogger on June 2, 2011 at 1:37 pm

So is it any coincidence that there is now a rash of pharmacy robberies? The Ersland jury has given all the thugs a free pass. The punks know they can armed rob any pharmacy they want and the victims will be at their mercy. This makes me sick.

Nancy on June 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm

It is surprising that a prosecutor would pursue Ersland after an episode of self- defense, but it is shocking that he would pursue a charge of first- degree murder.
If this event is any criminal act ( and in a rational society it would not be), how could it be anything more than a ” second- degree murder”, a crime of passion ? Maybe the scum on the floor was no longer a threat, but did Ersland have time and opportunity to consider this?
He had just finished firing a shot a frightening figure who was cursing and shooting at him; after firing this shot, the second gunman fired a shot at Ersland before running outside. Ersland certainly did not know that the gunman running outside no longer represented a threat- could he be regrouping, bringing an accomplice in, getting a heavier weapon?
Upon re-entering the store, Ersland was still in combat mode. He did not know whether all threat had ended. It is easy for us to say that the scum on the floor no longer posed a danger; Ersland himself would have concluded this if he were brought to a place of safety and given the time to observe and consider.
What kind of prosecutor ( and jury) does not understand the stress this man was under?

David Witt on August 4, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Anyone coming into a home or place of business pointing a gun or accompanying a partner in crime brandishing a deadly weapon should be put to death in any manner possible. Why would we even contemplate allowing an idiot with ill intent to contaminate the gene pool. The pharmacist should have been acquitted

benjamin on June 9, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field