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

But OJ butchered a Jew, so it’s okay. And, women (Nicole Brown Simpson) don’t count.

As goes Israel, so goes the World. on May 27, 2011 at 5:13 pm

Hmmm, what was the racial make-up of the jury? Any bets?

Remember in our history books how we all admired the tough settler? Now that settler would be indicted for a variety of crimes, and the U.S. would only be comprised of states east of the Mississippi River.

If Parker was just wounded, then the defendant had the right to stop him from reaching for a gun. If he was already dead from the first gun shot, then the defendant merely desecrated a dead body.

Here in the people’s Republic of Montgomery County, Maryland, a jeweler was robbed in his store by two thugs with guns. The jeweler pulled out his own gun, chased the two men down the street, and shot them dead, right in the heart of the business district of Bethesda, Md. Incredibly (and I agree with the verdict), the jury found him not guilty. This occurred in the 1990s. Bet they would find him guilty today.

Jonathan Grant on May 27, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Most of what you have here supporting Mr. Ersland is not true. His entire statement to the police was deemed to be false.
No shots were fired by the robbers.
He faked the gunshot wound.
Evidence shows the wounded robber was not moving and in fact was unconscious.
Video shows all of this.
Mr. Ersland should have taken the robber out with the first shot, but you can’t go back and get another gun and pop the guy 5 more times from 18-14 inches away and claim it was self defense.
Jury was all white. They had the option of manslaughter or aquittal.
And let’s not forget this is Oklahoma…not exactly a bleeding heart bastion.

O: Oklahoma is conservative. Oklahoma City, where the trial was, is very bleeding-heart liberal. Not the same thing. DS

Oklahoman on May 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I’m not sure how long you’ve lived in OKC, DS, but as a lifelong resident, I can assure you that it is most definitely not “bleeding-heart liberal.” sure there are some pockets of liberals but for the most part, Oklahoma County is pretty conservative.

    Oklahoman on May 29, 2011 at 10:23 am

Forgot to also mention, he lied about his military record. Never served in Desert Storm. He was working at an Air Force base in Altus, OK as a pharmacist then. Never saw combat at all. His injury was from a slip-and-fall.
The other travesty is hsi lawyer was horrible. Called only one witness. Presented no evidence.

O: Sad. He paid over $100,000 in legal bills. Just one witness??? Oy. DS

Oklahoman on May 27, 2011 at 5:30 pm

If anyone enters my house and tries to kill me, I will shoot them as many times as I deem appropriate. The problem is that people are scared of black people rioting if they don’t get the verdict they want. Remember Malice Green? It is weird because black people never think another black is guilty and white people are so scared of offending black people, they will throw anyone under the bus to prove they are not racist.

Forsberg on May 27, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    I agree. Look what happened to the white transit officer in Oakland, CA, when he accidentally shot a black 3-time felon at the BART station. The white, liberal District Attorney tried to pin a murder rap on the white cop. Unfortunately the trial was held in Los Angeles, where the fable of Rodney King and his “white oppressors” won a huge settlement and sent two innocent LAPD cops to Federal prison. Race relations in America will never be good until liberals are gone.

    Mel on May 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Oklahoman: I get what you are saying about some of the things Jerome said that was not completely honest. i.e. 1)that he saw action in the military or how he got injuried. But what does that have to do with the gun fight when he got robbed…nothing. (yes i understand credability but who has not fudged their life some…bill clinton). As for if the robbers shot 1st or at all, peepz keep bringing that up but my point is what Da** difference did/does it make if the robber got off a shot or not?? He came in and stuck a gun in Jerome’s face. Does he need to wait till the Punk shoots first?? And just because he told cops the kid fired is no big deal at all, I would be surprised he could recall much of anything after he saw the gun. I have had a gun shoved into my face and my adrenaline was so far off the charts I only remember bits and pieces of me beating the guy to death (DA could not even try to file charges since I used my hands against a gun). So unless peepz have been there, NO you don’t know. Not mad at you either, just sharing. Yes Jerome should of kept his mouth shut till he talked to a lawyer but this is still a Huge travisty. Especially since if the kid killed him he would be getting…oh that’s right he is getting 3yrs(the one with gun) in Juvy and probation. Now that is the BS part to me!!

jeromequigley on May 27, 2011 at 5:50 pm

this is what happens when people with shit for brains, the uneducated, the libs, the ghetto slobs, etc get on juries…This man had a right to defend himself and his property. The jury are buffoons….Wait until someone attacks them…

natashaINFIDEL on May 27, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Excellent reporting Deb, my guess he will be let out on appeal, also the prison system doesn’t want to deal with him. In CA we are letting out 25,000 prisoners because out beloved ACLU wanted more funds available for prisoners that were ill. Thanks for this. Jim

Jim Campbell on May 27, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Went to OK once and will never go back. Their gun laws suck. No open carry. You can open carry on your property. But if your neighbor gets upset about you carrying, you get arrested for public disturbance. Gun and ammo has to be seperate in the vehicle. Don’t get me started on their stupid knife laws. Love it here in New Mexico. Can open carry. Vehicle is an extension of the home, so I can have a loaded weapon (even a rifle/shotgun) in my vehicle. Can conceal carry in places that serve beer and wine (as long as you don’t drink). Bars are next. Carry a knife as long as my forearm no problem as well. I could never live in a state like OK or the many others that prevent free people from defending their lives and property.

As a sidenote, where this guy messed up was walking over the hoodrat and then coming back to shoot. Should have put two in the chest first and one in the head first before going to the door.

Chris on May 27, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Once he’s lying on the ground with a bullet in the head, it is not possible to claim the robber is a threat. Pumping more bullets in his prone form is therefore not legal under any understanding of the self-defense. The jury therefore got it right.

RWR: He said the perp started to get up and that’s why he shot him again. He wanted to make sure the guy wasn’t going to shoot again. DS

Rhymes With Right on May 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Yup.. that’s what police officers to do in deadly fire situations.

    You don’t know whether a threat is truly over until the suspect poses no further threat.

    This guy was convicted for doing what police officers do when their life is at risk – and he got the raw end of the deal cuz he was a civilian.

    Its an outrageous, immoral and unjust sentence. If I had been in the pharmacy that day, I would have thanked him for saving my life and the lives of others and I would have denounced the prosecution, the judge and the jury for perpetrating a gross miscarriage of justice! They weren’t there that day and they couldn’t possibly know what its like to nearly die. They should be ashamed of themselves!

    This isn’t America – and the wrong thing happened to Jerome Ersland today. He isn’t the kind of man who deserves to be behind bars for doing the right thing. Its sickening what happened to him!

    NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm

      Police officers don’t always get a fair shake from the “justice system.” Look at the Mehserle trial in Oakland, CA. It had to be moved to (of all places) LA because of the black anarchists, and white liberals forming a lynch mob. White officer, black “victim.” That equals no justice for the white officer in California.

      Mel on May 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    A small caliber shot to the dome doesn’t incapacitate immediately. Like another poster said, occasionally it bounces around and doesn’t hit anything vital. It may kill but not right away – it has to float around the brain a bit. Giffords from Tucson got shot in the head by a much more potent 9mm and she seems to be doing OK. If you are using a 380 to defend yourself you had better empty the mag into your assailant.

    Pauley D on May 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm

This man was not looking for trouble. Two scum came in with guns to rob him. One was killed. Boo F–king hoo. How many good people are raped, robbed, or killed, and the prosecutors and police don’t even make an effort to find the perp?

Jonathan Grant on May 27, 2011 at 6:27 pm

what about the
oklahoma city
district attorney’s office

they brought this
absurd case forward

judges are loathe to
take a case away from a jury

it automatically gives the
other side grounds to appeal

and appelate judges don’t like
more work being made for them

the trial judge can still
save the day

at any time prior to
actual sentencing
the judge may rule the defendant
not guilty
it’s the same as a verdict
and the defendant walks

let’s hope the trial judge
exercises common sense
and this prerogative

prestigio on May 27, 2011 at 7:04 pm


Its a waste of taxpayer dollars. There are people who do great evil and they escape justice. Think of all the murderers the Bleeding Heart Left works to save from being executed.

But it puts behind bars a decent man who actually saved people’s lives!

Our country has its priorities straight.

NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 7:04 pm

What happened to the rule of “reasonable doubt” in the charges against Mr. Ersland?

According to this article: “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. . . .”

Thus, there is no eyewitness to refute what Mr. Ersland said. If the jury was following the instructions–and I’m sure that instructions were given by the court on this point–the jury would recognize that there was obviously reason to doubt the “People’s” case that Under Oklahoma law because there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that “the menace [to Mr. Ersland]” had passed. Even if the jury chose not to believe Mr. Ersland’s testimony, the jury should still have required some sort of affirmative evidence to support their belief that “the meance had passed.”

Can such a bad verdict be appealed?

Ralph Adamo on May 27, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    A good lawyer should be able to get it overturned on appeal.

    Runaway juries can and do happen.

    NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    One other point here. The article says that “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.”

    But what are the damages and how could you compute them. I’ve been involved in assisting litigants in scores and scores of cases involving the computation of damages. Most of the damages in legitimate wrongful death cases are based on “lost future earnings,” or what earnings the person could have reasonably earned over his/her remaining lifetime.

    In this case, Cletta Jennings, the mother of the dead man, a robber, would, in effect, be asking Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist, to compensate her for the lost future “earnings” of her robber son. So, how would you reasonably compute that? If I were assigned to this case on behalf of Jennings, I’d have to argue one of two ridiculous scenarios: (1)her robber son had succesfully robbed several stores in the past and he could have earned an estimated gross of $1,200,000 in future successful armed robberies over the years to his maximumum life expectancy; or (2) her robber son would have gone on to have transformed his criminal career into a legitimate career as, say a Congressman, and have legitimately earned an estimated gross of $3,000,000 over his reamining life span. No matter what scenario you can think of for this young robber, there are no legitimate damages here.

    Ralph Adamo on May 28, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Jail is a death sentence for this man. First degree murder? The DA asked for that–and got it?

The Oklahoma governor can issue pardons, no?

Barry Popik on May 27, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    This was an open and shut self-defense situation. The perps did enter his store with the intent to kill those who robbed him.

    Now in the world people missed that clear fact, I’ll never understand.

    Its not like he shot people just for the fun of it!

    NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm

govt workers are terrified of black or muslim backlash. if it happened in arizona would have been a different story.

democracy is not just because there is an election.

true justice is not just because you have jury trials.

Bill C. on May 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm

Debbie I would have done an OJ style jury nullification on that one. One problem is the people on a prolonged jury are tyically people who otherwise have nothing better to do. Also Oklahoma should pass a law that criminal family members cannot sue for a death suffered during commission of a felony, and name it after that POS who got shot.

A1 on May 27, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Canada: Prime Minister Stephen Harper got the G8 to delete a statement about the 1967 borders. I’m glad he insisted. Someone else would have along with the typical “its all Israel’s fault” line.

While we’re falling all ourselves for the barbarians inside and outside our gates, we leave it up to others to show moral leadership.

NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 7:53 pm

1. So what if he wasn’t a combat vet.
2. If a person is shot in the head it doesn’t always kill. Bullets have been known to hit the skull and scrape around the skull under the skin and exit without killing.
3. Being a white man killing a black thug is a no win situation unless you have a good lawyer and adaquet jury selection. Liberals have taken another innocent life in the form of this guy. It’s a damn shame that others will see this story and continue being a stupid sheep among wolves. We have seen what happens when a law abiding citizen fails to protect himself time and again. The most notable recent one was the Gaints fan being stomped into a vegetative state by another scum bag much like this black kid robbing white store workers. Damn shame.
4. I look at this story as further proof that you use the best gun with the best self defense loads and get plenty of training at the local range. This looks like more reperations to me.

samurai on May 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    I’d love to know the racial makeup of the jury.

    Unlike in the Rodney King case, don’t expect our MSM to demand a retrial.

    White Dead European Males who defend themselves aren’t politically correct.

    Only black thugs who viciously assault white police officers are.

    NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Kinda like if someone is trying to rob your house & trips & hurts himself, it is your fault, and you are liable in many parts of the country. If we disbar all the civil liberties lawyers & really tighten up the law things would be a lot better.

Little Al on May 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Better be sure its not black thugs you shoot dead.

    Or they will be second-guessing why you killed them and G-d help you if you’re the white dude who did it!

    NormanF on May 27, 2011 at 8:02 pm

What happened to the concept of protection of life and property? As far as the racial component concerned, the talley still remains that white moderates propelled Obama to victory in 08.

Meanwhile, 95% of Blacks voted for him- what does tell you? It tell me, that Blacks are the bigger racists. But then again, those of us who attended schools with a sizeable Black population- always knew that.

Patrick on May 27, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Patrick, I happen to be a black male myself and I was one of the 5% who didn’t vote for Obama three years ago.

    You gotta look at this way, it wasn’t always like this in the black community where we had race hustlers doing “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” about racisim, etc. Patrick, white communist left wingers for years and decades have been using people of my ethnicity/race for political purposes in order for us to vote democrat and support the welfare, and propagandizing us by saying, “it’s the white man’s fault, blah blah blah blah blah blah”, and I am really sick and tired of it!

    “A nation is defined by it’s borders, language & culture!”

    Sean R. on May 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm

You know what, I find this story totally disgusting, how the phuck can Mr. Ersland go to jail for defending himself against a cold-blooded nutcase with a gun threating his life?

I’m sorry, this jury has got it all ass-backwards and I pity this jury that pleaded Jerome Ersland guilty for defending hiself. Also, this story has nothing to do with race, and the media in Oklahoma City, OK shouldn’t be playing the race card, and the local media in OKC does play the race card, I would encourage all of the folks in & around the Oklahoma City area to send numerous emails to the news networks in the area and tell their reporters and journalist that this case has NOTHING to do with race and you pity them for playing the race card. As NatashaInfidel said, Mr. Ersland has every right to defend himself, afterall, he has his 2nd amendment right (The right to bear arms)!

“A nation is defined by it’s borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on May 27, 2011 at 8:57 pm

I garantee you there are some people in this kids neighborhood who knew this thug since he was born, and knew he wouldn’t amount to anything, is glad to see him make his final exit. Now we can enjoy some peace in our neighorhood without this hoodrat and his mom breaking into their homes.
Ersland screwed himself when he retrieved a second gun and dicharged 5 more rounds it no getting away from that. The one shot should’ve been enough 2 at the most to ensure he’s dead. You almost have to think to yourself in the heat of the moment, “how will this look to a 12 person jury”? while still in the heat of the moment. I think he should’ve received manslauther, but doesn’t sound like he had much of a defense, which is also means for a new trial.

Anthony on May 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm

My next question is what the governor of that state is going to do? Will a pardon be issued? Is a disabled veteran supposed to follow rules of engagement when trying to protect his store and the people in it from armed robbers? Did Cleta Jennings really show anything other than “negligence” in the raising of her beast of a son? The Klan is not dead, but has simply changed the color of its sheets to a dark hue.

Worry01 on May 27, 2011 at 9:43 pm

This is why it is of paramount importance to learn the law when you carry a weapon. More to it than marksmanship. In combat it is perfectly acceptable to pump rounds into the enemy as you see fit. In this case, his lack of training showed. You play like you practice. He will be successful on appeal. Justice will indeed prevail.

#1 Vato on May 27, 2011 at 10:47 pm

“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.”

That’s the issue.

The Jimmy Z Show on May 27, 2011 at 10:55 pm

I wonder how I knew the kid was black before I read it in the column. It couldn’t be that his name was “Antwun”, oh, wait, yes it is, because his race isn’t mentioned until half way through the post.

CornCoLeo on May 27, 2011 at 11:17 pm

There you have it. Black is the Color Of Peace.

pat on May 28, 2011 at 2:27 am

what a shame he wasn’t able to kill the second perp

artie fufkin on May 28, 2011 at 6:21 am

I think the issue is what’s already been said. There was a moment when he was no longer defending himself but had turned into the aggressor, taking unnecessary or “over the top” action against somebody who was in no condition to resist or surrender.

I’m not saying I agree with it – and I’m not from the US so the whole gun ownership thing is unnatural to me (not unnatural per se, but to me, just in case anyone thinks I’m having a go :D), but yes. I’m not au fait with US law for the most part, but I’d put my money on it being that.

Alison on May 28, 2011 at 7:29 am

Served on a jury in Detroit a few years back. Nothing surprises me…

GC on May 28, 2011 at 9:00 am


To whom do we write to “protest” this judgement?
This is heartbreaking. I could have done a better job
defending this man.
-how many times has this pharmacy been robbed?
-yea, he went for his other gun, in the heat of fear
-what if the other perp had a gun?
– I am sure that this store has been robbed so many times that
he was sick of the fear and threat
-he is NOT a policeman and if he NEVER saw combat, he
certainly would not have thought to ONLY shoot once
-what is the percentage racially of those in jail who rob
and murder if this is to take a racial note.

This is really a heartbreaking story.

cthelight on May 28, 2011 at 10:07 am

He beez a good keeid, he din’ do nuffin’! He beez goin’ tuh skool an’ sheeit, dawg. Dat rayciss Y T beez keepin’ him down! Now gibs me dat check, I needs a ‘foty an’ sum blunts! word.

Warlord1958 on May 28, 2011 at 10:34 am

First, Sean, I am a bit ticked that some comments imply that all Blacks will follow the road of “White Hatred” no matter what facts or situations are present. Second, per Ersland, there were THREE persons involved in the robbery attempt: one who says you’re dead and has a gun, a second who has a gun and runs after the first one is shot, and a third who is in the running car and appears to be reaching for a shotgun. Now, who out there has never heard of store clerks giving over the money and THEN BEING SHOT / KILLED ANYWAY?

Third, as far as I am concerned, Ersland had every right to kill all three of these guys since he was, apparently, the only one in the store who had a defensive weapon and neither he nor the store workers or customers had any idea of what these robbers would do afterwards.

People, wake-up. It is not someone’s pigmentation level that determines their character. Yes, statistics paint a poor picture of Black crime, but I have had friends and neighbors – Blacks – who are as, if not more, concerned than most people about crime in their neighborhoods. It’s a bad situation for all of us. Go to a range, practice and get qualified, then decide – victim or not?

Dennis on May 28, 2011 at 11:10 am

Whatever happened to having a “jury of your peers” – in this case, a jury who would believe in self-defense, and the right to ‘bear arms’, as Mr. Ersland does ? Furthermore, what happened to the concept of a “fair trial” ?

JJ on May 28, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Video does not lie folks. Extra rounds fired after the threat is initially stopped is “always bad” for the defense. As an Internal Affairs Investigator for a large Law Enforcement Agency audio/video has saved and ruined careers. I go to businesses all the time and recommend that if they do not already have one to buy a decent quality audio video recording system for their establishment. Good for employees, patrons, and a great help to Law Enforcement. They may get cheaper insurance costs by having this enhancement

SemperFiVet on May 28, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    “Video does not lie.” That has to be the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard. Video is not the “truth” like folks would like to believe. It is simply one person’s (or one fixed position’s) view. Period. It doesn’t tell why something is happening. It also doesn’t tell what happened before or after the film was shot. That’s why I’m not a fan of video being used as the last word in Courtroom proceedings. An ignorant jury and an evil prosecutor can combine to make a court proceeding into a railroading of the innocent. If you were such a hot shot at “large Law Enforcement Agency,” you should know that.

    Mel on May 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Clearly when the thugs said to Ersland “you gonna die” while brandishing guns, he had a right to defend himself and repeatedly shoot the thug to make sure he was no longer a viable threat. It’s not the innocent citizen’s job to just “wing” a suspect in order to “incapacitate ” him until police arrive. That’s a ridiculous notion fueled by unrealistic scenarios people are fed from teevee shows. This was a travesty. However, his lawyer should have counseled Ersland to not wear that “Celtic cross” necklace in court – it’s a symbol unfortunately adopted by several white supremacy and neo-nazi groups.

DS_ROCKS! on May 28, 2011 at 5:45 pm

This verdict absolutely sickens me and should not be allowed to stand. I assume the verdict was unanamous. The names and addresses of the judge and jurors should be published and the citizens of Oklahoma should hold appeal hearings in the streets.

joesixpack31 on May 28, 2011 at 5:58 pm

When a person enters a store with a gun drawn and attempts to rob it, THIS IS SELF DEFENSE whether a person puts one bullet in the robber’s head, or empties his gun into him. You don’t ask the robber is he would only shoot ONCE.

Who is the DA? This should be the last year he practices. Vote him out if he is elected, impeach otherwise. If a “junior” decided to bring this on case, vote the DA out.

My background is 16 years as a paralegal, including 10 years on the prosecution side. I have seen too many prosecutors have an agenda and could care less what the actual law is. If he can get a conviction, it is a feather in his cap. He have also seen prosecutors fail to provide ALL evidence because it might raise a doubt in a jury room AND THE SUPREME COURT OF MY CURRENT STATE failed to pull their licenses. That is when I went over to the defense side.

John H Williams on May 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Not with you on this one Debbie. While I am not comfortable with a 1st degree conviction, after watching the video numerous times, I am comfortable with the guys guilt. That transitioned from self defense to an execution.

Brian Cuban on May 28, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    @Brian Cuban – Bloody B***S*** – if that pharmacist had encouraged the robber to attack that drugstore and waited with his gun to shoot him dead, then it would be first degree murder. If that is not the case, then it is self-defence.

    gr77 on May 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Only in Obama’s America. WE weren’t there. This guy was. His life was threatened by two wild-eyed animals with guns. Too bad he didn’t take out the other one as well. Glad he was able to put one down. Hopefully, this silly verdict can be successfully appealed. This verdict is what is wrong with America and it’s very screwed-up judicial system. We are being ruled by and over-run with criminals.

TONY on May 28, 2011 at 9:08 pm

It amazes me how many sheeple will watch the video (that you can’t see the perp on the ground at all) and claim the man is guilty when the place was invaded by gun wielding criminals threatening to kill. I smell TROLLS. I only hope that such sheeple are made victims soon and aren’t afforded the opportunity to vote or serve on a jury where another good person is being screwed by the courts. Karmas a bitch.

samurai on May 28, 2011 at 9:58 pm

Quit it with the race-baiting. The jury was all white. They weren’t afraid of reprisals from the black community, because Oklahoma City’s black community is small, and there is no history of riots or other racial tensions. Not every place is Detroit, Oakland, Boston, Philadelphia or New York City, and quit pretending otherwise. And while Oklahoma City leans Democratic, it is not left-liberal like your university towns, big urban centers, the northeast or the west coast. An all white jury convicted a white defendant of murder in four hours when they had the option of manslaughter.

Another thing: this is the problem with a society that has been conditioned with all these action-adventure movies, westerns and police shows. Real life isn’t like that, and this case is an example of it. In real life, there is no “open season on bad guys.” The reason is that if there were, criminals would take advantage of it by killing people and claiming “The guy I killed was a criminal so he deserved it” defense. The police and the courts want law and order, not Dodge City, Tombstone or the O.K. Corral. As much as you might wish to believe otherwise, the law does not allow us to “take out criminals.” Do you realize that you can’t even finish off wounded, incapacitated enemy soldiers on the battlefield because it is a war crime?

You can blame the prosecutor for bringing the case, but it would have required jury nullification, big time, for a jury to accept self-defense in this case. The store owner shot the attempted robber in the head (and by the way, it wasn’t the attempted robber who pulled the gun … the attempted robber who pulled the gun was the one that got away … he has since been caught and also charged with murder), the store owner walks past the guy on the floor to chase the other robber away, walks past the guy on the floor again to go get his other gun, walks back to him, and shoots him several times point blank range while he is still lying on the floor, and his self-defense consists of “he was still moving.”

If you would have acquitted him, fine, but don’t pretend as if it wouldn’t have been jury nullification, because Oklahoma law requires you to be still in danger for self-defense to be applicable. Under Oklahoma law, being the victim of a robbery attempt does not give you carte blanche. For instance, you can’t shoot the attempted robber in the back while he is fleeing your home or establishment.

So first off, stop basing a real life courtroom on what you see on TV and in the movies. In real life, Batman would have been sent to death row a long time ago, Dirty Harry would have been his cellmate, and Commando and those other characters played by Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzennegar would have been in the next cell. In real life, the police and the courts want order, not Tombstone, Dodge City or the O.K. Corral. The reason is that in real life, all the good guys don’t wear white and all the bad guys don’t wear black, ok? You’d have scum killing innocent people all the time and falsely claiming that their murder victims were criminals threatening them and deserved it. As a matter of fact, that’s why our self-defense laws are written like that, because criminals were taking advantage of them.

And second, this is not a race issue. It was an all white jury! In Oklahoma! They deliberated four hours! Are conservatives becoming like the left now, making race an excuse for everything?

Gerald on May 28, 2011 at 10:15 pm

“You go into a store with a gun and threaten to kill people, you deserve whatever happens.”

With all due respect, you know 100% that the law states otherwise. It may be what most people feel and what most people want but it is not the law. You were asking that jury to ignore the law and decide the case on another set of rules. That’s fine for you to adhere to that position if you wish, but that is precisely what you are doing.

Second, not that it matters that much, but the deceased wasn’t the one who pulled the gun. Though he was armed, the other attempted robber was the one who pulled his weapon. He was the one that the store owner chased out the door. That fellow has since been caught, and also charged with murder, as has a third accomplice (I believe it was the driver of the getaway car).

Gerald on May 28, 2011 at 10:27 pm

Correction: the deceased WAS NOT ARMED. I repeat, the deceased WAS NOT ARMED.

“The security camera recordings show Parker and a friend, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, rush into the drugstore. Ingram points a handgun at the two female workers who flee to a backroom. Parker, who does not have a gun, tries to adjust a gray mask. Parker drops to the floor when the pharmacist shoots him in the head.”

That alone makes self-defense impossible. The only defense available is that the mere act of robbing the store made the deceased subject to being killed. If that is what you want to go with, especially for self-defense purposes, fine, but that is jury nullification. But the whole “he was trying to get up … what if he had gotten up and started shooting” angle is untenable.

Gerald on May 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm

Arrgh! In my hometown, “liberal” Bethesda, Maryland, about twenty years ago a jeweler chased down the man who robbed him and killed him with a bullet to the head as he fled in his getaway car. The jury refused to convict the jeweler of murder, accepting the defense plea of “temporary insanity”.

Injustice? Hardly. Not only is Bethesda one of the safest places in suburban Washington, D.C., but it has unexpectedly seen a surge of jewelery shops and – what is even more astounding in a suburb known mostly for restaurants patronized by bureaucrats – jewelery manufacturers. Jewelers are, it seems, quite confident doing business where they are certain they can shoot and kill errant customers if necessary.

Solomon2 on May 28, 2011 at 11:20 pm

Killing an attacker after the threat has passed, is no longer self defense. This is true.

But there was no witness. That part wasn’t visible on the video tape. Whether the thug was still moving around or not, we do not know. You don’t have to stand up to draw a gun and shoot, which means you can still be a threat even if you are in the prone position.

The travesty, and what TBH is shocking, is that without any DIRECT evidence to show that the later 5 shots were unnecessary, a jury convicts on 1st degree murder. 1st degree murder is usually very hard to get a conviction on, unless you have irrefutable, stone-solid evidence. And even then, it can still not be a slam-dunk.

If there is any justice, this guy will be acquitted and allowed to go on with his life. The bottom line is that robbers attacked him, and he defended himself (and others).

pitandpen on May 29, 2011 at 6:51 am

Yes. The bottom line is that it is AGAINST THE LAW TO ROB AND INTIMIDATE WITH A GUN. This pharmacist was protecting his employees and himself. That is the bottom line. And it was 3 against one and how would he know whether or not the others had weapons. And I tell you what, if 3 young black men jump into my store, I am pulling my gun out. If that is racist, so be it. The facts are in the news everyday. And honestly, they could have been 3 green people and if one pulls a gun or I see it on them or even for crap’s sake, if they come to scare and rob me ….I will pull my gun or whatever. Enough of this, no accounting for committing crimes.

cthelight on May 29, 2011 at 11:19 am

If the gun weilding thug is getting up off the floor, yes, you can shoot him again.

Truth on May 29, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Here in Florida one is allowed to shoot a bad guy inside one’s home if one’s life is in danger. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, one is always presumed to be justified when using deadly force. Out in public it is different, and one must always use the minimum amount of force necessary in order to protect one’s life.

    In this case, there are troubling questions. It is interesting that the pharmacist “chased” one bad guy down the street, gun in hand. This certainly goes beyond any legal justification for self-defense, and if he had shot the kid as he was running away there would be no question as to his legal guilt. I’m sure that prosecutors made hay of this fact, as to the aggressive nature of the killer.

    The pharmacist then goes back into the store, walks purposely past the bad guy without seeming to be overly concerned, turns his back to the fallen robber, and walks off camera. He then returns a few seconds later, walks over to the guy on the floor and fires repeatedly, supposedly with a second gun he retrieved while off camera.

    The camera does not show whether the bad guy was a threat, or not. My guess, from looking at the film, is that the pharmacist simply finished the guy off, and that he was not in any danger at all. However, given that the video is not clear to the details, and unless there are other facts I don’t know about (the judge threw out a gag order), I personally would have voted to acquit. Or if I were to convict, it would not have been on the murder one charge, but only for stupidity in the first degree on the part of the pharmacist.

    michael on May 29, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field