Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

Don't think you can say that in this case. To be charged with murder for shooting him later it would have to be clear that the head shot did not and WOULD not have killed him.

 

Its not a matter of a diagnosis its a matter of the fact that Ersland is armed while the guy is down a ways from him. Ersland could think that the guy had super recuperative powers or super fast reflexes but there is nothing showing that the guy actually did. You are making an argument that is based on speculative paranoia.

Actually the law on self-defense does require that you are only justified to use force in the face of an imminent threat in a level commensurate to that threat. An unconscious person while you are armed isn't an imminent threat and shooting an unconscious person isn't commensurate to that threat.

Because his feelings and actions are rightfully judged by a jury of his peers. I mean if its just based on feeling then anyone who killed anyone even in cold blood could justify it by saying "I know that guy had it out for me so to I had to kill him first." While state of mind is a factor that is not the only factor.

The bottom line is that he was tried by a jury of his peers and based on the evidence they saw it as premeditated murder. I don't see anything presented that would I see as changing that opinion.

 

No because the timing and intention of the actions matter.

The robber may very well died from the head shot without Ersland taking any further action and that not be murder because under the standard of self-defense Ersland was justified when he initially shot him. Whether the robber was going to live or die at the point that Ersland came back and shot five more times though becomes irrelevant since Ersland's actions ruled out the possibility about what would've happened. Erland's intent was clearly to kill him at that point when he no longer was a threat that rules out self-defense.

An interesting argument would've been if Ersland had said he shot him to put him out of his misery but that likely wouldn't pass muster since that Ersland would have to prove that the robber was beyond medical help and would die an agonizing death.

 

Totally disagree. If his brains were hanging out at the time he shot him more I would never agree with a murder charge.

desecration of human corpse possibly.

 

I have not seen any evidence though that the robber wouldn't have lived if Ersland hadn't shot him again and anyway I doubt you, me or Ersland are in the position to make that determination.

All of that though is moot as Ersland's actions did kill him and there is no way to determine what might have happened had he not. The intention was there to kill that man when he no longer represented an imminent threat. That is by every self-defense law that I have seen murder and not self-defense.

 

Just an FYI since I said in another thread if you are going to claim expertise you should be willing to state what that is based on. My own knowledge base regarding self-defense laws comes from teaching self-defense and in the seminar I give there is a section on legal ramifications.

I will admit I am not familiar with OK's particular self-defense law but I feel pretty safe saying that it is likely the same as most states and uses a threat and reasonableness standard to determine self-defense.

 

It was reported he would have lived. That flies in your face talking about getting shot in the head is not like a movie where you get up later. Small point, but whatever.

which specific law would that be? Most states all have laws on when you are required to retreat.

 

Ok well disregard my earlier post then.

 

Lived maybe but that doesn't mean he could've gotten up and disarmed Ersland unless you are saying after going through surgery and years of rehab he could come back and get Ersland later.

Note I said "imminent threat" which means that it is one where the only reasonable course action is force. If it is non-imminent retreat is the advised and legal course.

 

I dislike cases like this because it shines a bad light on self defense with deadly force. After I saw the vid you can find my post where I called it murder.

I don't see justification for capital murder (not a lawyer) and I would have to be assured by med professionals that he would have lived. They doctors already said this. I really don't see how you can logically disagree on these points when you say it doesn't matter if the (justified) first shot would have killed him and capital murder was the correct ruling.

 

That is legally false. A murder is any time you cut the person's life short. The old law school example is if someone jumps off the Empire State Building. If you shoot him and kill him before he hits the ground, it is murder even though he would have died a few seconds later from the fall (or sudden stop).

 

Does that seem correct to you?

 

Yes.

It puts an unreasonable burden on prosecutors who would now have to prove an additional standard that the murder victim would not have died.That in and of itself is murky and difficult to prove in retrospect. Again as you said we dont know if he would have lived and its hard to answer such a question in retrospect. It simply is not a very clear legal standard and certainly for murder cases things have to be clearcut because the punishment is so severe.

Additionally if that were an actual legal standard, euthanasia would probably be legal. As it stands the supreme court only upheld state euthanasia laws because the court ruled that the attorney general can't regulate how people use drugs that are legal. They didnt rule on the question of what constitutes murder since its already a generally accepted principle that one could ingest the drugs on their own and kill themselves. (Kavorkian only got busted because he videotaped himself injecting drugs into a terminally ill patient)

Anyway I'm way off topic now.

 

How would it be hard to prove? If his brain was scrambled from a bullet, and his chance of living was nill it would be easy to show.

If it glanced off his skull and he had a skull fracture, easy to say that is a very survivable injury.

 

Except that is speculative. As we've seen with Rep. Giffords is that people can survive having been shot in the head. As I said before we have no idea if the robber would've survived or not but we know for a fact that when Ersland shot him further that did kill him. That is the established fact.

 

That is like saying that I don't like how James Dean died because it shines a bad light on driving.

I think everyone here understands that deadly force is sometimes needed for self-defense but we understand that in this case Ersland went beyond self-defense. I highly doubt that OK will rewrite their self-defense laws because of this case or that people in OK will hesitate to shoot back when someone is pointing a gun at them. What Ersland did wasn't self-defense anymore than James Dean was engaged in defensive driving.

Its not capital murder has he isn't being put to death but under the standard of premeditated murder it clearly is and if that is what OK calls 1st degree murder then it is.

As I said before whether the robber survives the first shot or not is moot because we know for a fact he didn't survive the 2nd through 5th.

 

Do you seriously think it is impossible for a Dr. to look at the wound in the autopsy and tell what the % was of survival? Thousands of experts out there on gunshot trauma.

so often during concealed weapon debates all I hear about is how the guys carrying will go crazy. This guy had a gun and went crazy with no previous evidence he might do so. It shines a bad light.

I disagree. On wiki:

How much did he rationally consider in 5 seconds? What did he do to evade detection or apprehension?

Read more: http://newsok.com/jerome-erslands-action-was-premeditated/article/3572943#ixzz1OA5VBjw0

I also disagree with this argument because there is no reason to believe the other guy (with a freaking gun) might come back. Having a gun handy until the cops show up is never a bad idea.

 

How can you tell a guy's down when you don't diagnose?

Like I also said, it's beyond the capacity of an average civilian to be able to judge whether or not a person is truly knocked out or the injury inflicted was already incapacitating.

This is your response to:

It's like this:

Say you're the person minding the convenience store. A guy walks in brandishing a knife. You have a gun in your pocket. Does the law forbid you from blasting him with it? Of course not. If you point it and tell him to just freeze, you're being magnanimous in that you want to spare his life. Along with that magnanimity, you're taking on the risk that you might fail securing the situation - he might be wearing armor or you're not a sufficiently good shot - and you might die.

If I were in Ersland's situation, when he was coming back into the store and saw the "unconscious" robber, I would've just shot him to kill him, as well. He looks knocked out but, considering I was about to be robbed, I can assume he'll attack me if he suddenly gets to. I might not be able to have the endurance to secure myself until help arrives. So, no, I do not want to assume the risk of dying just to help save his life. Kill him.

He was about to be robbed at gunpoint. It goes beyond just a feeling.

You also didn't hear the testimony.

 

A doctor may be able to determine that from an autopsy but it is still moot. As another poster noted murder includes intent and timing, thus the example of if you shoot somebody who jumped off a building as they fall by your window.

Again we don't know whether the robber survives the first gunshot wound but we know for a fact he doesn't survive 2nd through 5th.

True people bring that up but I still don't think this will or should discourage anyone from defending themselves. I think all of us agree that Ersland acted appropriately initially. What he did after is where he went wrong and went beyond self-defense.

I plan on using Ersland's example for my self-defense seminars for showing the nature of self-defense and will emphasize that he did the right thing initially.

Its not an "and" but an "either or" condition as your wiki quote says.
[rquoter]Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension[/rquoter]

Ersland's actions certainly meet the first qualification that he rationally considered the time and method of doing so in to either increase the likelihood of success. It doesn't matter whether he tried to evade detection or apprehension later. As for the timing he had more than 5 seconds to consider it and as anyone who has watched or played sports knows 5 seconds isn't instantaneous. In the video he calmly and methodically goes about getting the second gun and shooting the robber again. That shows this wasn't a panicked scramble out of fear but a calculated move to make sure that the robber is dead.

There is nothing wrong with getting the other gun. That isn't the crime. The crime is shooting the robber who was already down.

 

Its pretty obvious from the video and the testimony provided that the robber was down. As noted earlier while many people can survive a gun shot to the head but it is extremely unlikely that he would be in any position to continue to be a threat. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be curious to hear it.

Even an average civilian should be able to determine a gun shot to the head is incapacitating. Its not like Rep. Giffords when shot was able to fight back.

That said there is nothing wrong with being armed just in case but as the laws state once a person is not in the position of being an imminent threat it is no longer a self-defense situation. Further as I noted to CaseyH this is largely a moot point as the ability of the robber to survive is not a factor since the fact is that once he was shot again he died and its just speculative whether he would've lived or be in a situation to attack Ersland. The fact is when Ersland shot him he wasn't a threat, except through pure speculation. The video shows Ersland shooting a man while he is down.

You are confusing the situation. Ersland when confronted with an armed party trying to rob him is fully in his rights to defend himself. Once that imminent threat ended it is no longer self-defense. You are acting as though the situation never really ends until the other guy is dead. The law doesn't work that way and the timing and nature of the threat are key to the law.

Here is the quote we use in the self-defense seminar I teach. This is from the Indiana Supreme Court but is pretty much the same reasoning behind most states' self-defense laws.
[rquoter]“It is a settled doctrine of the law that if one be attacked he may defend himself using no more force than may be necessary to repel the attack; but should he go beyond this, and use more than necessary, he becomes a trespasser himself, and his assailant, though first in the wrong, may maintain against him an action for damages.”[/rquoter]

While Ersland might continue to feel unsafe it is clear that once he has repelled the attack it is no longer a self-defense situation and he is in the wrong.

And again you would also be rightfully charged with murder. Your opinion is your opinion but that is not what the law says and in the case of Ersland the prosecution and jury didn't see it your way either.

Sure but that would be like me saying if I got mugged and then later saw the mugger on the street I suddenly shot him saying that was my feeling. People who commit murder obviously have a feeling to justify why they did it and that is usually based on some other reaction but when determining guilt other factors are weighed into the decision.

And did you?

All of your argument is based on feeling and speculation. I am arguing the facts and the law and considering that Ersland was convicted by a jury of his peers if anything the testimony and evidence that we didn't see is likely even more damning to Ersland than supportive.

Anyway why I am bothering to engage in this lengthy response is that your attitude and position is both a misunderstanding of the principle of self-defense and also dangerous. As Ersland's case shows such actions can have profound consequences to such situations. For your own good and anyone else's I really hope that if you are in a situation like Ersland's you don't do what he did.