Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Jerome Ersland charged with murder.. *UPDATE 2*.

Jerome Ersland, the man who shot a would-be robber, is now charged with first degree murder, because he shot the incapacitated robber an additional 5 times, thus causing his death. Here is the surveillance video from his pharmacy:



Initially, this was a good shoot and perfectly within Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine. However, Mr. Ersland went beyond-self defense when he shot an incapacitated person an additional 5 times.

His second mistake was talking too much. Mr. Ersland spent way too much time talking to the press and as a result, there is a record of his account of the event that doesn't match the surveillance video. After a self-defense shooting, the after reporting the incident, any further talking you do on the subject should be done through your lawyer.

His third mistake was not using a sufficient weapon. In my opinion, the .380ACP round used by Mr. Ersland's Kel-Tec P-3AT is insufficient for self-defense. There are cases where people have been shot in the head with a .380ACP and weren't even incapacitated. So it's no surprised the would be robber was still alive after being shot in the head.

Luckily, Mr. Ersland did have a larger caliber weapon at hand: A Taurus Judge. But there isn't enough information available to know whether Mr. Ersland had it loaded with .45LC or .410 shotshells as some Judge owners do. While the .45LC is great for self-defense, .410 shotshells (depending on what they are loaded with) can be marginal to useless.

Fortunately, Oklahoma is a fairly pro-self-defense state, thus Mr. Ersland stands a chance of getting a fair trial absent of the anti-gun/anti-self-defense bias you'd see in other states. The majority of local opinion is in support of Mr. Ersland. He's especially getting a lot of sympathy since he's a disabled vet whose pharmacy has been robbed before.

UPDATE:
More suspects arrested.
Ersland released on bail and is now under house arrest limiting him to work, church, the store, the doctor, restaurants, court, and home.

What's most interesting is that the DA asked that Ersland not be barred from being armed while out on bail, arguing that Ersland still has a right to defend himself and pharmacy employees if the store is robbed again. Spectators in the court cheered at that statement. I have to give kudos to the DA for realizing that just because you're accused of a crime, it doesn't mean you should be rendered defenseless.

Unfortunately, the judge disagrees and there is no mention of her providing a security for Mr. Ersland.

UPDATE 2:
A third suspect is identified. All suspects now charged with murder.
Gunman's mother knew of son's involvement but didn't tell police.

My prediction: The two adults involved in the robbery get the book thrown at them, Ersland goes free, and the gunman gets a few years in a juvenile detention center.

11 comments:

mikeb302000 said...

That's an incredible post. I can't believe you would support a man who committed murder. If he gets off it's only because the jury of his peers is as biased as you seem to be. What could you be thinking, Aztec Red? Is there no limit to the response one should make to a lethal threat? Isn't the law a good one which says after the threat is removed, you must stop responding?

Guys like this pharmacy owner and you who support him are the problem with the gun rights movement. You make up a substantial percentage of the gun population and give the whole thing a bad name.

You say his shooting the incapacitated guy an additional 5 times was his first "mistake." Then you say his second "mistake" was talking too much. That was no mistake, that was murder. And your advising the other would-be defensive-gun-use murderers not to talk too mush after a shooting, is despicable.

Anonymous said...

Is it not enough to incapacitate a would-be unarmed assailant by shooting him in the head? What justified his later shooting the intruder another 5 times as they lay on the floor, still unarmed and obviously incapacitated. The boy went down with that first shot and stayed down. At that point, the threat was neutralized. Any force used beyond that point (kicking, punching, shooting, etc) is simply revenge. Understandable that he would want revenge after what he had just gone through, but prisons are justifiably full of murderers that kill for revenge.

Ersland further proved that the boy was no longer a threat in the video when he walked past him and turned his back on the boy for a decent amount of time as he went to get the second gun.

When you defend the right to bear arms at any cost - right or wrong - you erode the valid arguments for that right. There has to be a limit where force becomes excessive force.

45superman said...

Exactly right about the talking too much. If I'm ever involved in a defensive shooting, they'll have to waterboard my attorney to get a word of my account of the incident.

45superman said...

That was no mistake, that was murder.

Yeah--that whole presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt thing is as outdated as the right to keep and bear arms.

Anonymous said...

sorry mikeb.. once that "kid" decided to stick a gun in someone's face the rules go out the window.. i hope the other one gets his too.

AztecRed said...

"If he gets off it's only because the jury of his peers is as biased as you seem to be."

He may or may not get off, but there is no way the murder charge will stick. He'll either get a plea deal or be convicted of something less severe.

"Is there no limit to the response one should make to a lethal threat?"

I clearly stated he went beyond self-defense, so obviously there is a limit.

"Isn't the law a good one which says after the threat is removed, you must stop responding?"

Considering the suspect collapsed off camera, there is no way to know whether the suspect was no longer a threat or not. In the DA's press conference, it was mentioned the suspect was only unconscious. Did the suspect reawaken and move or make any sounds? The defense could argue that the suspect was still a threat and that Ersland simply overreacted, which would get the 1st degree murder charge dropped.

"And your advising the other would-be defensive-gun-use murderers not to talk too mush after a shooting, is despicable."

No. It's not despicable. It's your rights. Your entire post-shooting conversation should consist of who you are, that you were attacked, that you shot the attacker, and that you have the right to not say anything else until you get a lawyer.

Bob S. said...

MikeB,

Not one word from you condemning the violent and predatory actions of the robbers, why not?

Not one word about the fact that a person was threatened with a firearm by thugs who were breaking the law, why not?

You want to talk about shared responsibility, don't the criminals share in the responsibility of the death of the thug?

If they hadn't decided to commit a crime, the pharmacist could not have shot him. His death is directly related to a PLANNED CRIMINAL action...yet you condemn only one person.

You condemn that person without knowing the full story, it can't be known by anyone but the pharmacist and perhaps the forensic experts.

You are always going soft on criminals committing murder...why not defend the pharmacist? Double standard?

Mike W. said...

Bob - MikeB is your typical liberal thug-hugger.

Mike is big on "shared responsibility" and this is the perfect case for that. But for his CHOICE to commit ARMED ROBBERY the 16 year old would still be alive today. Actions have consequences. Had he not initiated criminal violence against Ersland he'd be alive.

Again, with the whole actions having consequences. Had Ersland stopped shooting after the initial headshot he would not be in this situation. That said, we can't see what went on off-camera, and .380 is not well known as a man-stopper, even with a headshot. It's possible he was still a threat, but it's also possible Ersland killed an incapacitated, defenselsess man. A jury will decide whether he did so, and if he did then there will be consequences.

Bob S. said...

See MikeB has commented again but hasn't addressed his near obsessive defense of criminals.....wonder why that is?

Solidarity with current criminals out of respect for his past?

Anonymous said...

MikeB is an example of a concern troll.
Definition:
The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

Anonymous said...

the niggers got what they deserve and mr.ersland is a hero for ridding us of a teenape bastard.good riddance nigger.

Post a Comment