Former pharmacist Jerome Ersland loses appeal

Unanimous.

http://newsok.com/article/3854619

 

He'll die in prison.

 

Matlock is just all Giddy with excitement.

 

Sucks to be him. You don't get to execute kids in cold blood just because they pissed you off.

 

Let's set aside Ersland for a moment. Because the jury found that he basically executed the kid, rather than act in self defense, will the other (attempted) robber not be charged with murder after all? That is kind of the story seemed to elude to, that his previous conviction would be thrown out.

Or was that on a technicality.

Oklahoma state law says (unless I'm mistaken) that if a fellow crime committer dies while your group is committing a crime, you can be charged with murder. Thus, the other guy was convicted of his partner's death.

BUT, what if a jury finds that the murder is not the responsibility of the crime, but rather, of someone or something else (aka a pharmacist with multiple guns)?

 

All of the robbers were charged with murder as far as I know. One had his conviction overturned because the Judge denied him the right to represent himself. He'll be retried. Others pled down to lesser charges.

You're asking about felony-murder. It's a doctrine which states that any time there's a killing which happens in the commission of a dangerous/violent felony, then murder charges will lie. For example, if someone broke into a victim's home to commit burglary and the victim in their haste to get down the stairs and shoot the intruder trips over an unfortunately placed roller skate at the top of the stairs and falls to their death, burglar can be charged with murder.

 

I really think that an Oklahoma jury was Ersland's best chance of not going to jail for life. But, that's the luck of the draw. Sometimes arrested teens in New York would end up with a sympathetic judge that would let them off with a warning, and sometimes they would end up with Judge Judy.

Ersland got the Judge Judy of juries, one that zeroed right in on the fact that the shot robber was incapacitated.

A sympathetic jury might have agreed that Ersland had a tough job with a large potential for robberies and had to defend himself and his coworkers since these would-be robbers flashed guns their direction.

But, I'm still torn. I doubt that a "not guilty" would have prompted Rodney King riots or a lot of protest. They were clearly doing something wrong (attempted armed robbery) and the video is quite grainy with no sound.

Perhaps manslaughter, or at least a life sentence with possibility for parole would have been more appropriate?

 

The video is not the only physical evidence. The blood smear evidence showed that the victim wasn't moving when he was shot, directly contradicting Ersland when he said the teen was trying to get up. Ersland said a bunch of things about himself and was just plain weird. He would have been decimated on the stand.

Also, the victim was unarmed.

There very well could have been innocent people killed when Ersland shot wildly at the robber who was fleeing.

 

...and the POS he shot is still dead

 

Ersland made many mistakes, but none of them was in protecting his life and the life of his coworkers from thugs who came in waving guns around.

First big mistake-- not sabotaging the video tape. Second big mistake-- talking to anybody without retaining an attorney. Several mistakes later-- not keeping his fat mouth shut and letting his attorney be his mouthpiece.

So yeah, Ersland is probably going to die in prison, but at least he didn't die this way.
Or this way.

Or even this way.

Much better to just let the crack heads junkie thugs kill all those pharmacists. Everybody knows you can't trust those guys.

 

Yup cause we all know they be fine upstanding citizens an such. while a Drug store Drug dealer is about worthless to society .:upset:

 

Sounds like it wasn't the "BANG," but rather the "BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM" part that muddied the waters.

 

Egg-zactly!

If he would have just destroyed the tape and STFU he would probably be a free man today.

 

The first degree murder conviction was a travesty. He should have been convicted of 2nd degree or even negligent homicide. The judge was being politically correct. Which brings me to my next point......if there is one institution that has failed to uphold it's historic duty worse than the national press corps it is our judicial system. They have become a rubber stamp for the executive branch's encroachment on civil liberties. The judicial oversight on the NSA and other federal law-enforcement agencies is a joke.

 

They would have figured out from ballistics it was 2 different guns used. I don't doubt that pharmicists are rather skittish about people coming in to rob the place for drugs but they have to be responsible about how they defend themselves.

 

Two guns used + evidence tampering (as it has been suggested that he should have erased the video tape) + Ersland still making up stories about what "really happened" = same result.

 

Let's just say that where I used to work, I was one of only 3 employees that did NOT have a concealed carry and was packing. I always knew who I was working with was carrying and I knew to be able to get the hell out of their line of sight if something bad started to go down. The main reason I never chose to get my own CC was because I take that kind of responsibility quite seriously and I just don't know if I'm ready or not for that. Since I'm still on the fence about it, I think I'm making the best decision to not have one at this time.

The way I see it, if all I'm doing is showing up for work and minding my own business in my own store and some junkie enters my space and starts waving a gun around and threatening MY life then they honestly deserve whatever outcome occurs. Ersland didn't wake up that morning planning to kill anybody. He got up. Went to work. Was minding his own business.
I'm pretty damned sure that if that dumb *** worthless POS kid hadn't gone into his pharmacy waving a gun in his face he wouldn't have been shot by Ersland that day.

End of story.

 

Not end of story. If Ersland hadn't walked into the store, stepped over the victim, retrieved a second gun, walked up to the victim and delivered 5 more rounds to the boy's chest, he'd be a free man today.

 

If you wernt so ****in stupid you would still be a dumbass

 

You are perhaps right, vet, but Mid is stating the law as it currently exists. Your right to self defense is very strong in this state and in most states in this country. But it is limited to countering what a reasonable person in your circumstances would interpret as a threat.
And it's hard to find much threat in an unconscious person laying in a (rapidly widening) pool of his own blood. I have no sympathy for the dead guy. He pretty much got what he needed, but the court made the correct decision. You don't have the right to chase down the perp after he's left. You don't have the right to go to his house next week and shoot him then and you don't have the right to keep pumping rounds into an unconscious body.

I think the sentence was too harsh, but Ersland's mistake was trying to be cute. If you're goint to lie to a judge, be very sure you're not found out. Judges get all unreasonable and pissy when they're lied to. And that includes dressing the crime scene. He would have been far better off just saying, "My God, I was so terrified, I just kept shooting. I thought he was moving, but I can't be sure now. I'm sorry, your Honor, I've never fired a gun in anger before and I was pretty much operating on adrenaline." You can put yourself in that person's head and see 'reasonableness' in his actions. Much harder to find reasonableness in the acts of a guy who's stage managing the scene, reloading, getting second guns and the like.