An Oklahoma jury will be asked to decided whether pharmacist Jerome Ersland, 57, is a hero or a murderer. A video camera captured Ersland pumping rounds into an unconscious and unarmed teenager who tried to rob his store on May 19th.
Gun rights advocates have rallied behind Ersland and his lawyer insists that the video shows an act of self-defense. The case has many of the disturbing elements as the Gonzalez case in Texas.
Ersland currently faces a first-degree murder charge in the killing of Antwun Parker, 16, and could face a possible death penalty. He shot Parker in the head and then chased another teen outside. When he returned, he delivered the coup de grâce by shooting Parker five more times. An autopsy showed that Parker was still alive before Esland returned and unloaded into this body.
Ersland was not being threatened at that time and was armed. He had already chased one suspect out of the store and shot Parker upon returning. For the video click here. The video shows Ersland walking to the back of the store after returning and then casually coming back to finish off Parker. I fail to see the justification for the final shots as opposed to the first shot.
On its face, it does not appear to be an act of self-defense. We discuss such situations often in torts. Self-defense (as opposed to protection of property) allows the use of lethal force to repel a commensurate and proportional threat. If you are threatened by serious bodily injury or death, you are privileged to use lethal force. However, this privilege does not include the right to retaliate and expires with the passage of the imminent threat.
For the full story, click here.
This story is incredibly disturbing and I don’t see how any sane person or legitimate legal system could think this was acceptable, but I bet this guy will get off Scott free.
Gyges:
Contracts? Is that still taught in law school? If you can reduce it to paper what need have you of lawyers? We really need to get GW out of those monastic Dark Ages. Now torts and con law, that’s not clerk work–that’s lawyering, baby.
You know I am considering slipping up to GW Law to take some advanced classes in trial and negotiation, (even got the application) but after this I may have to apply to Liberty. LOL
JT,
I thought that by law the only things you could paint on velvet in the U.S. were Elvis, Dragons, and Unicorns.
foo,
He has had more important tasks, such as this blawg…
Voire dire going to be critical in this one.
Prof. Turley, when are our torts grades coming out? Selmi already has his posted…you can’t let a contractarian do that to you!
Foo:
I believe that my target date is Monday and there will be a couple of days as records approves the curve and posts. I am finishing the final read now.
Besides, how tough is grading contract theory and cases? You are comparing a velvet rendition of Dogs Playing Poker on velvet to entire work of the Sistine Chapel.
JT
Foo:
To answer your earlier question, the grades for first-year torts are pending now with the administration. I am sorry but I felt that academic integrity prevented me from awarding points for those students who have contributed to this site. So, I just took off points from any students who did not contribute.
JT
Mike Appleton: I expect a conviction on a lesser charge. The circumstances might help protect him a little, even given the cold-blooded nature of the act, but his mannerisms and body language are just too much for him to get off scott-free.
I agree, in this video, first shot is justified and the additional shots appear to be murder. I too wish there was an additional angle, but the body language of the pharmacist, coupled with the fact that the kid was unarmed add up to someone who “wanted to make sure he was dead”. Not only is he a cold blooded killer, but a stupid one at that… he knew he was on tape.
FFLEO, I agree with you that the first shot was lawful and your comments about what you would have done after that are right on the money. However, you have the benefit of your own training and experience and the chance that you would lose your composure in the stress of the moment is highly remote. The remaining shots by the pharmacist were not justifiable under any theory, but I still don’t expect a conviction in this case given current public attitudes.
Bron,
The injured and the killed robber was never armed; however, during the time when the gunman was waving his gun, I can understand why the pharm. shot the unarmed subject given his hand movements and actions.
To be fair, it appears based on the evidence to date, that the robber never fired his weapon.
I give the D.A. some credit for bringing charges in the first place. The first shot was justified. The kill shots were not.
FFLEO:
that video raises some questions in my mind. It looks like the robbers shot first and the one that got hit was he actually out or did he make a move for his weapon which caused the guy to fire.
I think you need another camera angle to say with certainty that the wounded robber did not make a move for his weapon as the pharm. came back.
If he did indeed pump 4 more into the robber without provocation execute him.
Mike Appleton,
Do you think that Mr. Ersland’s first shot justified?
Clearly, I think it was justified. However, I would have called 911 immediately after firing that shot, then locked the door without pursuing the other robber, and then assisted the injured person after ensuring my safety, or that of others, was not compromised in doing so.
We can expect this tragedy to be repeated with greater frequency. The past eight years of fear mongering, coupled with the legislative trend to eliminate restrictions on the use of deadly force, and the increasingly paranoid rumors that the government will disarm the citizenry in the march to socialism, have all combined to create an atmosphere in which normal people believe that it’s acceptable to take a life in defense of property regardless of the circumstances. Many people will blame the killing on the victim for setting out to commit a robbery. Many people will conclude that by finishing the job the pharmacist was sending a message of deterrence to other would-be criminals, an application of the preemptive war doctrine to everyday life. I’ll be very surprised is this gentleman is indicted. I’ll be stunned if he’s actually convicted. Welcome to Tombstone territory, where ordinary citizens can be law enforcement officers, judges, juries and executioners simultaneously.
As I watched the video I was struck by the calmness and methodical behavior of Mr. Ersland. The tape shows that he was clearly in no danger, nor felt any threat. To me that makes it murder and premeditated at that. It will be of interest to see how the jury treats it and say a lot about Oklahoma justice in their verdict.
Oh yeah the same right we think that Cheney and Company deserve, Due Process.
And Oklahoma is taking the time to have a Trial under these circumstances? Why?
At the same link I previously above, this video title, ‘DA Prater on pharmacy shooting case’ illustrates the DA discussing the video (at different angles) and then the defense attorney’s perspective on the shooting.
Clearly, the first shot was justified, but the subsequent shots were *not*. He called 911 *after* firing the 5 additional rounds into the robber.
Gee…
Ersland was mature enough to carry a gun and fire it…
Are the hand gun advocates rallying for more firearms training?
From the surveillance video, appearances are that the pharmacist acted as the jury and the judge. He fairly calmly walks over and shoots the victim after he was down. I wonder when the pharmacist called 911?
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941
Burn piggy burn.