Oklahoma Pharmacist Kills Masked Armed Robber And Is Charged With First Degree Murder

The secnario is, as far as these things go, a relatively simple one.
Two masked and armed robbers burst into a pharmacy. A pharmacist, Jerome Ersland, chose not to be a passive victim of armed thugs, or allow others in the store to be victims. He draws and fires his own weapon, hitting one of the goblins in the head. The thug goes down. The second flees and is pursued by Ersland, who then returns to the pharmacy.
Righteous shooting? Absolutely. In many states, including Oklahoma, you no longer have the duty to retreat when confronted by violence and can defend yourself. It’s called the “stand your ground” law. It goes hand in hand with the “shoot the burglar” law that is becoming more and more common in more and more states. You don’t have to be a victim. You can defend youself right up to the use of deady force.
So….why is this guy charged with first degree murder if he just stood his ground in accordance to the law?
Because he didn’t just stand his ground.
After shooting the goblin and chasing the other waste of oxygen from the store he returned, changed guns, and shot the first guy five more times, allegedly while he lay there unconscious.
Did the robber get what he deserved? In my book, yeah. But – did Ersland overstep the bounds of self defense when he returned and shot the guy again?
Unfortunately, the answer to that is that he may very well have stepped across that line.
Ersland was probably deep in the “fight or flight” syndrome. When confronted with deadly danger the body reverts to one of our most primitive impulses. You either want to run, or you’ll fight, and the rules be damned. When that adrenaline starts to pump it is a feeling like no other, a wild electrical charge that surges through you, and it goes back to the beginning of time. It’s a survival mechanism, and it’s hard to be rational when it’s surging through your mind and body.
I know that first hand. Not only has it happened to me, it is one reason many police officers have their careers cut short. They overreact after a pursuit or an armed or even unarmed physical confrontation and either use their weapons when they shouldn’t have or get their hands on some joker who just led them on a high speed pursuit, endangering cirizens along the way and lets them have it. It’s very, very difficult, even for trained police officers to keep an even keel when you finally get your hands on someone who really really needs special attention.
Trust me on that one.
So….for an untrained individual, that fight or flight syndrome can be overwhelming. And I think it overwhelmed Mr. Ersland.
I hate to say it, but the District Attorney who charged Mr. Ersland uses sound reasoning. If he hadn’t returned and shot the thug again (five more times) and with a different gun, he wouldn’t have been charged at all. It required premeditation to get that other gun and finish what he started.
That being said however, I hope Ersland gets out of this with his life relatively intact. He didn’t go looking for trouble. It came and found him and he was more than it wanted. Too bad.
You can find a news video of the DA explaining why Ersland was charged here. He does a very good job explaining the whys and wherefores of the issue.
Best of luck to Mr. Ersland.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array 2Hotel9

    End of story is Ersland totally fucked up, and he is going to do hard time. Shooting the perp in the head was justified, casually stepping over said perp and getting another gun, then casually emptying that gun into unarmed and dying perp makes it unjustified. End of story.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    This could be murder. The amount of time it takes to form the intent to purposely take a life does not have to be that long . . . the guy doesn’t have to prepare a plan ahead of time and lie in wait in order to be found guilty of first-degree murder.

    But . . . I wish the prosecution luck on this one. I could easily see a jury refusing to convict this guy.

  • 2Hotel9

    Keep screeching, the tape tells it all.

  • 2Hotel9

    No.

    Had he put multiple rds in this perp as he committed this crime I would be OK with a self-defense call. That ain’t what happened. County forensics people pulled bullet remains out of the floor. A tile-over-concrete floor.

    Sorry. This was not a righteous shoot.

  • JGH3240

    Getting killed is an occupational hazard of being an armed robber. The guy should be given an award. Think of the hospital bills and the cost of locking up this fine citizen that have been saved.

  • TomTom

    Typical bleeder mentality. The prosecutor is obviously a liberal retard. America’s courts are full of Commie degreed lawyers who believe the criminals are mistreated and deserve to commit these crimes…Move to Texas where we have the CASTLE LAW! We can shoot your nuts off for just “Thinking” about assault or robbery. We also have good concealed carry laws in Texas. Just about everyone carries a gun. WE had a pharmicist kill a robber las week in San Antonio.. He only had to shoot him once..between the eyes with his .45…The pharmicist is a HERO in Texas because he saved other people from harm…

  • chris

    http://newsok.com/da-files-additional-murder-charges-in-pharmacy-shooting/article/3373558?custom_click=lead_story_title

    Warning, video automatically plays and you have to listen to the “mother” whine about her “baby” and how he is misguided all…

    Looks like the DA is charging the other 3 perps with felony murder… but in my eyes, to do that, he would have to admit that the original crime was still underway… doing that would mean that the pharmacist was defending himself… if not, then he had started a new event…

    the two cases are in direct contradiction of each other…i cannot see how they will both stand…

  • AR-15

    You don’t want to get killed, don’t rob somebody. Too bad he didn’t kill the other piece of trash as well.
    Put a medal on Mr.Ersland’s chest.

  • 2Hotel9

    And in the interests of full disclosure, of the many regulars here I am one of the few who has actual shot another human, so spare us your melodrama.

  • 2Hotel9

    The small fact that he walked past the guy, got another gun, and emptied it into him as he lay there dying and unarmed is a bit problematic.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    It sounds like the state has no choice but to prosecute.

    Still this guy DID probably save someone else down the line from armed robbery or murder.

  • SigFan

    Good for the pharmacist – bad for the would-be robber. I asked a question about this type of scenario of a cop friend and he said that in 99% of the cases, it is better for the armed citizen to only discharge as many rounds as NEEDED to defend him or herself. By emptying your weapon needlessly, he said you will give the police a reason to look on you with some suspicion. That said, he went on to say though that what you perceive as needed will be determined by the situation, not necessarily the outcome. I hope the pharmacist walks, he does not deserve to be punished for anything other than perhaps a touch of over-adrenaline reaction.

  • sayanything-2407

    One thing to look at is if the robber was dead with the first shot. If he was dead with first shot then the resulting shots tothe body of the dead corpse, is not murder.

    Now, if the robber was still alive after being shot the first time – yes, the charges should stick and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Let the jury decide.

  • Pilgrim

    e4bannon said:

    Mr. Ersland says he shot him five more times as he tried to get up. So obviously he didn’t believe the threat was neutralized. The

    That’s a good point, and one sure to be used by his lawyers. The video doesn’t show the guy on the floor. He could argue that he still peceived to thug as a threat.

    It will probably be his best chance of acquittal.

  • carrick

    Well this is wrong:

    After shooting the goblin and chasing the other waste of oxygen from the store he returned, changed guns, and shot the first guy five more times, allegedly while he lay there unconscious.

    Sounds more like second-degree murder to me (premeditation usually doesn’t include returning to the scene to execute somebody who just tried to kill you), so it sounds to me like the prosecutors are trying strong-arm the guy to get a plea-bargain. I would guess their odds aren’t that great if this goes to trial, most jurists are very sympathetic to people who just went through something like this.

    Bob:

    If others in the store were packing, they could have blown away the guy before he re loaded.

    According to the article, the fleeing assailant (not they) was packing, and responded the way most people do when confronted with the threat of violent death. You don’t stop to see if the pharm dude has a second gun or not.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    I will grant that I have not looked into the details, nor the video of this case, but some of the variables in matters of self-defense include some of the following:

    1) presence or absence of a Stand-your-ground law in the jurisidiction;

    2) the nature of the self-defense law of that state;

    3) the facts of the case and evidence available;

    4) statements made by the victim (if a record is available) and the defendant to authorities;

    5) the character of the prosecutor (e.g. is he or she a Mike Nifong or someone like Sheriff Mack? )

    As long as there is a case to be made for self-defense and he does not make stupid statements to the authorities, but instead limits himself to a manta of:

    I was not shooting to kill, I was shooting to stop the threat; and

    I felt myself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

    and not allow himself to be moved off those twin contentions in trial, he should be okay.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    One thing to look at is if the robber was dead with the first shot. If he was dead with first shot then the resulting shots tothe body of the dead corpse, is not murder.

    Just what I was thinking. A head shot can be pretty final. If he was just shooting a corpse out of anger…that’s still a crime, but not murder. If the ME rules the first shot was a kill shot, then not only will a murder charge be impossible to prosecute…but he can argue for malicious prosecution.

    If the guy was alive and moving, the idea that the store owner could still see him as a threat is reasonable.

    Now, if the robber was still alive after being shot the first time – yes, the charges should stick and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Let’s say he was close to his gun and moving towards it. That is still a threat.

  • Brent

    Manslaughter at most. There is no way of saying the guy wouldn’t have died from wounds he received lawfully (via his decision to commit to unlawful activity).

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    It is a shame that it will be difficult to introduce the victims’ criminal history in this trial, because something like this is generally kept out as disallowed character evidence or prior bad acts. The exception that might come into play is if our defendant knew and somehow recognized the robber, and knew him to be a threat.

    Given the national coverage this incident has received, the State will be hard-pressed to find an untainted jury pool (but believe me, they manage to find the most isolated idiots from time to time)

    UPDATE:

    I just read the facts of this case. The prosecutor is really insane. This man was getting shot at. He had on a backbrace and could barely defend himself. His store had been robbed two years before and he and his employees had been severely beaten in that robbery.

    More to the point, there was no idle threat by the assailants. They were shooting at him and saying that he was going to die. That the druggist retrieved a second weapon is understandable. His pocket gun was a mere peashooter and had only wounded the still-dangerous assailant. His larger-caliber second gun was needed to stop the very clear and present, and very real, danger.

    The prosecutor has a fine future in another field opening up for him, right alongside Mike Nifong.

  • a citizen

    I hate to say it, but from the information available he’s in DEEEEEP DOO-DOO!
    Rabid American on May 31, 2009 at 06:09 am

    Unless the bad guy was already dead from the first head shot, which was obviously self defense.

  • carrick

    Zig:

    I was not shooting to kill, I was shooting to stop the threat; and

    I felt myself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

    and not allow himself to be moved off those twin contentions in trial, he should be okay.

    I agree with you, and I think that’s why the prosecution is acting so aggressively here. It will be a very hard sell if this comes to it, to get any jury to agree beyond any reasonable doubt that both of these states are false.

  • sayanything-5371

    The prosecutor would be well advised to drop charges. Armed robbers deserve what they get and that’s the way the jury will roll.

  • http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

    I hate to say it, but from the information available he’s in DEEEEEP DOO-DOO!

    By going back to pump a few more rounds into an already incapacitated crook, he did in fact commit murder. The crook would most likely have “assumed room temperature” all on his own. Unnecessary additional force was used by Mr.Ersland.

    Say a couple of prayers for the families of all involved…

  • 2Hotel9

    Here is a link to Doc P’s blog post on this, complete with security camera video, Frontsight.

    As I said, this was not a righteous shoot. It was, up until the point where he casually emptied a second weapon into the dying, unarmed perp. Ersland fucked up, and he is going to do hard time over this.

  • docdave

    If someone came into my residence to do me harm and steal my possessions, the last thing I would consider is how many bullets I put into their carcass.

  • Buzz

    They call that an execution, not self defense. Too bad, but we won’t be seeing him for a long time.

    Nice shot though. BOOM..HEAD SHOT!

  • http://www.myspace.com/thekingscourt4u Gman

    Watch the movie “Taken” for a great portrayal of this.

  • TomTom

    Bettcha 50 million dollars the fucking prosecutor is a fucking Obama buttboy! I promise you..no real American law enforcement person would bring charges..only a suck-ass liberal.

  • captain_sticky

    It’s really a tough call considering the silly laws in this country. If he emptied his weapon into the bad guy, that would be fine. Coming back with a different weapon and finishing the job is not. This case should make the silly rule vanish and send the shooter home with a clear conscience.

    Sorry, but I’m Floridian and we do things different hereabouts.

  • yy4u

    Guess who wouldn’t have casually stepped over said perp and got another gun to casually make sure said perp never ever did this again had said perp and fellow scum not entered his place with a gun drawn? I wasn’t there and neither were you. We don’t know what he was going through. He did what he thought was right in “HIS” place. He didn’t go out and find these gems of society. They picked the wrong place to show their cowardly act of robbing and were taught the perfect lesson. So are the courts, states, (God help us) the Fed Govt. supposed to come up with a set of rules for each gun owner for when someone draws a gun on them. A set of SOG’s. Here’s a no brainer…If you don’t want to die senselessly, don’t do senseless things. There’s plenty of innocent people dieing or killed every day in American by non-Americans. Second end of story.

  • e4bannan

    The second suspect is still on the run. The district attorney says if and when he’s caught he’ll be charged with attempted robbery in the first degree.

    An Oklahoma City pharmacist is facing a first-degree murder charge after shooting back during an attempted robbery.

    What kind of bizarro alternate universe are we living in? Shouldn’t scumbag #1 be charged with murder since it happened during the commission of their armed robbery? I’ve seen the video and scumbag #2 is out of frame when Mr. Ersland shoots him again. Mr. Ersland says he shot him five more times as he tried to get up. So obviously he didn’t believe the threat was neutralized. The law says he can use deadly force if he ‘reasonably’ believes deadly force is neccesary to protect himself and others from death or great bodily harm. And let me tell you, when you are in a firefight there is no hard and fast definition of ‘reasonable’.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    If others in the store were packing, they could have blown away the guy before he re loaded.

    Time for a tax cut!

    More proof that the lefties like Boob are lacking in intelligence.

  • Pilgrim

    RBB:

    Huh?

  • Bat One

    Seesm to me the correct solution here is to convict Mr. Ersland as charged… then sentence him to time served and move on.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    If others in the store were packing, they could have blown away the guy before he re loaded.

    Time for a tax cut!

  • Hawk

    Seesm to me the correct solution here is to convict Mr. Ersland as charged… then sentence him to time served and move on.

    I doubt the sentence allowed is less than 15 years with 75% being served in prison as a minimum.

    My guess is it will be reduced to second degree murder because of extreme emotional distress.

  • cbrtxus

    I watched the video. Mr. Ersland is facing some serious legal trouble. We have a right to use deadly force to defend ourselves from serious harm. If the average person under those circumstances would know that the fellow on the floor was no longer a threat, then the use of deadly force would not be justified.
    .
    There is a wild card though. Folks (even police officers) don’t necessarily remain in a rational frame of mind immediately after someone has threatened to kill them. Mr. Ersland may well have been in blind panic mode. If so, the criminals put him in that mode. He didn’t choose to be in that mode.
    .
    As I understand it, murder is killing with malice aforethought. I seriously doubt that any jury would convict him of murder even under these troubling circumstances. Most likely this is voluntary manslaughter i.e. there was provocation sufficient to cause the average person to lose self control.
    .
    There are two lessons here.
    .
    Keep firing until there is no longer a threat then stop.
    .
    Don’t try to rob people. It could cost you your life.

  • yy4u

    This guy would walk if I was on the jury. The bottom line, this person was drawn on in his own place by a couple of thugs. Person drawn on remedies the solution. And society won’t have to worry about now deceased thug and may have put the other crap bag on a quick road to becoming a part of society; not a problem for society. End of story. This guy should be the head life guard at the gene pool. Some people just need killin’.

  • http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/ pino

    Seesm to me the correct solution here is to convict Mr. Ersland as charged… then sentence him to time served and move on.

    That’s what I thought right away too….

    Guilty.
    Suspended sentence.

  • J.L.

    I coudn`t see the guy as he was being shot 5 more times, but as a “what if”, what if he were already dead from the first shot? It couldn`t be murder then because the first shot was self-defense.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I agree with Carrick. Saying that because he used a different gun he “premeditated” the murder is a stretch. Premeditated murder is for homicides that are planned out ahead of time. It’s a higher classification of crime because a killer who sits down and plans his/her murders before doing them is considered to be a more heinous criminal than one who is simply reacting in the heat of the moment.

    So premeditated murder? Absolutely not. As Carrick notes, this is yet another instance of a prosecutor piling on to force a plea agreement. Which is an odious tactic in and of itself. Piling charges onto a defendant to intimidate them into pleading guilty to a crime they may not be entirely guilty of is an abuse of prosecutorial power, if you ask me. One that happens far too often, and is enabled by overly-vague laws that allow multiple charges to be filed for a single crime this inflating the possible punishment.

    As for this being second degree murder, I think that hinges on whether or not the guy who was down and injured in the pharmacy was still a threat. From the information above it appears as though he probably wasn’t, and that’s where the crime comes in.

    Though it seems kind of…well…shitty to second guess the property owner like this. Seems to me that if armed robbers don’t want to get murdered they shouldn’t be engaging in armed robbery.

  • Myronhardiman1

    You white devils, you bitches walk around like you are god gift to shit. I see why your race is hated around the world. You take race out of it the guy was wrong.the robber  was no threat.. Now that murderer will spend the rest of his useless life being punked in prison. You poor white trash the establishment is using your dumb asses

    • AXE GUITAR

      WOW, you sir are racist, no different than a white nazi you fucker.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development