Should he "plea out"?

[hogdogs]

Okay if you were a defense attorney, would you suggest a plea deal as the wise move for the Oklahoma Pharmacist?

I rarely feel innocent folks are best served by a plea, but in this case... Maybe.
I know this is veering a bit so if PAX or other mod feels it is too far off base, I guess I will suck it up and move on...
Brent

[doh_312]

Only because it is entirely possible he gets a jury of anti-gunners or anti-defendyourselfers. There is no convincing that type of jury that you were in the right for stepping on a fire ant, much less shooting someone.

[Shadi Khalil]

Okay if you were a defense attorney, would you suggest a plea deal as the wise move for the Oklahoma Pharmacist?

I think a plea is the best thing the defense can hope for. I believe the execution video leaves them little to no recourse.

Only because it is entirely possible he gets a jury of anti-gunners or anti-defendyourselfers.

I would be upset if a jury of card carrying NRA members didn't put this guy under the jail. Anti-gun or not, most people are anti-murder.

[peetzakilla]

I would be upset if a jury of card carrying NRA members didn't put this guy under the jail. Anti-gun or not, most people are anti-murder.

Amen brother!

[pax]

Brent,

I think this question would fit better down in the L&CR forum -- moving it there now. Dunno if the mods there want it or not ... ;) ... so they'll make that call.

pax

[Wagonman]

I would be upset if a jury of card carrying NRA members didn't put this guy under the jail. Anti-gun or not, most people are anti-murder.


Not quite an Amen from me, he was wrong and should be punished. But, let's not take out eye off the ball. He was the victim until he shot the offender after the play.

[pax]

One more thing that might help keep this thread on topic for L&CR: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536377&postcount=501

That's a post in the Tactics discussion forum with links to a bunch of relevant information about the shooting, including the raw surveillance video footage. I strongly suggest participants follow those links before posting in this thread (just to keep the discussion informed and useful!)

pax

[johnwilliamson062]

It looks like to me:
hmmm. Well the armed robber was getting up, according to the only living witness of the event, and he emptied the gun into him.
The robbers fired at him within the last 30 seconds.
The pharmacist believed he had a firearm in his hand or in his close proximity, reasonable in my mind since the robber was part of a group that had a gun.
The store owner has no responsibility to disarm the assailant or to check him for weapons in my mind. Way too much risk involved in that. If he is moving, and he can reasonably assume the robber is armed I think he is clear to fire in the court of common sense. I think that if a person is clearly part of an armed robbery it is reasonable to assume he/she is armed. If not the initial shot to the head would not be justified as this particular person was not an immediate threat.

IDK what the bullet to the head really did. If the robber was laying on the ground clearly unconscious but twitching or something and the Pharmacist knew he was no threat, than it is clearly murder. If he was under control of his body or the pharmacist believed him to be then it is not in my mind. If this guy was reaching under his persons or something similar that could lead the pharmacist to believe he was going for a still holstered gun or such. I assume we have all seen the action v. reaction quick draw police demonstration where the actor clearly fires before the weapons drawn reacting officer pulls the trigger. This all happened very quickly and I think the unarmed robbers association with the clearly armed robber opens him up to being shot at as it is reasonable in my mind to assume every one of the attackers is armed.

How about a new rule, if you don't want to get shot don't commit armed robbery.

How often do you hear of an point blank "execution" with five quickly fired shots to the torso?

[hogdogs]

John, There are 21 pages of posts to this in the T&T section. Of that there are reports that there is resounding evidence that the BG was down and not moving. What the evidence is has not been released but is "forensic". It goes so far as to say he was not conscious when shot. The bad guys did not fire a single round although the pharmacist claimed to have been shot. He is also repeatedly trying to play the "cripple card" but in the video you see a man able to run after the BG that ran off...
Brent

[Wildalaska]

Hog your poll needs to include, Plea and Throw Yourself on the Mercy of the Court :)

WildthenicanvoteAlaska ™

[5whiskey]

I've seen enough now that my first reaction is that I would find him not guilty of 1degree if I were on the jury. I definately would find him guilty of manslaughter or 2degree. I'm aware that there may be some evidence that has not been revealed. My reaction may change.

There is a totality of circumstance, and I do take into account that this man didn't ask to be robbed. He still showed malicious and willful ability to take a mans life that was no longer a threat to him. I don't agree with that. I don't want to see him convicted of 1st degree murder, but I don't want him to walk. A few years in the pen to reflect on his actions could do the man some good.

[KingEdward]

If he had gotten behind the counter (cover) after returning inside while keeping a gun pointed toward in the direction of the downed robber to "contain any remaining threat", chances are he would not have fired any
other shots since the robber was down.

Then police come and secure the scene.

The water would not be as hot had he taken a little more of a defensive position / approach.

[johnwilliamson062]

Of that there are reports that there is resounding evidence that the BG was down and not moving. What the evidence is has not been released but is "forensic".
Whoever did the autopsy saying "This injury would clearly cause temporary disablement." What other forensic evidence could they have? The blood splatter analysis could possibly point to an immobile target if there was no smeared blood, but if he bled out on the ground and there was not a slant to the floor there is a very good chance the puddle exceeded the area he could have been moving in. We all know brain injuries are very odd and know of cases where someone received one that should have been catastrophic but was not. I am not buying anything from a medical examiners mouth about his condition at the time. It is very possible the kid was KO'd at first then regained consciousness.


It goes so far as to say he was not conscious when shot. The bad guys did not fire a single round although the pharmacist claimed to have been shot.
I have read 4 or 5 papers report on this and all indicated there were shots fired. One was from the second of June. Not saying they did or did not shoot.

He is also repeatedly trying to play the "cripple card" but in the video you see a man able to run after the BG that ran off...
When he is walking back he is clearly walking very awkwardly. I would not refer to his movement in any of the video as "running."

If you had video of the guy on the floor it very well might show him incapacitated and you could get a conviction. I would not convict someone on an expert witness who claims to know exactly what a certain gunshot did to someones brain beyond reasonable doubt, but can not tell me what the purpose of sleep is as it pertains to the brain. We know very little about the brain and I see know way he could reliably make this assertion.

[KingEdward]

If my lawyer were not working on a plea deal then
I'd get another.

[johnwilliamson062]

the more I think about it the more I decide the blood splatter analysis could be pretty strong evidence that the robber did not move after the initial shots were fired.

[hogdogs]

John, Quite possibly (just me guessing) the secondary shots passed through the torso and hit the vinyl flooring... so holes in torso with vinyl chips stuck in the shirt and dents in floor lining right up could be part of the forensic evidence. And as you already stated, blood smears on floor, blood lacking or present on robber's palms could also exist.
from a purely speculative mindset, I think, had I felt the guy was still a threat, would have leaned over the counter, where I could duck for some cover, and finished the deed of stopping the threat.
Brent

[brair]

Without solid proof(impartial eye witness) about the movements of the 16 year old(whatever color he may be) let's go with what the hero says.The crippled,older white man who the thugs tried to murder and rob.He says the mugger/murder was moving.Good enough!

If the thug had wrestled the older man and taken his handgun who would have been the victim then?.I think the term would have been disparity of force.Perhaps the old,crippled man(A.K.A.) potential victim and unwilling combatant did what he had to to save his life,store and the lives of his employees.

He shouldn't be charged but should be recognized for not only the foresight but the courage to protect himself and his employees.

Regards,
brair

P.S.I don't care if every cop in L.A. has to run for safety from the riots.It doesn't change a thing.

[peetzakilla]

let's go with what the hero says.

Would could..... if there was a hero. The only witness has a story that keeps changing. A story that, in none of it's forms, matches the video or the forensics.

In other words, your "hero" is a murderer. A murderer who's doing what murderers do, namely, covering his tracks as best he can.

[hogdogs]

But peet... Obviously the pharmacist didn't follow the lead of OJ Simpson who also is an innocent man...
SHUT UP!!! DON'T SAY NUTTIN'!!! PROVIDE ONE STORY AND DON'T DEVIATE NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS!!! I don't care if the thug still had a gun in his hand... If he is down plain and simple... the shooting is done!
I would kick the gun across the room though. But in this case, Brair, no gun was there not much need for 5 CoM is there? Or are you all for alley way justice?
Brent

[brair]

Is there any doubt who tried to rob whom and who did it while masked and armed?If there is I missed something,
Regards,
Brair

[ENC]

I have been following this case very close. I voted plea w/ jail time because I don't see a plea w/out jail time being offered. Who Knows.

Also I have a M.S. in Forensic Science Technical Investigations. I took all the Blood Spatter ( no L) courses offered and I did an internship with OKCPD. Not having seen any crime scene photos it is hard to tell if Spatter analysis will help say if the deceased was trying to get up at the time of the (second) shooting. A gunshot can cause back spatter as much as four feet away from the target IIRC. I think Brent has some good questions regarding blood on the hands/Bullet marks in the floor. The more I think about it I think Blood on the hands of the deceased would be pretty convincing evidence that he was trying to get up assuming the hands weren't under the body.

Also blood spatter caused by gunfire versus blood dripping out of a bullet wound has very different characteristics. Basically (large) drops versus very small drops.

Evan

[peetzakilla]

Is there any doubt who tried to rob whom and who did it while masked and armed?If there is I missed something,
Regards,
Brair

No there is no doubt who robbed whom. There is also no doubt, legally or morally, where the line is between self defense and murder. The first shot is fine and dandy. No problems. The next 5 are an execution of an unarmed, unconscious, defenseless human being. I don't care if he was raping the mans daughter 5 minutes ago. Shoot to STOP the threat, no threat equals no shoot. Shooting a non-threat, including one that WAS a threat even seconds before, is murder. Plain and simple.

[hogdogs]

Is there any doubt who tried to rob whom and who did it while masked and armed?If there is I missed something,
Regards,
Brair
The deceased was one of the 2 inside that were robbing the place. He did not, in the video, have a weapon drawn. He may have had one in the bag. He may have been trying to get it out but he is not in view of the camera. So it all returns to evidence gathered in the investigation to decide the possible positioning of the robber. Thus far all we have been told is that forensic evidence clearly, to the medical examiner, shows the dead guy was unconscious at the time the final (second time shot) 5 rounds were put into him.
The DA was clearly unhappy he had to prosecute the guy.
Brent

[doh_312]

johnwilliams,

The police in Lakewood here at home are trained to shoot two to the chest, one to the head to stop a threat. If the threat so much as twitches, they repeat the exercise. I think one would be wise to add more lead to a threat who is still moving weather it is a twitch or otherwise. Just makes sense to me, if they are still moving they are still a threat. Besides in the heat of the moment I doubt you could tell if it were and unconscious twitch or a movement towards a weapon.

[doh_312]

hogdogs,

As you walk up to your downed threat to kick the gun away from him, he shoots you.

Now your both bleeding because someone lying on the floor equals no threat regardless of a firearm in his hand.

[peetzakilla]

As you walk up to your downed threat to kick the gun away from him, he shoots you.

Now your both bleeding because someone lying on the floor equals no threat regardless of a firearm in his hand.

THE GUY DIDN'T HAVE A GUN!!! A gun is not going to materialize in his hand! In his pocket? Maybe. In his backpack? Maybe. You don't shoot someone over a "maybe". He WASN'T a threat. Continue to watch? Yep. Warn him if he moves? Yep. Shoot again if he reaches in a bag/pocket/backpack? Yep.


He. Shot. An. Unarmed. Man. Lying. On. The. Floor. Whilst. Said. Man. Was. Unconscious.

M. U. R. D. E. R.

[johnwilliamson062]

the reason I don't think the marks on the floor are enough is it is very posble he could have suffed some sot of paralysis below the shoulders and not moved his body dnough to matter while still having decent control of his arms. I don't know how many here have been laid out before or witnessed someone get laid out, but it is not all that uncommon to see appendage movement when the torso is not moving. The shooter fired pretty quickly, and even he was squirming a little he may not move all that much and there were probably deflections off of bone.
I still think it is going to be really difficult to give "beyond a reasonable doubt" even though the guy can't keep his story straight.
I still have not voted b/c I am still not sure. In these cases the law does not matter nearly as much as who ends up on the jury.
2 real lessons here, take and maintain a defensive position or retreat, and keep your mouth shut afterwards.

[hogdogs]

The police in Lakewood here at home are trained to shoot two to the chest, one to the head to stop a threat. If the threat so much as twitches, they repeat the exercise.
I doubt that is exactly correct. If the guy is down and "twitching" and the cop is on film being recorded, repeating the exercise It wouldn't matter one bit what dept. policy was. Especially if the guys family was there to back up the video in court.
Just makes sense to me, if they are still moving they are still a threat.
Glad you ain't a policy maker!!!:mad:
hogdogs,

As you walk up to your downed threat to kick the gun away from him, he shoots you.

Now your both bleeding because someone lying on the floor equals no threat regardless of a firearm in his hand.
If a person is out cold and/or just laying there and has a pistol still laying on their hand I could order them to sling it. If they are obviously un responsive I can cautiously approach while keeping the BG fully covered up with muzzle. If he should attempt to draw on me he would be dealt with accordingly. If he doesn't move and I used care and wisdom I could boot the gun.
the reason I don't think the marks on the floor are enough is it is very posble he could have suffed some sot of paralysis below the shoulders and not moved his body dnough to matter while still having decent control of his arms. I don't know how many here have been laid out before or witnessed someone get laid out, but it is not all that uncommon to see appendage movement when the torso is not moving.
Had he been paralyzed yet arms mobile he would have been shot with his back sack removed and his arms digging in it cuz that is where the gun would have been as he didn't have a gun in hand nor drawn and now on the ground...
M.U.R.D.E.R.
Now please do us all a favor and vote in the poll and comment on the poll only in this thread. we have a thread in Tactics and Training for discussing the shooting. If you do yourself a service and read the 20+ pages of posts you will find many links to reports as well as many wise posts by informed TFL'ers.
Thanks,
Brent

[wmeSha]

The job of the defense attorney is to do well for his client. Given the video footage, I'd say that a defense attorney has to seriously consider going for a plea if he can swing it. The prosecutor has to weigh the likelihood of the murder conviction.

I don't claim to know the minds of attorneys, but I have to think the defense would want to pursue a plea but the prosecution will reject it and go forward with murder 1.

[hogdogs]

wme, I think in this case the DA will offer some plea deal as he seemed apprehensive of charging the guy but was slapped handily across the face with irrefutable evidence of poor judgement at least and blatant execution at worst.
ALL ON HIGH RESOLUTION REAL TIME CAMERAS X3...
Brent

[Dust Monkey]

I feel sorry for the man. I cant speak for his state of mind or what he went through. But, Ex Investigator hat on, the video is damning. The first shot that hit the bad guy = good shoot. No problem. The walking around the counter and back, emptying 5 shots into the BG laying on the floor, Murder. Period. Unless there is some evidence that says BG was a threat, the second shoot was not self defense. So I hope he has a good Lawyer and I hope he listens to his lawyer and any plea deal that is offered. Going to a jury on this one is a very bad roll of the dice. With that said, any lawyers out that want to hazzard a guess as to what typr of plea deal might be on the table for a situation like this...

[5whiskey]

I've posted once, but I want to say this...

unless this guy can make a reasonable case that he felt threatened when he dropped the 5 .380 slugs in the kids chest, I pray that he doesn't walk. That video just gave all of the antis 5 reasons to argue against the right to defend ourselves. Not to mention it's a shame that this kid is dead. Yeah, the kid was in the wrong. Got it. It's obvious he's not an experienced criminal based off of his fumbling in the video. Were the kid NOT EXECUTED as we saw in the video, he could have went on and done well in life.

I'm all for someone having the right to defend themselves. I'm of the frame of mind that if a criminal dies while attempting a crime which someone defends against, then the criminal took that chance and his death is on him. If the first headshot would've killed him, oh well. The 5 to the chest against an unarmed, unconcious, FORMER assailant though? Come on folks, we have more sense than this... right?

[Antipitas]

doh_312, johnwilliamson062: We are not going to debate the quilt or innocence of the pharmacist. Nor are we going to debate whether the kid moved or didn't move. This thread is about the poll questions. If either of you wish to debate anything else, go back to the original thread, up in Tactics and Training.

But not here and not this thread. :mad:

[Wagonman]

The police in Lakewood here at home are trained to shoot two to the chest, one to the head to stop a threat. If the threat so much as twitches, they repeat the exercise

I don't think that a twitch is a threat.


I hope he is able to plea out to manslaughter with a shortish sentence.

He was wrong but there were extenuating circumstances.

[Ricky B]

The poll leaves out the most obvious response:

Yes to a lesser charge (say, murder 2 or voluntary manslaughter) with a sentence of substantial jail time.

[B. Lahey]

I am not a lawyer, but my take on it is that it depends if he said anything stupid to the cops.

I don't think the video is conclusive. It looks bad, but you can't see what robbery-boy is doing when shot the second time. The first shot was one of those stupid shotgun revolvers, so it could have been ultra low velocity birdshot that hit him. I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that he was unconscious, he could have just as easily been briefly stunned by a relatively harmless wound and later decided to try to fight again.

But if the pharmacist dude screeched "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!" or "dead men tell no tales!" when the cops asked him what happened, he should probably take whatever deal he can get.

I bet he said something stupid or he probably wouldn't have been charged in the first place.

[WeedWacker]

They say "he was unarmed" but what was the he pulled from his pants right after entering the pharmacy? Half looked like a MAC


ETA: NM, it's his mask... :o

[teeroux]

Well one argument could be is that would he have died anyway without the second string of fire?

Reguardless of when or how many times he was shot after the fact if he was dead or would have died shooting him again would not cause him to die again and could possibly only have caused him to die faster.

I don't think that he should have shot him again but IMO the procecution should prove beyond doubt that he may have lived if not shot a second time.

[hogdogs]

Tee, The defense isn't in a position to that. A person is a person until "declared dead" by a physician or medical examiner. So even if he was dead when the second shooting occurred he was considered a "person" and not a "body".;)
Brent

[bababooey32]

bababooey32?

Did you not read my post (#33), above?

[hogdogs]

In regards to the court case (reason for seperate thread)
Irrelevant. As part of a group that attempted armed robbery, he is a legit target.
he is a legit target
BUT NOT A LEGIT BULLET OPERATED PINATA!!!
Contrary! I agree he was part and parcel, an armed man, legally when the first shot was fired. But it is still beside the point on the second shooting. I do feel that in this case we have 2 separate shooting events, not one. The first was a very legit SD use of lethal force. The second event is what is in question and being prosecuted.
One thing the ME is going to see is spatter evidence. If it lines up with arms laying down, than it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't aware enuff to posture defensively. If the guy was moving, crawling, trying to right himself doesn't, in and of it self, make him a threat. If the kid has a face full of .410 pellets and is unable to see, and has no weapon drawn, he is not a threat.
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

unless this guy can make a reasonable case that he felt threatened when he dropped the 5 .380 slugs in the kids chest, I pray that he doesn't walk. That video just gave all of the antis 5 reasons to argue against the right to defend ourselves. Not to mention it's a shame that this kid is dead. Yeah, the kid was in the wrong. Got it. It's obvious he's not an experienced criminal based off of his fumbling in the video. Were the kid NOT EXECUTED as we saw in the video, he could have went on and done well in life.

I'm all for someone having the right to defend themselves. I'm of the frame of mind that if a criminal dies while attempting a crime which someone defends against, then the criminal took that chance and his death is on him. If the first headshot would've killed him, oh well. The 5 to the chest against an unarmed, unconcious, FORMER assailant though? Come on folks, we have more sense than this... right?


5whiskey has nailed my position, Well said !

[Crosshair]

After reading most of the stuff from the links posted, I have this to say:

Reasonable doubt. One event with two possible explanations, neither one can be fully ruled out.

For other things

Does anyone HONESTLY expect someone to remember things 100% how they happened in such a fast, dynamic, and traumatic event? That would seem really suspicious to me .

When I hit a deer last year, the dents on my car, position of my car, and position of the deer did not match the memories I have of the event and the description of the event I gave. I remember the deer going under the car when I hit it, but the damage to the car clearly shows that the deer went onto the hood and over the car.

Stuff happens, memories get garbled. Just because someones memory aint the best doesn't mean he is lying.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Because of memory failures, etc. - almost every professional will tell you to keep quiet until you talk to your lawyer. Police have procedures for that after their shootings.

Also, how come folks don't misremember things in the direction that is not in their benefit?

Yes, there may be some hypercomplex frame by frame analysis of the action to support the pharmacist like was done in the Rodney King case. That is going to cost him every cent he is has.

It is clear that after the first shot - he had the chance to avoid further conflict - independent of your moral stance on bad guys, etc. - you need to keep your head. That's why training and stress inoculation is so important.

And keeping your mouth shut about how you are a commando and cleaning of scum. Like we see here from folks.

1. I'm cleaning the scum
2. If I shoot, they will be dead
3. I will take risks as I have my little friend.

All recent posts from TFL.

Anyway, the guy should entertain a good plea offer. And if he doesn't get jail time, he needs to find another job in another location. Or he can posture that he is ready for the next one.

[divemedic]

Remember that the standard for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The following facts have been confirmed by the prosecution AND the defense:

1 The deceased was participating in an armed robbery
2 The deceased was shot once in the head by the shopkeeper
3 The shopkeeper left the vicinity of the deceased
4 the shopkeeper returned, and shot the deceased multiple times
5 The initial shooting was justified, the charges stem from a question of whether or not the second set of shots was, as well
6 The deceased was not armed

So the question here is whether or not the second set of shots was legally justified. The deceased is not visible on the video, and the only witness was the shopkeeper, who claims he was moving. Forensic evidence can tell you whether or not the deceased moved from the point where he fell, but the reasonable doubt, in my mind, enters when we ask if the deceased could possibly have moved his hands or arms, and whether or not a subject's arm twitching could reasonably be perceived as a threat.

I think there is plenty of room there for reasonable doubt, if the pharmacist has a good lawyer. Keeping in mind that the pharmacist is presumed innocent, and that it is the job of the prosecutor to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant unlawfully killed the decedent, I think the prosecutor has a difficult case ahead of him.

ETA: As a paramedic who has seen hundreds of head injuries, and dozens of shootings (at least in the three digits) I can tell you this: A severe head injury does not cause a person to collapse and go limp. Frequently, a severe head injury causes the person to "posture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorticate_posturing)" The two types of posturing are called decorticate and decerebate posturing. The decedent was very likely to have been moving after being shot, and this would not be a conscious movement, but could easily be mistaken for one.

[csmsss]

I think it's almost certain this case will never see a jury, unless external forces (ie community pressure on the prosecutor) come into play. The defense would be criminally stupid for not accepting a reasonable plea deal (say, manslaughter for 2-5 year minimum sentence), because the alternative is to go to a jury trial and look at a minimum of 25 years or more should the jury use their eyes and ears and not their emotions in reaching a verdict.

The prosecution has to also weigh the very real possibility of running into a jury that might side with the pharmacist and acquit him. This is a defendant who many may find sympathetic and want to side with.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The jury question will be interesting - there can easily be a panel of jurors who are unsympathetic to him. His lawyer will need to determine if they can get a change of venue.

In the Diallo case, the officers charged got the case moved to Albany. It was an ambiguous shoot with racial overtones and the original venue was not police friendly but Albany, NY was historically sympathetic to police.

Quite the crap shoot.

[Vanya]

Can't really vote on this one, given the choices, but...

Should Mr. Ersland's lawyer be trying to get a deal for him? Yes, of course -- given what the evidence against him seems to be, if this goes to a jury, unless he's very lucky with jury selection, he's toast.

Should the DA offer a deal? My personal opinion is that he shouldn't. Again, based on the evidence there's a good chance the man committed murder and he ought to go down for it... but given that the DA doesn't seem to be all that keen on prosecuting, I'd be surprised if a deal were not made. I'd hope it would be for not less than second degree murder, and substantial jail time, assuming the medical examiner is correct that Mr. Ersland shot an unconscious man.

[divemedic]

In voir dire, no potential jurist will be allowed onto the panel that is against self defense in principle. Therefore, no anti's will be on the jury unless they lie to get there.

The question here is whether or not the second set of shots were legal. Anyone who believes that neither set of shots should have happened because the pharmacist should not have had a gun will be dismissed for cause.

[PT111]

When I hit a deer last year, the dents on my car, position of my car, and position of the deer did not match the memories I have of the event and the description of the event I gave. I remember the deer going under the car when I hit it, but the damage to the car clearly shows that the deer went onto the hood and over the car.

But you didn't forget in which direction you were traveling, that you were driving, where you were going or that you hit a deer instead of a bear did you. There is a difference between being confused and total distortions of the whole story. I think he was just plain lieing especially to the media.

As for the blood splatter proof, lay off watching CSI and turn over to NCIS. At least NCIS doesn't try to make you think that what they do is real.

[bikerbill]

This guy committed a crime, he killed a man who appears not to have been a threat to him ... if he gets a lenient plea offer, he should jump at it ... if I was on the jury, he's going down ... manslaughter would be a gift ... I'm licensed to carry a gun ... and have been taught in every class I've taken that lethal force can only be used to counter lethal force, not to finish off a wounded and unconscious man ...

[divemedic]

Bill- How do you KNOW he was unconscious? Can you be sure that the pharmacist who took the shot knew that he was unconscious and no longer a threat? Could there be a reasonable doubt that the man on the ground was moving? If he was, is it reasonable to believe that the pharmacist saw this movement, and believed the downed man was drawing a weapon?

[KingEdward]

deep $^@#%( because Mr. Ersland took 5 more shots. Like he was
going for the big bear prize at the carnival target shoot.

more hot water because if Mr. Ersland felt threatened, why hadn't he
taken cover. He's running up and down the street and now he can't get
away from a guy lying on his back 1/2 out of it who "might" still be a
threat.

Like many, I'm all for the pharmacist protecting himself and the BGs meeting
whatever lead poisoning they do.

But he's in hot water here. Not warm, HOT

[hogdogs]

If I was in his shoes I would consider a 2 year prison term a mercy sentence...
I would jump on a plea deal like a bulldog on a hogs ear!
Brent

[ImprobableJoe]

If it were me, I'd beg for a deal and be grateful for it. Reading up on the case and watching the video, it seems like this guy did so many things wrong that it will be hard for him to make a valid self-defense claim. The first shot he fired was unquestionably justified, and then he screwed the pooch a couple of ways and wound up doing something that looks a whole lot like murder.

Once he left the store, the guy he shot was no longer a threat to him. He could have and should have called the police from somewhere else. By going back into the store, he escalated the situation. From that point it wasn't self-defense anymore.

[hogdogs]

In his defense returning to the store to protect the others is admirable... but unfortunately for him he failed to acknowledge their existence upon return...
Brent

[rampage841512]

One can hope for jury nullification, not that it's likely.

[ImprobableJoe]

One can hope for jury nullification, not that it's likely.

Why? So that other mentally-defective/drug-addled people can feel free to abuse their right to bear arms and murder people?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was thinking about this as a nuance - one debate is whether the type of gun you use will influence a jury. Folks say - NOT IF IT IS A GOOD SHOOT!

But this one is certainly iffy from our discussion. Do you think if the pharmacist came back with an AR or a Tac shotgun and fired five rounds into the guy - would take look worse in court than the 380 already did. Would it change the mind of those who were on the fence?

[rampage841512]

Why? So that other mentally-defective/drug-addled people can feel free to abuse their right to bear arms and murder people?

Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. According to the law, this man is guilty of murder. According to my moral standards he is not because killing the person in question was not unjustified. Therefore, IF I were on the jury I would be forced to return a verdict of not guilty, exercising the power of a juror to object to an immoral law.

Now, I do not advocate breaking the law. But if a person does break and accomplishes what is in my mind a good thing, then I see no reason to keep them from what I consider immoral punishment if I have it in my power do so. Of course, I've made a generalization here based on this one specific case. Every individual case would have to be judged differently depending on the circumstances.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my reasoning. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm accused of being a blood thirsty, mall ninja, hero-wanna-be. Oh, well. :rolleyes: I've been accused of far worse and managed to go on with my life.

[ImprobableJoe]

Where is the good in committing murder?

[PT111]

From what I have seen I am not sure that I would go along with Murder 1, but offer anything less and he is toast. If the DA only lets the jury choose from Murder 1 and nothing else he has a slight chance of beating it.

[Doggieman]

I'd acquit him no matter what ;) But that's just me.

However, as an attorney, I know this is a difficult one. It's a total crapshoot, most people are pretty weak minded and tend to do what they're told to do, so you get one loud person on a jury and he/she can sway everyone.

Of course you only need 1 strong-willed person to hang a jury, and something tells me the prosecutors don't want to do it twice... I would try to bargain for the best plea deal I could, then let the defendant decide.

Not an easy decision. As a lawyer you need to leave the major decisions to the client and his family.

[DeltaB]

As I've said before in other threads, Oklahoma law looks quite harshly when the death of a minor is involved. No premeditation is required for a conviction on murder in the 1st degree, and all that need be proven is that Ersland used unreasonable force on Parker.

It really doesn't matter if Parker was moving, twitching, speaking or not. The Castle Defense doesn't allow you to continue to use deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. There was no force from Parker to justify Ersland to return deadly force. Ersland's own actions provide all the information that is needed to realize what he looked like as he presumed himself in imminent threat. He shows us clearly on tape what that looks like. His body language, his tactical mannerism, his presenting of his weapon. And then he shows us how he can use unreasonable force on a downed suspect.

[Doggieman]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, I'd acquit him no matter what.

Problem with most jurors is they listen to the judge :rolleyes:, who always tells you that you're just a 'fact finder' as a member of the jury. That's what the courts WANT you to be. You can, however, choose to be anything you want as a juror. Judges want you to believe they have the power, when in fact, you do.

Jury nullification RARELY happens. And I always get booted from voir dire within about 30 seconds 'cause I'm a lawyer.. it's no wonder why, I can't be fooled like so many others ;)

[DeltaB]

But if a person does break and accomplishes what is in my mind a good thing, then I see no reason to keep them from what I consider immoral punishment if I have it in my power do so.

Vigilantism is no better. It's anarchy in a civil society. If you don't like the law, then use your rights as a citizen and seek to change the law.

[Doggieman]

viva anarchy :o

I've got my guns. I can protect myself.

I visited the bay area once years ago, and I vividly remember an old homeless guy saying "The police are far more likely to hurt me than help me." I have a feeling there are lots of people who fall into that same category.

[DeltaB]

Do you think if the pharmacist came back with an AR or a Tac shotgun and fired five rounds into the guy - would take look worse in court than the 380 already did. Would it change the mind of those who were on the fence?

Good point. What if he had came back in with a baseball bat and bludgeoned him to death...or an axe and hacked at his body 5 times.

[DeltaB]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, I'd acquit him no matter what.

I don't feel nullification is applicable to this case. If you feel the need to nullify capital statute providing protection for minors in lieu of setting a person free who is of highly questionable background, instability, to even blatent disregard to law, then I would question your reasoning ability.

I don't agree with your position or your summation.

[rampage841512]

Where is the good in committing murder?

I don't believe he unjustifiably killed anyone. I think the law, in this case, is defining 'murder' incorrectly.

[rampage841512]

Vigilantism is no better. It's anarchy in a civil society. If you don't like the law, then use your rights as a citizen and seek to change the law.

I am using my rights as a citizen to work to change the law. However, jury nullification is an accepted and legal way of refusing to be used by government in order to enforce punishment for a law one believes to be immoral.

[divemedic]

It really doesn't matter if Parker was moving, twitching, speaking or not. The Castle Defense doesn't allow you to continue to use deadly force on an incapacitated suspect.

Just because he is down does not mean that he is incapacitated. I can easily see where a person could see a subject whose hands are moving towards his waistband and perceive a threat.

In a self defense case, the jury must be able to see the incident through the eyes of the shooter. There are a number of questions that must be answered, and I do not think the tape shows us those answers.

The subject was on the ground with a bullet wound to the head. Was he moving? Were his hands moving towards his waistband? Could they have been? If so, could the reasonable person see that movement as a reach for a weapon?

As the defense attorney, I would be tying to do just that- convince the jury that the teen, with his head injury, was posturing. I would show them what decerebate and decorticate posturing looks like. I could use my own expert witness, or better yet, I would get the Medical Examiner to cooborate for the jury what posturing is, and whether it was possible for the teen to have been posturing.

I just think there is a lot of room here for reasonable doubt. This case is not the slam dunk many of you here think it is.

[DeltaB]

However, jury nullification is an accepted and legal way of refusing to be used by government in order to enforce punishment for a law one believes to be immoral.

Since you don't live in the state of Oklahoma the point is really moot. The moral duty to obey a given law is "the duty to do as the law states by reason that it is the law." It is immoral to not follow the law. Now if you are saying a law is unethical, please explain to me, from your ethical framework, how you see a law that gives the state prosecutorial rights to bring charges against someone who takes the life of a minor using unreasonable deadly force, how is that unethical. Are you advocating the position that someone who unlawfully uses deadly force on a minor should be allowed to stand free of the consequences of that choice?

[DeltaB]

I just think there is a lot of room here for reasonable doubt.

If you throw enough crap over on the wall maybe some of it will stick. I've said it before, Ersland's own actions show us what he looked like when he "perceived" imminent threat. The issue you raise doesn't pass the smell test.

"Legally Incapacitated"
Person temporarily or permanently impaired by mental and/or physical deficiency, disability, or illness to the extent he or she lacks sufficient understanding to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions.

[divemedic]

Remember that the question is not whether or not the robber was incapacitated, but whether the shooter reasonably believed that he was a threat. I would say that a perp who is moving his hands towards his waistline is still a viable threat, and shooting to engage such a person is still a good shoot.

As a paramedic with over 20 years experience, there are still times when I have trouble immediately identifying a person who is truly incapable of action. Sometimes it takes me a few seconds, and that is more than the shooter had in this case. It is much harder to identify an incapacitated person than you think it is.

For example, about 5 years ago I ran on a police officer whose motorcycle was struck by a car, and it knocked him into the path of another car. When I got there, I thought he was dead. As soon as I touched him to check his pulse, he tried to draw his weapon.

A second one: I saw a man who was partially ejected from his pickup truck who was moving and trying (or so it seemed) to open the car door. When I reached him, all of his brains were lying on the passenger side seat. Obviously dead, yet still moving.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

After all this good and reasoned discussion - it does make the point that folks need to think about legal consequences rather than saying - IF IT IS A GOOD SHOOT!

At my local IDPA match today, most of the folks think the pharmacist screwed up and we are gun people.

To the original question - take the plea.