Latest in the Jerome Jay Ersland saga.

[HMFIC]

I agree with every one of those statements HMFIC, but are those offenses for which one should be tried in a court of law? Or are they just stupid mistakes made under duress?

That's one of the big questions isn't it?

He can’t have it both ways…

1.) If he believed Parker was a threat, then those actions I described were poor decisions. If those were poor decisions, then who’s to say his assessment wasn’t poor as well.
2.) If he did truly assess Parker as no longer a threat, then his actions firing the additional 5 .380 rounds were criminal.

He has to either make up his mind or somehow convince a jury that despite all of the evidence to the contrary, he thought Parker was “swearing, turning to the right and going for a gun”.

1.) The medical examiner’s report (stating that Parker was either dead or incapacitated)
2.) The crime scene analysis (stating that Parker was on his back, arms and hands out to the sides and undisturbed)
3.) The video (which clearly shows Parkers feet not moving a single tiny bit the entire time).

I believe that his only other defense is if Parker was already dead when he fired the .380 rounds (can’t murder a dead man) or if he was just crazed and didn’t know what he was doing and plea for mercy.

I don’t believe that it is right to offer a defense equivalent to the statements his attorney has made. He literally has said on video that the robbers ”forfeited their right to live” by their actions. That seems very vigilante to me.

It’s a mess for sure...

 

[_CY_]

would you please provide links to the 3 items listed below.

there's many different medical examiner's reports in this case. turning this into dueling medical examiners reports. would like to read it myself.

for instance first coroner's report states first shot was not lethal. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/1003/ME Autopsy.pdf

but if you actually read the report with details of projectile penetrating skull, then doing damage to brain material.... doesn't take a PHD to figure out statement of first bullet not being fatal is questionable at best. making rest of report suspect as well. then add her employment details... Any competent attorney will rip this apart.

here's three raw videos from 3 different angles. is anyone aware of any other raw video besides these three?

NONE shows any detail of downed robber after being shot. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1243733340

if anyone knows of any other video. especially the one showing downed robbers feet not moving the entire time. please provide links.

In agreement with Michael Brown... if all the evidence Prater can come up with is the videos. then the benefit of the doubt belongs to Ersland.

evidently Prater's record has been of a fair and just man before this case. Despite appearance Prater is milking this case for the publicity. I'll take back my opinion that he's a moron for prosecuting this.... until Prater has a chance to present any other credible evidence ... if any...

1.) The medical examiner’s report (stating that Parker was either dead or incapacitated)
2.) The crime scene analysis (stating that Parker was on his back, arms and hands out to the sides and undisturbed)
3.) The video (which clearly shows Parkers feet not moving a single tiny bit the entire time).

.

 

[ez bake]

My biggest problem with the defenders of Ersland out there is that the same logic that is applied to Parker and the other thug that got away (even the driver) are not being applied to Ersland because why?... "They started it"?

What if Ersland (and this is hypothetical just to prove the thought-process some folks have) didn't feel threatened by Parker once he was done from the first shot? Let's say, he confessed in a statement that was recorded - not that the media took his words out of context, but that Ersland made a statement that he intended to kill Parker when he walked back into the pharmacy and was not threatened by him at all.

At that point, would his fans still stand up for him? If so, that's a flawed line of thought (legally and morally - at a pretty wide understanding of morals) and I get the impression from a lot of the statements I hear defending him that this line of thought is very prevalent among his fans (regardless of whether you say you're ok with vigilante justice or not, at this point, you are).

Every one of the statements I've heard defending Ersland tend to jump around based on different defenses - this is the first indication to me that even his fans believe he's guilty. If you're innocent, then your story doesn't change and the people defending your actions don't change positions with different defenses. You explain why you think he's innocent and that is that.

If he is innocent of murdering Parker, he's innocent because of only one of the following (feel free to chime in if I've missed something):

- Parker was already dead from the first shot so Ersland couldn't have killed him with the 5 additional shots
- Parker legitimately moved or did something to scare Ersland into believing that his life was in danger

Its either of these, not both - when you switch from defending him from one of the above defenses to the other, you indicate that the other is not true because a dead man cannot move. This is the thought process of grasping at straws, not sticking with why you truly believe he's innocent. It means that you want him to be innocent, not that you truly believe he is.

To tell yourself that Ersland can go outside and shoot a fleeing perp is wrong (that act is illegal, and honestly, it taught to be wrong in every self defense or CCW class I'm aware of). Prader granted Ersland that much leeway. That's a big gift right there - its not something that I would expect to get from a prosecutor if I had done the same thing.

If you disagree, then I honestly am scared of that line of thought. How far can you extend that logic? How far does Ersland get to take things before its too far? Could he have shot the get-away driver too because he was involved? Could he have followed the fleeing perp for 5 or even 10 blocks to shoot him? Could he have killed the perp's entire family if he wanted to (that's clearly a stretch, but I'm proving a point that there is a "too far")?

There has to be a point at which you're no longer defending your life and you're actively taking things too far, or you could just go and chase after anyone you wanted to and kill them for committing any crime.

That's the difference here (and I hear it in people's defense of Ersland all the time). There is a line between defending your life and "punishing those guilty of a crime" because you disapprove of that crime. That is vigilante justice and its not legal. And even if it were, the punishment for the crime of armed robbery is not death (I'm not talking about self defense here, I'm talking about once you've gone too far and are actively engaging someone to shoot them as they are fleeing and no longer threatening your life).

Why not just chase down someone who door-dinged your car and shoot them too? What about speeders? What about misdemeanor trespassers (a lot of us get really close to that line all the time)?

The CCW permit is not a badge - to compare what Ersland did to what police would do in his situation demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what self-defense really is - we're not cops (those of us who aren't). Ersland definitely wasn't. The same thing applies to defending your property, home, business. You don't have a permit to go chase someone down off of your property and shoot at them - that is a criminal act.

What if Ersland had hit an innocent bystander as he was shooting at the fleeing suspect (that's a very real possibility)? What if that person he hit died. What if that person was your sister? Would he still be innocent because "the adrenalin was pumping"?

Yes threatening my life is a big deal. I take that very seriously and would respond with deadly force to stop the threat. Would I chase someone down the street and then come back and switch guns and finish off the guy on the floor? No.

I completely understand why Ersland's guilty verdict means a lot to the shooting community and how damaging that is, but like I've said before, no matter how this thing shakes out, it won't be good.

As far as the facts are concerned, Ersland is a criminal (even if Parker moved or was already dead and you remove the murder charges). You don't get to chase someone down the street and shoot into a populated city area - that is not just a stupid mistake, its criminal and if it were me, I would expect to be held accountable for my actions because I was doing something illegal.

So either way, a criminal will walk and another will be punished for a crime.

 

[redmax51]

I completely understand why Ersland's guilty verdict means a lot to the shooting community and how damaging that is, but like I've said before, no matter how this thing shakes out, it won't be good.

This is absolutely correct.

 

[TJay74]

Ok I have seen both sides of the argument, but I now ask this.

If per the coroner the bad guy was in deed deceased, then should the charges be updated to something related to shooting into a corpse and not murder?

 

[MaddSkillz]

Ok I have seen both sides of the argument, but I now ask this.

If per the coroner the bad guy was in deed deceased, then should the charges be updated to something related to shooting into a corpse and not murder?

How could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp was not dead? Based on what I've read, it's pretty much a guessing game and the video footage doesn't show anything conclusive.

This is dumb case that shouldn't be given this much attention or time.

 

[ez bake]

Ok I have seen both sides of the argument, but I now ask this.

If per the coroner the bad guy was in deed deceased, then should the charges be updated to something related to shooting into a corpse and not murder?

That's nearly impossible to determine (since as _CY_ pointed out, time of death can be determined to the hour, but not to the minute), but if cause of death is the slug from the Judge and not the 5 shots from the .380, then yes - Ersland is innocent of murdering Parker.

But that would mean that Ersland lied about the deceased Parker attempting to get up and cursing at him, and that Ersland is guilty of attempting to kill Parker as he laid on the floor with no threat to Ersland's own life (even if that's not against the law, it makes Ersland a sick individual - not someone that if allowed to continue carrying a gun around, is any less dangerous than the armed robbers).

 

[ez bake]

How could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp was not dead?

How could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parker was not alive?

Again, if Parker was dead when Ersland shot him 5 more times, it almost sickens me that Ersland would get off with no prosecution seeing as how his intent couldn't be defending his own life if Parker was already dead.

If you think a guilty verdict will affect our gun rights, think about the backlash legislation that's going to come if Ersland gets off with the "he was already dead" defense.

 

[1shot(bob)]

My biggest problem with the defenders of Ersland out there is that the same logic that is applied to Parker and the other thug that got away (even the driver) are not being applied to Ersland because why?... "They started it"?

Exactly. They started the altercation so anything that happens during said altercation is their choosing.

What if Ersland (and this is hypothetical just to prove the thought-process some folks have) didn't feel threatened by Parker once he was done from the first shot? Let's say, he confessed in a statement that was recorded - not that the media took his words out of context, but that Ersland made a statement that he intended to kill Parker when he walked back into the pharmacy and was not threatened by him at all.

At that point, would his fans still stand up for him? If so, that's a flawed line of thought (legally and morally - at a pretty wide understanding of morals) and I get the impression from a lot of the statements I hear defending him that this line of thought is very prevalent among his fans (regardless of whether you say you're ok with vigilante justice or not, at this point, you are).

I would still defend him. Once he was attacked he should have every right to fight until that attack is completely stopped in his mind. Saying otherwise is like saying "why not just shoot to injure instead of shooting to kill?".

Every one of the statements I've heard defending Ersland tend to jump around based on different defenses - this is the first indication to me that even his fans believe he's guilty. If you're innocent, then your story doesn't change and the people defending your actions don't change positions with different defenses. You explain why you think he's innocent and that is that.

My defense of him has not wavered so this doesn't apply to me.

If he is innocent of murdering Parker, he's innocent because of only one of the following (feel free to chime in if I've missed something):

- Parker was already dead from the first shot so Ersland couldn't have killed him with the 5 additional shots
- Parker legitimately moved or did something to scare Ersland into believing that his life was in danger

Its either of these, not both - when you switch from defending him from one of the above defenses to the other, you indicate that the other is not true because a dead man cannot move. This is the thought process of grasping at straws, not sticking with why you truly believe he's innocent. It means that you want him to be innocent, not that you truly believe he is.

Parker attempted assault with a deadly weapon and that threat was responded to with deadly force. I do not believe in 'limited' deadly force. If you don't want to die, don't stick your gun in someone's face.

To tell yourself that Ersland can go outside and shoot a fleeing perp is wrong (that act is illegal, and honestly, it taught to be wrong in every self defense or CCW class I'm aware of). Prader granted Ersland that much leeway. That's a big gift right there - its not something that I would expect to get from a prosecutor if I had done the same thing.

That action was wrong, but maybe in that situation I would have done the same thing. Following them out is a sure way to make sure they are not coming back in.

If you disagree, then I honestly am scared of that line of thought. How far can you extend that logic? How far does Ersland get to take things before its too far? Could he have shot the get-away driver too because he was involved? Could he have followed the fleeing perp for 5 or even 10 blocks to shoot him? Could he have killed the perp's entire family if he wanted to (that's clearly a stretch, but I'm proving a point that there is a "too far")?

There has to be a point at which you're no longer defending your life and you're actively taking things too far, or you could just go and chase after anyone you wanted to and kill them for committing any crime.

Going too far would be hunting them down the next day, or even later that day. Doing so within seconds of the attack is not too far.

That's the difference here (and I hear it in people's defense of Ersland all the time). There is a line between defending your life and "punishing those guilty of a crime" because you disapprove of that crime. That is vigilante justice and its not legal. And even if it were, the punishment for the crime of armed robbery is not death (I'm not talking about self defense here, I'm talking about once you've gone too far and are actively engaging someone to shoot them as they are fleeing and no longer threatening your life).

Even if they are fleeing it does not signal the end of the attack. They could just as easily turn around after regrouping to finish what they started.

Why not just chase down someone who door-dinged your car and shoot them too? What about speeders? What about misdemeanor trespassers (a lot of us get really close to that line all the time)?

Don't go to an extreme. A gun in my face is different than a ding in my door.

The CCW permit is not a badge - to compare what Ersland did to what police would do in his situation demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what self-defense really is - we're not cops (those of us who aren't). Ersland definitely wasn't. The same thing applies to defending your property, home, business. You don't have a permit to go chase someone down off of your property and shoot at them - that is a criminal act.

To expect the same treatment is reasonable though. If I am attacked with a gun and respond accordingly why should I be treated diferently than a cop that does the same thing in the same situation?

What if Ersland had hit an innocent bystander as he was shooting at the fleeing suspect (that's a very real possibility)? What if that person he hit died. What if that person was your sister? Would he still be innocent because "the adrenalin was pumping"?

Even if it's not my sister I would want him to stand trial for that. That is a totally different situation.
But what if your sister was in the store at the time and was shot, how would you feel then?

Yes threatening my life is a big deal. I take that very seriously and would respond with deadly force to stop the threat. Would I chase someone down the street and then come back and switch guns and finish off the guy on the floor? No.

Are you sure? Do you think Ersland had this planned out in his mind for such an occurrence?

I completely understand why Ersland's guilty verdict means a lot to the shooting community and how damaging that is, but like I've said before, no matter how this thing shakes out, it won't be good.

As far as the facts are concerned, Ersland is a criminal (even if Parker moved or was already dead and you remove the murder charges). You don't get to chase someone down the street and shoot into a populated city area - that is not just a stupid mistake, its criminal and if it were me, I would expect to be held accountable for my actions because I was doing something illegal.

So either way, a criminal will walk and another will be punished for a crime.

No, Ersland was a victim. A victim that made mistakes when put in an impossible situation. He made mistakes some people equate with a crime. That's a shame.

 

[MaddSkillz]

How could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parker was not alive?

Again, if Parker was dead when Ersland shot him 5 more times, it almost sickens me that Ersland would get off with no prosecution seeing as how his intent couldn't be defending his own life if Parker was already dead.

If you think a guilty verdict will affect our gun rights, think about the backlash legislation that's going to come if Ersland gets off with the "he was already dead" defense.

They can't, therefore he's innocent until they can prove otherwise. And since it seems the evidence they would need to prove otherwise is not available, Ersland is innocent.

And regarding this case. I don't think any state anti-legislation will come around because of it. It just doesn't have the exposure. I mean, we could have that discussion but we're both just speculating.