Latest in the Jerome Jay Ersland saga.

[ez bake]

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.

Right - he'd be innocent of murdering Parker, but again - he'd have lied about his "self-defense" stance - and doesn't that just make it a failed murder attempt instead of a defensive shooting (if Parker was lying motionless on the floor and not threatening Ersland's life)? I mean, he shot him for some reason - and if it wasn't self-defense, then what was it if Parker was dead already and Ersland's own testimony states that he believed Parker was still alive?

I mean, the video and other evidence at least proves that Ersland shot Parker 5 times in the abdomen with a .380 right? So if he lied about Parker moving and thought Parker was still alive, then what possible motive could Ersland have that wasn't criminal?




1Shot - man, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what you believe is right or wrong vs what I believe. I respect what you have to say on a lot of things, but I'm honestly shocked at some of your comments in this thread.

It is clear that from this comment:

I know this isn't how it is legally, but I think it should be.

...and pretty much your entire last post that you view what is legal vs. what is right in your mind as two different things - the above comments paint that picture pretty vividly (especially since it is in direct conflict with those who teach CCW, defensive shooting, CLEET, the law, etc. have all said on the matter).

But at the very least, Prater is prosecuting based on what is/is not legal and not what someone's morals (that differ from the law) say are right or wrong?

Why does doing that make him a moron?

 

[Mr10mm]

Come on guys Antwun Parker was a good kid and a hero just ask his mom!

"You can look at the video and you can tell he (Parker) didn’t know what he was doing,”
" "He's just like everybody else, innocent until proven guilty."

And the best one

"She said she may file a civil lawsuit against Ersland if she's not happy with the course of action in the criminal case"

Ya she got the first part correct, he does not even know how to put on a ski mask when he was about to rob someone.

http://newsok.com/antwun-parker-remembered-as-good-kid-who-loved-to-play-basketball/article/3373801

http://www.koco.com/r/24703285/detail.html

 

[MaddSkillz]

EZ, I don't equate law as the ultimate authority on what is right or wrong. And I hate to speak for Bob, but that's what I believe he's saying there. This doesn't mean I subscribe to total anarchy either. I am for law, but I disagree with "application of force" laws in this situation.

If you want to put a gun in someones face or be an accomplice in said activity and give the perception that this is a life or death situation to the victim, your right to life is just as equally on the line.

What urks me the most is the fact that a life-threatening crime carried out on an honest-working individual and initiated by thugs, can turn the honest guy into a criminal. Without said crime, the guy would still be an honest-working contributor.

That right there, is plain effed up.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

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 it. They went into the place with the intent to commit a crime against innocent people. They lost. It's important to the well-being of a civilized society that the barbarians lose when 'they start it.' It's important to the well-being of a civilized society that the victims don't lose when they are victimized--regardless of legal technicalities.

Will you be happy to see Ersland on Oklahoma State Penitentiary's Death Row? Be consistent now. He made 'bad decisions.' He killed a thug who was part of a criminal conspiracy which intended to threaten Ersland and the other employees with the possibility of death if they didn't bow to the conspirator's demands. I'm happy the POS is dead and would be happier if OCPD would have ran the other two down and exterminated them too.

 

[1shot(bob)]

1Shot - man, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what you believe is right or wrong vs what I believe. I respect what you have to say on a lot of things, but I'm honestly shocked at some of your comments in this thread.

It is clear that from this comment:
<<forum edit, not mine>>

...and pretty much your entire last post that you view what is legal vs. what is right in your mind as two different things - the above comments paint that picture pretty vividly (especially since it is in direct conflict with those who teach CCW, defensive shooting, CLEET, the law, etc. have all said on the matter).

But at the very least, Prater is prosecuting based on what is/is not legal and not what someone's morals (that differ from the law) say are right or wrong?

I definitely see 'legal' and 'right' as contradictory in this case, and that's my point.
If it's a question of the wording and understanding of the law we're talking about, then Prater is absolutely right in what he is doing.
If it's a question about what is right, then Prater is wrong (IMO).
I have asked twice now and not gotten an answer: who are we protecting by prosecuting Ersland? That answer alone will settle it for me.

Is Ersland a danger to John Q. Public? Not likely.
Is Ersland a danger to thugs that think robbing him is an easy way to make a buck. Yes.

I disagree with the law think the law needs to change.
In the CCW class we are taught what the law is, not what it should be. I am discussing what I think it should be. If I was on the jury I would push for nullification.

Why does doing that make him a moron?

I never said he was. My beef is not with Prater, it's with the law. This entire event played out in less than 60 seconds. I fail to see how 'vigilante justice' can be considered in that short amount of time.

 

[1shot(bob)]

Exactly. They started it. They went into the place with the intent to commit a crime against innocent people. They lost. It's important to the well-being of a civilized society that the barbarians lose when 'they start it.' It's important to the well-being of a civilized society that the victims don't lose when they are victimized--regardless of legal technicalities.

Amen!! My thoughts exactly! And in a lot fewer words, too.

 

[saddlebum]

prater has to go by what the law is, not what we think it should be

 

[ez bake]

If it's a question about what is right, then Prater is wrong (IMO).
I have asked twice now and not gotten an answer: who are we protecting by prosecuting Ersland? That answer alone will settle it for me.

If (IF) Ersland shot Parker when Parker was on the floor, and not moving (or a threat) and Ersland believed Parker to be alive and was doing it out of anger, then by putting him in prison, we're protecting other people that he might shoot in anger. Anger is not the same thing as self-defense and you're not allowed to shoot someone in anger because of something they did (provided its not in defense of your life or the lives of your loved ones).

If he did that, then he is a danger to the public, including innocent bystanders who happen to be on crowded city streets if he's chasing someone with a gun while "defending his life".

I fail to see how 'vigilante justice' can be considered in that short amount of time.

Timeframes don't decide what is and is not a single incident. 60 seconds is a long time - its not like it was 5 seconds for him to make the choice to fire all the shots he fired. He did make the choice to shoot in self defense within a few seconds and I stand by his choice (even if he shot the unarmed suspect first - that's where I would have said that under duress, maybe I wouldn't have made a better choice than he did, but I'd defend his actions at that point). I've never said the first shot was bad, but that is where I would say that the incident was over.

From the evidence I've seen, (in my opinion) there was no longer a threat to his life at that point. He didn't have to chase the other suspect down the street - I like how everyone's comments are "that's wrong" or "he made a mistake" like its not illegal to chase a fleeing suspect down the street shooting at him.

I'll put it this way, if an officer of the law had been standing outside and saw Ersland chasing someone down the street with a gun said officer would have shot Ersland (and he would have been justified in doing so). That's not a mistake, its breaking the law. The armed robbery didn't make Ersland chase the suspect down the street, it was his choice - he wasn't defending his life at that point.

Again, that's a lot of time (and change of scenery to clear your head) before he came back inside the pharmacy. In my mind, that's what isolates the incident of him getting robbed (and defending his life) from him actively committing a crime by way of chasing after someone and shooting at them while they flee.

That's my opinion, and I know we differ, but I'd say that Ersland had enough time to calm down and realize that he wasn't being threatened when he was chasing the other suspect down the street and shooting at him illegally.

The entire "incident" is actually three separate incidents in my opinion:

1. Ersland got robbed and shot one of his attackers dropping him (it was a good shoot and I'd even defend his actions of running to the door, but not anything he did next).

2. Ersland chased the armed robber down the street and fired at him (and I'd like to point out that his "crippled" defense doesn't hold water if he was able to run past the camera and down the street firing a gun at the fleeing suspect).

3. Ersland then came back inside the pharmacy and walked past Parker, turned his back on Parker, puts his gun in his non-shooting hand, changes guns, walks back over to Parker and leans over him and fires 5 one-handed shots to Parker's abdomen.

There's room for both the robbers and Ersland to be criminals - the two aren't mutually exclusive of each other (there's plenty of dirt-bags in the world, every story doesn't have a good guy and a bad guy).

I just don't understand why so many folks gripe about the media slanting a story, and yet Ersland is described in this thread as an "honest-working individual", the "good guy", a "hero", who "made mistakes" and was "wrong", yet Parker and the other robber are described with all sorts of negative assumptions as to what their intentions were.

True they robbed the place and should have expected to die had they been caught by someone with a gun. Had Ersland popped off two shots and got both of them, none of us would be having this conversation (and I doubt Prater would be prosecuting based on what he's said in interviews). Those are facts indeed.

But here are some other facts to consider:

Ersland chose on his own to give chase and fire at someone who was fleeing - he left his property to do so (and at that time was not covered by the castle doctrine/stand-your-ground laws). That's illegal.

Ersland then chose to come back in to the pharmacy and instead of holding a gun on Parker (from over by the counter where he switched guns) and calling 911, he went in close to Parker. That's stupid.

Ersland then lied to police about the events, lied about being shot at, made up a fake injury and even bandaged it, and then lied about his military service and PTSD. That's illegal (perjury).

Ersland's defense switched from "Parker was cursing and tried to get up" to "Parker was already dead".

Yet he's somehow an honest, working, hero.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

prater has to go by what the law is, not what we think it should be

No he doesn't. He doesn't have to prosecute at all unless a grand jury indictment forces him to. Has that happened?

 

[1shot(bob)]

If (IF) Ersland shot Parker when Parker was on the floor, and not moving (or a threat) and Ersland believed Parker to be alive and was doing it out of anger, then by putting him in prison, we're protecting other people that he might shoot in anger. Anger is not the same thing as self-defense and you're not allowed to shoot someone in anger because of something they did (provided its not in defense of your life or the lives of your loved ones).

If he did that, then he is a danger to the public, including innocent bystanders who happen to be on crowded city streets if he's chasing someone with a gun while "defending his life".

IF is the biggest word in the english language.
I would say his anger was precipitated by the events. To use this event as a standard for his life is incorrect I think. Had he instigated the event then we could use it to judge him but on this case all of his acts were reactionary.