Interesting gun case about to be tried in Oklahoma City

I don't know if the DA can get a jury to convict, but I agree the guy should be charged with murder. If he'd let it go when he first shot the guy to stop the armed robbery, that would've been fine. Going back and pumping rounds into an unconscious guy lying on the ground who's no longer a threat? That's not self-defense anymore.

If he'd just called the cops when he went back into the store, he wouldn't have any problems.


The story for people who can't see the video:

NewsOK said:
Oklahoma City pharmacist faces murder charge in shooting

An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.

Jerome Ersland: Faces a first-degree murder charge in the shooting of a would-be robber at an Oklahoma City pharmacy.

Chickasha resident Jerome Ersland, 57, surrendered about noon, his attorney, Irven Box, said. He is being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.

Box thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.

The charge alleges Ersland shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland’s account of the incident doesn’t match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.

Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. The autopsy found Parker was still alive after the head shot and died from the stomach wounds.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater discussed the case at an afternoon press conference.

Ersland has maintained he acted in self defense when he shot Parker to foil the robbery attempt.

He said two men in ski masks threatened him and two other employees when they burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy, near SW 59 and Pennsylvania, demanding cash and drugs.

Ersland, a disabled Army veteran, could not flee like the two women working with him, so he reached for the semiautomatic pistol in his pocket, he said when he recounted the incident for The Oklahoman last week.

Ersland said he shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber.

The injured teen was trying to get up, Ersland said, so he emptied his gun into the would-be robber’s chest.

The other robber and getaway driver drove away before Ersland could reach them, he said.

Police have not identified anyone else involved in the robbery attempt, but the investigation is ongoing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't know...the article does say that after the head shot he was trying to get back up, and that's when the old man pumped his guts full of lead. Think about it, the guy is disabled, and the robber is trying to get back up. I probably would have done the same thing. If someone comes into your home(or your business) with the intent to rob/harm you, you should have every right to blow their fuckin head off.
 
The article also says the video doesn't match what the store owner's story. He says the guy was trying to get back up, but the video shows the kid wasn't moving.
 
Even if the young man was trying to get up, by having been shot in the head the likely hood of him escaping or harming the worker was slim to none.

What shocked me... of course,

he reached for the semiautomatic pistol in his pocket
Click to expand...
and

he shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber
Click to expand...
This goes far beyond self defense. He felt threatened when the two men first came in and he was left alone with them, he certainly incapacitated the one young man by shooting him in the head. I don't think he would of had all that much to worry about after the fact other than the bloody mess left on his store floor.

I get that feeling he was just looking to shed more blood after that, I can understand the blast of intense anger, frustration all coming from fear or shock.. but this sounds pretty cold blooded to me.
 
Last edited:
Morcheeba said:
I get that feeling he was just looking to shed more blood after that, I can understand the blast of intense anger, frustration all coming from fear or shock.. but this sounds pretty cold blooded to me.
Click to expand...
That's more than likely what it was. He was fuckin pissed, and he had every right to be. I don't know about shooting the shit out of the guy that was already laid out on the floor though...that does seem pretty fucked up I guess.


Well let me think about this...the report said that the headshot wasn't what killed him, so it probably didn't enter his brain. He probably shot off his ear or mouth or something like that. In that case, the robber could have still easily gotten up. If the headshot actually did have him laid out/not moving, then it was probably enough to kill him, in which case all those shots to the stomach would have just been adding insult to injury.

I guess what I'm thinking right now is that those shots to the stomach either finished him off or wouldn't have made a difference if he did it or not.
 
Last edited:
The Oklahoma County coroner has gone on record as saying that the individual would have recovered/survived from the first shot to the head.
 
I would be surprised if this guy gets convicted. The kids put him into a position to feel threatened for his life, he can't be held accountable for his actions 15 seconds after having a gun pointed at him. My guess is he pleads something along the lines of temporary insanity and gets off.
 
Morcheeba said:
Even if the young man was trying to get up, by having been shot in the head the likely hood of him escaping or harming the worker was slim to none.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the shooter went over to check the extent of the boy's injuries before he shot him again. In a high intensity situation like that, I think its just if not more likely he was trying to not take any chances with his own life. I don't think a first degree murder charge will hold up in OKC given the circumstance, and if the DA really wanted a conviction, he would have went with second degree or manslaughter.

Morcheeba said:
What shocked me... of course
Click to expand...
LOL, welcome to Oklahoma. I live here and am not the slighest bit shocked that an old man would be carrying one or two guns. I'm also pretty confident that old man was no threat unless provoked.

Morcheeba said:
This goes far beyond self defense. He felt threatened when the two men first came in and he was left alone with them, he certainly incapacitated the one young man by shooting him in the head. I don't think he would of had all that much to worry about after the fact other than the bloody mess left on his store floor.
Click to expand...
Logically, yeah. That boy who was shot was probably no threat after he was shot. But you can't say the old man knew that.
I think its pretty common for someone's perception to be skewed during that event, hence why evidence doesn't corroborate his story. Given the circumstance, what he perceived may have not been reality, and how he perceived the situation determines whether or not it was really first degree murder.

Morcheeba said:
I get that feeling he was just looking to shed more blood after that, I can understand the blast of intense anger, frustration all coming from fear or shock.. but this sounds pretty cold blooded to me.
Click to expand...
It could have been anger, you're right. But given what I've seen/heard about this, I couldn't convict him of first degree murder if I was on the jury.
 
I haven't looked for more articles, I should.

From this one however it doesn't state they threatened the employees with any kind of weapon. I'm going to assume they had one though for arguments sake.

Honestly, once the one boy was shot in the head whether it be life threatening or not and it knocked him to the floor long enough for his accomplice to flee, the man shouldn't have (even under those circumstances ESPECIALLY being a vet) unloaded 5 more bullets into the kids stomach. Being seasoned, retired and all, still obviously a decent shot (otherwise being knowledgeable I'd assume he go for his stomach or legs to begin with) I'd imagine him shooting the kid again but not to kill. 6 bullets... in many peoples head that's a death sentence... he was sentencing that punk to die by his hand.

I completely understand the situation, I can't imagine it to any extent comparible, as a woman I can imagine the fright it would give me and being less controlled with a weapon, but not someone who served, and still carries a weapon. I'm sure he still used it often enough.

I can't fathom 6 bullets, to incapacitate someone until help arrived I mean c'mon. Common sense dictates most people would not survive an onslaught of that degree.

**E - I do want to say, I don't think however he should be found guilty of a 1st degree murder charge. I do believe he deserves a charge, just not sure which I'm leaning towards. A slap on the hand for someone with a history as he does is a bit light.
 
Last edited:
From what I saw in the tape, he definitely crossed the line from self defense to being the aggressor when he went back to shoot the kid. He could have very easily just called the police and kept the gun on him until they arrived, instead.

That being said, I agree with Lin that this is clearly not a case of 1st Degree Murder, and the DA is fooling himself of he thinks he can substantiate the charge. The whole incident takes place in less than a minute, and considering the circumstances, it just screams "heat of the moment." Now if he went for a charge of Manslaughter, he might have a crime that fits with what happened, so if it's not a lesser included then he'll probly be acquitted.
 
I live in Oklahoma City and have been hearing about this all over the place.

*If* the defendant in question shot the kid a second time in cold blood, I agree with the prosecution, however...

The dude is a veteran with (more than likely) standard military weapons training. He might have had more depending on what he did while serving. That training forms a baseline, a set of instincts that you follow when rational thought gets blown to the wind (which is the point). Considering the circumstances, and the fact that he probably had a shitton of adrenaline running through his brain at the moment, he could have easily *thought* the kid was getting up when in fact he wasn't.

The brain can manufacture things during times of high stress, and I'm sure that's even more true for older folks.

In any case, the current news I've heard on the matter is that he's being released but is restricted from being near any kind of firearm, a punishment that even the prosecution is saying is excessive and implausible. More than likely there will be an appeal that will involves 2nd Amendment rights, and right now the judge is being roasted in the eyes of the Oklahoma City public.

Furthermore, I agree with the guy. If you come into my workplace or my home waving a gun... you have given up any possible claim you might have to keeping life and limb. If I'm armed and someone waves a gun in my face, he's getting two to the center mass and one to the head in rapid succession... just like I've been trained.

If he twitches when he's down... I don't know if he's got another gun and is going to take a pot shot at me. I'd rather put another bullet in him to make sure, than risk my happy ass getting shot.

Oklahoma is a 'make my day' state. More than likely the guy is going to get justifiable homicide at the most.

Kids... if you don't want to get shot, don't try armed robbery.
 
Last edited:
1st shot 100% justified... the other 5... not so much... sadly i believe that it is 1st degree murder due to the following 5 shots when it was clearly no longer self defense. If it would have been 6 shots in a row even self defense would be reasonable but with the amount of time between the first and second shots the self defense argument is not going to work.
 
There's no way you can meet the elements of 1st degree murder with this case. Depending on OK law, I doubt this could even meet 2nd degree murder. Now, if he wounded one, the would-be robber got outside the store, and the guy followed him outside and finished him off, then you've got a murder case.

Interestingly, should they catch the accomplice, he can definitely be charged with 1st degree murder.
 
There's nothing on the video that they showed that directly contradicts Ersland's account though. If there's another angle, or an un-cropped version, that shows the kid lying still on the floor when he was shot the second through sixth time, I didn't catch it.

As such, there's no way to know from the outside perspective if his account is accurate or not.
 
Ravic said:
There's no way you can meet the elements of 1st degree murder with this case. Depending on OK law, I doubt this could even meet 2nd degree murder. Now, if he wounded one, the would-be robber got outside the store, and the guy followed him outside and finished him off, then you've got a murder case.

Interestingly, should they catch the accomplice, he can definitely be charged with 1st degree murder.
Click to expand...

How in the hell can the accomplice be charged with anything other than attempted robbery and stupidity. He did not pull the trigger on his friend. As for the shopkeeper he cant be charged with manslaughter because manslaughter has the connotation of accidental death. That is the reason when u kill someone in an accident you get a vehicular manslaughter charge. By going and getting a second gun and firing 5 more shots at point blank range into an incapacitated person who was unarmed that shows intent to commit murder. Because he fired his weapon the other 5 times with the intent to kill it is murder and not manslaughter. And because of the length of time between the first and 2nd shot it was not self defense or at least given the evidence at this time does not appear to be.
 
I'm having a difficult time locating this video you all have mentioned. Would someone be so kind as to post a link for me please ?

This story doesn't sit well with me. Mainly because of the experience this man obviously has over these punks. The fact that he HAS killed one kid from this, that is the outcome, there's no changing that, and I do believe it was unnecessary.

I have defended beating a robber to death if I were to find myself alone in my home woken in a fright, in the middle of the night and armed with a bat or something to that effect. It's illegal here in Canada to use 'unnecessary force' and that's to keep SOME people from performing their own brand of punishment and sentencing another to death by their hand. I see the logic behind it, I don't always agree with it depending on different circumstances. When we're talking about an experienced vet though, he could have practiced more patience.. bad choice of words I know. To think though, he's been in terrible life threatening situations before, if not he's at least been trained to deal with much worse situations. And I DO understand it has been some time since the man was active, but he still carried a weapon, so we should all know he is still practiced, to think otherwise would be foolishness, that being said, I still feel he was bloodthirsty. Probably a mix of rage and fear or shock, but I don't believe he used common sense. I expect more from men and women with such back ground.


Dejavu said:
How in the hell can the accomplice be charged with anything other than attempted robbery and stupidity. He did not pull the trigger on his friend.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood him. Correct me if I'm wrong Rae, but I believe you meant the shopkeeper could then be prosecuted and convicted with 1st degree murder. Although I don't understand how catching the accomplice would make that charge stick vs. killing the kid in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Dejavu said:
How in the hell can the accomplice be charged with anything other than attempted robbery and stupidity. He did not pull the trigger on his friend. As for the shopkeeper he cant be charged with manslaughter because manslaughter has the connotation of accidental death. That is the reason when u kill someone in an accident you get a vehicular manslaughter charge. By going and getting a second gun and firing 5 more shots at point blank range into an incapacitated person who was unarmed that shows intent to commit murder. Because he fired his weapon the other 5 times with the intent to kill it is murder and not manslaughter. And because of the length of time between the first and 2nd shot it was not self defense or at least given the evidence at this time does not appear to be.
Click to expand...

It's called felony murder. As one of the perpetrators of the crime, he becomes liable for any deaths that occur during said crime. Even if he didn't directly kill anyone himself.

And no, involuntary manslaughter has the connotation of accidental death. Deaths that happen through recklessness or negligence, but without any intent to kill or cause grave harm. Voluntary manslaughter is a killing with the intent to cause death or severe injury, but is considered less serious than murder, usually through some sort of diminished capacity or mitigating circumstances.

In this case, he was caught up in the moment and shot the robber without thinking the whole situation through. The whole thing happened in less than a minute, watch the timestamps. Are you going to tell me that if you were in the same situation you would be able to completely compose yourself in a matter of seconds enough to think rationally?
 
Alright I watched the video footage, and I call bullshit. Yes it happened in a short amount of time, but he calmly walked back into the store after firing the first shot knocking the first boy to the ground. Walked in behind his front counter, searched out another gun, looked like he was rummaging around maybe going to call the police then, walked around his counter again stood over top the young boy and fired 5 more bullets ending the kids life. Having him oh-so-panicked and scared for his life giving the reasoning behind unloading more into this kid would be a more sound argument had the worry for his life kept him safely behind his counter but close enough to shoot again. Not walk over to the boy and almost in an executioner style fire more rounds.

Fucking ridiculous to think for a moment this was justified and necessary. He could have easily shot him once and kicked the weapon away from that kid.

Sorry folks, he hardly looked out of his mind. He reacted and looked pretty composed considering what had just occurred.

Like I had said I would expect more from someone with his background.

I think this man was pissed and wanting these boys to pay, and what more excuse does he need than to live in Oklahoma, allowed to carry concealed weapons and end anyone's life if they so much as walk onto his property after being told by him to leave. tsk tsk

E- with further scrutiny of this video, the kid that got away was the one wielding the gun, the kid that died had been fumbling to get his mask out of his pants and had just got it over his head when he was shot in the head, idk whether he had a concealed weapon on his person. The calm shopkeeper was SO scared for his life that when he reached for the key or bullets or whatever it was he pulled out of his pocket he placed his first weapon on the counter with his back turned to the kid laying on the floor before calmly walking back to stand over top of him and pepper him further.

I sense cold blood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top