** Druggist Arrested for Killing Holdup Man **
 

Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man

May 30, 10:46 AM (ET)
By TIM TALLEY

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.

Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.

But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.

Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KTOK, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.

"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."

Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."

Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.

Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8 1/2 months in jail.

Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."

The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.

The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.

Irven Box, Ersland's attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: "I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree."

Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" - passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines - people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.

"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, 'You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."

Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.

Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.

Charge him with unlawful discharge of a firearm in city limits, let him pay the fine and walk away. He probably shouldn't have reloaded and filled the bastid full of lead, but hey, we're all human.

Well, the way I keep hearing it is that if someone were to come into your house with a life threatening weapon in order to steal, if you have a gun and use it, you need to take them out completely, otherwise, you will ruined with lawsuits.

My new favorite line "He didnt have to shoot my baby like that"

Good bar exam question. Tests the topics of intentional crimes, murder statute, self defense to homocide, and felony murder rule.

He should have stopped after shooting the guy in the head, but I'd vote not guilty if I were on the jury.

That wasn't a bad move, getting caught on tape was. Dead robbers don't sue, or talk.

Why did he need a second gun?

Basically I agree.

With the adreniline flowing, I can almost justify his shooting more.
Like a temporary instanity plea, he was temporarily pumped into a rage.

And there is NO way I would even consider finding him guilty.

Temporary stress insanity

Getting a second gun was a deliberate move, especially if he could see that the kid was still breathing. It could be first-degree murder.

Of course, all of his cohorts need to be brought up for felony murder, regardless of what happens to the pharmacist.

Didn't have to, but he did. We could ask her if there is some other way she would prefer having her dirtbag kid get shot.

Kind of reminds me of a shooting here recently.

Police said gang related, parents said no way kid was in a gang he was a really good kid.

16 years old, had Multiple felony arrests, car theft, guns, battery and ROBBERY.
Had numerous other arrests, his rap sheet was 3 or 4 pages long.
AT 16 !!!!!!!!!!!

And of course, they have to make a race issue out of it. That aside, the pharmacist did the right thing. I don't know I would have wasted another 5 bullets on the punk, but dead criminals can't file frivilous law suits or return to wack you later.

this is another case of "fight or flight" taking over. once the adrenaline is pumping there is no turning back. the pharmacist felt his life was being threatened and he fought back. now, the law is saying he "went to far", he should have shot the kid once and called for an ambulance, etc etc. in otherwords, we have to treat someone who is threatening our lives and our businesses with COMPASSION. one bullet, fine, reloading and finishing off the perp, well, that's just not being compassionate.

I love the quotes by the NAACP, its apparent those are the types of youth they need in their membership.

He didnt need to murder the kid already incapacitated on the floor.
If an uninsured driver hits you and injures you, then comes back and finishes the job, should he only be charged with a hit and run?


I'd say charge him

By the letter of the law he should be free to go.

a friend of a friend is a police detective. sometimes he investigates situations where a woman is the victim of some type of violent assault. he said that in most cases if she is armed, she will empty the gun into the perp, i.e. perp will have 5 or more gun shot wounds. it is the "fight of flight" syndrome that takes over when one is confronted by someone with a gun. a decision is made to either;

a; hand over the cash register, drugs, women, any candy bars they might want along with with a six pack of Budweiser, (as in, take everything we have and PLEASE leave us alone, PLEASE with a cherry on top) or;

b; shoot it out

this decision takes place very very quickly and once made there is no going back. the pharamacist was in fear for his life. in addition he is DISABLED and most likely couldn't handle much of a hand to hand combat situation nor could he help load the cash register into the getaway car.

I don't buy the fight or flight argument. He went and got a second gun. Who knows why, but that's not adrenaline inspired. That's deliberate. If he had shot all his bullets from his first gun into the kid, then maybe adrenaline buzz applies.

Agreed. You cannot let this fellow go free.........hopefully, he'll plead to manslaughter and get 2-4 or so.

if this scenario had taken place in New York and he were to be tried in New York, he would most likely get 10 - 15. had this happened in New York it would have been best for him to allow the perps to take the cash register and candy bars and then plead with them for his life. but this didn't happen in New York, did it?

it will be interesting to see what a local jury has to say concerning this defensive shooting.........

he had been held up at gun point numerous times before...i think i will buy him another gun with a bigger clip.

I like the Glock 23, but it does kick a little due to only weighing 21 ounces empty.

The first shot was fine. The second round was first degree murder.

The law is clear on this, I'm told that NRA training stresses to stop shooting once the perp is restrained, incapacitated, etc.

Might be able to get one several years in jail, for starters, however.

Would be a harsh punishment once word of the crime that brought him into jail gets out. Weird code of justice behind bars. Dude will probably have to join the Ayran Brotherhood complete with tats, etc. to stay safe.

If the roles were reversed, would the dirtbag have only fired one shot?

sadly, his first mistake was taking a job working in a neighborhood known for this type of thing. most likely he was aware that chances were good for a robbery, else why have the guns? the problem I'm seeing is that these types of crimes are happening in the UPSCALE parts of town. even the wealthy people are getting nervous.........

perhaps he hadn't attended NRA training. hard to get away for that NRA gun safety training when working 80 - 100 hours per week trying to make sure the underpriviledged get their medications......

From the limited info provided by the DA, and assuming it's accurate (big if), it sounds more like 2nd degree. Regardless of the facts, I think premeditation would be a tough sell to any jury in this case.

I'd like to say I'm surprised by the responses here, but I'm not. I don't know what's more pathetic - the cowardly actions of the druggist after his heroic first shot, or the mindset of fools who perceive shooting an unconscious man laying on his back as justified.

now this is becoming clear as a bell. from a strictly legal standpoint, the pharmacist only had the right to shoot the perp ONE TIME. any additional shots seem to be perceived as "over kill" by some on this forum. therefore, the solution would have been to shoot the perp with a twelve gauge shot gun ONE time only. case closed.

Do what you want but my feeling is that using more force than is needed will result in more downside than gain.

There's a line in the Tao Teh Ching that has stuck with me -- goes something like: "He who kills is like an apprentice who judges himself to be wiser than his master. Such a person will often hurt himself."

I'm no fan of street punks wielding guns. But I'm not sure that assuming the powers of judge and executioner are warranted. Shooting to protect oneself and others is one thing, and if that shot proves fatal, oh well. But when the danger has been allayed, calmly fetching a second gun to finish off the unconscious, immobile perp goes way beyond self defense.

You're right. Too close, in terms of time, to having been threatened himself to be first degree. 2nd degree or manslaughter is plenty.

agreed to a point, however I'm not sure anyone is "calm" after someone sticks a gun in their face and threatens them. there are some in the military that have received the necessary training who have the ability to stay and remain very calm in the face of grave danger. that is why they train, so they can face conflicts and keep their wits about them.

the pharmacist was facing a situation that few people face in their day to day work. perhaps he should have been taking vallium for twelve hours prior to the incident so that he would have been more "calm" when faced with a crisis.

or, perhaps he is like others I've spoken with who are simply outraged over the ever increasing frequency of violent robberies. had the perp lived, the pharmacist might be facing a plethora of civil lawsuits for his health care, inability to make a living, lost wages, etc etc and it would never end. the pharmacist's wages would be garnished for 14 YEARS STRAIGHT to pay for the perp's expenses.

The article said that he turned his back to the prone kid while he fetched the gun. I'd have nudged the guy with my foot to see if he was actually unconscious and then checked for weapons. A shot to the head is no small thing.

It's hard to imagine that he would have been on the hook for civil lawsuits. I know that crap sometimes happens and it's bogus, big time.

If he indeed does not get convicted on the murder charge, it's hard to imagine that he would have been convicted for the first shot, while defending against armed robbery, in any sort of civil trial.

And, could be that his chances of losing out in a wrongful death civil trial are now greater than would have been the case had the perp survived.

the very fact that he did turn his back on the kid shows the pharmacist wasn't thinking clearly. a clear thinking individual would have nudged the guy to see if he was still breathing and then checked for weapons, id., etc.

and, in legal land, ANYTHING one can dream up is possible. the one rule to remember while visiting legal land is THERE ARE NO RULES.

Is that how we define what's right now?

Let us suppose the second perp was angry and agitated after his friend was shot (a reasonal assumption). The second perp was certainly in a potentially lethal situation. If he shot the pharmacist, would he get the benefit of, 'what do you expect, it was an adrenaline filled situation'?

And we don't know what would've happened in the courts had the kid lived. Might coulda is a pretty stupid reason to kill someone.

He won't get convicted. Adrenaline going, still in survival mode, didn't want the guy to get up and try and kill him again. People do crazy things in that situation.

He could also be a racist who enjoyed every minute of it, but if he keeps his mouth shut, I'm sure he'll get off.

The fact that he got the perp with the first shot is amazing in itself...how many cops shot how many times to put 8 bullets in that guy in NY about 2 years ago? Something like 58 shots and 8 hits from 3 or more cops?

If an unlimited number of officers are allowed to empty their weapons into a single perp, how is this really any different? The perp on the ground could have been playing "possum" and waiting for the right time to retaliate...maybe THAT was going through the pharmacist's mind...only he will be able to retell the story...assuming he remembers it all...then maybe, he's probably suffering from PTSS...

Anyone playing arm-chair quarterback on this is only fooling themselves. Unless you've been involved in trying to defend yourself against a violent act, none of us can truely say how we'd act in the same situation, regardless the religion we "practice" so piously... :rolleyes:

Very Well Put

seen this one too many times, the location can be very critical to the outcome of the trial. if he were being tried in the Northeastern part of the United States, he would need to get fitted for an orange jump suit. however, in the locale where this occurred, an acquittal is the more likely outcome. of course, there are no guarantees and he should be ready for any eventuality.

legally, the safe thing is to hand over the drugs and money and pray they don't kill you. after handing over the goods, if the pharmacist were to still get shot, his widow can at least sue the perps for loss of life. at least she "might" (the perps in this case didn't seem to be high rollers, so she might not get a thing) get some money and not have to suffer the indignity of seeing her husband tried for murder. always better to be the victim even if it means dying.

Bill the mother "whos baby didnt need to get shot like that" for the bullets.

I am happy that he took care of these thugs, and am confident a jury will find him guilty for anything with a long sentence...
~Nate

You guys should read "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell.

The dead guy got what was coming to him. I give the shooter points for the head shot, but he should have followed up with the other shots on his way out after the other perp. The pity is, the alleged grown-ups who got these mini gangstas to do the job didn't get some lead..... I live in OKC; I predict he will walk, but the Sharptons of the world will get some press.

it is a great book, i've got it. the stories he tells about the misapplication and lack of information are priceless. there is no doubt that only the people who were in the pharmacy and witnessed the deal go down really understand the events as they unfolded. we are all "arm chair" quarterbacks and can only speculate based on the information before us.

and isn't that what a jury is asked to do? aren't they "arm chair" quarterbacks? the jury receives the so-called "facts" through the eyes of the prosecutor, defense attorneys and witnesses. they are then asked to make a decision based on third-party information. they come to the table with built in biases and prejudices, no matter how many hours of voire dire and cross examination they endure.

Well, Dirty Harry, that sounds great, but how much you want to bet Mommy files a wrongful death lawsuit?

This is like the third comment about "dead guys don't sue"--people who make comments like this really shouldn't own guns.

That's about where I'm at....but I also kind of hope he ultimately takes the position he thought the kid was already dead.....

Not trying to define right or wrong, just asking. And if I were the defense attorney, I would be asking the jury the same question.

How would you answer?

May sound good on a bumper sticker, but....

How do we know he had any left? Remember, he had also shot at the other guy, and we don't know if the other guy was going to come back after him in the next 30 seconds after being chased out.

If there's a third guy, in the person of the getway car driver, and a fourth guy, in the person of a man who talked them into this: where are they?

Are they close by? Around the corner? There are at least two other guys involved, armed and nearby, at least for a while.

If the disabled guy has fired five shots between the one he hit and the one who ran, his gun is now empty. He is now defenseless and in trouble if the two come back.

Do you think the pharmacy has an emergency supply of extra rounds for gun #1?

If the guy on the ground moans and/or moves, what does the pharmacist do? Hit him with a box of Q-Tips? :mad: No, he has to be sure there's no threat INSIDE the store while he's waiting for the cops and hoping the other guys don't come back in the meantime.

If he had done a medieval-style thing and impaled the dead guy outside the store as a warning to others, this would be going too far.

Too many unanswered questions, too many missing details. Need all the facts fo the case to be REALLY sure.

HOWEVER, the man has a right to defend himself, no matter what.

And he was attacked just as sure as if he had been in Bilad, or Mosul or Kandahar. AND it was a surprise attack with civilians in the way, that he has to watch out for.

On the data available, let him go.