Online Now 416

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Online now 115
Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

Basketball & Other Sports

Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Tickets Exchange

The place to buy, sell or trade tickets

Reply

Ersland Verdict Is In!

  • After 3 1/2 hours, jury returned verdict of guilty of murder and set punishment at life in prison. Ouch! I figured it would be between guilty of manslaughter or innocent, but not murder with life.

  • nm

    This post was edited by SoonerInTN 12 months ago

  • I am stunned at this verdict... maybe in parts of California.. but HERE?...

  • It's getting really hard to be proud of my country. This guy should never do time for this.

  • I thought they might go with manslaughter, but here are some things that hurt him:

    Prosecutors told jurors in closing arguments Thursday that the evidence proves Parker was unconscious, unarmed and not moving after a shot to the head knocked him to the pharmacy floor. They said Ersland's own actions prove he didn't consider the wounded robber a threat when he shot him again.

    “Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, an execution,” District Attorney David Prater said.

    Prater played for jurors again a security camera recording of the shooting. He stopped it at points, telling jurors the pharmacist turned his back to the downed robber to get a second gun to shoot the robber again.

    “It's a human trait. You don't turn your back on something you're afraid of,” Prater said.

    The district attorney also said Ersland was intent on killing the second robber, shooting at the fleeing Ingram even though Ingram was 200 feet away. The district attorney said that also proves he wasn't worried about Parker who was still inside the drugstore.

    Prosecutors told jurors Ersland lied to police about what happened during the shooting, underestimating how much homicide detectives would investigate. They also said he lied about killing people during the first Gulf War. They pointed out his military records show he was at Altus Air Force Base in 1991 and never was in combat.

    Prosecutors also pointed to testimony he had faked a gunshot wound to support his defense. “He lies about everything,” Prater said.

    ......Ersland had been free on $100,000 bail. He had a handcuff key on him when he went through a courthouse security checkpoint Thursday morning, sheriff deputies said. He gave up the handcuff key when confronted about it.

    Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542#ixzz1NVl16QDN

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think faking gunshot wounds really hurt his credibility, Channel 4 has more on it:
    http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-doctor-testifies-about-gunshot-wounds-on-ersland-20110525,0,2533817.story

    Ersland's physician in Chickasha told the jury Ersland came to her and complained of having two infected gunshot wounds in his arm from the holdup.

    Prosecutors say the two robbers never fired a shot.

    Erslands physician told prosecutors Ersland then removed two metal fragments himself.

    The DA has claimed Ersland manufactured the injuries but didn't say why.

    However, when coupled with a disjointed and highly inaccurate police interview played this week for the jury, Ersland's credibility is clearly being called into question.

    Prosecutors concluded their case with crime scene re-enactment and blood splatter exerts to accompany the surveillance video.

    Both witnesses testified that Ersland shot Parker five times from a mere 18 to 24 inches away as Parker was motionless, flat on his back.

    This post was edited by ss182 3 years ago

  • Well, how about this: Let's set up hidden cameras in the prosecutor's house without his knowledge. Then, lets have two armed people rush into his house (while his family is there) and then let's replay the video footage of the incident and critique the prosecutor's actions and behaviors - exactly what the prosecutor has done to this defendant. Human nature during an armed robbery isn't to turn your back on someone? Sure, that seems likely but I have no idea what my "human nature" is during an armed robbery. How does anyone know what they would or would not do?

    Worse of all, because of this verdict, the victim's mother will probably win the civil suit against the pharmacist. All because she raised a total piece of sh!t of a son. SHE should go to jail too.

    I feel SICK and I now completely understand why the general public think Oklahomans are uneducated and stupid.

    I don't pray often - but my prayers are with the defendant and his family.

  • My crim law memory from law school is fuzzy and I have not followed this case that closely, but ...

    Temporary insanity?

    I know it is not a commonly used or very successful defense but seems like it could have applied to this case - again a bit fuzzy on the little crim law I learned in law school.

    And maybe it was used - like I said I have not followed too closely.

  • There were several problems that Ersland created for himself, mostly by telling lies and then getting caught with his lies. He originally called 911 and told the operator that two masked robbers came in shooting, that he grabbed 2 guns and started firing back. After police arrived and started the investigation, they asked Ersland if they could sit down and interview him. He then told a completely fabricated story. After a long taped interview, the officers asked him about the surveillance tape, he then balked about it and said it would be hard to get and probably did not work. Then when they got the tape and saw the video, Ersland was screwed b/c it was completely opposite of what he just told the officers.

    As an attorney, I felt that he was guilty of murder based on what I know and what the law says. However, I never thought that 12 Oklahoma jurors would ever agree on murder and then to give him a life sentence. I figured he would get acquitted or be found guilty of manslaughter, but never murder. Although, based on what I know about the crime, the verdict in this case is right.

    As soon as the gag order is lifted I will find out a lot more about the evidence and crime and will post it on here.

  • soonerprices

    Pratersn office is an elected position, right?

  • Yes, the District Attorney is elected. This could be very harmful to his re-election, but it is hard to argue against him when 12 jurors agreed with his position. I personally know David Prater and can say that he is a great person to have as the District Attorney. Before Prater, we had Wes Lane, and his office was in complete disarray when he was in charge. Prater has completely turned the DA's office around, he is very respected among the legal community, and is very easy to work with. He is also very approachable and is willing to sit down and talk about his cases.

  • Of course the jurors agreed with his position - they had no other choice. The jurors had to decide between first degree murder or nothing at all. That doesn't seem fair at all. Manslaughter wasn't even an option. Yes, the pharmacist has told some tall tales but...that doesn't change the fact he got up one morning, went to work and was robbed. His tall tales have nothing to do with the fact that he was the victim, not these perps. I don't see how this is premediated in anyway. Manslaughter - based on the facts that we know now - yes. But murder one? No.

    This man's life is ruined - and his family's life is ruined because of this. Granted, another man is dead but those are the consequences you face when you decide to rob someone.

    Forty five seconds lapsed between the intruders entering the pharmacy and the last shot fired. Premediation? No.

    I really, really hope the judge chooses a different sentence for this man. And if the mother of the victim prevails in civil court................... head desk, head desk, head desk

  • Any armed invader (business or home) has forfeited any and all rights to legal protection. I think it's obvious that the pharmacist went a little off and should not have emptied the second clip into the perp, but if I had been on that jury, it would have been hung forever.

  • OUpinkKitty said... (original post)

    Of course the jurors agreed with his position - they had no other choice. The jurors had to decide between first degree murder or nothing at all. That doesn't seem fair at all. Manslaughter wasn't even an option. Yes, the pharmacist has told some tall tales but...that doesn't change the fact he got up one morning, went to work and was robbed. His tall tales have nothing to do with the fact that he was the victim, not these perps. I don't see how this is premediated in anyway. Manslaughter - based on the facts that we know now - yes. But murder one? No.

    This man's life is ruined - and his family's life is ruined because of this. Granted, another man is dead but those are the consequences you face when you decide to rob someone.

    Forty five seconds lapsed between the intruders entering the pharmacy and the last shot fired. Premediation? No.

    I really, really hope the judge chooses a different sentence for this man. And if the mother of the victim prevails in civil court................... head desk, head desk, head desk

    That is incorrect....the judge gave them the option of manslaughter....

    http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-guilty-ersland-found-guilty-in-pharmacy-shooting-trial-20110526,0,4928477.story?track=rss

    This post was edited by pphilfran 3 years ago

  • OUpinkKitty said... (original post)

    Well, how about this: Let's set up hidden cameras in the prosecutor's house without his knowledge. Then, lets have two armed people rush into his house (while his family is there) and then let's replay the video footage of the incident and critique the prosecutor's actions and behaviors - exactly what the prosecutor has done to this defendant. Human nature during an armed robbery isn't to turn your back on someone? Sure, that seems likely but I have no idea what my "human nature" is during an armed robbery. How does anyone know what they would or would not do?

    Worse of all, because of this verdict, the victim's mother will probably win the civil suit against the pharmacist. All because she raised a total piece of sh!t of a son. SHE should go to jail too.

    I feel SICK and I now completely understand why the general public think Oklahomans are uneducated and stupid.

    I don't pray often - but my prayers are with the defendant and his family.

    "Jurors were given the option of finding Ersland guilty of first-degree manslaughter instead or of acquitting him completely."

    ^Quote from newsok article I linked above. I believe they gave this option shortly before the jury went to deliberate.

    *sorry, quoted the wrong reply.

    This post was edited by ss182 3 years ago

  • Dude obviously has problems. Showing up for court with a cuff key in his pocket? Weird.

    He lied from day one and that is why he is where he is today. If he fires one shot we aren't having this discussion. How dumb do you have to be to claim that the two came in shooting? Regardless of whether there is video or not the cops would be able to determine if the kids came in shooting.

    The jurors got this one right.

  • Kid was no longer a threat. If no threat is present, you just cant shoot people because you feel like it. Im sure he was mad, but dang, the guy is just laying there. You come back after shooting at his buddy and finish him off? If the guy on the floor was a threat, he wouldnt have ran after the other robber in the first place. The kid wasnt a threat anymore and should not have been polished off like that. It was cold blood and he got exactly what he deserved. All he needed to do at that time was call the cops. He was safe and the threat was over. Its really not that hard.

    There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a man with nothing to lose.

  • I just went and watched a few things on Youtube about this case. The only way the DA should not be re-elected is if this guy would have got less than what he did. Its very clear what they attempted to do was wrong, but its also clear that what he did was total bullcrap. He walked back calmly to get the other gun to pump 5 more bullets into the kid on the floor. He didnt come back in ducking behind shelves or low crawling to avoid getting hit. What could he get hit with? I guess some tylenol or cough drops or something. Kid would have had to brandish a Bob Gibson type arm to injure the dude with that. He calmly did it and then lied and lied and lied. Why on earth is anyone shocked at this videct? Its pretty simple. That isnt manslaughter at all. Not even close.

    There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a man with nothing to lose.

  • I do think life in prison is too much. He should serve time, but it isn't his fault that these worthless pieces of human garbage put him in that position in the first place. I would argue that the kid who survived should serve as much time as Ersland. However long he lives is how long the kid should serve.

  • Well, he is kind of long, so even if he does get less time, it may still end up being life for him.

    There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a man with nothing to lose.

  • soonerprices

    bruthaman said... (original post)

    I just went and watched a few things on Youtube about this case. The only way the DA should not be re-elected is if this guy would have got less than what he did. Its very clear what they attempted to do was wrong, but its also clear that what he did was total bullcrap. He walked back calmly to get the other gun to pump 5 more bullets into the kid on the floor. He didnt come back in ducking behind shelves or low crawling to avoid getting hit. What could he get hit with? I guess some tylenol or cough drops or something. Kid would have had to brandish a Bob Gibson type arm to injure the dude with that. He calmly did it and then lied and lied and lied. Why on earth is anyone shocked at this videct? Its pretty simple. That isnt manslaughter at all. Not even close.

    Didn't Oklahoma just pas a law this past session that would make Erslands actions legal? Didn't it say that is somebody comes into a hoe or business and makes a threat against you that you couldn't be charged with excessive force? I thought I heard about this, maybe it didn't pass, but couldn't find anything on the web.

    It's not "total crap". The man has lived a clean life. What have they found in his past? He was trained by the United States to do exactly what he did and the same country is going to give him life for those actions. Lots of people could honestly say that they would not do the same because they would be scared $#!+less when some little thug walks in and sticks a gun in their face. But a military man who fought in Vietnam is going to fight back.

    The shot did not kill the young man but there is a high probability that he would not have survived so Ersland could be getting jail for killing the young man minutes (I'll admit maybe days or years) sooner than he should have. But on the other side of things it was testified that the young man could have still been moving therefore he could have technically still posed a threat. That's probably as likely as him surveying the first shot.

    Lastly what is most disappointing is that Ersland and his family's lives have all been turned into a nightmare because of his reaction to someone else's criminal activity. Had those young men chose a different place to rob at gun point then Ersland would still be a fine, upstanding, and law abiding citizen.

  • His reaction may have been to someone else's criminal activity, but his reaction was excessive and he repeatedly lied. A sympathetic jury would have been easier to find if he hadn't changed his story and flat out lied so many times.

  • Glad to hear that the men that planned the robbery and talked the two boys into committing the robbery were also sentenced to life.

    Tough case from legal, criminal, and sociological perspectives. The easiest thing to do would be to condemn the boys, but of all involved they are the least 'adult' of the group and generally the adults should know better. I suspect these boys relied on the two thug adults for their livelihood, much the same way a prostitute would rely on a pimp.

    No question what the boys did was wrong and one of them paid for his mistake with his life. There is also no question that what the pharmacist did was wrong as well and premeditated (the second gun). If we are going to condemn two boys for their act, we must also condemn the adult for his. Excuses can be made for both.

    I don't agree that the pharmacist should spend life in prison.

    "I and the public know
    What all schoolchildren learn,
    Those to whom evil is done
    Do evil in return." - W.H. Auden

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    Yes, the District Attorney is elected. This could be very harmful to his re-election, but it is hard to argue against him when 12 jurors agreed with his position. I personally know David Prater and can say that he is a great person to have as the District Attorney. Before Prater, we had Wes Lane, and his office was in complete disarray when he was in charge. Prater has completely turned the DA's office around, he is very respected among the legal community, and is very easy to work with. He is also very approachable and is willing to sit down and talk about his cases.

    I won't vote for Prater. He could have prosecuted lesser charges but, instead, chose to pursue murder 1.

    We had DA's in the past that would never have prosecuted this matter...like Macy and Harris.

    Puzzy jurors haven't shown their face yet either.

    The pharmacist will now be serving life in prison with the same trash that robbed him. Justice at its finest.

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    I won't vote for Prater. He could have prosecuted lesser charges but, instead, chose to pursue murder 1.

    We had DA's in the past that would never have prosecuted this matter...like Macy and Harris.

    Puzzy jurors haven't shown their face yet either.

    The pharmacist will now be serving life in prison with the same trash that robbed him. Justice at its finest.

    I understand your position. I have argued with my wife regarding this case and if it were up to her she would never have charged him. However, he was charged with murder because that is what he did. The jurors had 3 choices...murder, manslaughter and acquittal. All 12 agreed on murder and did so rather quickly. Prater did what the law requires him to do, he charged Ersland with murder because all of the elements of the crime were present. I am in no way saying that the robbers were not in the wrong, but Ersland went over and above what he had the right to do and he committed murder.

    As an attorney who practices in Oklahoma County I can personally say that the DA's office is in a lot better hands now with Prater in control. I realize that Prater is taking a chance with his career by charging Ersland with murder, but at least he did the right thing. I am glad that our DA does not decide whether or not to file charges on an individual based on how the public will vote for him in the next election. Prater files charges based on what the crime is, not who committed it or how it will effect his reelection. Is this risky to Prater's future - definitely, but was he right to bring the charge -100 % yes. It would be one thing to argue against Prater if Ersland was acquitted, but in this case 12 non-biased jurors found Ersland guilty of murder after only 3 1/2 hours of deliberating.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    I understand your position. I have argued with my wife regarding this case and if it were up to her she would never have charged him. However, he was charged with murder because that is what he did. The jurors had 3 choices...murder, manslaughter and acquittal. All 12 agreed on murder and did so rather quickly. Prater did what the law requires him to do, he charged Ersland with murder because all of the elements of the crime were present. I am in no way saying that the robbers were not in the wrong, but Ersland went over and above what he had the right to do and he committed murder.

    As an attorney who practices in Oklahoma County I can personally say that the DA's office is in a lot better hands now with Prater in control. I realize that Prater is taking a chance with his career by charging Ersland with murder, but at least he did the right thing. I am glad that our DA does not decide whether or not to file charges on an individual based on how the public will vote for him in the next election. Prater files charges based on what the crime is, not who committed it or how it will effect his reelection. Is this risky to Prater's future - definitely, but was he right to bring the charge -100 % yes. It would be one thing to argue against Prater if Ersland was acquitted, but in this case 12 non-biased jurors found Ersland guilty of murder after only 3 1/2 hours of deliberating.

    Well we will just have to disagree on Prater's pursuit of murder one, particularly when Ersland could have just as easily walked outside his pharmacy and killed an innocent passerby and received the same sentence. This prosecution and/or verdict had little to do with justice and I expect the DA to represent the best interests of the community rather than pursuing a path like Prater chose. As I said, I doubt Macy or Harris would have ever prosecuted Ersland.

    Had I been on that jury I would never have convicted Ersland for murder 1...or for that matter manslaughter. Yeah he used excessive force in response to a life or death situation that he didn't create. On some much smaller charge I might have agreed to convict Ersland.

    I do think Prater risked his career on this case. I actually admire him for having the guts to do what he thought was right in spite of the potential consequences. On the other hand I will do my best to see he is defeated which will be unusual for me as I have never given much thought to who our DA was.