O'Connell's Off Topic

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

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!

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    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.

    Yes, he was responding to a life or death situation when he fired the first shot that connected, but the rest were excessive and not necessary. You don't shoot someone, run outside and shoot at someone else, then come back inside to grab a second gun and fire five more times at someone who is out on the ground and unarmed. He had the right to fire the first shot, but the rest were above and beyond what was necessary.

    Then there are all the lies and changes to his story. He knew he was in the wrong from day one.

  • soonerprices said... (original post)

    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.

    In the U.S. Military, double tapping could get you a trip to levenworth. But, he didnt double tap, he quintiple tapped. The kid was no longer a threat. Even if he was moving, he had no gun. If his training was so great, he would have known the difference between someone being a threat or not. Like I said, he didnt low crawl back in the story ducking bullets, pills or cough drops. The kid was barely talking and barely moving. Was not a threat in any way shape or form. The old man walked calmly back in the store, found another gun, and unlaoded. He fought back like he should have, but when the threat was over, he should have stopped. 1 shot to the head was enough, but he had to add 5 more while the guy was barely moving. Too much man, waaay too much. Im sorry he was put in that position as well as the kids being told to do it, but he went too far.

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

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    Yes, he was responding to a life or death situation when he fired the first shot that connected, but the rest were excessive and not necessary. You don't shoot someone, run outside and shoot at someone else, then come back inside to grab a second gun and fire five more times at someone who is out on the ground and unarmed. He had the right to fire the first shot, but the rest were above and beyond what was necessary.

    Then there are all the lies and changes to his story. He knew he was in the wrong from day one.

    Yeah, he was excessive...he may even be a dirtbag. But murder 1 with life imprsionment? Hardly equates to justice for the situation.

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    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.

    I think doing what he thinks is right in spite of the potential consequences is the exact quality one should look for in a DA.

  • OUrj said... (original post)

    I think doing what he thinks is right in spite of the potential consequences is the exact quality one should look for in a DA.

    I am sure people will campaign against Prater because of Ersland, but Prater did exactly what his office calls for him to do. Prater cannot look at the political aspects of the case, his job requires him to look at the crime that was committed, if the elements of the crime are present, he has to bring the charge, which is what he did.

  • OUrj said... (original post)

    I think doing what he thinks is right in spite of the potential consequences is the exact quality one should look for in a DA.

    It is one of the qualities. I could admire someone's passion for a cause and still find his positions totally unacceptable for office.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    I am sure people will campaign against Prater because of Ersland, but Prater did exactly what his office calls for him to do. Prater cannot look at the political aspects of the case, his job requires him to look at the crime that was committed, if the elements of the crime are present, he has to bring the charge, which is what he did.

    The DA has to be balanced on his approach to prosecution. A 1st time offender for selling $30 of pot and gets 12 years doesn't appear to be balanced (or cost effective for the community for that matter) nor does an armed robbery victim getting a life sentence for using excessive force.

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    The DA has to be balanced on his approach to prosecution. A 1st time offender for selling $30 of pot and gets 12 years doesn't appear to be balanced (or cost effective for the community for that matter) nor does an armed robbery victim getting a life sentence for using excessive force.

    First, I have never heard of a 1st time drug offender getting 12 years. In Oklahoma County, you could blind plea a case like that and get probation. Either way, the DA's office would never recommend 12 years to do for a 1st time drug offense.

    Second, an armed robbery victim getting a life sentence for using excessive force....in this case excessive force is murder. I have never heard of murder as excessive force. Further, the DA did not recommend a life sentence, the jury was given a range of punishment and they chose life.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    First, I have never heard of a 1st time drug offender getting 12 years. In Oklahoma County, you could blind plea a case like that and get probation. Either way, the DA's office would never recommend 12 years to do for a 1st time drug offense.

    Second, an armed robbery victim getting a life sentence for using excessive force....in this case excessive force is murder. I have never heard of murder as excessive force. Further, the DA did not recommend a life sentence, the jury was given a range of punishment and they chose life.

    The Marijuana case I referred to was in El Reno I believe...and it may have been a crazy judge, too.

    I find the jury very culpable on the verdict along with a DA that prosecuted murder 1. As I said before, Ersland could have walked outside his pharmacy and shot an innocent passerby and received the same sentence. That fact that he was robbed at gunpoint 2 minutes earlier by the person he shot seems to have been given absolutely no consideration at all by either the DA or the jury.

  • Limited knowledge of what was presented in his defense but the above seems like a representation problem.

    This post was edited by OUrj 3 years ago

  • OUrj said... (original post)

    Limited knowledge of what was presented in his defense but the above seems like a representation problem.

    I can't believe that Box did a good job on this case but I really don't know the facts around his presentation. Ersland certainly didn't help matters with his lies, either.

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    The Marijuana case I referred to was in El Reno I believe...and it may have been a crazy judge, too.

    I find the jury very culpable on the verdict along with a DA that prosecuted murder 1. As I said before, Ersland could have walked outside his pharmacy and shot an innocent passerby and received the same sentence. That fact that he was robbed at gunpoint 2 minutes earlier by the person he shot seems to have been given absolutely no consideration at all by either the DA or the jury.

    I guess we will have to disagree on the result. My wife and friends disagree with me on this one as well. However, I do believe the jury got it right. Ersland did not shoot an innocent passerby, but he did shoot a minor who had attempted to rob him in the head once, which was lawful. But then to calmly walk back into the pharmacy walk by a motionless defendant, grab a gun, calmly walk back to the motionless defendant and shoot him 5 times is murder. The jury looked at the evidence and made the proper decision. If Ersland was justified in what he did then why did he lie on the 911 call and to the investigators.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    I guess we will have to disagree on the result. My wife and friends disagree with me on this one as well. However, I do believe the jury got it right. Ersland did not shoot an innocent passerby, but he did shoot a minor who had attempted to rob him in the head once, which was lawful. But then to calmly walk back into the pharmacy walk by a motionless defendant, grab a gun, calmly walk back to the motionless defendant and shoot him 5 times is murder. The jury looked at the evidence and made the proper decision. If Ersland was justified in what he did then why did he lie on the 911 call and to the investigators.

    We'll just have to disagree. I don't really believe too much in the rights of armed invaders (or unarmed). Ersland overreacted and lied to cover it up. That seems pretty apparent. I don't think that most people believe his transgressions merited this verdict and sentence. But, then again, I never thought an OK jury would convict him of murder 1.

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    We'll just have to disagree. I don't really believe too much in the rights of armed invaders (or unarmed). Ersland overreacted and lied to cover it up. That seems pretty apparent. I don't think that most people believe his transgressions merited this verdict and sentence. But, then again, I never thought an OK jury would convict him of murder 1.

    It looks like we do agree in that I never thought an Oklahoma jury would convict him. Based on what I knew I believed he was guilty of murder, I just never thought an Oklahoma Jury would convict him.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    It looks like we do agree in that I never thought an Oklahoma jury would convict him. Based on what I knew I believed he was guilty of murder, I just never thought an Oklahoma Jury would convict him.

    Much to my chagrin Prater has to be given credit for his prosecutorial acumen in convincing the jury to convict. People may forget that Prater was punched in the face by one of the pharmacist robbers at their trial...where they also got life.

    Box, on the other hand, did a pretty poor job. Very bad week for the Box family.

  • I didn't know he got punched....

  • pphilfran said... (original post)

    I didn't know he got punched....

    Yep, blindsided but he seemed to hold his ground.

  • http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03/drugstore.robberies/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

    This guy was close to spending life in prison.

  • OUFtball said... (original post)

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03/drugstore.robberies/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

    This guy was close to spending life in prison.

    You're right....close call for the pharmacist. A bit surprising in Seattle that they didn't at least charge him with pointing a gun at someone, reckless endangerment, etc...

  • Wow!

    Do you go off on people you never have met or even know all the time?

    You are the reason people outside of Oklahoma feel we are hicks and uneducated when they read what you just posted!

    "It's better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all." FDR

  • Glad you were able to rise above such tawdry behavior.

    This post was edited by okie54 3 years ago

  • Oklahoma City pharmacist convicted of murder faked back injury, examination finds
    BY NOLAN CLAY
    Published: July 10, 2011

    A pharmacist convicted of murder has been faking a broken back, an examination of jail X-rays found.

    Jerome Jay Ersland, 59, of Chickasha, has worn a back brace for years and has been prescribed powerful medication for pain. He told the police and news media he suffers from an inoperable back injury.

    X-rays of his back were taken after he was incarcerated at Oklahoma County jail May 26. A radiologist who examined the X-rays reported none of his vertebrae were fractured, sources told The Oklahoman.

    The doctor concluded Ersland has modest osteoarthritis of the spine, The Oklahoman learned. That is a condition men about his age often endure.

    Also, medical workers at the jail reported seeing Ersland walking a hall there, at times, without his back brace. A nurse reported seeing Ersland, while without his brace, pick something up off the floor without problem.

    A jury convicted Ersland on May 26 of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a robber inside a south Oklahoma City drugstore two years ago. Jurors chose a life term as punishment. Ersland's formal sentencing is Monday.

    Prosecutors contended at trial that he was in the wrong when he shot an unarmed, unconscious robber five more times after knocking the robber to the floor with a shot to the head. Jurors said afterward they agreed the prosecution evidence proved the robber, Antwun Parker, 16, was not moving on the floor.

    Ersland has said he was defending himself and two female co-workers from the robber who was still a threat. He has claimed the robber was getting back up. A second robber, who did have a gun, had fled.

    Sheriff John Whetsel, who operates the jail, and District Attorney David Prater declined to comment on the examination of Ersland's back. Lead defense attorney Irven Box said, “I know he's seen other medical experts other than jail medical people.”

    At Monday's formal sentencing, defense attorneys may ask District Judge Ray Elliott to suspend part or all of the pharmacist's life term. The judge is not expected to cut any time off.

    Many contradictions

    The medical evidence about Ersland's back is the latest instance in the highly publicized case where the pharmacist has been caught in an apparent lie.

    His first account to police about the shooting was contradicted by recordings from drugstore security cameras. He later changed his account and said he had been confused by stress and adrenaline.

    Also, his claim to police of killing before, in combat in Iraq during the first Gulf War, was contradicted by his military records. Those records show Ersland was the pharmacy chief at the military hospital at Altus Air Force Base in southwestern Oklahoma when allied forces fought in Iraq in 1991.

    He told police detectives his back was injured during an artillery attack in Iraq. He said one of his vertebrae got blasted into thirds. “The three pieces of that one vertebra are going around by my heart and my lungs and my spinal cord, and they can't operate,” he said on the night of the shooting.

    Ersland continued to claim he had a broken back even after prosecutors got the records showing he was not in an artillery blast in the Gulf War. In a note from jail in May, he complained to The Oklahoman about having to sleep on a thin jail mattress “although I have a broken inoperable T-5 back.”

    In a June phone interview from jail, he told KWTV-9: “I've been suffering immensely with my broken back.”

    Petition for pardon

    The pharmacist's supporters have collected signatures on petitions that state “our Justice System has let us down … on the Jerome Ersland case.” Supporters hope Gov. Mary Fallin will someday pardon Ersland.

    On Thursday, the petition-drive organizer, Karen D. Monahan, and the pharmacist's oldest son, Jeff Ersland, turned over the first batch of petitions at the Capitol to an attorney for the governor.

    Monahan, 56, is a friend who accompanied Ersland to his pretrial hearings and to his trial. Records discovered by The Oklahoman on Friday show she also is on probation for drug and weapon offenses.

    Police in January 2006 reported finding marijuana, methamphetamine, guns, digital scales, a bulletproof vest and cash in a search of her and her boyfriend's Oklahoma City home. She pleaded guilty to felony counts in 2007.

    She said Friday the drugs were not hers. She said: “My boyfriend told the police that the firearms were his. He told them as soon as they come in that I had nothing to do with anything.” She said she only pleaded guilty because she ran out of money to fight the case.

    “I'm not a bad person. And I'm not. I'm a real good person,” Monahan said Friday.

    Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-convicted-of-murder-faked-back-injury-examination-finds/article/3584416#ixzz1RlRTl1iY

    This post was edited by ss182 3 years ago

  • Life in prison with the possibility of parole.