O'Connell's Off Topic

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

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.

Agree oupinkkitty

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.