RSS
Home
Okla. pharmacist to stand trial for killing robber
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Pharmacist Jerome Ersland searched before entering an Oklahoma courtroom (AP)
An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a drugstore robber has been ordered to stand trial on a charge of first-degree murder in a case his attorney calls self-defense and the district attorney calls an "execution," The Oklahoman reports.
Jerome Jay Ersland, 58, shot Antwun "Speedy" Parker during a holdup at a pharmacy in Oklahoma City in May.
The newspaper says Ersland "gulped" when the judge ruled that the case will go to trial.
District Attorney David Prater says Parker was unconscious on the floor at the time Ersland shot him five times in the chest and abdomen. "That's an execution," he says.
Defense Attorney Irven Box argues that Ersland, who says he was defending himself and two female employees, only did "what any man in his state would do."
A district judge ordered the case to go to trial next year and will allow it to be televised, the newspaper says. --USA Today
War of words between the lawyers as they gear up for trail
This case presents us with a difficult dilemma, colored by strong emotions.
By siding with the law, we may end up taking the side of the robber. By siding with the pharmacist, we may be siding with a man who, technically, to the letter of the law, committed murder. It's difficult to control your emotions on a case like this, especially when there's always the lingering sense that once again, the good guy gets screwed and the bad guy gets away with it.
The case raises a perplexing legal question: At what point self-defense becomes murder?
Pharmacist Jerome Ersland works at a small drug store in a high crime part of town. Last May, two men walk into the store. One is pointing a gun. The two women run out of the store through a back door. Erland, a disabled Army veteran (from Desert Storm), couldn't make a run for it. Instead, he pulls out a gun of his own. He shoots the unarmed robber in the head; the other man --the one with the gun-- flees. Ersland walks out after him, gun in hand, but that second robber gets away.
Surveillance cameras show Ersland returning to the store, walking past the man he shot in the head. The man is still alive. Walking behind the counter to retrieve a second gun, Ersland walks up to the man he shot and shoots him again, five times in the stomach. The district attorney subsequently files murder charges against Ersland, arguing that the robber was unconscious on the floor and no longer a threat, and an autopsy showed that the five additional shots were what killed him. He was 16. If convicted, Ersland faces life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. Hey, welcome to Oklahoma.
It appears Ersland will try to use two laws as a defense: One is called the "Make My Day" law, named after the famous Clint Eastwood line from one of his Dirty Harry films. It states that people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their home. In 2006, Oklahoma passed a "Stand Your Ground" law that allows a citizen to use deadly force anywhere a citizen has a right to be, such as a car or an office.
The D-A says there are limitations to a person's ability to defend oneself. When the imminent threat is over, you have to stop using deadly force. Others argue that this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking and that the armed robbers got exactly what they deserved.
An added twist: The other robber and two other accomplices were caught and the D-A has charged them with murder, too, claiming that had they not attempted the robbery, no one would've been shot. The other robber is 14. The other two suspects are 43 and 31. The 14-year-old claims they convinced him and his dead friend to rob the store while they, the adults, waited outside.
Complicating things: The pharmacist is white. All the suspects are black, including the deceased. And yes, the NAACP issued a statement last May praising the D-A for charging the pharmacist with what they say was an execution style murder.
Was this self-defense or murder? Was the first shot self defense? What about the five subsequent shots? The Oklahoma Self Defense Act states that a person may use deadly force if he or she "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
We're faced with a conundrum. On the one hand, if you decide to commit a robbery, and someone shoots you in self-defense, you get what you deserved. On the other hand, once you've removed the threat that caused you to act in self-defense, do you have the right to shoot a person who you have already incapacitated? It's on this point that the prosecution will build its case.
We know how the arguments go in these matters: We need to stop prosecuting citizens for shooting criminals, we say. The best deterrent to crime we have is for the criminals to know that at anytime while they are committing a crime they have the chance of dying. But do you have a right to use a gun when your life isn't in jeopardy, or when it's no longer in jeopardy? The law says no. Further, this man was a soldier in Desert Storm. Wouldn't he know the ramifications of shooting someone in the head?
Still another complication here is how a case like this shows the perils of what can happen with people taking the law into their own hands who don't have the authority or the training to do so. Yet many states grant permits to carry concealed weapons. Just because you have a legal right to own a gun doesn't mean you have the professional training to use it, and sometimes, tragedy can result. Let's remember, not even the police are allowed to just up and shoot people under these circumstances. Police will tell you that the best thing you can do is be a good witness. This man, because he acted, went beyond the rights granted him under the law, and now someone is dead who might not have been, and he faces possible prison time (or even the death penalty) when he didn't have to.
Here's the surveillance video of the incident. Here's what I see: Ersland fires his weapon, one of the robbers, Antwun Parker, goes down. The other flees. Ersland walks out after him, then returns to the store walking right past Parker. He has to know that Parker is incapacited because he turned his back on him when he walked out of the store, and upon returning, walked right past Parker with no apparent concern for his own safety, that perhaps Parker might get up and try to run out, or attack Ersland. Ersland then walks behind the counter (apparently to reload) comes back out with a second firearm and stands over Parker, pumping five shots into his stomach.
Did you see what I saw? What do you think? Was Mr. Ersland still threatened when he returned to the store or was the threat neutralized? Was Parker any longer a threat when Mr. Ersland returned from behind the counter and fired five more rounds into the man? Those are the questions the jury is going to be asked to address. See the slideshow for an animated step-by-step account of what happened.
Now here's what's interesting. If we can use some general stereotypes for the purpose of argument consider: Conservatives are likely to back the pharmacist. They'll say the robbers had it coming, that the drug store was in a bad neighborhood and had been robbed before and enough's enough. People sent money for a legal defense fund. An anonymous donor paid the $100,000 bail. He's received congratulatory cards and letters from all across the country.
Aren't we siding with the pharmacist out of empathy? Recall when this incident occurred: Last May. At the time we were in the middle of a discussion over a Supreme Court nominee with conservatives arguing that we can't have a justice who decides based on empathy. What happened to the strict constructionist view of interpreting the letter of the law? Here's a comment from last May from Kevin, a reader of The Oklahoman, writing on the paper's website: (and as you can imagine, the readers were engaged in very heated discussion):
You're very typically uneducated and ignorant when it comes to issues like this because you have nothing of actual value based on crisis type experience to add. If you are ever an actual victim of violent crime (rape, robbery, home invasion, etc.) then your opinion will change. If you ever have a circular scar on your chest from a bullet, 2" from your heart, connected by a 12" incision, your opinion will change. Right now, however, you're just another sideline liberal quarterback calling plays after the fact.
Now here's the question that's going to anger a lot of people: What does Kevin's story have to do with the law as it applies in the case of Mr. Ersland? Sorry, but not a damned thing. Yet, here's someone invoking empathy by calling upon personal experience which has absolutely nothing to do with the law. Were we not in the middle of a debate last May over whether empathy has a place on the bench of the Supreme Court? What are the odds that Kevin would oppose Sonia Sotomayor on those grounds? So why is he applying it here? Should we?
Now let me be clear about my own personal feelings on this case and some of the surrounding elements: I have no problem with gun ownership. I have no problem with conceal-to-carry permits. The law allows it and in a self-governing society such as ours, upholding the law is of signal importance. Not sitting on the jury and not hearing all the evidence that's about to come down the pike, I can't tell you how I'd decide. I know how I feel and it's quite possible that I'd feel the same way after hearing the testimony, but that's not what counts in a courtroom; the law is what counts, and as a juror, you are sworn to uphold the law.
If the district attorney can prove this is murder --and it appears he has a case-- you have to find him guilty. Even if you hate the idea of finding the defendant guilty (and I would hate it) the law is paramount. I would only hope that the judge suspend the sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens should the jury convict, and I would be totally okay with that. It would be an example of judicial activism (another irony since conservatives often rail about activist judges) but I'd be okay with that.
Remember: Oklahoma's self-defense law states that you can shoot if you perceive your life is being threatened, but once the threat is neutralized, you have to stop shooting. If you don't, you've committed a crime, and it doesn't matter if you're fed up, if you think criminals deserve it, or if you've been the victim of violent crime. That is, if you really do believe that you have to follow the strict construction of the law and you believe that empathy shouldn't play a part in the courtroom. What do you believe?
Should the pharmacist have been charged with murder, a lesser charge, or no charge at all? Or did the robbers get what they deserved? If prosecutors show that the five subsequent shots were indeed murder, do you vote on the jury to commit or acquit?
Incidentally, the trial will be televised.
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
