After Numerous Delays, Self-Defense Trial of Oklahoma Pharmacist, Jay Ersland, Gets Underway

Let us hope and pray that the jury isn’t infested with a bunch of brainwashed Libtards and Lefturds:

This updates our previous coverage HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Note:  Because a video link is broken in one of our previous posts, I am including the pharmacy’s surveillance video below. However, you’ll have to sit through one of those annoying commercials to view it.  Sorry about that:

Oklahoma Pharmacist Case Tests Self-Defense Law
L.l. Woodard – via Yahoo News

When Jerome Jay Ersland, has his day in court, Oklahoma’s self-defense laws will be tested too. The 57-year-old-pharmacist was charged with first-degree murder as a result of shooting death that took place May 19, 2009.

Two teenage boys entered the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City where Ersland worked, but Ersland was able to chase only one of the youths out the door of the store. The other youth, 16-year-old Antwun Parker, was shot by Ersland six times.

Oklahoma was among the first states to enact the self-defense legislation referred to as the Make My Day law. The law, named after Clint Eastwood’s character Dirty Harry, provided that Oklahoma residents had the right to defend themselves by using deadly force, if necessary, in their homes without fear of criminal or civil action.

In 2006, State Sen. Harry Coates authored legislation that extended those rights of self-defense to include persons in or on motor-operated vehicles and at businesses. That bill, known as the Stand Your Ground law, passed the Oklahoma legislature with only nine opposing votes.

At first glance, it would seem Ersland had nothing to fear from the criminal justice system when he protected himself and his female co-workers from the two robbers. But as often happens, there is more to the story.

The store’s videotape of that day shows that Ersland first shot Parker in the head. Parker went to the floor. After Ersland chased the younger of the two youths out of the pharmacy’s door, he came back into the store and picked up another gun. With that gun the pharmacist shot Parker five additional times, this time in the abdomen.

The original autopsy was reported to show that Parker did not die from the head wound but from the wounds to his abdomen. It was after the autopsy was completed that Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater brought the charges of first-degree murder against Ersland.

But additional pathologists have also weighed in on the cause of Parker’s death; not all of them agree with the original autopsy report that the abdominal wounds caused the youth’s death.

Rep. Randy Terrill, a strong proponent of Oklahoma’s self-defense legislation has voiced his disapproval of the criminal charges brought against Ersland.

Prater has explained that had Ersland stopped after shooting Parker in the head and incapacitating him, there would have been no charges brought. Others who have provided opinions on the matter, including Andy Coats, dean of the OU School of Law, say that interpretation of the law’s wording on “perception of a threat” belongs to a jury of Ersland’s peers.

Oklahoma District Court Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure agreed with Coats’ assessment when Ersland’s defense asked that the criminal charges be dismissed during an August 26, 2010 hearing. Bass-Lesure refused that motion and also a motion to postpone Ersland’s trial. At that time, trial was set for September 13, 2010. But Bass-LeSure was removed from the case August 31, 2010 when prosecutors accused her of impartiality.

Oklahoma County District Judge Ray C. Elliott was then assigned as the trial judge. The defense has sought to remove Elliott due to an ethnic slur he admits making against Hispanics. Ersland’s defense felt that although Ersland is not Hispanic, a person with one partiality may not be fair to anyone. The defense received its final ruling on Elliot’s removal as the trial judge on March 3, 2011 when the Oklahoma Court of Appeals issued a two-page ruling that there was no basis for Elliot’s removal.

In a case that has seen its fair share of delays, the trial itself will be sure to garner attention not only throughout the state of Oklahoma, but also in other states with their own self-defense laws.

Explore posts in the same categories: Self Defense

16 Comments on “After Numerous Delays, Self-Defense Trial of Oklahoma Pharmacist, Jay Ersland, Gets Underway”

  1. islams not for me Says:

    I pity the family of the slain teen however.

    2 punks walked into the store. 1 had a gun the other was messing with his backpack.

    The store owner produced a gun and shot at both boys. I dont know if the teen gunman was hit but his friend seemed to get hit. Teen gunman ran out of store and left his friend to die there.

    From the video it looked like the store owner did shoot the downteen but am not sure.

    IF true that the fallen boy was executed in the store. I agree with the law the executioner should be punished. And while Im at it the teen gunman should get jailtime too!


    • According to Mr. Ersland, the punk on the floor started moving, so he unloaded his gun into him. The video doesn’t show anything which would counter his claim. The only thing the prosecution has is an autopsy report that makes the assumption that the punk was unconscious when Mr. Ersland unloaded into him. I find that highly speculative.

      Furthermore, if some punk comes into my house, I’m emptying the clip into him, too. There’s no guarantee that an unconscious punk is going to stay down and not wake up and shoot back—a DEAD punk is another story because they actually stay down. Better safe than sorry.

      Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Ersland was justified in, as you say, “executing” the little punk. Whether or not the punk was actually unconscious at the time the final shots were unloaded is of no concern to me. It’s only important to those who are hell-bent on repealing the “Make My Day” law. Don’t make the same mistake of falling into that trap.

      Had Mr. Ersland been a police officer, this would have been considered a justified shooting and that would be that.

      Don’t believe me? Have you ever heard of that little punk b@st@rd Angilo Freland? When Florida cops caught up to him and cornered him, they shot him 68 times, firing well over a hundred rounds. Now, are you trying to tell me that Freland didn’t fall unconscious somewhere before the final round ripped through his punk @ss? Obviously, he dropped early on, but the cops kept shooting. When an incredulous, obviously libtarded, reporter asked the sheriff why it was the cops unloaded so many rounds, the sheriff famously replied, “I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that’s all the ammunition they had.”

      Even after the little punk’s family got one of them thar’ fancy lawyers and went after the cops, an independent Federal investigation concluded that there was no wrong doing on the part of the police. Case closed. End of story. Get over it.

      So, knowing that if Mr. Ersland were to have been a cop, his actions would have been justified in the eyes of the law, you have to ask yourself, “Why is the prosecutor so intent on prosecuting Mr. Ersland?”

      The most logical conclusion is that the prosecutor is just another Libtard who thinks guns shouldn’t be in the hands of you and I.

      Cheers

  2. islams not for me Says:

    Dr Bulldog I can agree with your tactical ideas that in order to keep yourself safe by shooting a suspect mulitple times is the only way of insuring they stay down and dead if there is no other way.

    However we don’t live in a world where we alone are allowed to simply kill a moving suspect unless he is actually attempting to get up to do us harm.

    I whole heartedly agree that Mr. Ersland has every right to defend himself and his place of business.

    However in light of access to Police agencies at present simply gunning down a squirming suspect is not always the best idea unless we are solely responsible for our own safety due to a lack of Police.

    In other words Mr. Ersland could have simply wounded the suspect and duct taped his dumb ass to ensure he would not pose a threat.


    • Hm… Let me see if I can sway your thinking a little on this one, my friend:

      “In other words Mr. Ersland could have simply wounded the suspect and duct taped his dumb ass to ensure he would not pose a threat.”

      So, what do you do when the punk wakes up while you’re duct taping him and pulls out a concealed weapon and shoots you? Remember, Mr. Ersland wears a back-brace and had just had back surgery a couple of months prior to this incident. He would be hard pressed to maneuver and position the perp to duct tape him, let alone fend him off if he came around while Mr. Ersland was busy trying to secure him with duct tape…

      Hindsight is 20/20. Mr. Ersland had no way of knowing how effective his first shot had been in subduing the perp. If he says the perp moved and there exists no video or witnesses to the contrary—which there doesn’t appear to be—I have to go with Mr. Ersland’s version of the story. Mr. Ersland feared for his life when he saw the perp moving, and not knowing whether or not the perp had a concealed weapon or even whether or not the perp was conscious enough to use one if he had it, he pumped the perp full of lead.

      Where’s the crime in that?

      “…at present simply gunning down a squirming suspect is not always the best idea unless we are solely responsible for our own safety due to a lack of Police.”

      Did you know that police are not legally obligated to protect you? In other words, the courts have ruled that YOU are SOLELY responsible for YOUR own protection. Furthermore, because of the courts position on this, you cannot sue the police for failure to protect you or your family. Therefore, using your own reasoning, because the courts affirm that we ARE solely responsible for our own safety, simply gunning down a squirming suspect might actually be the best idea.

      Did you see any police in that security video? Neither did I. Ergo, Mr. Ersland was solely responsible for his safety, as well has the two girls hiding in the back room…

      You see, what has been conveniently forgotten by many is that there were a couple of female employees who ran into the back room to hide when the perps broke in. I’m sure their safety was weighing heavily on Mr. Ersland’s mind when he made the decision to guarantee that the perp wouldn’t be somehow getting back up, killing him, and then making his way into the back room to take care of the girls.

      Anyway, here’s the deal: The prosecution has to prove that Mr. Ersland knew that the perp was no longer a potential threat to him and the girls before he pumped those insurance rounds into the perp. Even if one were to believe the questionable coroner’s report, the prosecutor still can’t prove Mr. Ersland knew for absolute sure that the perp was no longer a threat and just pumped those extra rounds into him for sh*ts-and-grins—which is the prosecutor’s assertion.

      Because the prosecutor can’t prove that, this is a no brainer: Mr. Ersland should NEVER have been charged in this case. I suspect that the reason the prosecutor latched onto this is because Mr. Ersland’s original story, as reported by the local news, has a few inconsistencies with what was caught on camera. The prosecutor probably feels that he can use those inconsistencies to discredit Mr. Ersland’s claim that the perp was still moving while lying on the floor. However, as I keep saying, the security camera does not counter, nor confirm, Mr. Ersland’s claim. The prosecution is banking on swaying the jury by convincing them that because there exists inconsistencies between Mr. Ersland’s recollections and what the security camera actually recorded, Mr. Ersland cannot be believed when he said the perp was starting to get up. This is a poor strategy, as there will still exist reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether Mr. Ersland was mistaken on that point or not. Also, legally speaking, who really cares whether the perp was moving or not? You have the right to keep on shooting at a perp until you no longer feel threatened.

      So, unless the prosecutor is withholding another security camera angle that shows the perp on the ground looking deader than a doornail—and, even then Mr. Ersland is STILL justified in pumping out some insurance lead— he’s just wasting the taxpayers’ hard-earned money on a witch hunt.

      Only God knows for sure what was in Mr. Ersland’s heart when all of this went down. If Mr. Ersland did it all just to be malicious, then that’s for God to take care of, not the courts.

      Cheers,

      P.S. – Mrs. Bulldog has a cute, new slogan she’s going to have made into a bumber sticker: I carry a gun because cops are way too heavy!🙂

  3. islams not for me Says:

    I too agree that if my home had been broken into and my wife and children threatened I too would use ANY weapon at hand to either:

    assult and wound the suspect in order to subdue them

    or to use the maximum force including killing to ensure the threat to my family is removed.

    I have no argument against the use of force but I can argue that we need to use our current laws to defend ourselves in the Courts since the liberals would rather have us unarmed and massacered by the criminals they support.

  4. Leatherneck Says:

    Guilty, or not guilty of First degree murder? From the above information I write not guilty.

    I am not happy with the unloading of the second weapon on the perp. But, being unhappy about a subject does not make him guilty.

  5. Big Frank Says:

    The guilt lies wholly on the two dirtbags who perpetrated an armed robbery with a lethal weapon, FYI many a shopkeeper or clerk have ended up in the morgue, as the result of an armed robbery.

  6. islams not for me Says:

    Dr Bulldog Thank you for your wisdom in this matter.

    I will consider what roles the police have to protect me within certain limits of the law. As a mere Conservative North of Seattle I understandably have no idea what criminal laws are in Oklahoma let alone in Washington State.

    I think your ideas and advice on self protection and self preservation are probably for the best since I can agree I alone am the best security for my life.

    Admittedly my reliance on the local police force should shift to research on my local laws and arming myself not only with knowledge but the wisdom and ability to use firearms to keep my family safe.

    To answer your prvious question:

    “So, what do you do when the punk wakes up while you’re duct taping him and pulls out a concealed weapon and shoots you?”

    IF I had a situation that required me to search a wounded suspect I would obviously check every portion of the perp to make sure his gun(s), knives etc were in my custody and not in his or hers. That is the only way to ensure my safety.

    Otherwise yes the perp could kill me IF they were functional enough to grab a gun…


    • Fair enough. Just remember: Dead men tell no tales—nor can they sue.
      🙂

      Cheers

      • Big Frank Says:

        Dead men can’t sue but in my home state of NJ on many occasions the family of the deceased perpetrator of a violent crime seem to have no problem getting hordes of lawyers to file ‘wrongful death suits’. NJ laws, written by liberals and ruled upon by liberal judges seem to favor the guilty rather than protect the citizenry.

        • frogballs Says:

          In Oklahoma, when a person breaks into your home you are statutorily justified in using deadly force…and the really cool part about that law is the family CANNOT sue you in a civil court!


    • P.S. –

      “I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” – Jerome Ersland (May 22, 2009)

      Cheers

    • PB-in-AL Says:

      Bear in mind that the police aren’t obligated to protect you, individually. That’s one of the first things that my wife was told during a women’s self-defense class. As such, your safety is your own responsibility.

      All you have to do is look at the wisc. situation of the last couple of weeks to see cops not protecting. Maybe they buy the union line and won’t. Maybe they’ve done a quick force comparison and realized it’s better to let something smallish go rather than cause the situation to escalate. In either case, One’s protection is left to them, alone.

      While I agree that it *seems* the second gun was unwarranted, we can’t know beyond what the pharmacist says. I would tend to believe him over speculation otherwise.

  7. islams not for me Says:

    Your quite correct PB the police in the areas hurricane katrina hit certainly didnt protect all Citizens. In fact I can recall stories of police taking away citizens fire arms instead of allowing them to defend themselves.

    Looks like I better do some research on fire arms and my own local Laws in order to protect myself…

  8. V.E.G. Says:

    I hope the Norwegian-American should receive a free pardon!

  9. V.E.G. Says:

    There is another hero like Jerome Jay Ersland, a man who shot the bad guy dead, was cleared by a grand jury, his name was Gregory Keith Gagnon. Gagnon is the distant cousin of Frenchie Gagnon from Colorado.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: