American Justice.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not.

Jerome Erslund, the pharmacist in Oklahoma City who killed a violent criminal attempting to rob his store, was convicted of murder 1 yesterday.

Appalling.

[Conan71]

Mixed emotions on that one.  Adrenaline is a weird chemical.

First off, there's no video to prove or disprove the kid was still moving or not moving or reaching for a weapon when he was shot again.

Second, they relied on the testimony of the Oklahoma M.E.'s office, which is undisputedly one of the worst in the nation, to determine which shot in the sequence of shots would have killed the little thug.

If the thug was clearly incapacitated, but not dead, Erslund should not have picked up a second gun and resumed shooting.  He was in no danger at that point and it becomes murder.  If the first shot had blown the thug's head off and he pumped five more rounds into him, then I don't think the DA had a leg to stand on.  He would not have made him "deader" by firing the additional rounds.

If his attorney is sharp, I think they should call into question the M.E.'s opinion on appeal.

TTAC calling Erslund a racist or saying it was racially motivated in 3, 2, 1....

[Breadburner]

.45

[zstyles]

Total B.S I see appeals for years on this one....totally not the right decision for his family and community.

[patric]

Total B.S I see appeals for years on this one....totally not the right decision for his family and community.

It didnt help that the decision came a week after a deputy opened his door to pump multiple rounds into some drunk who jiggled the wrong doorknob in a row of apartments.

[Gaspar]

I'm amazed that he only shot him once in the first place.

Typically when an untrained civilian is put in a situation where they have to shoot someone, the combination of fear and adrenalin causes them to literally empty the magazine. 

Some people have a different adrenal response.  For instance, if someone pulls out in front of me, my response is immediate.  When it happens to my wife, she reacts more methodically, but 30 or 40 seconds later she gets enraged, and develops a migraine (good idea to stay away at that point).

I can see how he may have had an automated response based on sequences he had played out in his mind in the event that this could happen (he had a gun, so chances are he had envisioned his use of it).  What he did not anticipate is how he would react after the adrenalin was surging through his body.  Because he did not anticipate the little thug getting up or reaching for a weapon on the ground, he had the standard "empty the magazine" response.

I feel sorry for him and his family.  I also feel sorry for the family of the criminal.  I do not however feel anything for the criminal himself.

[Conan71]

I'm amazed that he only shot him once in the first place.

Typically when an untrained civilian is put in a situation where they have to shoot someone, the combination of fear and adrenalin causes them to literally empty the magazine. 

Some people have a different adrenal response.  For instance, if someone pulls out in front of me, my response is immediate.  When it happens to my wife, she reacts more methodically, but 30 or 40 seconds later she gets enraged, and develops a migraine (good idea to stay away at that point).

I can see how he may have had an automated response based on sequences he had played out in his mind in the event that this could happen (he had a gun, so chances are he had envisioned his use of it).  What he did not anticipate is how he would react after the adrenalin was surging through his body.  Because he did not anticipate the little thug getting up or reaching for a weapon on the ground, he had the standard "empty the magazine" response.

I feel sorry for him and his family.  I also feel sorry for the family of the criminal.  I do not however feel anything for the criminal himself.

If you recall, Erslund had quite a cache of weapons which the court requested to be handed over until the case was adjudicated.  He's not an LEO, but not a rank amateur around a gun.

It would be hard for me to stand in judgement of him not knowing that I would have reacted any different.  I would like to think that if I looked down and saw even slight movement out of the perp I would try to render aid, not pump more bullets into him if he clearly was no longer a threat. 

I believe the reason he was prosecuted had more to do with two facts: he was a gun owner and apparently an avid collector who knew his way around a gun.  The second being, the victim was black and the DA likely felt pressure to prosecute so no one could say the case wasn't prosecuted because the robber was black.  That's strictly my opinion.

FMC's dad is very active with ORA (Oklahoma's NRA chapter) and works on a lot of their legislative issues.  We've talked about this and he's said Erslund was wrong.  I'll be anxious to get him to expand on it more when I see him this weekend.  I'm also curious to know if the extension of the self defense law to the work place was a direct response to this incident.  I can only guess it was.  I'll be sure to ask.

I hope like Hell I never have to use any of the rights I have under the SDA, but I'm glad I can legally protect myself.

[Red Arrow]

It would be hard for me to stand in judgement of him not knowing that I would have reacted any different.  I would like to think that if I looked down and saw even slight movement out of the perp I would try to render aid, not pump more bullets into him if he clearly was no longer a threat. 

That would be a difficult choice.  There is a good chance that if the perp had lived,  he would have sued and won lifetime financial support.  JMO.  I doubt there was time to think about that at the scene though.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hard to say what happened out of sight in that video.  

One bit of testimony from ME office said that he could not have been moving due to the first shot - he was already "dead".  If so, then where is the murder?  It is just like shooting a tin can at that point.  In very bad taste, but not murder.

Then if he was moving, it could easily have been construed as threatening, and there is the reasonable doubt.  Again, not murder.

With the stress of such an event, the thoughts in his mind about trying to protect himself and the two other people swirling around - my opinion; can't see anything BUT a reasonable doubt on murder.  Manslaughter is a second discussion, and that was  only brought up at the end of the trial.  I do know that I would look at the facts in two ways comparing/contrasting murder to manslaughter if I were on that jury.

Bigger problem is the fact that the ME office is SOOOOO corrupt and incompetent, absolutely nothing they say can be believed, so that "testimony" is immediately suspect.

A couple more shots before he went out the door and we wouldn't even be having a discussion about a trial...

No good info, but have heard some stories about how this same group had something to do with a robbery there previously.  No facts available.  Anyone heard??

[Conan71]

Hard to say what happened out of sight in that video.  

One bit of testimony from ME office said that he could not have been moving due to the first shot - he was already "dead".  If so, then where is the murder?  It is just like shooting a tin can at that point.  In very bad taste, but not murder.

Then if he was moving, it could easily have been construed as threatening, and there is the reasonable doubt.  Again, not murder.

With the stress of such an event, the thoughts in his mind about trying to protect himself and the two other people swirling around - my opinion; can't see anything BUT a reasonable doubt on murder.  Manslaughter is a second discussion, and that was  only brought up at the end of the trial.  I do know that I would look at the facts in two ways comparing/contrasting murder to manslaughter if I were on that jury.

Bigger problem is the fact that the ME office is SOOOOO corrupt and incompetent, absolutely nothing they say can be believed, so that "testimony" is immediately suspect.

A couple more shots before he went out the door and we wouldn't even be having a discussion about a trial...

No good info, but have heard some stories about how this same group had something to do with a robbery there previously.  No facts available.  Anyone heard??

Good points.  I felt this was a second degree murder or first degree manslaughter from the get go if they decided to press charges.  Where's the premeditation and Erslund was not in commission of a felony when he killed the robber.  Those would have been the only mitigating circumstances for first degree murder.  I'd love to see the jury make up, that may explain a lot if they are not the sort to conceal carry and begrudge others for exercising their right to do so.  I really wish I could see a trial transcript to understand better.  They returned the verdict in four hours which means they pretty well reviewed the evidence and may have taken a few votes, if that.

Usually when they add in the possibility of lesser charges at the end of the trial, that's the prosecution realizing their case may have come off weaker than anticipated.

[cynical]

All of the discussion about adrenaline, etc., is pretty much beside the point. From the get-go this case was far too bound up in the wild west emotion that persists in this state.  Self-defense rules are not difficult to figure out.  What no one has specifically discussed is that there was a legitimate and compelling middle ground that fit the facts of this crime.  Manslaughter 1 under 21 O.S. 711(3) fits the facts like a glove. The defense team's insistance on arguing pure self-defense was objectively wrong, even if it was driven by the insistence of the defendant himself. It will be interesting to watch what happens on appeal.

My prediction is that the best chance of getting a new trial in this case is to allege ineffective assistance of counsel. If defense counsel made no record of an effort to plea bargain the case to Manslaughter 1, an ineffective assistance claim might win a new trial.  If they made the effort and were stymied by the prosecutor, they were only entitled to ask the jury for a Manslaughter 1 conviction in the event they found the defendant's claim of self-defense to be unreasonable or not genuine. I don't know if they did so and the jury didn't buy it. If the defendant's stubbornness alone prevented a plea to a reduced charge of Manslaughter 1, he's SOL.

If he got Manslaughter 1, he's sentenced to a term of somewhere between 4 years and life.  He's much more likely to get all or a portion of the sentence suspended and much more likely to be paroled as soon as he's eligible.

I'm amazed that he only shot him once in the first place.

Typically when an untrained civilian is put in a situation where they have to shoot someone, the combination of fear and adrenalin causes them to literally empty the magazine.  

Some people have a different adrenal response.  For instance, if someone pulls out in front of me, my response is immediate.  When it happens to my wife, she reacts more methodically, but 30 or 40 seconds later she gets enraged, and develops a migraine (good idea to stay away at that point).

I can see how he may have had an automated response based on sequences he had played out in his mind in the event that this could happen (he had a gun, so chances are he had envisioned his use of it).  What he did not anticipate is how he would react after the adrenalin was surging through his body.  Because he did not anticipate the little thug getting up or reaching for a weapon on the ground, he had the standard "empty the magazine" response.

I feel sorry for him and his family.  I also feel sorry for the family of the criminal.  I do not however feel anything for the criminal himself.

[Conan71]

Cynical, I'll also see if NRA attempted to provide any counsel.  Word was on the Kenneth Gumm case (shot the tweaker in the 21st St. park at Riverside) he had help from NRA attornies, but did not heed their advice.

It's quite possible Erslund could have brought this on himself.  If he would have pled to a manslaughter conviction, seems like he could have wound up with a suspended sentence or at the worst the lower end of the sentencing spectrum: four years.

Thanks for bringing your trained eye to the discussion.  I'm seriously concerned about the implications to other gun owners.  I realize there are some people with CCL's who are simply waiting for an opportunity to use it while the vast majority have a CCL hoping they never have to use it.

[TulsaMoon]

I have always instructed my wife to completely unload the gun on anyone breaking into our house if I am gone. Don't care how many times you hit him or not. If you don't hit him the 9 shots going off back to back is enough to gather DNA off him sheeting himself while running away. If say she did hit him and the first one killed him as this M.E. concluded in this case and she fired 8 more rounds into him how does this now effect her and our family?

[Hoss]

I have always instructed my wife to completely unload the gun on anyone breaking into our house if I am gone. Don't care how many times you hit him or not. If you don't hit him the 9 shots going off back to back is enough to gather DNA off him sheeting himself while running away. If say she did hit him and the first one killed him as this M.E. concluded in this case and she fired 8 more rounds into him how does this now effect her and our family?

The difference is in the time delay.  If she unloads the clip sequentially, and the first round kills the suspect, not a jury on earth is going to convict her.  What happened here is that the guy shot this guy in the head, went to chase the other guys, came back in and decide to unload 4 or 5 more in him while he was incapacitated.  HUGE difference.

Guys, as much as some in this state would like it to be, this isn't the Wild West.

[custosnox]

In my situation, I fired one shot. I hesitated, giving them that split second to duck back behind the wall before running like hell (The hole was dead center of where the lead guys head was when I took aim though).  After that I went out the door after them, but at this time knew not to shoot at them because A) they were fleeing me B) they were no longer in my home and where unarmed.  When I see this video I can understand the adrenaline (sort of) taking control as he chased after the second guy.  However, I just don't see how it can in any way be considered self defense when he comes back in, calmly walks past the guy in the floor, gets a second gun, calmly walks back and starts shooting.  Maybe not Murder 1, but it was a criminal act.  But then, I might just be really strange since I didn't even get an adrenaline rush with my situation.