Anybody hear anything? Wondered when it was going to be set for trial...

He's out on $100,000 bail. Don't believe there's a trial date yet. Prosecutor is trying to get access to his military records.

http://newsok.com/judge-clears-access-to-o...article/3378953

I say it once again: there is not a jury in Oklahoma that will convict this guy......

First of all, it depends on who you talk to. And any juror with half a brain would convict him.

I wouldn't...and I have MORE than half a brain, thank you.....

If the prosecutors try to use his military service against him, they will lose if it comes out that he was in firefights. I stand behind the vets, that have been in the fog of war. I know that it's kill or be killed, when it comes to that. That's why I support the pharmicist. I think it was a gut reaction, and he was trained to kill and ask questions later.

Boy, what I wouldn't give to type that case!!!! It'll depend on the DA and how he goes about prosecuting this case. If he comes off too hard, depending on the jury, he'll lose the case. If he gets any black jurors, he'd best watch his step, otherwise, they'll have a hung jury.

It really depends on who's on the jury... if you have people who are intelligent, well-schooled, etc., they'll apply the law, and Colmesneil, I hate to disappoint you, but he'll be going to jail. It'll definitely depend upon the jury and how the prosecutor works his case.

The defense attorney has got a job that seriously, I'd love to see how he can defend this case. If he finds any kind of hole whatsoever in the evidence, how the police handled anything, he'll use that to his fullest benefit.

Note to owners who own stores: Video cameras not only capture the bad guys, but they also sometimes uh, capture "other things" as well.

I won't be disappointed...I've served on a few juries and I've never been privileged enough to be on one like you have just described......

If the defense attorney brings into account the pharmacist past history in war, the psychological effects can be proven by a psychologist. I've watched the video about 4 times. I want to know the truth, and I don't think the pharmacist went on a bloodbath tour in his own pharmacy. This individual was scared, and all he had to go on was his life experiences. Now, folks I don't know if you've been scared before. You don't think about what your are doing in circumstances such as this. You're adrenaline is flowing and you react. It's either flight or fight. The pharmacist went with his only instinct. It was either kill or be killed. He didn't know who he was dealing with, he didn't know that they were somebodies babies. He knew his life was in danger, and his employees lives were in danger. Perhaps, he did take the wrong actions, but he didn't have time to think about the ramifications when he had guns pointed in his face, and the women that were inside the pharmacy with him. He did the right thing, and anyone in the courtroom can agree, that if they were placed in that precarious moment, they wouldn't know what they would do but to react. Again my friends, Mr. Ersland didn't premeditate
murder. He reacted in the only way that he knew. To find these menaces to societies deaths, as being overkill you are overlooking what they wanted to do. They did not come to Mr. Ersland's pharmacy to have an ice cream cone. They came with force, and an intention to rob an elderly veteran of his money and the drugs that he prescribed to needy patients.

It is very unfortunate, that the life of a teenager was lost. However to condemn a man based on 1 minute of video tape is wrong. It's the wrong message to law abiding citizens, and it is the wrong message to criminals. I will ask you to search in your heart, how you would have reacted. Would you fight or would you just succumb to the demands of a criminal ? It is your choice, in your heart to give criminals more rights, than an honest law abiding business owner.

In response to Colmes' response... that's 'cuz you've served on Texas juries! LOL! (just messing with ya)

Now, Dave, here's where the problem lies. I've watched the video as you have... here's the problem, and just think about it for a minute. Okay, he's shot the guy, he's totally incapicitated, although we can't see him on the video, but the forensic examiner will tell us he was incapacitated...(let's pretend we're on the jury here).

Okay. So pharamcist does that, that's fine (bit morbid, but you know what I mean). So then, he goes out to hunt for the other guy. Now, we don't know eaxctly how long he's out there, may be 2 second to 10 seconds... what's he doing, what's he saying, if he's running, etc. Why hasn't he called the police? Then it picks back up on the video, as he CALMLY (that is the word you need to understand here) comes back in, doesn't go to the back, but walks around the counter, doesn't even look at the guy who's on the ground, but calmly gets yet ANOTHER gun, loads it, walks back calmly over to the assailant and shoots him more times, in fact, killing the assailant.

Now, I ask you the following questions:

1) Why does the pharmacist have gun/s (not just one, but two) guns in his store?
2) Has he been robbed before?
3) If so, what happened before?
4) How can you claim self-defense on someone who is totally incapacitated?
5) Why hasn't he called 911?
6) When does he, in fact, call 911?
7) Why doesn't he hold the gun on the incapacitated assailant while he's calling 911?
8) Why doesn't he look to see if the incapicitated assailant actually has a weapon?
9) Does he look for said weapon?
10) If said assiliant was, in fact, a "threat" to his employees, why does he not, in fact, go to said employees (or why don't we see said employees) in the video, and see what's going on, while assailant is lying helplessly on the ground?

These are just a few of the questions that will be addressed...

If you will simply read the description of the law relating to self-defense, you'll see what I mean...there's a VERY, very fine line there. The law states what a "prudent ordinary person" would do.

I think the pharmacist will be convicted of manslaughter and get probation since the robbers instigated the incident and he initially acted in self defense. The pharmacist is no threat to society unless some thugs come into his place of business pointing guns at him and his employees. A jury will recognize that fact.

Dave, what are you trying to say? First you say "he did take the wrong actions", then in the very next sentence you say "he did the right thing".

Any yes, he did have time to decide whether or not he needed to shoot the bad guy who was down again. He did not have to do that, but he chose to. Some might argue that he had PLENTY of time to think about it before he re-entered the store, and that might consitute premeditation.

Of course, we know that the intent of the two thugs was to rob the store and the very least....and possibly shoot and kill someone. However, what matters here is what the intent of the pharmacist was. We can only speculate what was going through his mind. I am sure he was scared, as I'm sure I would have been scared in the same situation. But I can guarantee you that I would not have chosen to do what he did.

1) Why does the pharmacist have gun/s (not just one, but two) guns in his store? My wife and I own guns. They are for protection of property. Had Mr. Ersland ever needed his gun in the past as a pharmacist ? I don't think so, otherwise he would have been charged.

2) Has he been robbed before? We don't know that yet, if he had maybe he needed more than two guns.

3) If so, what happened before? More facts to add to the case. I believe in the 6th Amendment. Just the facts.

4) How can you claim self-defense on someone who is totally incapacitated? Was the victim totally incapacitated ? We can not see that from the video. He may have been alive and pointing the weapon at Mr. Ersland. He could have been breathing his last breats, and reaching for the gun.

5) Why hasn't he called 911? Watch the first part of the video, what would you do with two individuals coming into your house or business with guns waving and them shouting at you ?

6) When does he, in fact, call 911? After he got the mess scared out of him, and he calmed down from the adrenaline rush.

7) Why doesn't he hold the gun on the incapacitated assailant while he's calling 911? Less than one minute of reaction time, with guns waving in his and his employees face. Is the assailant incapacitated, we can not see that. We only have a one sided view of a video camera. If there had been one on the other side of the counter, we would have been able to see what the criminal was doing. What was the criminal doing, by bringing a gun into a pharmacy in the first place ? Did he want to purchase a roll of lifesavers ? Did he come in waving a $5 bill to buy a pack of gum ? The thieves came in to rob a business, they wanted drugs and money. They didn't care about anything but their fix and to get some street cred. They didn't care who they were threatening, even if it was a threat. Let's look at this logically, I go to your home, and the door is open. I wave my gun at you, your husband, and a friend of yours. You have two guns nearby, you can either use them against me, because I want your money, and any valuables in your home. Are you going to feel sorry for me ? Are you going to give me everything I want ? Are you that vunerable to crimes commited against you.

8) Why doesn't he look to see if the incapicitated assailant actually has a weapon? We can't see that from a one sided video recording. We saw the weapon in the first 15 seconds of the video. Mr. Ersland shot him, that doesn't mean the CRIMINAL was dead.
9) Does he look for said weapon? He didn't have time to look for said weapon. He was reacting to his circumstances.

10) If said assiliant was, in fact, a "threat" to his employees, why does he not, in fact, go to said employees (or why don't we see said employees) in the video, and see what's going on, while assailant is lying helplessly on the ground? Who said the CRIMINAL was helpless, he came in waving a gun, and was shot. Do we know where the CRIMINAL was shot first ? Perhaps many of you have seen "Burn Before Reading" but was it a clear shot to his brain ? Was he shot in the shoulder ? We can't see that from the tape.

The Criminal wins again by your logic. Or does a veteran that fought for your freedom mean anything anymore ? We can not tell by the video if the criminals were incapacitated in any way. I want you to think about what would happen, if your family or friends under any circumstances were placed in Mr. Erslands situation. Would you do as the CRIMINALS demanded, or would you try to protect your business being plundered and your family from being pillaged ?

Not Guilty !

What does perhaps mean ?

Mr. Ersland didn't have time. His adrenaline, and heart were pumping so fast he reacted. The only intent that Mr. Ersland had was to protect his business, his wife, and his employee. Maybe you wouldn't have, but Mr. Ersland did. Not Guilty !!

You know, I could've sworn when we first started this conversation, that you were on the "guilty" side... maybe I'm wrong... from your comments above, you've just exemplified exactly what the prosecutor will say, as in HE DID HAVE enough time. You have to remember, also, it WAS NOT this particular assilant who had the gun.

I suggest to you, Dave, that it does not matter one iota that he's a veteran. Not one. The one who is on trial here is the pharmacist, we're not talking about the other assilant. So in your words, just because he's a veteran, he's supposed to do whatever? Huh-uh, ain't gonna fly.

Truthfully, had the same situation happened to me/us at our home...if anybody's stupid enough to go out running after the other assailant, who had the gun in the first place, and leave the one lying on the ground, IN MY HOUSE, WITH MY FAMILY, after I'd already shot him, would be pure stupidity. It would definitely prove that I had no sense of what I was doing, nor could "register" protecting my family from the assailant lying on the ground IN MY HOME, not to mention, WALKING BACK CALMLY, getting another gun, loading said gun, and CALMLY going back over and shooting downed assailant more times!

Now, would it have been different, had he pumped him full of however many times he did when he initially shot him is one thing...but that's not what he did.

Anyhoos, I see your point, but we'll see...ought to prove interesting, that's for sure!

I was never on the guilty side. This gentleman was accosted, in his place of business. The person that was screaming the loudest was shot first. Then Mr. Ersland went out running in less than 30 seconds. If he would have put 40 rounds into the fleeing CRIMINAL, I would have no problems with it. Criminals should not be able to look for innocent victims, they should have fear in their hearts that they will get their "street cred". They should have fear that hard working people will protect their property.

Jerome Ersland did serve in the military. If he served in Korea, Vietnam, or any other war, he was trained to kill. That stays with a veteran of a foreign war. As I said, any psychologist would be able to testify in Mr. Erslands defense, and how he reacted at his age.

Was Mr. Ersland walking back calmy, or briskley for a man his age ? I think it was a gut reaction. I can not find Mr. Ersland guilty. I refuse to defend Thieves. The Criminal was an animal, and needed to be put out of his and our misery. I have no sympathy for those that desire to take advantage of anyone.

The man is guilty of manslughter and not because of race but he used excessive force on a purp that was already incompacitated.

Now as far as the punishment, he should get probation. He's going to get leniacy from the judge without question.

It shouldn't be an issue of color. The camera clearly states what they did wrong and should have been punished by the justice of the law. The man didn't let it get that far for those thugs to sit it out in prison.

Furthermore, I don't see why this guy's bond should of been $100,000, really should be lower.

We still, even at this late date have a lot of "Cowboy Justice Instinct". "Horse thieves or Chicken thieves" ought to be hung. This is the basis of vigilante acts, that have on more than a few occasions resulted in the wrong person paying the ultimate penalty. Mr Ersland has, by his chosen course of action, prevented himself from being exonerated. He has been the cause of his own scrutiny, because he performed a vigilante action.

I want him to get off, but I cannot dismiss the video evidence that makes it appear that he wilfully took the life of someone who was not able to (1) attack him, or (2) cause a threat to him or (3) even flee for his life. Translated helpless whether he had robbed ten banks and killed five other people that day. He was helpless and defenseless. So take any hint of hero out of your discussion. Extreme fear that causes a person to perform acts of this nature can be interpreted as cowardice.

I don't want to say it's "Cowboy Justice". It just seems that we want to give criminals a chance, when if we went back 25 -1,000,000 years ago, no one would convict Mr. Ersland. He would be the town hero, the village hero, a national hero. Instead, today we see less than 1 minute and 15 seconds of video, and want to put a law abiding citizen behind bars.

In todays society we are giving criminals "rights". I don't like that.

I'm going to put myself in the shoes of the criminal. I'm decide to rob a pharmacy, there is a risk of danger when commiting this crime. I want some money, I want street cred, I want drugs to sell or use. I come in screaming and waving a fire arm. I expect to get exactly what I want, because I have the firepower, and I can put fear in the hearts of these people. I thought this was an old man, that wasn't armed, but he pops a bullet into me. I could be still alive, the bullet grazes my head, my senses are lost. I can feel the blood dripping from the wound, but I'm down. I still have some consciousness. I'm lying there in my own blood. I want to survive, and I make a natural instinct to fight my way out. My breath is shallow and slow, but I'm going to fight my way out of this, and I search for my gun. The blood is flowing out of me, but I can my protection isn't far away. I see the person that I wanted to rob, and I weakly raise the gun. He pumps me full of lead, and I die. That was the risk I took, by attempting to rob someone.

Now, I have people that will feel sorry for me, because I tried to rob someone. Is my death justice ? Yes. If I would have killed the pharmacist and his employees, would that have been justice ? No.

It's time to get rid of these criminals. If ya'll want to feel sorry for those that break the law, that's your choice. I don't feel sorry for the criminals that lurk on our streets. If ya'll want to give them more rights than law abiding citizens. I don't expect for your society to last long.

There will always be people, regardless of your values and your new day understanding, that will attempt to do whatever they feel is a need to take advantage of your compassion. Your compassion will only give the criminals more power in the streets, and over your lives. I don't feel any compassion for these two criminals. They chose to rob someone, and the criminal paid the price for his misdeeds.

I do not believe that a victim, should have to think about every possible ramification of their actions, when they are thrown into a situation that they never expected in their lives. Mr. Ersland knew there was a possibility in this day and age that he would be robbed. He didn't plan to kill a teen, but he wanted to stop them. They showed signs that they were going to use force, and he took matters into his own hands. 1 minute and 15 seconds to think logically. You've already thought about this situation in your life, he really didn't. This guy is old school, when there's a threat shoot first and ask questions later. Perhaps he had watched too many John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Steven Segal, or other movies in his lifetime. Ya'll are going to find him guilty, because of guns that were waved in his, and his employees face. Perhaps, he experienced a buddy being killed by a dying Korean or Viet Cong as a veteran.

I think about all these possibilities. My whole dilema is the two individuals coming into the business waving guns and screaming. No time to think, protect yourself. Fight or flight. That is the only pre-meditation in this case. He chose to fight, and I stand behind Mr. Ersland.

Dline you put this perfectly!

Oklahoma state medical examiner confirms the armed robber would have survived the head shot ; killed by shots to the abdomen.

http://www.newsok.com/gut-shots-claimed-ok...article/3387040

<<
The robber killed by a pharmacist in May died from gunshots to his body, not the shot to his head, the state chief medical examiner confirmed in the autopsy report.

Antwun Rayshaun Parker, 16, of Oklahoma City was knocked out after being shot in the head and would have survived that injury, Dr. Collie Trant told The Oklahoman.

Pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland is charged with first-degree murder in a case that sparked a national debate. Prosecutors allege he went too far because he shot the robber five more times after knocking the robber unconscious with the shot to the head. Ersland said he acted in self-defense. He said in a nationally televised interview that he thought the robber was getting up.

The autopsy report released Tuesday describes the first wound as a "non-fatal gunshot entrance/graze wound to head.”

Trant explained the first shot involved a three-pellet shell.

Parker was shot five other times — to the chest and abdomen, the autopsy report shows.
>>

A "non-fatal gunshot entrance/graze wound to (the) head." Was the perp incapacitated ? Was he reaching for a weapon ? We can't see from the video. I'm not going to give criminal's the right to take what they will from anyone. There is too much doubt in my mind.

He didn't have a weapon, therefore logically he could not have been reaching for one.

Uh-oh... somebody's fixing to be in some big trouble!

Not as long as he doesn't give up his right to a jury trial.......

So is it agianst the law to kill someone who was attempting to rob you at gunpoint?

You know what's going to get him...when the Judge reads the jury instructions and explains some legal terms. The jury has to take those terms and apply it in the guilt or innocent phase. If they say he committed manslaughter, then there's a range of punishment that goes with that...remember, there's two phases - guilt and innocence and then sentencing.

It'll truly be interesting, that's for sure.

No, it's not. This particular perp wasn't brandishing a gun. This particular perp was shot. Then the "victim" ran after the other guy, came back, walked calmly to get another gun, reload, and then walked to first perp and shot him as he lay unconscious.

Fine line between self-defense and ....

My prediction: Several hung juries and a dismissal........All it takes is one person to hang a jury.......that's why you ALWAYS take a jury trial......

It depends. If the DA is a conservative... maybe... if he's a democrat... well, he'll go for blood. Same with the County and District Judge, and the Mayor...

He'll get pressure from somewhere...just depends on which pressure he gets.

I know one thing... I'd love to type that one!!!!!

There is not a thing any of them can do if the jury doesn't reach a verdict......he'll get off...which is what should happen anyway......

Did the perp enter the store to rob it? And one thing to remember is how fast the time elapsed (went by) during this whole process, is he walking calmly or is he walking slowly becuase of his back brace and you cant hear the screams of the women in the next room either. Was ole boy cold hearted? yes. I just dont think he should be found guilty of anything since his rights were violated.

Answer 1 - yes.

Answer 2 - depends. Did witnesses see pharmacist come outside, and RUN after other perp? Also, no, we can't hear the screams, but as you watch the video, the same video the jury will see, he doesn't look over to the perp who's lying on the ground once he comes back in. We don't know if he's moving or not at that point. But the pharmacist doesn't look at him at all. Pharmacist isn't doing what a lot of people would do, i.e., pick up the phone and call the cops or holler at other woman/women and say, here hold the gun on him while I find the other guy or you call the cops...also, what amazed me was, while he's getting the other gun, loading it, he's not looking over at the perp on the ground... he's focusing on his mission... then walks over to perp and lights 'em up.

Would it not have been easier and let's say, more law-abiding, once the pharmacist gets back in the pharmacy, loads his other gun, and stands over the perp and call the cops and say, best hurry up... if he wakes up, I'm lighting him up!

And Answer 3 - yes, the perp got what he deserved, as far as the first shot...

----------





LOL. You and I are going to disagree on this one, and one other thing.... so I guess that's not too bad of odds there... LOL!

Pharmacist may have lied to authorities about his military record.

Excerpt from http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggi...ead_story_title

<<
A pharmacist charged with murder told police he had killed before, while overseas in the first Gulf War. But according to his military records, he was never there.

Instead, Jerome Jay Ers-land spent the war in 1991 as the pharmacy chief at the military hospital at Altus Air Force Base in southwestern Oklahoma, records show.

[...]

The government last week released to The Oklahoman eight pages about Ersland’s military service, first in the Army and then in the Air Force. Reporters also reviewed other records about Ersland’s military service.

Prosecutors doubted Ersland’s accounts about his Gulf War service, and they subpoenaed his military papers from the government to check his statements. Prosecutors received a thick envelope of Ersland’s military papers Thursday.

"They verify exactly what we assumed about ... his comments about his military record,” Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said.

Prater said he wanted the records to prepare for possible defenses. Ersland told police he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

"We wanted to verify if he’d ever been in combat or not, if he would have had any instance ... of anything that would have led to PTSD, if he had been diagnosed with PTSD at any point,” Prater said.
>>

See that's the bad thing about telling a lie; sometimes you get caught. I personally think this man just signed his conviction papers.

I can just hear the opening and closing statements by both the DA and defense counsel... this one is going to be a circus!

Judge considering allowing the Ersland court proceedings to be televised. Stock up now on microwave popcorn just in case.

http://www.newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersl...ead_story_title

Oh, good Lord, defense counsel ought to be screaming and not allow that! That's just asking for it!

Part of his defense was being scared from the war and that led him to act in the way he did. Turns out, he's a liar. He's finished, and rightfully so.

GUILTY!!!

We'll let the jury speak on this one......he's going to get off free as a bird.....they won't find 12 people who will vote to convict.....mark my words......

There's more involved to this than just a jury of 12....there's things that go on outside the jury's presence...not to mention leading up to it... it'll depend on who the judge is and whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, and how much pressure he gets from whoever, not to even mention the DA...

Pharmacist's story keep changing

Excerpt from http://www.newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersl...ead_story_title

<<
A pharmacist’s explanation of what happened May 19, when he fatally shot a masked robber, keeps changing.

Jerome Jay Ersland has given three versions so far, The Oklahoman found in a review of his statements to news reporters and to law enforcement. The latest came in a letter last month to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

"I was under so much stress,” he told The Oklahoman in a July interview. "It had just been so rough ... that I couldn’t remember exactly what had happened until later. And, then, it gradually comes back to you over the days and weeks.”

[...]

Ersland insists the injured robber was awake and still had a gun after being hit in the head. He said he shot Parker again to protect himself and two female employees. He has said he thought Parker had already shot him in the wrist.

But he has given different accounts of what Parker did after being shot in the head and of when he shot Parker the second time.
>>

Somebody seriously needs to tell this guy TO SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! The defense attorney is slobbering at the mouth, literally. And every bit of that will come back to haunt him!

Actually, there isn't...if this guy chooses to have a trial by jury, it will all come down to what those 12 decide or not......all the other things are superficial.....

If he's stupid and waives his right to a jury trial, then those other factors will come into play.....word of advice to all: ALWAYS make sure you are judged by a jury and not a judge.....you have a great chance of at least 1 of the 12 being a complete idiot (or 11 of the 12 being complete idiots and 1 who'll save you...lol)...a hung jury isn't an acquital, but it isn't a conviction, either......always play the odds.....

No, Colmes, that isn't quite right. Who do you think decides what evidence comes in? The Judge. Who do you think decides what evidence doesn't come in? The Judge. There is so much to a trial BEFORE they even get to trial.

lol....but who decides whether he's guilty or not...the jury...I've been on one....the evidence was far removed from what we were discussing (and we ended up with a mistrial).......Once the jury is in that room, they can decide what they want based on God only knows what.......and do you really think that the jurors disregard the things that make it in the courtroom that the judge tells them to disregard????

I definitely agree with you that jurors DON'T disregard, as they're told to... (there's a reason those attorneys bring something like that up).

What I'm talking about is WAY before the trial. There are many, many hearings that the jurors don't even know about, that the judge has to rule on motions before the trial even starts. Not to mention all the sidebar conferences, and the hearings held outside the jury's presence during the trial. I'm just telling ya... you'd be amazed!!!! The idea that the jury knows everything is a bunch of bahooey!

Bottom Line: The jury decides the outcome.....they won't get 12 people to agree to convict this guy......count on it.....

Willing to make a wager... oh, let's say a whatever you want gift card?