This guy may need to be locked up at the 'funny farm' rather than in jail. He sounds like he may have been sampling the merchandise at work. ;)

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggist-jerome-erslands-record-in-doubt/article/3388041?custom_click=headlines_widget

This guy may need to be locked up at the 'funny farm' rather than in jail. He sounds like he may have been sampling the merchandise at work. ;)

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggist-jerome-erslands-record-in-doubt/article/3388041?custom_click=headlines_widget

I'm glad I never defended this clown.

well, in fairness, like me, he's a wee past prime in age. And the older we get, the more we tend to forget. In this instance though, at least he is consistent.

He dinna remember he was on camera when he spun a version contrary to the footage.
He dinna remember the military keeps records of where he served, and that those might be accessible.

It does, a wee bit anyways, cause one to wonder what he might not remember next week until it's trotted out to bite at him.

More came out today....

http://www.newsok.com/druggist-jerome-erslands-story-varies/article/3389847?custom_click=headlines_widget

Some people forget the value of their 5th Amendment right to (in internet parlance) STFU.

Well, all this is consistent with what the video. Honestly, he sounds unbalanced.

Maybe they're going for an insanity plea.

-- in that case, they're doin' it wrong.

Maybe they're going for an insanity plea.

-- in that case, they're doin' it wrong.

I saw the guy interviewed on TV - he sounds mentally deficient. Not necessarily crazy, but very limited. Just my impression.

I for one really don't care what his military file shows; whether he served in the Army or the Air Force; or whether he was stationed in Oklahoma, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Tijuana.

In my opinion the video pretty much says it all.

I have a question though. Midtowner, maybe you can answer this? Does the family of the young boy that died have any legal basis to file suit against Ersland or the business establishment?

If they could avoid some sort of intervening cause they might be able to go after the business. But it is pretty hard to imagine that someone working at the pharamacy would do something that egregious so my guess is that the pharamcy has some defenses - but an Oklahoma tort lawyer could respond better than I could.

I don't know why they couldn't go after the pharmacist, civily. Think OJ.

I've found that basically anyone can sue anyone else for just about any reason.

I'd like to hear their argument though on damages, considering the public was probably better off with this kids death as he was headed down a very dark path.

The pharmacist's lies only strengthen my belief he should be prosecuted. In the absence of the defendant's ability to recount the events truthfully then it should be left up to a jury.

I have a question though. Midtowner, maybe you can answer this? Does the family of the young boy that died have any legal basis to file suit against Ersland or the business establishment?

The cause of action would be for wrongful death. If Ersland is found guilty or pleads out to a homicide crime, I think the only question is going to be damages. Damages in wrongful death cases are measured by an estimate of the lost income the kid would have produced over his lifetime and a number of other items. There can also be substantial punitive damages.

I think the pharmacy should also be on the hook as well. While ordinarily, an employer won't be held liable for the acts of its employees which are intentional torts or crimes which exceed the scope of its employment, here, I think the facts might paint a different picture. If Ersland was allowed to keep a number of firearms on the premises, then the employer seems to be validating the wrongful behavior. Further, the pharmacy might be held liable for negligent hiring and possibly negligent entrustment of a firearm. Here too, substantial punitive damages can come down as well.

The ground here for civil liability is fertile. I imagine "Speedy's" family is just waiting until the criminal aspect here wraps up.

Thank you Midtowner. And good point ECO, about OJ. But I do hope, in this case, the Jury comes back with a conviction.

A question. If the kid was married and had children, I can see why a wife might have grounds to sue for the income he would have made. But absent that it seems to me that his parents, guardians or whatever will be saving money without him to feed and house. Could they say with a straigt face that he was going to suppport them in the future. I can't help but feel that a suit would be a total joke and without legal grounds.

...it seems to me that his parents, guardians or whatever will be saving money without him to feed and house. Could they say with a straigt face that he was going to suppport them in the future.

USG 60---Come on now. Can't you have a wee bit of compassion for the family? Granted, this young man made a terrible decision, but he paid for that decision with his life.

I DO feel for them. I'm sure they had dreams for him and that they loved him, but to my mind (and heart) that would not give them they right to sue for any more money than to bury him. If money would assuage their anguish I belive it would nullify their it's sincerity. They have a right to mourn but not to be paid to quit mourning.

USG 60---Come on now. Can't you have a wee bit of compassion for the family? Granted, this young man made a terrible decision, but he paid for that decision with his life.

Actually, he paid with it with two lives - his and the pharmacists. Ersland's life will never be the same regardless of the trial's outcome.

So true, Brian.

As big a boy as Ersland was, all he had to do was sit on top of the unconscious kid until the police got there. He didn't have to shoot him.........five times.........after the fact...........one of those--once..........in the head. I'm just sayin--that's plain murder, not defense.

There is no doubt he was in a state of panic and we have all done stupid things in a panic state. Maybe we were just lucky nothing really really terrible happened. Regardless, I wish he hadn't shot the second gun and I feel quite sure he wishes the same thing. Punish him if you must but make it the deprivation of his guns, maybe some public service to boot, but not prison. He was forced into the panic state, he didn't ask for it. And again, the family deserves nothing other than our sympathy.

Just for the sake of the debate, if the perp's family would have felt so badly about what happened, wasn't it the perp's mother and her boyfriend who put him up to the robbery in the first place? To have a mother who supported you to commit a crime with a gun in hand doesn't lead me to believe she really gave a hoot about her son.

Second question - if you were on the jury, knowing what you know, would you be inclined to convict Ersland of 1ST DEGREE MURDER?

Just for the sake of the debate, if the perp's family would have felt so badly about what happened, wasn't it the perp's mother and her boyfriend who put him up to the robbery in the first place? To have a mother who supported you to commit a crime with a gun in hand doesn't lead me to believe she really gave a hoot about her son.If that is the case, THEY should be in prison. I don't recall having heard that.

I can't research it where I am now but I believe that's what was reported at the time of the crime. Tell me if I am wrong.

USG 60,

I do understand better where you were coming from now. I wasn't advocating that the parents should be compensated in any way. I was merely curious if Oklahoma Statutes allowed parents to file a civil suit in a case like this.

Accept my apologies if you thought I was being critical, and that's not to say you thought that.

I might have worded my earlier comment differently if I hadn't been trying to eat a bowl of chili at the same time I was commenting.

USG 60,

I do understand better where you were coming from now. I wasn't advocating that the parents should be compensated in any way. I was merely curious if Oklahoma Statutes allowed parents to file a civil suit in a case like this.

Accept my apologies if you thought I was being critical, and that's not to say you thought that.

I might have worded my earlier comment differently if I hadn't been trying to eat a bowl of chili at the same time I was commenting.

NO problem. I felt like it was an honest question. And to be thoroughly honest, if I knew every single detail of the whole thing, I might feel differently.

About 30 years ago a lady friend of mine shot and killed a kid who was staring at her through a window in the middle of the night. She first screamed bloody murder reflexively but he just stood there staring without even even wincing. Terrified she found her pistol and aimed it at him. He punched the window out and she fired in a panic. It turned out to be a retarded teenager that lived near by that she had never seen before. It literally tore her to pieces that she had killed a retarded kid ....despite her state of terror. She was not prosecuted or sued but she still suffers to this day over the incident.

I can't say that Ersland will suffer inwardly to the extent that she did, but I think it will haunt him to some degree the rest of his life unless he is a sociopath. He isn't likely to do it again.

Second question - if you were on the jury, knowing what you know, would you be inclined to convict Ersland of 1ST DEGREE MURDER?

I would. The act of firing on the kid and killing him was a whole other separate act. What did they say? Something like 11 minutes between when the two kids first came in and he shot the kid. Yes that was deserved because it was an act of defense. One dropped, the other ran. Eleven minutes later you can go and put more bullets in an unconscious body?

I don't know, I think that if he had done that while in the armed forces he would have violated some form of the rules of engagement. I think he just wanted to 'bust a cap in dat a$$' because he never got a chance to do so in the war he was apparently never in!

I would. The act of firing on the kid and killing him was a whole other separate act. What did they say? Something like 11 minutes between when the two kids first came in and he shot the kid. Yes that was deserved because it was an act of defense. One dropped, the other ran. Eleven minutes later you can go and put more bullets in an unconscious body?

I don't know, I think that if he had done that while in the armed forces he would have violated some form of the rules of engagement. I think he just wanted to 'bust a cap in dat a$$' because he never got a chance to do so in the war he was apparently never in!


11 minutes???? Seriously, where are you people getting this nonsense from?

Didn't we all see the video in real time? If so, I would say it was 30 seconds at the most. I could be wrong about it though. Where did that 11 minute deal come from?

11 minutes???? Seriously, where are you people getting this nonsense from?

That's why I said "what did they say? Something like 11 minutes?". There was a passage of time between the time he ran out after the kid in his handicapped state with that back belt on that he always wears and the time he came back in to go grab another gun out of his little stockade and the time he walked back over to shoot the kid that was laying on the ground unconscious.

So forget about the 11 minutes. Where do you get your nonsense from that it's okay to shoot someone when they're stone cold passed out? You're right, time shouldn't have anything to do with it.

USG - when they showed that video on the news it was not a straight through play and you could see where they edited parts of it out to show the most stunning parts.

OK. Where can we find out how muchtime DID pass. I still think it is a pertinent issue, at least to SOME extent. We have no proof of whether the kid was moving or not, do we?

USG 60,

I do understand better where you were coming from now. I wasn't advocating that the parents should be compensated in any way. I was merely curious if Oklahoma Statutes allowed parents to file a civil suit in a case like this.

The suit would be brought by the kid's estate and any money won would in this case probably divided among the kids heirs through the process Oklahoma has for splitting up the assets of the deceased when there's no will.

What grounds would they have to sue, Midtowner?

Off the top of my head, wrongful death as to Ersland and the Pharmacy (I'm ignoring possible defenses) and as to the pharmacy only, negligent hiring and negligent entrustment of a firearm.

USG 60,

It really was only a matter of seconds. I believe the video may still be available on Fox or NewsOK. Now, the video about the State Trooper and the EMT might have been 11 minutes?????

OKC Pharmacy Shooting

http://www.newsok.com/pharmacyshootings

Mr. Ersland is obviously upset and shocked by all the the turn of events,
and at times has spoken carelessly...
but
the relevent facts are:
an armed robbery at the pharmacy is the compelling event which necessitated the use of FORCE, ie use of gun....
and
the 16 year old deceased robber Antwun should not be made into a martyr or victim...
and
civil rights groups are off base making public pronouncements like this is a racial matter...
morover, they should be telling young folks this is what happens to robbers...

and
Judge Tammy Bass Jones-Lesure should recuse herself as she has actively participated in events organized by these same race based groups who now seek to politicize the trial
see: " Black Women Lead March"
in The Daily Oklahoman July 23 2006
in which the judge led a group of black women urging voting and participation.
and
these same activists are now trying to inappropriately inject race into the matter
Ersland should immediately seek a change of venue, due to the politicization factor
and
file a complaint with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints

In an armed robber, the victims of the armed robbery have a right to use deadly force, am shocked
by all this talk about the armed robber's family having legal grounds for lawsuit!
Ersland is not as articulate as we would expect from a pharmacist, nor as contrite as most of us would be in this regrettable matter...
however,
Antwun chose to participate in an armed robbery
and
that is what set off the unfortunate chain of events
and
any attempts to make Antwun into a martyr or victim
is bad public policy. period

Ersland should file bar complaint regarding the false and inflammatory statement by DA Prater "Antwun was unconsious, and so it was an execution"'

if the videotape doesn't show him after he was down, how could anyone determine he was unconscious?
The false and inflammatory statement by DA Prater has created a hostile environment in which Ersland, with minimal communication skills, will not likely get a fair trial.

if the videotape doesn't show him after he was down, how could anyone determine he was unconscious?

You don't think a medical doctor could make such a determination? "Well look here bullet #1 sliced his head in half. Methinks he probably lost consciousness!" Not a big fan of science? But not only that, I've watched the video. Although you can't see the robber, the pharmacist casually walks across the room and stands directly over the guy, leans forward, and shoots. If he had any concern that he was going to be shot at / that the guy was still a threat I just don't see him acting that way.


The false and inflammatory statement by DA Prater has created a hostile environment in which Ersland, with minimal communication skills, will not likely get a fair trial.

I'm all for everyone having the right to self defense, but that right ends at a certain point. For example if my house is being robbed I can defend myself, but I do not have the right to chase the robber down the street, around the corner, and shoot him in the back while he flees from me. I don't see how this is any different.

I'm still not sure about this one, it's hard to say what anyone would do in a similar situation.
It is shameful though that it appears that crooks have more rights then your honest, hard working citizen.

I'm still not sure about this one, it's hard to say what anyone would do in a similar situation.
It is shameful though that it appears that crooks have more rights then your honest, hard working citizen.

In THIS Case you are Joking, aren't you???

Hard to tell if legislativeResearcher is more of a Prater Hater or a Jerome Gnome. Not atypical of a drive-bys.

Certainly not a lot of research went into the process.

In an armed robber, the victims of the armed robbery have a right to use deadly force, am shocked

First, it is recommended that you post only when sober.

Second, don't give legal advice you're not qualified to give -- especially wrong legal advice. Your right to use deadly force ends when the threat ends.

In THIS Case you are Joking, aren't you???

Absolutely not. Until your put in his position, you can't say with 100% accuracy how you would react.

Absolutely not. Until your put in his position, you can't say with 100% accuracy how you would react.

I observed his position and this was simply MURDER! To spin his action as anything else is simply an attempt to "justify" use of deadly force in ANY circumstance. Sad

I was horrified when I saw the video. I wonder if there is a different view that shows if the kiddo was moving. I hadn't heard that there was. I wouldn't want to see it.

Death is almost never pretty, no matter its cause