(from NewsOn6.com) State Representative Randy Terrill has introduced the Jerome Ersland Act in response to the pharmacist's murder case.

If the act passes, it will expand the legal use of deadly force in self defense to include anyone in the act of armed robbery, as long as the deadly force occurs shortly after the robbery and on the property where the robbery happened.

I'm sure many will applaud this act - but I for one do not. The worst case scenarios are swirling in my head if this became law.

This really doesn't help Mr. Ersland.

This tells me that Rep. Terrill actually believes Ersland committed a murder.

This would allow summary execution following robberies. I don't think anyone can seriously expect that this would become law. Not even with this legislature. Terrill has ZERO political capital. He's a laughing stock at the legislature. He may think otherwise, but people talk to his face differently than behind his back, I'm quite certain of that.

This really doesn't help Mr. Ersland.

This tells me that Rep. Terrill actually believes Ersland committed a murder.

This would allow summary execution following robberies. I don't think anyone can seriously expect that this would become law. Not even with this legislature. Terrill has ZERO political capital. He's a laughing stock at the legislature. He may think otherwise, but people talk to his face differently than behind his back, I'm quite certain of that.

Oh, I can hear it now..... "I'm 100% for this, that'll teach them no good robbers you can't victimize me and will stop burglaries all over the state! Yeeehaw!"

this law actually sounds like a good idea to me

Ersland did no wrong and is a hero in my eyes

this law actually sounds like a good idea to me

Ersland did no wrong and is a hero in my eyes

A hero is someone who [allegedly] executes a helpless kid? Interesting way of defining it.

Personally, I'm still irked Ersland wasn't charged with his reckless discharge of his firearm across 4-lanes of traffic on South Penn while shooting at a fleeing suspect.

I love the irony that I label myself a 'vigilante' yet I'm more opposed to laws such as this than many other people who would consider 'vigilantes' a very bad thing.

link? (can't find it)

link? (can't find it)

Just google "Jerome Ersland Act." Really not much out there. I can't find the actual proposal yet though.

http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13887066

The thug got what he deserved. A punk off the streets is a good thing.

this law actually sounds like a good idea to me

Ersland did no wrong and is a hero in my eyes

100% hero up until the time he took the time to run back around the counter, reload and pump some into the robber laying on da ground...Now it is all kinds of screwed up

The thug got what he deserved. A punk off the streets is a good thing.

The punk was the older male that got these misguided juveniles to rob the pharmacy for him.

Laws passed in the aftermath of a single event are bad laws.

Oh - "Armed robbery." Does the bad guy have to show his weapon or not? What if it looks like a real gun but is a toy gun? What if he simply has a finger in his pocket and points it at me and SAYS that's it's a gun? Does he have to be armed with a gun? What about a knife? A frying pan? A tweezer set? Then... can I shoot him in the back as he turns to run away and the threat has clearly passed?

laws proposed by randy terrill are bad laws.

fify.

Sorry, lost interest once I reached the third word of the thread title.

racist, backward Oklahoma. Vigilanty justice is praised,sad

As per Cleta Jennings her son is the real hero and Mr Ersland is the coward.
http://www.koco.com/news/24703285/detail.html

at least precious little Antwan wont make any more victims in his chosen profession, will he?

Oh I just see this thread ending up in a not so good place.

at least precious little Antwan wont make any more victims in his chosen profession, will he?

How on Earth do you know what at 14 his chosen profession was going to be? What gives Mr. Ersland the right to [allegedly] take away his choice to choose something different? Even the system would have treated him as a juvenile because they know there's a chance of rehabilitation.

How on Earth do you know what at 14 his chosen profession was going to be? What gives Mr. Ersland the right to [allegedly] take away his choice to choose something different? Even the system would have treated him as a juvenile because they know there's a chance of rehabilitation.

I agree completely and I'm no 'hug a thug' in my general attitude.

Reminds me of the 60 Minutes interview of Senator Scott Brown the other night. He took the reporter to his home town and pointed out all the places as a youth he stole from. He matured and admits it was wrong but its just a fact of his life. Yes, I'm fully aware he wasn't going into pharmacies with an armed friend, but I'm sure some of the more rational people here get my drift.

Oh - "Armed robbery." Does the bad guy have to show his weapon or not? What if it looks like a real gun but is a toy gun? What if he simply has a finger in his pocket and points it at me and SAYS that's it's a gun? Does he have to be armed with a gun? What about a knife? A frying pan? A tweezer set? Then... can I shoot him in the back as he turns to run away and the threat has clearly passed?

What if the kid recovers from initial gun shots (however long it took) and brings a whole gang to take revenge on Ersland. It's just too bad all of the armed robbers didn't "get it" too.

What if the kid recovers from initial gun shots (however long it took) and brings a whole gang to take revenge on Ersland. It's just too bad all of the armed robbers didn't "get it" too.

Huh?

How is that any less likely now than before?

One less shooter?

Ok this is probably a dumb question but how is a legislator who has some very serious legal/corruptions issues over his head that are very much related to his job allowed to propose new bills, much less set foot in the capitol?

And yes, I agree it is a very bad, kneejerk law to one event which means it will pass with flying colors in the state house.

Ok this is probably a dumb question but how is a legislator who has some very serious legal/corruptions issues over his head that are very much related to his job allowed to propose new bills, much less set foot in the capitol?


He is innocent until proven guilty.

The House is already conducting an internal investigation. So who knows how long he has left?

Bad idea for a law.

Let me ask you this....if someone comes into your home and tries to rob you, and you shoot them, and there are 2 other friends of his running around as well, are you going to stop and ask that person you shot if he's able to move? Or, are you going to shoot him again to make sure he doesnt get up and do something else?

How is it different if he's 14 or 24? If he's 14, armed robbery would have tried him as an adult anyway. He knew what he was doing, going after drugs. He had malicious intent. Convinced or not, no one MADE that kid rob the place either. He made a choice and had to deal with the consequences.

Remember that pharmacy had been robbed before, so Mr. Ersland was also prepared to deal with the situation this time after being the victim last time. Did anyone catch the guy last time and make such a fuss about it before? No, they let him run around until the place got robbed again. So are you supposed to sit down and let your business get robbed repeatedly and say "please sir, take it all".

After being robbed myself, i will tell you right now, i'm going to shoot the bastard. He comes into my home, I'm going to make sure he doesn't come back for more later. If he didn't want to take the risk of being shot, he shouldn't have tried to rob me. My job is protect my family, not worry about what some degenerate isn't going to get to do later since his parents weren't doing their job of parenting.

That's all well and good.... But, the proposed law applies to far more than the very narrowly defined scenario you just laid out.

As for Ersland's case... I think there will be sufficient evidence to show that not only was the victim (albeit a scumbag victim) not conscious or moving, but that Ersland repeatedly lied to cover up the facts.

I firmly believe if Ersland would have stuck to the truth, as supported by the evidence, that he would not have been charged. There have been plenty of examples of people shooting would be robbers (even fleeing robbers) and not being charged.

Fortunately I also believe lawmakers will see how insane this proposal is and it will go nowhere.

I firmly believe if Ersland would have stuck to the truth, as supported by the evidence, that he would not have been charged. There have been plenty of examples of people shooting would be robbers (even fleeing robbers) and not being charged.

Absolutely. In my pea-brain the mere fact he purposefully lied in order cover-up his actions indicates to me that in his own mind he thought he did something wrong. That seems pretty significant in case like this.

The DOC rosters are rather packed with folks who decided facts, like old tires, are easy to spin.

Absolutely. In my pea-brain the mere fact he purposefully lied in order cover-up his actions indicates to me that in his own mind he thought he did something wrong. That seems pretty significant in case like this.

Also, by lying to investigators about not only this incident, but also his previous injuries and state of mind he left prosecutors with no other alternative than to let a jury decide.

I applaud Prater for this and the fact he takes ownership of charging Ersland. He could have easily deflected blame and taken it to a Grand Jury and had them indict Erlsand and then respond "It's not me, a jury of his peers thought he should be charged."

Absolutely. In my pea-brain the mere fact he purposefully lied in order cover-up his actions indicates to me that in his own mind he thought he did something wrong. That seems pretty significant in case like this.I agree with you Stew I think if you did nothing wrong then why did he feel he had to lie.

Also, by lying to investigators about not only this incident, but also his previous injuries and state of mind he left prosecutors with no other alternative than to let a jury decide.

I applaud Prater for this and the fact he takes ownership of charging Ersland. He could have easily deflected blame and taken it to a Grand Jury and had them indict Erlsand and then respond "It's not me, a jury of his peers thought he should be charged." I personally think a crook prosecuting another crook is not something to applaud.

I personally think a crook prosecuting another crook is not something to applaud.

I would LOVE to see how you justify referring to DA Prater as a crook.

I think it is obvious that Ersland overeacted. But that is the problem with him being charged. He was REACTING to events not in his control. He didn't just grab a gun and start shooting. He was put into a situation, he didn't put himself into the situation. I think the first fault for the whole thing lies with the criminals. We don't know what went on in his head. Adrenlene pumping, there is no telling what he thought he saw. For all we know his mind played tricks on him and he saw, clear as day, the guy moving around with a gun in his hand. Maybe he didn't. But to me it boils down to he was not responsible for the events that lead up to the shooting. He was PUT into that situation.

I personally think a crook prosecuting another crook is not something to applaud.

DA Prater's a crook? How's that? I think we've had crooked DA's in this county before. In fact, I know we have. But, Prater? Don't buy it.

DA Prater's a crook? How's that? I think we've had crooked DA's in this county before. In fact, I know we have. But, Prater? Don't buy it.

There are a couple of people who throw that opinion around but they never have any real foundation. They possibly point to one case out of the 15,000+ that office handles per year. I actually follow many of the cases and I can make a list of a dozen or so instances where I didn't like or even hated their decisions, but I weigh that against the totality of the office and there simply isn't any way a person can justify 'crook.'

Gotta love people that necro threads that have been dead for 3 months.

What if the kid recovers from initial gun shots (however long it took) and brings a whole gang to take revenge on Ersland. It's just too bad all of the armed robbers didn't "get it" too.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot.

actually it's not. There is a family that has had to sell their house and live out of hotels here in OKC because they defended their self during a home invasion. Since then "friends" and others have made serious threats against them.

actually it's not. There is a family that has had to sell their house and live out of hotels here in OKC because they defended their self during a home invasion. Since then "friends" and others have made serious threats against them.

I get threats to kill me every day. Lived in the same house, in a crime ridden neighborhood, for 12 years now. "living out of hotel rooms" - sounds like they need a reality check.