TxAxeman, it is entirely possible the defendant had simply forgotten about the video system. If you work around cameras or camera/sound recorders for a spell, you can develop a blindness to their presence. I've seen that in retail and other settings before. If you think on it, you are aware it is there, but by and large, its presence won't impact your daily action or thoughts.

People get caught on camera, a lot, whether there own gear or one of the numerous cameras we all pass each and every day if we are urban or suburban dwellers.

Now that you mentioned it, there have been times when working in secure areas at work I've had to remind myself not to do anything goofy because there were cameras in the area. I recall a guy who was working late one night, forgot about the cameras, and then was shown the surveillance video of him dancing and waving his arms to the music he was singing. It's easy to forget they're there. But I'd still expect it to occur to him before he started lying to the police and media.

I graduated high school with a guy who is a Sheriff now. He said that an overwhelming majority of criminals were in prison only because of their statements to the police. When they say that anything you say can and will be held against you, it is wise to understand that there is nothing you can say that will be beneficial to your case. The correct answer is "I feared for my life, and the evidence is right there." Then get an attorney. I'm not saying that I'd like to see guilty people get off for executing armed robbers, but if Ersland had truly been innocent, he certainly didn't help his case by running his mouth. As demonstrated in this very thread, people (and prosecution) can and will twist your words around to make them say whatever they want.

I still believe the guilty verdict was unjust. If I'm ever in a situation where me and my employees are confrontend by two people wearing masks, one holding a firearm, inside my place of business or residence, I won't give it a second thought and I shoot to call, not disable.

As demonstrated in this very thread, people (and prosecution) can and will twist your words around to make them say whatever they want.

Ersland's words were pretty darned twisty to begin with--you have to admit.

Ersland's words were pretty darned twisty to begin with--you have to admit.

Oh, absolutely! But I've seen examples where they've twisted truthful and reasonable words around to support their case as well.

I still believe the guilty verdict was unjust. If I'm ever in a situation where me and my employees are confrontend by two people wearing masks, one holding a firearm, inside my place of business or residence, I won't give it a second thought and I shoot to call, not disable.

Then you'd leave the store, come back, keep your back to him while you got another gun, then walk calmly over to him and shoot 5 more times, then say you feared for your life?

If he had unloaded on the guy and killed him - no problem.
If he had shot him down the first time, then walked over and shot him some more - I'd still venture to say there'd still be no problem.
But leaving the store and coming back to the "threat?" It's just not legal, nor should it be. And believe me, I'm no sympathizer of people who get killed while robbing, raping, drug dealing, stealing, etc. But what Ersland did was illegal.

Also, I'd have liked to see the jury choose manslaughter charge and a few years in prison. I wondered why they didn't after they were given the option. But, based on our eye witness (Brian's) testimony, the judge instructed the jury to find for first degree murder if the criteria were met. They were.

I can certainly sympathize with Ersland, but it is illegal to shoot at people who are not posing a threat to you. As a CHL holder, this trial will in no way cause me to hesitate to use lethal force if I ever am in a situation where I need to. Even Prater said not to. I'm just not going to go finish the guy off when he is no longer a threat. If we were allowed to do things like that, it would just provide more fodder for the anti 2nd amendment folks to throw at us. I am very disappointed that Ersland chose to give us this black eye, but I do hope he gets a reduced sentence. The guy with the gun will be free and clear in two years. It doesn't seem reasonable that Ersland should serve a longer sentence.

Once again - you flap your lips without saying anything meaningful. I've been begging for your 'truth' and you've yet to post it. All you've ever posted is vague conspiracy theories and a single case that involved a person using a state computer for personal use (whoopee). You've been asked repeatedly to start a new thread if you really have anything on the topic but you don't. As for truth, I've probably posted more facts on the Ersland case than anyone else. Just because you say something is corrupt doesn't make it so. Especially since you provide zero evidence.

As for your OSCN statement - this is just another example of your wild imagination and inability to live within reality. Its called an expungement and every citizen is entitled to request one.

While I hate to continue respond to this person's thread derailing, I'm certainly not going to sit back and be subject to their lies and innuendo.You sir are the one who keeps asking me questions that derails from the subject at hand. Showing you the truth about things that I have commented on is not important because you sir don't care about facts or truth you just want to argue with somebody. I will admit it was fun for a while but now I am done with this thread. It is just boring to listen to a man who does nothing but insult people who don't insult him. I guess your parents never taught you the lesson of be the bigger person. My granny always told me that you should learn a lesson from everything you do or you wasted your time. I will admit I did learn a lesson from all this I gave you way to much credit then what you deserved I know now you are not the person I thought you were. Inspite of all that I wish you good health and a nice life. I also hope that one day you become the honorable person I thought you were. Now all of you can get back on track because since I won't be here Brian has no reason to ask me anymore questions that he really doesn't want the truth to anyway.

I still believe the guilty verdict was unjust. If I'm ever in a situation where me and my employees are confrontend by two people wearing masks, one holding a firearm, inside my place of business or residence, I won't give it a second thought and I shoot to call, not disable.

I understand your sentiment, and shooting to kill a real threat is just and I don't think there is a DA in the state who would have charged Ersland for emptying a clip into the two robbers when they entered and tried to rob him. Certainly no one charged him for firing at them or even shooting Parker on the initial firing.

It's that pesky, turn your back to him, leave the store to chase another robber, come back in, turn your back to get a new gun, walk back over and fire multiple shots into an unconscious person that resulted in a conviction. I get that some feel that ought to be ok, but it simply isn't legal behavior under the law.

Trying to overcome what the law says is why the facts were pressed for still being a threat, despite evidence he was unconscious and never moved. The jury was also told he did move. Trouble is, the but he did move argument came from someone, and only someone, who had demonstrated a strong propensity to lie about almost every other aspect of the events of the day.

He isn't the first defendant who let his mouth write checks his tuckuss could not cash. he will not be the last to do so either.

Trouble is, the but he did move argument came from someone, and only someone, who had demonstrated a strong propensity to lie about almost every other aspect of the events of the day.

He isn't the first defendant who let his mouth write checks his tuckuss could not cash. he will not be the last to do so either.

Exactly. I would imagine that there were jurors who would have loved it if someone had presented credible reasonable doubt that they could have used as an excuse for a non guilty verdict. The fact is, because of Ersland's inability to speak anything truthful, nothing he said or says has any credibility.

Must be too complicated for folks to understand how one person, Ersland, could go from victim to hero to criminal...and another person, Parker, start out as criminal and end up victim...all within the span of a few minutes.

If Ersland had simply stopped, he'd be hailed as a hero. He just didn't know better to stop. Nor with his mouth. Some people are like that...unstable and irrational...not a good choice to carry weaponry.

But put aside the law of the land for the moment...once again, the law of the jungle prevailed.

Must be too complicated for folks to understand how one person, Ersland, could go from victim to hero to criminal...and another person, Parker, start out as criminal and end up victim...all within the span of a few minutes.

If Ersland had simply stopped, he'd be hailed as a hero. He just didn't know better to stop.

Put aside the law of the land for the moment...once again, the law of the jungle prevailed.

No, the law of the jungle didn't prevail. The law of the land had the last word. As you say, the situation was fluid. It didn't stop at the firing of the last shot.

No, the law of the jungle didn't prevail. The law of the land had the last word. As you say, the situation was fluid. It didn't stop at the firing of the last shot.

The final chapter has not yet been written. Ersland's family is lawyer shopping at this moment and if funds can be located he will have a very strong defense attorney in his corner.

Exactly. I would imagine that there were jurors who would have loved it if someone had presented credible reasonable doubt that they could have used as an excuse for a non guilty verdict. The fact is, because of Ersland's inability to speak anything truthful, nothing he said or says has any credibility.

I honestly thought when the ME's office admitted Parker could have been moving even if unconscious that, that would be the doubt the jury needed.

Brian, I'm hearing from my friends in the law enforcement community that initially, Ersland was offered a plea for Voluntary Manslaughter with a completely suspended sentence. Is there anything to that?

I made a couple of inquiries of people in the know (much closer to the trial than cops) and was told there were no plea discussions from either side. With the pissing contest that waas going on I could certainly see how neither side entertained a plea. Also, I'd imagine the DA's office could deflect some criticism if they could show they offered Ersland a no prison plea prior to trial.

I forgot to ask anyone today, but does anyone here know if Ersland's conviction allows for him to have a one year review?

I am also reminded of the Emily Dowdy case (1999) and how her 40 year sentence was suspended after a few years in prison and she could certainly have been seen as more culpable in her crime - Convicted of driving drunk, going the wrong way and hit a car (driven by a police officer's son), killing the driver.

The final chapter has not yet been written. Ersland's family is lawyer shopping at this moment and if funds can be located he will have a very strong defense attorney in his corner.

If the law of the jungle prevailed, we wouldn't be dealing with his guilt or innocence through the courts.

I forgot to ask anyone today, but does anyone here know if Ersland's conviction allows for him to have a one year review? ...


OK, had a diet dr. pepper and decided to fire up another window. Ignore what I previously wrote. I am, lol.
A one year review is possible. Also, if modified on appeal, it's possible to further modify within one year of the mandate from the appeal.

None of that means relief is assured, or even that it ought to be given. But yes, it would be an available avenue for the defendant to pursue.

I honestly thought when the ME's office admitted Parker could have been moving even if unconscious that, that would be the doubt the jury needed.

Might of been, with a different defendant. But in light of all the fabrications, they'd first have to find the defendant's statements of seeing him move and thinking him a threat were credible. I'm only speculating of course, but I think the series of lies by this particular defendant may have left them feeling nothing he said was trustworthy. If so, a may have moved while unconscious possibility, combined with forensics suggesting there was no movement, combined with a unworthy of trust statement by a defendant, equated to no doubt in their minds as to Parker being a non-moving, non-threat at the time he was shot five times.

Anyone see the Black Chronicle last week? BIG headline of Guilty, taking about 1/3 of the front page. Whoever said race isn't an issue is fooling themselves. Below is link to web edition, but not nearly as prominent as the print edition.

http://ppbcinc.com/BlackChronicle.com/

Wow thats odd....All the stories on the front page are about crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/jerome-ersland-shooting_n_869850.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ

nm

nm

Of course they won........Good thing too or im sure they would exhibit more of the wonderful behavior they seem to excell at.

Of course they won........Good thing too or im sure they would exhibit more of the wonderful behavior they seem to excell at.

I posted "they" in a facetious sense, deleted it because I realized that there are many on this board [hey achilles!] who probably wouldn't get it. Race does enter into the way the public has reacted to this. How many times have we heard about 'black thugs'? The so-called black community probably feels vindicated that an all-white jury was able to deliver a verdict which was in accordance with the law and the facts when many out there would have preferred Parker killed because he, of course, was apparently some sort of black thug who deserved to die.

Anyone see the Black Chronicle last week? BIG headline of Guilty, taking about 1/3 of the front page. Whoever said race isn't an issue is fooling themselves. Below is link to web edition, but not nearly as prominent as the print edition.
http://ppbcinc.com/BlackChronicle.com/

FWIW, and if memory serves correctly, the DOK ran a large GUILTY headline on page 1 of the print version too.

I just stumbled onto this thread and saw the comments about the lawsuit filed by Parker's mother. The cause of action most likely to put the Pharmacy and Insurance Company at risk is negligent training or supervision. Ersland's conduct indicates that he has not been provided any training on the appropriate use of deadly force. If this is true, the lack of training along with the number of firearms kept at the pharmacy is at least a jury question as to whether the Pharmacy was negligent.

You mean that you assume he assumed that, right? Despite the evidence, right? Evidence such as the fact that Ersland, a trained military officer twice turned his back to someone you assume that he assumes had a gun and wanted to kill him, right? Despite the fact that when he got his second gun, he didn't fire the last five times from behind cover, instead walking right up to this supposedly dangerous individual who was laying on his back, palms open and up, with no gun, you assume that Ersland thought that Parker had a gun.

Sorry, but the facts at the scene as well as Ersland's behavior both during and after the incident directly contradict that nice assumption you made. It's unfortunate for you that your conclusions don't seem to match up very well with what we know actually happened.

Not really. Considering I'm nowhere near as invested in this as you are.

Wow. What is it about this case that brings out the tackiness in conservative people?

Unlike classy whack job liberals that call people racist just for the hell of it.

Anyone see the Black Chronicle last week? BIG headline of Guilty, taking about 1/3 of the front page. Whoever said race isn't an issue is fooling themselves. Below is link to web edition, but not nearly as prominent as the print edition.

http://ppbcinc.com/BlackChronicle.com/

Not surprising since this is a huge story in the black community...Probably just surprised as hell with the result since these normally go the other way

Regarding Race: I think its only a reality that some portion of the population takes a race angle to virtually every situation. The fact this event involved a white and a black and a death only ensures both the racists and race biased will voice their often unrealistic conspiracy theories.

Personally, I saw some bizarre behavior during the trial that I thought was possibly race related. One really odd (very Malcolm X looking - stone face, simple business attire and a long trench coat every day) black man sitting next to me refused to slide down with me so we could make room for others to sit on the quickly filling benches. The first person was an older white woman and the second was a white attorney. Each time I verbally confronted him and his only response was, "I'm not going to move for them" followed by some taunting stare. However, later he did move down and/or out of the way for black spectators. This had nothing directly to do with the trial, but did reflect the attitudes of some of the public.

The one trial related thing I saw that I found odd (mentioned by me during the trial) was when the defense team made the conscious decision to not walk into the courthouse or courtroom with Ersland and instead had him led in by the guy many people downtown refer to as "The crazy protestor guy." He's a black man, convicted felon and spends virtually every day at the courthouse spreading all kinds of bizarre conspiracy and often racist opinions. He was a big Prater supporter during the election and now is anti-Prater and was proclaiming Prater to be a racist and how he sees people showing up to pay Prater briefcases full of cash to keep them out of trouble. The defense team had this nut not only lead Ersland in, but shadow him every time he stepped out of the courtroom. Unless shown some other motive, I can only assume this was done based on race motives. The guy is very loud in the black community and participates in many SE OKC goings-on.

I also hear Ersland is doing a lot of writing in jail. I hope someone on his side convinces him to not be sending his rants to the media.

I also hear Ersland is doing a lot of writing in jail. I hope someone on his side convinces him to not be sending his rants to the media.

If he is writing anyone except counsel, I canna imagine anything good coming from such efforts.

OK, had a diet dr. pepper and decided to fire up another window. Ignore what I previously wrote. I am, lol.
A one year review is possible. Also, if modified on appeal, it's possible to further modify within one year of the mandate from the appeal.

None of that means relief is assured, or even that it ought to be given. But yes, it would be an available avenue for the defendant to pursue.

Kev, correct me if I am mistaken but has the law not been changed in the last couple of years regarding sentence review? For some reason I was under the assumption that the DA now has to agree to such and it is no longer a "right". Thanks.

Maybe Ersland can become pen pals with Terry Nichols and swap stories about how unjust society has treated them.

Anyone see the Black Chronicle last week? BIG headline of Guilty, taking about 1/3 of the front page. Whoever said race isn't an issue is fooling themselves. Below is link to web edition, but not nearly as prominent as the print edition.
Other than the fact it was reported in the Black Chronicle, was there something in there that made this a case about race? I thought the article was race neutral. I'm scratching my head, here. Easy, are you suggesting that the Black Chronicle only writes about something that is racial? I'd have to disagree. I think to suggest that articles in the Black Chronicle are limited to racial matters sells it short and suggests that is all black people are. Frankly, I find that assumption a little disconcerting. This was big news and to not report it makes no sense. I'm white and was fascinated by the story. Why in the world would anyone expect that: 1) only white people would be interested; and 2) that if a newspaper that has a predominately black following reports on a big story such as this, that it must be racial? What are they supposed to limit themselves to? Church picnics?

BTW, there is a story in the paper that relates to the capture of the two black suspects who are accused of gunning down the white man in the recent Cattleman's Steakhouse incident. No attempts to paint that as anything but the news story it was. Give the newspaper credit for being more than just a racist shill.

Thunder, take a very close look at the video you just posted. At the point that Mr. Ersland chases Ingram out the door, he gives a quick glance over at Parker, then proceeds out the door. When he returns inside, he gives a quick glance once again, then turns his back and calmly walks to the back of the store to get the other gun. He then walks right up to Mr. Parker, leans over him and fires the remaining shots. His claim that he thought Mr. Parker was still moving and he considered him a threat is contradicted by his actions. If he thought Mr. Parker was a threat, he would have taken a defensive posture or position behind the counter and not walked right up to Mr. Parker. And your contention that Mr. Parker was as good as dead makes no sense. If he was in the ER and was as good as dead, the doctors would not declare him dead until his heart stopped. Until that point, he is still a human being. Mr. Ersland's attorney agreed with the ME who testified that Mr. Parker was still alive when those final shots occurred. No one on this forum or in that store at the time knows for sure why Mr. Ersland did what he did, we can only speculate. The first shot that put Mr. Parker on the floor was perfectly legal and justified. It should have stopped there.

I might be mistaken, but I think easy was probably commenting primarily on the large headline space, as he referenced it being about 1/3 the page

Kev, correct me if I am mistaken but has the law not been changed in the last couple of years regarding sentence review? For some reason I was under the assumption that the DA now has to agree to such and it is no longer a "right". Thanks.

Unless I stopped a diet soda too soon on my fill-up last night, I believe the DA consent is a requirement only if you are trying to modify a sentence that was originally part of a plea agreement (which does make a great deal of sense to me.) If it was tried though, I became aware last night of a case in the area (not OKC) from earlier this year where the state was not real happy with a modification by a judge where a life sentence was modified to all but a set term of years suspended.

Of course, I have been wrong before, sometimes even in a big way.

I might be mistaken, but I think easy was probably commenting primarily on the large headline space, as he referenced it being about 1/3 the page
Perhaps.

Thunder, take a very close look at the video you just posted. At the point that Mr. Ersland chases Ingram out the door, he gives a quick glance over at Parker, then proceeds out the door. When he returns inside, he gives a quick glance once again, then turns his back and calmly walks to the back of the store to get the other gun. He then walks right up to Mr. Parker, leans over him and fires the remaining shots. His claim that he thought Mr. Parker was still moving and he considered him a threat is contradicted by his actions. If he thought Mr. Parker was a threat, he would have taken a defensive posture or position behind the counter and not walked right up to Mr. Parker. And your contention that Mr. Parker was as good as dead makes no sense. If he was in the ER and was as good as dead, the doctors would not declare him dead until his heart stopped. Until that point, he is still a human being. Mr. Ersland's attorney agreed with the ME who testified that Mr. Parker was still alive when those final shots occurred. No one on this forum or in that store at the time knows for sure why Mr. Ersland did what he did, we can only speculate. The first shot that put Mr. Parker on the floor was perfectly legal and justified. It should have stopped there.

Hi, just coming back to make a post. I wanted to say that I could have sworn that I saw a video of this event showing the boy's legs. I looked at the video and saw nothing. The entire video does not show the boy at a point of laying down. I really wish there was another camera on the other side of the store. Whoever set up the cameras there was more concern at catching bad guys at the front door and not elsewhere within the store. Now see what we all had to deal with, especially the Jurors.

Ersland is an old man and he is slow. We know nothing that goes on in his brain and how it process. The boy could have made some movement, but Ersland could have viewed it as being "too slow" enough for him to get the other gun at a pace shown in the video. I'm sure if the boy was to suddenly get up, Ersland would have rushed to the gun. You see, there are many different interpretations and possibilities.

The expert claimed the boy was alive. If he was, then it was likely to have some sort of movement. That alone can be viewed as a threat by Ersland. At that point, Ersland do not know what weapon (if any) the boy had on him (especially hidden). Now, if that was the case, then the Jurors did wrong on the conviction part, especially their stupid recommendation.

We all know that experts are not always right. They can be wrong. They are human as we all are. In this case, the expert was not there at the scene during the unfolding event. All they (experts) can provide is speculations and experience on their part as to what happened or likely happened, but it is not fact. Each expert can present various theories.

There are a lot of details that will forever always leave us in the dark. No one can be certain of it. Especially not that bald guy Prater.

Ersland just got unlucky. He was given a Jury group that likely did not think everything through and through. His attorney, Irvin Box, failed him, because of money gone out. Seriously, Ersland paid his attorney so much money (how much total?), Irvin Box should at least do his part to successfully win the case. Box did not. He gave up. He was lame at the trial. If Irvin Box fought to the end, giving everything he got, and living up to his reputation, he would have increased the chance of winning the case. And by winning the case, even if the money ran out, Ersland said he will work for the rest of his life paying off his attorney, fees, and all other costs. So, yeah, I want to ultimately put the blame on Irvin Box for his failure to protect Ersland. As others had stated, he did not even try.

Okay, I think that is enough for now. Getting a headache already again. Its real hard for me to engage in long discussion with long posts with long debate, etc. I have forgotten what else to say (I keep forgetting things), but I'll post more soon.

Ersland is an old man and he is slow.

Okay, so this is ridiculous. Forget the racial undertones, now you are calling someone in their fifties a slow old man. That is hitting way too close to home, junior.

Ersland is an old man and he is slow. We know nothing that goes on in his brain and how it process. The boy could have made some movement, but Ersland could have viewed it as being "too slow" enough for him to get the other gun at a pace shown in the video. I'm sure if the boy was to suddenly get up, Ersland would have rushed to the gun. You see, there are many different interpretations and possibilities. Read the Self Defense Act. If Parker was moving "too slow" then the further use of deadly force by Ersland was not justified and therefor illegal. You can only justify force equal to the threat.


Ersland just got unlucky. He was given a Jury group that likely did not think everything through and through. If he was unlucky it was only in the fact that he got a jury that understands the law as it's written. And kept personal feelings out of the courtroom, where they belong.

Okay, so this is ridiculous. Forget the racial undertones, now you are calling someone in their fifties a slow old man. That is hitting way too close to home, junior.

Well, speaking from, not for, that age group, some of us do move kinda slow. There is little else Thunder wrote I would agree with but he sorta did nail that point.

As for the numerous other speculations, I thought about addressing them, but I recognize that Thunder's mind is as made up as it can be that Ersland was treated unfairly. Conversely, I am comfortable in my mind Ersland was treated fairly based on the jurors' decision on the evidence available to them.

It's all the gnashing of teeth and wailing and stomping and anger that surprises me.

Okay, so this is ridiculous. Forget the racial undertones, now you are calling someone in their fifties a slow old man. That is hitting way too close to home, junior.

There is nothing racist about it. This is just a normal way for us to describe. I never knew of his age (thought 70s).

Btw, I think the Jurors recommended the life sentence, because they do not want to be targeted by the gangs and at the same time, they knew the Judge would most likely not honor such outrageous recommendation. The Judge can still reduce sentence, early probation, suspend sentence, or whatever. Jurors know that and I think they are counting on that. Additionally, the Jurors know that Ersland will win the appeal (if he get a better attorney), because the video is obviously not enough. Everything else spoken, even by experts, are just simply theories (not fact). It is a clever plan these Jurors invented to escape the real possibility of backlash from the gangs and boy's crazy family. In other word, these Jurors want to protect themselves and their family, so they chanced it at the Judge being forgiving, the Governor giving gracious pardon, or a win at the appeal trial.

wow.

Well, speaking from, not for, that age group, some of us do move kinda slow. There is little else Thunder wrote I would agree with but he sorta did nail that point.

As for the numerous other speculations, I thought about addressing them, but I recognize that Thunder's mind is as made up as it can be that Ersland was treated unfairly. Conversely, I am comfortable in my mind Ersland was treated fairly based on the jurors' decision on the evidence available to them.

It's all the gnashing of teeth and wailing and stomping and anger that surprises me.


I agree and what surprised me was the Murder 1 conviction, I was thinking Man 1 was what he would have got.

The expert claimed the boy was alive. If he was, then it was likely to have some sort of movement.

I've been alive for 44 years, and I'm absolutely certain that there have been many hours that I haven't moved at all, and we're only talking about 46 seconds here. Parker was unconscious with a hole in his head. It's not likely that he was moving or trying to get up. If he was, our "hero" wouldn't have been much of a "hero" by leaving two women alone in the pharmacy with the "threat."

Forensics showed that Parker didn't move.
Ersland's actions showed that Parker didn't move.
The only evidence that we have of Parker moving is the word of an individual who has been proven beyond the shadow of any doubt to have lied about being a Gulf War vet, lied about having PTSD, lied about the incident, and tried to fake a gunshot wound.


His attorney, Irvin Box, failed him, because of money gone out. Seriously, Ersland paid his attorney so much money (how much total?), Irvin Box should at least do his part to successfully win the case. Box did not. He gave up.

Ersland failed himself. If Ersland had kept his mouth shut, Box may have had a prayer of winning this case, or at least getting a lesser charge.

There is nothing racist about it. This is just a normal way for us to describe. I never knew of his age (thought 70s).

Btw, I think the Jurors recommended the life sentence, because they do not want to be targeted by the gangs and at the same time, they knew the Judge would most likely not honor such outrageous recommendation. The Judge can still reduce sentence, early probation, suspend sentence, or whatever. Jurors know that and I think they are counting on that. Additionally, the Jurors know that Ersland will win the appeal (if he get a better attorney), because the video is obviously not enough. Everything else spoken, even by experts, are just simply theories (not fact). It is a clever plan these Jurors invented to escape the real possibility of backlash from the gangs and boy's crazy family. In other word, these Jurors want to protect themselves and their family, so they chanced it at the Judge being forgiving, the Governor giving gracious pardon, or a win at the appeal trial.

And what you're telling us now is fact, and not simply your own theories?

DA agreement to a modification only applies to modification of sentences that were the result of plea agreements. A sentence rendered pursuant to a jury trial can be modified without the consent of the DA.

Ersland failed himself. If Ersland had kept his mouth shut, Box may have had a prayer of winning this case, or at least getting a lesser charge.

Ersland failed himself when he lied to the police about the sequence of events that transpired. He did this more than once according to the reports. He then apparently lied about his record and background. He then faked an injury and tried to draw a doctor into that scheme. He got hammered because all of his lies show a consciousness of guilt. And that goes against self defense and even heat of passion manslaughter. Whether it is the truth or not, his actions were the actions of someone acting on revenge and executing someone. And even if some believe he had that right, the law doesn't. Had he just told the truth from the beginning...Said he lost his mind, was scared and thought he saw the kid move, and that in that heat of passion "finished him off" I doubt that he would have been convicted of murder. Maybe not even manslaughter 1. Maybe man 2. And he wouldn't be looking at life. People would have understood more. But when you start lying to the police and making stuff up and then faking injuries, you tend to anger the police and make yourself an easy target. And that takes away all of your arguments.

Nothing like spending retirement in prison. Good luck buddy! You deserve it, lol.

Other than the fact it was reported in the Black Chronicle, was there something in there that made this a case about race? I thought the article was race neutral. I'm scratching my head, here. Easy, are you suggesting that the Black Chronicle only writes about something that is racial? I'd have to disagree. I think to suggest that articles in the Black Chronicle are limited to racial matters sells it short and suggests that is all black people are. Frankly, I find that assumption a little disconcerting. This was big news and to not report it makes no sense. I'm white and was fascinated by the story. Why in the world would anyone expect that: 1) only white people would be interested; and 2) that if a newspaper that has a predominately black following reports on a big story such as this, that it must be racial? What are they supposed to limit themselves to? Church picnics?

BTW, there is a story in the paper that relates to the capture of the two black suspects who are accused of gunning down the white man in the recent Cattleman's Steakhouse incident. No attempts to paint that as anything but the news story it was. Give the newspaper credit for being more than just a racist shill.

Exactly what I saw. Metro was the only one that implied its about race.

Nothing like spending retirement in prison. Good luck buddy! You deserve it, lol.

There is nothing on either side of this tragedy that warrants your cheering. There were absolutely no winners here.

There is nothing on either side of this tragedy that warrants your cheering. There were absolutely no winners here.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You haven't been on this site long enough to know that my humor is dry. I agree that he had the right to defend himself, but I think he took it way too far going back in and then grabbing another gun to shoot a kid 5 more times who was probably already gone. Then the dude adds insult to injury by lying left and right about everything. Jury did the right thing. Case closed.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You haven't been on this site long enough to know that my humor is dry. I agree that he had the right to defend himself, but I think he took it way too far going back in and then grabbing another gun to shoot a kid 5 more times who was probably already gone. Then the dude adds insult to injury by lying left and right about everything. Jury did the right thing. Case closed.

I've heard that my humor is dry as well. My wife of 20 years still can't tell when I'm yanking her chain, lol.

Looks like we're in agreement.

wow.

Yeah.

There is nothing racist about it. This is just a normal way for us to describe. I never knew of his age (thought 70s).

Btw, I think the Jurors recommended the life sentence, because they do not want to be targeted by the gangs and at the same time, they knew the Judge would most likely not honor such outrageous recommendation. The Judge can still reduce sentence, early probation, suspend sentence, or whatever. Jurors know that and I think they are counting on that. Additionally, the Jurors know that Ersland will win the appeal (if he get a better attorney), because the video is obviously not enough. Everything else spoken, even by experts, are just simply theories (not fact). It is a clever plan these Jurors invented to escape the real possibility of backlash from the gangs and boy's crazy family. In other word, these Jurors want to protect themselves and their family, so they chanced it at the Judge being forgiving, the Governor giving gracious pardon, or a win at the appeal trial.

I feel stupid just reading this.

My wife of 20 years still can't tell when I'm yanking her chain, lol.


In another decade, she'll have it down. The correct answer will then be 'anytime she thinks you are, then you are.'

Life sounds appropriate for a typical murder one conviction that does not have extreme conditions, like a death sentence might warrant. Anybody seen stats on the usual time that earns you and the usual time a murder one criminal spends in prison?

Unless this is way out of bounds for the norm, it would be a huge mistake for the judge to modify the sentence.

Life sounds appropriate for a typical murder one conviction that does not have extreme conditions, like a death sentence might warrant. Anybody seen stats on the usual time that earns you and the usual time a murder one criminal spends in prison?

Unless this is way out of bounds for the norm, it would be a huge mistake for the judge to modify the sentence.

For parole consideration purposes, a life sentence used to be viewed as 45 years, meaning you had to be at least considered for parole no later than completing 15 years, the 1/3 mark.

Today, Murder I is one of the must serve 85% of the sentence crimes, so a bit over 38 years before one can first be eligible for parole. For anyone who may be outraged, be certain to thank your law and order, no breaks for the bad folk, we're tough on crime legislators of this century. If you're over 27 or so, you may well have voted for the folks who gleefully voted for the longer sentence structure the defendant here will face.

I could end up being surprised, but I do not see anyone messing with this verdict.