View Full Version : Ersland's defense team files appeal



Pages : [1] 2

BBatesokc
03-07-2012, 12:54 PM
As reported the other day, Ersland's defense team has filed their appeal with the court of criminal appeals.

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-pharmacist-appeals-murder-sentence-in-shooting-20120306,0,3538747.story

I just got done reading the appeal (about 21 pertinent pages). I'm no lawyer, but I don't see this going anywhere. They spend most of their time complaining about issues the court of criminal appeals already addressed (recusal of Judge Elliot). The issue of the computer simulation is interesting, but I have no idea how well those complaints are received.

My money says it is rejected.

CaptDave
03-07-2012, 01:14 PM
My money says it is rejected.

As it should be. One look at the surveillance footage is enough.

OKCTalker
03-07-2012, 01:29 PM
My money says it is rejected.

Speaking of money, who is paying for all of this?

BBatesokc
03-07-2012, 01:38 PM
Speaking of money, who is paying for all of this?

Paying for what? His appeal? Ersland and his family. Some donations, but I heard they were fairly non-existent.

OKCisOK4me
03-07-2012, 02:54 PM
I hope it's rejected. I realize the kid was wrong for attempting robbery but I still think Ersland went overkill on him.

Well, let's just shoot him multiple times instead of pointing the gun at his face and telling him to remain until the police arrive.

Ersland reaps what he sewed...

Midtowner
03-07-2012, 03:25 PM
Is the Opening Brief of the Appellant posted anywhere?

kevinpate
03-07-2012, 03:47 PM
Is the Opening Brief of the Appellant posted anywhere?

Appellate briefs at COCA are generally not scanned and put online. I don't think the civil side does that either. Unless appellate counsel provides a copy for distribution via their own site, or someone else elects to upload it after obtaining a copy, it likely won't be online. Other options are to see if counsel might consent to provide a hard copy or electronic copy or purchase a copy through the appellate court clerk office.

BBatesokc
03-07-2012, 04:35 PM
I'll post it when I get home.

BBatesokc
03-07-2012, 06:00 PM
Here's a .pdf of the appeal. http://freepdfhosting.com/10146b91d2.pdf

kevinpate
03-07-2012, 06:01 PM
Paying for what? His appeal? Ersland and his family. Some donations, but I heard they were fairly non-existent.


He or someone in the family apparently made decent coin. Not many folks can finance a trial team for a murder one case and then still have the resources to finance their own appeal records and appellate counsel.

BBatesokc
03-07-2012, 06:06 PM
He or someone in the family apparently made decent coin. Not many folks can finance a trial team for a murder one case and then still have the resources to finance their own appeal records and appellate counsel.

Actually. No, they have spent every dime. I know another lawyer the family approached to handle the appeal, but they couldn't come up with the money and had to stay with current counsel. Which i think is a mistake, because they ruled out arguing ineffective defense counsel by staying with their original lawyers.

After sitting in on the trial, its a joke to argue bias on the part of Judge Elliot. The defense's performance in the courtroom was embarrassing, incompetent at times and hostile. And I say this having the highest respect for their lead defense lawyer.

Midtowner
03-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Appellate briefs at COCA are generally not scanned and put online. I don't think the civil side does that either. Unless appellate counsel provides a copy for distribution via their own site, or someone else elects to upload it after obtaining a copy, it likely won't be online. Other options are to see if counsel might consent to provide a hard copy or electronic copy or purchase a copy through the appellate court clerk office.

I know that. I just figured Brian might know where it's posted. This is a high interest case for the public, so I figured it'd be out there somewhere.

BBatesokc
03-07-2012, 07:02 PM
I know that. I just figured Brian might know where it's posted. This is a high interest case for the public, so I figured it'd be out there somewhere.

I couldn't find it anywhere online, so I had to go get it myself. Sorta figured the Oklahoman would have posted it.

kevinpate
03-07-2012, 07:14 PM
Thanks for posting the brief Brian.

Midtowner
03-07-2012, 07:25 PM
I'd be surprised to see it overturned.

BBatesokc
04-10-2012, 04:16 PM
Just heard that Ersland hired a new defense lawyer.

I may be wrong, but isn't that a mute point now that his appeal is filed? Anyone know if its now too late to argue ineffective counsel?

kevinpate
04-10-2012, 04:52 PM
Brian,

I can't recall off hand having ever seen a situation where a new counsel entered the direct review stage after the brief in chief was on file and sought a mulligan. But no, it's not moot either. There is more than one review stage.

Just FYI, I haven't heard of the new counsel and I have zip in info beyond what I have read here and in the press. However, there is more than one level of appellate review. So perhaps what has occurred is someone has been engaged or volunteered to look into and advance arguments regarding the representation of trial/direct review counsel.

When trial/direct review counsel are the same, it is possible to look into such issues at the next review level, which is known as post-conviction review.

Though it is rare, there are instances where someone has been tried, convicted, the conviction upheld on the direct review appeal, the cert. effort to the US Supreme Court, if taken, was denied and yet relief come to a defendant during the post-conviction process. Whether trial/direct review counsel's efforts met constitutional standards is an area that can be challenged at that stage.

Larry OKC
04-11-2012, 10:24 AM
As it should be. One look at the surveillance footage is enough.
My short answer is, I really don't know any more. I didn't see everything that the jury saw/was allowed to see, so I can't fault them for the verdict that was reached, but the clip I saw was rather inconclusive as the young man that was killed wasnt in view...we really don't know if he was incapacitated or not and if any of us in the same situation may have responded the same way as Ersland...even if he was in fact incapacitated, the perception that he might be moving, trying to get up, still pose a threat could effect your judgment/assessment of the situation in the heat of the moment like that. I can't say that I may not have done the same thing in the same situation. I know some expert testified that he wasn't moving/attempting to move, but how can that be proved? Even if he was within view of the surveillance camera, those things are usually of such poor quality it is hard to tell much of anything much less something that might be visible in person wouldn't even be picked up on camera. Both sides can trot out experts that can give conflicting professional opinions. One thing I never heard was what was the female coworkers testimony?

BBatesokc
04-11-2012, 10:55 AM
My short answer is, I really don't know any more. I didn't see everything that the jury saw/was allowed to see, so I can't fault them for the verdict that was reached, but the clip I saw was rather inconclusive as the young man that was killed wasnt in view...we really don't know if he was incapacitated or not and if any of us in the same situation may have responded the same way as Ersland...even if he was in fact incapacitated, the perception that he might be moving, trying to get up, still pose a threat could effect your judgment/assessment of the situation in the heat of the moment like that. I can't say that I may not have done the same thing in the same situation. I know some expert testified that he wasn't moving/attempting to move, but how can that be proved? Even if he was within view of the surveillance camera, those things are usually of such poor quality it is hard to tell much of anything much less something that might be visible in person wouldn't even be picked up on camera. Both sides can trot out experts that can give conflicting professional opinions. One thing I never heard was what was the female coworkers testimony?

I was in the court room and the prosecution made it pretty evident the robber was at least not moving if not unconscious. The defense team didn't even make much of an effort to discredit the prosecution's evidence - which included photos of the crime scene, no blood behind the body, merchandise from the shelves on top the body etc. Not to mention medical experts who showed the suspect would most likely be unconscious. The only thing the experts seemed to disagree about was how fatal the first shot was. And by 'how fatal' it really just came down to how soon would medical attention have been needed for him to survive. But it was also obvious he was most likely alive when he was shot again, and again, and again......

Nope, we don't truly know how we would react in such a situation - but that is also not a defense for murder. One reason I don't carry a gun but support the right to.

FFLady
04-11-2012, 11:39 AM
...................so I hear his new attorney is Doug Friesen, supposedly one of the top 2nd Ammendment Attorney's in America......

BBatesokc
04-11-2012, 12:01 PM
...................so I hear his new attorney is Doug Friesen, supposedly one of the top 2nd Ammendment Attorney's in America......

I think that ranking is bit of a stretch, but that is his specialty and he's had success at defending his clients and is certainly more up to that type of courtroom fight. But Ersland must have a Groupon because his estate is bankrupt and with all the effort to raise donations, very few were actually raised.

He should have been hiring this level of attorney from day one. Friesen claims if he'd been representing him from the beginning Ersland would not have been convicted. That's a pretty questionable assertion to make, considering I didn't see him at court each day or all day and the overwhelming evidence in the prosecution's favor. But one things for sure, he couldn't have done Ersland any worse. Regardless, unless he can somehow get Ersland a new trial, I'm not sure what his expertise is going to do for his client.

Larry OKC
04-11-2012, 01:06 PM
I was in the court room and the prosecution made it pretty evident the robber was at least not moving if not unconscious. The defense team didn't even make much of an effort to discredit the prosecution's evidence - which included photos of the crime scene, no blood behind the body, merchandise from the shelves on top the body etc. Not to mention medical experts who showed the suspect would most likely be unconscious. The only thing the experts seemed to disagree about was how fatal the first shot was. And by 'how fatal' it really just came down to how soon would medical attention have been needed for him to survive. But it was also obvious he was most likely alive when he was shot again, and again, and again......

Nope, we don't truly know how we would react in such a situation - but that is also not a defense for murder. One reason I don't carry a gun but support the right to.
Thanks for the reply...and I guess what I am trying to say, it is easy to "Monday morning quarterback" and I guess that is what it boils down to, was it "murder" or not and if it fits the legal definition??? Like it is "ok" to shoot someone in self-defense on your property but don't shoot them in the back as they are trying to get away from you and have crossed the threshold type of thing. In one case it is self-defense and the other is murder, yet in both cases the guy is dead. I'm not sure if I could sit on a jury and make that determination.

FFLady
04-11-2012, 02:40 PM
I think that ranking is bit of a stretch, but that is his specialty and he's had success at defending his clients and is certainly more up to that type of courtroom fight. But Ersland must have a Groupon because his estate is bankrupt and with all the effort to raise donations, very few were actually raised.

He should have been hiring this level of attorney from day one. Friesen claims if he'd been representing him from the beginning Ersland would not have been convicted. That's a pretty questionable assertion to make, considering I didn't see him at court each day or all day and the overwhelming evidence in the prosecution's favor. But one things for sure, he couldn't have done Ersland any worse. Regardless, unless he can somehow get Ersland a new trial, I'm not sure what his expertise is going to do for his client.

:LolLolLol........................sorry guys - i know this is a serious matter, but this was FUNNY (don't care who you are)....

BBatesokc
04-11-2012, 02:43 PM
We have plenty of examples of fleeing burglars being shoot and no charges against the homeowner. I've always believed Erslands charges were a direct result of there being a video and his insistence of being on TV as the hero.

adaniel
04-11-2012, 03:33 PM
I think that ranking is bit of a stretch, but that is his specialty and he's had success at defending his clients and is certainly more up to that type of courtroom fight. But Ersland must have a Groupon because his estate is bankrupt and with all the effort to raise donations, very few were actually raised.



From the sounds of it, isn't Representative Ralph "don't-eat-the-fetus" Shortey footing the bill?

BBatesokc
04-11-2012, 04:24 PM
my understanding is its Pro Bono - which should scare the hell out of a client.

Unless or until they forward an appeal based on ineffective counsel, I don't give them a chance.

kevinpate
04-11-2012, 08:16 PM
my understanding is its Pro Bono - which should scare the hell out of a client....

Why you would think this? I do not know this particular attorney, but I do know not every decision by an attorney to provide representation is profit based, nor even at least cover all/most of the overhead based. Pro bono work is actively encouraged amongst the bar, more so now than in times past in my opinion.

BBatesokc
04-12-2012, 12:44 AM
Why you would think this? I do not know this particular attorney, but I do know not every decision by an attorney to provide representation is profit based, nor even at least cover all/most of the overhead based. Pro bono work is actively encouraged amongst the bar, more so now than in times past in my opinion.

No, I agree that pro bono work has its place. But Ersland has a history of making bad decisions with lawyers. This lawyer (nor Shorty) attended a single day of the trial, but now seem to be acting like they have a deep personal connection to the case and seeing justice served. They haven't even read the transcripts but are making some wild assumptions. I personally think they are motivated by what his previous team was motivated by - public exposure. Which is fine, but its not going to serve the best interests of their client.

I had two attorneys that offered to handle my case pro bono (minus actual court costs) and I never considered it - too many downsides.

BoulderSooner
04-12-2012, 06:44 AM
No, I agree that pro bono work has its place. But Ersland has a history of making bad decisions with lawyers. This lawyer (nor Shorty) attended a single day of the trial, but now seem to be acting like they have a deep personal connection to the case and seeing justice served. They haven't even read the transcripts but are making some wild assumptions. I personally think they are motivated by what his previous team was motivated by - public exposure. Which is fine, but its not going to serve the best interests of their client.

I had two attorneys that offered to handle my case pro bono (minus actual court costs) and I never considered it - too many downsides.

how do you know that they "haven't even read the transcripts" ??

BBatesokc
04-12-2012, 07:09 AM
how do you know that they "haven't even read the transcripts" ??

Because a reporter asked them.

Larry OKC
04-12-2012, 09:18 AM
We have plenty of examples of fleeing burglars being shoot and no charges against the homeowner. I've always believed Erslands charges were a direct result of there being a video and his insistence of being on TV as the hero.

He didn't help himself with his changing story about what happened and his military record etc either

BBatesokc
04-12-2012, 09:25 AM
He didn't help himself with his changing story about what happened and his military record etc either

Agreed. His lawyers should have immediately recognized their client was a freak (literally) and required him to exercise his right to remain silent at all times. Even when I was very vocal during my case, every move I made publicly was discussed with my lawyers and weighed for any negative impact and I was reminded of the possible repercussions. The Box's and Reynolds are smart guys and must have been blinded by the desire for the media attention.

kevinpate
04-12-2012, 03:05 PM
Agreed. His lawyers should have immediately recognized their client was a freak (literally) and required him to exercise his right to remain silent at all times. Even when I was very vocal during my case, every move I made publicly was discussed with my lawyers and weighed for any negative impact and I was reminded of the possible repercussions. The Box's and Reynolds are smart guys and must have been blinded by the desire for the media attention.

Possible. Another possibility is their client failed to heed their advice. This defendant rapidly began to spin yarns, and continued to do spin yarns, and worse. Like so many other soon to be proud owners of a DOC number, he had the right to remain silent, but from beginning to end he seemingly lacked any ability to do so. In my opinion, the consequences of the defendant's words and actions after the shooting were extremely detrimental to his defense.

Dubya61
04-12-2012, 03:24 PM
Why don't people (smart or otherwise, criminal or otherwise) who engage a lawyer, just shut up and let their lawyer do the talking -- or at least only say what their counsel advises?

BBatesokc
10-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Lastest appeal filed today in Ersland case. This one is actually pretty impressive.

Here is the summary (http://freepdfhosting.com/8b6f1e23bc.pdf) (.pdf).

Here is the appeal with exhibits (PART 1 (http://freepdfhosting.com/b099a3e649.pdf)) (PART 2 (http://freepdfhosting.com/0b04621435.pdf)) (.pdf - VERY large file - but a good read).

RadicalModerate
10-02-2012, 02:01 AM
Thanks, Brian . . .
I'm not sure that "pretty" exactly defines or modifies "impressive" in the correct positive manner intended . . . =)
Yet I stumble over using the term, "Awesome" . . . Even if it fits.
Thanks, again!

Roger S
10-02-2012, 07:23 AM
I hope it's rejected. I realize the kid was wrong for attempting robbery but I still think Ersland went overkill on him.

Well, let's just shoot him multiple times instead of pointing the gun at his face and telling him to remain until the police arrive.

Ersland reaps what he sewed...

Seriously??? Did Mr. Ersland invite these kids in to the pharmacy to rob the place? No, he was in their doing his job and minding his own business when they came in and attempted to rob him.

They went in to commit a crime. I don't care if he went out to the parking lot, climbed on a steam roller, and ran over the still quivering body repeatedly..... If you are committing a crime anything that befalls you is due justice.

I hope you never have to be put in the position that this scum put Mr. Ersland in.

What makes it even worse in my opinion is that the one that didn't get shot has already been released from juvie and has been re-arrested for another crime.

BBatesokc
10-02-2012, 07:38 AM
Seriously??? Did Mr. Ersland invite these kids in to the pharmacy to rob the place? No, he was in their doing his job and minding his own business when they came in and attempted to rob him.

They went in to commit a crime. I don't care if he went out to the parking lot, climbed on a steam roller, and ran over the still quivering body repeatedly..... If you are committing a crime anything that befalls you is due justice.

I hope you never have to be put in the position that this scum put Mr. Ersland in.

What makes it even worse in my opinion is that the one that didn't get shot has already been released from juvie and has been re-arrested for another crime.

And I think most of us here would "hope you never have to be put in the position" of law enforcement or sitting on a jury.

The crime of armed robbery does not allow for the death penalty within our courts, so why in heck would you endorse it as a penalty the general public should be allowed to inflict? Total redneck ignorance if you ask me - and I have zero sympathy for any of the scum bags (juveniles and/or adults) who took part in what happened that day. I'm guessing the recent Target shooting involved some of that same hillbilly rationalizing - "You wronged me, possibly even broke the law and endanger my life and by-golly I gots a gun so you deserve to die because you started it, it was illegal and I'm pissed." Bet it works out just as well for the shooter in that case too.

I doubt many want to rehash the debate over the Reliable Pharmacy robbery.

What is clear in the appeal is what many of us have said all along - Ersland crossed the line and should have been punished, but certainly deserved better representation and the opportunity for a lighter sentence.

He appears to have been denied all of those things. Had his defense lawyer been acting in his client's best interest he would have entertained a plea bargain that most likely would have included a manslaughter conviction and very little prison time.

Roger S
10-02-2012, 08:01 AM
Well Mr. Bates, in my opinion, you lose a lot of credibility when you choose to make personal attacks on my intelligence, or my ability to serve on a jury, rather than answer the question I posed.

Did Mr. Ersland invite them to rob his place of work?

Correct me of I'm wrong here. But I thought in Oklahoma that if someone is killed while committing a felony that any of the accomplices are to be charged with murder. How did the accomplice escape that murder charge if that is indeed the law in Oklahoma?

BBatesokc
10-02-2012, 08:14 AM
Well Mr. Bates, in my opinion, you lose a lot of credibility when you choose to make personal attacks on my intelligence, or my ability to serve on a jury, rather than answer the question I posed.

Did Mr. Ersland invite them to rob his place of work?

Correct me of I'm wrong here. But I thought in Oklahoma that if someone is killed while committing a felony that any of the accomplices are to be charged with murder. How did the accomplice escape that murder charge if that is indeed the law in Oklahoma?

Give me a break - when you make asinine statements like.... "I don't care if he went out to the parking lot, climbed on a steam roller, and ran over the still quivering body repeatedly" then you're gonna get a personal response. And, try giving that response during voir-dire and see how much credibility and thought towards your 'intelligence' it gets you.

Your question is ridiculous and means nothing in the eyes of the law. Nobody invites an armed robbery - but that still doesn't change the fact that armed robbery is not punishable by death - which is the sentence Ersland imposed when he repeatedly shot an unarmed and unconscious scum bag.

kevinpate
10-02-2012, 08:32 AM
BBQ, to answer your other Q, the two adults involved in putting the young would be robbers into position were tried and convicted of murder, and a bit more if I recall correctly. The not dead right there would be robber was charged and sentenced as a youthful offender if memory serves. No body went uncharged.

As to your were they invited Q. Nope.
All the same, bbates is correct. The state of the law is not ya do something wrong and whatever happens to ya, ya had it coming.

Haven't slogged through the supp. brief yet. Perhaps there is enough to grant a new trial. Perhaps not. An error here or there won't get it done. One thing that did catch my eye in a flip through was whether it was the D decision to not take the stand or not. However, if a new trial were to transpire and if he were to take the stand, I don't see that being all that helpful to his cause. Once he is on the stand, the absolute debacle he made of any defense with both his words, and his deeds in faking an injury, all play out with him right there in the box, and I don't see him charming much of anyone.

My guess. If there should be a reversal, the matter ends in a conviction again, though perhaps another lesser charge to expedite matters along. The man would be bat poo crazy to wanna face another jury.

Roger S
10-02-2012, 08:53 AM
Well in my redneck hillbilly opinion....

The law is wrong when it imprisons a man for defending himself during an absence of law. Over-reaction on his part or not. He was the victim that day and the victims rights should always supersede the assailants.

Antwun Parker was not a victim. Justice was served that day regardless of what the law says. And once again in my redneck, hillbilly, opinion. Justice and the law are not one and the same.

Roger S
10-02-2012, 12:05 PM
My guess. If there should be a reversal, the matter ends in a conviction again, though perhaps another lesser charge to expedite matters along. The man would be bat poo crazy to wanna face another jury.

I have no doubt that Ersland has some mental issues. I've heard possibly Aspergers. Which makes me question his ability to work in a pharmacy.

I also have no doubt that Ersland did not go to work that day with the intention of murdering Antwun Parker. Antwun Parker did enter that pharmacy with the intent to commit a crime. If he was killed in the act of breaking the law.... To bad then. He chose to break the law. He didn't stop breaking the law after Ersland shot him the first time, and Ersland didn't ask to be robbed that day. Ersland reacted to an act of lawlessness. In my redneck, hillbilly, opinion that makes him a hero and not a criminal.

kevinpate
10-02-2012, 12:41 PM
Again, with respect, as many friends, and quite a few kin for that matter, have no shortage of redneck or hill folk in their genes, our DOC has no shortage of folk who share your view of justice covering 'he-had-it-coming-itis'. Many have found themselves to be long term residents of the DOC Bars & Grill.

They acted on their mistaken beliefs and learned, to their detriment, the flaws inherent in a belief system that overstates what justice permits. Hopefully you'll never find yourself in a position to do the same.

Midtowner
10-02-2012, 01:36 PM
The brief makes a strong argument for ineffective assistance of counsel. What I don't see here though is enough cumulative error to merit reversal. I mean the incident is caught on videotape. I have a strong feeling that if this is sent back for a new trial, like Kevin says, the law is the law. It's very clear that Box was going for jury nullification. That's a risky strategy, but not necessarily a horrible strategy when facing such certain facts and the fact that your client is going to look guilty as hell if he takes the stand.

Midtowner
10-02-2012, 01:39 PM
Well in my redneck hillbilly opinion....

The law is wrong when it imprisons a man for defending himself during an absence of law.

If you think that's what this case is about, you don't know the facts.

Roger S
10-02-2012, 01:47 PM
If you think that's what this case is about, you don't know the facts.

Please enlighten me...

Roadhawg
10-02-2012, 02:00 PM
Please enlighten me...


Enlighten away http://www.okctalk.com/current-events-open-topic/25841-ersland-trial-begins.html

Midtowner
10-03-2012, 05:04 AM
Enlighten away http://www.okctalk.com/current-events-open-topic/25841-ersland-trial-begins.html

Exactly. BBQ, it's up to you to educate yourself on the subject. The information is most certainly available here. To assert that you know better than the judge and jury and D.A. who were all privy to the facts of the case, looked at all of the evidence and determined unanimously that Ersland was guilty is pretty ridiculous unless you have some new theory that they failed to consider.

Roger S
10-04-2012, 12:11 AM
Nope... I remain unswayed in my opinion.

In the eyes of the law Mr. Ersland may be a criminal but that law is an abomination to me. I find it an injustice that any victim can become a criminal for actions taken while a crime is being committed against them.

Mr. Bates may have been oblivious to the dramatic effect I chose to use to make a point when I made my statement about the steamroller and his attempts to correlate my intelligence to that of hillbillies and rednecks is about as relevant as if I stated he was a sexual deviant for videotaping prostitutes.

Had Antwun Parker escaped Mr Ersland's first shot and exited the pharmacy effecting a getaway. And had Mr Ersland then hunted him down and shot him to death. I would wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Ersland crossed a line that should not be crossed.

Mr. Ersland was thrust into a situation of lawlessness. Was the law there to protect Mr. Ersland at that time? No it was not.

I am appalled and sickened, that anyone could come to a conclusion that a victim in that situation is going to always react in a rational manner.

Let someone stick a gun in your face and shout "I'm going to shoot your ass!" and see how you react. It's easy for you to say you would not react as Mr. Ersland did when you have never been there but unless you have been the victim you cannot honestly state how you would react. You might indeed go out to the parking lot, get on a steamroller, and squish away but until you've been there. Stating how you would react is merely speculation and stating you would take the time to consider the law at that point in time is ridiculous.

So it is still my opinion that Mr. Ersland did several good things that day. He saved the taxpayers the expense of trying Antwun Parker in a court of law and then housing him in a prison facility and he did the gene pool a favor by removing some bad DNA from it.

The judge, jury and the D.A. may have upheld the "law" but they did a great injustice to a man put into a situation he never asked to be put in that day.

I once sat on a manslaughter jury for a woman that had stabbed her alcoholic abusive boyfriend in the heart with a steak knife.

The first vote the jury took that day was 10-2 guilty but one of the two argued vehemently that she was defending herself that night. After about 2 hours of deliberation the vote was 1-11 with me being the lone holdout for a guilty verdict.

I argued that from the moment she picked up that knife she knew she was going to kill the man. According to the law and the instructions the judge had given us. I, to this day, believe I was correct in that statement, according to the law.

Looking back after all these years I realize how close I was to making the same abominable decision.

Sure she may have had previous opportunities to have escaped this man but at that point in time she was the victim during an act of lawlessness and there was no law there to protect her. Only a steak knife and a split second decision to react and I believe she was in her rights to react the way she did.

Midtowner
10-04-2012, 06:30 AM
Nope... I remain unswayed in my opinion.

In the eyes of the law Mr. Ersland may be a criminal but that law is an abomination to me. I find it an injustice that any victim can become a criminal for actions taken while a crime is being committed against them.

There was no crime being committed against Ersland when he squeezed off those last 5 rounds. The blood spatter evidence showed that Parker was motionless or upon cross examination, may have been twitching slightly. Ersland could not have seen Parker as a threat still. He turned his back on him once when he left the store, then calmly walked back in and stepped over Parker on his way to retrieve a gun. Had Parker been conscious as some of Erlsand's stories have alleged, Parker could have taken Ersland down right there, but he couldn't because he was unconscious. Ersland then retrieved the second weapon. Instead of remaining behind cover to fire, as he would have been trained to do in the military, he walked right up to Parker and shot him at point blank range--close enough to where a conscious Parker could have attempted to take the firearm away. In the moments between retrieving the second weapon and firing it, Ersland had plenty of opportunity to develop the sort of premeditation the Uniform Jury Instructions contemplate. It's a pretty easy conviction if the jury follows the law.

The robbery ended when that first round was shot. There was no state of lawlessness once Ersland returned to the store. Ersland is lucky he wasn't charged with discharging a firearm or attempted homicide for trying to shoot the fleeing Ingram. Certainly, if he had been a better shot, he would have been looking at two homicide counts.

bombermwc
10-04-2012, 06:57 AM
I agree with OK BBQ.

Roger S
10-04-2012, 07:15 AM
It's easy being an armchair quarterback. You can speculate all day what Ersland could/should have done in that situation.

You can sit there and tell me exactly how you would behave in such a situation. Until it happens to you. You do not know. You can only speculate. You might go all Chuck Norris on the perpetrator or you might fall down and beg for your life and there are a lot of other possibilities between those two ends of the spectrum.

I'm going to leave it at this. There is nothing any of you can say that will sway my opinion that in a situation like this there can be a role reversal. The victim remains the victim and the perpetrator remains the perpetrator. How any of us would react is pure speculation and to state otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Roadhawg
10-04-2012, 08:39 AM
I understand how you feel but Ersland was tried and convicted under current law and the facts of the case. If he killed the young man after his first shot before he left the store then there wouldn't be any problem but that's not what he did. He left the store, came back in, got a different gun and then stood over an unarmed, mostly motionless and wounded, possibly dying person, and fired several more shots into the body. That was his crime. I can't say exactly what I would do in that situation but pumping an unarmed wounded young man laying on the floor after the threat was over is pretty low on the list of things I would do. He wasn't protecting himself, he was executing that kid.

BoulderSooner
10-04-2012, 09:03 AM
I understand how you feel but Ersland was tried and convicted under current law and the facts of the case. If he killed the young man after his first shot before he left the store then there wouldn't be any problem but that's not what he did. He left the store, came back in, got a different gun and then stood over an unarmed, mostly motionless and wounded, possibly dying person, and fired several more shots into the body. That was his crime. I can't say exactly what I would do in that situation but pumping an unarmed wounded young man laying on the floor after the threat was over is pretty low on the list of things I would do. He wasn't protecting himself, he was executing that kid.

? what if he did kill the young man with the first shot??

then do the next 5 shots even matter??

BBatesokc
10-04-2012, 09:11 AM
@OK BBQ Eater Anonymous - every trial is 'armchair quarterbacked' by both the prosecution, defense and jury, so I have no idea what point you were trying to forward.

As for not knowing how one would react in a similar situation - is that seriously a line of defense you think holds water?

This is exactly the reason I don't carry a gun even though I'm CLEET licensed and insured to do so. I know I've been in plenty of situations where, if I was armed, I might have produced a weapon out of fear. However, I'm also mature and rational enough to know I might have a very difficult time convincing investigators or a jury that, that fear justified my actions (such as shooting an unarmed, motionless, scum bag). Not knowing what you'd do in a situation is a ridiculous reason to allow lawlessness.

Unlike you, I sat through the entire trial and actually heard the evidence - you know, that pesky stuff that goes beyond emotion and backwoods justice.

The fact Ersland's past showed him to be a liar and a freak didn't bode well for him and certainly helps prove in my mind that what he'd do in a situation is certainly not the measure by which norms should be established.

The only injustice perpetrated upon Ersland (if proven true) is that his defense team did not seek to have the damage against their client limited thorough a plea deal or a better trial performance.

Roadhawg
10-04-2012, 10:13 AM
? what if he did kill the young man with the first shot??

then do the next 5 shots even matter??

I believe at trial the ME said he was still alive when he was shot 5 more times. I think if he was already dead there might not have been a trial.

Roger S
10-04-2012, 10:42 AM
@OK BBQ Eater Anonymous - every trial is 'armchair quarterbacked' by both the prosecution, defense and jury, so I have no idea what point you were trying to forward.

As for not knowing how one would react in a similar situation - is that seriously a line of defense you think holds water?

This is exactly the reason I don't carry a gun even though I'm CLEET licensed and insured to do so. I know I've been in plenty of situations where, if I was armed, I might have produced a weapon out of fear. However, I'm also mature and rational enough to know I might have a very difficult time convincing investigators or a jury that, that fear justified my actions (such as shooting an unarmed, motionless, scum bag). Not knowing what you'd do in a situation is a ridiculous reason to allow lawlessness.

Unlike you, I sat through the entire trial and actually heard the evidence - you know, that pesky stuff that goes beyond emotion and backwoods justice.

The fact Ersland's past showed him to be a liar and a freak didn't bode well for him and certainly helps prove in my mind that what he'd do in a situation is certainly not the measure by which norms should be established.

The only injustice perpetrated upon Ersland (if proven true) is that his defense team did not seek to have the damage against their client limited thorough a plea deal or a better trial performance.

What's your point Brian? I never once mentioned the legal system when I mentioned armchair quarterbacking.

I've already admitted that in the eyes of the law he was guilty. My point, and the injustice, is, as the victim in this crime, he never should have been tried by the law.

Questioning Ersland's character does not make him guilty of anything. I've also admitted that I believe he has mental issues. Last time I checked having mental issues is not a crime.

I've never said not knowing how one would react is a line of defense because I do not believe the victim should have ever been tried. I do not believe that the roles of the perpetrator/victim should have been reversed.

What I can say with 100% accuracy is that the perpetrator entered that business, on that day, with the intent of breaking the law. The victim did not. The perpetrator suffered the consequences of his actions by whatever adjective you choose to throw in front of the word justice. The victim is now suffering the consequences of the irresponsible actions of the perpetrator.

Of Sound Mind
10-04-2012, 11:36 AM
I've already admitted that in the eyes of the law he was guilty. My point, and the injustice, is, as the victim in this crime, he never should have been tried by the law.
Except that he was tried for breaking the law... even as a victim, there are limits to what we are allowed to do. If you feel that's an injustice, then you need to work to get the law changed. However, the law is quite clear. And as a gun owner and concealed-carry-permit holder, I'm very aware of what the limits are and what I can be charged with if I exceed those limits. If I were in the same situation, I might act as he did, but I would also be held to account for my decision to do so, as he was. He went too far. He knew he went to far. Otherwise, why did he feel compelled to change his story and lie so much?


I've also admitted that I believe he has mental issues. Last time I checked having mental issues is not a crime.
Except that you are not allowed to have a concealed-carry permit if you have mental issues.


I've never said not knowing how one would react is a line of defense because I do not believe the victim should have ever been tried.
But what you believe is not necessarily what the law is.


What I can say with 100% accuracy is that the perpetrator entered that business, on that day, with the intent of breaking the law. The victim did not. The perpetrator suffered the consequences of his actions by whatever adjective you choose to throw in front of the word justice. The victim is now suffering the consequences of the irresponsible actions of the perpetrator.
No, the "victim" is suffering the consequences of his irresponsibility. The perps' bad behavior doesn't give victims an open license to respond however they please. There are still boundaries and laws defining those boundaries. The perps' actions certainly started the chain reaction, but Ersland certainly did his part to make it even more explosive than it needed to be.

Ersland is where he is because of a long line of reckless, irresponsible and foolish behavior... most notably his uncontrollable inability to keep his mouth shut. He was his own worst enemy in the whole process.

What I do find as a major injustice is that the deceased perp's co-conspirators aren't spending the rest of their lives in jail since their felonious actions led to the death of someone, even if it was one of their own.

Bill Robertson
10-04-2012, 11:47 AM
I agree with every word in Of Sound Mind's last post. And that doesn't happen all that often.