Best comment ever!
And then there is this, regarding the Jerome Ersland case:
"Gunfire is exchanged" - Uh, no it wasn't. There was no "exchange" of gunfire. Forensics proved that Ersland was the only person to discharge a weapon that day.
"Ersland’s watch is blown off his wrist by a bullet" - Ersland lied about that to bolster his story. He bandaged his wrist that he received no injury to - thus, he fabricated evidence. ...just like he lied to Police about being a combat veteran, suffering from PTSD, and being injured during combat in the Gulf. Oh yeah, he also miraculously found a .22 shell casing while alone in the pharmacy, a casing that all of the police that had been through there in the previous couple of days, an entire forensics investigations team that had conducted a thorough search of the site, and all of his co-workers had somehow managed to overlook.
"Ersland rushes to the door behind him" - ...and follows him out, chasing him down the street, carelessly discharging his weapon in a populated area as he went, almost hitting a mother and her infant.
"...but was still moving, according to all the witnesses" - By "all the witnesses", you mean Ersland.
"The dead perpetrator was subsequently found to be unarmed, hence the charges against Mr. Ersland." - The fact he was unarmed had nothing to do with the charges against Ersland. Ersland was charged because, with malice aforethought, he executed the robber while he posed no reasonable threat. That's 1st degree murder. If Ersland would have stopped after the first shot, he'd be a free man today - regardless of whether that particular robber was armed or not. With the first shot, Ersland ended the threat. He then chose to execute the incapacitated robber.
"Mr. Ersland had robbery victims cowering in the back of the store" - That he chose to leave alone in the store with one of the robbers that he apparently felt still posed a real threat.
"...where his buddy was blazing away at an aspirin-peddler." - Again, this was a fabrication on Ersland's part. It was Ersland that opened fire. Nobody, other than Ersland, discharged any weapon that day.
"Jerome Ersland didn’t premeditate anything." - According to Oklahoma law, he did. QUOTED: "Title 21. Crimes and Punishments, Chapter 24 Section 701.7 - Murder in the First Degree - (a) A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."
Ersland admitted that he had deliberate intention - he admitted malice aforethought. So, that part of the law was fulfilled. The only question was: Was the killing lawful? The jury didn't think so, as to be lawful there would have had to have been a reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death to himself or others. The Jury felt that Ersland's fear - if he even had one (he CERTAINLY didn't act as though he did) - was not reasonable. They, for some strange reason, felt that it's not reasonable to fear imminent serious injury or death from someone who's lying face down in a pool of their own blood, slowly dying from a bullet lodged inside their brain. Especially after you step over that person, and with your back to him the entire time, go and retrieve another weapon - because you've spent all of the ammunition in your first weapon chasing someone down a populated street, firing repeatedly at them, trying to shoot them in the back - then returning to the "threatening" person, and, standing over them, at close range, pumping five more rounds into their back.
"Please join me in prayer that Mr. Ersland will receive justice at the sentencing hearing." - It looks like your prayers worked! Ersland has been sentenced, and he got life. He most certainly received Justice.
Posted by VanHammersly to United Possums International at July 14, 2011 2:08 PM
That has to be the longest comment I’ve ever received. It’s published in the comments section of “The Strange Case of Jerome Ersland” below, along with my reply:
Mr. VH:
With all due respect, do you have some bona fides in this case? Were you one of the jurors, an attorney on either side, or even an extremely fascinated spectator who followed along from the public gallery in the courtroom or the daily coverage in the newspaper?
My "research" is based on general reportage, speculation, and my own experiences with use of lethal force in unanticipated circumstances. If you will be so kind as to provide public record citations for your assertions, and they prove to be valid, I will offer a public recantation of my proclamation that Jerome Ersland is a "hero."
Like my research methods, his actions may have been "unsound" as to resolving the situation, but I cannot call an elderly man in marginal health a "premeditated murderer" when he is suddenly forced into a thug's game for mortal stakes. I think his response was entirely reasonable.
One of the few things from this article you didn't take issue with or put in quotation marks was my assertion that if faced with a similar situation, I'll "light [you] up like the Fourth of July." I would do this if you pointed a cap-pistol at me or mine. If I'm wrong in the aftermath, it's better to apologize than ask permission, and I'll lay flowers and remorse at your headstone.
My father was murdered by a serial killer, and I have been in military combat and civilian gunfights. Perhaps this colors my perception of whatever happened in that Oklahoma City pharmacy—and I'm sure it does—but unless you've been there and done it, you can have no concept of what it's like.
Thank you for your input on this. If you can go a step further in proving me wrong, and validate your statements, I will admit I'm wrong. Until then, I will stand by my point of view.
Oh, and I left out the doctrine of "equal culpability." If you are a participant in an armed robbery, and your partner kills someone, you are equally gulity of murder under federal and state statutes. If you are an unarmed accomplice and tag along with your homey while he rips off a drugstore at gunpoint, and you end up dead on the floor, well, that's kind of the same thing, ain't it?
I often wonder if I’m writing for anyone besides a handful of Constant Readers and my own amusement and/or therapeutic catharsis. I have no clue who “VanHammersly” is, but I am truly appreciative of his/her thoughtful commentary. The fact that it’s at odds with me, and calls me out on my previous statements, only makes it more interesting.
I write from an egocentric, personal point of view. I’m notoriously lazy about research, and depend on my drug-and-alcohol-addled memory too much of the time. Other factors, like insomnia, inattention, or post-REM, pre-awakening consciousness also serve as filters on my perceptions of reality. (I can’t cop out on the dope and booze these days. Life has gotten strange enough without psychedelic overload or whiskey blackouts.) Still, I try to pay attention when something rings my bell, and I have found myself using the Internet when I’m uncertain of details and need to verify something.
Speaking of verification, if Van Hammersly will supply sources and citations for the point-by-point refutations above, I will be only too happy to vet them and publish them. (The same goes for anyone else who thinks I’m incorrect, over the top, or talking out my ass about any given subject.) Personal, egocentric writing does not mean I have my mind made up, and don’t want to be confused with facts, or that I reject and deny any correction. I’m accustomed to being more wrong than right and I really appreciate it when people tell me I’m going off the rails.
If Van Hammersly—or anyone else—can provide valid documentation that my statements are incorrect, I will gladly publish that documentation and publicly admit I’m wrong. I have no problem with a mea culpa, but as I said in my original comment reply, I cannot and will not regard Jerome Ersland as a murderer who acted out of malice aforethought. He did what he did in the heat of the moment, and my ultimate rule of thumb on his actions is this: If it was happening to me, I’d do the same thing. I wouldn’t be thinking about the police, the courts, getting ugly looks at the next PTA meeting, or what my Aunt Vera might think when she hears about it.
We go about our everyday lives with the reasonable expectation that we will be left alone, free to proceed with whatever we’re doing. When someone steps in with force, the threat of violence, or lethal intimidation, everything changes in an instant. In that instant, you have to decide if you’re going to become a hostage or a victim, or, like Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 97, you’re going to accept the fact that you might die no matter what happens next, and take action. If I think a terrorist or a robber is going to kill me regardless of my reaction or compliance, then that individual is going to have his hands full until I’m dead on the floor…or he is. I don’t have a ready statistic on acquiescence versus resistance in hostage and robbery situations. What I do have is a comparison with another drugstore robbery just days after Jerome Ersland was convicted. A gunman entered a pharmacy in Medford, New York, and no one resisted. When the robber calmly walked out, four innocent people lay dead.
Better to apologize than ask permission. If that was a cap pistol you pointed at me, or a comb you were holding under your shirt when you demanded my money or threatened me, then I’ll apologize at your gravesite for the two holes in your chest and the one in your head. I’ll bring flowers and remorse, and for the rest of my days I’ll have pangs of regret that you were stupid enough to try whatever got you killed in the first place. Life is precious, and God’s greatest gift. The only thing worse than throwing your life away in a stupid, reckless act is to be the victim who allows a stupid, reckless punk to take your life.
Even though the juries in the Casey Anthony and Jerome Ersland cases have proven exceptions to the rule, it’s still better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
"Gunfire is exchanged" - Uh, no it wasn't. There was no "exchange" of gunfire. Forensics proved that Ersland was the only person to discharge a weapon that day.
"Ersland’s watch is blown off his wrist by a bullet" - Ersland lied about that to bolster his story. He bandaged his wrist that he received no injury to - thus, he fabricated evidence. ...just like he lied to Police about being a combat veteran, suffering from PTSD, and being injured during combat in the Gulf. Oh yeah, he also miraculously found a .22 shell casing while alone in the pharmacy, a casing that all of the police that had been through there in the previous couple of days, an entire forensics investigations team that had conducted a thorough search of the site, and all of his co-workers had somehow managed to overlook.
"Ersland rushes to the door behind him" - ...and follows him out, chasing him down the street, carelessly discharging his weapon in a populated area as he went, almost hitting a mother and her infant.
"...but was still moving, according to all the witnesses" - By "all the witnesses", you mean Ersland.
"The dead perpetrator was subsequently found to be unarmed, hence the charges against Mr. Ersland." - The fact he was unarmed had nothing to do with the charges against Ersland. Ersland was charged because, with malice aforethought, he executed the robber while he posed no reasonable threat. That's 1st degree murder. If Ersland would have stopped after the first shot, he'd be a free man today - regardless of whether that particular robber was armed or not. With the first shot, Ersland ended the threat. He then chose to execute the incapacitated robber.
"Mr. Ersland had robbery victims cowering in the back of the store" - That he chose to leave alone in the store with one of the robbers that he apparently felt still posed a real threat.
"...where his buddy was blazing away at an aspirin-peddler." - Again, this was a fabrication on Ersland's part. It was Ersland that opened fire. Nobody, other than Ersland, discharged any weapon that day.
"Jerome Ersland didn’t premeditate anything." - According to Oklahoma law, he did. QUOTED: "Title 21. Crimes and Punishments, Chapter 24 Section 701.7 - Murder in the First Degree - (a) A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."
Ersland admitted that he had deliberate intention - he admitted malice aforethought. So, that part of the law was fulfilled. The only question was: Was the killing lawful? The jury didn't think so, as to be lawful there would have had to have been a reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death to himself or others. The Jury felt that Ersland's fear - if he even had one (he CERTAINLY didn't act as though he did) - was not reasonable. They, for some strange reason, felt that it's not reasonable to fear imminent serious injury or death from someone who's lying face down in a pool of their own blood, slowly dying from a bullet lodged inside their brain. Especially after you step over that person, and with your back to him the entire time, go and retrieve another weapon - because you've spent all of the ammunition in your first weapon chasing someone down a populated street, firing repeatedly at them, trying to shoot them in the back - then returning to the "threatening" person, and, standing over them, at close range, pumping five more rounds into their back.
"Please join me in prayer that Mr. Ersland will receive justice at the sentencing hearing." - It looks like your prayers worked! Ersland has been sentenced, and he got life. He most certainly received Justice.
Posted by VanHammersly to United Possums International at July 14, 2011 2:08 PM
That has to be the longest comment I’ve ever received. It’s published in the comments section of “The Strange Case of Jerome Ersland” below, along with my reply:
Mr. VH:
With all due respect, do you have some bona fides in this case? Were you one of the jurors, an attorney on either side, or even an extremely fascinated spectator who followed along from the public gallery in the courtroom or the daily coverage in the newspaper?
My "research" is based on general reportage, speculation, and my own experiences with use of lethal force in unanticipated circumstances. If you will be so kind as to provide public record citations for your assertions, and they prove to be valid, I will offer a public recantation of my proclamation that Jerome Ersland is a "hero."
Like my research methods, his actions may have been "unsound" as to resolving the situation, but I cannot call an elderly man in marginal health a "premeditated murderer" when he is suddenly forced into a thug's game for mortal stakes. I think his response was entirely reasonable.
One of the few things from this article you didn't take issue with or put in quotation marks was my assertion that if faced with a similar situation, I'll "light [you] up like the Fourth of July." I would do this if you pointed a cap-pistol at me or mine. If I'm wrong in the aftermath, it's better to apologize than ask permission, and I'll lay flowers and remorse at your headstone.
My father was murdered by a serial killer, and I have been in military combat and civilian gunfights. Perhaps this colors my perception of whatever happened in that Oklahoma City pharmacy—and I'm sure it does—but unless you've been there and done it, you can have no concept of what it's like.
Thank you for your input on this. If you can go a step further in proving me wrong, and validate your statements, I will admit I'm wrong. Until then, I will stand by my point of view.
Oh, and I left out the doctrine of "equal culpability." If you are a participant in an armed robbery, and your partner kills someone, you are equally gulity of murder under federal and state statutes. If you are an unarmed accomplice and tag along with your homey while he rips off a drugstore at gunpoint, and you end up dead on the floor, well, that's kind of the same thing, ain't it?
I often wonder if I’m writing for anyone besides a handful of Constant Readers and my own amusement and/or therapeutic catharsis. I have no clue who “VanHammersly” is, but I am truly appreciative of his/her thoughtful commentary. The fact that it’s at odds with me, and calls me out on my previous statements, only makes it more interesting.
I write from an egocentric, personal point of view. I’m notoriously lazy about research, and depend on my drug-and-alcohol-addled memory too much of the time. Other factors, like insomnia, inattention, or post-REM, pre-awakening consciousness also serve as filters on my perceptions of reality. (I can’t cop out on the dope and booze these days. Life has gotten strange enough without psychedelic overload or whiskey blackouts.) Still, I try to pay attention when something rings my bell, and I have found myself using the Internet when I’m uncertain of details and need to verify something.
Speaking of verification, if Van Hammersly will supply sources and citations for the point-by-point refutations above, I will be only too happy to vet them and publish them. (The same goes for anyone else who thinks I’m incorrect, over the top, or talking out my ass about any given subject.) Personal, egocentric writing does not mean I have my mind made up, and don’t want to be confused with facts, or that I reject and deny any correction. I’m accustomed to being more wrong than right and I really appreciate it when people tell me I’m going off the rails.
If Van Hammersly—or anyone else—can provide valid documentation that my statements are incorrect, I will gladly publish that documentation and publicly admit I’m wrong. I have no problem with a mea culpa, but as I said in my original comment reply, I cannot and will not regard Jerome Ersland as a murderer who acted out of malice aforethought. He did what he did in the heat of the moment, and my ultimate rule of thumb on his actions is this: If it was happening to me, I’d do the same thing. I wouldn’t be thinking about the police, the courts, getting ugly looks at the next PTA meeting, or what my Aunt Vera might think when she hears about it.
We go about our everyday lives with the reasonable expectation that we will be left alone, free to proceed with whatever we’re doing. When someone steps in with force, the threat of violence, or lethal intimidation, everything changes in an instant. In that instant, you have to decide if you’re going to become a hostage or a victim, or, like Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 97, you’re going to accept the fact that you might die no matter what happens next, and take action. If I think a terrorist or a robber is going to kill me regardless of my reaction or compliance, then that individual is going to have his hands full until I’m dead on the floor…or he is. I don’t have a ready statistic on acquiescence versus resistance in hostage and robbery situations. What I do have is a comparison with another drugstore robbery just days after Jerome Ersland was convicted. A gunman entered a pharmacy in Medford, New York, and no one resisted. When the robber calmly walked out, four innocent people lay dead.
Better to apologize than ask permission. If that was a cap pistol you pointed at me, or a comb you were holding under your shirt when you demanded my money or threatened me, then I’ll apologize at your gravesite for the two holes in your chest and the one in your head. I’ll bring flowers and remorse, and for the rest of my days I’ll have pangs of regret that you were stupid enough to try whatever got you killed in the first place. Life is precious, and God’s greatest gift. The only thing worse than throwing your life away in a stupid, reckless act is to be the victim who allows a stupid, reckless punk to take your life.
Even though the juries in the Casey Anthony and Jerome Ersland cases have proven exceptions to the rule, it’s still better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
posted by Robert at 10:32 PM
7 Comments:
...continued
So, Ersland chased the other robber down the street, shooting at him while he was fleeing. Did Ersland also believe that the fleeing robber posed an immediate threat to his safety that could only be thwarted with deadly force? If so, why did he pursue the threat? Is it common for someone to pursue a person who they fear is going to kill them? This action shows that Ersland was simply looking to kill, regardless of any threat. If he was in fear for his life from the fleeing robber, he wouldn't have chased him. If he wasn't in fear, then he was clearly willing to kill someone by whom he did not feel threatened.
He spent his ammo firing at the fleeing robber, returned to the store, stepped over the injured kid, and with his back to him the whole time (watch the security video) retrieved another weapon from a locked drawer, walked back to the incapacitated kid, and, standing over him, at close range, fired five more shots into him. That's not self-defence. That's a cold, calculated execution.
Ersland claimed that he shot the five extra rounds because the injured robber kept moving. That's how he justified the shooting - the kid wouldn't have been much of a threat had he been laying there unconscious. But, Ersland's claim is also an admission of "deliberate intent". I.e. - he deliberately intended to shoot the robber. He was moving, so Ersland made a conscious decision to shoot him five more times. The act was deliberate and intentional - deliberate intent.
Deliberate intent is one of the criteria needed to be fulfilled for 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law. Ersland admitted to it. So, that part, at least, is not up for debate. The other criteria that needs to be fulfilled is whether or not the killing was justified. That's what was in question in the Ersland case. The killing could only be be a justified killing if Ersland was thwarting an immediate threat of serious injury or death. But, none of his actions, or the available facts of the case, are consistent with that. He pursued a supposed threat down the street, firing at him - a person does not pursue another that he feels is an immediate threat to his life. Would a reasonable person not have felt the robber he was chasing to be more of a threat than the one he murdered? The one he was chasing didn't have bullet in his head, and was armed. He expressed disappointment that he was unable to shoot the fleeing robber - showing that he wasn't interested in negating a threat so much as he was in dealing out a little street justice. And, he showed no caution toward the injured robber - stepping over him, keeping his back to him, leaving him alone with his female co-workers. Think about it - chew it over in your head for a minute - he chased the other robber down the street, was disappointed he wasn't able to shoot him, then, right after that, returned to the store and shot the injured robber. That fulfills, beyond a reasonable doubt, the second criteria - the shooting was not in self-defense, and therefore, unlawful. The killing was unlawful and deliberate.
In Oklahoma (I quoted the statute in my previous comment - from that, you should have all of the information necessary to find the actual law easily yourself online) If you have deliberate intent AND the killing is unlawful, it's 1st degree murder. It doesn't matter one iota how I, nor you, nor anyone else may or may not react if we were in the same situation. If I reacted the same way, I'd be just as guilty as he. The law is the law. If you take a life unlawfully, you're a murderer. If you do it with deliberate intent, it's in the 1st degree.
Ersland committed first degree murder, and he was charged, convicted and sentenced accordingly. The Justice system worked in this case. There were three scumbags in the store that day - only two of them were robbers. All three of them got life sentences (Ersland's being the least harsh of the three) The system worked.
Continued again....
...continued again.
If you ask me, Ersland is unhinged and a menace. He thinks he's living in a Clint Eastwood movie. My suspicion is that he really thought he'd be lauded as a hero for what he did - he killed the bad guy, just like in the movies. Listen to his testimony, how he explains the double-fisted shooting of the robbers - firing with a gun in each hand from behind the counter, (which didn't happen, of course, he made it up - it's his fantasy he's describing - his own movie, of which he's the star) chasing the other robber down the street, trying to get him and the driver of the getaway car as it speeds away. It was a fantasy to him. He wasn't afraid for his life, he was loving every minute of it.
A good friend of mine is a retired Police Detective. He spent 38 years on the force. I remember him saying to me one time that there are criminals out there who have these stories in their heads that they replay, over and over - what they'll do if a Cop tries to take them down. How they'll go out in a blaze of glory and "give it to the pigs". They visualize the whole thing - like a movie, its like a fantasy for them. They play it over and over in their heads. And, as a Cop, when you run into these types, you've got to be careful that you don't do anything that makes it seem to them as though the first part of their story is coming true, because if you do, they will make damn sure the last part of their story comes true for you. I think that's likely what went on with Ersland - he had this story in his head - what he'd do if any punks came in and tried to threaten him. He had the whole thing visualized. He'd take out the scum, and then enjoy his rewards as a hero for saving the day. He knew, long before anyone came in the store that day, that if someone tired to rob him, some bastard was going to die. In the movies those types of people are sometimes seen as heroes. In real life, they're always just irresponsible, dangerous threats to anything approaching a civilized and lawful society.
P.S. - I'm glad you're pleased with my earlier comment. :) I was involved in another discussion regarding the Ersland case and was searching Google for a reference I'd lost, and in doing so, came across your blog-post in the search results. I've got to say, unapologetically, that I've been running into a lot of Ersland supporters that seem to be genuinely unthinking, reactionary, myopic, hysterical clods, fueled purely by blind emotion and fear. I thought you might be another one of them, and was still a little heated from a recent encounter with such an individual. So, I felt the need to offer some commentary - it's sort of a fault of character that I suffer from - a frustration with such types that I feel I need to alleviate by engaging with them. I see now, however, that I was in error in my initial estimation, as you appear to be an intelligent, reasoned person with whom I may just share a difference of opinion. And, I do enjoy, and welcome, exchanges with such people.
I will be posting your comment as a front-page article as soon as I get some sleep. I want to chase the links you have been good enough to send, and will reconsider my position regarding Mr. Ersland if warranted.
My initial support of him springs from the fact that despite your kind words, I may be one of those "clods" you so accurately describe. (It's in my DNA; it's my heritage. I hate to disappoint other people's preconceptions. A drawl and a Gomer Pyle smile can be valuable tools at times. A little under-estimation goes a long way.)
Your description of your detective friend is especially resonant. I spent 30 years with a federal agency whose mission was somewhat different, but it still brought me into uncomfortably close contact with the people he describes. Unfortunately, the "little movies" playing out in my head are re-runs of unscripted events. I never saw Clint Eastwood screaming "Shit! Shit!" while backpedaling, gasping for breath, and trying not to piss himself as he pulled the trigger. I love Hollywood, where it's all steely nerves, unblinking eyes, and steady hands. Lord help the actors if they ever encounter the real thing. I heard the "go down like a gunfighter" rhetoric from a couple of recidivist thugs; when re-arrested, they were meek as lambs.
Your comments, especially this follow-up, have given me much to consider. I'll organize your comments and my reply, and post them within the next 24-48 hours.
Seems as though there may be good reason for Ersland's conviction...
Interesting exchange!
I'll be brief: people intent on committing a crime are asking for trouble; sometimes it finds them.
Boo-freaking-hoo...
"I may be one of those "clods" you so accurately describe."
Your willingness to even at least consider the possibility that a chance exists that you may be in error regarding your opinions, and if presented with compelling enough evidence to the contrary, would be open to re-evaluating your position, proves, beyond any doubt, that you're not.
The true hallmark of intelligence is the ability to entertain any given idea, without necessarily subscribing to it. The people I was referring to in my previous comment completely lack any such ability.
Hey Possum,
I completely understand your feelings and the position from which you opine. Your points are all valid, and not to be dismissed.
That being said, this VanHammersly dude seems to know his stuff. Like you, I wonder what his relation is to the case. Was he on the defense team? Simply an interested party? He appears to be more than your average occasional bystander.
Best regards...
Post a Comment
<< Home