Where Does Self Defense End? Killer of Robber Convicted of Murder

[Swede]

In May of 2009, Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland was at work when two teenagers came in to rob his store. What happens is caught on the surveillance video above:

1. Two teens burst into the store, one of them waving a gun.
2. Ersland shoots at them. The one with the gun runs out the door; the other is hit and falls.
3. Ersland exits the store in pursuit of the fleeing robber. Failing to catch him, he comes back into the store.
4. Ersland walks back behind the counter and retrieves a second gun.
5. Ersland walks back to where the fallen robber is, leans down, and shoots him multiple times, killing him.

Yesterday, Ersland was found guilty of first-degree murder. He faces life in prison. The case has divided public opinion along perfectly predictable lines.

http://gawker.com/5806220/where-does-self-defense-end-killer-of-robber-convicted-of-murder

[Jackpine Radical]

1. It was 1st degree murder.

[bluestate10]

17. Completely agree. In no civilized society does a person kill a wounded person

that represents no threat and remain free. There should be no debate.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. it was unnecessary and thereby in my opinion (which is not legal opinion)

it was murder

i think in civilian society, you only kill if its absolutely necessary, and this was not.

[Cid_B]

3. I dunno about 1st...

I'd bump it to manslaughter...

[msongs]

5. premeditated - the bad guy was down, the clerk went and got a gun and went back to finish the job nt

[Occulus]

4. He did NOT have to get the second gun.

He did NOT have to fire the following shots.

It was murder, and it most definitely was premeditated.

[Cid_B]

11. Meh...

I agree with the premeditated as well so maybe just a lesser degree of murder but more than manslaughter.

I'm quite confident that position wouldn't pass legal muster but is more of a gut reaction. In my eyes he isn't on the same level as the guy who stalks his victim and plans it out days/hours in advance.

The prosecutor went full bore on this one as an example to others...

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Self-defense ended when the armed man fled

Shooting an unarmed man in need of medical attention is unnecessary. That was murder.

If the unarmed man had died simply as a result of the initial wounds he took, that would most likely stand as self defense.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Yep that was murder.........

The threat was over with.

[madokie]

8. My son and I was talking about this yesterday

At thirty he's not much past being a kid himself and like he said this was murder in the first degree and we both hope mr Ersland rots in jail
rec.

[tekisui]

9. He was rightfully convicted. There was no imminent threat.

It was premeditated murder.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Hell freezes over....

agreed.

[tularetom]

10. The guy was no longer a threat so self defense was not an issue

It was indeed murder and the fact that he calmly went back into his store, retrieved a second gun, walked back outside and shot the guy 5 or 6 times, indicates premeditation.

Had I been on the jury I would have ruled the same way. Because of his own lack of control he went from a hero to a murderer.

[pnwmom]

12. It could be seen as self defense through point #2.

Then he should have called 911 and kept a gun aimed at the fallen robber. From this description, there was no reason to shoot him multiple times and kill him.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Jerome won't be shooting anything anymore.

Murder One can change a persons lifestyle dramatically.

[aikoaiko]

15. I'm curious what the defense said about the killing.

Did they try to make the case that the injured robber was still a threat?

Did they try to argue mitigating circumstances?

:shrug:

[david13]

16. It was overkill. He was convicted. But sorry folks, this guy is no

threat at all to society. Probation.
And to all the thieving low lifes out there, who in fact deserve to rot in prison, don't try to rob that guy.
dc

[Pithlet]

19. He committed murder in the first.

Probation is hardly adequate.

[david13]

23. I have ruled. dc

[Pithlet]

25. Yep. Good thing it's not the one that matters.

:)

[Logical]

20. He deserves prison........

Grabbing a 2nd gun, walking back and shooting an UNARMED and unconscious man laying on the floor is murder.

[david13]

24. If you don't like my decision, take it up on appeal. dc

[geckosfeet]

18. I'd say step #5 was the straw that broke the camels back. Otherwise it was SD.

[Logical]

21. I am a concealed carry license holder and pro-gun and this verdict was 100% correct.....

Getting a 2nd gun and shooting an unarmed and unconscious man on the floor FIVE TIMES is murder.

[fishwax]

22. when the guy is unconscious it isn't self defense

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Logical]

26. +1

[Old Codger]

27. You Bet

Threat was ended, definitely murder in the first degree... even chasing the other guy was stupid.... Man was/is an idiot and deserves a good hard time sentence.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

28. From A Legal Standpoint..............

............"self-defense" is defined as ONLY the amount of force necessary to end the threat to your safety AND NO MORE. If you cross the line and use "excessive force," then you can and will be charged with a crime. In this case, since there was no more threat to the shopkeeper's safety, his killing was absolutely "excessive force." Now, whether or not it rises to the level of 1st degree murder is another question (it all boils down to a question of his intent--that's a question for the jury). I'm not sure it does. But he is certainly guilty of SOMETHING.

[Duct Tape]

29. I completely

agree with the conviction. I wonder what went through this guy's head when he went back and shot the wounded teen.

[sharesunited]

30. First degree was a bad verdict. In the anger and emotion of the moment, Second Degree.

[StarsInHerHair]

31. the bad guy was still on the floor...sounds like murder to me-did the cameras

catch the would-be robber making verbal threats as Jerome walked towards him? did it look like the fallen robber was still a threat? sounds like no, so =murder

[ZombieHorde]

32. If employees are likely to be armed, robbers should just shoot them, instead of threaten them.

The robber will almost always have surprise, so the robber should just shoot the employees as quickly as possible.

[sendero]

33. The first shot..

.. justified. The rest, murder. This is really simple and there can only be debate about it among idiots.