Wow. Far be it from me to throw someone under the bus for a clean shoot, but this was anything but...

I would bet he will not be convicted by an Oklahoma jury. I do not like what he did but stress affects can affect everyone differently. I do think the video and evidence shows he used greater force than required but he did not bate them into the store. My guess is he will get a hung jury if it gets to a jury. Not a good situation at all.

After watching the DA's explanation and watching the video, I think Mr. Ersland is in a world of crap. I think he undoubtedly went too far.

Granted, it's hard to know how one will react given a situation like that, but I would hope my judgment would be different.

I think he's screwed, honestly. This goes beyond greater force. He killed someone who was no longer a threat. That's not self-defense, it's murder.

-Mark

At that point it wasn't self defense, the guy was unconscious, that was an execution.

/begin-smartass/
Should we open the can of worms that if he had used enough gun in the first place...
/end-smartass/

Nah. Of the two guns he had at his disposal, both were adequate if his initial shot was placed well. Had he been more accurate, he might have stopped there, and may not have made the mistake he did.

I am not it wasn't an execution. I am saying that a jury may just let him get off.

I think there's a big difference from a scenario where say firing 3-4 shots which would probably have stopped the threat or emptying a whole clip into someone in one quick motion which could maybe be justified. Versus something like this where he walks back past the guy laying shot on the floor, gets another firearm, stands over him and fires 5 more shots point blank while he is down. This is so far over the line that this guy is toast unless he gets a very sympathetic jury.

The video never shows the deceased after the first shot. (As far as I could tell.) The DA can argue he was unconscious when Ersland shot him the second time but that's just an argument. We can't see from the video if the deceased was moving or not.

The arguments about putting the first gun down and turning his back are also weak. The first gun was probably empty (useless) at that point. If it wasn't empty why get the second one? Ersland isn't a cop. I doubt he has had any training on keeping an eye on the "threat" at all times. The DA is making his case to the jury pool in advance to goad Ersland into pleading out. I hope he fights it, but it's neither my money nor my freedom.

Could go either way -- that's what the jury is for.

The video conflicts with his earlier version of what happened.


He came back into the pharmacy and then shot the perp who was down.

I really think he should have kept his mouth shut.

That's what I think will seal the deal- his original story has very little to do with the video...

A good defense attorney could argue.......... stress effects?

An attorney can argue anything they like.

There's all sorts of possibilities -- and I'm not saying that any of these happened, or are likely, or will make a difference, but I've got some questions -- and please don't infer what you think my answers are, because nobody knows what my answers are, even me:

What if the first shot -- the one to the head -- killed the robber? What crime is committed when, in fact, one shoots a dead person? (Sure, there are some -- but is it murder?)

We don't see the shootie when he was on the floor. Did he make one of those "furtive motions" that, when a cop pulls a trigger on somebody who turns out to be unarmed, becomes the legal justification?

Was he running on adrenaline and temporarily unable to comport himself as required by law?

I dunno about any of this, but I am going to be doing some research over the next few days, and talking about his case in the obvious place, this weekend.