Jerome Ersland's Shooting Of Would-Be Robber Sparks Debate (VIDEO)
Jerome Ersland

First Posted: 06/ 1/11 03:44 PM ET Updated: 06/ 1/11 03:44 PM ET



The case of a white Oklahoma merchant recently convicted of killing an armed black teenager attempting to rob his store has sparked a national debate.

To critics, 59-year-old pharmacist Jerome Ersland is a gun-toting vigilante who dealt out his own brand of murderous justice. To admirers, Ersland is a courageous and law-abiding hero whose actions were justified. The controversial case became even more volatile Thursday when a jury found Ersland guilty of first-degree murder for the 2009 slaying of 16-year-old Antwun Parker.

Since last week's verdict, supporters of Ersland have collected nearly 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for his release. Oklahoma State Sen. Ralph Shortey (R) also pledged his assistance.

"I’m gonna spend the rest of my career, however long it may be, trying to right this wrong," Shortey told ABC News.

The division is also evident online, within several social media websites. One group in support of Ersland recently popped up on Facebook. Titled "Jerome Ersland should not have been found guilty," the group has more than 3,000 members. Groups against Ersland’s release, such as the Facebook group "Do Not Free Jerome Ersland," are also starting to gain momentum, The Daily Mail reported.

The controversy in the case stems from a May 19, 2009, incident in which Parker and another young man burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City. The men, armed and wearing ski masks, allegedly ordered two female employees working behind the counter to give them money and drugs. Instead, the two women ran to the back of the store.

The men then allegedly pointed their guns at Ersland. The pharmacist drew his own weapon, a small semiautomatic handgun he had in his pocket, and fired at Parker, striking the youth in the head. Surveillance video from inside the store captured Parker’s fall to the ground as Ersland chased his accomplice from the store.

WATCH:

When Ersland stepped back inside the store, he retrieved a Kel-Tec .380 from a nearby drawer and shot Parker five more times. The shooting occurred off camera, so Parker’s posture at the time remains unclear.

"I feel that [people have] a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people [who] want to take money when they don’t work for it," Ersland said in a May 22, 2009, interview with The Oklahoman.

"That’s what the Second Amendment and the state’s concealed carry license are for," he continued.

During Ersland’s trial, his lawyer, Irven Box, claimed the shooting was self-defense. He said Parker was still moving and was still a threat.

"He eliminated the armed robber," Box said in court..

Prosecutors, however, argued that Ersland acted beyond the limits of self-defense.

"This defendant was absolutely not defending himself or anyone else," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Chance told the jury.

The jury deliberated for more than four hours before it found Ersland guilty and recommended a sentence of life in prison for the former Air Force lieutenant colonel.

Ersland is scheduled for formal sentencing on July 11. If the judge follows the jury's recommendation, he will not be eligible for parole until he serves at least 38 years behind bars.

What do you think: Self-defense or murder?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/jerome-ersland-shooting_n_869850.html?icid=maing-grid7|customfirefox|dl1|sec1_lnk3|67538

First off a shot to the head? That is pretty much guaranteeing death and then to come back and shoot five more times?

That is not self defense that is murderous hatred.

I do hope the court upholds this verdict in the future to show that this kind of action will not be tolerated.

This is a perfect example of the reason gun toting is not a good idea for folks. It could end up with you in jail for life or at least 38 years.

The way I see it is if you attempt to commit a crime and are injured you should not be entitled to anything, if the perp is killed in the act of committing a violent crime there should be no charges filed.

Two guys wearing masks come in with GUNS and try to rob a pharmacy for money and drugs. It's self defense. If the person is shot but still alive on the ground with access to the weapon and still moving it's self defense.

This whole case is self defense.

Some crazy drug addicts came in and tried to rob a store and got what they deserve, no big deal. Next case.

the law is clear on these matters... when he came back in and shot him, whether it be once or five times, thats murder...he had a chance to leave, but he choose to come back and make sure he is dead... that is not self defence, that is murder

I've read way to many different stories on this. Some have said he went outside then came back in and finished shooting the man.

Personally, reading this, I would have gone with self-defense, although maybe some overkill. But I cannot and will not judge someone elses's adrenaline rush.

And no, not all *single* head shots are guaranteed death shots. After all Giffords survived her attack by the nutcase.

the law states if you have a way out, then use it, don't stick around and keep killing... guns are for protection, not murder

that video shows it's murder... he went outside after he shot one, came back in and got another gun, the went and finished the kid off... the courts are right, in this case... but i'm still not sure why it's a black and white thing though...

Here in Colorado we have the "make my day" law. Every state should have this.

Make my day is only for home type invasions, it doesn't cover your job.

Nor does it cover murder like this was.

texas has the same type law, but your life has to be in danger, meaning you can't chase someone down and kill them... if they are leaving, let them go.

This pharmacist did a huge community service ridding the community of that piece of garbage.

He should be given a medal, not jail.

Self defense anywhere is legal.

"This is a perfect example of the reason gun toting is not a good idea for folks."

This is pretty funny..

Maybe you should have added "this is a perfect example of why you should not attempt to rob someone."

I am not at all surprised that you took the side of the person that perpetrated the robbery attempt.

With that said..

He shouldn't have shot the dude 5 more times. They found no weapon on the dead criminals person, so to say this was a justified shooting is debatable.

These are the types of cases that give people like you know who ammunition to spout off...

Case in point...

any verdict that convicts the victim of a crime is not justice.

He was not committing a crime. He was trying to prevent a crime that was happening to him.

The victim, who was truly not expecting to have a gun pointed in his face, may have overreacted, but he is still a victim. To be charged with 1st degree murder is insane.

That is saying anyone under incredible duress should be clear headed and make good logical decisions. He still had his employees in the store that he was concerned about as well...

Okay, so I re-read it this morning with a functioning brain. When I read it last night, I didn't catch that he had run out and then come back in and shot the guy. I remembered hearing it but had a read it differently.

So, yes, this is no longer self-defense but out and out murder. If he had just shot the guy multiple times, straight out, then I still would have said self-defense. But then that's how I was taught. If attacked, empty the gun into the person.

watch the video, the storeower was clearly in the wrong...

i agree, and not only that, he switched guns to shoot him 5 more times

oh nice....tell that to his mother

i guess you forget the that he or his buddy stuck a gun in the guys face...not the act of an angel... even tho the store owner broke the law, the kid got what he deserved