ImprobableJoe
Moderator
Where is the good in committing murder?
Should he "plea out"?
- Thread starter hogdogs
- Start date
I'd acquit him no matter what 
But that's just me.
However, as an attorney, I know this is a difficult one. It's a total crapshoot, most people are pretty weak minded and tend to do what they're told to do, so you get one loud person on a jury and he/she can sway everyone.
Of course you only need 1 strong-willed person to hang a jury, and something tells me the prosecutors don't want to do it twice... I would try to bargain for the best plea deal I could, then let the defendant decide.
Not an easy decision. As a lawyer you need to leave the major decisions to the client and his family.
But that's just me.However, as an attorney, I know this is a difficult one. It's a total crapshoot, most people are pretty weak minded and tend to do what they're told to do, so you get one loud person on a jury and he/she can sway everyone.
Of course you only need 1 strong-willed person to hang a jury, and something tells me the prosecutors don't want to do it twice... I would try to bargain for the best plea deal I could, then let the defendant decide.
Not an easy decision. As a lawyer you need to leave the major decisions to the client and his family.
As I've said before in other threads, Oklahoma law looks quite harshly when the death of a minor is involved. No premeditation is required for a conviction on murder in the 1st degree, and all that need be proven is that Ersland used unreasonable force on Parker.
It really doesn't matter if Parker was moving, twitching, speaking or not. The Castle Defense doesn't allow you to continue to use deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. There was no force from Parker to justify Ersland to return deadly force. Ersland's own actions provide all the information that is needed to realize what he looked like as he presumed himself in imminent threat. He shows us clearly on tape what that looks like. His body language, his tactical mannerism, his presenting of his weapon. And then he shows us how he can use unreasonable force on a downed suspect.
It really doesn't matter if Parker was moving, twitching, speaking or not. The Castle Defense doesn't allow you to continue to use deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. There was no force from Parker to justify Ersland to return deadly force. Ersland's own actions provide all the information that is needed to realize what he looked like as he presumed himself in imminent threat. He shows us clearly on tape what that looks like. His body language, his tactical mannerism, his presenting of his weapon. And then he shows us how he can use unreasonable force on a downed suspect.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, I'd acquit him no matter what.
Problem with most jurors is they listen to the judge, who always tells you that you're just a 'fact finder' as a member of the jury. That's what the courts WANT you to be. You can, however, choose to be anything you want as a juror. Judges want you to believe they have the power, when in fact, you do.
Jury nullification RARELY happens. And I always get booted from voir dire within about 30 seconds 'cause I'm a lawyer.. it's no wonder why, I can't be fooled like so many others
Problem with most jurors is they listen to the judge
, who always tells you that you're just a 'fact finder' as a member of the jury. That's what the courts WANT you to be. You can, however, choose to be anything you want as a juror. Judges want you to believe they have the power, when in fact, you do.Jury nullification RARELY happens. And I always get booted from voir dire within about 30 seconds 'cause I'm a lawyer.. it's no wonder why, I can't be fooled like so many others
viva anarchy
I've got my guns. I can protect myself.
I visited the bay area once years ago, and I vividly remember an old homeless guy saying "The police are far more likely to hurt me than help me." I have a feeling there are lots of people who fall into that same category.
I've got my guns. I can protect myself.
I visited the bay area once years ago, and I vividly remember an old homeless guy saying "The police are far more likely to hurt me than help me." I have a feeling there are lots of people who fall into that same category.
I don't feel nullification is applicable to this case. If you feel the need to nullify capital statute providing protection for minors in lieu of setting a person free who is of highly questionable background, instability, to even blatent disregard to law, then I would question your reasoning ability.
I don't agree with your position or your summation.
rampage841512
New member
I don't believe he unjustifiably killed anyone. I think the law, in this case, is defining 'murder' incorrectly.
rampage841512
New member
I am using my rights as a citizen to work to change the law. However, jury nullification is an accepted and legal way of refusing to be used by government in order to enforce punishment for a law one believes to be immoral.
Just because he is down does not mean that he is incapacitated. I can easily see where a person could see a subject whose hands are moving towards his waistband and perceive a threat.
In a self defense case, the jury must be able to see the incident through the eyes of the shooter. There are a number of questions that must be answered, and I do not think the tape shows us those answers.
The subject was on the ground with a bullet wound to the head. Was he moving? Were his hands moving towards his waistband? Could they have been? If so, could the reasonable person see that movement as a reach for a weapon?
As the defense attorney, I would be tying to do just that- convince the jury that the teen, with his head injury, was posturing. I would show them what decerebate and decorticate posturing looks like. I could use my own expert witness, or better yet, I would get the Medical Examiner to cooborate for the jury what posturing is, and whether it was possible for the teen to have been posturing.
I just think there is a lot of room here for reasonable doubt. This case is not the slam dunk many of you here think it is.
Since you don't live in the state of Oklahoma the point is really moot. The moral duty to obey a given law is "the duty to do as the law states by reason that it is the law." It is immoral to not follow the law. Now if you are saying a law is unethical, please explain to me, from your ethical framework, how you see a law that gives the state prosecutorial rights to bring charges against someone who takes the life of a minor using unreasonable deadly force, how is that unethical. Are you advocating the position that someone who unlawfully uses deadly force on a minor should be allowed to stand free of the consequences of that choice?
If you throw enough crap over on the wall maybe some of it will stick. I've said it before, Ersland's own actions show us what he looked like when he "perceived" imminent threat. The issue you raise doesn't pass the smell test.
"Legally Incapacitated"
Person temporarily or permanently impaired by mental and/or physical deficiency, disability, or illness to the extent he or she lacks sufficient understanding to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions.
Last edited:
Remember that the question is not whether or not the robber was incapacitated, but whether the shooter reasonably believed that he was a threat. I would say that a perp who is moving his hands towards his waistline is still a viable threat, and shooting to engage such a person is still a good shoot.
As a paramedic with over 20 years experience, there are still times when I have trouble immediately identifying a person who is truly incapable of action. Sometimes it takes me a few seconds, and that is more than the shooter had in this case. It is much harder to identify an incapacitated person than you think it is.
For example, about 5 years ago I ran on a police officer whose motorcycle was struck by a car, and it knocked him into the path of another car. When I got there, I thought he was dead. As soon as I touched him to check his pulse, he tried to draw his weapon.
A second one: I saw a man who was partially ejected from his pickup truck who was moving and trying (or so it seemed) to open the car door. When I reached him, all of his brains were lying on the passenger side seat. Obviously dead, yet still moving.
As a paramedic with over 20 years experience, there are still times when I have trouble immediately identifying a person who is truly incapable of action. Sometimes it takes me a few seconds, and that is more than the shooter had in this case. It is much harder to identify an incapacitated person than you think it is.
For example, about 5 years ago I ran on a police officer whose motorcycle was struck by a car, and it knocked him into the path of another car. When I got there, I thought he was dead. As soon as I touched him to check his pulse, he tried to draw his weapon.
A second one: I saw a man who was partially ejected from his pickup truck who was moving and trying (or so it seemed) to open the car door. When I reached him, all of his brains were lying on the passenger side seat. Obviously dead, yet still moving.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
After all this good and reasoned discussion - it does make the point that folks need to think about legal consequences rather than saying - IF IT IS A GOOD SHOOT!
At my local IDPA match today, most of the folks think the pharmacist screwed up and we are gun people.
To the original question - take the plea.
At my local IDPA match today, most of the folks think the pharmacist screwed up and we are gun people.
To the original question - take the plea.