The recent shooting of a criminal attempting to rob his store by fifty-seven-year-old pharmacist Jerome Ersland in Oklahoma City raises the question of what is justified in defending itself and what is out of line. It also provides a good introduction to this article and an excellent example in the legal chapter of a book I’m working on. Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder for killing 16-year-old Antwun Parker, one of two criminals who entered Ersland’s store. Parker’s partner brandished a pistol before Ersland shot the two in self-defense with his own firearm. However, after hitting Parker in the head, knocking him unconscious on the ground, and chasing the armed criminal out into the street, Ersland returned, obtained another firearm, and returned to Parker, still lying on the ground, and fired five shots at Parker. Parker. abdomen, shots that the coroner says killed Parker.
Without going into too much legal jargon for this short article, I want to cover the basics to legally defend yourself using physical force against another person, there must be three factors present.
1. means
2. opportunity
3. intention
At first, it seems that all three were present. The criminals buried the store brandishing a weapon. One had a firearm so he had the means (easily accessible tools or skills to commit the crime). They had an opportunity (immediately favorable conditions to commit the crime) because they were right there in the store ready to rob it. From a reasonable standpoint, it appeared on the videotape that they had intent (mental state at the time of the crime). Why else would you break into a store waving a firearm (and I don’t know what they demanded) if it wasn’t for the intent to commit a crime?
From everything I saw on the surveillance video, it seemed that Ersland was justified in defending himself when the criminals stormed into his store brandishing a firearm and demanding whatever they demanded. Even District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting Parker once in the head.
However, Prater stated that the teen was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
In general, a person is only justified in using deadly force to stop the threat, and the threat must be one that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The force you use must be reasonable, which means the level of force that a reasonable person would use in a similar situation. That’s the big question. What would a reasonable person do in the same situation?
I think it’s reasonable to use deadly force, Ersland’s firearm, when criminals break into your store with their own firearms. However, going back and shooting Parker when he was no longer a threat goes beyond the general rule of being able to use deadly force to stop the threat. This is why Ersland is being charged with murder, and this is where the legal system will have to determine based on all the evidence and circumstances whether what Ersland did was reasonable. If no plea agreement is reached, a jury of Ersland peers will determine the outcome of this tragic event.
I say tragic because I think it’s always tragic when people get robbed and killed. This incident affects many more than Parker and Ersland. I am 100% in favor of the right of people to defend themselves, which is why I teach hapkido and self-defense classes, including the use of firearms. But we must also know the law and make sure that what we do stays within the parameters set by our society. I want people to avoid criminal charges should they ever need to use empty-handed or weapon skills to defend themselves or others.
If you practice self-defense or have a weapon to defend yourself or your loved ones, and I think everyone should because defending yourself is your responsibility because you are the only one who will be there in a time of dire need, then you should also familiarize yourself with the laws. relating to the justified use of force. You must know when it is justified and what use of force is allowed for different situations. By learning this beforehand and incorporating it into your self-defense scenario-based training, you’ll be better prepared to defend yourself against bad guys and won’t have to defend yourself from criminal prosecution for crossing the line in self-defense.