Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Contumacious

Oklahoma Medical Examiner : A Liar AND Inept - Employment Terminated

21 posts in this topic

Medical examiner’s woes may affect Jerome Ersland trial

 

Prosecutors are facing a problem in their controversial murder case against the pharmacist who killed a robber. A key expert witness has been called a liar and inept.

The witness, Dr. Collie M. Trant, 61, is the state’s new chief medical examiner. He did the autopsy on the fatally shot robber. It was his first case in Oklahoma after starting last May.

 

Trant was put on paid leave Monday. The board that oversees the medical examiner’s office is expected to fire Trant today. He gets paid $235,000 a year.

 

The Board of Medicolegal Investigations is set to meet at 4 p.m. today in Oklahoma City.

 

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Collie Trant Terminated

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they don’t exactly need Holmes and Watson to figure the punk died of multiple gunshot wounds. So I don’t see why any other forensic pathologist, or just a plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill everyday pathologist, wouldn’t do. It’s not like anyone else would miss the bullet holes. And I’m sure this guy is not the only one of his kind in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, they don’t exactly need Holmes and Watson to figure the punk died of multiple gunshot wounds. So I don’t see why any other forensic pathologist, or just a plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill everyday pathologist, wouldn’t do. It’s not like anyone else would miss the bullet holes. And I’m sure this guy is not the only one of his kind in the state.

 

Whether the first shot to the head was fatal. has been made an issue. So his opinion mattered.

 

.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether the first shot to the head was fatal. has been made an issue. .

 

But in reality, it's just a red herring.

 

Any shots fired after the first, whether or fatal or not, were unnecessary and illegal as there was no longer a threat from the incapacitated unconscious unarmed perp lying motionless on the floor,

 

You are only allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat. The first shot accomplished that quite well. If the threat no longer exists, you cannot keep shooting. Especially after pausing, turning your back, and retrieving a 2nd gun to finish him off.

 

This has been discussed ad naseum in the other thread.

 

The pharmacy clerk went from hero to murder in a matter of a few seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medical examiner’s woes may affect Jerome Ersland trial

 

Prosecutors are facing a problem in their controversial murder case against the pharmacist who killed a robber. A key expert witness has been called a liar and inept.

The witness, Dr. Collie M. Trant, 61, is the state’s new chief medical examiner. He did the autopsy on the fatally shot robber. It was his first case in Oklahoma after starting last May.

 

Trant was put on paid leave Monday. The board that oversees the medical examiner’s office is expected to fire Trant today. He gets paid $235,000 a year.

 

The Board of Medicolegal Investigations is set to meet at 4 p.m. today in Oklahoma City.

 

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Collie Trant Terminated

 

.

 

FYI - Did you know this happened last year (Feb 2010) and your "breaking story" is over a year old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether the first shot to the head was fatal. has been made an issue. So his opinion mattered.

 

.

 

Not if he's a liar and inept, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But in reality, it's just a red herring.

 

Any shots fired after the first, whether or fatal or not, were unnecessary and illegal as there was no longer a threat from the incapacitated unconscious unarmed perp lying motionless on the floor,

 

You are only allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat. The first shot accomplished that quite well. If the threat no longer exists, you cannot keep shooting. Especially after pausing, turning your back, and retrieving a 2nd gun to finish him off.

 

This has been discussed ad naseum in the other thread.

 

The pharmacy clerk went from hero to murder in a matter of a few seconds.

 

That's it in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's it in a nutshell.

 

Lets play a game, if the first shot killed him, then all the rest were into a dead body, that means the charge of 1st degree murder would have to change to something like mutilating a corpse.

 

Can you see the distinction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets play a game, if the first shot killed him, then all the rest were into a dead body, that means the charge of 1st degree murder would have to change to something like mutilating a corpse.

 

Can you see the distinction?

 

Assumes facts not in evidence. The autopsy concludes the 1st shot was "most likely fatal" but in no part does it say that it was immediately fatal. He may have bled to death in 2 minutes, 10 minutes, 2 hours, 5 days, we don't know. No doctor had pronounced him dead, so no one can assume he is dead.

 

But if he was alive, even 1 heartbeat from death, and the pharmacy clerk shot him 5 more times, it's 1st degree murder.

 

(In any case, dead or barely alive, he definitely was no longer a threat that required deadly force)

 

If I cut someone's throat from ear to ear, and they are going to bleed to death in 30 seconds, and as they are on their knees gurgling with their hands around their neck, my friend shoots them in the head with a 12 gauge, is it your position that my friend is not guilty of 1st degree murder, as the victim was going to die anyway?

 

Can you see the distinction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pharmacy clerk went from hero to murder in a matter of a few seconds.

 

I wonder when Americans will again start to think about themselves as FREEPEOPLE who have ALL THE RIGHTS as opposed to subjects in a kingdom where their rights depend on the discretion of the crown.

 

Do you understand the meaning of :

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if he's a liar and inept, right?

 

Unfortunately, according to the narcotized if a PRIVATE CITIZEN is convicted, HOW he was convicted is irrelevant.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets play a game, if the first shot killed him, then all the rest were into a dead body, that means the charge of 1st degree murder would have to change to something like mutilating a corpse.

 

Can you see the distinction?

 

CAn't make Assumptions in court.

 

You make an Arse out of you and umption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assumes facts not in evidence. The autopsy concludes the 1st shot was "most likely fatal" but in no part does it say that it was immediately fatal. He may have bled to death in 2 minutes, 10 minutes, 2 hours, 5 days, we don't know. No doctor had pronounced him dead, so no one can assume he is dead.

 

But if he was alive, even 1 heartbeat from death, and the pharmacy clerk shot him 5 more times, it's 1st degree murder.

 

(In any case, dead or barely alive, he definitely was no longer a threat that required deadly force)

 

If I cut someone's throat from ear to ear, and they are going to bleed to death in 30 seconds, and as they are on their knees gurgling with their hands around their neck, my friend shoots them in the head with a 12 gauge, is it your position that my friend is not guilty of 1st degree murder, as the victim was going to die anyway?

 

Can you see the distinction?

 

You are assuming things that I didn't say, the thread is about the medical examiner, if he ruled that the guy was still alive when the other shots were fired, then of course it is 1st degree murder, if the guy was DEAD, then my argument was it was mutilation of a corpse, of course the Pharmacist would have still had the intent to kill, so I have no idea how the legal system treats this.

 

So my argument was if the guy was DEAD, not alive, I don't think there is any argument about what the verdict should have been if he was alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets play a game, if the first shot killed him, then all the rest were into a dead body, that means the charge of 1st degree murder would have to change to something like mutilating a corpse.

 

Can you see the distinction?

 

No , they won't.

 

Those folks are government supremacists anti-gunners.

 

Jerome Jay Ersland is a private citizen. So , from their standpoint, he is guilty as charged.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No , they won't.

 

Those folks are government supremacists anti-gunners.

 

Lol! You couldn't be father from the truth!

 

I'm a NRA Life Member, and a member of Maryland Shall Issue ( I even attended the Open Holster Rally in Annapolis last summer - did you?) and Maryland Shooters. I've met Dr Suzanne Gratia Hupp and support all her efforts, and agree with Dr John Lott 100% - More Guns, Less Crime.

 

A card-carrying Libertarian and military veteran as well.

 

I also realize the responsibility that comes with possessing and firing a gun, as well as the ramifications of when to use and when not to use deadly force.

 

The pharmacist was a hero with shot #1, and a murderer with shots #2-#5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case, dead or barely alive, he definitely was no longer a threat that required deadly force)

 

Bullshiite:

 

¶4 Title 21 O.S. 1991, § 1289.25, also known as the "Make My Day" Law, provides:

 

 

[16] A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

 

 

[17] B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

 

 

[18] C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M.E.'s Office Pathologist's Qualifications Called into Question

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The qualifications of state pathologist Dr. Chai Choi are being called into question.....

 

"Two pathologists, two medical examiners, say this is a homicide, and we've got Dr. Choi, who is working in this unaccredited Medical Examiner's office, who appears to not even be board certified in anatomic pathology, disagreeing with them and stymieing all law enforcement efforts," Mendros said.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bullshiite:

 

¶4 Title 21 O.S. 1991, § 1289.25, also known as the "Make My Day" Law, provides:

 

 

[16] A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

 

 

[17] B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

 

 

[18] C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

 

.

 

Thanks for proving the prosecution's case once again.

 

No one has any problem with the first shot to the head. Bravo, throw him a ticker tape parade in OK City!

 

But once the threat is over (an unarmed, unconscious, head-wounded and bleeding all over the floor is no longer a threat) any shots would not be reasonable, they would be illegal and therefore murder.

 

Trial evidence shows that the blood under the perps head was undisturbed, clearly a sign that he was no longer a threat. The clerk lied about being shot, he lied about movement, he lied about a lot of things until confronted with the video tape, at that time his whole story changed.

 

I'm done - the jury heard the evidence, they convicted him, he received an appropriate sentence. The wheels of justice keep turning - he is looking for a pardon from the Gov (not an appeal of his conviction - big difference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But once the threat is over (an unarmed, unconscious, head-wounded and bleeding all over the floor is no longer a threat) any shots would not be reasonable, they would be illegal and therefore murder.

 

Nonsense.

 

This is a victory for the anti-gunners and the criminals.

 

Property owners will now have second thoughts about defending the same against someone who has made an unlawful entry .

 

.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense.

 

This is a victory for the anti-gunners and the criminals.

 

Property owners will now have second thoughts about defending the same against someone who has made an unlawful entry .

 

.:rolleyes:

 

Are you saying that any homeowner/shopkeeper is free to fire as many shots as they wish, regardless of the threat level of the intruder/robber?

 

I sure hope not.

 

Most people who carry or have carried understand that deadly force is only legally used to stop the threat. As soon as the threat has stopped, deadly force is against the law.

 

Robber in front of me with gun/knife? I shoot him in the head, he falls, blood gushes from head, involuntary nerve/muscle twitching as he lies unconscious on the floor. Threat is over, deadly force no longer legal.

 

If I walk over to the perp on the ground and fire five more into his chest, I am a murderer.

 

Why is this going over your head? What fantasy world are you living in where you get to pump bullets into a robber after he is no longer a threat to you? :confused:

 

The right we have to use deadly force to defend ourselves/family has limits. Always has, always will.

 

  • Robber pulls gun, I pull gun and tell him to freeze. If he twitches his eyebrow, I put two bullets in his chest - LEGAL
     
  • Robber pulls gun, I pull gun and tell him to freeze. As he whirls around and runs out of the store, I put two bullets in his back - ILLEGAL
     
  • Robber pulls gun, I pull gun and tell him to drop his weapon - He raises it 1 millimeter and I fire two into his head - LEGAL.
     
  • Robber pulls gun, I pull gun and tell him to drop it. He drops it, and I fire two into his head - ILLEGAL.
     
  • Robber pulls gun, I pull gun. He begins to back out of the store while still pointing gun at me. I fire two into his head - LEGAL.
     
  • Robber has hands in pocket and tells me he has a gun, I pull gun. He moves his hand, I fire two rounds into his head - LEGAL.
     
  • Robber has hands in pocket and tells me he has a gun, I pull gun. He removes his hand from his pockets and I see he has a comb, not a gun. I fire two rounds into his chest - ILLEGAL.

 

Carryng and using a gun (openly or CCW) has responsibilities, far beyond what you are willing to adhere to. It's no wonder we are having such a hard time getting approval to make MD a Shall Issue state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that any homeowner/shopkeeper is free to fire as many shots as they wish, regardless of the threat level of the intruder/robber?.

 

Absolutely.

 

The "threat level" is an antigunner bullshiite designed to discourage freemen from using their weapons.

 

A mo'fo' who enters a home or business with a felonious intent has waived all rights.

 

There was NOTHING that the GD state of OK should have done other than to bury the bastard.

 

I can not believe that the state of OK has become so sissified . I would expect that kind of flocked up ruling from NYC.

 

Unflockingbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites