Investigators say Ashley Ruhland’s account after Justin Emmick’s death did not match what they found at the rural shooting scene.
LE MARS, Iowa — The woman who called 911 after Justin F. Emmick was fatally shot on a remote Plymouth County property told authorities she had acted in self-defense. Investigators say the scene led them to a different conclusion. Ashley M. Ruhland, 35, is now charged with first-degree murder, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for trial Nov. 3 in the death of the 49-year-old rural Sioux City man.
The divide between Ruhland’s initial explanation and the state’s allegations is at the center of the developing criminal case. According to a complaint described by multiple news organizations, Ruhland told law enforcement that the shooting came down to “either him or me.” Authorities, however, said they found no evidence indicating that she was in danger from Emmick when the shots were fired. They alleged that Emmick was struck from behind and that Ruhland had no injuries. Those conclusions helped turn the person who summoned emergency help into the defendant in a first-degree murder prosecution. Ruhland’s not-guilty plea means those assertions remain disputed and must be proved in court rather than treated as established facts.
The emergency response began at about 3:10 p.m. July 29. The Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office said it received a report of a shooting at an acreage in the 31000 block of K-18S, north of Sioux City. Deputies and Akron EMS were dispatched. When the first deputy arrived, the caller directed the deputy to a remote portion of the property where Emmick was located. Emergency personnel began lifesaving efforts, but he was pronounced dead at the scene by the county medical examiner. The sheriff’s office subsequently identified Ruhland as the caller and said investigators determined that she was responsible for the shooting.
What had been happening before the 911 call was unusual enough to become a major part of the complaint. Court records cited in news reports say Ruhland had been temporarily staying at Emmick’s acreage. The two had gone to a secluded corner of the property to shoot at targets. Authorities said Ruhland had previously told family members that she wanted a gun for protection and that Emmick planned to teach her how to shoot. At some point during that outing, investigators allege, she fired twice at him. Authorities said one shot struck Emmick in the back and another struck him in the head. Publicly available accounts do not give a complete moment-by-moment reconstruction of what happened before the first shot.
The statements attributed to Ruhland after the shooting suggest she was describing an urgent threat, but the publicly reported complaint provides only fragments rather than a full interview. Law enforcement said she made remarks akin to “it’s got to be now, or it’s going to be me,” as well as “it was either him or me.” Investigators also reported that she said, “I didn’t want him to suffer.” The available reports do not establish precisely when each statement was made, what questions preceded the remarks or whether Ruhland gave a longer explanation of why she believed she was in danger. That missing context could matter as attorneys argue over what the statements mean and how they fit with physical evidence.
The allegation that Emmick was shot from behind is the clearest point investigators have cited in rejecting the self-defense claim. The complaint also emphasizes that Ruhland was uninjured. Prosecutors could use those circumstances in arguing that the force was not a response to an imminent threat. The defense, however, has not yet presented its full case in a public trial, and an absence of visible injury does not by itself establish everything that occurred before a shooting. The public reports reviewed do not contain forensic reports, photographs, autopsy documentation, firearms testing or a full transcript of the 911 call. Those materials, if admitted, could provide jurors with a more complete basis for evaluating the competing accounts.
The case also includes a protection order involving the same two people. Authorities and local media reports say Ruhland was the protected party in an order against Emmick, even though she had been staying at his acreage for several days before his death. The available sources do not spell out the factual basis for that order, its precise terms or the circumstances that brought Ruhland to the property despite it. The existence of the order could become relevant to the defense’s account of her fear, but it does not automatically establish that deadly force was justified at the moment Emmick was shot. Likewise, her presence at the property does not on its own resolve the history between them.
Iowa’s justification law focuses on what a person reasonably believes is necessary when confronted with an imminent use of unlawful force. State law says reasonable force can include deadly force when the circumstances support a reasonable belief that it is necessary to avoid injury or a threat to life or safety. It also says a lawfully present person who is not engaged in illegal activity generally has no duty to retreat before using force allowed by the statute. Those provisions make the immediate circumstances important. The legal question is not simply whether Ruhland said she was afraid, but whether the evidence supports the type of reasonable belief and response recognized by Iowa law.
Prosecutors have chosen the state’s most serious homicide charge. Iowa law defines first-degree murder in part as a killing committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, and classifies the offense as a Class A felony. A conviction carries life imprisonment without parole, according to Iowa law and the local court reports covering Ruhland’s case. The charging decision signals the theory prosecutors intend to pursue, but it is not proof of premeditation. The state will have to establish the required elements, while Ruhland can contest the prosecution’s reconstruction and rely on any defenses supported by the evidence and permitted by the court.
Ruhland was taken to the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office following the investigation at the acreage and was later charged by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, according to the sheriff’s office. She was booked into the Plymouth Jail and initially held without bond. The sheriff’s office said its deputies and the state investigative agency were jointly handling the case, with help from the Iowa State Patrol, Le Mars police, Hinton police and Akron EMS. Officials said soon after the arrest that they would not release more details because the investigation was continuing, leaving the charging documents and subsequent court filings as the primary public sources about the state’s theory.
The case moved through its first court stages in August. Ruhland appeared in court Aug. 10, when a judge advised her of the charge and set an arraignment. A written arraignment filed Aug. 21 entered a not-guilty plea on her behalf. The filing also demanded a speedy trial. By Sept. 1, court scheduling reported by KTIV and KLEM showed an Oct. 20 pretrial hearing and a Nov. 3 trial date in Plymouth County District Court. The scheduled proceeding could bring motions over evidence, statements and the legal instructions that would govern a self-defense claim. Criminal trial calendars can change, but no later source reviewed reported a different date.
Several important parts of the encounter remain outside the current public record. It is not clear from the reviewed reports what specific action Ruhland says Emmick took immediately before she fired, how far apart they were, whether either person said anything in the seconds before the shooting or what forensic evidence investigators recovered from the target area. The record available to the public also does not answer who possessed or owned the firearm used. Those unanswered questions prevent the early charging narrative from serving as a substitute for a full presentation of evidence.
For now, Ruhland remains charged with first-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty. Unless the case is resolved before then, the Oct. 20 pretrial hearing and Nov. 3 trial are the next publicly reported steps. The prosecution’s assertion that the physical evidence contradicts self-defense and Ruhland’s claim that she acted to protect herself are competing positions that have not yet been decided by a judge or jury.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 8, 2026.