GUILTY OK - Antwon Parker, 16, shot dead in OKC pharmacy robbery, 19 May 2009

[Nova]

If the shooter had been a cop there is a very good chance he would have got 2 or 3 shots into the assailant's chest before he hit the ground (if it had been a single assailant for sure at that range, not sure if they stick with two single shots in the case of dual assailants).

Cops are trained to fire multiple rounds very quickly. Defensive handgun training teaches the same thing, two to the chest one to the head, or aim aside, three rapid rounds to the torso as most hand guns will not drop an attacker with one round. The goal is to cause massive bodily damage very very quickly an ensure the attacker is disabled/dying and incapable of shooting back.

That's true. Good point. (And I, for one, have never criticized police for firing multiple rounds at an armed assailant. I know it sounds bad when the newspapers report that a 14-year-old was shot 82 times, but that's basically 5 or 6 times per officer and I understand that each cop is making sure the threat is neutralized.)

But I'm not sure it changes the problem of leaving, returning, going for another gun and then firing a half-dozen execution shots. Maybe the pharmacist should have done a better of job of shooting in the first place, but he did what he did then. The issue is what he did later.

 

[Nova]

We can certainly make some educated guesses:

1) It is very unlikely that this is the FIRST crime this 16 year old committed.

2) If he had been successful and made a nice chunk of cash out of this robbery (along with the congratulations and admiration of his peers) there would almost certainly have been MORE robberies.

3) Success the first time likely would have emboldened him and he would have gotten better at it, if the pharmacist had cowered and given the assailants the "power/respect/fear" they had anticipated by threatening the victim with a gun he likely would have started weilding his own weapon rather quickly (seeing as how sticking a gun in someone's face isn't really a big deal or nothin'). With repeat attempts there is a good chance he would eventually be involved in the shooting or death of a victim (or some other "innocent" little 16 year old when a dispute arrose over drugs or cash).

4) If he had NOT decided to commit armed robbery he would likely be alive today.

Do you know all of the above? If so, you have access to more facts that I do.

I only know that the 14-year-old pulled out a gun and demanded money.

I don't know what the 16-year-old was doing, what he knew in advance or what he expected to be the outcome.

But I will add that you seem okay with killing people on the ground that they "are likely" to commit crimes in the future. That's a very scary premise, because we can use your statistics to annihilate entire populations.

 

[Sonya610]

Maybe the pharmacist should have done a better of job of shooting in the first place, but he did what he did then. The issue is what he did later.

The pharmacist definitely made some mistakes. Apparently when he fired the 5 shots into the assailants abdomen he clustered the shots so closely together the prosecution is saying that is proof the victim was unconscious, if the victim had been conscious he would have moved after the first shot and the shots would not have been as tightly clustered.

Another interesting article stated the PROSECUTOR became upset when the judge forbid the defendant to keep guns, even at work. the Prosecutor pointed out the defendant could be targeted by local thugs now that he was famous and unarmed, and stated the guy may have to get another job.

The judge said "too bad" he can get another job.

The district attorney said he worried crooks now will know it is "open season” at the pharmacy if Ersland is there. He also said Ersland could be fired.

Prater said the pharmacist would not be in court if the two robbers had not come into the drugstore. The judge said, "Then, why did you charge him, Mr. Prater?” The district attorney replied that Ersland went too far.

A clearly irritated Prater also told the judge, "I’m the one who filed the charge so my butt’s on the line.”

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/po...d-released-after-supporter-arranges-bail.html

No doubt the "my butt is on the line" comment refers to the fall-out if the unarmed pharmacist got gunned down in retaliation.

 

[Sonya610]

I don't know what the 16-year-old was doing, what he knew in advance or what he expected to be the outcome.

What the 16 year old was doing? HE entered the store and put a mask over his head as his friend pulled a gun. I think we can all assume he expected the OUTCOME to be a robbery that yeilded a little cash and a lot of drugs worth a small fortune.

Do you think he expected a different outcome? And if so just what sort of outcome?

But I will add that you seem okay with killing people on the ground that they "are likely" to commit crimes in the future. That's a very scary premise, because we can use your statistics to annihilate entire populations.

No I am fine with killing people that HAVE committed serious violent crimes. I think we would all be amazed how quickly people would smarten up if they knew they would be killed (by a citizen or by the government) for violently threatening honest citizens. The amount of self control these "kids" would be capable of would be utterly astounding!

As far as "annihilating entire populations" are you talking about prison populations or are you implying something else?

 

[Sonya610]

Nova -- I just read a small story in the local paper and it reminded me of you. Well...reminded me of you because I can just imagine what you would think when you read it!

For the record I am not actually Southern nor Redneck by birth, I was born and raised in Northern California; moved to the south several years ago and I find the people here mirror my own thoughts on many issues.

Regardless read the story AND read the comments (click the comment button to view) posted by the locals. The "sticks and stones" comment is hilarious. See I am not the only one that feels this way! Take comfort in the fact the 13 year old was only shot once, the driver didn't walk up and shoot him another few times.


Ga. teen shot after throwing rocks at car

http://www.macon.com/2011/05/08/155...er-throwing-rocks.html#storylink=omni_popular

 

[Nova]

I'm not a micromanager. I don't have any way to anticipate all the possible scenarios. What I do not believe in is placing the onus on the victim to restrict his actions when he is an innocent victim of an unprovoked attack. I do not feel that the law should place him in legal jeopardy for doing what he feels necessary to protect himself. I believe he has the right to defend himself in the way he sees fit until the criminal is in custody, at which point he can consider himself safe.

Does that make sense?

No, not really. Because I feel confident you do NOT mean that if the assailant eludes capture, the victim can gun him down 20 years later. Yet that is what you write in the passage I bolded above.

This is not "micromanaging"; these are the sorts of questions the law must address.

Which is why I asked whether you would at least confine the right of retaliation to the premises where the original attack occurred.

 

[Nova]

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing....

No, we are talking about the same thing, but the fact that jury nullification is difficult to prosecute and therefore rarely charged doesn't make it legal. The CA Supremes have expressly ruled it illegal, which is why a juror who announces during voir dire an intention to ignore the law is removed from the case. And that's all I said in the first place.

I appreciate the essay on the history of jury nullification, but I fear you paint too rosy a picture of its use. Rather than going back to pre-Civil War slavery cases, one might go back just a few decades to find all-white juries in the South ignoring the law and acquitting whites who murdered blacks. (I mean I hope one would have to go back a few decades and such things no longer occur.)

 

[Nova]

What the 16 year old was doing? HE entered the store and put a mask over his head as his friend pulled a gun. I think we can all assume he expected the OUTCOME to be a robbery that yeilded a little cash and a lot of drugs worth a small fortune.

Do you think he expected a different outcome? And if so just what sort of outcome?

Got it. Thanks to you and adnoid, I now know more facts of the case. I'm sure the 16-year-old expected the pharmacist to hand him cash and drugs.

No I am fine with killing people that HAVE committed serious violent crimes. I think we would all be amazed how quickly people would smarten up if they knew they would be killed (by a citizen or by the government) for violently threatening honest citizens. The amount of self control these "kids" would be capable of would be utterly astounding!

As far as "annihilating entire populations" are you talking about prison populations or are you implying something else?

I was being mostly facetious; I'm sure you didn't mean to argue we should exterminate the poor because they are statistically so much more likely to commit violent crimes. Yet that is what your words seemed to suggest, if taken literally.

 

[Nova]

Nova -- I just read a small story in the local paper and it reminded me of you. Well...reminded me of you because I can just imagine what you would think when you read it!

For the record I am not actually Southern nor Redneck by birth, I was born and raised in Northern California; moved to the south several years ago and I find the people here mirror my own thoughts on many issues.

Regardless read the story AND read the comments (click the comment button to view) posted by the locals. The "sticks and stones" comment is hilarious. See I am not the only one that feels this way! Take comfort in the fact the 13 year old was only shot once, the driver didn't walk up and shoot him another few times.


Ga. teen shot after throwing rocks at car

http://www.macon.com/2011/05/08/155...er-throwing-rocks.html#storylink=omni_popular

I took the opposite path: I grew up in Florida and later settled in California (though always in the southern part of the state). I still have many relatives in Florida, however, so I'm fairly familiar with attitudes in the South. Those attitudes aren't so different from beliefs here in Riverside County, where I now live.

What can I say? Yes, I agree that throwing rocks at moving vehicles is dangerous and the 13-year-old should be turned over to the juvenile justice system. No, I don't think children should be shot for throwing rocks.

But the comments to the article reflect a familiar disconnect in American thinking: we have by far and away the largest per capita prison population in the industrialized Western world, yet we (along with our movies and TV shows) constantly tell ourselves that the legal system is so terribly slanted in favor of criminals. It's a form of national insanity.

 

[Nova]

What California statute is violated?

What are the prescribed criminal penalties in California upon conviction of said violation?

What is your point, dude? We've already agreed jury nullification is difficult to prove and rarely if ever prosecuted!

The statute violated is whatever statute covers the oath taken by jurors. They swear to uphold the law. If they don't, then they have violated that oath and that law, whether or not prosecution ever results.

(ETA I rechecked the link I gave you yesterday. The CA Supremes added to the juror's oath a provision under which any juror who hears another argue for nullification is required to report immediately to the judge. At that point, the judge may remove the nullifying juror. I suspect such a judge could in theory hold that juror in contempt, but I'm sure judges are reluctant to do anything that will encourage more people to avoid jury duty.)

 

[Nova]

Then we get into definitions of "venue".

Look, this discussion is going nowhere. The DA decided to charge him. Now the very same prosecutor that got the other participants convicted for murder asked the judge NOT to restrict the pharmacist from having guns due to worries about the pharmacist's safety at work - the judge declined to allow the victim to defend himself, saying he could just get a different job.

It is clear that the choice to charge the victim was quite political. That happens. At this point, if he lives long enough to go to trial now that it's common knowledge he can no longer protect himself, I predict he will not be convicted of 1st degree murder as charged, and I'm reasonable sure he will be completely acquitted. If so, the jury will not have to explain why and I hope they do not.

I do not now, and have never, felt that "the law" and "justice" are synonymous.

Law: "Anyway it'll have to come before the county court. Of course it's a clear cut case of self defense. I'll ahh, well I'll run down to the office... "

Justice: "I may not be much Mr. Finch, but I'm still sheriff of Maycomb County and Bob Ewell fell on his knife. Good night, sir. "

In this case they law, as written, provided that the victim could be charged, and politics determined that he would be charged. Justice will be his acquittal. That's how I see it. Since I don't make my living crafting such laws, I'll be happy to take one that's crafted by someone who knows how to do so that would result in there be no way possible to charge the next victim who does exactly what this pharmacist did and work to introduce it in the state where I live. If the victim is convicted here, I think you will see a lot of that sort of activity (outside of a couple of states, of course).

I agree the discussion is going "nowhere" in the sense that we two Californians are apt to change Oklahoma law.

But I think the conversation is productive if we care what we each think and why we think it. I've said I'm content with CA law, but think it was improperly applied in the case of JBean's son. You are not content with CA law, so I was trying to figure out how you would define the right of self-defense differently.

Obviously, you don't have to participate.

I'll be very surprised if the OK pharmacist is convicted. As Sonja's link above shows, the prosecutor seems to have lost his enthusiasm for the case in the face of overwhelming public outrage.

FWIW, I don't know if the original charge was politically motivated. What I see on the tape is clearly an unwarranted execution. I would most likely convict only on a lessor offense because I understand that the pharmacist, as a robbery victim, was under the influence of extreme emotional distress; but I'll never agree that it should be legal to "reload" (in this case, go and get another gun) and return to the incapacitated assailant to deliver the kill shot(s).

 

[jjenny]

The pharmacist could only be convicted of lesser offense if lesser charges are included. As far as I know he has been charged with first degree murder.

 

[Nova]

The pharmacist could only be convicted of lesser offense if lesser charges are included. As far as I know he has been charged with first degree murder.

That is true. I don't know whether the defense will ask that voluntary and involuntary manslaughter be included; the thinking is often that if given a "compromise" charge, a jury will take it as the easy way out. Given the support for the defendant shown in the polls, the defense here may well decide to go for broke.

But even if and when the defense requests lesser included charges, then the judge has to decide whether a reasonable interpretation of the evidence can support a lesser offense. (This is why the decision to include lesser charges often isn't made until just before the case goes to the jury.)

Since I don't know how manslaughter is defined in OK, I have no opinion as to how the judge might rule.

 

[Nova]

Actually, I live in Nevada. I used to live in California, I was born there, but I moved up to Lake Tahoe in the 1990s and have never had a desire to live in California again - at least in the current political and economic climate.

We'll see how this goes. For the record, I do understand your point of view, I believe I understand it quite well, I just don't agree with it. Unless the DA decides to drop the charges, which I don't see happening right now, this will go to a jury and the result will be what it will be. There could be all kinds of results. It's possible that an acquittal could be precedent for giving victims even more benefit of the doubt, thus resulting in the next similar case not being charged since DAs don't like to lose. It's possible that a conviction could spur changes in the law to get the same result via legislation.

The bottom line for me again, and I know you do not agree, is that the criminals set all this in motion so they own the results. I consider it morally wrong that the victim suffers at all - based on the specific facts in this case that I know of at this point. If what he did in this case was a violation of the law, the law is just plain wrong.

My bad on where you live. For the record, California has grown a lot more conservative over the years, thanks to immigration from conservative states, but even more so thanks to the aging of its population. It's really only the three biggest cities (SF, LA, SD) and a few counties along the coast (Marin, say) that skew liberal. Even large cities in the interior (such as Riverside, my county seat) are predominantly Republican and conservative.

***

I never doubted that you understood my view. I was just trying to understand how you would define the law differently.

Despite the jokes about knuckle-dragging, I know you are in fact very smart and certainly not unkind by nature; since we often disagree, I'm always interested in where you would draw lines instead.

For the record, I understand the sympathy toward this pharmacist and the belief that he is being held to too high a standard of conduct under pressure. Frankly, I think his behavior owes not just a little to the myths we constantly tell ourselves about how the "bad guy" must be finished off no matter what.

If I were the pharmacist's lawyer, I'd be arguing cultural context in addition to the idea that the wounded robber's involuntary movements were reasonably interpreted to be threatening.

 

[Sonya610]

I was being mostly facetious; I'm sure you didn't mean to argue we should exterminate the poor because they are statistically so much more likely to commit violent crimes. Yet that is what your words seemed to suggest, if taken literally.

Why would I want to get rid of poor people? There are a lot of decent poor people. Sheesh the "greatest generation" grew up dirt poor during the depression (yet oddly they weren't out raping and robbing despite their financial state).

Poor has nothing to do with it, you just like to think that is the cause because it is a warm and fuzzy reason. Fact is crime rates skyrocket in certain areas regardless of middle class or poor. I have lived in it when a neighborhood went through a rapid change, the neighbors were not poor yet in a few short years darn near every business in the area had been robbed.

 

[Nova]

Why would I want to get rid of poor people? There are a lot of decent poor people. Sheesh the "greatest generation" grew up dirt poor during the depression (yet oddly they weren't out raping and robbing despite their financial state).

Poor has nothing to do with it, you just like to think that is the cause because it is a warm and fuzzy reason. Fact is crime rates skyrocket in certain areas regardless of middle class or poor. I have lived in it when a neighborhood went through a rapid change, the neighbors were not poor yet in a few short years darn near every business in the area had been robbed.

Sonya, I KNOW you wouldn't actually advocate exterminating the poor; that's why I said my response was facetious.

But when we start talking about a kid who has been killed and whether the killing was justified--AND THEN somebody mentions the probabilities of that kid's future conduct--we are in the territory of suggesting killing can be justified by probabilities. And in fact, that argument has been used historically to justify exterminating blacks, Jews, the poor, Armenians, etc. and so forth.

NONETHELESS, I knew you meant nothing of the kind. I was just kidding.

***

Crime skyrockets in "certain" neighborhoods and it has nothing to do with income levels. Then what IS the cause?

 

[flourish]

I've been lurking on this thread since I just heard of it the other week ago. At first, I was like, "This is preposterous! That pharmacist was totally in the right!" I watched the video, and felt like the pharmacist looked pretty calm, and wished I could see what perp on ground was doing, but he was out of camera range. But I still felt fine with it as it was all happening so fast and such.

I also read all your thoughts, and while I was immediately drawn to some, others kept haunting me a bit. So I let it all percolate in my head for a while. Then I asked my DH what he thought, poor guy he is so sick of crime questions and thinks I'm "morbid," and we discussed it, and then I pondered some more. Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth:

The first shot=Excellent, no problems with that at all, completely called for, in his rights, and not a problem.

Chasing after second guy=Probably not the best idea. I understand there was adrenaline, and probably some understandable anger, but unless there's a back door, he would not know whether or not the other employees had gotten out safely and even then it's possibly that another perp had broken into said back door--the pharmacist couldn't tell because he was running after they other guy.

Coming back in=Re-entering with caution is fine with me. From the video where we can't actually see guy on ground, it looks like pharmacist kinda walked around him to go around the counter. I realized later that IIRC, he walked PAST THE PHONE to go get the other gun, then walked PAST THE PHONE AGAIN on his way to the perp on ground.

Here's the problem I have with that. He could have easily stopped after getting other gun, kept it trained on perp on ground, and dialed 911...it looked like that phone was the type to have a speaker phone IIRC, and even if not, I'm certain he could have held the phone while staying within eye-line of both the perp on ground and the door, and kept 911 on the phone.

I realize that I can't say what I would do in that situation. My best guess is that I'd start crying, probably pee my pants, give them whatever they wanted, and then manage to call 911 while going into emotional shock. Assuming I didn't get some serious firearm training between now and said hypothetical situation--I've shot a gun before, but if I was going to need one at work I'd get a heck of a lot more practice.

As for the lawsuit aspect, I can totally see ziggy's point made up-thread. I think it's sad & pathetic that our system has gotten to the point where that's even something to think about. But even so, if the pharmacist had been thinking, "Better make sure this %^$#er is really dead so he can't sue me," ---well, that's not really okay in my book, either...that's not self-defense, that's a twisted kind of the bad kind of "CYA," IMHO. I hope I'm never in a situation where I have to think about any of these things in regards to my own life.

Anyway, I do think that First Degree is harsh and a bit much, but my final answer is that the pharmacist did cross the line, while I continue to have an incredible amount of sympathy for him and his family.

As for the perps, I am sad that these young boys didn't have anything more worthwhile and enticing to do than this--like a constructive hobby and a safe neighborhood/home-life/general environment. But, yeah, when you enter someone's property and try to forcibly deny them their rights, you are taking the chance that you're going DOWN.

eace:

 

[JBean]

Interesting Flourish. I showed one of my sons the video with no information, just the video and set it up as a robbery and asked him for his impression.

He did not know about the charges or the controversy swirling around this video.

he watched it a few times and said, wow that guy executed that kid.

 

[jjenny]

Some people assume that "if you give them what they want" they will let you live. Doesn't always go like that. Especially when you are talking about 14 year old with a gun, who is most likely nervous and does not know how to use that gun. And by the way, just because 16 year old is dead, does not mean the pharmacist can not be sued by his family. Killing him wasn't going to eliminate civil lawsuits.

 

[Nova]

Some people assume that "if you give them what they want" they will let you live. Doesn't always go like that. Especially when you are talking about 14 year old with a gun, who is most likely nervous and does not know how to use that gun. And by the way, just because 16 year old is dead, does not mean the pharmacist can not be sued by his family. Killing him wasn't going to eliminate civil lawsuits.

Jenny, I think most people here understand that submitting to an armed robber's demands isn't perfect protection, which is why nobody blames the pharmacist for pulling out his gun and firing the first shot.

As flourish and Jbean point out, however, it's the apparent execution some time later that some of us think should be illegal.

Good point about lawsuits. Finishing off the kid is no guarantee against them, I agree.