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

[jjenny]

And I am sure that this is one of the reasons the prosecutor wants jurors to visit the pharmacy in person.

Then I think the defense should be allowed to invite in two teens with a gun as well, for authenticity's sake.
After all, the jury should get the full experience.

 

[Nova]

[snipped for space]

I do. The pharmacy is located in an area that, when I was growing up in OKC, was largely white. Today it's a racial mix but I am pretty sure whites and Hispanics make up the majority. Middle to lower-middle class.

As far as the DA's district, Oklahoma City is 68% white, 15% African American, and 10% Latino.

Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html

I just don't see a lot of political capital being earned by anyone for prosecuting this case. As I said already, seems more like political suicide to me.

ETA: I moved away from OKC years ago but do occasionally go back for visits.

I don't pretend to know anything about OKC politics (and I could be wrong as to what adnoid was implying), but the fact remains that the prosecutor charged according to the letter of the law. It's fine that posters feel the law is too exacting under these circumstances, but that doesn't make the prosecutor a political hack.

He may very well want to drop the charges (or lessen the charge), but feel he cannot under OK law at the time of the shooting.

 

[jjenny]

I don't pretend to know anything about OKC politics (and I could be wrong as to what adnoid was implying), but the fact remains that the prosecutor charged according to the letter of the law. It's fine that posters feel the law is too exacting under these circumstances, but that doesn't make the prosecutor a political hack.

He may very well want to drop the charges (or lessen the charge), but feel he cannot under OK law at the time of the shooting.

Prosecutors do it all the time-they drop the charges, they don't file charges, they plea deal. There is no law that says the pharmacist must go on trial on first degree murder charges.

 

[Nova]

Well did the pharmacist even know the would be robber was shot in the head? How do you know the would be robber wasn't moving? After all even if he was seriously wounded he could have been making noises and twitching. Why do you assume he wasn't? You are assuming the pharmacist knew the would be robber was incapacitated. I don't assume any such thing. And it's definitely not the same as tying someone up and then shooting them.

I don't assume the robber wasn't moving or making noises. I haven't accused the pharmacist of lying about that.

What I have said is basically a summary of the prosecution's position, that the pharmacist's ACTIONS reveal he knew the injured robber wasn't a threat.

The prosecution may also argue that the pharmacist lying to LE shows consciousness of guilt, but personally I'm not fond of that sort of argument. Scared people often lie out of fear and a sense of helplessness; unless the lie is very specifically telling, I don't draw any assumptions from that.

***

Are we arguing the facts and the law here, or just venting our personal fears and emotions?

I ask because saying "it's definitely not the same thing as tying someone up" doesn't make it so. Legally, restraining someone with a gunshot to the head is very much the same thing as tying him up. (If, in fact, the gunshot restrained him; the defense is free to and certainly will argue that the robber was NOT incapacitated. That will then become a fact for the jury to determine at trial. But in the meantime, we are discussing the law under the facts given to us. If those facts turn out not to be true, then the entire equation may change.)

 

[Nova]

Prosecutors do it all the time-they drop the charges, they don't file charges, they plea deal. There is no law that says the pharmacist must go on trial on first degree murder charges.

Prosecutors have ethical obligations based on the facts as they know them.

My point was not that the prosecutor doesn't have the technical power to drop the charges, but that given his view of the facts, he may well believe he has an ethical obligation to proceed to trial.

 

[jjenny]

Prosecutors have ethical obligations based on the facts as they know them.

My point was not that the prosecutor doesn't have the technical power to drop the charges, but that given his view of the facts, he may well believe he has an ethical obligation to proceed to trial.

Prosecution has the burden of proof. He'd have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So I presume he has to believe he can do it, otherwise he is wasting time and resources.

 

[Nova]

Prosecution has the burden of proof. He'd have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So I presume he has to believe he can do it, otherwise he is wasting time and resources.

Absolutely. Agreed.

Again, the prosecution in this case seems to believe that the pharmacist's actions (stepping over the wounded robber, turning his back on him, etc.) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pharmacist knew the robber no longer represented an imminent threat.

The defense will try to argue that the noises and (possibly involuntary) motions of the wounded kid gave the pharmacist a different impression.

In theory, the defense has a problem in that those noises and motions weren't captured on camera. But in practice, public sentiment may be such that the jury has no trouble believing the pharmacist.

Personally, I don't believe the pharmacist because he thought it more important to talk about his belief that his teenage employee had been killed (which makes his shooting a revenge killing) and only mentioned the robber's alleged noises and motions (the supposed threat) when prompted by Bill O'Reilly. Added to his actions caught on tape, I think it's clear he executed the robber. I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but that's against the law.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

The prosecution may also argue that the pharmacist lying to LE shows consciousness of guilt, but personally I'm not fond of that sort of argument. Scared people often lie out of fear and a sense of helplessness; unless the lie is very specifically telling, I don't draw any assumptions from that.

I agree to a certain extent, but not in this case.

First Ersland said he shot Parker the additional five times on his way out chasing Ingram.

If that had been true, IMO we would not be here, because any reasonable person could conclude that all those shots were fired in self-defense.

But then Ersland changed his story to Parker moving and making noises on the floor after just the first shot, so he had to shoot him again to protect himself.

Those are two wildly varying accounts, and given that the surveillance video clearly showed the first one wasn't true, I think Ersland then had to come up with a story by which he could claim self-defense. Which to me is a very specifically telling lie that does indicate consciousness of guilt.

For the record, I have no sympathy for Parker; if you are killed while attempting a violent crime, too bad, so sad, you made a choice that didn't turn out so well for you.

On the other hand, I don't believe in vigilante justice either. Not saying that's necessarily what I think happened here; I just don't know.

Barring more evidence than what we've seen, I think that jury will have a tough decision to make.

 

[Nova]

I agree to a certain extent, but not in this case.

First Ersland said he shot Parker the additional five times on his way out chasing Ingram.

If that had been true, IMO we would not be here, because any reasonable person could conclude that all those shots were fired in self-defense.

But then Ersland changed his story to Parker moving and making noises on the floor after just the first shot, so he had to shoot him again to protect himself.

Those are two wildly varying accounts, and given that the surveillance video clearly showed the first one wasn't true, I think Ersland then had to come up with a story by which he could claim self-defense. Which to me is a very specifically telling lie that does indicate consciousness of guilt.

For the record, I have no sympathy for Parker; if you are killed while attempting a violent crime, too bad, so sad, you made a choice that didn't turn out so well for you.

On the other hand, I don't believe in vigilante justice either. Not saying that's necessarily what I think happened here; I just don't know.

Barring more evidence than what we've seen, I think that jury will have a tough decision to make.

Very well argued: you convinced me!

I don't have sympathy for Parker either (though I also don't know much about him: some people are driven to desperate measures by desperate circumstances), and even if I did, it wouldn't change the pharmacist's actions under the law.

And I do think we have to follow laws in terms of defining justifiable homicide. We can't decide these things based on everyone's fears concerning crime. If it's true that Texas actually allows business owners to fire away while chasing robbers down the street, that is indeed madness! Even setting aside ethical considerations, it's bad public safety.

 

[Nova]

Nope. Not the point at all. Race is not what I was thinking of.

I was not looking for comparisons between the cases, but on the motivation behind the prosecution. BotV is, of course, fiction although pretty damned close to the reality in NYC at the time it was set.

The duty to communicate clearly is on the part of the speaker, and I have failed to make my point understood. I'll stop now.

Well, as I remember the lesson from Communications 101, it takes two to communicate, a sender and a receiver. I think it's only fair to assume the blame may well lie with latter, i.e., myself.

Sorry if I misunderstood. BotV seemed very much about politics and race to me, perhaps because it came out the same year as the Tawana Brawley incident.

I hope I was sufficiently clear that I was NOT suggesting your view of the shooting was based in race. That's not the sort of accusation I would make lightly, nor is it something I've ever had cause to think of you.

I think you are probably mistaken about the prosecutor being motivated primarily by politics. Whether one agrees with it or not, the charge in this case is really textbook law on self-defense claims--which is why the OK legislature had to rewrite the statute in order to prevent such charging in the future.

 

[Nova]

If he wanted to he could, as the option to nolle prosequi is one the prosecution has up until the jury goes out.

Once again, you and jenny are arguing that the prosecutor has the power to do so. No one is disputing that.

But prosecutors also have ethnical obligations. Given his stated views of the events that took place, this prosecutor has an ethnical obligation to prosecute.

He has made clear his sympathy for the defendant in asking the judge not to take away the pharmacist's guns. That sympathy doesn't change his ethical obligation under the law.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

[Respectfully snipped for space]

When I say a decision to charge and prosecute is political, I am not saying that the decision is intelligent, well thought out or anything like that. I'm saying the decision is made by the decision maker to gain a benefit from people other than those directly involved.

You said earlier, as I recall, and I paraphrase, that clearly the decision to prosecute in this case is political.

Again I ask, what political benefits do you see the prosecutor/decision maker reaping in this case, given the widespread opposition in the community?

 

[Nova]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I would not support the pharmacist if these were the facts.



Nope, I don't agree with this at all. That's the point.

Obviously you are entitled to disagree, but I have to wonder "With what?" Do you disagree that the wounded robber was legally restrained by definition or because, according to the facts of this case, said robber did something that indicated he was still a threat?

Because if it is the former, I think you are wrong as a matter of law. But if it is the latter, then you and I, like any two jurors, might well disagree on the facts.

We can all have different opinions as to whether this shooting SHOULD be justifiable. The OK legislature has made its views clear by rewriting the law. You and I already understand that we hold different opinions as to how justifiable homicide should be defined.

 

[jjenny]

Once again, you and jenny are arguing that the prosecutor has the power to do so. No one is disputing that.

But prosecutors also have ethnical obligations. Given his stated views of the events that took place, this prosecutor has an ethnical obligation to prosecute.

He has made clear his sympathy for the defendant in asking the judge not to take away the pharmacist's guns. That sympathy doesn't change his ethical obligation under the law.

Well does it make any sense to you? Here the prosecutor has a guy he claims committed first degree, and yet he wants this guy to keep his guns. Have you ever heard of such a thing? I sure have not. Either the prosecutor believes that pharmacist is a killer (in which case why would he want a killer to keep his guns) or he doesn't, IMO.

 

[Nova]

Well does it make any sense to you? Here the prosecutor has a guy he claims committed first degree, and yet he wants this guy to keep his guns. Have you ever heard of such a thing? I sure have not. Either the prosecutor believes that pharmacist is a killer (in which case why would he want a killer to keep his guns) or he doesn't, IMO.

The prosecutor may believe the pharmacist exceeded what is allowed under the current self-defense law but that given what the pharmacist knows now, he is unlikely to re-offend.

More likely, IMO, THIS was the political decision. Charging murder was textbook law, but seeing the groundswell of public support for the pharmacist, the prosecutor's worst nightmare politically is that some punk will decide to "avenge" the dead robber and go after the pharmacist, or merely take advantage and rob the place. If the latter is unarmed by court order, the prosecutor may fear he himself will be held responsible.

As it stands now, if somebody goes after the unarmed pharmacist (for profit or revenge), the prosecutor can blame the judge.

 

[Sonya610]

Either the prosecutor believes that pharmacist is a killer (in which case why would he want a killer to keep his guns) or he doesn't, IMO.

And I am sure the defense attorney will bring that up! But I agree with Nova, the prosecutor doesn't want to be blamed if the pharmacist gets gunned down.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Its strange that similar cases can end with opposite results.

A woman in Georgia shot an intruder 9 times with her .22.

Mark my word they will not bring charges against this woman even though she shot the multiple times. Excessive? Imo, the police will not think so. She told them she shot him as many times as she could.


http://www.wsbtv.com/news/27889539/detail.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dce6ecd7ffa4fd0,0

 

[Nova]

Its strange that similar cases can end with opposite results.

A woman in Georgia shot an intruder 9 times with her .22.

Mark my word they will not bring charges against this woman even though she shot the multiple times. Excessive? Imo, the police will not think so. She told them she shot him as many times as she could.


http://www.wsbtv.com/news/27889539/detail.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dce6ecd7ffa4fd0,0

Are there any facts in the GA case that indicate the woman subdued her attacker and was no longer concerned for her safety, then reloaded and/or re-armed herself and finished him off? (At this point the link doesn't give all the details of the shooting.) Because it was the latter action that got the pharmacist in trouble; if he had fired all six shots in the first place (as he originally told police), he wouldn't have been charged.

So one major difference may be that the Georgia woman probably doesn't have a videotape contradicting her account of the shooting.

 

[Nova]

Jury selected in this case. Opening arguments tomorrow.

http://newsok.com/12-jurors-selected-in-oklahoma-city-pharmacy-death-case/article/3569418

 

[sadyjade]

I am absolutely enjoying the nature of this kind of discussion. In a nutshell it is what fascinates me about both our legal system, and the architecture of our civalization! I am looking forward to discussing, reading more about this case!

I really dig the respect given amoungst the jousters here in this thread, really .. dig it!