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

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

They don't have to have a video tape. The evidence speaks for itself including the forensic evidence.

She shot her pistol 9 times. The forensics will back that up and will also show where the was when first shot and were he was when the additional shots were fired.

She shot him 9 times because at the time she felt it was necessary. I think the pharmacist will testify also that he shot as many times as he thought was necessary at the time all of this was transpiring.

IMO

 

[Sonya610]

Jury selected in this case. Opening arguments tomorrow.

This trial will be a microcism of public opinion in that section of America. Nothing more than that. Jury was selected, emotions run high, the law takes 2nd or 3rd (anyone remember the OJ Simpson trial?).

It should be interesting indeed. Do not forget juror's end up taking a personal view, would they fear the defendant? Do they support the defendant? Would they want that guy dealing with matters if they themselves were in fear for their lives? Very complicated stuff with juries.

He won't be convicted of murder, 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter? Maybe. Innocent? Wow. Quite possibly and that will be a statement.

 

[noZme]

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!

Me too, sj! It has been 2 years since I ran across this story & tossed it out to the astute minds at WS. While I appreciate the recent artful debate & opinion, I am mindful of those involved. I hope the courtroom proceedings are finished quickly & Mr Ersland, a productive citizen, can put this whole debacle behind him & resume his life & pursuit of his little piece of the American dream.
:couch:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This trial will be a microcism of public opinion in that section of America. Nothing more than that. Jury was selected, emotions run high, the law takes 2nd or 3rd (anyone remember the OJ Simpson trial?).

It should be interesting indeed. Do not forget juror's end up taking a personal view, would they fear the defendant? Do they support the defendant? Would they want that guy dealing with matters if they themselves were in fear for their lives? Very complicated stuff with juries.

He won't be convicted of murder, 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter? Maybe. Innocent? Wow. Quite possibly and that will be a statement.

I believe that OK takes a strong stance on the right to bear arms. These jurors will most likely have that same mind set, imo. Legal gun owners tend to be hard nosed when it comes to the common criminal that reeks havoc in their communities. This will play into Mr. Ersland's favor, imo.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/arti...ticleid=20110505_16_A15_CUTLIN462822&allcom=1

Gov. Mary Fallin stood by the state's record.

"The U.S. Constitution outlines a right to keep and bear arms, and the people of Oklahoma take that right seriously,'' said Fallin, a Republican.

"I'm proud that our citizens and our lawmakers continue to stand up for the Second Amendment and for gun owners.''

U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., who recently was re-elected to the board of the National Rifle Association and is a member of the Second Amendment Task Force, dismissed the Brady Campaign's scorecard.

"I'd much rather for us to get a 100 percent rating from the NRA,'' he said.

"I think most Oklahomans are of the opinion that they support the Second Amendment," Boren said. "The Brady Campaign holds very little water in Oklahoma.''


IMO

 

[Nova]

This trial will be a microcism of public opinion in that section of America. Nothing more than that. Jury was selected, emotions run high, the law takes 2nd or 3rd (anyone remember the OJ Simpson trial?).

It should be interesting indeed. Do not forget juror's end up taking a personal view, would they fear the defendant? Do they support the defendant? Would they want that guy dealing with matters if they themselves were in fear for their lives? Very complicated stuff with juries.

He won't be convicted of murder, 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter? Maybe. Innocent? Wow. Quite possibly and that will be a statement.

Well said. I agree. I don't know exactly how the OK statutes are worded, but (pretending for a moment that the standards are the same California's) I might tend toward manslaughter myself, given the provocation.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'd be a nullified juror...or whatever the word is. I'd aquit and slap a medal on his chest on his way out the door.:great:

 

[MLE]

Shooting someone when they're down isn't necessarily a bad decision. Just because someone is "down" doesn't mean they're not going to blow your head off a second later, ten seconds later, or a minute later.

During WWII, a tactic the Soviets would use very often was to play dead when they were wounded. Once the German solider would assume the Soviet soldier was no longer a problem and move on to the next objective, the "down" Soviet would then shoot the German in the back. The Soviets weren't the only ones who did that.

A dead man cannot cause further trouble. A "down" one still can. If the pharmacist would've called 9/11 instead of killing the , he risked the chance of getting his brains blown out while on the phone. Maybe we know now that the down guy wasn't a threat, but the pharmacist was just trying to make it out of that situation alive and had no margin for overoptimistic error.

Not everyone who has mercy on enemies who are down survives the encounter. The pharmacist did because he didn't leave it to chance.

 

[jjenny]

MLE, I totally agree with you. Just because he is on the floor, does not necessarily mean he is incapacitated. The bullet could have just grazed his head. His "colleague" had a gun, and why wouldn't it be reasonable for the pharmacist to believe the alleged robber himself could have been armed as well? Of course we now now he was not armed and his head wound was serious, but how would pharmacist know that in seconds he had to make a decision?

 

[Sonya610]

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.

Honestly I think the majority of us think deep deep down think he executed the robber (though many won't come out and say it). The issues arrise because some of us are okay with it, others aren't.

While I fully support the pharmacist's actions with regard to the shooting, I will say I am a bit uneasy with is his behavior and statements after the fact. He really should have kept his mouth SHUT or carefully crafted his statement following the shooting. Would I convict him on anything related to the shooting? No, just on principle. Without prior convictions or charges on his record it is safe to assume he is not a threat to society (which for me is the litmus test).

 

[jjenny]

I don't believe he executed anyone. I do not believe his actions were unreasonable. Yes, he could have assumed the robber was incapacitated, but if he was wrong, that could have been the last assumption he ever made. Better safe than sorry. Of course we now know the robber was not armed, and had a serious head wound, but how would pharmacist know that?

 

[Sonya610]

I do not think the shooting was in any way wrong, but the pharmacists statements after the fact are questionable. It will be interesting to see if he takes the stand, and if he does how does he come off to the jury?

Gut instinct says while I agree with the shooting I would not necessarily want this guy living next door to me. There was a level of arrogance that is unsettling (just based on what I have read and I have not covered the case that closely). I would be worried my dog might get out and walk onto his lawn and he would open fire because technically he could, as I said it is not the shooting but the odd comments and statements after the fact.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I do not think the shooting was in any way wrong, but the pharmacists statements after the fact are questionable. It will be interesting to see if he takes the stand, and if he does how does he come off to the jury?

Gut instinct says while I agree with the shooting I would not necessarily want this guy living next door to me. There was a level of arrogance that is unsettling (just based on what I have read and I have not covered the case that closely). I would be worried my dog might get out and walk onto his lawn and he would open fire because technically he could, as I said it is not the shooting but the odd comments and statements after the fact.

As far as I am aware the pharmacist has always been a law abiding citizen so I really don't think he is the type to come out with guns a blazing just because someone walked on his lawn or a dog came on his property.

He was confronted by a pointing a gun at him and another who he had to think had a gun too. He was at work minding his own business and making a honest living at the time.

I hope he just tells his story of what happened and what was going through his mind at the time. If he can ever remember it. I do think when he rushed back inside he saw the moving.......a criminal that is still moving is still a danger to everyone inside.

IMO

 

[jjenny]

I do not think the shooting was in any way wrong, but the pharmacists statements after the fact are questionable. It will be interesting to see if he takes the stand, and if he does how does he come off to the jury?

Gut instinct says while I agree with the shooting I would not necessarily want this guy living next door to me. There was a level of arrogance that is unsettling (just based on what I have read and I have not covered the case that closely). I would be worried my dog might get out and walk onto his lawn and he would open fire because technically he could, as I said it is not the shooting but the odd comments and statements after the fact.

Considering that even the prosecutor wanted him to keep his guns, I doubt he is a danger to any law abiding citizens or their dogs.

 

[Nova]

MLE, I totally agree with you. Just because he is on the floor, does not necessarily mean he is incapacitated. The bullet could have just grazed his head. His "colleague" had a gun, and why wouldn't it be reasonable for the pharmacist to believe the alleged robber himself could have been armed as well? Of course we now now he was not armed and his head wound was serious, but how would pharmacist know that in seconds he had to make a decision?

Just to show our views aren't completely irreconcilable, I want to say I agree that the fact the killed robber wasn't armed is irrelevant. I don't expect the pharmacist to frisk his assailants.

But let me add one more time, the prosecution's argument is that the pharmacist acted as if he knew the robber was incapacitated. If the pharmacist was worried that the robber was faking or insufficiently incapacitated, he wouldn't have turned his back on the kid or stepped over him twice. He wouldn't have left his female employees in the store alone with the wounded kid while he chased the other robber outside.

 

[Nova]

Honestly I think the majority of us think deep deep down think he executed the robber (though many won't come out and say it). The issues arrise because some of us are okay with it, others aren't.

While I fully support the pharmacist's actions with regard to the shooting, I will say I am a bit uneasy with is his behavior and statements after the fact. He really should have kept his mouth SHUT or carefully crafted his statement following the shooting. Would I convict him on anything related to the shooting? No, just on principle. Without prior convictions or charges on his record it is safe to assume he is not a threat to society (which for me is the litmus test).

I appreciate your candor, Sonya. Thank you.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Trial of OK pharmacist accused in shooting resumes

The other teenager is in a juvenile facility. He was convicted of murder because his accomplice was killed during the commission of the robbery.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14695082

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Jury in Okla. pharmacist murder trial see video

http://www.okcfox.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.ok/3d793121-www.okcfox.com.shtml

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Now that Ersland has proven himself a liar, does this cast doubt in anyone's mind regarding his statement that Parker was trying to get up when he shot him the last five times?

 

[Nova]

Now that Ersland has proven himself a liar, does this cast doubt in anyone's mind regarding his statement that Parker was trying to get up when he shot him the last five times?

Absolutely. I don't believe Parker was trying to get up or moving in any way that Ersland actually considered threatening. I think Parker was mad*, which is understandable but not justification for murder.

I realize my opinion on this will surprise nobody.

* ETA by "mad" I meant angry, not insane. I shouldn't have used an adjective with such widely varying meanings.

 

[Sonya610]

For the record I do not think the kid moved either BUT NO ONE can prove the kid didn't move!

We can never know for sure if the kid moved, but we do know for sure he won't ever rob an innocent person going about their business again!

We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt who instigated this deadly encounter.