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

[Sonya610]

The law already gives you the right to use deadly force on anyone who is "threatening to kill you." An unconscious and immobile teenager isn't threatening anybody.

But you and others have said you want private citizens to kill people who might prove a threat in the future.

If he threatened to kill me 30 seconds before I have every reason to suspect he can and WILL do so again as long as he is in my presence and in the presence of others.

I ain't no doctor, I would not presume to diagnose the severity of his injuries or make a prediction as to whether he will or will not wake up within seconds and resume the attack. Chasing the other attacker out the door does NOT nullify the threat of the one remaining in the store, he was still a potential threat, and yes potential DOES COUNT when he participated in an armed robbery 30 seconds before! It is safe to assume he has NOT been rehabilitated nor has his moral character improved during that time!

 

[Sonya610]

First-degree manslaughter is also an option now, though really not much different than murder. I think he will walk, one of the women testified she did believe he saved the lives of her and her daughter, that has to mean something to the jury.

Jurors were instructed they could find Ersland guilty of first-degree manslaughter instead. The punishment for that offense is four years to life in prison.

http://newsok.com/jurors-begin-deli...city-pharmacists-murder-trial/article/3571241

 

[Nova]

If he threatened to kill me 30 seconds before I have every reason to suspect he can and WILL do so again as long as he is in my presence and in the presence of others.

I ain't no doctor, I would not presume to diagnose the severity of his injuries or make a prediction as to whether he will or will not wake up within seconds and resume the attack. Chasing the other attacker out the door does NOT nullify the threat of the one remaining in the store, he was still a potential threat, and yes potential DOES COUNT when he participated in an armed robbery 30 seconds before! It is safe to assume he has NOT been rehabilitated nor has his moral character improved during that time!

If Ersland believed the wounded robber was still a potential threat, then shame on him for leaving that threat alone with a mother and her daughter. I think he knew perfectly well that the robber was incapacitated and dying.

 

[Nova]

First-degree manslaughter is also an option now, though really not much different than murder. I think he will walk, one of the women testified she did believe he saved the lives of her and her daughter, that has to mean something to the jury.

First-degree manslaughter per OK statute:

3. When (homicide is) perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed.

(Emphasis added.)

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69314

(Note: that site has many cases cited in which courts may have modified the statute. I didn't go through them all.)

Per another site, the penalty for 1st degree manslaughter is 4 years to life and OK requires a convict to serve 85% of the minimum. 48 mos. x .85 = 40.8 months or about 3 years and 4 months.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=104306

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Sonya610]

If Ersland believed the wounded robber was still a potential threat, then shame on him for leaving that threat alone with a mother and her daughter. I think he knew perfectly well that the robber was incapacitated and dying.

There were TWO threats to deal with. One was wounded, the other one raced out the door and was potentially far more dangerous. In theory the second robber COULD have decided to return for his partner, regardless the second robber was the top threat that Ersland chose to pursue for a few brief seconds.

Dealing with what he may have perceived as the "greater threat" in that moment does NOT nullify the danger posed by the first robber who was in fact still alive. Still alive and still in the shop means STILL A THREAT!

"We are talking about anonymous, abstracted, living and breathing people ... but they were not known... but once a certain point in the encounter had been crossed, they ceased being individuals and became, uh, well you could say problems..." -- Ted Bundy

While the above may have been stated by a nefarious individual when it comes to self defense his words are true, especially true for those that want to survive a deadly encounter.

 

[cynsational]

CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER
www.koco.com

 

[Nova]

CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER
www.koco.com

My jaw is on the floor. I guess if you're going to claim self-defense, you'd better take the stand and defend that claim to the jury.

Per one link, at least, the minimum sentence is life.

 

[Sonya610]

CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER
www.koco.com

Wow. I am stunned, that was a quick decision too. I suspect he really struck the jury the wrong way. I just saw a photo (which I can't find now) showing him in court in the SAME ugly green short sleeved shirt with backbrace that he wore in the pharmacy.

The fact that they could not counsel him on his attire says a lot.

 

[Nova]

There were TWO threats to deal with. One was wounded, the other one raced out the door and was potentially far more dangerous. In theory the second robber COULD have decided to return for his partner, regardless the second robber was the top threat that Ersland chose to pursue for a few brief seconds.

Dealing with what he may have perceived as the "greater threat" in that moment does NOT nullify the danger posed by the first robber who was in fact still alive. Still alive and still in the shop means STILL A THREAT!

"We are talking about anonymous, abstracted, living and breathing people ... but they were not known... but once a certain point in the encounter had been crossed, they ceased being individuals and became, uh, well you could say problems..." -- Ted Bundy

While the above may have been stated by a nefarious individual when it comes to self defense his words are true, especially true for those that want to survive a deadly encounter.

You keep insisting Ersland had to deal with theoretical future threats. (The runaway robber might come back. Unlikely, I think, but just in case keep your gun out and shoot him if he does. In the meantime, call 911.)

A successful self-defense claim (under the older laws) requires an imminent threat, not a hypothetical future one.

 

[Nova]

Wow. I am stunned, that was a quick decision too. I suspect he really struck the jury the wrong way. I just saw a photo (which I can't find now) showing him in court in the SAME ugly green short sleeved shirt with backbrace that he wore in the pharmacy.

The fact that they could not counsel him on his attire says a lot.

You are more sensitive to fashion choices than I. (That is NOT sarcasm and I'm not saying his choice of shirts didn't matter.)

But I wondered about his lawyer when I saw the tape of Ersland on O'Reilly, speaking at great length about how he thought the younger of his female employees had been shot and killed. Only later did he throw in something to the effect that "Oh, yeah, I was afraid for my life."

Under the law, he had a legal right to defend his employees, but not to avenge them. I was surprised that his lawyer hadn't coached him better.

Maybe the facts were so not in Ersland's favor that his lawyer just aimed for nullification. Always a risky move. Jurors do swear to follow the law and some people take swearing seriously. I know I do.

 

[Sonya610]

I guess if you're going to claim self-defense, you'd better take the stand and defend that claim to the jury.

If he had used any common sense before that point he would have been fine. He made three huge mistakes A) getting another gun and shooting the assailant on CAMERA when there was no doubt a monitor in the back room that clearly displayed where the camera range stopped B) Lying pointlessly multiple times after the shooting C) Wearing ugly short sleeved shirts into court that pretty much screams "I don't care what anyone thinks and I do not listen to my defense attorneys".

I do wonder how they got the Doctors testimony. Are medical records no longer private the moment there is an investigation? What about HIPPA?

 

[Nova]

If he had used any common sense before that point he would have been fine. He made three huge mistakes A) getting another gun and shooting the assailant on CAMERA when there was no doubt a monitor in the back room that clearly displayed where the camera range stopped B) Lying pointlessly multiple times after the shooting C) Wearing ugly short sleeved shirts into court that pretty much screams "I don't care what anyone thinks and I do not listen to my defense attorneys".

I do wonder how they got the Doctors testimony. Are medical records no longer private the moment there is an investigation? What about HIPPA?

I don't know the answers to your questions, Sonya.

I would add "(D) Not taking the stand." I believe I mentioned I was a juror on a self-defense case (totally different facts). It didn't work in the end, but we wrestled with the concept for a full week of deliberations. I think we would have dismissed it out of hand if the defendant hadn't testified.

Here's the relevant OK statute on sentencing for "life in prison." Damn, if I can figure it out. It says the convict is eligible for parole after serving "1/3" of his sentence, but doesn't say how one determines 1/3 of "life"...

http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/get_statute?99/Title.57/57-332.7.html

 

[Sonya610]

You are more sensitive to fashion choices than I. (That is NOT sarcasm and I'm not saying his choice of shirts didn't matter.

When you are on trial for your life (or really anytime winning is a priority) clothing does matter. The jury is going to study him closely during the entire trial, how he looks, his emotional expressions, how he relates to his defense attorneys, etc... Especially since he wasn't going to take the stand, every little thing they can interpret about him matters.

The only time I have ever been in court (divorce case) my attorney told me to "dress like a schoolteacher" (or maybe I asked, either way). You better believe I went out and bought a new outfit and changed my makeup and made darn sure I appeared to be a very wholesome, modest, and respectable school teacher type.

It is not about "individuality" it is about winning.

 

[Sonya610]

I would add "(D) Not taking the stand."

I honestly do not think taking the stand was a realistic option (he probably wanted to but his attorneys advised against it). He lied way too much and would have to explain all of that, plus I suspect he would be very very unlikeable on the stand and that would turn the jury off even more than the evidence.

I will search for hte O'Reilly interview, I never watched that. If he is somewhat likeable in that interview then yes he should have testified.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

HIPAA allows for medical records to be subpoenaed.

 

[Sonya610]

While searching (and not finding) the O'reilly interview I came across some other stuff. First off I was wrong, apparently during the trial itself he WAS dressed appropriately (in a suit).

Secondly the mama of the dead robber is now suing him. She claims he shot a "lost boy". I will refrain from commenting on that seeing as she is now considered a "victim" herself and is completely absolved of all responsibility according to this site's T&C's. I find it interesting that they show pics of the robber "victim" at the age of about 8 years old, maybe they should show photos of Ersland at 8 years old too!

[video=youtube;oCXiUQQnsmU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXiUQQnsmU[/video]

 

[Nova]

I honestly do not think taking the stand was a realistic option (he probably wanted to but his attorneys advised against it). He lied way too much and would have to explain all of that, plus I suspect he would be very very unlikeable on the stand and that would turn the jury off even more than the evidence.

I will search for hte O'Reilly interview, I never watched that. If he is somewhat likeable in that interview then yes he should have testified.

You're probably right. In which case, his choices were plea bargain (if one was offered) or go for nullification (as his lawyer seemed to do).

I didn't find him particularly likable in the O'Reilly interview. I also didn't find him horribly unlikeable either. And I try not to let that affect my judgment, anyway, so I never mentioned it here. But that doesn't mean "likability" wasn't a factor in his strategy, just as you suggest.

 

[Nova]

While searching (and not finding) the O'reilly interview I came across some other stuff. First off I was wrong, apparently during the trial itself he WAS dressed appropriately (in a suit).

Secondly the mama of the dead robber is now suing him. She claims he shot a "lost boy". I will refrain from commenting on that seeing as she is now considered a "victim" herself and is completely absolved of all responsibility according to this site's T&C's. I find it interesting that they show pics of the robber "victim" at the age of about 8 years old, maybe they should show photos of Ersland at 8 years old too!....

I thought it would be nice to point out that you and I don't disagree on everything. The plaintiff (the mother) would not want me as a juror in this lawsuit.

 

[Sonya610]

I thought it would be nice to point out that you and I don't disagree on everything. The plaintiff (the mother) would not want me as a juror in this lawsuit.

We probably agree on most things, but there are one or two topics we take very different views on. : )

Plus if you say Ersland was not "unlikeable" in the interview it is a shame he couldn't take the stand. With coaching he could have likely done just fine (if he didn't have to explain all the other statements).

 

[jjenny]

I honestly do not think taking the stand was a realistic option (he probably wanted to but his attorneys advised against it). He lied way too much and would have to explain all of that, plus I suspect he would be very very unlikeable on the stand and that would turn the jury off even more than the evidence.

I will search for hte O'Reilly interview, I never watched that. If he is somewhat likeable in that interview then yes he should have testified.

His attorney only put on one witness. Which doesn't make much sense to me. Where was the testimony of, for instance, psychiatric experts of how he could have been emotionally affected by being a victim of armed robbery? Unless the judge did not allow such testimony, I don't understand it.