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

[JBean]

You're trying to "gaslight" me, right? LOL.

My point has never been that posters can't question a conviction. If that were true, we might as well close WS and just sit and wait for verdicts to be announced.

My point was that you and others keep skewing the facts just enough to imply that those of us who disagree with you (including, apparently, the jury) are sitting around playing make-believe, "imagining" what Ersland thought and felt.

We are not. We are drawing logical conclusions based on Ersland's actions, and the many and varied stories he has told about the assault.

You are still entitled to disagree. But it isn't fair to reiterate that we can't "imagine" what we would do in Ersland's shoes. We don't have to imagine anything; we have facts with which to work.

I think what makes this case unique is that we actually have a full video tape memorializing the events. The tape as compared to Ersland's account make this a pretty straightforward case,imo.

But most cases do not have the luxury of such definitive evidence; such as in the Amanda Knox case.

 

[jjenny]

I think what makes this case unique is that we actually have a full video tape memorializing the events. The tape as compared to Ersland's account make this a pretty straightforward case,imo.

But most cases do not have the luxury of such definitive evidence; such as in the Amanda Knox case.

Video that does not in fact show whether Parker was moving or not.

 

[jjenny]

You're trying to "gaslight" me, right? LOL.

My point has never been that posters can't question a conviction. If that were true, we might as well close WS and just sit and wait for verdicts to be announced.

My point was that you and others keep skewing the facts just enough to imply that those of us who disagree with you (including, apparently, the jury) are sitting around playing make-believe, "imagining" what Ersland thought and felt.

We are not. We are drawing logical conclusions based on Ersland's actions, and the many and varied stories he has told about the assault.

You are still entitled to disagree. But it isn't fair to reiterate that we can't "imagine" what we would do in Ersland's shoes. We don't have to imagine anything; we have facts with which to work.

Why am I supposed to draw logical conclusions based on Ersland's varied stories, but Amanda Knox's telling varyied stories of what she was doing that night only indicates her supposed innocence of the crime she was convicted of?

 

[JBean]

Let's stick to the Ersland case here and leave Amanda Knox out of this. The 2 cases are apples and oranges except that each case is equally as controversial and the thread might implode if we discuss them both in one place. LOL.

 

[Nova]

Video that does not in fact show whether Parker was moving or not.

That's true. As to whether Parker was still moving we can believe Ersland (who has lied many times and had no problem turning his back on the supposedly "threatening" Parker), OR we can believe forensic experts who testified that the wound pattern demonstrated Parker was immobilized BEFORE the execution shots.

 

[Nova]

Why am I supposed to draw logical conclusions based on Ersland's varied stories, but Amanda Knox's telling varyied stories of what she was doing that night only indicates her supposed innocence of the crime she was convicted of?

jenny, that's a fair question, but JBean has asked that we not discuss Knox here. Please feel free to PM me if you want to know my answer.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

The only evidence that Parker ever moved on the floor after being shot in the head, and was therefore possibly still a threat, was Ersland's statement to the police.

Which was contradicted by testimony from the prosecution's witnesses who stated that the forensic evidence, the blood pool around Parker's head, showed no signs that he moved after being shot the first time.

You can bet that if the defense could dig up any medical experts willing to testify to the contrary, those witnesses would have been on the stand. Having been on a jury myself involving dueling "experts," not to mention following various prominent criminal cases, I know that such cases often involve expert vs. expert, each compensated by the side he or she represents. But there was no defense expert in this case to rebut the prosecution expert. Why not?

To me the answer is obvious: they couldn't find one.

And again, the only evidence that Parker was moving after being shot in the head came from the same man who told police officers he had still had nightmares about his combat experiences in the Persian Gulf War, during which time, according to military records, he was serving honorably in Altus, Oklahoma.

I have no idea why anyone would believe this proven liar's word about anything, and take that into consideration in evaluating this case. At this point, that anyone would do so just boggles my mind.

 

[kemo]

I'm a former gun owner (my wife made me get rid of them when our first kid was born) and I have no problem with gun ownership. I do not support the NRA however. I believe that irresponsible gun owners are the greatest threat to gun rights.

There is a certain mind-set among the NRA crowd that any gun owner (who is not an urban gang-banger I suppose) is ALWAYS in the RIGHT and their actions must be defended no matter what. The suggestion that irresponsible or mentally unstable gun owners might present problems must be met with ABSOLUTE DENIAL.

I suspect that as more facts come out, Ersland's defenders will gradually fade into the sunset. I really doubt the Governor is going to commute the sentence nor is the DA going to "pay at the polls" next election.

This incident is really just another crime story. One person is dead and a few people are going to prison for a long time. Nothing good comes from it. If there is anything unusual about it, it is the fact that it involved two criminal "types": the urban predatory street criminal and the "quite guy who seemed normal" who had a "dark side" that revealed itself in pointless violence.

 

[lonetraveler]

Defense was prepared to call witnesses testifying about stress during robbery. Judge barred them from testifying. Defense had a list of 21 witnesses. Only one witness ended up testifying.

That is why this man deserves a retrial.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I saw one article where the judge barred one witness, a pharmacist who had been robbed, from testifying.

Source: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...pardon-attorneys-begin-appeal/article/3572201

I have not seen any source about the judge barring other witnesses from testifying, except of course the scarcely reliable Mr. Ersland himself, as quoted in this article.

I would really like to see a reliable source listing any defense witnesses the judge barred in addition to the one.

Just because witnesses on the witness list didn't testify doesn't mean that the judge barred them from doing so.

ETA: Also this article discusses a police officer who was barred from testifying.

Source: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-jerome-jay-erslands-attorneys-file-witness-list/article/3558232

Okay, that's two. Who else was barred?

 

[ohiogirl]

What kind of message does this verdict sends to other pharmacists who are apparently being robbed at higher rates? If you shoot someone on the ground you might end up convicted of first degree murder? Someone on the ground does not necessarily mean incapacitated and harmless. But what else are these pharmacists going to think about? And consider that if a minor trying to rob actually kills someone that minor would get out of prison in a short time unless he or she is charged as adult.

I would hope it would send the message that if this does happen to you, you should tell the truth afterward. If you do get a shot off and you hit someone who is on the ground and you have a chance to get away, do it. Lock youself in a back room, run outside, something. Don't come back, get another gun, and shoot them multiple times more.

And, above all, again, tell the truth. jmo

 

[ohiogirl]

And heaven help the poor victim who is attacked by 2 or more assailants that cannot all be within the victim's field of vision at the same time. For, following the logic that once you "turn your back" on an assailant you, by definition, no longer consider that particular assailant a threat and you are precluded from any action against that assailant, you're really stuck. Look at one of them and shoot, you've turned your back on the other. Gotta let him shoot you unless you want to die in prison as a convicted murderer.

Now, that's not what happened here. Why does everyone want to make this a case of a person not being able to defend themselves? That is just not the case.

 

[jjenny]

I would hope it would send the message that if this does happen to you, you should tell the truth afterward. If you do get a shot off and you hit someone who is on the ground and you have a chance to get away, do it. Lock youself in a back room, run outside, something. Don't come back, get another gun, and shoot them multiple times more.

And, above all, again, tell the truth. jmo

Because of "stand my ground" laws I am not obligated to retreat, lock myself up, or run away. I have a right to defend myself with deadly force, and don't have to "get away." Is that the message you think this case sends-that someone has to run away rather than stand his or her ground?
I guess it is loud and clear, if that's what people think.

 

[jjenny]

I saw one article where the judge barred one witness, a pharmacist who had been robbed, from testifying.

Source: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...pardon-attorneys-begin-appeal/article/3572201

I have not seen any source about the judge barring other witnesses from testifying, except of course the scarcely reliable Mr. Ersland himself, as quoted in this article.

I would really like to see a reliable source listing any defense witnesses the judge barred in addition to the one.

Just because witnesses on the witness list didn't testify doesn't mean that the judge barred them from doing so.

ETA: Also this article discusses a police officer who was barred from testifying.

Source: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-jerome-jay-erslands-attorneys-file-witness-list/article/3558232

Okay, that's two. Who else was barred?

Two doctors were barred from testifying about the stress robbery victims go through, and a police officer who shot a suspect (that I know of, which was reported).

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Two doctors were barred from testifying about the stress robbery victims go through, and a police officer who shot a suspect (that I know of, which was reported).

Do you have a source about the doctors? I would like to read more. Thank you.

ETA: I found this:

http://www.news9.com/story/14515412...cist-faked-gunshot-wound?clienttype=printable

but if you have a source with more detail, I would love to know more. Thank you.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

So are you all aware that Ersland may also have tried to plant false evidence?

Or that the pharmacy's own security guard told Ersland he shouldn't have gotten the second gun and shot Parker after he was down? (page 4)

Much more very interesting stuff at link.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/locshell0001.pdf

 

[JBean]

Did the doctor that he asked to falsify his medical records to look like he had been shot and that he had gotten an infection from it get to testify?

ETA: n/m I see it is right in Izzy's link. thanks

 

[jjenny]

Did the doctor that he asked to falsify his medical records to look like he had been shot and that he had gotten an infection from it get to testify?

That would obviously be on the side of the prosecution, not the doctors the defense wanted to testify.

 

[JBean]

One thing I learned is to save the last round for the video camera.

Isn't that the truth! LOL. You can always say that the video camera was aimed at you in a threatening manner.

 

[jjenny]

Do you have a source about the doctors? I would like to read more. Thank you.

ETA: I found this:

http://www.news9.com/story/14515412...cist-faked-gunshot-wound?clienttype=printable

but if you have a source with more detail, I would love to know more. Thank you.

There is a gag order, so there are really not that many details available. Why exactly did the judge impose the gag order to begin with? We are not dealing with a sexual assault here.