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

[jjenny]

What? So all of a sudden you care about the law and the specific facts of this case?

Yes, I know Parker's accomplice was unarmed. I do not blame Ersland for assuming Parker was armed as well.

My point was that with Parker unconscious, Ersland actually had time to check to see if Parker was armed, BUT WE (AND THE LAW) DON'T EVEN REQUIRE THAT. Nor do we required that Ersland retreat.

So enough already with crying the blues for poor, victim Ersland. If anything, the law gave him all sorts of allowances and he still was so angry he killed an unconscious man.

What allowances? And when exactly did I ever claim I did not care about specific facts of the case? And now you think attempted robbery victims should be checking for guns? I presume that involves getting close to the suspect and searching him/her and his/ her belongings?

 

[Nova]

What allowances? And when exactly did I ever claim I did not care about specific facts of the case? And now you think attempted robbery victims should be checking for guns? I presume that involves getting close to the suspect and searching him/her and his/ her belongings?

jenny, you have argued all sorts of facts not relevant to this case. Read back a page or two.

No, I don't believe robbery victims should have to frisk their assailants. I merely pointed out that Ersland even had time to do that if he had wished.

What allowances? Ersland was allowed to keep weapons on the premises and use deadly force to defend himself. He was allowed to assume an unarmed man was armed because he was in the company of someone with a gun. He was allowed to shoot to kill and not required to merely shoot to disable an assailant (who turned out not to be armed anyway).

What he was NOT allowed to do was to leave and later reenter the scene, reload and execute an unconscious and motionless kid because he (Ersland) was pissed off.

'Cause that ain't self-defense.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Hmm. I am a little bit confused. For one, I have not claimed that the judge barred all but one defense witnesses form testifying.

But you did claim that the judge barred most defense witnesses from testifying. I refer you to post #470 on this thread, in which I questioned this assertion from you, contained a post that has, oddly enough, disappeared.

For other, the reporter seems to be saying that defense could have called witnesses that testified for the prosecution. Why would defense want to do it to begin with? And who, other than those who testified for the prosecution, did the judge not bar that defense wanted to testify?
The two experts that even the reporter believes the judge would eventually have barred anyway, even if defense pushed it?

The point is, the defense had the leeway to call any potential prosecution witnesses to the stand to undermine/contradict the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. But they didn't.

The other point is, the judge did not bar most defense witnesses from testifying. The defense, for whatever reasons, simply didn't call them.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I was responding to a poster who advised me to run away or lock myself out if I was able to shoot someone who then fallen to the ground. I took it to understand that poster believed Ersland had an obligation to retreat after he shot Parker.

In Jenny's defense (guffaw, pun intended) I saw the post she is referring to. It has disappeared. The disappearing posts on this thread are making it all a little too surreal for me.

 

[Nova]

In Jenny's defense (guffaw, pun intended) I saw the post she is referring to. It has disappeared. The disappearing posts on this thread are making it all a little too surreal for me.

Oh, I believe her (and you). If I've said anything that seems to question Jenny's honesty, I sincerely apologize. I meant no such thing.

I did think for awhile that she was arguing facts that weren't germane to the decision in this case. But they were real (if IMO irrelevant) facts; she wasn't inventing anything.

 

[jjenny]

But you did claim that the judge barred most defense witnesses from testifying. I refer you to post #470 on this thread, in which I questioned this assertion from you, contained a post that has, oddly enough, disappeared.



The point is, the defense had the leeway to call any potential prosecution witnesses to the stand to undermine/contradict the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. But they didn't.

The other point is, the judge did not bar most defense witnesses from testifying. The defense, for whatever reasons, simply didn't call them.

Based on my understanding, defense had a list of 21 witnesses. According to the reporter you contacted, the #22 on that list were all the prosecution witnesses defense could have called but did not. Obviously the judge did not bar the prosecution witnesses from testifying, but we knew that already. Am I supposed to count all the prosecution witnesses to arrive to the conclusion that the judge did not bar most of the defense witnesses from testifying? And by the way, I had nothing to do with any posts going missing-just to make that clear.

 

[JBean]

I looked for the posts that you guys said had disappeared and they are all still there. Please let me know if you want me to quote them or anything. I am happy to help.

 

[Nova]

I still don't know anything about missing posts. But since the disagreement on this thread has been vehement, I want to reiterate my apology if I seemed to be questioning anyone's honesty. That was not my intent, most certainly not with regard to jjenny (whose refusal to back down from an argument I find delightful)!

 

[JBean]

I still don't know anything about missing posts. But since the disagreement on this thread has been vehement, I want to reiterate my apology if I seemed to be questioning anyone's honesty. That was not my intent, most certainly not with regard to jjenny (whose refusal to back down from an argument I find delightful)!

The debate has been lively and interesting!

For the record, out of 600 or so posts there have been a total of 7 posts removed. Nothing about anything we are discussing currently and they were all off topic having to do with dog care of the convicted,Amanda Knox and a couple minor OT personal attacks.


The posts that are referred to as "missing" are still there and available for everyone to read.

 

[Nova]

The debate has been lively and interesting!

For the record, out of 600 or so posts there have been a total of 7 posts removed. Nothing about anything we are discussing currently and they were all off topic having to do with dog care of the convicted,Amanda Knox and a couple minor OT personal attacks.


The posts that are referred to as "missing" are still there and available for everyone to read.

I suppose it's your job, but way to kill the mystery! (j/k)

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Based on my understanding, defense had a list of 21 witnesses. According to the reporter you contacted, the #22 on that list were all the prosecution witnesses defense could have called but did not. Obviously the judge did not bar the prosecution witnesses from testifying, but we knew that already. Am I supposed to count all the prosecution witnesses to arrive to the conclusion that the judge did not bar most of the defense witnesses from testifying? And by the way, I had nothing to do with any posts going missing-just to make that clear.

No. The defense had a list of 21 witnesses. Four of those were barred: the other pharmacist who was robbed, the police officer who shot an unarmed burglar, and the two doctors. There were, I think, three others who were former employees of the pharmacy when it was robbed before. That leaves at quite a few who were NOT barred. So there is no basis to the assertion that the judge barred "most" of the defense witnesses. The defense simply didn't call any of the others.

And the defense was also free to call any of the prosecution witnesses.

And I wasn't accusing anyone of making posts disappear, nor did I think Nova was questioning Jenny's honesty.

 

[jannuncutt]

Dear Nova,
Thank you. We seem to share the same opinions on most topics, however, your posts are always more "thought out", and more diplomatic than what I would post. I tend to post with my emotions, Thank you for giving me the easy way out by just being to hit "thanks" button. I really envy your patience.

 

[Nova]

Dear Nova,
Thank you. We seem to share the same opinions on most topics, however, your posts are always more "thought out", and more diplomatic than what I would post. I tend to post with my emotions, Thank you for giving me the easy way out by just being to hit "thanks" button. I really envy your patience.

Dear Jannuncutt,

You are much too kind! Please feel free to jump in and add your thoughts (or not, as you prefer). We're all just trying to figure things out here.

 

[flourish]

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.

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).

Hmm. I am a little bit confused. For one, I have not claimed that the judge barred all but one defense witnesses form testifying. For other, the reporter seems to be saying that defense could have called witnesses that testified for the prosecution. Why would defense want to do it to begin with? And who, other than those who testified for the prosecution, did the judge not bar that defense wanted to testify?
The two experts that even the reporter believes the judge would eventually have barred anyway, even if defense pushed it?

Today I emailed Nolan Clay, the reporter who covered Ersland's trial for the Daily Oklahoman, inquiring about the defense witnesses the judge barred from testifying. This is my email, edited for irrelevancies such as greeting and closure:

I am a member of the Websleuths crime sleuthing forum, where I have been discussing ... this trial. [Some members claim] Judge Elliott barred all defense witnesses from testifying except, of course, for the one pharmacy employee who did testify.

Is this true? I recall the judge barring testimony from another pharmacist who had been robbed, Police Officer Joe Land, and two doctors whom Box wanted to testify regarding the stress that robbery victims experience.

Were there others?

And do you recall what the judge's reasoning was regarding barring the doctors' testimony?


His response:

Ersland and his supporters like to say that the judge barred all his witnesses but one. The truth of the matter is that the judge kept out the witnesses Ersland wanted to call who would have talked about the stress of robberies. There were several. They include employees who were at the pharmacy when it was robbed before, a pharmacist from Chelsea, Okla., and the Nichols Hills officer (who actually shot an unarmed burglar.) .

Now as to the two experts, that is a little different story and one that is steeped in legal technicalities. As I remember it, the judge did not specifically bar them but probably would have. Before trial, prosecutors complained that defense attorneys didn't give them any reports from the two proposed experts. The judge told the defense attorneys to get reports from them. The judge also said he would sanction defense attorneys for missing a discovery deadline. Defense attorneys decided not to get the reports after all, probably because the judge would have kept out the experts anyway and defense attorneys wanted to avoid the sanctions. But there is a gag order so we don't know for sure.

Attached is the defense witness list. Pay particular attention to 22. [Note from Izzy Blanche: #22 reads, "Any and all witnesses endorsed by the state of Oklahoma."] Prosecutors listed dozens of witnesses and the defense could have called them

Obviously, also, Ersland could have called himself. He could have called pharmacy employee Megan West but she had testified as a prosecution witness and defense attorneys made whatever points they had from her in their cross-examination.

They called Jeanne Read, the other employee. They could have called the owner but didn't. The doctor, Choi, testified as a prosecution witness. They had planned to use Sibley, another doctor, but read a stipulation -- a statement -- to the jury about this position. So that was just as good.

They could have called another doctor, Duval, and so on and so on.

They could have called Jevontai Ingram, the other robber who was listed as a prosecution witness. (He did not testify for the prosecution after all.).

So please, no more claims that the judge barred all defense witnesses except one from testifying.

Interesting points and information and discussion from everyone...it's like they say...there's nothing you can slice thin enough to not have two sides (something like that)...anyway, I enjoy reading everyone's perspectives.

I'm just gonna reiterate my feelings that the first shot was fine, but the passing of the telephone twice, turning his back on the perp, moving over and near the perp when there was a safer, further option was all pretty damning...but then to hear he's changed his stories and actually fabricated evidence? Wow, that's some thought-out, time-consuming tasks to ensure an act of "self-defense" would be seen as such...I wonder how many people who have been found of acting in self defense fabricating additional evidence "just in case?"

 

[Nova]

Pointing out that there is, in fact, a duty to retreat in some jurisdictions.

Fair enough. I think I've been clear my knowledge comes from two sources: personal experience as a juror in CA (no duty to retreat) and research on self-defense claims in OK (also no duty to retreat).

I only meant to say what I said: I hadn't heard of a duty to retreat, not that one couldn't exist in some jurisdiction.

When I was a juror on a self-defense case in CA, the judge's instructions to jurors specifically mentioned that people had been killed in the past while trying to flee and, for that reason, no one in danger can be required to retreat.

 

[Nova]

While I may disagree with you, I do not believe I have ever attacked you personally by saying that you were being dishonest in your posts, nor have I ever spoken to you as if you were a little child who needed to be reprimanded. I respect you too much to do that, which is why I'm just staying away from this subject. I'm happy to debate, but not on that level.

I'll leave with this thought:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author...

I think my question re the purpose of "drive-by sarcasm" was a fair one at the time.

None of my other remarks was a personal attack nor a suggestion that you were being dishonest. When I said that facts were skewed, I merely meant that the facts being argued weren't those actually relevant to the Ersland decision.

THAT BEING SAID, as with jjenny, I can see now how the word "skewed" might be seen as an accusation of dishonesty and for that I am truly sorry.

But here is one of your posts to which I replied:

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.

But them's the rules, I guess.

I still maintain that you know perfectly well that turning your back on one assailant to face another has nothing to do with calmly turning your back on a lone, unconscious teenager.

i certainly didn't mean to treat you like a child, but what would have been a more appropriate response to such a post? You know, it's fine to complain about ad hominem attacks. But sarcasm is a kind of attack in and of itself, for it implies that the target of the sarcasm is ridiculous and his arguments are not to be taken seriously. In fact, one might suggest that sarcasm is a sly way to attack other posters without literally violating TOS.

Now I'm a big boy and I agree you haven't been nasty to me. But in fairness, I think your use of sarcasm should be considered when you look at my replies.

 

[JBean]

http://www.news9.com/story/14866557/jerome-erslands-911-call-released

http://www.koco.com/r-video/28170583/detail.html


The 911 calls were finally released. There is one from ersland and one from the lady in the bk room. I have had trouble finding the best copy so I may swap out links or post a few.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Pharmacist's jurors stunned by public criticism of verdict
Jerome Jay Ersland found guilty of first-degree murder at trial in May.

BY NOLAN CLAY [email protected] Copyright 2011 © The Oklahoman Oklahoman 18
Published: June 12, 2011


Three of the jurors who convicted a pharmacist of murder say they followed the law and are upset and surprised at the public outcry against the verdict.

“I've had some family members that have basically stated they thought I was stupid and it was the wrong decision,” one juror said.

“I hate even watching the news for fear that I might see something about the case,” she said. “We didn't volunteer for it. We were asked to do this job and we took it very seriously.”



Read more: http://newsok.com/pharmacists-juror...cism-of-verdict/article/3576552#ixzz1P2WuEuD7

 

[JBean]

Pharmacist's jurors stunned by public criticism of verdict
Jerome Jay Ersland found guilty of first-degree murder at trial in May.

BY NOLAN CLAY [email protected] Copyright 2011 © The Oklahoman Oklahoman 18
Published: June 12, 2011


Three of the jurors who convicted a pharmacist of murder say they followed the law and are upset and surprised at the public outcry against the verdict.

“I've had some family members that have basically stated they thought I was stupid and it was the wrong decision,” one juror said.

“I hate even watching the news for fear that I might see something about the case,” she said. “We didn't volunteer for it. We were asked to do this job and we took it very seriously.”



Read more: http://newsok.com/pharmacists-juror...cism-of-verdict/article/3576552#ixzz1P2WuEuD7

from your link:

As punishment, jurors chose a life term. Their only other option was a life term without the possibility of parole. At the formal sentencing July 11, the trial judge could suspend part or all of the life term.

Read more: http://newsok.com/pharmacists-juror...cism-of-verdict/article/3576552#ixzz1P8L2ta9o
​

 

[JBean]

The jurors' instructions

The pharmacist's jury had 38 instructions to follow in reaching their verdict.

Read more: http://newsok.com/pharmacists-juror...eaching-verdict/article/3576553#ixzz1PD6UVwwG
​