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

[jjenny]

The law in California rightly allows for the fact that a layman may not have perfect perception in terms of an assailant's capacities.

The standard is whether a "reasonable person" would believe s/he was in grave danger of death or bodily harm, NOT whether a trained physician or forensic expert would think so.

Per the link on the OK case, the prosecution believes the actions of the pharmacist prove he knew he was no longer in danger after the robber was incapacitated. I've already acknowledged that we don't know what the defense will argue.

Well that prosecutor also apparently believes that someone who had just had a gun pointed at them will be in a perfectly normal state of mind since the pharmacist is charged with first degree murder.

 

[Nova]

I have to say the law in CA has a very tough line as to where self defense stops and assault begins.

One of my boys got in a fight in the high school locker room once. The other guy was picking on another kid and my son told him to knock it off. The boy attacked my son and was throwing punches , that was not in dispute. My son hit the boy once causing the boy to move backward and then my son knocked him to the floor.
LE was called because the moment my son had knocked the boy backwards the threat of bodily harm to my son was gone and he was no longer defending himself but rather assaulting the boy when he knocked him to the floor.The backward movement away from my son and the forward movement of my son towards him shifted the entire thing.
oy

So, in this case, the minute the robber was shot and on the ground, in a legal sense, the store owner was no longer defending himself and right there it has to stop.
That's what I learned from the locker room incident.

That's a very strict interpretation of California law, too strict in my opinion.

But your son is not alone.

A friend of mine who is an appellate lawyer for juveniles won a case where her client was attacked on a schoolyard and defended herself with fists. A teacher intervened but wasn't able to get the two kids separated instantly.

Because she didn't drop her hands the moment the teacher reached her, my friend's client was convicted of battery along with her attacker.

But on appeal, my friend successfully argued that the teacher herself had admitted it took a minute or so to stop the fight, therefore the danger to the victim-defendant continued. The conviction was overturned.

In your son's case, I think it's too much to expect someone who is throwing punches to know the exact instant he has to stop. (It would be different if your son had followed the kid to math class and hit him there.)

But that's different from stepping over someone's incapacitated body to get another gun to finish him off. IMO, obviously.

 

[Nova]

Schoolboys fist fighting in a locker room with no reasonable fear of deadly intent is completely different than an armed robbery where the robbers use a gun to show deadly intent.

CA law applies a similar principle. And, after all and though less common, people have been killed in fist fights. Given JBean's facts, however, I think LE overreacted in prosecuting her son.

When weapons are in the mix LE shoots multiple times as the intent isn't to stop the attack but to kill the attacker as fast as possible.

And nobody would blame the pharmacist if he had shot the robber numerous times in the first encounter in order to make sure the threat was neutralized.

It is the "reloading" (by going to get a second gun) and execution that are at issue.

I had not watched the full original video in over 2 years. Just watched it again. I had thought the female workers had fled the store but they were in fact still in there. I can definitely sympathize with this man, he was making sure the threat was eliminated and he was quite efficient.

I'm sure the defense will emphasize the defendant's concern for his customers (and rightly so). But if the defendant could calmly step over the incapacitated robber, why couldn't the customers walk around the robber and exit the building (or stay in the back room until the police arrived, etc.)?

I can say if a home intruder broke in and my loved ones were in danger I would make sure it was dead too. I would not wait around for the cops and keep an eye on the attacker, or try to move my loved ones out of the way for fear the attacker might revive. A few extra bullets guarantees the threat is eliminated. Though I always wondered if the angle of the bullets (body being prone) would cause legal difficulties, if no video had been taken I doubt it would have raised any eyebrows.

Many people apparently believe armed robbery and home intrusion are two cases in which the attacker forfeits their right to live at the hands of the victims. If confronted it is not a "negotiation" and "being reasonable" flies out the window, they cross a sacred line and once crossed there is no need for the victims to be "reasonable or show restraint or give the assailant the benefit of the doubt".

The law DOES allow that a shooter may be provoked beyond reason: it's called involuntary or voluntary manslaughter. As I've said, that should probably be the charge here.

 

[Nova]

Well, after all, California law is very skewed toward the criminal.

Yeah, that's why we have no prisons and the ones we have are empty.

What your son did, as you describe it, would be totally acceptable to me. If he were charged and I was on the jury I would acquit.

Here, however, I agree.

Except that California law doesn't give juveniles the right to a jury trial. Only if JBean's son were charged as an adult would there be a jury. (And you and I would be excused--unless we committed perjury--because of our willingness to commit jury nullification and ignore the law.)

 

[Sonya610]

My argument was that they have specific points of view, just as I do, and that may affect their beliefs as to how many "crimes" they have thwarted.

Oh but they do thwart crimes, whether they are seen or just known to be present. I live in the country and EVERYONE around here owns firearms. You better believe it effects the crime rate.

No one is going to go messing around on someone else's property when they KNOW they could get shot. Car jackings are also much lower in areas with heavy gun ownership. Since everyone can carry a loaded firearm in their car (except felons) without a permit do you think stranded female motorists on the side of the road look like easy targets? Chances are that female motorist is packing heat. Not a good target.

An armed society is a polite society. I especially like it because if something horrid went down the men witnessing it wouldn't likely stand there shaking in their boots and MAYBE get up the courage to dial 911 on their iPhone or Blackberry.

 

[Nova]

I don't think any new laws passed will affect this case, because presumably the laws are not retroactive. But obviously this case will lead to stronger self-defense laws that might just prevent someone else from being charged with first degree murder. Why doesn't this prosecutor consider the extreme emotional distress that can be caused by the gun being pointed at the victim of the attempted robbery?

I looked. Apparently the U.S. Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" or retroactive laws.

But good luck getting a jury to convict the pharmacist of something that is no longer a crime. (The new law allows business owners and their employers to presume that anyone attempting to commit a crime is a lethal threat as long as that person remains on the premises.)

We'll see. The pharmacist's trial is supposed to begin this month.

 

[Nova]

Just because someone is on the ground and has been shot does not necessarily mean that someone is incapacitated. Especially if that someone is armed. It's easy for us to say that alleged robber was no threat because he wasn't armed. The pharmacist however could reasonably assume the alleged robber was armed, considering the other one had a gun.

Again, the prosecution is arguing that the pharmacist's actions show he knew the threat had passed. This isn't a matter of you or I or the OK police second-guessing the man from afar; the charge is based on what the defendant himself did and did not do.

In terms of the facts I've read, the fact that the killed robber was unarmed isn't at issue. Obviously, I could be wrong: I don't have access to the trial briefs; but as far as I know, this isn't about whether the kid had a gun.

But for the record, I AGREE that if a business owner is confronted by two robbers and one of them has a gun, the owner has every right to ASSUME the other assailant is armed as well. I don't expect a robbery victim to pat down all the perps before he responds.

 

[Nova]

Well that prosecutor also apparently believes that someone who had just had a gun pointed at them will be in a perfectly normal state of mind since the pharmacist is charged with first degree murder.

That's why I've questioned--several times--whether 1st degree murder is the correct charge or whether this should be a manslaughter case. I tend to lean toward the latter.

But I should point out I am only familiar with how California defines those charges; I was a juror on a "self-defense" case in Santa Monica where they were at issue and I happened to review my notes the other night.

I don't know OK law; its requirements for murder and manslaughter may be quite different.

 

[Nova]

Oh but they do thwart crimes, whether they are seen or just known to be present. I live in the country and EVERYONE around here owns firearms. You better believe it effects the crime rate.

No one is going to go messing around on someone else's property when they KNOW they could get shot. Car jackings are also much lower in areas with heavy gun ownership. Since everyone can carry a loaded firearm in their car (except felons) without a permit do you think stranded female motorists on the side of the road look like easy targets? Chances are that female motorist is packing heat. Not a good target.

An armed society is a polite society. I especially like it because if something horrid went down the men witnessing it wouldn't likely stand there shaking in their boots and MAYBE get up the courage to dial 911 on their iPhone or Blackberry.

Sonja, the issue of gun ownership is so politically charged in this country, I don't know what to believe in terms of surveys and data on crime prevention. (Again, it's not that I think gun owners are liars, just that when the issue is crimes that did not happen, everyone is basically speculating.)

But your post is a good reminder to me to keep an open mind.

 

[jjenny]

Again, the prosecution is arguing that the pharmacist's actions show he knew the threat had passed. This isn't a matter of you or I or the OK police second-guessing the man from afar; the charge is based on what the defendant himself did and did not do.

In terms of the facts I've read, the fact that the killed robber was unarmed isn't at issue. Obviously, I could be wrong: I don't have access to the trial briefs; but as far as I know, this isn't about whether the kid had a gun.

But for the record, I AGREE that if a business owner is confronted by two robbers and one of them has a gun, the owner has every right to ASSUME the other assailant is armed as well. I don't expect a robbery victim to pat down all the perps before he responds.

I am judging this by my own reaction-if somebody tried to rob the store I worked in, I would not be convinced the threat has passed if that person was still on the premises. So, why should Ersland should have assumed the would be robber was not a threat?

 

[Nova]

I am judging this by my own reaction-if somebody tried to rob the store I worked in, I would not be convinced the threat has passed if that person was still on the premises. So, why should Ersland should have assumed the would be robber was not a threat?

Jenny, I think the prosecutor's argument is not that Ersland "should" have assumed it, but that it's obvious from his behavior that he did assume it.

Again, we don't know what the defense will claim. I will say that given the new law, even though it doesn't go into effect until November, I will be surprised if Ersland actually gets to trial. (I expect he will be offered a very attractive plea bargain.)

If they manage to convict him I'll be shocked.

The polls are clear that a large majority of Oklahomans feels as most WS posters do. Good luck getting a jury to convict Mr. Ersland.

 

[JBean]

Well, I have a question. Did he leave 2 co-workers alone in the store with the wounded dude when he went outside?

 

[jjenny]

Oh I think there definitely going to be a trial. Only one more week. And you never know what a jury will do.

 

[jjenny]

Well, I have a question. Did he leave 2 co-workers alone in the store with the wounded dude when he went outside?

Yes he did-when he went after the other one. However that is neither here nor there. I am sure his adrenaline was going, so really he can not be expected to behave with perfect logic as some appear to expect. I mean, if you were expecting him to behave with perfect logic, would you expect he (he is disabled and wears a back brace) running after someone who has a gun? In my opinion, he is clearly experiencing "fight or flight" response only he decided to "fight." He is a disabled men who if he was thinking logically should have realized he should not be running after somebody who is much younger and armed. This looks to be classic "fight or flight" response. And who is at fault this man was put into this situation?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No, I'm not saying they are lying nor did I mean to imply that gun owners are less truthful than other people.

My argument was that they have specific points of view, just as I do, and that may affect their beliefs as to how many "crimes" they have thwarted.

A better survey would be based on police reports, though even there many of the accounts would have to be self-reported.

I do apologize if I seemed to be calling gun owners liars. I don't believe that and have no reason to think so.

(And I trust you will note I never blamed the pharmacist for defending himself. I only blame him for later executing an incapacitated man.)

Well they aren't lying. Many more crimes are stopped due to a private citizen having a legal firearm. It is the illegal weapon that is used to commit most of the crimes in America. We have about 75-80 million legal gun owners in this country and about 14,900 murders a year. (3500 females-11,400-males) and this includes all methods used. When a firearm is used often it is an illegal weapon used and many of the defendants are ex-felons.

The reason you doubt it is the media has spoon fed the public for decades into being anti-gun. Now THE JOURNALISTS are very biased. If it doesn't 'bleed' then they don't report it ..........."if it bleeds it leads." :innocent: So all we hear about are the criminals who are using firearms to commit crimes and little to nothing about the vast majority of crimes being thwarted that resulted in no blood shed. Approximately 250,000 women a year will foil an attempted rape if they are in the possession of a legal handgun at the time.

A few ethical journalists over the years have had the fortitude to expose the extreme media slant and biases but most of the media wants to report on what gets them the most bang for their buck and ratings and that is crimes that end in murder...blood and gore.

The Supreme Court knows the truth and that is why they refuse to take the rights to bear arms away from legal gun owners. They know it is the illegally obtained firearm that causes havoc in this country.

On this case the jury will have to decide the pharmacist state of mind at the time all of this was transpiring.

IMO

 

[JBean]

Yes he did-when he went after the other one. However that is neither here nor there. I am sure his adrenaline was going, so really he can not be expected to behave with perfect logic as some appear to expect. I mean, if you were expecting him to behave with perfect logic, would you expect he (he is disabled and wears a back brace) running after someone who has a gun? In my opinion, he is clearly experiencing "fight or flight" response only he decided to "fight." He is a disabled men who if he was thinking logically should have realized he should not be running after somebody who is much younger and armed. This looks to be classic "fight or flight" response. And who is at fault this man was put into this situation?

I disagree that it is neither here nor there.
To be clear, I am only trying to gather the data to make a determination as to what happened and have not assigned guilt or innocence.

It does stand to reason that if he left 2 unarmed co-workers with the intruder, he felt some level of comfort that the co-workers would be ok with him. I understand these are split second decisions and Lord only knows what I might do. But since he was in a defensive posture and particularly because he had physical limitations, he had to assess the situation and when he did, he decided that it was better to leave and chase one intruder while leaving unattended co-workers with the intruder that was shot. To a jury, that could mean that he determined the injured intruder was not a threat and not a threat works against self defense.
But since we cannot see what was happening, perhaps the intruder rolled over or otherwise made movement that changed the situation and the shopkeeper had to reassess. I'll have to re read and see if there is any information as to what we are being told the intruder did after being shot.

I am just trying to understand the whole scenario. Overall I think everyone is entitled to defend themselves, and that is an "of course" issue for me. I just want to make sure that is what he was doing.

 

[jjenny]

I do not believe that when he run out of the store he had any idea what the one he shot was doing, or that he even managed to shoot him. Again, I think he was experiencing "fight or flight" response and just run after the one with a gun without thinking. Aggressive behavior is a normal physiological response to stressful situation. I find it very hard to believe that within those seconds he run after the guy with a gun, he figured the one still in the store was completely incapacitated and thus not a threat.

 

[JBean]

I do not believe that when he run out of the store he had any idea what the one he shot was doing, or that he even managed to shoot him. Again, I think he was experiencing "fight or flight" response and just run after the one with a gun without thinking. Aggressive behavior is a normal physiological response to stressful situation. I find it very hard to believe that within those seconds he run after the guy with a gun, he figured the one still in the store was completely incapacitated and thus not a threat.

I think there would also be a common instinct to protect. This is basic decision made at gut level and probably would not require careful consideration. IMO, for some reason, at that time he did not think the co-workers needed protection. That would work against self defense at that moment; and perhaps that is why he did not kill him then.

Again, don't know what the dude was doing out of sight after the shopkeep left.

In the movies;after those hero vs villain hand to hand fights, they always have the part where the hero thinks he has killed the villain and starts to walk away. But we all know the villain is going to roll over and grab their ankle one more time. I am always yelling stab him again, don't be a fool he is not dead, you have to kill him!

Perhaps this was just such a situation, where the shopkeep thought he had taken care of the intruder and then realized he could still hurt someone or something.
I don't know, but suspect we will find out.

 

[jjenny]

Protective instinct is not a part of "fight or flight" response. The pharmacist would not be thinking logically. He would move into an attack mode. If you ask me, this describes exactly what went on. The pharmacist did not do anything to put himself into this situation. He was working and minding his own business. Now his life is destroyed and he is going on trial for first degree murder. Because our physiology is hard wired to behave the way he did?

"When our fight or flight system is activated, we tend to perceive everything in our environment as a possible threat to our survival. By its very nature, the fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind—where our more well thought out beliefs exist—and moves us into "attack" mode. This state of alert causes us to perceive almost everything in our world as a possible threat to our survival. As such, we tend to see everyone and everything as a possible enemy. Like airport security during a terrorist threat, we are on the look out for every possible danger. We may overreact to the slightest comment. Our fear is exaggerated. Our thinking is distorted. We see everything through the filter of possible danger. We narrow our focus to those things that can harm us. Fear becomes the lens through which we see the world."
http://www.thebodysoulconnection.com/EducationCenter/fight.html

 

[Sonya610]

IMO, for some reason, at that time he did not think the co-workers needed protection. That would work against self defense at that moment; and perhaps that is why he did not kill him then.

I think I read the coworkers had immediately locked themselves in a back room. Remember this store had been robbed before and the employees were severely beaten even after giving up the goods, so they were scared.

I would think the robbers would have needed one staff member's assistance to find the desired goods in a timely manner, the staff had probably already come up with a plan of action ahead of time.