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

[Nova]

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.

I think that cliche ending is one of the worst of the myths we tell ourselves, J. But we'd be hard pressed to find an action film over the last 30 years that doesn't end with such a killing. No wonder support for the d.p. is so high here.

 

[Nova]

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

I don't disagree with the above, but taken at face value, it might excuse all but a handful of murders and other crimes.

However, the premise of civilization and the rule of law is that humans have to overrule their emotional and animal instincts at times. The issue here is where is it reasonable to demand that a person gain control of his instincts.

In the case of JBean's son, the DA decided a mere one step back from the attacker was enough time for the son to withdraw. I think that's outrageous, particularly since fist-fighting has always involved considerable movement back and forth, and a step back may be a prelude to a fresh attack rather than a cessation.

In the case of the OK pharmacist, nobody faults him for the first shot. But how long does he get before the law can expect him to get his "fight or flight" instinct under control? Moments? Minutes? Hours? Days? Years? And, as JBean notes, what behavior by the robber might extend that period?

 

[Allusonz]

Interesting this entire episode occured over 46 seconds

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3931875/

 

[Nova]

You have witnessed a defense attorney ask "Will you vote to acquit my client" and excuse any juror who will not answer "Yes"?

No, but in a self-defense case, he will certainly ask whether you or I will acquit a defendant who lawfully defends himself. And he will recite the law on the subject and probe to see whether you or I will follow that law in a manner that benefits his client.

The prosecutor will do the same. So a statement of yours such as "criminals are criminals and they're responsible for whatever happens when they decide to rob a store" will get you excused by the prosecutor--in a case such as the OK pharmacist; in most other cases, a prosecutor will probably love you for the same sentiment. (I'm paraphrasing your statement from pages ago, so if I misrepresented your position, I apologize.)

Likewise, if I were in OK and said I thought leaving the premises was a clear indicator that the pharmacist knew the wounded robber was incapacitated, I would be excused by the defense.

My point is that you have argued that CA law does not go far enough in allowing business owners to protect themselves. You are entitled to that opinion, but in a self-defense case, your opinions will be probed and that one will most likely get you excused from that case.

Obviously, I am assuming that you won't commit perjury and simply tell the lawyer what he wants to hear, no more than I.

In case it isn't clear, I am not insulting you here, adnoid. I'm just describing how the process works. I have certainly been excluded from jury panels because of my views on certain subjects. I've also served on three juries.

 

[Nova]

I rereading my posts it sure seems that I have said there is a line and I described where I put it. You put it somewhere else.

Then I misunderstood you and I apologize for that.

Where (and/or how) would you draw the line?

 

[Nova]

That's not what you said.

I would not shoot them for being involved in financial crimes. Force from the victim as a reaction to force from a criminal is fine with me. Crime at the point of a pen deserves imprisonment and loss of assets.

Fair enough. I agree with that much.

But I don't think that any force (however small) from a criminal justifies all possible force at all future times from a victim. I'm sure you don't think so either. (Despite your own "knuckle-dragging" references, I don't actually think of you as unreasonable or uncivilized.)

 

[Nova]

Jury nullification is not against the law. Determining a verdict in advance is a violation of the oath, whether by taking the position that you WILL acquit regardless of the facts because you don't agree with the law or for any other reason.

If I'm asked if I am aware of nullification I will answer honestly. If I'm struck from the jury that's the right of the attorney. But the mere fact that I am aware of the principle does not mean I'll apply it in a particular case.

BBM: I believe you are incorrect in terms of CA law:

http://homepage.smc.edu/sindell_steven/AJ3 Folder/Currentevents/aj3.jury.nullific.html



(Note: that decision is 10 years old and I don't have access to Lexis to see if it has been amended or overturned. I believe you do, if you want to look it up, but it only affects whether jury nullification gets a potential juror bounced "for cause" or not.)

But as that article acknowledges, courts have tended to ignore the subject because it is so difficult to prove.

Of course you won't be excused for admitting you've heard of the concept.

What I was saying was that if you or I announced our willingness to nullify the law based on some other principle (a broader right of self-defense, say), we would be excused tout suite.

I know this from personal experience. Every potential jury is asked whether there is anything that might keep him from following the law as instructed by the judge in this case. It's called the "catch-all" question and each judge has his own form of it. I am candid about my feelings about drug possession laws and my unwillingness to enforce them for certain substances, such as pot.

That gets me excused "for cause" from such cases (which isn't why I say it; I say it because I've sworn to tell the truth).

(If by chance the court ruling I cited has been overturned and potential jurors are no longer excused for admitting they might nullify, then the side affected will excuse such a juror using a peremptory challenge.)

 

[jjenny]

I don't disagree with the above, but taken at face value, it might excuse all but a handful of murders and other crimes.

However, the premise of civilization and the rule of law is that humans have to overrule their emotional and animal instincts at times. The issue here is where is it reasonable to demand that a person gain control of his instincts.

In the case of JBean's son, the DA decided a mere one step back from the attacker was enough time for the son to withdraw. I think that's outrageous, particularly since fist-fighting has always involved considerable movement back and forth, and a step back may be a prelude to a fresh attack rather than a cessation.

In the case of the OK pharmacist, nobody faults him for the first shot. But how long does he get before the law can expect him to get his "fight or flight" instinct under control? Moments? Minutes? Hours? Days? Years? And, as JBean notes, what behavior by the robber might extend that period?

No, it's not going to excuse all murders. The pharmacist was not looking for this, he was minding his own business, working and trying to make a living. He was put into a situation to which he responded the way our physiology makes a lot of people to respond because of years of evolution. And if goes into survival mode and his sense of danger is heightened, then why wouldn't this pharmacist believe that the alleged robber was still a threat? We've already agreed that since one of the alleged robbers was armed, it was not unreasonable for the pharmacist to assume both of them might be armed. So how would he know the guy on the ground was in fact incapacitated and not a threat?

 

[Nova]

Interesting this entire episode occured over 46 seconds

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3931875/

That's interesting and revealing. I think I'm beginning to understand the defense strategy here and I don't think it's to argue the defendant was within the law.

1. The defense attorney makes a point of noting the robbers were two "black" males. And that is relevant because...? It isn't relevant, but it might inflame the prejudices of a juror or two, so what the heck?

2. More importantly, the attorney allows his client to first claim he executed the kid because he (the defendant) thought Megan (the teenage employee) was dead because her mother was crying.

Only after elaborating on this idea (which basically make this a revenge killing) for some time, does the defendant proceed to claim that the robber on the floor began talking and moved toward the defendant in a threatening manner.

It is the latter (threatening move) that might justify additional shooting, not the presumed death of a teenager, however horrendous.

So unless the lawyer is already aiming for a manslaughter verdict (defendant was out of his mind with grief over the death of Megan), then either (a) he hasn't coached his client very well, or (b) he thinks his best bet is playing on the sympathies of the jurors rather than stressing the facts of the case. IMO.

 

[Nova]

No, it's not going to excuse all murders. The pharmacist was not looking for this, he was minding his own business, working and trying to make a living. He was put into a situation to which he responded the way our physiology makes a lot of people to respond. And if his sense of danger is heightened, if the alleged robber is on the ground and is moving, then why wouldn't pharmacist not believe that was a threat? We've already agreed that since one of them was armed, it was not unreasonable for the pharmacist to assume both of them might be armed. So how would he know the guy on the ground was in fact incapacitated and not a threat?

My point was that the law requires us to curb our "fight or flight" response every day. I agree this situation is more extreme, but simply invoking an ancient adrenal response doesn't automatically exempt one from obeying the law.

If the prosecution is successful in this case (and I'll be surprised), it won't be because it asks the jury to determine what anyone would be thinking in the face of an armed robbery, it will be because the prosecutor successfully argues that the pharmacist's own words and actions show he was acting out of revenge rather than fear of grave injury.

 

[lonetraveler]

Let me clarify....I said "technically". And yes technically "standing your ground" is just that, it isn't shoot them, leave, then come back a little while later and shoot them a few more times.

Now do not misunderstand, I am talking from a legal perspective here, not a moral one. I personally am fine with what the pharmacist did, I wish this sort of thing would happen a WHOLE lot more often! I am happy to hear that little won't be able to victimize countless people and live in and out of prison for the next 40 years while being fed and sheltered on tax dollars, I am also glad he won't be out there fathering children that the tax-payers have to feed as well. Good riddance.

Great post! I'm willing to bet that the that got away will be out and robbing and most likely murdering the next victims. And, I'm willing to bet also that the public will be stone silent when this happens.

 

[Nova]

The "little " that the pharmacist executed was unarmed and 16-years-old.

Maybe he was headed for a life of violent crime. Or maybe he was a very young man who made the tragic mistake of going along with a friend.

We will never know, so let's don't assume.

Regardless of the dead boy's character or future prospects, the pharmacist had a right to shoot him in self defense the first time. Whether the pharmacist had a right to execute him with the second gun is what the trial will determine.

 

[jjenny]

And the other one was 14. With a gun. Which probably made him more dangerous than some experienced robber, because he was likely very nervous and had no clue of how to use a gun.
I guess we will never find out what 16 year old would do with his life, but the 14 year old is getting out in a couple of years. So we will have a chance to know what he will do with his life.

 

[lonetraveler]

Yes, you do have the right to kill someone who is robbing you if you feel your life is in danger. The robber doesn't need to have a gun to make you feel like your life is in danger. If he pulled a knife or even pretended like he had a gun in his pocket you can lay claim that you felt your life was in danger.

One of these guys had a gun. The victim's life was in danger. End of story.

I read once where cops would empty their guns into someone who was trying to kill them and they wouldn't remember shooting that many times.

This man had no idea if this kid was going to get up and try and kill him or someone else. He had to make a decision in a split second. He wasn't a professional that knows how to evaluate a situation.

This is no way shape or form is vigilantism. It is a man trying to protect his life and the lives of those around him.

I can guarantee you that no one knows how they would react in this situation. You might think you know but you don't.

If this guy actually ends up going on trial you are going to see such a wave of protest all over the country.

By the way, I am not a member of the NRA. I am a liberal. To me this is common sense.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: Absolutely great post! I have had the unfortunate luck to have been in a life or death situation while working on the road in my younger days and if I had not been armed I would not be here today.

 

[Sonya610]

The "little " that the pharmacist executed was unarmed and 16-years-old.

Maybe he was headed for a life of violent crime. Or maybe he was a very young man who made the tragic mistake of going along with a friend.

We will never know, so let's don't assume.

A 16 year old is statistically more likely to kill than a 30 year old. You are correct, we won't have to "wonder" what life would have held for him. Perhaps he would have cured cancer or become the next president! We will never know but we can be darn sure he isn't going to rob anyone ever again.

 

[Nova]

And the other one was 14. With a gun. Which probably made him more dangerous than some experienced robber, because he was likely very nervous and had no clue of how to use a gun.
I guess we will never find out what 16 year old would do with his life, but the 14 year old is getting out in a couple of years. So we will have a chance to know what he will do with his life.

True. But what the 14-year-old armed robber does will not tell us what the 16-year-old unarmed robber would have done.

I just want us to be clear as to what we know and what we don't know.

I still assert that the pharmacist had a right to assume Parker (the 16-year-old) was armed and a right to use deadly force in self-defense (up through the first shooting). That Parker later proved to be unarmed doesn't change that. But let's don't jump to assume we can know what Parker would have done with his life. Plenty of juvenile offenders have turned their lives around and become law-abiding adults.

 

[Nova]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: Absolutely great post! I have had the unfortunate luck to have been in a life or death situation while working on the road in my younger days and if I had not been armed I would not be here today.

It's funny that Tricia invokes the police in the post you quote, because I seriously doubt this would be considered a clean shoot if the shooter had been a cop. Not without clear and convincing proof that the incapacitated 16-year-old made a clearly threatening gesture.

That being said, we understand that private citizens don't have the same training and, therefore, the same exact rules do not apply.

 

[Sonya610]

True. But what the 14-year-old armed robber does will not tell us what the 16-year-old unarmed robber would have done.

I just want us to be clear as to what we know and what we don't know.

We can certainly make some educated guesses:

1) It is very unlikely that this is the FIRST crime this 16 year old committed.

2) If he had been successful and made a nice chunk of cash out of this robbery (along with the congratulations and admiration of his peers) there would almost certainly have been MORE robberies.

3) Success the first time likely would have emboldened him and he would have gotten better at it, if the pharmacist had cowered and given the assailants the "power/respect/fear" they had anticipated by threatening the victim with a gun he likely would have started weilding his own weapon rather quickly (seeing as how sticking a gun in someone's face isn't really a big deal or nothin'). With repeat attempts there is a good chance he would eventually be involved in the shooting or death of a victim (or some other "innocent" little 16 year old when a dispute arrose over drugs or cash).

4) If he had NOT decided to commit armed robbery he would likely be alive today.

 

[Sonya610]

It's funny that Tricia invokes the police in the post you quote, because I seriously doubt this would be considered a clean shoot if the shooter had been a cop. Not without clear and convincing proof that the incapacitated 16-year-old made a clearly threatening gesture.

That being said, we understand that private citizens don't have the same training and, therefore, the same exact rules do not apply.

If the shooter had been a cop there is a very good chance he would have got 2 or 3 shots into the assailant's chest before he hit the ground (if it had been a single assailant for sure at that range, not sure if they stick with two single shots in the case of dual assailants).

Cops are trained to fire multiple rounds very quickly. Defensive handgun training teaches the same thing, two to the chest one to the head, or aim aside, three rapid rounds to the torso as most hand guns will not drop an attacker with one round (unless, as in this case, it is a head shot). The goal is to cause massive bodily damage very very quickly an ensure the attacker is disabled/dying and incapable of shooting back.

 

[Nova]

What I had said is that when the suspect is in the custody of the police then the threat is passed, as the authorities are now on scene.

In a nutshell, had the pharmacist pushed past the police to take another shot, or pushed aside paramedics working on the perp, or (can't believe I'm dignifying this one) shot the perp in his hospital bed, then I would not support him.

I think I understand. Does that only apply on the premises or do you want the Texas rule where the robbery victim can chase the robber down the street firing away?