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

[flourish]

Edit/clarificiation to my post up-thread:

I realize that I can't say what I would do in that situation. My best guess is that I'd start crying, probably pee my pants, give them whatever they wanted, and then, IF THEY DIDN'T KILL ME, manage to call 911 while going into emotional shock.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The pharmacist could only be convicted of lesser offense if lesser charges are included. As far as I know he has been charged with first degree murder.

I think that will work in the defense's favor.

Imo, the jury isn't going to convict him on 1st degree.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Unless you have reacted that way to a similar situation before you probably wouldn't start crying or pee your pants (unless it got violent and painful).

You would probably be stunned, it would seem like it was happening fast (or slow motion but regardless) and your brain could not catch up and formulate a strategy or really do much of anything except maybe follow orders. That is why people should have a plan ahead of time whenever possible, it is possible to revert to a plan but it is darn hard to make it up as you go along unless you have been in similar stressful situations before or you are some sort of rarity that doesn't process fear/adrenaline like average people.

The pharmacist obviously had thought about it and followed through with his plan which was probably "if I am robbed I will kill them given the chance" (the first part of his plan worked quite well, he stayed calm and fired effectively, he apparently didn't think much at all during the second part, his mind wasn't processing data as clearly as it should hence the mistake).

This massively complex cocktail of factors is collectively known as the adrenal stress response.

We change in a crisis -- and not always for the better. Our physical and mental acuity are greatly reduced and we are functioning in a very primitive and raw state.

Not only is functioning more difficult, but our perceptions are altered. That is to say our internal 'reality' may not be an accurate reflection of the external 'actuality.' Unfortunately, in this condition what we are going to be reacting to is our internal reality. This is why so many people, although they are convinced they are legally defending themselves are in fact, fighting.

The adrenal response can easily create two totally different problems. One is that it renders you incapable of action. Two is it causes you to go berserk on someone ... neither is good.


http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/mental_preparation.htm

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The defense should put an psychologist/psychiatrist on the stand to testify as to what happens to a person who has encountered a very violent situation through no fault of their own.

Others who have not faced such traumatic situations themselves tend to put their own rational thought processes into the mind of the person facing the violent situation by trying to think for them. That simply is not doable. There is nothing rational about the situation they have found themselves in.




IMO

 

[jjenny]

Edit/clarificiation to my post up-thread:

I realize that I can't say what I would do in that situation. My best guess is that I'd start crying, probably pee my pants, give them whatever they wanted, and then, IF THEY DIDN'T KILL ME, manage to call 911 while going into emotional shock.

So basically you would go into a "flight" mode of "fight or flight" response. I am pretty sure I would too. The pharmacist clearly went into a "fight" mode.
Again, I do not feel that he is responsible for being put into the situation. It was not of his own making, he was minding his own business until the robbery. So in my view it is extremely unfair to charge him with first degree murder.

 

[flourish]

So basically you would go into a "flight" mode of "fight or flight" response. I am pretty sure I would too. The pharmacist clearly went into a "fight" mode.
Again, I do not feel that he is responsible for being put into the situation. It was not of his own making, he was minding his own business until the robbery. So in my view it is extremely unfair to charge him with first degree murder.

Well, I imagined as more of a "freeze," than "flight," but yeah, that works, too, I guess. I don't blame anyone who goes into "fight" mode. I agree that the pharmacist should not be charged with first degree murder. I do think he crossed the line from self-defense to an act which was not lawfully justifiable, at least as I understand the law. Understandable to a point, but not lawful. :cow:

 

[kemo]

I'm glad there are a few others on this board that see the situation as I did. I understand there may have been mitigating circumstances that could result in a lesser conviction. What has appalled me is the opinion that what the pharmacist did was acceptable or even commendable.

The two factors that point to a serious problem with his behavior are: 1) the fact that he turned his back on the kid as he walked back to get the second gun/re-load. You just don't turn your back on someone who you believe has a gun and represents any kind of a threat and 2) he lied to the police. This was not a little lie, it was a very significant lie. He knew he would be in trouble if the police found out her got a second gun or re-loaded before he fired the second volley of shots. He also falsely claimed that the assailants fired at him.

 

[jjenny]

He might have believed he was fired at. After all he had a gun pointed at him.

 

[jjenny]

Well, I imagined as more of a "freeze," than "flight," but yeah, that works, too, I guess. I don't blame anyone who goes into "fight" mode. I agree that the pharmacist should not be charged with first degree murder. I do think he crossed the line from self-defense to an act which was not lawfully justifiable, at least as I understand the law. Understandable to a point, but not lawful. :cow:

According to wikipedia, it is also called "fight, flight or freeze" response. It's a survival strategy, and different people will use different strategies to survive. Men are more likely to exhibit "fight" response.

 

[Sonya610]

This massively complex cocktail of factors is collectively known as the adrenal stress response.

We change in a crisis -- and not always for the better. Our physical and mental acuity are greatly reduced and we are functioning in a very primitive and raw state.

Not only is functioning more difficult, but our perceptions are altered. That is to say our internal 'reality' may not be an accurate reflection of the external 'actuality.' Unfortunately, in this condition what we are going to be reacting to is our internal reality. This is why so many people, although they are convinced they are legally defending themselves are in fact, fighting.

The adrenal response can easily create two totally different problems. One is that it renders you incapable of action. Two is it causes you to go berserk on someone ... neither is good.


http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/mental_preparation.htm

Thanks for that, I had experienced that response but had never read about it. Interesting website (wasted an hour following the various links). I find understanding what happens to be very helpful and apparently knowing what it is and why it is happening helps people overcome/deal with it when it occurs.

It also has good points on the difference between self-defense and fighting, stating self defense is not causing pain or fighting back but trying to "break something" in the attacker as fast as possible to end the attack. That is a very valuable incite that I believe many (especially women) do not grasp.

 

[Tricia]

Everyone please let's remember our Terms of Service . . . "attack the post, not the poster."

Thank you.

Tricia











``````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

[IzzyBlanche]

It is clear that the choice to charge the victim was quite political.

[Respectfully snipped]

I have followed this story from nearly day one on newsok.com, which made an exception to its normal rules to allow comments on the story. The overwhelming majority view was that the deceased would-be robber got what he deserved. As far as I know that view still prevails.

Given this, I have been surprised at the prosecution's doggedness in pursuing the case, considering the widespread public opposition.

So I am wondering why you think the charges were politically motivated?

More like political suicide, it seems to me.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well, the two are not mutually exclusive. People in the public eye tend to favor short term benefits to themselves over long term benefits to our society as a whole, counting on the public having a short attention span. This usually works out pretty well for them.

Consider Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. Nifong got a tremendous boost in support for charging innocent white guys from wealthy families for raping a black girl (who turned out to be lying), and there is no doubt that this support helped him win reelection. The motivation for the charges was completely political, gaining him wide support from locals that would vote for him. It was a stupid decision, but he made it.

Although fiction, albeit a great work thereof, the character Abe Weiss in Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities is an illustration of the same thing.

But what benefits, short-term or long, do you see for the prosecutors in this case? Public sentiment is strongly against trying this man while IIRC public sentiment was highly in favor of trying the lacrosse team members. I don't see this winning votes down the road.

 

[Nova]

The fact that the OK legislature felt it necessary to enact new law to make the pharmacist's execution of the robber legal implies rather strongly that the execution was NOT legal under laws existing at the time it occurred.

It would be illegal here in CA as well, and, I suspect, in most states.

So I also don't understand the assumption that the prosecutor was motivated by potential political gain.

Sounds like just the opposite: he was following the law as it was written at the time.

(Adnoid, the comparison to the Duke case seems particularly odd, given that that case was based on a lie from an alleged victim and this case was videotaped and, as far as we know, only the accused lied.)

 

[jjenny]

The fact that the OK legislature felt it necessary to enact new law to make the pharmacist's execution of the robber legal implies rather strongly that the execution was NOT legal under laws existing at the time it occurred.

It would be illegal here in CA as well, and, I suspect, in most states.

So I also don't understand the assumption that the prosecutor was motivated by potential political gain.

Sounds like just the opposite: he was following the law as it was written at the time.

Not everything is clear cut. The laws are open to interpretation. Prosecutors have a discretion on whether to prosecute someone or not. The legislation passing new laws might feel the need to clarify the existing ones. If legislation does not believe that people should be prosecuted for self-defense under the existing laws, but see that the people are prosecuted, the legislation might just pass a new law to clarify that issue.

 

[Nova]

But what benefits, short-term or long, do you see for the prosecutors in this case? Public sentiment is strongly against trying this man while IIRC public sentiment was highly in favor of trying the lacrosse team members. I don't see this winning votes down the road.

Adnoid's comparison to Bonfire of the Vanities may be a clue. In the book, a rich, white suburbanite is overcharged to appeal to an angry, black, urban underclass. Come to think of it, that may be why adnoid sees this case as somehow comparable to the Duke lacrosse team fiasco.

I'm just guessing. I don't know exactly where the pharmacy in question was located or what the demographics of the DA's district are.

AND TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: I'm only speculating that adnoid's view on the politics of the case may be based on the races of the principals. His view of the shooting itself is entirely consistent with views he has expressed in the past concerning different shootings with different principals; his view of the shooting is also consistent with a general philosophy he has articulated in many ways at different times. I am not for a moment implying his opinion that the shooting was justified is based on race.

 

[Nova]

Not everything is clear cut. The laws are open to interpretation. Prosecutors have a discretion on whether to prosecute someone or not. The legislation passing new laws might feel the need to clarify the existing ones. If legislation does not believe that people should be prosecuted for self-defense under the existing laws, but see that the people are prosecuted, the legislation might just pass a new law to clarify that issue.

If legislators merely felt the prosecutor was misinterpreting existing OK law for political gain, there are ways to make and pursue a complaint. If that happened here, I haven't heard about it.

(W)hen an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)


The principle that the threat must be imminent dates back to English common law. It isn't a casual interpretation by this DA. Shooting someone in the head would generally be considered an effective restraint; thus the imminent threat ended when the other robber left the premises.

 

[jjenny]

Well the would be robber wasn't either restrained, surrendering or fleeing.

 

[Nova]

Well the would be robber wasn't either restrained, surrendering or fleeing.

You mean the one shot and lying on the floor?

Then that's for a jury to decide. I've seen the tape of the pharmacist claiming the wounded robber made noises and motions the pharmacist found threatening; but if I were a juror, I would dismiss that as something his lawyer taught him to say. (Particularly since in the same video, the pharmacists spends the first several minutes talking about how he thought one of his employees had been shot to death, which makes his execution of the robber a revenge killing, not justifiable self-defense.)

Personally, I think a shot to the head is rather effective restraint. Since the pharmacist left and then returned to step over the wounded robber, and the pharmacist twice turned his back on the wounded kid, I'm satisfied that the pharmacist also thought the wounded robber was restrained by the shot to his head.

I wonder if posters here would be so quick to defend the pharmacist if he had tied up the wound robber and then executed him. Because in essence, what the pharmacist did wasn't all that different.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'm just guessing. I don't know exactly where the pharmacy in question was located or what the demographics of the DA's district are.

[snipped for space]

I do. The pharmacy is located in an area that, when I was growing up in OKC, was largely white. Today it's a racial mix but I am pretty sure whites and Hispanics make up the majority. Middle to lower-middle class.

As far as the DA's district, Oklahoma City is 68% white, 15% African American, and 10% Latino.

Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html

I just don't see a lot of political capital being earned by anyone for prosecuting this case. As I said already, seems more like political suicide to me.

ETA: I moved away from OKC years ago but do occasionally go back for visits.