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

[jjenny]

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.

Well did the pharmacist even know the would be robber was shot in the head? How do you know the would be robber wasn't moving? After all even if he was seriously wounded he could have been making noises and twitching. Why do you assume he wasn't? You are assuming the pharmacist knew the would be robber was incapacitated. I don't assume any such thing. And it's definitely not the same as tying someone up and then shooting them.

 

[Sonya610]

Well did the pharmacist even know the would be robber was shot in the head? How do you know the would be robber wasn't moving? After all even if he was seriously wounded he could have been making noises and twitching. Why do you assume he wasn't? You are assuming the pharmacist knew the would be robber was incapacitated. I don't assume any such thing. And it's definitely not the same as tying someone up and then shooting them.

Yes, if I were the defense attorney that would be my story and I would stick to it. They claim the gut shots were clustered so closely the guy could not have been conscious (he would have moved after the first shot) but so what.

Fact is NO ONE CAN PROVE he didn't move and NO ONE can say it was not possible! Unless a body has been dead a while muscle twitches and moans and such can happen, heck even after they have been dead a while, and this guy was was still alive. The pharmacists LOOKED pretty calculated but who can know what he saw or what he was thinking, the story should be "he moved/twitched/made a noise, the women were crying and terrified, making sure the guy did not sit up and draw a weapon was the only thought in the pharmacists mind...etc..." Plus since the assailant was wearing a mask it would be darn near impossible to know if it was a scratch that grazed his head and knocked him down, or a head shot that could be disabling.

Guy could have moved as the pharmacist re-entered the building for all we know!

 

[jjenny]

The pharmacist certainly didn't spend a long time looking at the alleged robber to even figure out that the alleged robber was shot in the head with incapacitating wound, IMO. It's easy for us to assume because we know that was the case. But how would the pharmacist know-all of that happened very quickly. And even a dead body can twitch and make noises as rigor mortis sets in. When you are in an armed robbery situation assuming you have incapacitated someone could be the last thing you ever do.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

For what it's worth, one of the pharmacy employees testified that she heard nothing in the pharmacy while Ersland was outside chasing the other guy:

"In her testimony Wednesday, West repeatedly said she did not hear any noise inside the small pharmacy while the pharmacist went outside after the second robber."

Read more: http://newsok.com/drugstore-employe...-handle-robbers/article/3562592#ixzz1MRVOPkna

So I think we can safely assume that Parker wasn't making any noise. Of course, we have no way of knowing if he was twitching or not.

 

[Sonya610]

So I think we can safely assume that Parker wasn't making any noise. Of course, we have no way of knowing if he was twitching or not.

Oh I think we can "safely assume" that means nothing. The two females ran and shut themselves in a back room, one was supposedly crying hysterically. Now they say they heard nothing? Oh really, why not come to the front of the store if you are trying to hear something? Oh...that's right...because the front of the store just had gun-weilding robbers threatening to kill all the employees THAT is why they were hiding in the back room!

Not only is their testimony nearly worthless BUT they could not possibly have seen if the robber moved, nor accurately heard if the assailant was making noise. Their testimony for the prosecution (if they intend to go that route) will not amount to a hill of beans and for good reason! They ran and hid, knowing full well ONE of the staff had to remain to fulfill the robber's demands.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

So you are accusing Megan West of committing perjury?

For clarification, she did not say anything about whether she saw Parker move, nor did I.

 

[Sonya610]

So you are accusing Megan West of committing perjury?

For clarification, she did not say anything about whether she saw Parker move, nor did I.

I am saying if Megan West was hiding in a back room (fearing for her life) with a crying female she could EASILY have not heard what was going on in the front of the store! Was Megan West listening for sounds? Her testimony in that back room, hiding away knowing someone else was busy dealing with the situation is questionable at best! So she "didn't hear anything" she was NOT in the main part of the store!

 

[jjenny]

For what it's worth, one of the pharmacy employees testified that she heard nothing in the pharmacy while Ersland was outside chasing the other guy:

"In her testimony Wednesday, West repeatedly said she did not hear any noise inside the small pharmacy while the pharmacist went outside after the second robber."

Read more: http://newsok.com/drugstore-employe...-handle-robbers/article/3562592#ixzz1MRVOPkna

So I think we can safely assume that Parker wasn't making any noise. Of course, we have no way of knowing if he was twitching or not.

From what I understand, the employee was in hiding in a back room, presumably with door closed? And possibly with one of the employees crying? Under these conditions, I wouldn't expect her to hear whether the suspect was making noises.

 

[jjenny]

So you are accusing Megan West of committing perjury?

For clarification, she did not say anything about whether she saw Parker move, nor did I.

Nobody is accusing Megan West of any perjuries. Under the conditions she was (in a back room and one employee possibly crying?) I wouldn't expect her to be able to hear what suspect was doing.
And how could she possibly see the suspect move or not if she was in a back room?

 

[jjenny]

For what it's worth, one of the pharmacy employees testified that she heard nothing in the pharmacy while Ersland was outside chasing the other guy:

"In her testimony Wednesday, West repeatedly said she did not hear any noise inside the small pharmacy while the pharmacist went outside after the second robber."

Read more: http://newsok.com/drugstore-employe...-handle-robbers/article/3562592#ixzz1MRVOPkna

So I think we can safely assume that Parker wasn't making any noise. Of course, we have no way of knowing if he was twitching or not.

No, we can not safely assume anything of the sort.
Not even close.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Here's how I see it.

Going by the article I linked to, Megan testified there was "silence" in the pharmacy after Ersland left to chase the other robber, and "repeatedly" testified she did not hear any noise during this time.

I am willing to take her testimony at face value and also assume that if she were hiding in a place where she could not possibly have heard what was going on in the pharmacy, or could not hear because of someone in the same room crying, she would have said so rather than "repeatedly" saying she heard nothing.

And once again, I am not sure why people are arguing that she couldn't possibly have seen anything in the pharmacy from where she was hiding. No one, not even she, claims she did.

If others are willing to dismiss her sworn testimony with doubts that she could hear anything, then I agree to disagree.

Now I have a different question. Where did this report of the other employee crying hysterically come from? I have searched and I cannot find it.

ETA: Regarding the employee crying hysterically, I am looking for a source other than Ersland.

 

[Sonya610]

Now I have a different question. Where did this report of the other employee crying hysterically come from? I have searched and I cannot find it.

ETA: Regarding the employee crying hysterically, I am looking for a source other than Ersland.

Did the females run to a back room in order to save themselves? If they did, and I believe they stated that was the case, I do not believe either of them claimed to have dared walk out during the mayhem to visually witness what happened.

Hiding and afraid and not witnessing what happened during the alleged "crime" of murder. Are the women now saying they witnessed the final shots and the events leading up to it?

 

[jjenny]

Megan might have testified she did not hear anything, but was she cross-examined? Have you seen "my cousin Vinny" where an old lady identified the two of them as killers? Turns out she couldn't see anything without her glasses. "How many fingers am I holding up?" I am not saying Megan is hard of hearing.
From the conditions as described (hiding in a back room, was the door closed? did an employee cry?) I find it quite questionable as to what she could or couldn't hear inside the pharmacy. If she were able to hear loud noises, certainly doesn't mean she could hear everything.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Did the females run to a back room in order to save themselves? If they did, and I believe they stated that was the case, I do not believe either of them claimed to have dared walk out during the mayhem to visually witness what happened.

Hiding and afraid and not witnessing what happened during the alleged "crime" of murder. Are the women now saying they witnessed the final shots and the events leading up to it?

I'm sorry, I am not understanding what any of this has to do with what I posted?

I never said either of them claimed to have come out from where they were hiding to witness what happened. As far as I know, neither of them has stated anything like that.

Megan testified as to what HEARD (not SAW) during the time Ersland left the pharmacy to chase the other robber.

 

[jjenny]

I'm sorry, I am not understanding what any of this has to do with what I posted?

I never said either of them claimed to have come out from where they were hiding to witness what happened. As far as I know, neither of them has stated anything like that.

Megan testified as to what HEARD (not SAW) during the time Ersland left the pharmacy to chase the other robber.

If they were in a back room, how well could have they heard anything in a first place? Especially if the door was closed? And they clearly have not come out, because once they gone in a back room you don't see them on tape.

 

[flourish]

Video link:
http://youtu.be/DSBBlEhmWNQ

We can't see from the video what the perp on the ground was doing between the time he falls until he is shot again. We can, however, see what the pharmacist was doing. Watching it again, I noticed a couple of things:

• The pharmacist moves towards to far end of the counter at the beginning of the incident. It's hard to tell from the video if the counter goes all the way to the wall or not. However, we then see the pharmacist coming to the front of the counter from that far end. That leads me to think that the far end of the counter does NOT reach the end of the far wall, but that there is a space inbetween far end of counter and far wall, which enabled the pharmacist to initially move from behind to in front of the counter.
• When he returns, he doesn't go to that same far end of the counter passage to get to the other gun. Instead, he chooses the path which puts him very close to the perp on ground. One would imagine that perhaps a person might choose the path farther from the perceived threat than the path closer to the perceived threat when trying to get away from said perceived threat.
• Also, it's hard to tell, but it looks like there is a wall/partition that doesn't go all the way up to the ceiling. I'm wondering if that partial wall is the wall separating the area we can see from the area where the other employees fled to. I would imagine partial walls would create a different "overhearing" scenario than walls that completely go up to the ceiling. But again, it's difficult to tell by the video, and perhaps the employees fled to a completely different room. I don't know.
• Speaking of fleeing, while we're all talking about how we know or do not know what we would do in a situation like this, for some reason I am getting the impression that there is some judgement being put upon the employees who fled. Fleeing a perceived threat is one of a few "natural," "normal" responses, so I'm wondering why anyone would think less of a person who does flee--maybe I'm reading between the lines too much However...
• Perhaps the employees know they don't have the skills, equipment, opportunity, state of mind, or general ability to assist the situation, and recognize that their very presence may in fact hinder other people's safety in the situation. Perhaps they were previously instructed by their supervisor what to do in a robbery situation, and fleeing to the back room was their direction.
• It's possible to cry/sob/weep very quietly, particularly when consciously trying to not be heard crying/sobbing/weeping.

JMHO, of course. I hope the employees were provided with any needed mental health assistance after this traumatic incident and its aftermath.


:cow: eace:

 

[jjenny]

Of course it's possible to cry or sob quietly, but once you are in a back room (with the door closed?) you aren't going to hear what is going on in front of the store as well as someone next to you sobbing. And I've never heard about these employees being provided with any sort of mental assistance after this. Assuming they have medical insurance I presume it would be up to them to get any mental assistance or not.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'll repeat what I said before:

I am willing to take Megan's testimony of what she did and did not hear at face value, and I also assume that if she were hiding in a place where she could not possibly have heard what was going on in the pharmacy, or could not hear because of someone in the same room crying, she would have said so.

Others here are clearly not willing to take her testimony at face value.

I don't see any point in arguing about it further because none of us will ever be able to know for sure what she did and did not hear. As I said, all we can do is agree to disagree.

 

[jjenny]

I'll repeat what I said before:

I am willing to take Megan's testimony of what she did and did not hear at face value, and I also assume that if she were hiding in a place where she could not possibly have heard what was going on in the pharmacy, or could not hear because of someone in the same room crying, she would have said so.

Others here are clearly not willing to take her testimony at face value.

I don't see any point in arguing about it further because none of us will ever be able to know for sure what she did and did not hear. As I said, all we can do is agree to disagree.

Well if she testifies at Ersland's trial I am sure she will be cross-examined to figure out if she would be able to hear non-loud noises in a first place.
The lawyer for those who planned the robbery would not be interested in cross-examining her on this for obvious reasons. The same goes for the prosecution.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And I am sure that this is one of the reasons the prosecutor wants jurors to visit the pharmacy in person.