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

[Nova]

For the record I do not think the kid moved either BUT NO ONE can prove the kid didn't move!

We can never know for sure if the kid moved, but we do know for sure he won't ever rob an innocent person going about their business again!

We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt who instigated this deadly encounter.

Legally, self-defense is an affirmative defense and therefore one of the rare cases where the burden of proof actually shifts to the defense.

The defense has to prove the kid did something before the second shooting that made the pharmacist fear grave bodily harm. The prosecution doesn't have to prove the kid did not. For this reason, I would expect the pharmacist to take the stand. I don't know how else the defense can meet its burden.

In theory, anyway. You and I have already agreed the letter of the law may not matter to the jurors.

 

[Sonya610]

For this reason, I would expect the pharmacist to take the stand. I don't know how else the defense can meet its burden.

Maybe meet it through prior statements? Statements made by the defendant during the investigation are usually admissable in court! The pharmacist's handlers had best scare/coach him a lot before he takes the stand.

Grant it I am only basing my opinions on the little I have read, but based on that I would be worried this guy might be an arrogant loose cannon on the stand.

Even if the jurors agree with the act in principle if he comes off as crazy/arrogant/self-righteous it will weigh against him. I hope some big guns are behind him (figuratively speaking) as this accusation needs to be defeated and a precident needs to be set here.

 

[jjenny]

The trial seem to be moving quickly. They have already visited the pharmacy.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

[respectfully snipped for space]

Would I convict him on anything related to the shooting? No, just on principle. Without prior convictions or charges on his record it is safe to assume he is not a threat to society (which for me is the litmus test).

I've been thinking about this. I sort of agree with your last statement, but on the other hand, if this guy is nutty enough--or has delusions of grandeur enough--to fabricate an entire combat history for himself, easily proven false, that he relayed to a law enforcement officer, no less...

And give a version of events in the pharmacy that makes him a much bigger hero than he was (if one considers him a hero)...

and he gets off, then I think it's possible in his own version of reality he could come to believe it is his right or duty to dispense justice at gunpoint wherever he thinks it necessary.

It's possible, I think.

One thing I keep coming back to is his insistence that he was simply protecting "the girls" when he shot Parker the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times. If protecting them was uppermost in his mind, then why didn't he stay in the pharmacy and do just that rather than leaving them alone with Parker in the first place?

I know that in such a situation one wouldn't be expected to be thinking totally rationally, but it still seems to me that by chasing the other guy out, Ersland clearly revealed that his first priority was NOT protecting the women as he has claimed.

 

[Sonya610]

I know that in such a situation one wouldn't be expected to be thinking totally rationally, but it still seems to me that by chasing the other guy out, Ersland clearly revealed that his first priority was NOT protecting the women as he has claimed.

That specific part (isolated from the rest) could be a typical reaction for some folks given the adrenaline rush and all. If one were protective of their home/loved ones etc...and suddenly you have attackers bursting in the place the gut response of "drive them off, eliminate the threat" could be quite natural.

You also have to keep personal space/territory in mind. Driving off an intruder in a crowded apartment complex might mean them stepping outside the door and into the hallway, in a rural area stepping out onto the front porch means NOTHING, in that case you want them off the property and racing down the road. Territory is relative, theoretically if he had friends/associates in nearby businesses he might have mentally mapped his "territory" as being bigger than the shop.

I think this guy is a bit of a nut job which is how this case has ended up going to trial to begin with, too many false statements (for no good reason) after the incident. It is a little surprising seeing as how he is a pharmacist and all, surely pharmacists have to have a spotless record. I hope he gets off, not really for him personally but to set a precident; but I can see where he might not.

 

[kemo]

The argument that somehow the pressure of the situation, the adrenaline or whatever "caused" Ersland to behave irrationally bothers me a little. If you are going to use a gun for protection, you had better be able to maintain you composure "under pressure".
Now we know Ersland was in the military and he certainly knows how to handle a handgun (that was very go shooting). He made some very bad moves after the initial shooting. In a combat situation however, it doesn’t matter how well you shot on the range. If you can't maintain your composure, you pose a threat to your unit.

I don't know what the law is in OK about "going after" a robber when the robber hasn't any of your property. Once the second gunman had fled; his concern should have been the guy who was down and the safety of the other employees. What he was thinking when he shot Parker #2 through#6 is the crux of the case. The jury will decide. I don't see any rational reason for it but "panic" could be a mitigating circumstance. The biggest "lapse of judgment" he suffered may have been forgetting all about the security camera.

 

[Nova]

Maybe meet it through prior statements? Statements made by the defendant during the investigation are usually admissable in court! The pharmacist's handlers had best scare/coach him a lot before he takes the stand.

Grant it I am only basing my opinions on the little I have read, but based on that I would be worried this guy might be an arrogant loose cannon on the stand.

Even if the jurors agree with the act in principle if he comes off as crazy/arrogant/self-righteous it will weigh against him. I hope some big guns are behind him (figuratively speaking) as this accusation needs to be defeated and a precident needs to be set here.

Very astute post, Sonya.

Since the burden shifts to the defense, I'm not sure they would be allowed to introduce prior statements in place of having the defendant testify. It's true the defendant has no obligation to take the stand, but if he's claiming something only he could know, I don't see how else he could prove it.

And prior statements will be a problem for this defendant anyway, since he started by flat out lying to LE. I assume those statements can also be used against him if he testifies, but at least then he is on the stand, which is usually more powerful than a prior statement read into the record.

 

[Nova]

I've been thinking about this. I sort of agree with your last statement, but on the other hand, if this guy is nutty enough--or has delusions of grandeur enough--to fabricate an entire combat history for himself, easily proven false, that he relayed to a law enforcement officer, no less...

And give a version of events in the pharmacy that makes him a much bigger hero than he was (if one considers him a hero)...

and he gets off, then I think it's possible in his own version of reality he could come to believe it is his right or duty to dispense justice at gunpoint wherever he thinks it necessary.

It's possible, I think.

One thing I keep coming back to is his insistence that he was simply protecting "the girls" when he shot Parker the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times. If protecting them was uppermost in his mind, then why didn't he stay in the pharmacy and do just that rather than leaving them alone with Parker in the first place?

I know that in such a situation one wouldn't be expected to be thinking totally rationally, but it still seems to me that by chasing the other guy out, Ersland clearly revealed that his first priority was NOT protecting the women as he has claimed.

I agree, of course.

What I'd like to see in this case is some sort of conviction (probably manslaughter) and just enough of a sentence to serve as a deterrent.

I see no reason to keep the pharmacist in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[jjenny]

I agree, of course.

What I'd like to see in this case is some sort of conviction (probably manslaughter) and just enough of a sentence to serve as a deterrent.

I see no reason to keep the pharmacist in prison for the rest of his life.

There aren't going to be any manslaughter convictions if these charged aren't even being offered. The only charge I've seen mentioned is first degree murder. The jury can't convict him of something he isn't being charged with. By the way the trial is already over. Closing arguments tomorrow, then it's up to the jury. So we should know the verdict pretty soon (unless they deadlock, which in this case would not be that surprising).
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Testimony-ends-in-pharmacy-shooting-murder-trial-1394754.php

 

[jjenny]

Legally, self-defense is an affirmative defense and therefore one of the rare cases where the burden of proof actually shifts to the defense.

The defense has to prove the kid did something before the second shooting that made the pharmacist fear grave bodily harm. The prosecution doesn't have to prove the kid did not. For this reason, I would expect the pharmacist to take the stand. I don't know how else the defense can meet its burden.

In theory, anyway. You and I have already agreed the letter of the law may not matter to the jurors.

He didn't take the stand. Defense only called one witness. Maybe defense thinks that self-defense argument is pretty obvious since nobody is denying that kid went to the pharmacy to participate in armed robbery.
By the way I've already expressed my opinion. No way would I convict. And not just for the pharmacist himself but for everybody else. People in that kind of situation should be thinking of the best strategy for them to survive, and not what they might be charged with if they do survive but the robber does not, IMO. Cause someone who is thinking about charges and not survival could hesitate and that could be the end of it, IMO.

 

[Nova]

There aren't going to be any manslaughter convictions if these charged aren't even being offered. The only charge I've seen mentioned is first degree murder. The jury can't convict him of something he isn't being charged with. By the way the trial is already over. Closing arguments tomorrow, then it's up to the jury. So we should know the verdict pretty soon (unless they deadlock, which in this case would not be that surprising).
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Testimony-ends-in-pharmacy-shooting-murder-trial-1394754.php

Yes, I know. The words "what I'd like to see" were supposed to indicate a hypothetical in opposition to "what we will see."

I can't read the DA's mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the DA and judge have tested the political winds and decided not to offer the jury lesser options for fear they might take one. (I don't have a link handy, but conventional wisdom holds that juries tend to take compromises if they are available.)

The defense apparently read this thread (j/k but who knows?) and decided to go for jury nullification.

Per your link, the prosecution demonstrated that Ersland executed an unconscious, immobilized teenager. The defense didn't even bother to prove its own self-defense claim except to put someone else on the stand to say SHE feared for HER life in another room. I'm surprised the judge allowed an affirmative claim of self-defense with no more proof than that, since HER frame of mind isn't at issue. I assume he ruled that her frame of mind could serve as evidence of Ersland's, but that's quite a stretch IMO.

Maybe I'm not being fair to the prosecutor and judge, but it sounds to me like everyone decided to do his job to the letter, but not the spirit, of the law and get Mr. Ersland home ASAP.

 

[Nova]

He didn't take the stand. Defense only called one witness. Maybe defense thinks that self-defense argument is pretty obvious since nobody is denying that kid went to the pharmacy to participate in armed robbery.
By the way I've already expressed my opinion. No way would I convict. And not just for the pharmacist himself but for everybody else. People in that kind of situation should be thinking of the best strategy for them to survive, and not what they might be charged with if they do survive but the robber does not, IMO. Cause someone who is thinking about charges and not survival could hesitate and that could be the end of it, IMO.

I understand. But the aim of the law is to allow people to defend themselves with little thought while in legitimate fear for their lives, but force them to think when they are not. Although the principle of self-defense requires some interpretation, it isn't as much about hair-splitting as people seem to think. Particularly not in this case, where what occurred was clearly an execution and, I suspect, we all know it. (Thanks again to Sonya for her candor.)

I get that almost everyone in this thread is happy to see anyone they consider a "low life" executed by any means possible, but this isn't the Wild (and largely empty) West. We have a lot of guns and a rather crowded country. Giving private citizens the right to execute anyone we don't like is bad public policy.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

[respectfully snipped for space]

Maybe I'm not being fair to the prosecutor and judge, but it sounds to me like everyone decided to do his job to the letter, but not the spirit, of the law and get Mr. Ersland home ASAP.

I don't believe you are being fair to them. Prater was under zero public pressure to prosecute this case; in fact, just the opposite it seems to me, judging by the comments posted early on on the newsok.com website. He also could have dropped the charges any time. The fact that he doggedly pursued this prosection, going on two years now--and I might add, in the face of all sorts of obstacles thrown up by the defense--with no option for a lesser charge, indicates to me that he feels he has a pretty strong shot (ugh, no pun intended) at a conviction. I have seen nothing that suggests to me he just wants to get Ersland home.

As for the judge, I think there have been some complaints about some of the evidence he has allowed, particularly the testimony of the doctor today about the so-called infected gunshot wound. There again, that suggests to me the opposite of someone who just wants to get Ersland home.

I was really surprised that the defense called only the one witness. At the very least I was expecting mental health experts to testify about Ersland's state of mind and behavior during and after the event. To me that lack of witnesses suggests either someone confident of an acquittal or someone just phoning it in.

Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict a verdict by Friday at the latest. The jurors will not want this hanging over them over the long weekend.

And finally, in a weird coincidence, I just figured out that the judge was a student teacher in one of my high school classes so many years ago I can't even calculate how many. Is that bizarre or what?!!?

 

[kemo]

Had Ersland testified, he would have been subjected to serious cross examination. He would have had to admit to many lies and everything he said could be open to rebuttal. On the other hand, not offering a "self defense" or a "mitigating circumstances" defense seems to be pretty much hoping the jury will grant a nullification.

 

[Sonya610]

Giving private citizens the right to execute anyone we don't like is bad public policy.

LOL.

I hope the jury will realize Ersland's false statements do not really play into this, the fact is two individuals took it upon themselves to threaten the lives of 3 people who were making an honest living and one of the criminals was killed during the attempt. The robbers had days to plan this robbery and decide how they would respond to the actions of their victims, Ersland had no warning and only a few seconds to defend himself and his coworkers against a sudden threat of massive bodily harm or death.

Ersland is expected to "play fair" during a planned and violent attack in which the "rules" are not acknowledge by his attackers. He, the victim is expected to be reasonable and give his attackers the benefit of the doubt while assuming they won't try to kill him a second time. The robber was still in the shop and the threat was not truly eliminated until the robber was dead.

 

[Nova]

It certainly would be. Did someone suggest exactly that and I missed it?

It isn't a strawman argument when someone has argued that "wide latitude" should be the standard for a self-defense claim, because we shouldn't "micro-manage" shooters who say they are defending themselves. You refuse to set a rational standard; most other posters here have argued for ignoring the law because they are sick of "lowlifes".

"Anyone we don't like" sums it up pretty well.

 

[Nova]

I don't believe you are being fair to them. Prater was under zero public pressure to prosecute this case; in fact, just the opposite it seems to me, judging by the comments posted early on on the newsok.com website. He also could have dropped the charges any time. The fact that he doggedly pursued this prosection, going on two years now--and I might add, in the face of all sorts of obstacles thrown up by the defense--with no option for a lesser charge, indicates to me that he feels he has a pretty strong shot (ugh, no pun intended) at a conviction. I have seen nothing that suggests to me he just wants to get Ersland home.

As for the judge, I think there have been some complaints about some of the evidence he has allowed, particularly the testimony of the doctor today about the so-called infected gunshot wound. There again, that suggests to me the opposite of someone who just wants to get Ersland home.

I was really surprised that the defense called only the one witness. At the very least I was expecting mental health experts to testify about Ersland's state of mind and behavior during and after the event. To me that lack of witnesses suggests either someone confident of an acquittal or someone just phoning it in.

Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict a verdict by Friday at the latest. The jurors will not want this hanging over them over the long weekend.

And finally, in a weird coincidence, I just figured out that the judge was a student teacher in one of my high school classes so many years ago I can't even calculate how many. Is that bizarre or what?!!?

Izzy, I believe you, particularly since you seem to have a lot more info on the case. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Nova]

LOL.

I hope the jury will realize Ersland's false statements do not really play into this, the fact is two individuals took it upon themselves to threaten the lives of 3 people who were making an honest living and one of the criminals was killed during the attempt. The robbers had days to plan this robbery and decide how they would respond to the actions of their victims, Ersland had no warning and only a few seconds to defend himself and his coworkers against a sudden threat of massive bodily harm or death.

Ersland is expected to "play fair" during a planned and violent attack in which the "rules" are not acknowledge by his attackers. He, the victim is expected to be reasonable and give his attackers the benefit of the doubt while assuming they won't try to kill him a second time. The robber was still in the shop and the threat was not truly eliminated until the robber was dead.

Ersland stopped shooting and went outside (leaving his employees alone with the immobile robber). Then Ersland decided to finish off the unconscious teenager on the floor. He made several decisions that indicate he was no longer in fear for his life or that of his employees. At that point he stopped being "the victim" and became a murderer.

 

[Sonya610]

It isn't a strawman argument when someone has argued that "wide latitude" should be the standard for a self-defense claim, because we shouldn't "micro-manage" shooters who say they are defending themselves. You refuse to set a rational standard; most other posters here have argued for ignoring the law because they are sick of "lowlifes".

"Anyone we don't like" sums it up pretty well.

No it really doesn't! Saying "anyone we don't like that is threatening to kill us" would be more accurate, and also rather redundant as the vast majority of folks do not like attackers that are trying to kill them (possibly excluding domestic violence situations).

No one is suggesting people should be able to just shoot anyone that annoys them at the grocery store or in the workplace!

 

[Nova]

No it really doesn't! Saying "anyone we don't like that is threatening to kill us" would be more accurate, and also rather redundant as the vast majority of folks do not like attackers that are trying to kill them (possibly excluding domestic violence situations).

No one is suggesting people should be able to just shoot anyone that annoys them at the grocery store or in the workplace!

The law already gives you the right to use deadly force on anyone who is "threatening to kill you." An unconscious and immobile teenager isn't threatening anybody.

But you and others have said you want private citizens to kill people who might prove a threat in the future.

"Anyone we don't like" is only a slight exaggeration. (ETA and I didn't say there wasn't a reason for the dislike.)