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

[flourish]

Wow, what an interesting case. I'm a bit surprised that he was found guilty of first-degree murder--I figured he'd end up guilty of a lesser charge (I was assuming that was an option). Anyway, this case sure made me think!

 

[jjenny]

Wow, what an interesting case. I'm a bit surprised that he was found guilty of first-degree murder--I figured he'd end up guilty of a lesser charge (I was assuming that was an option). Anyway, this case sure made me think!

Yea well it might make a lot of people think instead of doing everything they can to defend themselves. At least I don't have to worry about it.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Wow, what an interesting case. I'm a bit surprised that he was found guilty of first-degree murder--I figured he'd end up guilty of a lesser charge (I was assuming that was an option). Anyway, this case sure made me think!

Manslaughter was an option.

Not only did the jury convict of the more serious charges, they recommended life in prison as punishment.

That sends a strong message, IMO.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Interesting. I don't think I knew this before:

"The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law."

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347891729253696.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[JBean]

Interesting. I don't think I knew this before:

"The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law."

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347891729253696.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This goes back to what I was saying about my son. The charges against my son were specifically for the reason you have stated here. The very moment he was not defending himself, evidenced by his attacker stepping backward and my son stepping forward, he was no longer defending himself and he became the aggressor.
Armed with that crystal clear understanding the hard way, I would not have been able to understand any other verdict. This was far more egregious than my son's case. I am not saying good or bad, right or wrong. Just saying the jurors are very carefully instructed as to what needs to be proven and if it was, they must find the defendant guilty.

 

[Sonya610]

Honestly when it comes for "forensic evidence" this trial was circa 1930.

I always figured if you shot a prone attacker they would nail you on angle of bullet wound and blood splatter and powder/proximity and such. I always suspected it was against the law to shoot an attacker that was flat on the ground.

What did they nail him on? Rather over the top video. Stupid statements. Close clustering of bullet wounds proving there wasn't much twitching around. The physical evidence (sans the video tape) obviously didn't amount to a hill of beans!

 

[GetSmart]

Thank The State of Florida which is where I live !!
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

 

[Sonya610]

Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed

Let us define what "menace has passed" actually means. If the menace is still alive inside your home, or inside your business.

Are victim/s expected to watch and guard the menace to make sure it stays in the "menace has passed state" until the authorities arrive? Or are victims expected run quickly away from their home or business in order to avoid further attack from the menace? What exactly are the victims required to do by law?

 

[jjenny]

Thank The State of Florida which is where I live !!
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

No way would the pharmacist ever go on trial in TX. Even if there was some prosecutor who decided to try him, a grand jury would never indict, IMO.

 

[jjenny]

Honestly when it comes for "forensic evidence" this trial was circa 1930.

I always figured if you shot a prone attacker they would nail you on angle of bullet wound and blood splatter and powder/proximity and such. I always suspected it was against the law to shoot an attacker that was flat on the ground.

What did they nail him on? Rather over the top video. Stupid statements. Close clustering of bullet wounds proving there wasn't much twitching around. The physical evidence (sans the video tape) obviously didn't amount to a hill of beans!

Defense sure didn't seem to put up much of a fight, with a single witness and all. I realize they might have not wanted to put the pharmacist on the stand due to his prior contradictory statements, but surely they could have called more witnesses than just one?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Honestly when it comes for "forensic evidence" this trial was circa 1930.

I always figured if you shot a prone attacker they would nail you on angle of bullet wound and blood splatter and powder/proximity and such. I always suspected it was against the law to shoot an attacker that was flat on the ground.

What did they nail him on? Rather over the top video. Stupid statements. Close clustering of bullet wounds proving there wasn't much twitching around. The physical evidence (sans the video tape) obviously didn't amount to a hill of beans!

That is incorrect. BBM.

"The final two prosecution witnesses, an Oklahoma City police sergeant who is a crime-scene reconstruction expert and a hired blood-spatter expert, concluded Parker was not moving when the pharmacist shot him five more times in the chest and abdomen. Ersland, who lives in Chickasha, has insisted in media interviews that Parker was getting back up. The blood-spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified Wednesday the blood pool on the floor underneath the robber's head showed no evidence of that or any other movement."
Read more: http://newsok.com/jurors-begin-deli...ts-murder-trial/article/3571241#ixzz1NZWMe4nn

AND

Jurors furiously scribbled notes as Prater raised up slightly and then sat up as Baxter demonstrated how those positions would not match the trajectory of the wounds Parker suffer, which police and witnesses from the Medical Examiner's Office have said were almost perpendicular.

In addition, Baxter testified that the muzzle of the gun had to be between 18 inches and 24 inches from Parker's body to match stippling marks on Parker's clothing left by burned and unburned gunpowder.
"It's not likely that he was moving during the shots," Baxter said.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/...ooting-murder-trial-1394754.php#ixzz1NZX2GRSc

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Sonya610]

That is incorrect. BBM.

"The final two prosecution witnesses, an Oklahoma City police sergeant who is a crime-scene reconstruction expert and a hired blood-spatter expert, concluded Parker was not moving when the pharmacist shot him five more times in the chest and abdomen. Ersland, who lives in Chickasha, has insisted in media interviews that Parker was getting back up. The blood-spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified Wednesday the blood pool on the floor underneath the robber's head showed no evidence of that or any other movement."

Ahhhh....I did not realize Ersland claimed the guy was SITTING UP, I thought he just claimed the guy "moved". Movement can be quite subtle.

Sheesh yeah, claiming the guy was sitting up is a whole other matter. I always just assumed the guy was laid out and Ersland claimed he "twitched" or something, then fired the shots. I read that the bullets were closely clustered which proved the robber didn't move, which means if Ersland had TOLD THE TRUTH and said the guy WAS flat on his back the forsenic evidence could only prove "he didn't move while being shot" not that he didn't twitch/moan/move at all.

My God Ersland was truly beyond stupid, I can't understand why he would lie like (i.e. the guy was shot while sitting up) that when a little common sense says that will be proven to be a lie.

 

[KariKae]

Latest polls shows 77% do not agree with the verdict

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city...article/3571542?custom_click=lead_story_title

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Of course, an online poll like that is not scientific. People can vote in it multiple times.

In other news, Ersland expected to be convicted:

Ersland had expected a conviction, giving away his pet dog, Winston, on Wednesday. During a break in the trial Wednesday, he showed off pictures of the dog. “I sure will miss him,” he said.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542#ixzz1NaTLjCUW

IMO innocent people do not expect to be convicted.

 

[Nova]

Thank The State of Florida which is where I live !!
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

I suspect OK law is the same. I know California law is.

The pharmacist wasn't required to "retreat" and that wasn't the issue in this case.

 

[Nova]

This goes back to what I was saying about my son. The charges against my son were specifically for the reason you have stated here. The very moment he was not defending himself, evidenced by his attacker stepping backward and my son stepping forward, he was no longer defending himself and he became the aggressor.
Armed with that crystal clear understanding the hard way, I would not have been able to understand any other verdict. This was far more egregious than my son's case. I am not saying good or bad, right or wrong. Just saying the jurors are very carefully instructed as to what needs to be proven and if it was, they must find the defendant guilty.

Just to recap for those who didn't see your posts, the assailant in your son's case was neither unconscious nor immobile, he simply took a step back. Your son had no way of knowing that step was anything but a momentary reaction or feint. The charges in his case were truly outrageous!

 

[Nova]

Let us define what "menace has passed" actually means. If the menace is still alive inside your home, or inside your business.

Are victim/s expected to watch and guard the menace to make sure it stays in the "menace has passed state" until the authorities arrive? Or are victims expected run quickly away from their home or business in order to avoid further attack from the menace? What exactly are the victims required to do by law?

I've never heard of a law that requires one to retreat, so I assume it would be best to keep an eye on an unconscious, unmoving assailant until the police arrived. By all means, keep your gun out, too.

 

[Nova]

Of course, an online poll like that is not scientific. People can vote in it multiple times.

In other news, Ersland expected to be convicted:

Ersland had expected a conviction, giving away his pet dog, Winston, on Wednesday. During a break in the trial Wednesday, he showed off pictures of the dog. “I sure will miss him,” he said.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542#ixzz1NaTLjCUW

IMO innocent people do not expect to be convicted.

Izzy, you've been right on the money on this case all along.

I want to give credit where credit is due, and also say thank you for all the information.

 

[Allusonz]

Wow, what an interesting case. I'm a bit surprised that he was found guilty of first-degree murder--I figured he'd end up guilty of a lesser charge (I was assuming that was an option). Anyway, this case sure made me think!

I have to echo this but I must also state that I do not believe he was right in his actions after the first shot. I wonder what the judge will do at sentencing