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

[flourish]

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

I agree--the first shot was fine, the passing the phone twice and perp once in order to get to the second gun, not so much.
I just figured people would feel sorry for him and convict him of something less--that's all I meant

 

[Sonya610]

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.

So you are saying the choices are a) run away or b) become an unpaid untrained volunteer prison guard/police officer for an unknown period of time until the "authorities" come and collect it.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. It is not MY job to watch/guard/babysit it to ensure it does NOT launch another lethal attack. I shouldn't have to look at the thing (once the initial threat is defeated) much less stay focused on it for tens of minutes wondering what it might do while I wait for the police to arrive!

If it is still alive it had best run/crawl away really quick because I AM NOT responsible for guarding it until the authorities can take custody! Despite the mental trauma and the stress the victim is also likely to have to pay for repairs and biological hazard cleanup (unless they want to risk doing the cleanup themselves). That is MORE than enough hassle/trauma/expense and I am pretty sure you can't sue their mama for the financial loss or the emotional distress! She can sue YOU if given the chance, breach of a parent/child relationship and all that, but apparently that special parent/child relationship has NO BEARING on the behavior or the actions of the minor child. If lack of supervision and parental guidance encourages the child to engage in criminal pursuits she is held completely unaccountable, but she sure as heck can file lawsuits against the victims of her child.

I find it ironic that if a minor child causes property damage the parent CAN be held financially responsible if the parent was negligent, but if your minor child kills someone (or several someones) the parents get off scott free.

 

[jjenny]

I agree--the first shot was fine, the passing the phone twice and perp once in order to get to the second gun, not so much.
I just figured people would feel sorry for him and convict him of something less--that's all I meant

I am really surprised the jury convicted of first degree murder considering they were given manslaughter option. But there was no testimony of how a victim of armed robbery can suffer a severe emotional distress. Judge might have not allowed such testimony, otherwise it's very surprising defense only put on one witness. This kind of case obviously depends on who is on the jury, so again, I am surprised he was convicted of first degree murder. Among 12 people, not one believed this to be self-defense?

 

[jjenny]

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.

Innocent people don't expect to be convicted? Really?
So if innocent person is put on trial (obviously wrongly, since they are innocent) they would then expect that despite the fact they were wrongly put on trial, they wont' be convicted?

 

[Nova]

So you are saying the choices are a) run away or b) become an unpaid untrained volunteer prison guard/police officer for an unknown period of time until the "authorities" come and collect it.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. It is not MY job to watch/guard/babysit it to ensure it does NOT launch another lethal attack. I shouldn't have to look at the thing (once the initial threat is defeated) much less stay focused on it for tens of minutes wondering what it might do while I wait for the police to arrive!

If it is still alive it had best run/crawl away really quick because I AM NOT responsible for guarding it until the authorities can take custody! Despite the mental trauma and the stress the victim is also likely to have to pay for repairs and biological hazard cleanup (unless they want to risk doing the cleanup themselves). That is MORE than enough hassle/trauma/expense and I am pretty sure you can't sue their mama for the financial loss or the emotional distress! She can sue YOU if given the chance, breach of a parent/child relationship and all that, but apparently that special parent/child relationship has NO BEARING on the behavior or the actions of the minor child. If lack of supervision and parental guidance encourages the child to engage in criminal pursuits she is held completely unaccountable, but she sure as heck can file lawsuits against the victims of her child.

I find it ironic that if a minor child causes property damage the parent CAN be held financially responsible if the parent was negligent, but if your minor child kills someone (or several someones) the parents get off scott free.

To repeat, I have said over and over that the pharmacist has no obligation to retreat. At least that's CA law, and thus far, the OK law in effect at the time of the shooting seems to be the same.

That being said, executing an unconscious, immobilized person is considered wrong even in the heat of battle in a war. I don't think it's too much to ask that any rational adult do the same.

The pharmacist had already prevented the robber from retreating--and nobody blames him for that. But having completely immobilized his assailant, the pharmacist's right to continue shooting ceases or at least should.

EVEN ERSLAND KNEW WHAT HE HAD DONE WAS WRONG. Otherwise he wouldn't have lied about it. Repeatedly.

(As for civil liablity, you and I are pretty much in agreement about that, as I've said.)

 

[Nova]

I am really surprised the jury convicted of first degree murder considering they were given manslaughter option. But there was no testimony of how a victim of armed robbery can suffer a severe emotional distress. Judge might have not allowed such testimony, otherwise it's very surprising defense only put on one witness. This kind of case obviously depends on who is on the jury, so again, I am surprised he was convicted of first degree murder. Among 12 people, not one believed this to be self-defense?

Maybe no one believed it because, per OK law at the time, it wasn't.

But I share your surprise.

 

[Nova]

Innocent people don't expect to be convicted? Really?
So if innocent person is put on trial (obviously wrongly, since they are innocent) they would then expect that despite the fact they were wrongly put on trial, they wont' be convicted?

I'm sure innocent defendants fear the system will go wrong. But anyone I've ever heard speak on TV (along with a lot of guilty defendants) insisted they held out hope of an acquittal until the very end.

It is odd that Ersland gave away his dog before hearing the verdict, but maybe he just loved the dog and didn't want to take any chances. I adore my cat and I can imagine doing the same thing for fear I would be taken into custody immediately after the verdict was announced and not have time to find him a good home.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'm sure innocent defendants fear the system will go wrong. But anyone I've ever heard speak on TV (along with a lot of guilty defendants) insisted they held out hope of an acquittal until the very end.

This is what I meant. Thanks. Although I would go further and say they expected an acquittal until the very end, knowing they were innocent.

 

[jjenny]

I'm sure innocent defendants fear the system will go wrong. But anyone I've ever heard speak on TV (along with a lot of guilty defendants) insisted they held out hope of an acquittal until the very end.

It is odd that Ersland gave away his dog before hearing the verdict, but maybe he just loved the dog and didn't want to take any chances. I adore my cat and I can imagine doing the same thing for fear I would be taken into custody immediately after the verdict was announced and not have time to find him a good home.

I don't find that odd at all. Finding the home for their pet is something any responsible person would do, knowing they could end up in prison for life.

 

[jjenny]

This is what I meant. Thanks. Although I would go further and say they expected an acquittal until the very end, knowing they were innocent.

Why would an innocent person wrongly put on trial expect an acquittal? Would an innocent person trust a system that wrongly put him or her on trial?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Why would an innocent person wrongly put on trial expect an acquittal? Would an innocent person trust a system that wrongly put him or her on trial?

I would venture to say that the system that arrests and charges an innocent victim is not exactly the same system that tries him or her. The most important variable being the jury of one's peers. Which is, of course, why we have jury trials going back to English law from the Middle Ages, if not before, if I recall correctly. So that the authority figures didn't hold all the cards when it came to an accused criminal's fate.

If I were an innocent person on trial, I would expect no quarter from those who arrested/charged me. I would, however, expect a jury of my peers to understand my circumstances using their common sense, and acquit me.

 

[jjenny]

I would venture to say that the system that arrests and charges an innocent victim is not exactly the same system that tries him or her. The most important variable being the jury of one's peers. Which is, of course, why we have jury trials going back to English law from the Middle Ages, if not before, if I recall correctly. So that the authority figures didn't hold all the cards when it came to an accused criminal's fate.

If I were an innocent person on trial, I would expect no quarter from those who arrested/charged me. I would, however, expect a jury of my peers to understand my circumstances using their common sense, and acquit me.

Considering plenty of innocent people have been wrongly convicted, you would expect wrong.

 

[Sonya610]

To repeat, I have said over and over that the pharmacist has no obligation to retreat. At least that's CA law, and thus far, the OK law in effect at the time of the shooting seems to be the same.

You changed the subject. I asked if the choices were simply a) run or b) guard the wounded assailant. As stated it is not MY job to guard a violent attacker for some undetermined amount of time. I would not want to waste time doing that, nor am I trained to do it, nor is it my job. I believe it is unfair to expect victims to do it!

 

[jjenny]

As it turns out, judge barred defense witnesses from testifying.
"One of the barred witnesses was Chad Jones, a pharmacist in Chelsea, in far northeast Oklahoma. An armed robber wanting drugs beat Jones and an employee with a hammer in 2007. Jones, 34, said Friday he would have told the jury, “You don’t know what you would do until you’re in that situation.”"

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...ys-begin-appeal/article/3572201#ixzz1NecIvRmw

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...pardon-attorneys-begin-appeal/article/3572201

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Considering plenty of innocent people have been wrongly convicted, you would expect wrong.

Certainly. But that doesn't change the fact that, being innocent, I would still expect to be acquitted until the very end. I'm sure those wrongfully convicted people did, too.

 

[Sonya610]

I think the fact he made arrangements for his beloved pet "just in case" shows a very good side of his character.

Anyone that would arrogantly think "Well I am innocent" without even CONSIDERING the possibility of a guilty verdict that could leave their animal homeless would be a pretty uncaring person indeed!

I am sure whatever arrangements he made for the dog came with the understanding if the verdict is innocent he gets his dog back.

 

[JBean]

Oklahoma City pharmacist’s supporters seek pardon; attorneys begin appeal

Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was convicted Thursday of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a robber.

snip

The governor’s office confirmed Fallin received constituent correspondence Friday about the pharmacist’s case. Some asked for a pardon or commutation of the life term.
Any action by the governor on the case will not be soon.
“When convicted of a crime, an individual has the right to petition the Pardon and Parole Board to request his … sentence be commuted. If a majority of the board votes to recommend a commutation, that case then heads to the governor,” said Fallin’s communications director, Alex Weintz.
“After conducting her own review that takes into account all the facts of the case, the governor may then decide either to grant or deny the commutation,” Weintz said

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...ys-begin-appeal/article/3572201#ixzz1NfsTvuTj

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...ys-begin-appeal/article/3572201#ixzz1Nfs8OBGV
​

 

[JBean]

It certainly seems as though the State's case must have been pretty compelling. I am anxious to hear from the jurors.

 

[jjenny]

It certainly seems as though the State's case must have been pretty compelling. I am anxious to hear from the jurors.

Doesn't look like that is going to happen because judge imposed a gag order.

 

[JBean]

Doesn't look like that is going to happen because judge imposed a gag order.

Oh right you are. I just mean hopefully in the future.
Have we heard the 911 call? I'll search the thread too.