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

[joe jones]

Thanks for all the links, he had the right to shoot both robbers whilst he was defending himself and his store, once the robbers were incapacitated then he had no rights to murder them,

I can understand that he was angry, he must have been terrified when they initially tried to rob him, but after the robber was on the floor and posed no threat then he should have waited for the cops,

I don't think it muddies the water about self defence and the rights to defend yourself I think it clarifies them, you are legally allowed to defend yourself when a threat to your life is posed, once that threat is no longer there you have no legal right to go after the threat,

 

[jjenny]

Thanks for all the links, he had the right to shoot both robbers whilst he was defending himself and his store, once the robbers were incapacitated then he had no rights to murder them,

I can understand that he was angry, he must have been terrified when they initially tried to rob him, but after the robber was on the floor and posed no threat then he should have waited for the cops,

I don't think it muddies the water about self defence and the rights to defend yourself I think it clarifies them, you are legally allowed to defend yourself when a threat to your life is posed, once that threat is no longer there you have no legal right to go after the threat,

Just because someone is on the floor does not mean that someone does not represent a threat. What if the robber was playing possum?

 

[Nova]

Oklahoma City woman says accused pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland endangered her, son


Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-wom...angered-her-son/article/3563639#ixzz1Ngc4YuAs

And so we have Lie #4. (That someone in a white car pointed a gun at Ersland outside.)

Ersland can't seem to help himself.

 

[Nova]

Just because someone is on the floor does not mean that someone does not represent a threat. What if the robber was playing possum?

Good reason to keep your eye on him while you are dialing police.

"What ifs" don't give you the right to play judge, jury and executioner.

 

[JBean]

Oklahoma’s Make My Day Law Amended to Include Businesses

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/0...ake-my-day-law-amended-to-include-businesses/

They have already passed this one that goes into effect in November I think. But it doesn't seem that really fits Ersland I suppose.

 

[jjenny]

Good reason to keep your eye on him while you are dialing police.

"What ifs" don't give you the right to play judge, jury and executioner.

And what gives someone a right to be a robber?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Just because someone is on the floor does not mean that someone does not represent a threat. What if the robber was playing possum?

I would venture to say that since trial testimony showed he was not only lying on the floor, but lying on the floor with his head in a pool of blood that had leaked from his gunshot wound, Ersland could have been reasonably sure he was not playing possum.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And what gives someone a right to be a robber?

Who said anything did?

 

[jjenny]

I would venture to say that since trial testimony showed he was not only lying on the floor, but lying on the floor with his head in a pool of blood that had leaked from his gunshot wound, Ersland could have been reasonably sure he was not playing possum.

And if he wasn't trying to rob the place he would not be in that predicament.

 

[jjenny]

Who said anything did?

Then whose fault is it he ended up dead?

 

[Nova]

Yes, cause that would make a real difference considering he is facing life in prison.

It might, depending on what the judge does with the sentence. Per the links above, the judge has the right to suspend the sentence. It's less likely he would do so if Ersland had been convicted of multiple charges.

More importantly, Ersland is just lucky he didn't hit a bystander. Texas' law has been held up as particularly sympathetic toward those who confront assailants at home or in the office. But EVEN IN TEXAS, the right of self-defense disappears if one hits or kills an innocent bystander.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

 

[joe jones]

And what gives someone a right to be a robber?

nothing, same goes for murder,

thats why there are laws that say you should not rob and you should not murder, and if you do there are penalties fro committing said crimes

and the jury accepted that the defendant crossed the line from self defence to murder,

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And if he wasn't trying to rob the place he would not be in that predicament.

Absolutely agreed.

But since he did, and since he was, Ersland still could have been reasonably sure he wasn't playing possum.

 

[joe jones]

Then whose fault is it he ended up dead?

the person who murdered him

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Then whose fault is it he ended up dead?

I believe the jury found that it was Ersland's.

 

[Nova]

Then whose fault is it he ended up dead?

A reasonably response would be that Parker and Ersland share the blame.

Now that we know all the facts, I'm surprised that people are still defending Ersland. Yes, he was in a difficult situation, but the man fired wildly down a populated street and then executed an unconscious man! And then did everything he could think of to mislead police and the court.

We really need to think for a moment about the ramifications of allowing anyone who is frightened to blast away in all directions and perform summary executions. Yes, the world is a dangerous place; but it could be even more dangerous without laws.

 

[jjenny]

I believe the jury found that it was Ersland's.

And another jury decided it were the people who planned the robbery. Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[Nova]

And another jury decided it were the people who planned the robbery. Seems like a contradiction to me.

Huh? Are you talking about another case? What case and what are the facts?

 

[jjenny]

It might, depending on what the judge does with the sentence. Per the links above, the judge has the right to suspend the sentence. It's less likely he would do so if Ersland had been convicted of multiple charges.

More importantly, Ersland is just lucky he didn't hit a bystander. Texas' law has been held up as particularly sympathetic toward those who confront assailants at home or in the office. But EVEN IN TEXAS, the right of self-defense disappears if one hits or kills an innocent bystander.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Well he didn't hit an innocent bystander, so why even bring that up? Plainly obvious if this was in TX no way would he end up on trial. And the judge doesn't appear to be sympathetic to Ersland in the least, considering he barred most of the defense witnesses from testifying, so it's not likely all of the sudden the judge will give him a lesser sentence.

 

[jjenny]

Huh? Are you talking about another case? What case and what are the facts?

What? It's the same case, the two men were just convicted of first degree murder for murdering that same boy.