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

[Nova]

This seems like a really weird trial, maybe one that you had to be there to figure it out
I would like to see the ME testimony, if the boy was dead or going to die from the first shot, that would seem to make a difference. If he had brain matter on the ground from the first shot, the subsequent shots would not have been the fatal ones, even though they said the blood indicated he was still alive when the last shots were fired. If the first shot was most likely the fatal shot, that might seem to make a difference. Dont' know if there was any ME testimony to that.

NM: Izzy put it better. As she always does. Is she annoying or what? (Totally kidding)

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well, nobody here is required to answer specific questions if they don't want to, but I did answer that one. Since it was in posts that addressed other points I'll confine this post to that question and expand a bit. Because you asked nicely!

Changed my mind. I have no point. Everyone else is right. I'm done.

Ha ha ha. I saw your unedited post, was going to reply, went to eat first, and came back to this.

Anyhoo, the first sentence of my reply was going to be, thank you for answering and thank you for your thoughtful response.

So I repeat, thank you for answering and thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[jjenny]

We don't know what the psychologist and psychiatrist were prepared to testify. Did they examine Ersland? If so, I'm surprised the judge didn't allow them (especially since the lesser included offense--manslaughter--usually involves something akin to "extreme emotional distress"). But if the doctors were only testifying what other people felt in other situations, the judge may have not found it relevant.

No doubt all of this will be the subject of an appeal.

How is it not relevant? This whole thing happened within minutes, and the man was a victim of attempted armed robbery and had a gun pointed at him, yet the jury apparently believes he committed a pre-meditated murder? Clearly a victim of armed robbery would experience an extreme emotional distress. Yet there was no one testifying for the defense about that.

 

[JBean]

How is it not relevant? This whole thing happened within minutes, and the man was a victim of attempted armed robbery and had a gun pointed at him, yet the jury apparently believes he committed a pre-meditated murder? Clearly a victim of armed robbery would experience an extreme emotional distress. Yet there was no one testifying for the defense about that.

It would be relevant if the expert had evaluated Ersland and was testifying about how this man reacted. But to testify how a random person might react probably doesn't have much bearing on the case, imo. Everyone reacts to stress differently and so everyone would react to this situation differently.
But I totally agree with you that psych eval and expert testimony would have been helpful and is pretty standard,so I do not know why the defense attorney did not arrange this.

 

[Sonya610]

If Ersland had simply KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT instead of spewing all of those ridiculous over the top lies all of this would have likely been different.

I just do not understand what drove this man to lie like this. Ersland's background in the military then his training to be a pharmamicst should have given him enough knowledge and just plain common sense to keep him from spewing such stupidity.

Simply saying "I saw him move and I was in fear for my life" would have likely been enough to get him off.

 

[jjenny]

Ersland's got a bad back for which he wears a brace. Apparently he is on medications, which are not being given to him in prison, according to his defense lawyer. Pain meds?

 

[Nova]

If Ersland had simply KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT instead of spewing all of those ridiculous over the top lies all of this would have likely been different.

I just do not understand what drove this man to lie like this. Ersland's background in the military then his training to be a pharmamicst should have given him enough knowledge and just plain common sense to keep him from spewing such stupidity.

Simply saying "I saw him move and I was in fear for my life" would have likely been enough to get him off.

I think you are right.

But because he had told so many lies, Ersland didn't dare take the stand and face cross-examination.

And because he didn't take the stand to testify as to his state of mind at the time of the shooting, his lawyer may not have been able to lay a proper foundation for testimony from a psychology or psychiatrist.

As I said above, I was surprised the judge allowed a self-defense claim without corroboration from Ersland, but apparently His Honor decided self-defense might be deduced from watching the video and from the testimony of Ersland's co-worker.

***

Note to jjenny: there are rules of evidence and "relevance" is only one of them. Since we don't know what the doctors were going to say, we can only speculate as to why they weren't allowed.

 

[Nova]

Ersland's got a bad back for which he wears a brace. Apparently he is on medications, which are not being given to him in prison, according to his defense lawyer. Pain meds?

The man should get whatever meds have been prescribed for him. No question in my mind.

But his lawyer is trying to incite a groundswell of support for Ersland in order to pressure the governor into commuting Ersland's sentence. So while I'm not saying the lawyer is lying, perhaps we shouldn't take everything he says at face value.

 

[Sonya610]

But his lawyer is trying to incite a groundswell of support for Ersland in order to pressure the governor into commuting Ersland's sentence.

When is the gov up for re-election? How does he rank in the polls? That might be the deciding factor here.

It is all about "public opinion", this whole darn mess from start to finish, if the governor has something to gain and the majority support Ersland things could work out well.

 

[Nova]

When is the gov up for re-election? How does he rank in the polls? That might be the deciding factor here.

It is all about "public opinion", this whole darn mess from start to finish, if the governor has something to gain and the majority support Ersland things could work out well.

OK Gov. Mary Fallin was just sworn in this past January, 2011, so she has over 3 and a half years left in her term. I think this case will have blown over long before then.

That isn't to say she won't pardon Ersland out of principle. I don't know what her views are on the subject.

 

[jjenny]

The man should get whatever meds have been prescribed for him. No question in my mind.

But his lawyer is trying to incite a groundswell of support for Ersland in order to pressure the governor into commuting Ersland's sentence. So while I'm not saying the lawyer is lying, perhaps we shouldn't take everything he says at face value.

How long is Mr. Ersland going to last in prison with his bad back if they are not giving him his meds?

 

[Allusonz]

I will be very interested to see how the judge sentences this individual as there are a number of options

 

[jjenny]

I will be very interested to see how the judge sentences this individual as there are a number of options

It's plainly obvious that the judge isn't sympathetic to the defendant. Defense actually tried to get a new judge but he refused to recluse himself.

 

[Nova]

How long is Mr. Ersland going to last in prison with his bad back if they are not giving him his meds?

I don't know, but I absolutely think he should have the meds he has been prescribed. This is not a "gray area" for me.

 

[Nova]

It's plainly obvious that the judge isn't sympathetic to the defendant. Defense actually tried to get a new judge but he refused to recluse himself.

As I'm sure you know, that isn't unusual.

 

[6angels]

I can't say much......... as my husband is a Officer that has sat in on the trial and knows more then was released to the public ( not my place to release so I can't ) but I will say the Judge was fair and there was no reason for him to be replaced.IMO. Mr Ersland should learn to think before he speaks is all I will say. As far as meds etc. Mr.Ersland gets Free medical care etc and if there was a med that he needed he would be receiving it. I am not guessing reguarding this I KNOW this.

 

[Allusonz]

I can't say much......... as my husband is a Officer that has sat in on the trial and knows more then was released to the public ( not my place to release so I can't ) but I will say the Judge was fair and there was no reason for him to be replaced.IMO. Mr Ersland should learn to think before he speaks is all I will say. As far as meds etc. Mr.Ersland gets Free medical care etc and if there was a med that he needed he would be receiving it. I am not guessing reguarding this I KNOW this.

Thank you for this additional insight. Greatly appreciated!!

 

[kemo]

I've been gone all weekend and I very surprised at the outcome.

There is a narrative of the "little guy" who stands up to the bully or . Everyone likes it and, I think, wanted this to fit. After the first shot and chasing the second guy out of the shop and down the street, Ersland accomplished exactly what people wanted to see. Then he went and did something that makes no obvious sense.

Had he not told a string of blatant lies, his lawyer might have been able to put him on the stand and shown the jury a sympathetic character who "meant" to only protect his employees but, perhaps, over reacted due to the obvious stress of the circumstances. I don't buy it though. What I saw watching that video was someone who wasn't the least bit afraid of the kid lying on the ground but, for some reason, wanted to make sure he was dead. Perhaps he could have explained the situation to me to cause me to change my mind. I'm guessing the Jury (and the judge and DA) saw pretty much what I saw.

 

[jjenny]

A human being is not a machine. What people seem to expect is that a victim of armed robbery should be able to act in a perfectly rational manner. No consideration is given to the fact that the pharmacist would be likely experiencing an extreme emotional distress by being put into this situation. And unless people have been in that situation themselves, who are they to judge?

 

[Sonya610]

...but, for some reason, wanted to make sure he was dead. Perhaps he could have explained the situation to me to cause me to change my mind. I'm guessing the Jury (and the judge and DA) saw pretty much what I saw

I don't think it is something one can "explain" (make excuses for yes, explain, not really). Either you understand and agree with the idea, or you don't.

I will say whenever local stories appear in which a victim non-fatally shoots an attacker half the reader comments are along the lines of "get a bigger gun" or "work on your aim" as apparently many people believe if the victim is able they should absolutely kill the attacker.

Not wound, not chase away, not stop the attack but ensure the attacker is dead. It is seen as a public service, plus most folks don't want to see tax dollars wasted feeding and housing these criminals for years until they get out and victimize someone else.