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

[Nova]

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?

The principles of legal self-defense go back hundreds, maybe even 1,000 years to English Common Law. They aren't some technicality some liberal dreamed up in the 1960s.

If Ersland wanted to testify that he was operating under extreme emotional distress, he could have done so. The judge granted a lesser included offense that would have allowed for such mitigation.

Ersland made no such claim; you are entitled to make it for him in a discussion such as this one, but the jurors did not legally have that option.

***

What if Ersland had killed several innocent bystanders in the street? (He came very close to doing so.) Would you still argue that he was acting under distress and nobody had a right to judge him?

 

[Nova]

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.

If in fact "most people" want to see somebody killed in order to save a few bucks on incarceration, then shame on "most people."

Ersland shot Parker in the head once and Parker was dying. Nobody blames Ersland for that.

Finishing Parker off for fear paramedics might arrive and save his life has nothing to do with legitimate self-defense.

 

[jjenny]

The principles of legal self-defense go back hundreds, maybe even 1,000 years to English Common Law. They aren't some technicality some liberal dreamed up in the 1960s.

If Ersland wanted to testify that he was operating under extreme emotional distress, he could have done so. The judge granted a lesser included offense that would have allowed for such mitigation.

Ersland made no such claim; you are entitled to make it for him in a discussion such as this one, but the jurors did not legally have that option.

***

What if Ersland had killed several innocent bystanders in the street? (He came very close to doing so.) Would you still argue that he was acting under distress and nobody had a right to judge him?

He didn't hit any innocent bystanders, and he wasn't charged with almost hitting any innocent bystanders. So what would be the point of discussing this? As for extreme emotional distress, his defense wanted to call witnesses who experienced armed robbery, and the judge barred them from testifying.

 

[Nova]

He didn't hit any innocent bystanders, and he wasn't charged with almost hitting any innocent bystanders. So what would be the point of discussing this? As for extreme emotional distress, his defense wanted to call witnesses who experienced armed robbery, and the judge barred them from testifying.

The judge barred them, I suspect, because without Ersland's testimony, there is no way to compare Ersland's experience with that of others.

I think it's clear Ersland screwed himself by putting himself in a position where he didn't dare take the stand. Not a good idea if you are trying to mount an affirmative defense.

***

That he didn't hit innocent bystanders was an accident. I don't see what's unfair about asking how you would feel if the "accident" had gone the other way.

 

[Allusonz]

The judge barred them, I suspect, because without Ersland's testimony, there is no way to compare Ersland's experience with that of others.

I think it's clear Ersland screwed himself by putting himself in a position where he didn't dare take the stand. Not a good idea if you are trying to mount an affirmative defense.

***

That he didn't hit innocent bystanders was an accident. I don't see what's unfair about asking how you would feel if the "accident" had gone the other way.

Yes he needed to keep his mouth shut. IIRC this incident for the most part happened over a 46 second time frame

 

[Nova]

Yes he needed to keep his mouth shut. IIRC this incident for the most part happened over a 46 second time frame

The incident happened over that period, but the lying went on for days or weeks afterward.

IF Ersland had said the entire 46 seconds seemed like one action to him and his only thought was making sure that Parker didn't come after him again, he might have sold it. (It would have been a tough sell because Ersland left the scene, stepped over Parker, etc.; but he might have sold the "execution" as part of the original "self-defense.")

But he didn't say any of that, probably because it wasn't true.

ETA: I'm not unsympathetic to Ersland, because obviously he was in a very difficult situation. But like it or not and no matter how much sympathy we may feel for Ersland, the jury upheld the letter of the law.

Now we'll see if the judge will reduce the penalty. I don't know what guidelines the judge has to follow or whether he really has much leeway, but I don't think we need to keep Ersland locked up for 30 years.

 

[JBean]

The judge barred them, I suspect, because without Ersland's testimony, there is no way to compare Ersland's experience with that of others.

I think it's clear Ersland screwed himself by putting himself in a position where he didn't dare take the stand. Not a good idea if you are trying to mount an affirmative defense.

***

That he didn't hit innocent bystanders was an accident. I don't see what's unfair about asking how you would feel if the "accident" had gone the other way.

It is also interesting that he chased the other suspect firing his gun. This is another instance of going from defending oneself to becoming the aggressor. Not drawing judgement, just making note of a 2nd instance during this robbery where the defendant changes the dynamics of the episode. I wonder if this played any part in the trial.

 

[cocomod]

In my opinion, Ersland went a little beyond self defense. If he had shot 5 - 6 times with his gun the first time, that would have been a bit more justifiable. I think that his anger or fear may have gotten the best of him. However, how many times have we watched police officers get charged with using excessive force? I know that LE are "professionals" that should know better than to use excessive force, but they are protecting the public - you and I - and they are sometimes charged with a crime.

What I wish would have happened in this case is that an option for a lesser crime - therefore a lesser sentence - would have been offered to the jury. To me - life in prison is for criminals - not for business owners that did not start this fight!

How many times have we watched a person who has murdered a child get only 10 - 20 years for the crime?!! These are people that should have a life sentence, not Ersland.

 

[kemo]

We do not KNOW why Ersland fired shots #2 through #6. We can only speculate. He gave a number of "versions" to LE and the media prior to the trial but he did not testify at the trial.

His supporters would like to believe that the kid made some sort of "move" that triggered his "defensive" response. It isn't impossible but the statement he gave to police (that the kid sat up) was not true.

Some sympathizers would prefer to believe that the "stress" of the robbery caused him to "over-react". They feel this should be a mitigating factor that could justify a lesser charge. That sort of thing is really hard to "prove". It is asking the jury to make a judgment call without much hard evidence one way or the other. It would have really helped if Ersland had told the truth up front, explained his feeling of panic and expressed some remorse over the situation. He probably could have gotten off with a year or so. His attorney may have felt it was too late for that approach after all of the lies or perhaps Ersland himself refused to go along with it.

My first impression on watching the video was that Ersland was not at all in a panic. His body language suggests he was acting very methodical. It looked to me like he wanted to be sure the kid was dead and I suspected it was something he always planned to do if he ever shot someone during a robbery. The motive was probably to defend himself from any lawsuit or other legal action.

Now I wasn't on the jury and I am privy to limited information. Still, I wonder if the jury concluded pretty much what I did. That would justify a First Degree Murder conviction.

 

[Nova]

In my opinion, Ersland went a little beyond self defense. If he had shot 5 - 6 times with his gun the first time, that would have been a bit more justifiable. I think that his anger or fear may have gotten the best of him. However, how many times have we watched police officers get charged with using excessive force? I know that LE are "professionals" that should know better than to use excessive force, but they are protecting the public - you and I - and they are sometimes charged with a crime.

What I wish would have happened in this case is that an option for a lesser crime - therefore a lesser sentence - would have been offered to the jury. To me - life in prison is for criminals - not for business owners that did not start this fight!

How many times have we watched a person who has murdered a child get only 10 - 20 years for the crime?!! These are people that should have a life sentence, not Ersland.

A lesser offense WAS offered to the jury.

They rejected it in favor of 1st degree murder. At this point, we can only speculate as to why.

 

[Nova]

Kemo, I can say from personal experience that it is indeed difficult for a jury to judge mitigating factors such as "extreme emotional distress." But jurors are asked to do so all the time.

 

[kemo]

Kemo, I can say from personal experience that it is indeed difficult for a jury to judge mitigating factors such as "extreme emotional distress." But jurors are asked to do so all the time.

Yes they do, but in this case they just didn't buy it.

 

[Nova]

Yes they do, but in this case they just didn't buy it.

Nor did we in the case I was on. But we wrestled mightily with the concepts for an entire week.

 

[JBean]

Convicted pharmacist’s note says jail is ‘like being in hell;’ was convicted of killing robber


OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who was convicted of murder for killing a robber says serving time in jail is “like being in Hell”
Jerome Jay Ersland told The Oklahoman in a note that when last week’s verdict was read he knew he was “doomed forever.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...killing-robber/2011/06/03/AGzJgrHH_story.html

 

[JBean]

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Residents are coming one-by-one and by the car load to sign a petition against the jury's verdict in the Jerome Ersland murder trial.
As she signs her name on the line, Tara Wood says, "He should not have been put in that situation that morning. He was intended to go to work to do what he does to help people, he wasn't intended to come to work to murder somebody."
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor...macist-jerome-ersland-20110603,0,613736.story

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Convicted pharmacist’s note says jail is ‘like being in hell;’ was convicted of killing robber


OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who was convicted of murder for killing a robber says serving time in jail is “like being in Hell”
Jerome Jay Ersland told The Oklahoman in a note that when last week’s verdict was read he knew he was “doomed forever.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...killing-robber/2011/06/03/AGzJgrHH_story.html

This is not directed at you, JBean, but given the man's propensity to play fast and loose with the truth, I will take anything he says with a quite a few grains of salt.

 

[jjenny]

This article on cnn reveals how pharmacists are under siege by addicts. I fail to see how convicting a pharmacist of first degree murder is going to help matters. And maybe Mr. Ersland over-reacted. But we know that pharmacy he worked at was robbed numerous times before. How is convicting him of first degree murder is going to help when pharmacists are under siege? It's only going to scare other pharmacists, IMO. Someone in an emergency situation should be thinking of doing everything to survive, and not of murder charges, IMO.

""The number of these crimes has just skyrocketed," Donohue said from his pharmacy, which boasts bullet-resistant glass and a multicamera video monitoring system he installed after a 2007 robbery."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03/drugstore.robberies/

 

[jjenny]

What kind of message does this verdict sends to other pharmacists who are apparently being robbed at higher rates? If you shoot someone on the ground you might end up convicted of first degree murder? Someone on the ground does not necessarily mean incapacitated and harmless. But what else are these pharmacists going to think about? And consider that if a minor trying to rob actually kills someone that minor would get out of prison in a short time unless he or she is charged as adult.

 

[kemo]

I know it makes some people really happy that things ended up this way.

But it's messed up.

Oh come on, Nobody is cheering over this. This one of those "events" where everybody looses. I have no sympathy for the mother and I would be appalled if she gets a dime. I hate to see a 16 year old kid die but I must admit the world might be just a little safer with him gone.

As for Ersland, he had all of the hallmarks of a decent, law abiding fellow. He evidentially knew how to use a gun and chose to exercise his legal right to use it to protect his business. There is something heroic and admirable in putting your life on the line to stand up against a threat others might give in to. With any act of bravery, however, comes a responsibility. In that area he fell seriously short. Shakespeare said "discretion is the greater part of valor" and Erslands lack of discretion turned his "valor" into a murder charge.

 

[JBean]

What kind of message does this verdict sends to other pharmacists who are apparently being robbed at higher rates? If you shoot someone on the ground you might end up convicted of first degree murder? Someone on the ground does not necessarily mean incapacitated and harmless. But what else are these pharmacists going to think about? And consider that if a minor trying to rob actually kills someone that minor would get out of prison in a short time unless he or she is charged as adult.

To me the message is clear. You can shoot to kill, but only while defending yourself.

I suppose the other message could be don't lie to LE about it, and be sure to turn off the camera if you do. I don't mean that to be snarky, I really think that is one of the messages to shopkeeps and other pharmacists.
IMO, where this departs from a pure self defense case is that Ersland was collected,deliberate, and unwaivering in his actions. he clearly took control of the situation, evidenced by one robber fleeing and one robber being shot to death.

Even with all that said, I also see the injustice in being locked up for life since he clearly did not initiate this mess. I understand that premeditation involves the time that you can change your mind and continue anyway and that was not difficult to prove. But I still think the fact that he was not the original aggressor, he was threatened with a gun and was protecting others in his establishment should have been enough mitigating factors to rule out 1st degree.