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

[IzzyBlanche]

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.

This is exactly why the two adults who put the teens up to it did so. They thought the teens would get off easier than they would. Wrong.

 

[Sonya610]

This is exactly why the two adults who put the teens up to it did so. They thought the teens would get off easier than they would. Wrong.

The two "adults" saw a quick profit and came across a couple of young idiots that would do anything with a bit of encouragement and for money. It had NOTHING to do with pondering whether the "youths" would get off easier prison wise.

They were young and dumb (obvious as the dead assailant chose to cover his face AFTER entering the store) and the adults hoped for a rapid haul of pricey drugs.

Very very little thought was put into this by any party. That much is obvious. The pharmacist will suffer far far more than the others, a chain of action and the guy that went to work that day expecting to measure meds carefully, and counsel old ladies, and greet customers in a friendly manner ends up with a long prison sentence.

The "adults" and the "youths" aside, the pharmacist started out HIS day business as usual, working and serving customers and somehow the evil intent of others has ended up with HIM serving a very long prison term.

 

[Nova]

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.

With all due respect, jenny, you have misstated the facts. Parker wasn't just "on the ground," he was unconscious and immobilized by a shot to the head!

You're still entitled to believe Ersland was overcharged and wrongly convicted, but it wasn't a simply matter of the assailant being "on the ground."

 

[Nova]

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.

Thank you, kemo. You are exactly right.

I usually prefer that the rule of law prevail, but that doesn't mean I'm "happy" when lives are destroyed.

The Ersland and Parker case is a tragedy any way you look at it.

 

[Nova]

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.

Beautiful summary, JBean!

Personally, I'm hoping the judge finds a way to suspend most of the sentence. I think a year or two in prison will be enough to make the point that one can't execute another out of anger; I don't see the gain in keeping Ersland in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[jjenny]

With all due respect, jenny, you have misstated the facts. Parker wasn't just "on the ground," he was unconscious and immobilized by a shot to the head!

You're still entitled to believe Ersland was overcharged and wrongly convicted, but it wasn't a simply matter of the assailant being "on the ground."

And how was Ersland supposed to know all that? We are talking about mere seconds that he was somehow supposed to assess the situation, and figure out that Parker was in fact unconscious and immobilized as opposed to playing possum. It's so easy for us looking back at it, but imagine you are being robbed, you shoot the robber, robber falls to the ground-are you going to be that confident that this robber is in fact harmless as opposed to waiting to get up and do who knows what?

 

[jjenny]

This is exactly why the two adults who put the teens up to it did so. They thought the teens would get off easier than they would. Wrong.

Not wrong in the case of a 14 year old who is going to get out before he turns 19. Had Parker not died, he'd be likely out in a short time as well.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And how was Ersland supposed to know all that? We are talking about mere seconds that he was somehow supposed to assess the situation, and figure out that Parker was in fact unconscious and immobilized as opposed to playing possum. It's so easy for us looking back at it, but imagine you are being robbed, you shoot the robber, robber falls to the ground-are you going to be that confident that this robber is in fact harmless as opposed to waiting to get up and do who knows what?

It appears to me that Ersland was confident enough of that fact to 1) leave the two female employees he was claiming to be "protecting" alone in the store with said robber; 2) upon returning to the store, taking the route around the counter that required him to practically step over the robber, instead of the other way around that would have kept more distance between them; 3) turn his back on this so-called potential threat not once but twice.

 

[jjenny]

It appears to me that Ersland was confident enough of that fact to 1) leave the two female employees he was claiming to be "protecting" alone in the store with said robber; 2) upon returning to the store, taking the route around the counter that required him to practically step over the robber, instead of the other way around that would have kept more distance between them; 3) turn his back on this so-called potential threat not once but twice.

Again, all of this happened within seconds. Someone under extreme emotional distress might not be acting in a perfectly rational manner. Just yesterday I watched in a show where a woman walked into her home as it was being robbed and instead of running away run toward robbers. Using your logic, she must have been happy to see them instead of being scared out of her mind.

 

[JBean]

It appears to me that Ersland was confident enough of that fact to 1) leave the two female employees he was claiming to be "protecting" alone in the store with said robber; 2) upon returning to the store, taking the route around the counter that required him to practically step over the robber, instead of the other way around that would have kept more distance between them; 3) turn his back on this so-called potential threat not once but twice.

This is the heart of the matter in my opinion and what draws the line between self defense and becoming the aggressor. I think it is clear from the video that Ersland was not only confident but he was in complete control of the situation;even stopping to switch guns and get himself situated. in a vacuum taking control from would-be robbers is a very good thing, the problem is what he did with that control once he had it.

I was taken at gunpoint once in my place of employment. While being walked around my building with a gun shoved in my ribs I went from complete surrender to "I think I can take this guy" to "I am getting the heck out of here." If I had had a gun I would have shot him. But I would not have left the building and run back in and shot him again, which is what Ersland did.

What bothers me the most and tips the scale for me is that when ersland walked back in he didn't call 911. That is the red flag. He had the time and the clarity of mind but he chose to get another weapon-shoot and THEN call 911. But even if we could explain all that away and say the boy on the floor was clearly a continuing threat why didn't Ersland tell that to LE?

Because it didn't happen and he had to fabricate a scenario that would indicate self defense. If he had initially given LE a story that matched the video things would be different. But peope lie to LE for one reason. To cover up something they did wrong. Even Ersland knew he blew it.

 

[jjenny]

He might have appeared "completely calm" but have it occurred to anyone that might be how he shows emotion? Not everybody reacts the same way. While some people cry and scream others might appear "completely calm." He appeared completely calm when he was convicted of first degree murder. Somehow I doubt he actually was. The man was a perfectly law abiding citizen for many years. He is disabled with broken back. He went to work not intending to kill anyone and two people attempted to rob him. One of these people pointed a gun at him. And now he sits in prison convicted of first degree murder. Is that justice?

 

[lonetraveler]

I for one hope that this verdict as well as the sentence is overturned. This man at the very least deserves another trial. Absolutely no one knows what they themselves would have done under this tremendous stress. I'm sure that shock would have hit a person as soon as they realize that two robbers are pointing a loaded weapon at your head and your life as well as other's lives are in danger. This man's legal counsel failed him when they did not have expert testimony given on actions of people under tremendous stress during and following a traumatic event. Everyone can say what they would or would not do, but to actually be in this situation is another ballgame entirely. It is ironic that "Post Traumatic Syndrome" can be used to explain someone's irrational decisions but "Traumatic Syndrome" can not be considered under the same circumstances. This man does not need to be imprisoned.

 

[JBean]

I for one hope that this verdict as well as the sentence is overturned. This man at the very least deserves another trial. Absolutely no one knows what they themselves would have done under this tremendous stress. I'm sure that shock would have hit a person as soon as they realize that two robbers are pointing a loaded weapon at your head and your life as well as other's lives are in danger. This man's legal counsel failed him when they did not have expert testimony given on actions of people under tremendous stress during and following a traumatic event. Everyone can say what they would or would not do, but to actually be in this situation is another ballgame entirely. It is ironic that "Post Traumatic Syndrome" can be used to explain someone's irrational decisions but "Traumatic Syndrome" can not be considered under the same circumstances. This man does not need to be imprisoned.

Perhaps he was evaluated by a psychiatrist or other mental health expert and there was nothing in the report that would help him. When the defense hires their own mental health expert that has evaluated the defendant and it is not admitted into trial, it is typically because they do not want it to be.
Of course, that is only true if his defense actually did hire an expert to evaluate him. Experts cost money and perhaps he could not afford one.

 

[JBean]

He might have appeared "completely calm" but have it occurred to anyone that might be how he shows emotion? Not everybody reacts the same way. While some people cry and scream others might appear "completely calm." He appeared completely calm when he was convicted of first degree murder. Somehow I doubt he actually was. The man was a perfectly law abiding citizen for many years. He is disabled with broken back. He went to work not intending to kill anyone and two people attempted to rob him. One of these people pointed a gun at him. And now he sits in prison convicted of first degree murder. Is that justice?

Jjenny, why in your opinion did he lie about what happened and do you think that was a factor in his conviction? I concur that he would most likely not have been calm. But he was collected and deliberate.

 

[jjenny]

I for one hope that this verdict as well as the sentence is overturned. This man at the very least deserves another trial. Absolutely no one knows what they themselves would have done under this tremendous stress. I'm sure that shock would have hit a person as soon as they realize that two robbers are pointing a loaded weapon at your head and your life as well as other's lives are in danger. This man's legal counsel failed him when they did not have expert testimony given on actions of people under tremendous stress during and following a traumatic event. Everyone can say what they would or would not do, but to actually be in this situation is another ballgame entirely. It is ironic that "Post Traumatic Syndrome" can be used to explain someone's irrational decisions but "Traumatic Syndrome" can not be considered under the same circumstances. This man does not need to be imprisoned.

Defense was prepared to call witnesses testifying about stress during robbery. Judge barred them from testifying. Defense had a list of 21 witnesses. Only one witness ended up testifying.

 

[JBean]

I am guessing that the judge barred a general expert to testify as opposed to someone that actually evaluated Ersland himself. Does anyone have any information on why that expert testimony was not allowed? I would also be interested in more information on why the other witnesses were not allowed.

I got to thinking why would the defense not bring in psychological information specific to Ersland? According to this article they intended to consult a professional. But I see thet ersland has had to deal with legal issues surrounding his mental health. I assume this would be to inflammatory and prejudicial to be bring prior accusations into evidence, but it would also explain why the defense would not want to open this Pandora's box.

Mental state may play into Oklahoma pharmacist’s case

Read more: http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-oklahoma-pharmacists-case/article/3375757#ixzz1OQt4yvZO

>>Because of the incident, I intend to have him consult with a counselor in regards to the traumatic situation that occurred.&#8221;<<​

snip

The pharmacist charged with murder said he has no mental problems, but records show both his ex-wives called him unstable.​

snip
Ersland and his second wife, Wanda Jean Ersland, divorced in 2006 after 23 years of marriage. A psychologist who treated his son said the boy&#8217;s mother reported Ersland "displayed paranoid behavior, abused drugs and displayed other inappropriate behavior,&#8221; records show.
snip
He recommended to the judge in 2006 that Ersland undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if Ersland would be able to interact with his son. Ersland complained about the psychologist to a state board, and the psychologist eventually agreed to do a scholarly paper to resolve the complaint.

Also in that case, a court-appointed child-visitation supervisor called Ersland "somewhat self-absorbed.&#8221;​

snip
Hester reported Ersland "repeats himself quite often and insists on volunteering information about himself, particularly regarding his injury, that neither Jeremy nor I have solicited. Mr. (Ersland) appears fully engaged in conversation when he is talking or when/if he is the subject of conversation but ... seems distracted ... when either Jeremy or I are speaking. ... Jeremy has repeatedly told me during visits, in his father&#8217;s absence, that he does not enjoy being with his father because his father is strange or crazy.&#8221;

Read more: http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-oklahoma-pharmacists-case/article/3375757#ixzz1OQlqYQas​

 

[Nova]

And how was Ersland supposed to know all that? We are talking about mere seconds that he was somehow supposed to assess the situation, and figure out that Parker was in fact unconscious and immobilized as opposed to playing possum. It's so easy for us looking back at it, but imagine you are being robbed, you shoot the robber, robber falls to the ground-are you going to be that confident that this robber is in fact harmless as opposed to waiting to get up and do who knows what?

I don't know another way to point out that Ersland showed by his actions that he knew Parker was no longer a threat. Ersland left Parker alone with Ersland's unarmed employees, Ersland stepped over Parker and turned his back on Parker twice.

You keep insisting we can't "second guess" Ersland as if we were just playing make believe; but in fact Ersland's own actions tell the story.

And in addition to that we have forensic evidence that from the bullet trajectories shows that Parker wasn't moving at the time of the execution shots.

And again you misstate the facts: Ersland did NOT shoot Parker when Parker fell to the ground. Ersland executed Parker 40-some seconds later, after doing several other things.

 

[Nova]

And heaven help the poor victim who is attacked by 2 or more assailants that cannot all be within the victim's field of vision at the same time. For, following the logic that once you "turn your back" on an assailant you, by definition, no longer consider that particular assailant a threat and you are precluded from any action against that assailant, you're really stuck. Look at one of them and shoot, you've turned your back on the other. Gotta let him shoot you unless you want to die in prison as a convicted murderer.

But them's the rules, I guess.

That would be a different set of facts and you know it. No one would blame Ersland with those facts, just as nobody blames him for shooting the unarmed assailant.

Despite your and jenny's attempts to paint a different picture, nobody has required omniscience from Ersland. But the prosecutor, some posters here and presumably the jury could and did infer what Ersland knew from how Ersland behaved.

 

[jjenny]

That would be a different set of facts and you know it. No one would blame Ersland with those facts, just as nobody blames him for shooting the unarmed assailant.

Despite your and jenny's attempts to paint a different picture, nobody has required omniscience from Ersland. But the prosecutor, some posters here and presumably the jury could and did infer what Ersland knew from how Ersland behaved.

Yes, I realize Ersland was convicted. But so was Amanda Knox. Doesn't stop a bunch of people from defending her, does it?

 

[Nova]

Yes, I realize Ersland was convicted. But so was Amanda Knox. Doesn't stop a bunch of people from defending her, does it?

You're trying to "gaslight" me, right? LOL.

My point has never been that posters can't question a conviction. If that were true, we might as well close WS and just sit and wait for verdicts to be announced.

My point was that you and others keep skewing the facts just enough to imply that those of us who disagree with you (including, apparently, the jury) are sitting around playing make-believe, "imagining" what Ersland thought and felt.

We are not. We are drawing logical conclusions based on Ersland's actions, and the many and varied stories he has told about the assault.

You are still entitled to disagree. But it isn't fair to reiterate that we can't "imagine" what we would do in Ersland's shoes. We don't have to imagine anything; we have facts with which to work.