Where was that security guard during the robbery?
GUILTY OK - Antwon Parker, 16, shot dead in OKC pharmacy robbery, 19 May 2009
- Thread starter noZme
- Start date
Where was that security guard during the robbery?
It was a general question but I can see why that was confusing placement on my part.
jjenny, Since everyone reacts differently why would the people you mentioned be relevant to this case and be allowed to testify in your opinion?
Some people might react differently from others, but I sure wouldn't say everybody reacts differently. There are many common characteristics of how groups of people react to extreme stress, that can be described from a scientific point of view. The jury should have heard about "fight or flight response," IMO.
I experienced both fight and flight during my ordeal with an armed robber.
But I still do not see the relevance to his case at all unless they were going to testify specifically to their knowledge of ersland.
I totally understand why he shot the kid the first time and I would have still understood if he shot him in the moment again.
But the consciousness of guilt he displays is so overwhelming to me, that I am convinced even he knew he was doing something wrong. I can even go so far as to say if he had not lied about his actions, repeatedly, I might feel differently about his action and could almost buy into him being overcome with fear in the moment. But even a fight or flight response does not cause people to lie. KWIM? IMO, there is only one reason that people lie to LE about their actions.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,567
- Reaction score
- 29,655
Going by the cases I've followed, it's not unusual for a judge in a high-profile case to impose a gag order on all parties. I saw it here in San Diego during the David Westerfield case and, IIRC, the Stephanie Crowe trial(s).
Also, IIRC, the Scott Peterson case and Michael Jackson's trial.
In Scott Peterson's case, gag order was issued to protect his right to a fair trial. In Jerome Ersland's case, defense opposed a gag order. So why was it issued?
"Prosecutors wanted the gag order. Defense attorneys opposed it. Such orders are rare."
Read more: http://newsok.com/judge-issues-gag-...nds-murder-case/article/3548758#ixzz1OayMqaGB
http://newsok.com/judge-issues-gag-...rome-jay-erslands-murder-case/article/3548758
There is a huge difference between (a) refusing to retreat (not even California requires a self-defense claimant to retreat) and (b) leaving the premises and then returning to the scene of the supposed threat. The latter argues very strongly that one doesn't feel threatened.
BBM: that's the problem!
Nothing could have stopped the defense from having Ersland examined by doctors and putting those doctors on the stand. Then it wouldn't have been a question of what "some people do." The testimony would have dealt specifically with the defendant and what he did, as it should.
But the defense chose not to take that risk, no doubt because of elements of Ersland's psychology the defense didn't want discussed.
And so Ersland was hoisted on his own petard.
I don't think there's any mystery in this case. Ersland's team wanted the focus off their client while they inflamed the jury pool's fear of armed robbers. They want straight for nullification from the get go.
It was the judge's job to use whatever tools he had to prevent that.
The "system" worked.
The man went to work, not intending to kill anyone, was a victim of attempted armed robbery, and ended up convicted of first degree murder. You call that "system worked?"
So the woman I saw on unsolved mysteries, who came in as her home was being robbed, and instead of running away run toward the robbers, she didn't feel threatened? She was just happy to see them?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,567
- Reaction score
- 29,655
I fail to see any connection between this situation and Ersland's. Unless the woman confronted the robbers, left her home, then returned, this is an apples to oranges comparison.
As I recall, she came into the house, run toward the robbers, the robbers tied her up (and her son as well). She managed to get herself and her son untied, run to the neighbors, got neighbor's gun, came back, but the robbers were already gone.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,567
- Reaction score
- 29,655
Today I emailed Nolan Clay, the reporter who covered Ersland's trial for the Daily Oklahoman, inquiring about the defense witnesses the judge barred from testifying. This is my email, edited for irrelevancies such as greeting and closure:
I am a member of the Websleuths crime sleuthing forum, where I have been discussing ... this trial. [Some members claim] Judge Elliott barred all defense witnesses from testifying except, of course, for the one pharmacy employee who did testify.
Is this true? I recall the judge barring testimony from another pharmacist who had been robbed, Police Officer Joe Land, and two doctors whom Box wanted to testify regarding the stress that robbery victims experience.
Were there others?
And do you recall what the judge's reasoning was regarding barring the doctors' testimony?
His response:
Ersland and his supporters like to say that the judge barred all his witnesses but one. The truth of the matter is that the judge kept out the witnesses Ersland wanted to call who would have talked about the stress of robberies. There were several. They include employees who were at the pharmacy when it was robbed before, a pharmacist from Chelsea, Okla., and the Nichols Hills officer (who actually shot an unarmed burglar.) .
Now as to the two experts, that is a little different story and one that is steeped in legal technicalities. As I remember it, the judge did not specifically bar them but probably would have. Before trial, prosecutors complained that defense attorneys didn't give them any reports from the two proposed experts. The judge told the defense attorneys to get reports from them. The judge also said he would sanction defense attorneys for missing a discovery deadline. Defense attorneys decided not to get the reports after all, probably because the judge would have kept out the experts anyway and defense attorneys wanted to avoid the sanctions. But there is a gag order so we don't know for sure.
Attached is the defense witness list. Pay particular attention to 22. [Note from Izzy Blanche: #22 reads, "Any and all witnesses endorsed by the state of Oklahoma."] Prosecutors listed dozens of witnesses and the defense could have called them
Obviously, also, Ersland could have called himself. He could have called pharmacy employee Megan West but she had testified as a prosecution witness and defense attorneys made whatever points they had from her in their cross-examination.
They called Jeanne Read, the other employee. They could have called the owner but didn't. The doctor, Choi, testified as a prosecution witness. They had planned to use Sibley, another doctor, but read a stipulation -- a statement -- to the jury about this position. So that was just as good.
They could have called another doctor, Duval, and so on and so on.
They could have called Jevontai Ingram, the other robber who was listed as a prosecution witness. (He did not testify for the prosecution after all.).
So please, no more claims that the judge barred all defense witnesses except one from testifying.
I am a member of the Websleuths crime sleuthing forum, where I have been discussing ... this trial. [Some members claim] Judge Elliott barred all defense witnesses from testifying except, of course, for the one pharmacy employee who did testify.
Is this true? I recall the judge barring testimony from another pharmacist who had been robbed, Police Officer Joe Land, and two doctors whom Box wanted to testify regarding the stress that robbery victims experience.
Were there others?
And do you recall what the judge's reasoning was regarding barring the doctors' testimony?
His response:
Ersland and his supporters like to say that the judge barred all his witnesses but one. The truth of the matter is that the judge kept out the witnesses Ersland wanted to call who would have talked about the stress of robberies. There were several. They include employees who were at the pharmacy when it was robbed before, a pharmacist from Chelsea, Okla., and the Nichols Hills officer (who actually shot an unarmed burglar.) .
Now as to the two experts, that is a little different story and one that is steeped in legal technicalities. As I remember it, the judge did not specifically bar them but probably would have. Before trial, prosecutors complained that defense attorneys didn't give them any reports from the two proposed experts. The judge told the defense attorneys to get reports from them. The judge also said he would sanction defense attorneys for missing a discovery deadline. Defense attorneys decided not to get the reports after all, probably because the judge would have kept out the experts anyway and defense attorneys wanted to avoid the sanctions. But there is a gag order so we don't know for sure.
Attached is the defense witness list. Pay particular attention to 22. [Note from Izzy Blanche: #22 reads, "Any and all witnesses endorsed by the state of Oklahoma."] Prosecutors listed dozens of witnesses and the defense could have called them
Obviously, also, Ersland could have called himself. He could have called pharmacy employee Megan West but she had testified as a prosecution witness and defense attorneys made whatever points they had from her in their cross-examination.
They called Jeanne Read, the other employee. They could have called the owner but didn't. The doctor, Choi, testified as a prosecution witness. They had planned to use Sibley, another doctor, but read a stipulation -- a statement -- to the jury about this position. So that was just as good.
They could have called another doctor, Duval, and so on and so on.
They could have called Jevontai Ingram, the other robber who was listed as a prosecution witness. (He did not testify for the prosecution after all.).
So please, no more claims that the judge barred all defense witnesses except one from testifying.
Hmm. I am a little bit confused. For one, I have not claimed that the judge barred all but one defense witnesses form testifying. For other, the reporter seems to be saying that defense could have called witnesses that testified for the prosecution. Why would defense want to do it to begin with? And who, other than those who testified for the prosecution, did the judge not bar that defense wanted to testify?
The two experts that even the reporter believes the judge would eventually have barred anyway, even if defense pushed it?
The two experts that even the reporter believes the judge would eventually have barred anyway, even if defense pushed it?
The man executed an unconscious, immobilized teenager. (And we're all being generous by not adding "unarmed.")
Yes, the system worked.
Do I feel any sympathy for Mr. Ersland? Yes. Do I hope he gets less than the minimum of 38 years? Yes. But none of that changes the fact he killed a teenager in cold blood.
We have already established that since his "colleague" was armed, any reasonable person could have assumed he could have been armed as well.
What ARE you talking about?!
NOBODY says Ersland had an obligation to run away from the robbers.
I guess I'll assume the woman you are talking about ran toward the robbers in a panic, because otherwise I don't know why you bring it up.
ERSLAND DID NOT RETURN TO THE STORE AND STEP OVER THE COMATOSE ROBBER in a mindless panic. HE DID NOT REACH FOR A FULLY LOADED GUN AND EMPTY ALL THE SHELLS INTO PARKER in a mindless panic.
You and adnoid know this perfectly well.
At least Sonya admits she doesn't care what the facts are, as long as the robber is dead and no longer a threat or public expense.
I was responding to a poster who advised me to run away or lock myself out if I was able to shoot someone who then fallen to the ground. I took it to understand that poster believed Ersland had an obligation to retreat after he shot Parker.
What? So all of a sudden you care about the law and the specific facts of this case?
Yes, I know Parker's accomplice was unarmed. I do not blame Ersland for assuming Parker was armed as well.
My point was that with Parker unconscious, Ersland actually had time to check to see if Parker was armed, BUT WE (AND THE LAW) DON'T EVEN REQUIRE THAT. Nor do we required that Ersland retreat.
So enough already with crying the blues for poor, victim Ersland. If anything, the law gave him all sorts of allowances and he still was so angry he killed an unconscious man.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 81
- Guests online
- 2,304
- Total visitors
- 2,385