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

New Posts

Pharmacy Case to Remain in Oklahoma County

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist charged with murder after fatally shooting a would-be robber, returned to work Tuesday to find many supporting customers.


Ersland quickly made his way back into the Reliable Pharmacy, escorted by a security guard and surrounded by encouraging customers.

"I sure worry about his safety," said customer Tressa Pierce. "If you lived on the south side of Oklahoma City all your life, you would too."

~snip~

When there's such a big spotlight on a case, often times, defense lawyers ask for a change in venue.

"It crossed my mind that there might need to be a change of venue when the tape was shown to the public by the district attorney on the first day in the press conference," Box said.

But now, Box said he's thinking differently after hearing the positive comments from the public.

"I've had clients where you couldn't find one person in the county who supported the client, but in this case, when it seems like the majority of people support him, I want the trial here in Oklahoma County," Box said.

http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=10466911
 
kemo said:
I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence
Click to expand...

Actually, you do have the right to protect yourself when you feel your life is in danger. No matter what the weapon you are being threatened with. No matter in your home, at work, or walking down the street. This was not a matter of vigilanteism either, imho. If at anytime you are being threatened and feel your life may be taken away from you, you do have the right to take that person out. Self defense has always been a core right in this country.

We have seen a steady increase in crime since our country went into a recession. Many of those crimes are murders of innocent people. I would have been afraid of being killed to prevent witnesses. Think about the Brown's Chicken shooting out here in Palatine, IL. or the women killed in Lane Bryant.

These perpetrators don't value the lives of others. They go in with one thought and one thought only: to get what they want no matter the cost. For once I am glad to not to hear that a store full of employees was wiped out in the name of money/drugs. Am I saddened a person was killed? You bet'cha, but I'm always saddened that people see crime as a preferable way to live their lives.
 
This man will never be convicted of first degree murder. Being an armed robber and an accomplice is high risk illegal business. Not everyone is just going to stand there quaking in fear and not protect themselves and others when the thugs storm in threatening to kill them all.

Imo
 
Originally Posted by kemo
I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence
Click to expand...

I disagree. I DO have the legal right to to impose the death penalty on someone who threatens me, my family, or my property. Gangbangers are doing home invasions at an astonishing rate here, armed robberies are up and so is the violence associated with them, and when one or more possibly armed perps enter my home or my place of business...I will shoot first and ask questions later as the law allows.

These low life thugs need to meet their maker instead of getting away with such crimes time after time because people are afraid to testify against them. The only way to curb the current crime rate is for citizens to fight back and protect themselves. Our law is designed for that purpose and to SAVE the lives of innocent people instead of the criminals.
 
kemo said:
I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence
Click to expand...

Do you or I know what was going on in those robbers mind? Do we know that they didn't intend to kill all employees? We don't. Just like we don't know what was going on in Mr. Ersland's mind.

If someone comes up to me with a gun, I'm going to assume that they mean me physical harm. Maybe they mean to steal from me, maybe they mean to rape me, but if they come to me with a weapon, ANY kind of weapon, I'm going to ASSUME that it's my life or theirs. And I am going to do whatever is in my power to protect my precious life. Period.
 
http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid4659235001?bctid=24432753001

Least anyone disputes what actually happened, above is the video of the incident. Watch it (not for the squimish)

The key details are the fact that: 1) Ersland leaves the store chasing the second perp and is gone 13 seconds. 2) The Perp who was shot did not have a gun and was lying on his back. 3) When Ersland returns he walks right up to the kid but his gun is not aimed at the kid. He does not stop, he keeps on walking right past the kid and continues to the rear of the store with his back to the kid. 4) He returns and walks right up to the kid and, standing over him while reaching down, shots him 5X in the abdomen. 5) the other employees had fled the store by that time. 6)Ersland said, in his initial statement, that he fired of six shots without interuption and made no mention of any shooting after he returned to the store or anything about a second gun. 7) The D.A. said that there was no problem with the initial shooting but there is nothing in the video that suggest Ersland precieved himself to be in any danger when he returned. That is why a First Degree Murder charge was filed.

Ask yourselves "is this an act of self-defense or is this a murder?" A lot of you have jumped all over me and accused me of "sympathizing" with the perp rather than the "innocent" victim but you seem to sort of gloss over what really happened. Yes, we are angry about crime and it natural to cheer when a victim turns the table on a perp, but this is just cold blooded murder. I stand by what I have said.
 
I have watched it a few times. You can't see the perp laying on the ground and we have no idea what was going on at that time without sound or visual on him. We also do not know what was going on in the Pharmacist's mind either. He obviously still perceived there was a threat and was going to make darn sure the perp was unable to do anything else to harm them.

When he turns his back, there is a counter between them as he walks to the back of the room. What should he have done? Walked backwards? He was out of ammo and unable to protect himself at that point. I am sure he wished he could have been running, but with his physical condition he could not move any faster or walk backwards. He also could not have physically done hand to hand battle with the perp if he had made the attempt to get up (which we do not know if he was trying or not).

I don't see murder there. I see a SOB who came in with the threat to do bodily harm, who had concealed his identity, and intended on robbing the Pharmacy by any means necessary. I see the victim making sure the SOB's plans were stopped by deadly force.
 
Somehow the naration that came after my version did not come with the link but I'm sure you can find it. The naration told that the Perp had no gun, the other employees had fled and the Perp was on his back.

I have no idea what he should have done because I don't know the full situation. I do know that if he feared that the Perp had a gun and still posed a threat, he should not have re-entered the store at all. If he thought other employees were in the store he could have called to them to tell them to stay put, police were on the way. I can't see any need to get to the other gun that would justify the risk of exposing himself if he really thought there was any danger.

If he did decide to be a hero anyway, why didn't he go to get the second gun the same way he left after the shooting instead of walking right past the Perp and then turing his back on him?( which would be absolutly foolhardy if he really thought there was any chance at all the perp could get to a gun). Once he got the second gun, he was home free. He had the loaded gun, he had cover and the phone was right there. There was only one reason I can see leaving such a secure spot to stand over the Perp (and be subject to a hand attack by the Perp) and that is to get close enough to be sure his shots would be fatal.

Now you may believe the kid "needed killin' ", but don't go around kidding yourself that this was any kind of "self-defense"situation.
 
kemo said:
Somehow the naration that came after my version did not come with the link but I'm sure you can find it. The naration told that the Perp had no gun, the other employees had fled and the Perp was on his back.

I have no idea what he should have done because I don't know the full situation. I do know that if he feared that the Perp had a gun and still posed a threat, he should not have re-entered the store at all. If he thought other employees were in the store he could have called to them to tell them to stay put, police were on the way. I can't see any need to get to the other gun that would justify the risk of exposing himself if he really thought there was any danger.

If he did decide to be a hero anyway, why didn't he go to get the second gun the same way he left after the shooting instead of walking right past the Perp and then turing his back on him?( which would be absolutly foolhardy if he really thought there was any chance at all the perp could get to a gun). Once he got the second gun, he was home free. He had the loaded gun, he had cover and the phone was right there. There was only one reason I can see leaving such a secure spot to stand over the Perp (and be subject to a hand attack by the Perp) and that is to get close enough to be sure his shots would be fatal.

Now you may believe the kid "needed killin' " as I suspect a lot of people in Oklahoma are going do, but don't go around kidding yourself that this was any kind of "self-defense"situation.
Click to expand...
I think that comment was very derogatory and unnecessary. We are not hicks here and I don't appreciate the reference.

There is no excuse for criminals to come in brandishing a gun pointed at people and rob them. The fact the perp went down on the first shot does not mean the threat was gone since he was still inside the building. The threat was not gone until he was dead, unfortunately.

The perp made his choice to enter the Pharmacy in order to cause bodily harm and to rob them. The Pharmacist made the choice not to allow it to happen. He is not a policeman or trained in how to react to the real life situation of being on the other end of a gun with masked intruders approaching himself and others. He shot once in a hurried manner and chase the other one out the door. He came back to find the first one still in his building and under the stress of the situation he felt he needed to eliminate the immediate threat.

When he came back inside it is possible he did not expect to find the man still there and he was already heading around the counter. When he realized the threat was not over, he did the only thing he could do which was to get more protection and neutralize the situation.

I hope the jury will put themselves in his place and know this was exactly what it was...self defense from an armed robbery. The perps should not win and this man should not spend his life in jail for protecting himself and others.
 
I think making sure he was good and dead was self defense....against future law suits.
 
ziggy said:
I think making sure he was good and dead was self defense....against future law suits.
Click to expand...
Which is something else that needs to stop in this country! Perps filing lawsuits against their victims is wrong on so many levels.
 
maybe he didn't need to shoot him again but I understand why he did...the kid moved...he was scared chitless...haven't you ever been scared????

These guys don't belong in society so whether he shot them once or 50 times who care...they had no business doing and saying what they did...wonder how he's enjoying hell.
 
Evidently, there are people out there who would have preferred the Pharmacist run away. Did he know the woman had gotten out of the store? Did he know the other perp had not gotten up and taken her as a hostage? If he had run away and the perp killed her, he would have felt responsible he did not do anything to prevent it.

D@mn right he was scared! How do you calmly look down the barrel of a gun pointed at you from two men who would possibly kill you over the drugs and money as happens on a regular basis here?

He put his gun down and called LE immediately after the threat was gone. If his intent was murder, he would have taken out his surveillance video before calling 911. He wasn't trying to hide anything. He did not feel he had done anything wrong or illegal in protecting himself and others.
 
He had already eliminated the threat. The rest was just overkill.
JMO
 
I'm from Oklahoma and currently do not live there. I also am not a redneck- hick because I'm from there and grew up on a farm. (That is an insult) You could go back the past year and read about how many pharmacies have been robbed by thugs, it's almost out of control as are meth labs. Actually it is out of control at this point. This man did NOTHING wrong and there is no way he should ever be convicted. I promise if anyone ever comes through my door and they don't belong there I have a gun and I WILL use it. End of story. This man should never even be in this situation. This gentlemen should be suing that thugs family for harming him and ruining his day and possibly his career. How was this man suppose to know he did/didn't have a gun? And I also blame the parents....where the he*% were his parents?
 
This was gang related. The mother of the one that got away refused to call LE. She is quick to blame other people for her son's involvement. BS! He was 14 years old and hanging out with older gang members. Where was his mother while he was trying to pull off an Armed Robbery?! He looked like he knew exactly what he was doing to me.

Fight for her son?! She should be glad the state is going to get him before he kills someone else or ends up dead. He should be charged with Antwun's murder not the Pharmacist. He is the one who got him killed during the commission of a crime.

"Antwun's mom lost her son," Spigner said. "I really feel if I don't fight for my son, I am going to lose him to the state of Oklahoma."

She said she knew about her oldest son's involvement but didn't tell police.

http://www.koco.com/news/19596493/detail.html
 
SeriouslySearching said:
This was gang related. The mother of the one that got away refused to call LE. She is quick to blame other people for her son's involvement. BS! He was 14 years old and hanging out with older gang members. Where was his mother while he was trying to pull off an Armed Robbery?! He looked like he knew exactly what he was doing to me.

Fight for her son?! She should be glad the state is going to get him before he kills someone else or ends up dead. He should be charged with Antwun's murder not the Pharmacist. He is the one who got him killed during the commission of a crime.

"Antwun's mom lost her son," Spigner said. "I really feel if I don't fight for my son, I am going to lose him to the state of Oklahoma."

She said she knew about her oldest son's involvement but didn't tell police.

http://www.koco.com/news/19596493/detail.html
Click to expand...

ITA! And I don't think this was their first rodeo (or robbery)....I can not believe people are defending these thugs...
 
ohiogirl said:
He had already eliminated the threat. The rest was just overkill.
JMO
Click to expand...
How was he supposed to know? He couldn't very well check the perp for a wound to see if he had eliminated the threat. Nothing said the perp did not have had a hidden weapon on him. With one holding a gun, the reasonable assumption would be the other one had a weapon or weapons. He was wearing a backback which could have contained a large cache of weapons and ammo.
 
It's interesting to hear from people who know what the threat was, who it came from, when the threat ended, how it should be handled, what the criminals were thinking, what the victims were thinking, exactly how many shots should be fired, when the pharmacist should have checked on the other employees, *sigh* I could go on.

There must be a truck load of psychics and mind readers in the world.
 
from SS's link:

She said she knew about her oldest son's involvement but didn't tell police.

"He wanted to go downtown, but me, being a parent, I had to protect him," she said.

She said that the robbery wasn't the boys' idea. She blames Emanuel Mitchell, who was charged Thursday with driving the getaway car. She said Mitchell and another man put the boys up to it, though police have not mentioned any other names.

"When you have older men telling kids, 'We are going to do this and you are going to get some money,' they are going to listen," she said.

She said her son has been traumatized by the whole ordeal.
Click to expand...

That first sentence REALLY explains alot doesn't it.

Maybe she should file a lawsuit against Emanuel Mitchell since he is the one that is responsible for this whole mess. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 132 more.
Total: 4,543 (members: 133, guests: 4,410)

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
4,410
Total visitors
4,543
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,486
Messages
17,969,674
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top