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

[lonetraveler]

I can't help but feel that unless you have experienced a gun pointed in your face or at your head and you feel like your life is about to end that you can say that this man should be charged. It looks and feels a whole lot different when you are on the bad end of a gun barrel.

 

[jjenny]

By the way it's not possible to see in the video as to what the fallen kid is doing. He could be moving (even if involuntary). And never mind that pharmacist just was a victim of attempted armed robbery. So probably he isn't going to be in a clear state of mind. So, please, where do first degree murder charges come from?

 

[kemo]

The first shot Ersland fired, the clean shot, hit the kid in the head. It was definitely legal under OK law and he was never in any trouble for that.

The original Coroners report determined that the kid was unconscious but not dead. Apparently another pathologist believed that the kid was actually dead from the first shot. This could give Ersland an "out" since you can't kill a dead man. That approach is in conflict with the "tack" that the defense has taken up until now that Ersland shot the second time because the kid's movements and vocal sounds were "threatening". Dead people generally don't make threatening sounds and movements.

Further complicating the defense is the fact that Ersland claimed that the robbers fired at him. The prosecution will introduce evidence that this never happened.

Ersland is a retired military officer and has good standing in the community and a lot of people seem to like the "good guy with a gun beating the bad guy" storyline. Sometimes, however, the NRA crowd tends to get a little defensive. They tend to circle the wagons and defend the gun owner no matter what.

Ersland lied. His credibility is compromised. He lied to the police and later told the same story on national television. I've watched the video enough but I have no idea what sounds or movements the kid might have made. What I see is a lot more consistent with Ersland just shooting him a few more times to make sure he is dead. The Trial starts in a week or so.

 

[jjenny]

When somebody points a gun at a victim, it's a stressful situation. Maybe he believed he was shot at because he saw a gun pointing right at him. I think it's very easy for someone sitting at the computer to say what he should and shouldn't have done. But what would someone do when the gun is pointed right at them, that could be quite another story. And by the way, it's a well known fact that stress has a negative effect on memory. The gun was pointed at him, resulting in stress, affecting his memory of the situation so what he believed happened might not exactly match up with the fact-it does not mean he is intentionally lying. And by the way, I am pretty positive that a dead body can twitch, which could possibly be mistaken for a person being alive.

 

[Topcat]

In NY the pharmacist gets indicted and convicted of a lesser charge.
The threat was nuetralized with the head shot,imo if not he wouldn't have left him on the floor with 2 employees in the store as he chased the other perp.
He went beyond the self defence mechanism when retrieved and emptied the second weapon into the downed perp.

 

[Sonya610]

He went beyond the self defence mechanism when retrieved and emptied the second weapon into the downed perp.

Yes, technically he did.

It was a business, there were cameras, he walked out the door and then returned when there were no innocent victims left inside. What he did would seem a lot more reasonable if it had been a home intruder but in the circumstance it showed an error in judgement.

If he had NOT left the premises I could see the final rounds being somewhat justified as the attacker was wearing a mask so one could NOT be sure the attacker was truly dead or disabled. The police always shoot to kill, not maime or disable because they know even a fatally wounded attacker with a heartshot can brandish a weapon and become a lethal threat in 2 seconds. But by leaving the shop he put himself "out of danger" so that really changes things.

I don't think a lot of people honestly care, and he likely did save the taxpayers a whole lot of money especially considering the fact this would likely have been in and out of prison for decades (if he lived that long). Regardless I hope he gets off.

 

[jjenny]

Stating he shouldn't have gone back inside indicates you believe he had to flee rather than "stand his ground?" However, Oklahoma does have "stand your ground law." So he did not have to flee, presumably.
Although he did have to fear for his life. I am pretty positive that in a state such as TX he would not go on trial, because he would be allowed to defend property with deadly force and not even have to fear for his life.

"Representative Terrill was one of the authors of the "Stand Your Ground" law and said that law is why Ersland shouldn't be facing criminal charges."
http://www.news9.com/story/10440626/what-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-law?redirected=true

 

[Linda7NJ]

He did the world a favor and shouldn't even have been charged. imo

 

[Jacobi]

I hope that vile pharmacist goes away for a long time.

 

[Hopeful One]

I amazes me that someone can be charged with murder for defending his life and his property. It's sad, imo.

 

[jjenny]

I amazes me that someone can be charged with murder for defending his life and his property. It's sad, imo.

Especially first degree murder. Does this prosecutor think that someone who had a gun pointed at him is not affected by that mentally? And by the way, if there is any doubt whether shot in the head actually killed that alleged robber, then I would think that is enough for reasonable doubt right then and there. Because everybody seem to agree that shot in the head clearly falls under self-defense. Well, if that was a fatal wound, how can the pharmacist be charged with first degree murder? You can't kill someone who is already dead. As for pharmacist believing that the alleged robber was moving and making noises, that does not prove the alleged robber was alive, considering dead body can be twitching before rigor sets in. Or if he is still alive but the head wound is fatal, that shouldn't be first degree murder either.

 

[Nova]

I agree it was too much, but I don't know if I were on a jury if I could convict him of first degree murder. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago because back then, when you got robbed, you just got robbed. Now you never know if you give up your money, what's going to happen next? There seem to be more and more robberies that end up as kidnappings and murders because no one wants to leave witnesses.

I don't feel bad for the kid who is dead. He gave up his life the minute he decided to pick up a gun and rob the place. The last thing I want to hear is his family screaming that he was a "good boy who made a mistake." Sorry, even if it's true, chances are the kid would go to juvy for a couple of years and be back on the street making the same "mistake" again.

I only hope the other perp is scared straight by it.

I don't know OK law. Under CA law, a jury might decide that the shooter was still under the influence of an overwhelming passion (fear and/or anger), in which case he would only be guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

 

[Nova]

I amazes me that someone can be charged with murder for defending his life and his property. It's sad, imo.

Except that wasn't what he was doing when he killed the guy.

 

[Nova]

Especially first degree murder. Does this prosecutor think that someone who had a gun pointed at him is not affected by that mentally? And by the way, if there is any doubt whether shot in the head actually killed that alleged robber, then I would think that is enough for reasonable doubt right then and there. Because everybody seem to agree that shot in the head clearly falls under self-defense. Well, if that was a fatal wound, how can the pharmacist be charged with first degree murder? You can't kill someone who is already dead. As for pharmacist believing that the alleged robber was moving and making noises, that does not prove the alleged robber was alive, considering dead body can be twitching before rigor sets in. Or if he is still alive but the head wound is fatal, that shouldn't be first degree murder either.

Per the link, the prosecution clearly believes the robber was still alive after the shot to the head. And apparently the pharmacist believed the same thing; otherwise, why shoot him again?

So whether the robber would have eventually died from the head wound is probably irrelevant legally. If I have terminal cancer and you shoot me to death, you don't get a pass on the ground that I would have died eventually.

Every murder victim would have died from something else eventually.

 

[Nova]

I find it appalling that anyone is cheering for this defendant!

I certainly grant him the right of self-defense in the first shot, the one to the head. But if reloading (which is what reaching for another gun accomplishes) and finishing the guy off several minutes later is "self-defense", then when does the justifiable homicide period end?

5 minutes? 5 hours? 5 years?

If there is a hero in this, it is the prosecutor, who's probably risking considerable political capital by following the law and charging this guy.

 

[jjenny]

I don't know when "the justifiable period" ends, but if someone doesn't want to get shot, I suggest that someone doesn't go around trying to rob stores.
By the way the other minor in the case (the one who actually had a gun) will be out no later than five months after he turns 18 if he completes a treatment plan. So I guess this is justice-the guy who he attempted to rob might end up in prison for life and he will be out and about in a couple of years.

 

[Sonya610]

Stating he shouldn't have gone back inside indicates you believe he had to flee rather than "stand his ground?" However, Oklahoma does have "stand your ground law." So he did not have to flee, presumably.

Let me clarify....I said "technically". And yes technically "standing your ground" is just that, it isn't shoot them, leave, then come back a little while later and shoot them a few more times.

Now do not misunderstand, I am talking from a legal perspective here, not a moral one. I personally am fine with what the pharmacist did, I wish this sort of thing would happen a WHOLE lot more often! I am happy to hear that little won't be able to victimize countless people and live in and out of prison for the next 40 years while being fed and sheltered on tax dollars, I am also glad he won't be out there fathering children that the tax-payers have to feed as well. Good riddance.

 

[Nova]

Stating he shouldn't have gone back inside indicates you believe he had to flee rather than "stand his ground?" However, Oklahoma does have "stand your ground law." So he did not have to flee, presumably.
Although he did have to fear for his life. I am pretty positive that in a state such as TX he would not go on trial, because he would be allowed to defend property with deadly force and not even have to fear for his life.

"Representative Terrill was one of the authors of the "Stand Your Ground" law and said that law is why Ersland shouldn't be facing criminal charges."
http://www.news9.com/story/10440626/what-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-law?redirected=true

CA law is the same: no one is required to flee. As a juror on a case where self-defense was claimed, it was explained to me that people are sometimes killed while trying to flee and that's why the law doesn't require them to do so.

Moreover, in this case, customers remained in the store. So I don't think anyone will blame the pharmacist for going back inside.

The problem is that the way he acted around the injured robber (turning his back on him, etc.) doesn't indicate that the pharmacist was still afraid for his life or worried about grave bodily harm.

 

[Nova]

I don't know when "the justifiable period" ends, but if someone doesn't want to get shot, I suggest that someone doesn't go around trying to rob stores.
By the way the other minor in the case (the one who actually had a gun) will be out no later than five months after he turns 18 if he completes a treatment plan. So I guess this is justice-the guy who he attempted to rob might end up in prison for life and he will be out and about in a couple of years.

What happens to the other robber is irrelevant. If you think his sentence too light (and I agree), by all means protest to the Oklahoma legislature.

first advanced the "if you don't want to get shot, don't rob stores" argument several pages ago. I think we can call that the Vigilante's Creed.

I notice you don't even require that the robber be armed; you've now extended the right to kill people to anyone who thinks a kid stole a piece of bubble gum.

I shoplifted a birthday card when I was 16 just to see if I could do it. (Once I discovered I could, I returned the card.) Lucky for me it wasn't your store.

 

[jjenny]

I don't have a store, and I've made no claims that it's o'key to shoot someone for stealing gum. Furthermore it has nothing to do with this case-this was not a case of a kid shot for stealing gum.