Oklahoma Pharmacist vs Antwun Parker

On May 19, 2009, Antwun Parker (16) and another teenage friend entered a drug store in Oklahoma with the intent to rob it. In the ensuing events, pharmacist Jerome Ersland drew a pistol from his pocket and shot Parker in the head. The other robber fled, followed by Ersland, who returned to the store after he was unable to catch the second robber.

Sometime during that few minutes, Ersland shot Parker another five times in the abdomen, killing him.

An autopsy revealed that Parker was still alive, despite being shot in the head, when Ersland shot him in the abdomen. Those shots were the cause of death.

After reviewing the videotape of the robbery from surveillance videos mounted inside and outside the store, and visiting the crime scene, the Oklahoma County District Attorney arrested Ersland on charges of First Degree Murder. He contends that Ersland was justified in shooting Parker the first time, but that the subsequent shots were essentually gratuitous, and tantamont to murder.

When I read the story on the NEWSOK website, I thought this was a fascinating story, one which explores how far the right to self-defense is limited by circumstances.

After all, First Degree Murder includes the element of premeditation. When did the robbery 'end'? Was the defendant still defending himself, and his co-workers, when he returned to his shop to find the shot robber still on the floor, but alive? Did Ersland "plan" to kill Parker? Ersland contends that Parker was "trying to get up". Does that justify shooting him again?

Apparently, between the time he returned to the store and the time he shot Parker five times in the abdomen, he retrieved a second gun from a locked drawer, after walking past the recumbant Parker, and it was this second gun with which he delivered the fatal five shots.

Before I began writing this article, I visited some of my favorite blog authors only to find that Xavier Thoughts presented the situation so well that I cannot presume to upstage him. (Xavier lives in Louisiana ... he gets to his keyboard hours earlier than I do.)

I recommend that you read his article "Robbery Victim Charged With Murder", and watch the videos ... which I had not even been able to search out before I read his rendition.
_________________________________

After you read the whole thing, you'll understand why one of the man-on-the-street interviewees on the second video, when asked "if you were on the jury, how would you find for this case" (or words to that effect), replied "I'd Abstain!"

It's a curious case, reminiscent of the Texas home-owner (Mr. Horn who last year shotgunned to death two men as they exited their neighbors house laden with booty gleaned from a daring day-time burglary.

"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point."You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

Mr. Horn was acquitted by a Texas Jury, who obviously believed that robbers ... even unarmed burglars ... deserve anything that happens as a consequence of their deliberate Felonious action.

Will an Oklahoma jury feel the same way about a commercial robbery in which one of the robbers (though perhaps not the one who was killed) was armed and pointing a gun at the victim?

And why did the armed victim shoot the robber who was NOT pointing a gun at him?

As the Chesire Cat confirmed to Alice:

"We're All Mad, Here."