PDA

View Full Version : OT-Oklahoma Vigilante justice


Pages : [1] 2

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:11 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/
Crazy. 1st degree murder, anonymous bail. Kid was 16.

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:18 PM
Good for him. If more people did this there would be less crime IMO. I don't know anyone willing to rob a store if they know the guy behind the counter will shoot back.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:21 PM
This doesnt have anything to do with that story , but it is vigilante related ....
I had a registered Sex Offender use my address as his place of residence , I didnt know anything about it ,until some guys came up in my drive way and started a bunch of **** , Needless to say they was easily scared off , Cops showed up , I told them what happened , one of Casper finest looked at me and said well how do you expect people to treat Child Molesters , I went after him , other cops restrained me , thats how I found out about the address on the net thing ......I got 6 kids and a wife and I am gone alot , I was scared for their safety , I went down to the police station and raised hell until my address was removed ........ So that is why Vigilante justice scares the piss out of me

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:23 PM
Good for him. If more people did this there would be less crime IMO. I don't know anyone willing to rob a store if they know the guy behind the counter will shoot back.

I don't know. The kid was unconscious on his back before being shot 5 more times. I think things would be different if he wasn't a minor. I bet the pharmacist is gonna get some time.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:24 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/
Crazy. 1st degree murder, anonymous bail. Kid was 16.

Excessive use of force , I have been arrested for this when a guy tried to steal my Car when I lived in Ft.Collins , Once i stop the theft , my right to use force stopped also .........This is nothing new

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:25 PM
I don't know. The kid was unconscious on his back before being shot 5 more times. I think things would be different if he wasn't a minor. I bet the pharmacist is gonna get some time.

I've seen quite a few 16 yr olds who look older than 18. It's not like he looked at the kids ID before pumping 5 more rounds into him.

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:26 PM
Excessive use of force , I have been arrested for this when a guy tried to steal my Car when I lived in Ft.Collins , Once i stop the theft , my right to use force stopped also .........This is nothing new

Why is it whenever someone posts a story about an assault Spider comes in with his own personal stories? Just saying.... Hilarious!

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:27 PM
Why is it whenever someone posts a story about an assault Spider comes in with his own personal stories? Just saying.... Hilarious!

;D Been there done that .....I am well versed in the law when it comes to this stuff

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:28 PM
I've seen quite a few 16 yr olds who look older than 18. It's not like he looked at the kids ID before pumping 5 more rounds into him.

I'm just saying on technicality. The courts frown upon murdering 16 year olds, regardless of the situation. I'm not saying it's the clerks fault the kid was 16.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:28 PM
Excessive use of force , I have been arrested for this when a guy tried to steal my Car when I lived in Ft.Collins , Once i stop the theft , my right to use force stopped also .........This is nothing new

You lived in Fort Collins? Yikes. I remember hearing rumors of a serial throat puncher roaming campus in the 80s.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:31 PM
Man 1 will probably be the Charge he is found guilty on .....
Once the prep is no longer a threat , you can not use any more force or deadly force , you may restrain the prep from fleeing , but thats about it .....

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:33 PM
You lived in Fort Collins? Yikes. I remember hearing rumors of a serial throat puncher roaming campus in the 80s.

;D I lived in North Ft. Collins that trailer park right before you leave town on 287 ........ there was always something happening there ....... I knew it was time to go when they got rid of Dons Burgers ;D

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:35 PM
If the first shot was a lethal shot , then they may get out of the man1 charge , but if the wound wasnt fatal , his goose is cooked

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:35 PM
Man 1 will probably be the Charge he is found guilty on .....
Once the prep is no longer a threat , you can not use any more force or deadly force , you may restrain the prep from fleeing , but thats about it .....

You're right, but I look at it as this man just saved taxpayers Millions in medical bills and the cost of encarserating that young prick.

So something positive did come of this after all ^5

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:37 PM
You're right, but I look at it as this man just saved taxpayers Millions in medical bills and the cost of encarserating that young prick.

So something positive did come of this after all ^5

We should just drown all felons in massive burlap tents like unwanted puppies. More cash for johnny q!
::)

gyldenlove
05-30-2009, 12:38 PM
Good for him. If more people did this there would be less crime IMO. I don't know anyone willing to rob a store if they know the guy behind the counter will shoot back.

If more people do what he did more shop attendants will get shot.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:38 PM
;D I lived in North Ft. Collins that trailer park right before you leave town on 287 ........ there was always something happening there ....... I knew it was time to go when they got rid of Dons Burgers ;D

Andersonville? Thats a sketchy place now.

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:38 PM
We should just drown all felons in massive burlap tents like unwanted puppies. More cash for johnny q!

Not all

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:39 PM
Not all

I was being sarcastic.

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:39 PM
If more people do what he did more shop attendants will get shot.

Ahh yes the "let the criminals go unchecked" arguement. Brilliant.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:40 PM
Andersonville? Thats a sketchy place now.

it was called North Poudre or something like that when I was there ;D
Still rough is it ?

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:40 PM
I was being sarcastic.

Obviously.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:42 PM
The kid was unarmed and unconscious. I understand the right to protect yourself and your livelihood, but I hope this dude gets the book thrown at him.
It comes down to an eye for an eye in my opinion.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:45 PM
You're right, but I look at it as this man just saved taxpayers Millions in medical bills and the cost of encarserating that young prick.

So something positive did come of this after all ^5

maybe , in the short run , but opening a can of worms can create more problems later , I agree he had every right to use what ever force he could to stop the robbery and save his life as well as his coworkers , but once the threat is subdued ,force has to stop .believe me I understand the emotions this guy faced , fear, then Anger ,Fear for your life ,then Anger that someone to lazy to get a job thinks they can take what you have worked hard for ..... I understand that all to well ......... I dont want to see the Clerk in prison ,but the law is the law ......... trail will get moved out of Oklahoma City , perhaps even out of state , the more Media this gets , the rougher it will be to take it to trial

jutang
05-30-2009, 12:51 PM
I gotta side with the pharmacist on this one. Armed robber gets killed and they're sending the person being robbed to jail?? American legal system is so flat out dumb sometimes.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:51 PM
it was called North Poudre or something like that when I was there ;D
Still rough is it ?

Ya. Lotsa meth out there. It's all run down trailers, a gun shop, and liquor stores. Sometimes I cruise thu on the way to the river.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 12:52 PM
The kid was unarmed and unconscious. I understand the right to protect yourself and your livelihood, but I hope this dude gets the book thrown at him.
It comes down to an eye for an eye in my opinion.
Agreed.

According to the story the OK law is written to allow you to defend yourself if you're in danger. By definition the pharmacist was excluded from protection under the law once he was no longer in danger. This was cold blooded murder. The guy was a Gulf War vet...not like he's never been around live fire before. I could see it if he just kept firing, but he had the presence of mind to chase one guy from the store and return to get a 2nd gun before finishing him off.

Last I looked robbery was punishable by jail not the death penalty.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:55 PM
Ya. Lotsa meth out there. It's all run down trailers, a gun shop, and liquor stores. Sometimes I cruise thu on the way to the river.

;D it hasnt changed then .......before I had a family I loved living in places like that , 5 points of Denver , Swansea area of Denver , 37 th and York ....... but i have a family , cant raise my kids in those areas

Blueflame
05-30-2009, 12:56 PM
I've seen quite a few 16 yr olds who look older than 18. It's not like he looked at the kids ID before pumping 5 more rounds into him.

I can attest to the truth of this... one of my 16-year-old twins is routinely presumed to be 19-20 because he's 6'2".

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:56 PM
I gotta side with the pharmacist on this one. Armed robber gets killed and they're sending the person being robbed to jail?? American legal system is so flat out dumb sometimes.

Surely you didn't bother to read the article.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:57 PM
Agreed.

According to the story the OK law is written to allow you to defend yourself if you're in danger. By definition the pharmacist was excluded from protection under the law once he was no longer in danger. This was cold blooded murder. The guy was a Gulf War vet...not like he's never been around live fire before. I could see it if he just kept firing, but he had the presence of mind to chase one guy from the store and return to get a 2nd gun before finishing him off.

Last I looked robbery was punishable by jail not the death penalty.

:thanku: :thanku: :thanku:

gyldenlove
05-30-2009, 01:09 PM
Ahh yes the "let the criminals go unchecked" arguement. Brilliant.

Not an argument, a fact.

jutang
05-30-2009, 01:14 PM
Surely you didn't bother to read the article.

Yeah I read the article. The way I see it, he's committing armed robbery at 16 and he's plenty aware of what he's doing. Hypothetically, he gets away, it's pretty certain his life is headed in the sewer and he sure as hell going rob again and possibly worse.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 01:22 PM
Yeah I read the article. The way I see it, he's committing armed robbery at 16 and he's plenty aware of what he's doing. Hypothetically, he gets away, it's pretty certain his life is headed in the sewer and he sure as hell going rob again and possibly worse.

So you see this as a justifiable murder? Would you would rather turn our prisons into death camps? It's a slippery slope, thankfully you aren't in a legislative position.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 01:37 PM
Yeah I read the article. The way I see it, he's committing armed robbery at 16 and he's plenty aware of what he's doing. Hypothetically, he gets away, it's pretty certain his life is headed in the sewer and he sure as hell going rob again and possibly worse.
We'll never know will we?

Dukes
05-30-2009, 02:02 PM
Not an argument, a fact.

Only in your own fantasy land.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 02:15 PM
http://newsok.com/teen-remembered-as-good-kid-who-loved-to-play-basketball/article/3373801

Spider
05-30-2009, 03:50 PM
Pretty tragic , whats worse is the Pharmacist will live with what he done for the rest of his life , every time the Pharmacist closes his eyes , he will see that boy , the Pharmacist will have nightmares over what he did , the Pharmacist will not get a nights sleep without sleep meds , the Pharmacist life is forever changed , he will see a 16 year old kid and have flashbacks of this day , rest of his life will be filled with regret ........ I have seen alot of people posting here in the past that talk about Shooting someone etc... They dont understand the baggage they will carry for the rest of their lives .....

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 04:53 PM
DA also charges the other teen...a 14 year old...with murder since his friend died in the perpitration of a felony, as well as one or possibly two adult conspirators who may have planned the robbery and pushed the kids to commit it.

How anyone can advocate executing someone laying on the ground who is already shot in the head and unconscious becuase they tried to rob the store you're working in is beyond my comprehension.

oubronco
05-30-2009, 06:39 PM
Excessive use of force , I have been arrested for this when a guy tried to steal my Car when I lived in Ft.Collins , Once i stop the theft , my right to use force stopped also .........This is nothing new

I was working on a house installing new windows once and a guy stole my saw when I walked around the corner, I chased his arse down and dove and tackled him then proceded to beat the crap out of him with the saw how's that for justice :thumbs:

Spider
05-30-2009, 06:44 PM
I was working on a house installing new windows once and a guy stole my saw when I walked around the corner, I chased his arse down and dove and tackled him then proceded to beat the crap out of him with the saw how's that for justice :thumbs:
well he didnt press charges so .........

spdirty
05-30-2009, 06:48 PM
damn, thats tough. dont think the ages should matter, but the guy was obviously filled with so much emotion, the incident probably happened so quick and split second decisions were made. His life will forever be changed because of this. Im sure if he could go back he would probably have still shot the kid but once he came back maybe not fired shots. Just happened so quick that he wasnt thinking about the law or any consequences or what is or isnt acceptable. Just wants to make damn sure the threat is removed. Then there are all the damn movies where good guy shoots bad guy once, assumes bad guy is dead, relaxes, then sneaky bad guy either nails or damn near nails good guy, good guys girl, or good guys best friend.

Never can be too sure, wonder if the guy could get away with a temporary insanity plea since he might have been temporarily insane at the time. Dont know many people who would think clearly in those types of situations.

spdirty
05-30-2009, 06:54 PM
How anyone can advocate executing someone laying on the ground who is already shot in the head and unconscious becuase they tried to rob the store you're working in is beyond my comprehension.

dont condone it, but dont condemn him for it either, because I have never (thankfully) been in that situation. Someone breaks into my house, and I am able to put a bullet in their head, I really dont know if I would or wouldnt continue firing at the lifeless laying on the ground body.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 07:18 PM
damn, thats tough. dont think the ages should matter, but the guy was obviously filled with so much emotion, the incident probably happened so quick and split second decisions were made. His life will forever be changed because of this. Im sure if he could go back he would probably have still shot the kid but once he came back maybe not fired shots. Just happened so quick that he wasnt thinking about the law or any consequences or what is or isnt acceptable. Just wants to make damn sure the threat is removed. Then there are all the damn movies where good guy shoots bad guy once, assumes bad guy is dead, relaxes, then sneaky bad guy either nails or damn near nails good guy, good guys girl, or good guys best friend.
Sounds plausible...until you look at the tape. There was no "split second decision" here. He walks, not runs, back into the store, right past the kid lying on the ground unconscious, takes his time getting the 2nd gun and simply executes him in cold blood. Don't make this into something else other than what it was in an effort to vindicate this barbaric act of murder. I think this guy was simply angry, not overcome with emotion and irrational.
Never can be too sure, wonder if the guy could get away with a temporary insanity plea since he might have been temporarily insane at the time. Dont know many people who would think clearly in those types of situations.
Temporary insanity is not defined as "not thinking clearly". Nobody is thinking clearly when the kill someone, at least very few are. This guy was not a 19 year old college kid, he was a Gulf War vet who had seen combat.

I think it's ridiculous this guy is getting support from the community like he's a hero. Heros don't murder people lying on the ground unconscious.

I wonder if the victim's name was Brent instead of Antwun whether this would be seen differently.

oubronco
05-30-2009, 07:35 PM
well he didnt press charges so .........

he wasn't walkin or talkin either

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:49 PM
he wasn't walkin or talkin either

then you got lucky .........

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:50 PM
Sounds plausible...until you look at the tape. There was no "split second decision" here. He walks, not runs, back into the store, right past the kid lying on the ground unconscious, takes his time getting the 2nd gun and simply executes him in cold blood. Don't make this into something else other than what it was in an effort to vindicate this barbaric act of murder. I think this guy was simply angry, not overcome with emotion and irrational.

Temporary insanity is not defined as "not thinking clearly". Nobody is thinking clearly when the kill someone, at least very few are. This guy was not a 19 year old college kid, he was a Gulf War vet who had seen combat.

I think it's ridiculous this guy is getting support from the community like he's a hero. Heros don't murder people lying on the ground unconscious. very well put

I wonder if the victim's name was Brent instead of Antwun whether this would be seen differently.hmmmmmmmmm

Popps
05-30-2009, 09:44 PM
Excessive use of force , I have been arrested for this when a guy tried to steal my Car when I lived in Ft.Collins , Once i stop the theft , my right to use force stopped also .........This is nothing new

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/20/apes_wideweb__470x342,0.jpg

epicSocialism4tw
05-30-2009, 10:01 PM
If more people do what he did more shop attendants will get shot.

I dont think so. Convenience store workers and other folks at jeopardy in these types of crimes are injured or shot anyway.

This is a very unfortunate circumstance, but our pity for the loss of this young fool should not overshadow the situation that he put himself and the pharmacist in. The criminal created the situation, and the pharmacist's life was put in danger.

If you deny a person like this pharmacist the right to defend themself, you are essentially removing his right to protect himself from death as well as protect his family and his property.

The pharmacist went back to ensure that the criminal couldnt hurt him, and in his heightened state he may have gone overboard. But lets not miss the forest for the trees. This is not capital murder...it may be something else, but murder is not the right interpretation.

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 10:40 PM
IMO you can't convict this guy. Kid would have died anyways from the shot to the head.

Defense needs to call the medical examiner into question, get other medical examiners to say kid was already dead or would have died. Then the other bullets only pumping them into a dead body which isn't murder.

I'm on this jury I don't even listen. I just wait until vote time, not guilty, then go on my way.

No friggin way I could send a guy to prison for shooting someone the country is better off without. Someone who eventually would have probably killed himself.

If you use a weapon doing robberies, no doubt in my mind that eventually you have to use it.

gunns
05-30-2009, 10:55 PM
I don't know. The kid was unconscious on his back before being shot 5 more times. I think things would be different if he wasn't a minor. I bet the pharmacist is gonna get some time.

I'm confused. If a cop had done this people excuse them because imagine the fear they felt and they are let off. Yet the pharmacist should have been examining the law at the time?

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 11:02 PM
I'm confused. If a cop had done this people excuse them because imagine the fear they felt and they are let off. Yet the pharmacist should have been examining the law at the time?

It's because the dude went got another gun, came back, and shot the guy execution style, point blank into the chest.

Hard to argue you were in fear. Better argument IMO is to try and say the robber was already dead from shot to head.

Otherwise that dude should have erased the film, lost the film, something.

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:09 PM
IMO you can't convict this guy. Kid would have died anyways from the shot to the head. you dont know this for sure

Defense needs to call the medical examiner into question, get other medical examiners to say kid was already dead or would have died. Then the other bullets only pumping them into a dead body which isn't murder.
From the link District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
I'm on this jury I don't even listen. I just wait until vote time, not guilty, then go on my way. way to serve justice

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 11:17 PM
you dont know this for sure


From the link District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
way to serve justice

Like I said only way to fight this is for defense to call that medical examiners report into question. They will look at every case he has done, look for mistakes, try to discredit him, then get another autopsy and hopefully find a doctor that will say IMO the kid was already dead when he fired for the second, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th time. Geeze what was that guy thinking.

He could also try and say he was in a daze, totally out of control, doesn't remember what he was thinking etc. That could maybe make it not murder 1.

All I can say is someone points a gun at you, so you shoot them, you should not go to prison. I just don't see the guy as a threat because I would never rob someone. Only friggin criminals need fear the guy.

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:25 PM
Like I said only way to fight this is for defense to call that medical examiners report into question. They will look at every case he has done, look for mistakes, try to discredit him, then get another autopsy and hopefully find a doctor that will say IMO the kid was already dead when he fired for the second, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th time. Geeze what was that guy thinking.

He could also try and say he was in a daze, totally out of control, doesn't remember what he was thinking etc. That could maybe make it not murder 1.

All I can say is someone points a gun at you, so you shoot them, you should not go to prison. I just don't see the guy as a threat because I would never rob someone. Only friggin criminals need fear the guy.

no I agree with you , on principal , but the law doesnt ...... I dont think Murder 1 is the correct charge , if anything man 1 ,min 4 years max life , I think the D.A. and the lawyers will get it down to Man 2 or Man 3..... Man 2 ( I think) min of 2 years 10,000 fine , man 3 I dont know but I think a year in Jail , 5,000 fine .......... if it is man 3 ( which I think will stick ) his time in county waiting to go to DOC will count ,2 for 1 on good behavior , he will wind up doing 6 months in county .. I hope

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:27 PM
If you deny a person like this pharmacist the right to defend themself, you are essentially removing his right to protect himself from death as well as protect his family and his property.

The pharmacist went back to ensure that the criminal couldnt hurt him, and in his heightened state he may have gone overboard. But lets not miss the forest for the trees. This is not capital murder...it may be something else, but murder is not the right interpretation.
Utter BS. I can't believe you'd even bring this in here.

First of all, nobody is "denying the right to defend himself". The OK law is clearly written that the use of deadly force is permissable when the individual's life is in jeaopardy and he's not being charged for shooting the kid the first time. What jeopardy did this 16 year old kid lying unconscious on the floor with a bullet in his head possibly present this man? Absolutely none. Second, he did not "go back to ensure he couldn't hurt him" as you suggest. In fact he calmly walked right past the kid, turned his back to him, took the time to find a 2nd gun, then stood over him while he lay motionless on the floor and fired 5 bullets into his stomach and chest. At what point during this process do you think this guy was fearing for his life? Was it when he looked down on the floor and saw him lying unconscious? Maybe it was when he calmly turned his back? Perhaps when he got to the 4th bullet and saw the bloody mess on the floor?

"May have gone overboard"...no, it isn't that he "may" have gone overboard. Under Oklahoma law he commited a murder. The DA is filing charges on him not because he "may have gone overboard". He killed a kid lying on the floor with a bullet in his head. What he should have done, is call 911 and tell them to come save this kid's life. Instead he willfully chose to pump 5 bullets into him. He deserves exactly what's coming to him, and yes...it's capital murder. If you watch this tape, it's obvious this was a deliberate act. He had more than enough time to think clearly about what was going on.

Unbelievable.

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:32 PM
Utter BS. I can't believe you'd even bring this in here.

First of all, nobody is "denying the right to defend himself". The OK law is clearly written that the use of deadly force is permissable when the individual's life is in jeaopardy and he's not being charged for shooting the kid the first time. What jeopardy did this 16 year old kid lying unconscious on the floor with a bullet in his head possibly present this man? Absolutely none. Second, he did not "go back to ensure he couldn't hurt him" as you suggest. In fact he calmly walked right past the kid, turned his back to him, took the time to find a 2nd gun, then stood over him while he lay motionless on the floor and fired 5 bullets into his stomach and chest. At what point during this process do you think this guy was fearing for his life? Was it when he looked down on the floor and saw him lying unconscious? Maybe it was when he calmly turned his back? Perhaps when he got to the 4th bullet and saw the bloody mess on the floor?

"May have gone overboard"...no, it isn't that he "may" have gone overboard. Under Oklahoma law he commited a murder. The DA is filing charges on him not because he "may have gone overboard". He killed a kid lying on the floor with a bullet in his head. What he should have done, is call 911 and tell them to come save this kid's life. Instead he willfully chose to pump 5 bullets into him. He deserves exactly what's coming to him, and yes...it's capital murder. If you watch this tape, it's obvious this was a deliberate act. He had more than enough time to think clearly about what was going on.

Unbelievable.
you make a strong case , but i think the Pharmacist history and standing in the community comes into play , Man3 with a felony on his record .........

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:35 PM
IMO you can't convict this guy. Kid would have died anyways from the shot to the head.

Defense needs to call the medical examiner into question, get other medical examiners to say kid was already dead or would have died. Then the other bullets only pumping them into a dead body which isn't murder.
The medical examiner already ruled the kid was alive. Now you want "other medical examiners" to say otherwise...I guess you have no agenda do you?
I'm on this jury I don't even listen. I just wait until vote time, not guilty, then go on my way.

No friggin way I could send a guy to prison for shooting someone the country is better off without. Someone who eventually would have probably killed himself.

If you use a weapon doing robberies, no doubt in my mind that eventually you have to use it.
So you're judge, jury and executioner. Then **** the rule of law let's just decide that because someone commits a crime it's open season. We don't need cops, courts, laws or any concept of justice. You're a law unto yourself.

I'll repeat my earlier suggestion just for you; if his name were Brent instead of Antwun, I doubt you'd see it this way. But since the "country is better off without him"...the law doesn't matter does it?

Disgusting.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:38 PM
you make a strong case , but i think the Pharmacist history and standing in the community comes into play , Man3 with a felony on his record .........
Who gives a $h!t about his damn "standing in the community". He fired 5 bullets into a motionless kid on the floor. It's murder, pure and simple. This isn't Law & Order.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:39 PM
he will wind up doing 6 months in county .. I hope
That's insane.

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 11:41 PM
you make a strong case , but i think the Pharmacist history and standing in the community comes into play , Man3 with a felony on his record .........

Prosecution will have to try and move the case. No way this guys town convicts him.

Also you said to my theory he may have already been dead.....You don't know that for sure.

IMO that shows how tough a conviction will be because burden of proof on prosecution. If they can sow a seed into jury that just maybe this kid was going to die, or already dead, that could create reasonable doubt.

You can probably find a doctor that will testify the kid was already brain dead when he shot him, or would have died, or was already dead etc.

I bet like you said they end up with a deal because prosecution probably knows they will have trouble getting a conviction on murder 1.

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:42 PM
I'm confused. If a cop had done this people excuse them because imagine the fear they felt and they are let off. Yet the pharmacist should have been examining the law at the time?
The sad thing is, a copy probably would get off. You don't need to "examine the law" to know what constitutes murder when a guy is lying motionless on the floor with a bullet in his head.

Suppose he'd waited 5 minutes...would that be murder? Or would he still be fearing for his life? What if he went to the ER and wasted him?

Common sense takes a vaction in here so frequently.

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:43 PM
Who gives a $h!t about his damn "standing in the community". He fired 5 bullets into a motionless kid on the floor. It's murder, pure and simple. This isn't Law & Order.

well now hold on , the kid did put himself in this position , the pharmacist is wrong , but dont think he is a cold blooded killer , the pharmacist did screw up , but the kid screwed up even more by trying to rob him ....... No sense in sending a man that has obeyed the law to prison for the rest of his life , over the actions of a 16 year old kid who became a man the second he put that gun in his hand and entered the store , and committed the first unlawful act ,putting in motion the pharmacist actions........

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:48 PM
well now hold on , the kid did put himself in this position , the pharmacist is wrong , but dont think he is a cold blooded killer , the pharmacist did screw up , but the kid screwed up even more by trying to rob him ....... No sense in sending a man that has obeyed the law to prison for the rest of his life , over the actions of a 16 year old kid who became a man the second he put that gun in his hand and entered the store , and committed the first unlawful act ,putting in motion the pharmacist actions........
What part of the Oklahoma law that is written for exactly this kind of situation...do you think should be set aside since the kid was wrong? It should be pretty obvious that if you "fear for your life", there's a pretty good chance the one you fear is doing something to cause the problem. That does not excuse murder. The fact is, he knowingly, willingly and delberately killed this kid in cold blood. What happened 15 seconds earlier was justifiable. This was not, and it sure deserves more than 6 months in county lockup.

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:51 PM
you really have to look at this case ..... The kid wasnt there to steal a box of rubbers , and i seriously doubt the pharmacist shoots the kid for stealing rubbers........would the pharmacist shot the kid ,if the kid was unarmed ? doubt it ,so the Kid brandishing a fire arm is what set all of this in motion .........man 3 ....1year 5 K fine,7 years supervised probation the right to carry a fire arm revoked 650 hours of community service .........

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:52 PM
What part of the Oklahoma law that is written for exactly this kind of situation...do you think should be set aside since the kid was wrong? It should be pretty obvious that if you "fear for your life", there's a pretty good chance the one you fear is doing something to cause the problem. That does not excuse murder. The fact is, he knowingly, willingly and delberately killed this kid in cold blood. What happened 15 seconds earlier was justifiable. This was not, and it sure deserves more than 6 months in county lockup.

no , I never said set aside the law , the pharmacist should be punished , but let the punishment fit the crime , not once did I say set aside the law

footstepsfrom#27
05-30-2009, 11:58 PM
no , I never said set aside the law , the pharmacist should be punished , but let the punishment fit the crime , not once did I say set aside the law
I'm pretty sure the DA knows what statute has been violated under the law, and how it's classified. Six months in jail does not fit this crime.

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:03 AM
I'm pretty sure the DA knows what statute has been violated under the law, and how it's classified. Six months in jail does not fit this crime.

Thats not how the legal system works , what the DA and police officers do is charge you with the max crime possible , and pile on as many charges as they can , so when you lawyer up , the DA has room to work with this is clearly not a murder charge , it is a manslaughter charge , for it to be murder , the kid doesnt provoke any hostile or threatening action ........

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:05 AM
i better add also the Kid brandish the fire arm first , once that happened murder charge is out of the window ........

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 12:08 AM
Thats not how the legal system works , what the DA and police officers do is charge you with the max crime possible , and pile on as many charges as they can , so when you lawyer up , the DA has room to work with this is clearly not a murder charge , it is a manslaughter charge , for it to be murder , the kid doesnt provoke any hostile or threatening action ........
You've been watching to much L & O...it is a murder charge, and not all defendants get a deal cut. If he wants to file murder, he'll file murder. If he fears for his job with the voters, who knows what he'll file.

BTW...the judge in this case, who is black...is now getting death threats from the advocates of "justice".

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:13 AM
You've been watching to much L & O...it is a murder charge, and not all defendants get a deal cut. If he wants to file murder, he'll file murder. If he fears for his job with the voters, who knows what he'll file.

BTW...the judge in this case, who is black...is now getting death threats from the advocates of "justice".
if you say so ......... i dont watch law and order , I am just using my past experiences with the law and how it works ......

epicSocialism4tw
05-31-2009, 12:14 AM
I'll repeat my earlier suggestion just for you; if his name were Brent instead of Antwun, I doubt you'd see it this way. But since the "country is better off without him"...the law doesn't matter does it?

Disgusting.

The justice system in my state is particularly unfair to the poor. It takes more time, more effort, and more money relative to one's resources to take care of issues in the courts. I understand the frustration with this, as I have experience finding ways for people to pay for things they cant afford. I have seen clients of mine completely over-burdened by the legal system for simple problems that only take a call to a lawyer and some simple bookkeeping to fix for a person with greater resources. The legal system is unfair to the poor, and nobody cares.

I think that your bringing race into the conversation is a reference to this situation, but I think that its foolhardy and a held-over opinion from a generation past. Poor is poor. Black, white, whatever. The people that see race in these issues are blinded by their own biases and caught up in something that exists only in the whispers of the dead.

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:14 AM
I have never tried to hide my past here , or the things I have done ..matter of fact , my wife bailed me out of jail before we was married , but thats another story

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:18 AM
Let me let you in on a widely known secret 27 , a DA or an officer of the law can charge you with anything , but proving it in a court of law is a different matter

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 12:22 AM
if you say so ......... i dont watch law and order , I am just using my past experiences with the law and how it works ......
Only in L & O we'd find out the pharmacist actually hired the kids and had a prescription dope ring going on the side and he needed to back some cash out of the business to launder the profits so he staged the robbery, but decided to waste his partners when he discovered they were blackmailing his gay lover...then Brisco and Fontana would dig up said lover and work him over a bit before he gives up Mr. Big whose trafficing Chinese opium through the mayor's office.

Fantasy...but entertaining...but this is real and this guy deserves some real time.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 12:24 AM
Let me let you in on a widely known secret 27 , a DA or an officer of the law can charge you with anything , but proving it in a court of law is a different matter
Medical examiner + security video = pretty good case.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 12:31 AM
I think that your bringing race into the conversation is a reference to this situation, but I think that its foolhardy and a held-over opinion from a generation past. Poor is poor. Black, white, whatever. The people that see race in these issues are blinded by their own biases and caught up in something that exists only in the whispers of the dead.
You're so right. The justice system is utterly color blind and so are the people sending death threats to the black judge calling her the N word. No worries...we've solved it all, and the dozens of studies and stark reality of the damaging statistics demonstrating otherwise are all utter nonsense.

My biases here were dealt with 14 years ago BTW.

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:34 AM
Medical examiner + security video = pretty good case.
sure it is for manslaughter , but not murder

epicSocialism4tw
05-31-2009, 12:38 AM
You're so right. The justice system is utterly color blind and so are the people sending death threats to the black judge calling her the N word. No worries...we've solved it all, and the dozens of studies and stark reality of the damaging statistics demonstrating otherwise are all utter nonsense.

My biases here were dealt with 14 years ago BTW.

Race arguments are for idiots.

I'm not accusing you of being an idiot, but of appealing to them. White idiots and black idiots alike.

Popps
05-31-2009, 01:20 AM
This is just another one of these recent cases where a wonderful thing happened, and unfortunately, the person that did the good deed will be punished.

Should the owner be punished? Of course. It's clear that he went beyond legal limits. But, that doesn't take away the great deed he did for society.... cleaning some societal garbage off of the streets for us.

Hopefully he'll receive leniency in sentencing. I do believe there are circumstances that are considered when trying cases like this. I can't recall the name... but there's some kind of "under duress" consideration I've heard being brought into these sentences.

cutthemdown
05-31-2009, 05:23 AM
The funny part is how fast that dudes partner took off when the shooting started. He saw his buddies head get blasted and ran like the little punk he is.

I can't think of a harder profession to find a good partner in. Criminals notorious for being dishonest and untrustworthy.

They ran in like some tough guys and found out the hard way they were a couple of little pussies.

I hope the shooter doesn't do a lot of time.

IMO 2 yrs would be a fair amount of time for him to think about why you don't shoot someone, even a thug loser like this kid, when they are already incapacitated.

Let's face it the life he took was worthless to society, but this pharmacist is obviously someone who contributes so society and IMO we don't want to spend money keeping him in prison when he could be out making money and paying taxes. I want people in prison who are a threat to society, not this guy.

gunns
05-31-2009, 06:32 AM
It's because the dude went got another gun, came back, and shot the guy execution style, point blank into the chest.

Hard to argue you were in fear. Better argument IMO is to try and say the robber was already dead from shot to head.

Otherwise that dude should have erased the film, lost the film, something.

4 cops fire 41 shots into an unarmed guy and they were in fear?

So if the medical examiner says the kids was still technically alive doesn't that play into "his life may have still been in danger"? All I'm saying is what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 07:55 AM
Race arguments are for idiots.

I'm not accusing you of being an idiot, but of appealing to them. White idiots and black idiots alike.
So racism is dead in this country huh? I assure you from personal experience you are wrong. Second...the testimony of millions of minority people in this country cleary disagrees with you. Are they all wrong?

Anyone with an open mind and any familiarity with the real world knows otherwise. Your own clients will tell you this. Why not listen to what they say?

We know from the evidence of the tape he was not acting in panic. Have you got a more plausible reason for this act? One that also proves why so many people in that town are supporting his actions? One that also can definitively eliminate this explanation?

If so I'd like to hear it.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 08:08 AM
This is just another one of these recent cases where a wonderful thing happened, and unfortunately, the person that did the good deed will be punished.

Should the owner be punished? Of course. It's clear that he went beyond legal limits. But, that doesn't take away the great deed he did for society.... cleaning some societal garbage off of the streets for us.
Here's a pix of the "societal garbage"...

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2009/05/antwun-parker-300x225.jpg

This was a boy who by emerging accounts, had never been in trouble before, another example of a young kid who make an incredibly poor decision; one that now appears may have been influenced and orchestrated by an adult in his life. In this case, it ended his life before he had the chance to make changes someone else might have been able to reach him with.

But you're right...every 16 year old kid in America should be murdered in cold blood if they make the kind of mistake this one did. Let nobody say you're not a reasonable, intelligent, well balanced person.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 08:57 AM
sure it is for manslaughter , but not murder
Watch this video: http://www.koco.com/news/19522256/detail.html

He should change his defense to not guilty by reason of limited mental capacity, because this guy's either lying through his teeth or he's dumber than dirt. Listening to him...I think it's a little of both.

Spider
05-31-2009, 09:06 AM
Watch this video: http://www.koco.com/news/19522256/detail.html

He should change his defense to not guilty by reason of limited mental capacity, because this guy's either lying through his teeth or he's dumber than dirt. Listening to him...I think it's a little of both.
Not really , I understand his line of thinking , I have been there ........

BABronco
05-31-2009, 10:23 AM
Living in OK, racism here isn't really against blacks its against mexicans. I have little problem with the pharmacist wasting the thug. He is a thug, not a kid. He had the nads to go into a store with gun in hand. That is where he lost his right to life.

BABronco
05-31-2009, 10:24 AM
IMO 2 yrs would be a fair amount of time for him to think about why you don't shoot someone, even a thug loser like this kid, when they are already incapacitated.


I'd be pissed if it were anything more than 6 months.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27
Watch this video: http://www.koco.com/news/19522256/detail.html

He should change his defense to not guilty by reason of limited mental capacity, because this guy's either lying through his teeth or he's dumber than dirt. Listening to him...I think it's a little of both.

Not really , I understand his line of thinking , I have been there ........
Guess what? So have I...doesnt' matter.

What you're telling me is that when he says, "I wasn't trying to kill him", that you believe this combat veteran actually didn't know that pumping 5 bullets into the stomach and chest of a guy laying motionless on the floor would kill him? If that's true...then yes...he's mentally deficient.

Explain your reasoning here. I'm pretty sure anyone...let alone a combat vet...would know the results of that action.

Here's some very damaging video equipped with time stamping so you can see the thing exactly as it unfolded:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1243733340

Look at this according to the time counter:

1) 40 min 34 sec- robbers enter the store
2) 40 min 35-45 sec- Antwun Parker never pulls a weapon, but struggles to put on a ski mask instead.
3) 40 min 46 sec- Parker is shot and falls to the floor
4) 40 min 50 sec- Pharmacist heads to front door to pursue 2nd robber
5) 40 min 50.5 sec- Pharmacist turns head to see Parker on the floor
6) 41 min 15 sec- Pharmacist returns to the store
7) 41 min 17 sec- Pharmacist walks past the body of Parker
8) 41 min 32 sec- Pharmacist returns and fires 5 shots, killing Parker

Several things...first; Parker never points a gun at anyone, and appears to not even have one, but spent the entire time leading up to him being shot in the head fumbling with his ski mask, and from the time the store owner leaves the store to pursue the other kid, to his return...is a full 25 seconds, plus another 17 seconds before he kills the kid. That's 42 seconds that he had to think through what he was about to do. If you look at the video, he not only walks past the kid on the floor, he actually never even stops to see if the kid is still a threat or not. That's because it was obvious he wasn't and if you look at the tape at 40:52.5 you can see hiim turn his head to check if the guy is moving or still a threat before he leaves the store. That's not panic, it's an experienced combat veteran checking his surroundings before proceeding.

If this guy had been scared for his life, would he have casually walked right back into the store and walked right up to this guy and never even looked down to see if he's still moving or trying to reach a weapon? No way. He's not some 18 year old kid who panicked, he's a 57 year old combat vet from the Gulf War who knew from experience before he even left out the door this guy wasn't a threat. Then on his return, he took the time to walk to the counter and get his gun, which took another 17 seconds, then return to shoot him to death, there is no question that he had ample opportunity to make a different choice than the one he did. Nobody can reasonably argue differently.

According to Oklahoma law, he did not act in fear of his life or in self defense when he fired the fatal shots. Anyone with an open mind can see that by looking at this tape.

Garcia Bronco
05-31-2009, 10:54 AM
The guy was obviously possessed, IMO. Just so full of rage because of whatthe holdup men had done: Threaten his life.

Popps
05-31-2009, 11:01 AM
Here's a pix of the "societal garbage"...

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2009/05/antwun-parker-300x225.jpg

This was a boy who by emerging accounts, had never been in trouble before, another example of a young kid who make an incredibly poor decision; one that now appears may have been influenced and orchestrated by an adult in his life. In this case, it ended his life before he had the chance to make changes someone else might have been able to reach him with. .

Sorry man, I didn't know he was black. I guess that should change my opinion. Innocent people should die for him. My bad.

Tell you what, let's keep letting these kids (of any color) fire up stores, neighborhoods and shopping malls and leading police on chases just so we can hopefully "reach" one of them.

Good point. There's no amount of innocent lives that matters. If 100 innocent people are killed, it's still best that we saved these kids so we can "reach" them.

Or, maybe the douche-bags who raise these kids could get their **** together so they're not shooting up innocent people? Crazy idea, I know.

Run into a place waving a gun and/or shooting at people, and it shouldn't be a real surprise to you if you end up dead.

You champion the criminals, Footsteps... I'll side with the innocent.

This shop owner went too far. We can agree with that. I still understand why he did.

Spider
05-31-2009, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27
Watch this video: http://www.koco.com/news/19522256/detail.html

He should change his defense to not guilty by reason of limited mental capacity, because this guy's either lying through his teeth or he's dumber than dirt. Listening to him...I think it's a little of both.


Guess what? So have I...doesnt' matter.

What you're telling me is that when he says, "I wasn't trying to kill him", that you believe this combat veteran actually didn't know that pumping 5 bullets into the stomach and chest of a guy laying motionless on the floor would kill him? If that's true...then yes...he's mentally deficient.

Explain your reasoning here. I'm pretty sure anyone...let alone a combat vet...would know the results of that action. My uncle took 6 rounds and lived , my dad took a 38 hollow point and lived , several people have taken multiple rounds and lived .......

Here's some very damaging video equipped with time stamping so you can see the thing exactly as it unfolded:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1243733340

Look at this according to the time counter:

1) 40 min 34 sec- robbers enter the store
2) 40 min 35-45 sec- Antwun Parker never pulls a weapon, but struggles to put on a ski mask instead.
3) 40 min 46 sec- Parker is shot and falls to the floor
4) 40 min 50 sec- Pharmacist heads to front door to pursue 2nd robber
5) 40 min 50.5 sec- Pharmacist turns head to see Parker on the floor
6) 41 min 15 sec- Pharmacist returns to the store
7) 41 min 17 sec- Pharmacist walks past the body of Parker
8) 41 min 32 sec- Pharmacist returns and fires 5 shots, killing Parker

Several things...first; Parker never points a gun at anyone, and appears to not even have one, but spent the entire time leading up to him being shot in the head fumbling with his ski mask, and from the time the store owner leaves the store to pursue the other kid, to his return...is a full 25 seconds, plus another 17 seconds before he kills the kid. That's 42 seconds that he had to think through what he was about to do. If you look at the video, he not only walks past the kid on the floor, he actually never even stops to see if the kid is still a threat or not. That's because it was obvious he wasn't and if you look at the tape at 40:52.5 you can see hiim turn his head to check if the guy is moving or still a threat before he leaves the store. That's not panic, it's an experienced combat veteran checking his surroundings before proceeding.

If this guy had been scared for his life, would he have casually walked right back into the store and walked right up to this guy and never even looked down to see if he's still moving or trying to reach a weapon? No way. He's not some 18 year old kid who panicked, he's a 57 year old combat vet from the Gulf War who knew from experience before he even left out the door this guy wasn't a threat. Then on his return, he took the time to walk to the counter and get his gun, which took another 17 seconds, then return to shoot him to death, there is no question that he had ample opportunity to make a different choice than the one he did. Nobody can reasonably argue differently.

According to Oklahoma law, he did not act in fear of his life or in self defense when he fired the fatal shots. Anyone with an open mind can see that by looking at this tape.

I never said the Pharmacist is innocent , or acted in fear of his life , I have said Man 1 to man 3 charge , you havent proved murder, if anything it is an over excess of force , while trying to stop a FELONY ARMED ROBBERY......Murder doesnt fit

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 11:08 AM
Sorry man, I didn't know he was black. I guess that should change my opinion. Innocent people should die for him. My bad.

Tell you what, let's keep letting these kids (of any color) fire up stores, neighborhoods and shopping malls and leading police on chases just so we can hopefully "reach" one of them.

Good point. There's no amount of innocent lives that matters. If 100 innocent people are killed, it's still best that we saved these kids so we can "reach" them.

Or, maybe the douche-bags who raise these kids could get their **** together so they're not shooting up innocent people? Crazy idea, I know.

Run into a place waving a gun and/or shooting at people, and it shouldn't be a real surprise to you if you end up dead.

You champion the criminals, Footsteps... I'll side with the innocent.

This shop owner went too far. We can agree with that. I still understand why he did.
Watch the tape. He never pulls a gun, but I'm not arguing that he didn't deserve to get shot in the head...nice spin though. I'm arguing that the Pharmacist broke the law when he spent 42 seconds from the time he left the store, and 17 seconds once he walked right past the kid on the floor, before killing him. That is not self defense, no matter what you say, and the DA agrees.

You can clam to "champion the innocent" all you wish...but the guy you're defending commited a murder. How exactly that makes him innocent...is something I'm sure you can rationalize in your mind, but it's still pure bull****.

Garcia Bronco
05-31-2009, 11:08 AM
Diffenately not murder. In fact I would find it hard to charge him at all.

Garcia Bronco
05-31-2009, 11:09 AM
Watch the tape. He never pulls a gun, but I'm not arguing that he didn't deserve to get shot in the head...nice spin though.

Was there a gun at all in the video?

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 11:10 AM
My uncle took 6 rounds and lived , my dad took a 38 hollow point and lived , several people have taken multiple rounds and lived .......



I never said the Pharmacist is innocent , or acted in fear of his life , I have said Man 1 to man 3 charge , you havent proved murder, if anything it is an over excess of force , while trying to stop a FELONY ARMED ROBBERY......Murder doesnt fit
42 seconds between the time he checked the kid to see if he was a threat and the time he killed him after determining he wasn't...that's murder. The DA says it's a murder charge, so perhaps you should contact him and tell him why he's wrong.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 11:12 AM
Was there a gun at all in the video?
Watching the video, it appears the kid he chased out the door had a gun but no gun appears to be shown by the dead kid. He spent the entire time fumbling with the ski mask. He may have had one, but in the video he's only shown trying to get the mask on. In any case, it's obvious the pharmacist knew he was not a threat because he checked to see what he was doing before he left the store, and upon his return he had no fear of walking right past him to get his gun.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 11:13 AM
Diffenately not murder. In fact I would find it hard to charge him at all.
Oklahoma law say it is murder.

Spider
05-31-2009, 11:25 AM
42 seconds between the time he checked the kid to see if he was a threat and the time he killed him after determining he wasn't...that's murder. The DA says it's a murder charge, so perhaps you should contact him and tell him why he's wrong.

Oh knock it off , I already explained how it works , you are reaching pretty hard here ,48 seconds , Man 1 at the most , your and the DA are having pipe dreams over murder .....

GreatBronco16
05-31-2009, 11:25 AM
Oklahoma law say it is murder.

Laws say a lot of things are murder, yet people get lesser sentences all the time. It's over and done with. Let the court say what the crime and punishment is when this is over.

That One Guy
05-31-2009, 11:26 AM
If he'd just said he got the other gun to calm his nerves and then he thought he saw the guy moving... it'd all be over. This is why noone talks about pending actions. He's now locked his story in apparently. Noone knows what the mind sees in that situation and being paranoid is definitely understandable.

If he'd just said the guy moved....

And I don't personally care if it's a criminal's first or 10 offense that he gets killed on. I've never robbed a single place in my life. If he hadn't, he'd still be alive too. I think we can all take the lesson from that.

Spider
05-31-2009, 11:26 AM
Oklahoma law say it is murder.

No Oklahoma law does not say it is murder , the DA says it is murder , big difference

Spider
05-31-2009, 11:32 AM
I dont think 27 understands what Manslaughter charges are , they are homicide charges , Murder doesnt fit this case .........There was no planning , no Crime of passion here ( jealous lovers) no predetermined motives ......this is clearly a manslaughter case , aka Negligent homicide

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 11:33 AM
No Oklahoma law does not say it is murder , the DA says it is murder , big difference
You know what I'm saying. OK law defines your right to use deadly force as directly connected to your life being in danger. Clearly he had no fear of that, and the video shows him taking his time to do what he did. If you want to say waiting 42 seconds to shoot somebody who was lying on the floor with a bullet in their head does not equate to him being excluded from that provision, well I dont' know what I can further say to convince you.

BTW...the same DA who says it's murder, also argued for this guy to be allowed access to a gun while he's waiting trial, which shows he's hardly unsympathetic to his situation. In spite of that, he's charged with murder. I'll take his word for it that he thinks it's murder, and no matter how you choose to define it...it was clearly completely unwaranted.

gunns
05-31-2009, 11:34 AM
It's because the dude went got another gun, came back, and shot the guy execution style, point blank into the chest.

Hard to argue you were in fear. Better argument IMO is to try and say the robber was already dead from shot to head.

Otherwise that dude should have erased the film, lost the film, something.

4 cops fire 41 shots into an unarmed guy and they were in fear?

So if the medical examiner says the kids was still technically alive doesn't that play into "his life may have still been in danger"? All I'm saying is what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Spider
05-31-2009, 11:44 AM
You know what I'm saying. OK law defines your right to use deadly force as directly connected to your life being in danger. Clearly he had no fear of that, and the video shows him taking his time to do what he did. If you want to say waiting 42 seconds to shoot somebody who was lying on the floor with a bullet in their head does not equate to him being excluded from that provision, well I dont' know what I can further say to convince you.

BTW...the same DA who says it's murder, also argued for this guy to be allowed access to a gun while he's waiting trial, which shows he's hardly unsympathetic to his situation. In spite of that, he's charged with murder. I'll take his word for it that he thinks it's murder, and no matter how you choose to define it...it was clearly completely unwaranted.

I dont care if the DA is sympathetic or not , he has to meet the criteria of Murder , lets go over it cause apparently you dont understand either .....
1 st off Murder is a fed offense ..
they have to show that the Pharmacist planned on killing this kid , or hiring the guys to lure the kid into the store to be shot ......
The have to show this kid was having is an affair , or intimate knowledge of a family member belonging to the pharmacist ......
then finally 3 rd degree , the unlawfull killing of a person without justifcation or excuse , this one is close , but once the kid enter the store to rob it , justification is there .......
So now we get on to Manslaughter charges ......
Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter
Man 2 Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either express or implied, and without intent to kill or to inflict the injury causing death, committed accidentally in the commission of some unlawful act not felonious, or in the improper performance of an act lawful in itself. Manslaughter in the second degree may be committed by the doing of an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner,

Popps
05-31-2009, 11:48 AM
Watch the tape. He never pulls a gun, but I'm not arguing that he didn't deserve to get shot in the head...nice spin though. .

So, we don't disagree here.

That is not self defense, no matter what you say, and the DA agrees..

I agree. I said as much. He deserves to be prosecuted for what he did, though I personally think the circumstances should be considered when sentencing. People do crazy things when under attack. It may look excessive to us, and it was... but there's no telling what was going through the mind of someone who's just been assaulted by criminals.


You can clam to "champion the innocent" all you wish...but the guy you're defending commited a murder. .

I'm not defending him, so much as just saying I understand how people get to this point, and I'm sorry... I just don't dig as deep into my heart for the people who CAUSE these things in the first place.

If a high-speed chase ends with a kick to a perp's head. Sure, the cop should be punished. I just don't blame the cop, that's all.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 11:53 AM
I dont care if the DA is sympathetic or not , he has to meet the criteria of Murder , lets go over it cause apparently you dont understand either .....
1 st off Murder is a fed offense ..
they have to show that the Pharmacist planned on killing this kid , or hiring the guys to lure the kid into the store to be shot ......
The have to show this kid was having is an affair , or intimate knowledge of a family member belonging to the pharmacist ......
then finally 3 rd degree , the unlawfull killing of a person without justifcation or excuse , this one is close , but once the kid enter the store to rob it , justification is there .......
So now we get on to Manslaughter charges ......
Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter
Man 2 Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either express or implied, and without intent to kill or to inflict the injury causing death, committed accidentally in the commission of some unlawful act not felonious, or in the improper performance of an act lawful in itself. Manslaughter in the second degree may be committed by the doing of an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner,
I'm sure the DA will take your legal opinion under advisement.

Spider
05-31-2009, 11:54 AM
I'm sure the DA will take your legal opinion under advisement.

those are the definition ,so suppose you tell me how murder 1 fits

fdf
05-31-2009, 12:08 PM
DA also charges the other teen...a 14 year old...with murder since his friend died in the perpitration of a felony, as well as one or possibly two adult conspirators who may have planned the robbery and pushed the kids to commit it.


The Felony Murder rule puts a lot of people in jail for a lot of years.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 12:12 PM
Murder defined by Oklahoma law: http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/isearch

"A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."

Further definition of "malice aforethought": http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m005.htm

"To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life."

1) caused the death of another human being...check
2) deliberately intended to kill...check
3) circumstances capable of proof (video)...check
4) acted wrecklessly or intentionally with extreme disregard for human life...check

Unless you buy this guy's absurd statement that in pumping his victim full of lead as he lay on the floor motionless with a bullet already in his head a full 42 seconds after he shot him the first time...then it's clear he knew he was about to kill him. Thus he fits the definition perfectly.

Spider
05-31-2009, 12:35 PM
Murder defined by Oklahoma law: http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/isearch

"A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."

Further definition of "malice aforethought": http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m005.htm

"To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life."

1) caused the death of another human being...check
2) deliberately intended to kill...check
3) circumstances capable of proof (video)...check
4) acted wrecklessly or intentionally with extreme disregard for human life...check

Unless you buy this guy's absurd statement that in pumping his victim full of lead as he lay on the floor motionless with a bullet already in his head a full 42 seconds after he shot him the first time...then it's clear he knew he was about to kill him. Thus he fits the definition perfectly.

But the kid entering the store cause the chain of events to unfold , the Kid set the tone , by entering that store with others with the intent rob or kill or both ( the pharmacist has no ideas ) is what set the chain of events in motion , so malice aforethought does not fit the criteria , unless you can prove the pharmacist intended on killing this kid before he entered the store ..Reckless homicide resulting in death while committing a felony is the correct charge ......
We both agree the pharmacist broke the law , when he grabbed gun #2 , and shot the kid 5 more times , the felony ,Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm ..... the kid dying is the manslaughter charge..... those 2 criteria right there match more to crime then Murder in the 1 st

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 01:06 PM
But the kid entering the store cause the chain of events to unfold , the Kid set the tone , by entering that store with others with the intent rob or kill or both ( the pharmacist has no ideas ) is what set the chain of events in motion , so malice aforethought does not fit the criteria , unless you can prove the pharmacist intended on killing this kid before he entered the store ..Reckless homicide resulting in death while committing a felony is the correct charge ......
We both agree the pharmacist broke the law , when he grabbed gun #2 , and shot the kid 5 more times , the felony ,Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm ..... the kid dying is the manslaughter charge..... those 2 criteria right there match more to crime then Murder in the 1 st
The kids actions have nothing to do with hiim violating the statutory provisions of the law, which in fact ASSUMES those actions have occured.

You're restricting "malice aforethought" exclusively to some arbitrary time frame that adds additional defining language to the legal provision allowing deadly force that is not otherwise included. The question is not whether he planend to kill this guy before he ever walked in the store...that's clearly absurd. The question is whether or not his actions fit the statutory language; note the definition again:

"malice is that deliberate attempt unlawfully to take away the life of a human being"

West's Legal Dictionary defines "aforethought" as something that "must have been planned for a period of time, regardless how short, before it was committed."

According to your definition of "malice aforethought", a lengthy time period of advance planning is necessary here, and that is not the case. The question this jury must decide is whether a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances would have done what he did in the 42 seconds he had to make a decision and with the facts he had to make it on. Had he killed this guy 5 minutes after he lay on the ground, would you consider that "aforethought"? How about 3 hours? The time frame is not dependant on some kind of planning and pre-existing set of circumstances involving them knowing each other or some prior relationship. It's dependant on whether he had time to think clearly and make a rational decision, a fact that will no doubt be considered in light of his military or combat training and experience, by the way. I think the tape clearly shows he was in no hurry, he was not panicked, and he in fact actually checked the kid on the floor before leaving the store...it's obvious he acted in a pre-determined response, not the heat of the moment, and it's equally obvious his intent was to kill.

That is the legal definition of 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law.

OBF1
05-31-2009, 01:08 PM
I will place the blame squarely on the local police.

Spider
05-31-2009, 01:54 PM
The kids actions have nothing to do with hiim violating the statutory provisions of the law, which in fact ASSUMES those actions have occured.

You're restricting "malice aforethought" exclusively to some arbitrary time frame that adds additional defining language to the legal provision allowing deadly force that is not otherwise included. The question is not whether he planend to kill this guy before he ever walked in the store...that's clearly absurd. The question is whether or not his actions fit the statutory language; note the definition again:

"malice is that deliberate attempt unlawfully to take away the life of a human being"

West's Legal Dictionary defines "aforethought" as something that "must have been planned for a period of time, regardless how short, before it was committed."

According to your definition of "malice aforethought", a lengthy time period of advance planning is necessary here, and that is not the case. The question this jury must decide is whether a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances would have done what he did in the 42 seconds he had to make a decision and with the facts he had to make it on. Had he killed this guy 5 minutes after he lay on the ground, would you consider that "aforethought"? How about 3 hours? The time frame is not dependant on some kind of planning and pre-existing set of circumstances involving them knowing each other or some prior relationship. It's dependant on whether he had time to think clearly and make a rational decision, a fact that will no doubt be considered in light of his military or combat training and experience, by the way. I think the tape clearly shows he was in no hurry, he was not panicked, and he in fact actually checked the kid on the floor before leaving the store...it's obvious he acted in a pre-determined response, not the heat of the moment, and it's equally obvious his intent was to kill.

That is the legal definition of 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law.

Sure the kids actions have everything to do with the pharmacist actions , unless you want me to believe he would have killed the kid , for just walking in

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 02:07 PM
Sure the kids actions have everything to do with the pharmacist actions , unless you want me to believe he would have killed the kid , for just walking in
That was not my point. The whole reason for the statute is to outline the conditions where deadly force is allowable and defensible under the law. It assumes that a life threatening condition exists...thus the fact that one did exist originally, has no bearing on altering the clear language of the law, nor does it allow him to access its protections for behavior that he undertook after that condition no longer applied.

Bottom line...he violated the law by acting outside the protective boudaries of the statute, which do not include protection for what he did since he was 1) no longer in a life threatening situation, and 2) had plenty of time to make his decision.

Whether the DA has the stones to see this through is a seperate question, but under the law the DA has filed charges appropriately.

That One Guy
05-31-2009, 02:15 PM
I dont care if the DA is sympathetic or not , he has to meet the criteria of Murder , lets go over it cause apparently you dont understand either .....
1 st off Murder is a fed offense ..
they have to show that the Pharmacist planned on killing this kid , or hiring the guys to lure the kid into the store to be shot ......
The have to show this kid was having is an affair , or intimate knowledge of a family member belonging to the pharmacist ......
then finally 3 rd degree , the unlawfull killing of a person without justifcation or excuse , this one is close , but once the kid enter the store to rob it , justification is there .......
So now we get on to Manslaughter charges ......
Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter
Man 2 Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either express or implied, and without intent to kill or to inflict the injury causing death, committed accidentally in the commission of some unlawful act not felonious, or in the improper performance of an act lawful in itself. Manslaughter in the second degree may be committed by the doing of an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner,


This has got to be the dumbest post known to the mane.

Murder might be a felony but it's not a "fed" offense... assuming that means federal.

The guy clearly intended to kill the individual when he pumped a half dozen shots into him. Intention can be a short period... as Footsteps has said. Noone had to lure the robbers to the store for intention to kill to be present.

They have to show the guy was doing the Pharmacists daughter? I'm sure that was a way of saying they have to prove intent but it comes across as retarded.

I don't think the guy should be charged with murder but the guy definitely doesn't want Spider arguing his case for him...



Maybe if the guy claims he was making sure the pistol was functional incase someone returned? It was safer to dispense the shots into the individual than to risk a ricochet.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 02:39 PM
Apparently the pharmacist lied to the cops: http://newsok.com/article/3373432

A police detective said Ersland lied to the police and news reporters about the shooting. Ersland, for instance, said the robbers shot at him. "Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” he told The Oklahoman. "I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” Prosecutors say there is no evidence anyone but Ersland fired inside the store. Two of Parker’s aunts attended the bail hearing Thursday.

This guy's clearly an utter idiot. How are you going to lie to the police and tell them you were shot at inside the store when it didn't happen that way? Does he think they won't go looking to verify that? His statements are conflicting with each other, and his weirdly bizzare statement that he didn't intend to kill this guy, coupled wtih his behavior recorded on video clearly demonstrated an intent to kill someone who presented him no threat by the time he took action...are extremely damaging to his case.

broncofan7
05-31-2009, 03:25 PM
5 shots certainly seems excessive--and the methodical way that he went back to get his 2nd weapon reeks of anger being his overriding emotion--but as others have posted already, if the defense can simply get one medical examiner to state that the murder victim died after the 1st shot, the RPh walks.

Additionally, that article which stated that the murder victim was a 'good kid' is utter BS fluff--much like the Jena 6 who were painted as victims too--they actually proved to be nothing but hoods--does it justify the extra 4 shots--NO--but spare me the horse manure.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jena_webfeb08,0,233491.story

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 03:41 PM
5 shots certainly seems excessive--and the methodical way that he went back to get his 2nd weapon reeks of anger being his overriding emotion--but as others have posted already, if the defense can simply get one medical examiner to state that the murder victim died after the 1st shot, the RPh walks.

Additionally, that article which stated that the murder victim was a 'good kid' is utter BS fluff--much like the Jena 6 who were painted as victims too--they actually proved to be nothing but hoods--does it justify the extra 4 shots--NO--but spare me the horse manure.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jena_webfeb08,0,233491.story
Since the county medical examiner in the place where the crime occured is given the authority in the case, there is no such thing as "geting another medical examiner" to rule on this issue. The ME has ruled by autopsy on what happened and his ruling is the approved document of record for the official investigation. The defendant lied to the cops. the video shows him clearly pumping 5 shots into the guy. He qualifies for 1st degreee murder charges under OK law.

And the video you mention shows his mother speaking...she probably knows more than we do whether he's been in trouble before or not. Regardless...it has zero to do with the case.

broncofan7
05-31-2009, 03:48 PM
Since the county medical examiner in the place where the crime occured is given the authority in the case, there is no such thing as "geting another medical examiner" to rule on this issue. The ME has ruled by autopsy on what happened and his ruling is component of the official investigation. The defendant lied to the cops. the video shows him clearly pumping 5 shots into the guy. He qualifies for 1st degreee murder charges under OK law.

And the video you mention shows his mother speaking...she probably knows more than we do whether he's been in trouble before or not. Regardless...it has zero to do with the case.

What grieving mother, whose child has just been killed, is going to say--he would have probably not graduated high school, got into a lot of trouble at school or that this isn't the first time he attempted to rob a store,etc.........???? That article was complete hog wash.

I agree that there is one official ME examiners report and that, along with the video, forms the basis for the charges-- however, the defense is not excluded from getting their own professional witnesses and the poster who brought that up initially made a credible argument as to how this could wind up with the RPh getting exonerated.........but do I agree that the RPh was out of line in WALKING to get another firearm and then proceeding to fire 5 more shots into him--absolutely. But don't paint this hood rat as a 'good kid who just liked his Nikes'.....

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 03:57 PM
What grieving mother, whose child has just been killed, is going to say--he would have probably not graduated high school, got into a lot of trouble at school or that this isn't the first time he attempted to rob a store,etc.........???? That article was complete hog wash.
You know this...how?
I agree that there is one official ME examiners report and that, along with the video, forms the basis for the charges-- however, the defense is not excluded from getting their own professional witnesses and the poster who brought that up initially made a credible argument as to how this could wind up with the RPh getting exonerated.........but do I agree that the RPh was out of line in WALKING to get another firearm and then proceeding to fire 5 more shots into him--absolutely. But don't paint this hood rat as a 'good kid who just liked his Nikes'.....
The defense will have to have a court order to exhume the body and show just cause why the ME's report is likely to be flawed, an unlikely event, particuarly in light of the fact that the defendant claims the kid was moving when he shot him, which means he'll now have to admit lying about that as well. Second...evidence has already emerged that the kids were influenced, possibly even forced...by an adult who masterminded the crime. You have no evidence whether he's a "hood rat" (nice racial slur) or not, much less whether this was his first time being in trouble. I'm pretty sure this will come out...but since nothing has yet emerged in terms of him having a prior record, and since the events occured nearly two weeks ago, it's probable that if such evidence existed, some enterprising reporter would have uncovered this by now. In either case, the existence of past problems does not mitigate the actions of the pharmacist...who by the way has already lied to police about what happened. Curious that his story is the one overwhelmingly being supported in the mounting evidence against him...

broncofan7
05-31-2009, 04:03 PM
You know this...how?

The defense will have to have a court order to exhume the body and show just cause why the ME's report is likely to be flawed, an unlikely event. Second...evidence has already emerged that the kids were influenced, possibly even forced...by an adult who masterminded the crime. You have no evidence whether he's a "hood rat" (nice racial slur) or not, much less whether this was his first time being in trouble. I'm pretty sure this will come out...but since nothing has yet emerged in terms of him having a prior record, and since the events occured nearly two weeks ago, it's probable that if such evidence existed, some enterprising reporter would have uncovered this by now. In either case, the existence of past problems does not mitigate the actions of the pharmacist...who by the way has already lied to police about what happened. Curious that his story is the one overwhelmingly being supported in the mounting evidence against him...

Care to delve into your personal success story on how, after knocking over your 3rd 7-11 as a youth, you decided to live your life on the straight and narrow and become a success? And I do not support this RPh firing 4 or 5 additional shots into the robber. I am simply responding to that link you posted regarding the mother's response......

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 04:10 PM
Care to delve into your personal success story on how, after knocking over your 3rd 7-11 as a youth, you decided to live your life on the straight and narrow and become a success?
As a matter of fact I did have a record as a minor. More to the point, I spent about 20 years working with kids in all kinds of trouble ranging from psychological/emotional/physical/sexual abuse and legal issues as well...and yes...I've seen a lot of them changed. Perhaps you'd advocate throwing them all away?
And I do not support this RPh firing 4 or 5 additional shots into the robber. I am simply responding to that link you posted regarding the mother's response......
A video testimony that will either be proven false or true...and so far nobody has proven her statements false in the 12 days since the crime occured. Certainly no justification exists or deciding the truth worthiness of her statements at this point.

broncofan7
05-31-2009, 04:14 PM
As a matter of fact I did have a record as a minor. More to the point, I spent about 20 years working with kids in all kinds of trouble ranging from psychological/emotional/physical/sexual abuse and legal issues as well...and yes...I've seen a lot of them changed. Perhaps you'd advocate throwing them all away?
A video testimony that will either be proven false or true...and so far nobody has proven her statements false in the 12 days since the crime occured. Certainly no justification exists or deciding the truth worthiness of her statements at this point.

Footsteps had a RECORD! Whoa! Stop the presses! Guilty of 'stealing some girl's heart?' ;D

--Do I advocate throwing children away--Only if they are Raiders fans......;)

Spider
05-31-2009, 04:18 PM
That was not my point. The whole reason for the statute is to outline the conditions where deadly force is allowable and defensible under the law. It assumes that a life threatening condition exists...thus the fact that one did exist originally, has no bearing on altering the clear language of the law, nor does it allow him to access its protections for behavior that he undertook after that condition no longer applied.

Bottom line...he violated the law by acting outside the protective boudaries of the statute, which do not include protection for what he did since he was 1) no longer in a life threatening situation, and 2) had plenty of time to make his decision.

Whether the DA has the stones to see this through is a seperate question, but under the law the DA has filed charges appropriately.

Whether it was your point or not , doesnt change the fact that the kid started the entire thing rolling

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 04:21 PM
Footsteps had a RECORD! Whoa! Stop the presses! Guilty of 'stealing some girl's heart?' ;D

--Do I advocate throwing children away--Only if they are Raiders fans......;)
"Had" a record...legally expunged years ago. Nobody knows what kind of past this kid had, or what he may have gone through. One thing is sure...he didn't deserve to die by execution at the hands of a vigilante. For all we know he might have very well done something great with his future. He might have even been a future Denver Bronco.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 04:22 PM
Whether it was your point or not , doesnt change the fact that the kid started the entire thing rolling
Nobody denies that. That has no legal bearing on this.

Spider
05-31-2009, 04:23 PM
Nobody denies that. That has no legal bearing on this.

Sure it does ........ Has everything to do with what happened

Spider
05-31-2009, 04:25 PM
This has got to be the dumbest post known to the mane.

Murder might be a felony but it's not a "fed" offense... assuming that means federal.

The guy clearly intended to kill the individual when he pumped a half dozen shots into him. Intention can be a short period... as Footsteps has said. Noone had to lure the robbers to the store for intention to kill to be present.

They have to show the guy was doing the Pharmacists daughter? I'm sure that was a way of saying they have to prove intent but it comes across as retarded.

I don't think the guy should be charged with murder but the guy definitely doesn't want Spider arguing his case for him...



Maybe if the guy claims he was making sure the pistol was functional incase someone returned? It was safer to dispense the shots into the individual than to risk a ricochet. you dumb ass the feds can come in and take over a murder case or a kidnapping Case if they feel they need to ....Murder and Kidnapping can fall under the jurisdiction of the feds ......

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 04:27 PM
Sure it does ........ Has everything to do with what happened
The law is clear. You have a right to defend yourself if your life is in danger. Since his life was not in danger, he's not eligible for the protection under the law.

Keep spinning this...the evidence will decide this case and from what is on the video alone, plus the ME's report, not to mention the defendant has already been caught lying to the cops...his best chance for aquital is to get a jury of people who have racial motives to let him go.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 04:29 PM
you dumb ass the feds can come in and take over a murder case or a kidnapping Case if they feel they need to ....Murder and Kidnapping can fall under the jurisdiction of the feds ......
Murder does not fall under federal jurisdiction unless it meets guidelines this one does not. The crime didn't involve interstate commerce or cross state lines. It didn't involve the killing of a federal employee, etc...this is a local issue for the city of Oklahoma City/State of OK to decide.

Flex Gunmetal
05-31-2009, 04:35 PM
I'm confused. If a cop had done this people excuse them because imagine the fear they felt and they are let off. Yet the pharmacist should have been examining the law at the time?

No, I'm saying it may be tried differently, and the community is going to have a much bigger reaction.

This should be murder according to OK state leg. I agree.
There was no presence of danger when the boy was shot the final 5 times.
I see why a lot of people think this clerk should get off, but whether or not you agree with what the man did, the law see this in black and white.

Flex Gunmetal
05-31-2009, 04:38 PM
Whether it was your point or not , doesnt change the fact that the kid started the entire thing rolling

Right. But it has no bearing on how the man will be charged. The case is about his reactions to the situation, and if they were lawful.

TheReverend
05-31-2009, 05:12 PM
I would've found out who the robbers were, had two seperate three-ways with their girlfriend and mothers, respectively, and then sent them each the two videos.

cutthemdown
05-31-2009, 05:16 PM
Murder does not fall under federal jurisdiction unless it meets guidelines this one does not. The crime didn't involve interstate commerce or cross state lines. It didn't involve the killing of a federal employee, etc...this is a local issue for the city of Oklahoma City/State of OK to decide.

Or if they thought it was a civil rights case/issue. But you are right generally speaking its a state thing.

I sure don't see a federal issue here.

cutthemdown
05-31-2009, 05:18 PM
No, I'm saying it may be tried differently, and the community is going to have a much bigger reaction.

This should be murder according to OK state leg. I agree.
There was no presence of danger when the boy was shot the final 5 times.
I see why a lot of people think this clerk should get off, but whether or not you agree with what the man did, the law see this in black and white.

I was saying earlier a good lawyer will convince prosecution he can make at least one person on the jury believe the kid was dead already. Then prosecution will look at likely jury pool and get the feeling some of these people will pull a jury nullification of the law and acquit.

In the end you would expect to see some sort of plea, with limited jail time. Just my opinion.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 05:20 PM
http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412


A video surveillance recording shows Parker being shot in the head, but does not show Parker on the floor when Ersland unloaded what authorities said were the lethal shots. Ersland claims Parker was getting up and going for a gun. Police found no gun at the scene.

That's now two things he told cops that don't jive...first that he was shot at, and second that the kid had a gun and was going for it. This guy's hanging himself. He should have just said he wasn't thinking clearly or he started flashing back to Iraq and tripped out. When you lie to the cops multiple times...chances are you've got something to hide.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 05:24 PM
I was saying earlier a good lawyer will convince prosecution he can make at least one person on the jury believe the kid was dead already. Then prosecution will look at likely jury pool and get the feeling some of these people will pull a jury nullification of the law and acquit.
How's he going to do that when his client has already stated the guy was moving and going for a gun? To claim the guy was already dead he has to admit he lied to the cops. The video shows he was not even remotely concerned about him while he laid there, so even if a jury forgave him for lying to the cops (as well as his other lie about being shot at which we now know didn't happen) then they'd have to buy into him moving around on the ground when the tape shows he walked right past him and didn't even glance down.

That would take either a very stupid jury or one with an agenda.

epicSocialism4tw
05-31-2009, 05:37 PM
So racism is dead in this country huh? I assure you from personal experience you are wrong. Second...the testimony of millions of minority people in this country cleary disagrees with you. Are they all wrong?

Anyone with an open mind and any familiarity with the real world knows otherwise. Your own clients will tell you this. Why not listen to what they say?

We know from the evidence of the tape he was not acting in panic. Have you got a more plausible reason for this act? One that also proves why so many people in that town are supporting his actions? One that also can definitively eliminate this explanation?

If so I'd like to hear it.

The race discussion in this country is currently on the "ridiculous" level.

This country is better assimilated than any other in the world, but the conversation is still timbred as though slave masters are still cracking the whip daily. Until the conversation reaches a legitimate, reasonable volume, the conversation will not be had by either side.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 05:46 PM
The race discussion in this country is currently on the "ridiculous" level.

This country is better assimilated than any other in the world, but the conversation is still timbred as though slave masters are still cracking the whip daily. Until the conversation reaches a legitimate, reasonable volume, the conversation will not be had by either side.
This country is not better assimilated than anywhere else in the world, but more to the point, race plays a direct role in the inequities of our judicial system. Regarding this particular case...it's obvious it's ALLREADY coming into play. The black female judge in the case has already received death threats coupled with phone calls calling her the N word.

I suppose that isn't relevant to the perception that race is influencing how people see this case right?

epicSocialism4tw
05-31-2009, 06:06 PM
This country is not better assimilated than anywhere else in the world, but more to the point, race plays a direct role in the inequities of our judicial system. Regarding this particular case...it's obvious it's ALLREADY coming into play. The black female judge in the case has already received death threats coupled with phone calls calling her the N word.

I suppose that isn't relevant to the perception that race is influencing how people see this case right?

Obviously, the fool(s) who are making such inappropriate gestures to the judge are concerned about whether or not racial favoritism will play a role in the case. Why are they concerned about that? Because they see it every day in the workplace or in school.

Like I said, there are two sides to the story in this generation. To jump on one side or the other based on the person's skin color is no doubt the definition of racism, and it is happening on both sides of the issue here. We'll take your case for instance, where the first thing that you notice is that the kid is black. Nobody else on the thread even insinuated such things, but you had your racism glasses on and you brought your presuppositions to the converstation without knowing anything about the pharmacist. Pharmacists are highly educated people who work in service of people. But in your eyes he's automatically a racist because the kid he shot is black.

What you instead should focus on is the fact that this highly educated professional person with a history of working in the service of his community (black people included...he didnt pull out a gun and shoot him because he was black, but because his life was being threatened) made this decision while his life was endangered, and while a CRIMINAL struck him vulnerable.

I dont think that anyone on this thread has stated that they thought that the extra shots were reasonable, but it is you who chose to turn the conversation into one about blaming one race or the other.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 06:28 PM
Like I said, there are two sides to the story in this generation. To jump on one side or the other based on the person's skin color is no doubt the definition of racism, and it is happening on both sides of the issue here. We'll take your case for instance, where the first thing that you notice is that the kid is black.
Actually the first thing I noticed was an immediate attempt to excuse a cold blooded murder by rationalizing in every possible way that what happened was not only appropriate, but heroic, followed by the fact that I scanned several hundred comments on the web via various blogs and discussion forums which included all kinds of vile hate filled diatribes on race; hence my initial question in here..."would this be seen differently if his name were Brent rather than Antwun?"...a legitimate question given the context of the crime and the victim's race as well as the actions of those in OKC lining up to support this act of homicide and castigate the judge based on her race.
Nobody else on the thread even insinuated such things, but you had your racism glasses on and you brought your presuppositions to the converstation without knowing anything about the pharmacist. Pharmacists are highly educated people who work in service of people. But in your eyes he's automatically a racist because the kid he shot is black.
I never once even hinted that the pharmacist was motivated by race. I asked if the perception of the crime by the public was different because of race...that has zero to do with the pharmacist, and despite his educational background and "service to people", he's already lied to the police at least twice, and also to the media about why he shot this kid.
What you instead should focus on is the fact that this highly educated professional person with a history of working in the service of his community (black people included...he didnt pull out a gun and shoot him because he was black, but because his life was being threatened) made this decision while his life was endangered, and while a CRIMINAL struck him vulnerable.
Utterly untrue...he did NOT make this decision "while his life was being threatened" as you say he did. The video proves beyond any doubt that is false. He made it when the kid was no risk to him at all, which is why he's being charged with murder, not killing someone in self defense. Apparently you didn't look at the time stamped video, or if you did you're ignoring the clear evidence of what happened.
I dont think that anyone on this thread has stated that they thought that the extra shots were reasonable, but it is you who chose to turn the conversation into one about blaming one race or the other.
Not only did people state the shots were reasonable...they made a point of suggesting things like the "societal garbage" being removed from the earth was cause for celebration and using terms like "hood rat" in discussing why he got his just deserts and would have grown up to kill other people so his murder was a heroic act.

Did you even read this thread?

Spider
05-31-2009, 06:29 PM
Right. But it has no bearing on how the man will be charged. The case is about his reactions to the situation, and if they were lawful.

Sure it does . as I said the Pharmacist isnt innocent but murder charge hasnt been met . man1 at the most

Flex Gunmetal
05-31-2009, 07:11 PM
Sure it does . as I said the Pharmacist isnt innocent but murder charge hasnt been met . man1 at the most

My point is the 'He started it' argument is irrelevant. The 1st shot was justified, the final 5 weren't. I'm not arguing what the charge will be. I'm just saying the initial shot and the boy's intentions aren't the items in question.

Garcia Bronco
05-31-2009, 07:19 PM
Watching the video, it appears the kid he chased out the door had a gun but no gun appears to be shown by the dead kid. He spent the entire time fumbling with the ski mask. He may have had one, but in the video he's only shown trying to get the mask on. In any case, it's obvious the pharmacist knew he was not a threat because he checked to see what he was doing before he left the store, and upon his return he had no fear of walking right past him to get his gun.

I don't really feel it matters who had the gun or had a gun. There was a gun in the equation. The employee did not know if the dead suspect had a gun or didn't. If I were in his shoes I would have felt it to be safer than sorry.

It's just a shame they decided to rob and steal. That's were this all started. Terrible.

Garcia Bronco
05-31-2009, 07:20 PM
Oklahoma law say it is murder.

I'd say that's subjective at this point.

Spider
05-31-2009, 07:28 PM
My point is the 'He started it' argument is irrelevant. The 1st shot was justified, the final 5 weren't. I'm not arguing what the charge will be. I'm just saying the initial shot and the boy's intentions aren't the items in question.

but it is relevant ...........

nickademus
05-31-2009, 09:08 PM
well my dady always said that thievs prefered unarmed victims.

worm
05-31-2009, 09:21 PM
well my dady always said that thievs prefered unarmed victims.

Interesting. My daddy always said that you can only eat a steak so thick or drink a martini so dry.

footstepsfrom#27
05-31-2009, 09:39 PM
I don't really feel it matters who had the gun or had a gun. There was a gun in the equation. The employee did not know if the dead suspect had a gun or didn't. If I were in his shoes I would have felt it to be safer than sorry.
Except that he DID know. It's blatantly obvious when you watch that video that he had absolute confidence that the guy was no threat whatsoever. He boldly walks right past him and doesn't so much as glance down. Then he turns his back on him. Question...if you had the slightest inkling that an armed gunman (it's been shown now he had no gun BTW) was conscious and about to go for a gun, would you turn your back on him for a full 15 seconds and totally ignore him? Of course you wouldn't. Only an absolute fool would do that, and certainly no experienced combat vet, yet this guy did exactly that, and then he returned and methodically walked over there, not hiding behind a counter to avoid getting shot, but walking right up to him and executing him like a dog. Nobody who watches this video can come to any other conclusion if you have an open mind.

1) He lied to the police at least twice.
2) He lied to the news media
3) He had at least 42 seconds to make a decision.
4) He checked before he left out the door to see if he was a threat or not.
5) He walked right past him and then turned his back on him.
6) He pumped 5 shots into an unconscious kid lying on the floor.

He was calm and collected. Nothing he did qualifes as showing that he was in fear of his life, which means that under the law he killed with malilce aforethought and that is first degree murder.

Jason in LA
05-31-2009, 09:55 PM
The first shot the guy was protecting himself, and hey, the kid had it coming. If you play with fire you get burnt. But the other shots, when the kid wasn't even dead, I don't see how anybody can defend that. The guy has every right to defend himself, which he did with the first shot. But what was the need for the other shots? He wanted to finish the kid off, which is illegal!!! Dude is going to jail.

Jason in LA
05-31-2009, 10:43 PM
How anyone can advocate executing someone laying on the ground who is already shot in the head and unconscious becuase they tried to rob the store you're working in is beyond my comprehension.

That's the part I don't get. I'm with anybody that's cheering the guy on for the first shot, because he was defending himself. But the other shots, you just can't do that. I don't see why anybody would defend that.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 05:13 AM
All I can say is that kid would be alive today had he just decided not to be a criminal. He ultimately has no one else to blame but himself.

broncofan7
06-01-2009, 06:19 AM
Not only did people state the shots were reasonable...they made a point of suggesting things like the "societal garbage" being removed from the earth was cause for celebration and using terms like "hood rat" in discussing why he got his just deserts and would have grown up to kill other people so his murder was a heroic act.

Did you even read this thread?

'Hood rat' refers to a person who partakes in the urban gansta lifestyle-and it is not dependent upon a person's skin color--(Eminem wannabe's are a good example)and I made that comment in relation to that garbage link you provided with his mother telling the world that he was a 'good boy' who simply had a Nike fetish.........and apparently a penchant for taking things that were not his. If the attempted robber were from a trailer park in West VA I would have used 'trailer trash' instead of 'hood rat'.

EDIT: and I did NOT state that the last 5 shots were reasonable.......

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 06:38 AM
Except that he DID know. It's blatantly obvious when you watch that video that he had absolute confidence that the guy was no threat whatsoever. He boldly walks right past him and doesn't so much as glance down. Then he turns his back on him. Question...if you had the slightest inkling that an armed gunman (it's been shown now he had no gun BTW) was conscious and about to go for a gun, would you turn your back on him for a full 15 seconds and totally ignore him? Of course you wouldn't. Only an absolute fool would do that, and certainly no experienced combat vet, yet this guy did exactly that, and then he returned and methodically walked over there, not hiding behind a counter to avoid getting shot, but walking right up to him and executing him like a dog. Nobody who watches this video can come to any other conclusion if you have an open mind.

1) He lied to the police at least twice.
2) He lied to the news media
3) He had at least 42 seconds to make a decision.
4) He checked before he left out the door to see if he was a threat or not.
5) He walked right past him and then turned his back on him.
6) He pumped 5 shots into an unconscious kid lying on the floor.

He was calm and collected. Nothing he did qualifes as showing that he was in fear of his life, which means that under the law he killed with malilce aforethought and that is first degree murder.


Fear for your life isn't on your face. It's in your head. Now I haven't read the guys statement or anything like that. If I were on the jury, there is no way I would convict him.

gyldenlove
06-01-2009, 06:59 AM
All I can say is that kid would be alive today had he just decided not to be a criminal. He ultimately has no one else to blame but himself.

Funny thing though, he is a kid, he can't legally make decisions for himself. He can't make the decision to have sex, to vote, to drink, to own a house or get married.

Jason in LA
06-01-2009, 07:01 AM
All I can say is that kid would be alive today had he just decided not to be a criminal. He ultimately has no one else to blame but himself.

You are 100% correct on that one. But that doesn't get the guy off for shooting him five more times. It does not justify what he did. Dude is going to jail.

broncofan7
06-01-2009, 07:10 AM
Funny thing though, he is a kid, he can't legally make decisions for himself. He can't make the decision to have sex, to vote, to drink, to own a house or get married.

But he can make the decision to do his homework, stay away from robbing Pharmacies, give respect to his teachers, parents & other adults........he has plenty of decisions and choices to make in his life that don't include drinking, voting and marriage.

Rohirrim
06-01-2009, 07:14 AM
Except that he DID know. It's blatantly obvious when you watch that video that he had absolute confidence that the guy was no threat whatsoever. He boldly walks right past him and doesn't so much as glance down. Then he turns his back on him. Question...if you had the slightest inkling that an armed gunman (it's been shown now he had no gun BTW) was conscious and about to go for a gun, would you turn your back on him for a full 15 seconds and totally ignore him? Of course you wouldn't. Only an absolute fool would do that, and certainly no experienced combat vet, yet this guy did exactly that, and then he returned and methodically walked over there, not hiding behind a counter to avoid getting shot, but walking right up to him and executing him like a dog. Nobody who watches this video can come to any other conclusion if you have an open mind.

1) He lied to the police at least twice.
2) He lied to the news media
3) He had at least 42 seconds to make a decision.
4) He checked before he left out the door to see if he was a threat or not.
5) He walked right past him and then turned his back on him.
6) He pumped 5 shots into an unconscious kid lying on the floor.

He was calm and collected. Nothing he did qualifes as showing that he was in fear of his life, which means that under the law he killed with malilce aforethought and that is first degree murder.

For once, I have to say I agree with footsteps. That was cold blooded murder.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 07:19 AM
You are 100% correct on that one. But that doesn't get the guy off for shooting him five more times. It does not justify what he did. Dude is going to jail.

Maybe...maybe not. That's for other people to decide. I bet he gets off. It would be morally wrong to put that guy in jail, IMO.

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 07:21 AM
in my opinion these "kids" grabbed guns and made the decision to threaten someone's life over a robbery...once they picked up those guns they made the statement that they were willing to kill anyone who got in their way and opened themselves up to retaliation

i think everyone agrees that the first two shots were fine...I'm having trouble understanding how he went back and decided to fire five more shots...honestly, i dont know whether i agree with that or not

however, if someone broke into my house and threatened my family with guns and i managed to pop off a few shots, im killing whoever is wounded because they basically said, "i dont care about your life or your family's lives"...perhaps this guy was protecting his livelihood and thought about it like his family...i dont know

he should do a 2-4 year bid in my opinion...jail is meant to keep dangerous people off the street...i dont think this guy is dangerous

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 07:28 AM
Funny thing though, he is a kid, he can't legally make decisions for himself. He can't make the decision to have sex, to vote, to drink, to own a house or get married.

That criminal knew he was doing something wrong.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 07:45 AM
Fear for your life isn't on your face. It's in your head. Now I haven't read the guys statement or anything like that. If I were on the jury, there is no way I would convict him.
In other words you decided without any facts, or worse yet, in the fact of the known facts and contrary to them. Got it.

Let me ask you a question; since 42 seconds apparently isn't enough in your mind for a person to make a decision not to do an execution style murder on somebody lying helpless on the floor, how much time do you thionk is allowable for this Gulf War combat vet to recover from his terror? Five minutes? How about 3 hours? Suppose he left him there over night before killing him? Would that constitute murder?

Is there any scenario whatsoever where you would vote this as murder if you were on the jury? Or does he just get a free pass to do whatever he wants as judge/jury and executioner because he committed a crime?

Beantown Bronco
06-01-2009, 07:48 AM
This guy probably would've gotten off if he just said to officers initially that he "feared for his life and family's life in the future, after the kid recovered and got out of jail.....and that's why I finished him off." Instead, he chose to blatantly lie to the officers. Never a good move.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 07:51 AM
in my opinion these "kids" grabbed guns and made the decision to threaten someone's life over a robbery...once they picked up those guns they made the statement that they were willing to kill anyone who got in their way and opened themselves up to retaliation.
Actually the kid he murdered had no gun.
i think everyone agrees that the first two shots were fine...I'm having trouble understanding how he went back and decided to fire five more shots...honestly, i dont know whether i agree with that or not.
I see you're not paying attention. The first ONE shot was fine. The next five are defined under Oklahoma law as murder...so you're "trouble" with whether you agree or not is a question of whether murder is hunky dory because he's a kid committing a crime. If so...you advocate doing away with the judicial process entirely.
however, if someone broke into my house and threatened my family with guns and i managed to pop off a few shots, im killing whoever is wounded because they basically said, "i dont care about your life or your family's lives"...perhaps this guy was protecting his livelihood and thought about it like his family...i dont know.
He protected himself with the first shot...42 seconds before he returned to commit murder.
he should do a 2-4 year bid in my opinion...jail is meant to keep dangerous people off the street...i dont think this guy is dangerous
Anyone that can cooly, calmly and methodically commit an execution style murder, lie to police about what happened and pretend that he wasn't trying to kill anyone...yeah, they are dangerous.

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 07:51 AM
In other words you decided without any facts, or worse yet, in the fact of the known facts and contrary to them. Got it.

Let me ask you a question; since 42 seconds apparently isn't enough in your mind for a person to make a decision not to do an execution style murder on somebody lying helpless on the floor, how much time do you thionk is allowable for this Gulf War combat vet to recover from his terror? Five minutes? How about 3 hours? Suppose he left him there over night before killing him? Would that constitute murder?

Is there any scenario whatsoever where you would vote this as murder if you were on the jury? Or does he just get a free pass to do whatever he wants as judge/jury and executioner because he committed a crime?

You've made your opinion pretty well known on the matter...but there is just another way people look at this. The ONLY thing that throws me off about this is the 42 seconds. I think that is a long time to take someone's life into account and then end it.

At the same time, if you are picking up a gun and pointing it in someones face you are taking that chance. The kid, unfortunately, got exactly what he deserved, just in a cruel manner.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 07:55 AM
This guy probably would've gotten off if he just said to officers initially that he "feared for his life and family's life in the future, after the kid recovered and got out of jail.....and that's why I finished him off." Instead, he chose to blatantly lie to the officers. Never a good move.
Fear of future retalilation will not create a viable case for self defense. You have to be in imminent danger...not considering what might happen in the future...so no, assuming a fair and impartial jury...that argument would not win him any points with the DA, nor hopefully with the jury.

Then again he may get off scott free just because a bunch of idiots consider him a hero.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 07:56 AM
In other words you decided without any facts, or worse yet, in the fact of the known facts and contrary to them. Got it.

Let me ask you a question; since 42 seconds apparently isn't enough in your mind for a person to make a decision not to do an execution style murder on somebody lying helpless on the floor, how much time do you thionk is allowable for this Gulf War combat vet to recover from his terror? Five minutes? How about 3 hours? Suppose he left him there over night before killing him? Would that constitute murder?

Is there any scenario whatsoever where you would vote this as murder if you were on the jury? Or does he just get a free pass to do whatever he wants as judge/jury and executioner because he committed a crime?


42 seconds in a situation like that is not a long time. In fact the Adrenaline pumping through his system might take an 30 minutes to an hour to release. Maybe even longer. The Facts? The facts are all right there in the video. Two kids with a gun walked into a store with intention of robbing the place and killing anyone that got in their way. Why else would they bring a gun?

IMO once they walked in that store and leveled a gun at someone's head to rob the place, they lost all and any rights. They are not victims. The robbers altered the state of mine of the shop keeper. They took away his right to feel safe. They took away his ability to be peaceful. Not the other way around.

It's hard to say after some hours or a day what would constitute murder. The mind is a crazy place. I think after some number of hours you could argue malice beyond what's in the mind's eye. If the shooter is a combat vet, that could alter his state of mind to another level. As a person who has probably been subjected to combat, I can even understand his actions even more.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 07:57 AM
You've made your opinion pretty well known on the matter...but there is just another way people look at this. The ONLY thing that throws me off about this is the 42 seconds. I think that is a long time to take someone's life into account and then end it.

At the same time, if you are picking up a gun and pointing it in someones face you are taking that chance. The kid, unfortunately, got exactly what he deserved, just in a cruel manner.
So you advocate the death penalty for armed robbery when no shot was fired? And you advocate it for first time offenders, minors under 18, and you advocate it without benefit of a trial by jury of your peers.

Nice.

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 08:00 AM
So you advocate the death penalty for armed robbery when no shot was fired? And you advocate it for first time offenders, minors under 18, and you advocate it without benefit of a trial by jury of your peers.

Nice.

yea I do....and since I'm allowed to have an opinion, I don't really see a problem with it.

I said before that this guy should do some time...but not 1st degree murder time

what do you feed your high horse by the way? just interested

SoonerBronco
06-01-2009, 08:17 AM
Burglary is a high risk profession. The pharmacist had been robbed before. Unfortunately, in this wonderful economy, we WILL see more of these situations happening. Our prisons are already full and do not FIX the problem, so while I agree that the last 5 shots were not called for or excessive, I can't say I blame the guy. I guarantee that robbers will think twice about robbing his store.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 08:18 AM
42 seconds in a situation like that is not a long time. In fact the Adrenaline pumping through his system might take an 30 minutes to an hour to release. Maybe even longer.
So in other words if he'd gone in "even longer" than an hour later...and pumped 5 shots into him, he's not guilty of a crime. And his adrenal glands are the determining factor. Question: I still get mad as hell towards my wife's ex who abused her for years...sometimes I can feel an adreneline rush hearing his voice on the phone as he's calling to come pick up his daughter for visitiation. If I decide one day to pull out my .45 automag and make a little trip up the road 90 miles and cap his ass, should I get a free pass on that one? My adreneline is rushing...I've had to physically knock this piece of **** on the ground once because he presented a threat. Tell me...is this a lifetime pass I get based on his past behavior?
The Facts? The facts are all right there in the video. Two kids with a gun walked into a store with intention of robbing the place and killing anyone that got in their way. Why else would they bring a gun?
The only killing was done by the pharmacist; the lone kid with a gun never fired a shot.
IMO once they walked in that store and leveled a gun at someone's head to rob the place, they lost all and any rights. They are not victims. The robbers altered the state of mine of the shop keeper. They took away his right to feel safe. They took away his ability to be peaceful. Not the other way around.
So why do the cops read them "their rights"? Or are you advocating eliminating the right to a fair trial and suggesting justice by random public vigilantes is what you prefer? Is that what you prefer?
It's hard to say after some hours or a day what would constitute murder.
And people wonder why I see racism on this board.
The mind is a crazy place. I think after some number of hours you could argue malice beyond what's in the mind's eye. If the shooter is a combat vet, that could alter his state of mind to another level. As a person who has probably been subjected to combat, I can even understand his actions even more.
Got it. Ex combat vets have a lifetime pass to murder people in cold blood any time they feel threatened. Good call.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 08:20 AM
yea I do....and since I'm allowed to have an opinion, I don't really see a problem with it.
Which is truly scary.
what do you feed your high horse by the way? just interested
I'm allowed to have an opinion...remember?

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 08:26 AM
Which is truly scary.

I'm allowed to have an opinion...remember?


It's truly scary that someone's opinion is different than yours?

I have no problem with you stating your views...its actually one of the reasons I click on these topics to see what people have to say. However, your tone seems to be of the nature that it is an "all or nothing" type debate. You either agree with this guy and want him to go free or you want him locked up for murder.

I see a gray area in this matter because these were NOT innocent people he killed and they instigated the situation. Its a slippery slope, as you have pointed out but driving 90 miles to shoot your wife's ex is different that her ex coming to your house with a gun.

Once you brandish a weapon...OR ASSOCIATE yourself with someone who is flashing a gun at someone, you run the risk of being injured or killed. And thats what happened.

That being said, I agree that at a certain point it becomes cold blooded murder. I just dont think it was in this instance. I think he should do time, but not for 1st degree murder.

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 08:27 AM
and Footsteps, you are right....this board is seeping with racist undertones

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 08:38 AM
So in other words if he'd gone in "even longer" than an hour later...and pumped 5 shots into him, he's not guilty of a crime. And his adrenal glands are the determining factor. Question: I still get mad as hell towards my wife's ex who abused her for years...sometimes I can feel an adreneline rush hearing his voice on the phone as he's calling to come pick up his daughter for visitiation. If I decide one day to pull out my .45 automag and make a little trip up the road 90 miles and cap his ass, should I get a free pass on that one? My adreneline is rushing...I've had to physically knock this piece of **** on the ground once because he presented a threat. Tell me...is this a lifetime pass I get based on his past behavior?

The only killing was done by the pharmacist; the lone kid with a gun never fired a shot.

So why do the cops read them "their rights"? Or are you advocating eliminating the right to a fair trial and suggesting justice by random public vigilantes is what you prefer? Is that what you prefer?

And people wonder why I see racism on this board.

Got it. Ex combat vets have a lifetime pass to murder people in cold blood any time they feel threatened. Good call.


Your example above is different from what happened in the store in Oklahoma.


The Pharmacist did shot the kid. That is in the video. No one is arguing otherwise. The kid was a part of a armed robbery as a robber. It would be unwise that because the pharmacist didn't see a gun to assume otherwise.

This was not a law enforcement situtation. This was a not a trained police officer.

I realize your are a hyper-sensitive race guy. And I realize you border line hate your own race, but I don't care what color this kid is or the color of the shooter. Take your race baiting some place else. This kid did something stupid that cost him his life and it doesn't have anything to do with his skin color. There is no senario under which I would side with the robbers. They started it.

I think you have a lack of respect of what it means to be a combat vet.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 08:39 AM
and Footsteps, you are right....this board is seeping with racist undertones

Don't hold that against footsteps. He's obviously seen things that have led to the way he views the world. I wouldn"t say he's a racist.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 08:40 AM
That criminal knew he was doing something wrong.
Yes he did, which is why he lied to the cops twice.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 08:45 AM
Your example above is different from what happened in the store in Oklahoma.


The Pharmacist did shot the kid. That is in the video. No one is arguing otherwise. The kid was a part of a robber as a robber. It would be unwise that because the pharmacist

This was not a law enforcement situtation. This was a not a trained police officer.
What does any of this even mean?
I realize your are a hyper-sensitive race guy. And I realize you border line hate your own race, but I don't care what color this kid is or the color of the shooter. Take your race baiting some place else. This kid did something stupid that cost him his life and it doesn't have anything to do with his skin color. There is no senario under which I would side with the robbers. They started it.

I think you have a lack of respect of what it means to be a combat vet.
It's frequently not "what" is said in here...most people are much to intimidated to bring their true feelings to the surface...it's often "who" says it.

Good to know that asking combat vets to hold to the laws of society and not granting them a free pass to commit cold blooded murder constitutes a "lack of respect" for vets...makes almost as little sense as the "days later if his adrenaline kicks it" argument.

BTW...I don't disrespect my race...only some of those who share it.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 08:53 AM
What does any of this even mean?

It's frequently not "what" is said in here...most people are much to intimidated to bring their true feelings to the surface...it's often "who" says it.

Good to know that asking combat vets to hold to the laws of society and not granting them a free pass to commit cold blooded murder constitutes a "lack of respect" for vets...makes almost as little sense as the "days later if his adrenaline kicks it" argument.

You cannot discount the effects biology has on human behavior. If you have ever had a gun stuck in your face you might begin to understand.

BTW...I don't disrespect my race...only some of those who share it.


As if you could sum up anyone by the color of their skin. Their flaw, those racists you condem, is your flaw.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 08:57 AM
Yes he did, which is why he lied to the cops twice.

I was talking about the robbers.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 09:03 AM
It's truly scary that someone's opinion is different than yours?
No...it's truly scary that you think we should do away with the justice system in favor of vigilante actions, use the death penalty on minors committing their first offense and put robbery into the capital crimes category. Yeah...all that is scary.
I see a gray area in this matter because these were NOT innocent people he killed and they instigated the situation. Its a slippery slope, as you have pointed out but driving 90 miles to shoot your wife's ex is different that her ex coming to your house with a gun.
Maybe you missed it...GB says it's OK for someone whose adrenalin kicks into to return hours or even days...presumably forever actually...to return to kill someone who once threatened their life. And since this POS actually did that...I figure now I'm justified in blowing him away 3 years later.
Once you brandish a weapon...OR ASSOCIATE yourself with someone who is flashing a gun at someone, you run the risk of being injured or killed. And thats what happened.
Except that this debate is not what you "run the risk of", it's about what should happen to you when you take the law into your own hands.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 09:05 AM
You cannot discount the effects biology has on human behavior. If you have ever had a gun stuck in your face you might begin to understand.
I have had a gun stuck in my face.
As if you could sum up anyone by the color of their skin. Their flaw, those racists you condem, is your flaw.
Your flaw is reading comprehension.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 09:15 AM
I have had a gun stuck in my face.



No you haven't.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 09:16 AM
Maybe you missed it...GB says it's OK for someone whose adrenalin kicks into to return hours or even days...presumably forever actually...to return to kill someone who once threatened their life. And since this POS actually did that...I figure now I'm justified in blowing him away 3 years later.



I didn't say that. I said you could argue after some amount of hours that it is murder. Come on now....don't change the facts to support your conclusions.

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 09:22 AM
No...it's truly scary that you think we should do away with the justice system in favor of vigilante actions, use the death penalty on minors committing their first offense and put robbery into the capital crimes category. Yeah...all that is scary.

Maybe you missed it...GB says it's OK for someone whose adrenalin kicks into to return hours or even days...presumably forever actually...to return to kill someone who once threatened their life. And since this POS actually did that...I figure now I'm justified in blowing him away 3 years later.

Except that this debate is not what you "run the risk of", it's about what should happen to you when you take the law into your own hands.


this wasnt "capital punishment"...this was self defense, and then an act of manslaughter after the fact.

I think you are just playing devil's advocate at this point to ruffle feathers so I'm not going to put a lot of time into this response....we just have different views on this

Fedaykin
06-01-2009, 09:27 AM
This reminds me of my favorite movie pet peeve:

A kidnapped or fleeing person being pursued by someone with lethal intent. They manage to get the upper hand for a moment and stun or momentarily disable the assailant. Then, instead of finishing them off, they start running again. Eventually they are recaptured and killed, raped or whatever.

That said, when you've popped someone in the head and they are laying unconscious on the floor, they are no longer a threat and any additional action besides making sure they are out and disarmed is going too far. However, in a similar situation I would probably have done similarly. (EDIT: After reading more about the situation, I can firmly say that no, I would not have done what this murderer did.)

Now, the article says the pharmacist was a Desert Storm vet, which can either work in his favor or not. Either he can claim PTSD or similar, or he's gonna get nailed to the wall for his combat training.

The Joker
06-01-2009, 09:27 AM
You can't go pumping five bullets into someone who is lying unconscious on the floor, posing no threat.

I applaud what he did in the first place, and had he shot the kid dead with the first bullet then I don't think there's any case to be made against him.

But this is quite clearly manslaughter, and by law the guy needs to spend some time in jail for it.

Fedaykin
06-01-2009, 09:54 AM
Fear for your life isn't on your face. It's in your head. Now I haven't read the guys statement or anything like that. If I were on the jury, there is no way I would convict him.

So, if you fear for your life from someone, do you calmly turn your back to them?

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 09:56 AM
So, if you fear for your life from someone, do you calmly turn your back to them?

Maybe...maybe not. Depends on the person. Like you said...his traingin could work for him or against him.

Fedaykin
06-01-2009, 10:04 AM
Maybe...maybe not. Depends on the person. Like you said...his traingin could work for him or against him.

No experienced combat veteran is going to turn their back to a possible threat for no good reason. (The only good reason begin a bigger threat).

No one fearing for their life is going to turn their back to a threat for no good reason.

This man committed murder. He clearly was no longer fearing for his life.

TailgateNut
06-01-2009, 10:07 AM
No experienced combat veteran is going to turn their back to a possible threat for no good reason. (The only good reason begin a bigger threat).

No one fearing for their life is going to turn their back to a threat for no good reason.

This man committed murder. He clearly was no longer fearing for his life.

I have to agree with you on this one. Imobilize the threat, and then let the law take over. Take out the legs and shoulders, and you're "good to go".

Beantown Bronco
06-01-2009, 10:08 AM
No experienced combat veteran is going to turn their back to a possible threat for no good reason. (The only good reason begin a bigger threat).

No one fearing for their life is going to turn their back to a threat for no good reason.

This man committed murder. He clearly was no longer fearing for his life.

You are making the big (and false) assumption that all people are rational and logical thinkers; and that everyone reacts the same to all situations.

Granted, in this instance, I don't believe he feared for his life at the point that he turned his back. But to make a blanket statement that nobody would do so in any circumstance is not accurate.

TailgateNut
06-01-2009, 10:10 AM
You are making the big (and false) assumption that all people are rational and logical thinkers; and that everyone reacts the same to all situations.

Granted, in this instance, I don't believe he feared for his life at the point that he turned his back. But to make a blanket statement that nobody would do so in any circumstance is not accurate.

Some people DO believe in revenge, more than others. I, for one, am part of that group!:wiggle:

Jason in LA
06-01-2009, 10:11 AM
Maybe...maybe not. That's for other people to decide. I bet he gets off. It would be morally wrong to put that guy in jail, IMO.

No, it's morally wrong for him to shoot the kid five more times. He's good on the first shot. Give him a medal for that. He's a hero. Stood up for himself, and the kid had it coming. But the five other shots, he goes to jail for. He should go to jail for. It's a criminal act. The law allows you a lot in terms of protecting yourself, but it doesn't allow you to do what he did, and it shouldn't.

Fedaykin
06-01-2009, 10:16 AM
You are making the big (and false) assumption that all people are rational and logical thinkers; and that everyone reacts the same to all situations.

Granted, in this instance, I don't believe he feared for his life at the point that he turned his back. But to make a blanket statement that nobody would do so in any circumstance is not accurate.

I should clarify. Of course people will turn their back to a threat -- when they are trying to flee. However, clearly this man was NOT fleeing (despite having ample opportunity to do so). He instead turned and murdered someone who no longer posed any reasonable threat to him (and his actions demonstrate that he did not feel threatened).

If he felt threatened still he would not have turned his back unless fleeing. It's that simple.

Beantown Bronco
06-01-2009, 10:19 AM
How about this scenario:

The kid he shoots is a well-known criminal in the area that has done this before. It is known by all (including the guy working the counter - who recognizes the kid instantly) that this kid tried this before at a gas station down the road.....say one year prior.....and was foiled by that cashier as well. However, in that prior incident, the kid ran off with only bumps and bruises. He then followed the cashier home one night, broke into the cashier's house and attacked the cashier's family in an act of revenge for foiling his robbery attempt.

Would you now feel any differently about this current situation if it comes out that this cashier was simply trying to prevent such a situation from happening to him? What if the kid, after being shot but before passing out, says to the cashier that he will get revenge after he recovers?

Obviously I'm not saying that this in any way happened here. I'm just trying to see people's limits when it comes to "letting the police and courts do their jobs."

DenverBrit
06-01-2009, 10:30 AM
No debate.

The guy calmly executed an unconscious boy as he lay helpless.

Shooting him in the head was sufficient to render him harmless, the rest was murder or manslaughter.......even in OK!

Rohirrim
06-01-2009, 10:33 AM
I'm surprised that people would argue that because he was a combat vet it somehow explains away his actions. I would argue the opposite. In the military code of conduct, if you shot an enemy in the head and he was lying on the ground, unconscious and disarmed, if you walked up and pumped five bullets into him, you would likely face a courts martial. If this guy was a combat vet, you'd think he would have better control over his adrenelin response than the average person.

Fedaykin
06-01-2009, 10:48 AM
I'm surprised that people would argue that because he was a combat vet it somehow explains away his actions. I would argue the opposite. In the military code of conduct, if you shot an enemy in the head and he was lying on the ground, unconscious and disarmed, if you walked up and pumped five bullets into him, you would likely face a courts martial. If this guy was a combat vet, you'd think he would have better control over his adrenelin response than the average person.

I'm not sure if you are addressing me, but when I mentioned his combat vet status I meant specifically that the training and experience should provide you with the presence of mind to overcome biological imperatives. Thus, the prosecution would likely use this as an argument for murder 1.

Dark Helmet
06-01-2009, 11:37 AM
The dude is a hero if you ask me. The only mistake he made was not to put 5 or 6 in him right off the bat. More people like that = less crime. Crime would be much less prevalent if we quit screwing around and babying felons.

I would love to see the "eye for an eye" justice system brought to America. Sex crimes against children = castration. Kill someone while drinking and driving = death sentence. Theft = lose your hand.

Now, that may be a little harsh and a median could most definitely be found. Take Singapore for example. A kid vandalized a car and 4 lashings from a bamboo rod....which should have been 6 but good old Clinton had it reduced. I'm willing to bet that most of the countries listed below have a very harsh judicial system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Funny....the US is at the top for most crimes per capita...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Pie Chart Map

Showing latest available data.

United States 18.7%
United Kingdom 10.3%
Germany 10.2%
France 5.9%
Russia 4.6%
Japan 4.5%
South Africa 4.2%
Canada 4%
Italy 3.5%
India 2.8%
Korea, South 2.4%
Mexico 2.4%
Netherlands 2.2%
Poland 2.2%
Argentina 2.1%
Sweden 1.9%
Belgium 1.5%
Spain 1.5%
Chile 0.9%
Thailand 0.9%

Dark Helmet
06-01-2009, 11:39 AM
Correction, # 8 per capita.

Spider
06-01-2009, 11:41 AM
The dude is a hero if you ask me. The only mistake he made was not to put 5 or 6 in him right off the bat. More people like that = less crime. Crime would be much less prevalent if we quit screwing around and babying felons.

I would love to see the "eye for an eye" justice system brought to America. Sex crimes against children = castration. Kill someone while drinking and driving = death sentence. Theft = lose your hand.

Now, that may be a little harsh and a median could most definitely be found. Take Singapore for example. A kid vandalized a car and 4 lashings from a bamboo rod....which should have been 6 but good old Clinton had it reduced. I'm willing to bet that most of the countries listed below have a very harsh judicial system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Funny....the US is at the top for most crimes per capita...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Pie Chart Map

Showing latest available data.

United States 18.7%
United Kingdom 10.3%
Germany 10.2%
France 5.9%
Russia 4.6%
Japan 4.5%
South Africa 4.2%
Canada 4%
Italy 3.5%
India 2.8%
Korea, South 2.4%
Mexico 2.4%
Netherlands 2.2%
Poland 2.2%
Argentina 2.1%
Sweden 1.9%
Belgium 1.5%
Spain 1.5%
Chile 0.9%
Thailand 0.9%

got alot of Muslim ideology in you .............The Pharmacist is no hero , not even close .......

Taco John
06-01-2009, 11:44 AM
The first shot was self defense.

The five after were murderous. Lock him up.

dbfan4life
06-01-2009, 11:49 AM
The first shot was self defense.

The five after were murderous. Lock him up.

Yep.

vancejohnson82
06-01-2009, 11:51 AM
The first shot was self defense.

The five after were murderous. Lock him up.

I agree that he should serve some time.....just not for first degree murder.

Beantown Bronco
06-01-2009, 11:52 AM
I'm willing to bet that most of the countries listed below have a very harsh judicial system.

I can assure you after studying criminology for a long time, there is no direct link between harshness of penalties and reduced crime rates. The comparison most often used in the US is between North Dakota and South Dakota. Identical states in almost every meaningful way population-wise. The main differences (in terms of the study of crime) are their stances towards punishment of criminals. South Dakota is tougher across the board and has capital punishment, while North Dakota doesn't. South Dakota, however, consistently ranks higher in rates of crime, both violent and non-violent.

zms325i
06-01-2009, 11:54 AM
The dude is a hero if you ask me. The only mistake he made was not to put 5 or 6 in him right off the bat. More people like that = less crime. Crime would be much less prevalent if we quit screwing around and babying felons.

I would love to see the "eye for an eye" justice system brought to America. Sex crimes against children = castration. Kill someone while drinking and driving = death sentence. Theft = lose your hand.

Now, that may be a little harsh and a median could most definitely be found. Take Singapore for example. A kid vandalized a car and 4 lashings from a bamboo rod....which should have been 6 but good old Clinton had it reduced. I'm willing to bet that most of the countries listed below have a very harsh judicial system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Funny....the US is at the top for most crimes per capita...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Pie Chart Map

Showing latest available data.

United States 18.7%
United Kingdom 10.3%
Germany 10.2%
France 5.9%
Russia 4.6%
Japan 4.5%
South Africa 4.2%
Canada 4%
Italy 3.5%
India 2.8%
Korea, South 2.4%
Mexico 2.4%
Netherlands 2.2%
Poland 2.2%
Argentina 2.1%
Sweden 1.9%
Belgium 1.5%
Spain 1.5%
Chile 0.9%
Thailand 0.9%

Even as you claim to be a proponent of "eye for an eye", this kid had no weapon, and didn't shoot the pharm. This was a robbery, so instead of capping the kid 5 times, he should have cut his hand off to really meet the eye for an eye criteria.

SoonerBronco
06-01-2009, 12:08 PM
The first shot was self defense.

The five after were murderous. Lock him up.

Yeah, so the tax payers can pay for him to live in our overfilled prison system? Sorry, but the guy, won't go to jail. His attorney is Irven Box, and will have this appealed down to manslaughter with no time to be served.

Rohirrim
06-01-2009, 12:19 PM
Yeah, so the tax payers can pay for him to live in our overfilled prison system? Sorry, but the guy, won't go to jail. His attorney is Irven Box, and will have this appealed down to manslaughter with no time to be served.

If we cut loose the pot smokers there would be plenty of room.

TailgateNut
06-01-2009, 12:21 PM
If we cut loose the pot smokers there would be plenty of room.


Holy ****. Have you lost your mind. Those types would create havock. ;)

Rohirrim
06-01-2009, 12:42 PM
Holy ****. Have you lost your mind. Those types would create havock. ;)

No Cheetohs would be safe. :~ohyah!:

Dark Helmet
06-01-2009, 01:20 PM
got alot of Muslim ideology in you .............The Pharmacist is no hero , not even close .......

Hardly. The ideology is found in just about every culture throughout history. You will also find that the downfall of most societies throughout history generally coincide with society becoming weak. Bloated & dysfunctional government, justice system, tendency to rehabilitate or imprison rather than punish. Singapore is not a Muslim country and neither are several others that don't F around with criminals.

To say he's a hero is definitely extreme.

gyldenlove
06-01-2009, 01:29 PM
Hardly. The ideology is found in just about every culture throughout history. You will also find that the downfall of most societies throughout history generally coincide with society becoming weak. Bloated & dysfunctional government, justice system, tendency to rehabilitate or imprison rather than punish. Singapore is not a Muslim country and neither are several others that don't F around with criminals.


I am not sure where you did your history studies, but you should probably ask about their refund policy.

Most if not all of the major civilizations that have crumbled have had significantly harsher justice systems than we see anywhere in the world today (with the possible exception of a few countries in the Middle-east). Most of them have been dictatorships, and most of them failed when society grew strong enough to rebel and overthrow their leaders.

Dark Helmet
06-01-2009, 01:32 PM
Even as you claim to be a proponent of "eye for an eye", this kid had no weapon, and didn't shoot the pharm. This was a robbery, so instead of capping the kid 5 times, he should have cut his hand off to really meet the eye for an eye criteria.

They held him up at gun point and the "kid" got what he had coming to him. To be a proponent of a more harsh criminal justice system does not mean that I think we should revert to Marshall law today. Did the pharmacist do the right thing by going back and shooting him, probably not; was he out of his mind with anger due to having a gun pointed...probably. As I alluded to above, to call him a hero is probably a little extreme and uncalled for. Especially without seeing the video.

I will however say that the argument that "he was just a kid" is completely off base. I grew up and spent a lot of time with the wrong crowd. I know several people that are now or were in jail for murders, major drug trafficking and assault which were committed when they were teenagers/kids. Just because they are naive does not give them an excuse to commit crimes and get away with it.

broncocalijohn
06-01-2009, 01:33 PM
I've seen quite a few 16 yr olds who look older than 18. It's not like he looked at the kids ID before pumping 5 more rounds into him.

it isnt the fact on his age on how he looked but the fact he was 16 as the story after the facts. Guy had every right to arm and protect himself but once the kid was down and doesnt show that he is trying to get up, 5 more shots to finish him off is going to get him some time. Personally, he helped all of us out from possibly being ambushed by this thug in a future date but he went overboard. The 1st degree murder charges are a stretch for the prosecution and he might walk just based on those charges. If they file manslaughter or lesser degree of murder, the guy would get convicted and spend a few years in prison. I hope he walks based on the attorney generals obvious try at scoring points with what he thinks is a simpathetic public. I think he will have a tough time prosecuting him with a jury of peers.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 01:45 PM
I think he will have a tough time prosecuting him with a jury of peers.

I wouldn't convict him

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 01:49 PM
No you haven't.
You're saying I'm lying? LOL...don't be an idiot Kreskin.

I was robbed 1/2 a block from my appartment while with my fiance at the time...Chattanooga Tennessee...I actually rode with cops and went around looking for the guy in seedy little bars and clubs. Yeah...I know exactly what it feels like to have that happen, and be told at the time he was going to blow my head off.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 01:54 PM
You're saying I'm lying? LOL.


Yep.

What bars? I have spent a bunch of time Chat.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 01:54 PM
this wasnt "capital punishment"...this was self defense, and then an act of manslaughter after the fact.
Under OK law it was 1) not self defense, and 2) murder Sorry...you're wishful thinking doesn't come into play here.

Spider
06-01-2009, 01:56 PM
Hardly. The ideology is found in just about every culture throughout history. You will also find that the downfall of most societies throughout history generally coincide with society becoming weak. Bloated & dysfunctional government, justice system, tendency to rehabilitate or imprison rather than punish. Singapore is not a Muslim country and neither are several others that don't F around with criminals.

To say he's a hero is definitely extreme.

Remind me to visit your home planet some day

Dark Helmet
06-01-2009, 02:02 PM
I am not sure where you did your history studies, but you should probably ask about their refund policy.

Most if not all of the major civilizations that have crumbled have had significantly harsher justice systems than we see anywhere in the world today (with the possible exception of a few countries in the Middle-east). Most of them have been dictatorships, and most of them failed when society grew strong enough to rebel and overthrow their leaders.

To tie down one specific reason for the fall of any given civilization is impossible to argue as there's a conglomeration of events that a all contributors. In addition, I'm not about to write a freaking essay to to prove the point because that's just silly. That's why I said it's mainly due to the civilization becoming weak. Example: The Roman Empire....which by the way is the basis of our society.

Another example of this would be Mexico. Weak criminal justice system, corruption, poor leadership = failure.

____

Mexican civil society has begun to question the generosity of their country’s legal system. Mexico has no death penalty, and the maximum prison term -- seldom imposed -- is 60 years. Additionally, it has refused to extradite individuals facing “cruel and unusual” punishment.

But the wave of violence that has washed over Mexico this year is fast transforming the landscape of Mexican society as Mexicans’ views on “punishment” are hardening. This shift is not so much because of the violence itself – approximately 92 percent of the 5,400 people killed in Mexico this year were involved in the drug trade – but because innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire between the Mexican police and the cartels.

To understand the subtle shifts in attitude, consider how Mexico’s views of crime and punishment evolved. Based on the Napoleonic Code introduced in the 19th century – when Napoleon invaded Mexico and installed Maximilian as Emperor – Mexico, like most European countries, does not have jury trials and, although there is no presumption of innocence, only “probable” doubt has to be established.

Mexico’s legal system reflects Catholic sensibilities: the idea that no one is beyond redemption, that everyone is entitled to forgiveness, and that only God can end a person’s life. As a consequence, Mexico has reluctantly extradited people accused of crimes in other countries. Sentences of more than 25 years in prison are seldom imposed, and there is no capital punishment.

American officials have long complained of Mexico’s naïveté, arguing that under Mexican law, terrorists can walk free a quarter century after their crimes. Mexican officials, meanwhile, have argued that with time, people grow and change, and can redeem themselves.

But now that violence – gruesome slayings where mutilated or decapitated bodies are dumped in public view – is affecting ordinary society, Mexico is seeing a public backlash.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c118da04a178ed6ba1793 1772e1ccbe9

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 02:07 PM
Yep.

What bars? I have spent a bunch of time Chat.
Don't be a jerk...it was 1983.

Rohirrim
06-01-2009, 02:07 PM
He was just a kid. Lots of kids do stupid things at that age. Doesn't mean that's who they are for their entire life. Like that great speech Morgan Freeman gives in Shawshank Redemption saying if he could go back and talk to the kid he was, maybe it would change things - but he can't. Who knows what happened here? Maybe the unarmed kid just went in there with the armed kid because he was trying to be cool. Who knows? Getting shot was the payment for his foolishness. But he did not deserve to be executed.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 02:29 PM
What if they prove the first bullet killed him? Then what?

Rohirrim
06-01-2009, 02:35 PM
What if they prove the first bullet killed him? Then what?

Then he would be judged on the fact that his intent was to execute the kid.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 02:41 PM
What if they prove the first bullet killed him? Then what?
They won't even try. The pharmacist has already claimed he was moving. The ME's autopsy shows he was alive. It will take a court order to exhume the body.

Any more ideas?

gyldenlove
06-01-2009, 03:03 PM
To tie down one specific reason for the fall of any given civilization is impossible to argue as there's a conglomeration of events that a all contributors. In addition, I'm not about to write a freaking essay to to prove the point because that's just silly. That's why I said it's mainly due to the civilization becoming weak. Example: The Roman Empire....which by the way is the basis of our society.

Another example of this would be Mexico. Weak criminal justice system, corruption, poor leadership = failure.

____

Mexican civil society has begun to question the generosity of their country’s legal system. Mexico has no death penalty, and the maximum prison term -- seldom imposed -- is 60 years. Additionally, it has refused to extradite individuals facing “cruel and unusual” punishment.

But the wave of violence that has washed over Mexico this year is fast transforming the landscape of Mexican society as Mexicans’ views on “punishment” are hardening. This shift is not so much because of the violence itself – approximately 92 percent of the 5,400 people killed in Mexico this year were involved in the drug trade – but because innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire between the Mexican police and the cartels.

To understand the subtle shifts in attitude, consider how Mexico’s views of crime and punishment evolved. Based on the Napoleonic Code introduced in the 19th century – when Napoleon invaded Mexico and installed Maximilian as Emperor – Mexico, like most European countries, does not have jury trials and, although there is no presumption of innocence, only “probable” doubt has to be established.

Mexico’s legal system reflects Catholic sensibilities: the idea that no one is beyond redemption, that everyone is entitled to forgiveness, and that only God can end a person’s life. As a consequence, Mexico has reluctantly extradited people accused of crimes in other countries. Sentences of more than 25 years in prison are seldom imposed, and there is no capital punishment.

American officials have long complained of Mexico’s naïveté, arguing that under Mexican law, terrorists can walk free a quarter century after their crimes. Mexican officials, meanwhile, have argued that with time, people grow and change, and can redeem themselves.

But now that violence – gruesome slayings where mutilated or decapitated bodies are dumped in public view – is affecting ordinary society, Mexico is seeing a public backlash.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c118da04a178ed6ba1793 1772e1ccbe9

All of a sudden all the other more concrete reasons for the fall of civilizations disappear and they are replaced by the conveniently vague weak. Of course we can attribute failure as being weakness so you have a nice circular argument.

Oh, and very few things in our society is based on Rome. The main influences are pre-roman Greek city-state and anglican.

This has to be the first and only time I will ever see the Roman empire compared to modern day Mexico. Speak about your elephants and non-elephants, you will have to do better than that sparky.

SoonerBronco
06-01-2009, 03:59 PM
What if they prove the first bullet killed him? Then what?

Medical examiners report has already stated that the first bullet did not kill him.

Bronx33
06-01-2009, 04:06 PM
Question is ( was the kid a threat after the first bullet) to me it appears that he wasn't so iam going to say the extra 5 rounds were not needed and sadly the punk choose the wrong guy to rob.

gunns
06-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Reminds of when one of my kids was missing. Then we found him just messing around with one of his buddies you just want to hug them to death, and then you want to kill them as your adrenaline is still pumping and you hate that you had to go through that emotion. This seems similiar. Although it is hard to condone the extra shots, he was probably pissed beyond belief for being put in that position to begin with. If I were on a jury I don't know that I could judge the guys emotions at that time. Temporary insanity sounds plausible to me.

Sacked by Croel
06-01-2009, 11:39 PM
The first shot was self defense.

The five after were murderous. Lock him up.

Murderous? I can see manslaughter, but not first degree murder.

That guy was minding his own business, his life was threatened and he was provoked into this rampage.

None of us can truthfully say what we would have done unless we were in his shoes to experience it ourselves. It's easy to vilify the guy sitting behind a computer.

His life was threatened, of course he wasn't going to be of sound mind! His animal instincts could have set in and turned him into a monster for 30-40 seconds.

The guy should be punished, but he shouldn't be charged with first degree.

GreatBronco16
06-02-2009, 12:11 AM
None of us can truthfully say what we would have done unless we were in his shoes to experience it ourselves. It's easy to vilify the guy sitting behind a computer.



Exactly. Everyone would react differently. Some people, even knowing they have a gun to protect themself, would just clam up and do whatever the robbers say then possibly get killed. Other might be so shocked and scared that they can't get the gun out and shoot it, then in turn they get shot and killed.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you are being robbed, your life is in danger regardless if they have a weapon. What, are you gonna ask them to show theres first so you can show yours? Please.

Murder?? No. But we will find out what he gets.

Beantown Bronco
06-02-2009, 05:36 AM
I wonder how many of the "he's clearly guilty of murder" people here would even consider convicting this cashier of anything if the situation were a little different. Say, you walked in on this guy molesting your 6 or 7 year old daughter. You shot him in the head, and he was no longer a threat to you or the child, but you still decided to empty the clip in him after waiting 45 seconds.

If you were on that jury, would you convict the man of anything? If you are being consistent, you have to ignore the original crime which resulted in the shooting. All you are doing is evaluating the shooter's behavior after the first shot without context.

Broncojef
06-02-2009, 05:57 AM
If you come into a store with violence and rage on your mind willing to use force to rob or kill someone you get what you deserve. I'd give the guy a certificate of appreciation and a key to the city. Terrorists and viloent criminals have zero rights IMO...if thats what you are we are at war with you and any measure to stop you will be seen as a good thing.

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 08:21 AM
I have changed my mind---Here is a video clip with more information about the Pharmacist--turns out he is basically a cripple, incapable of wrestling with any of the would-be robbers--and if the 16 year old was in fact moving--he had every right to make sure that this robber would not be a threat to him or the two females who were working under him that day. He had no way of checking to see if the criminal was wounded to the point where he was certain to stay down or where the criminal had been shot b/c of the simple fact that this criminal posed a DANGER and because of that fact--he did the right thing in making sure that this criminal was no longer a threat. In fact I am going to donate to his defense fund.........

Jerome Ersland defense fund
Account# 10062837
The First National Bank and Trust Company
PO BOX 1130 Chickashaw Ok 73023


http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_2502.shtml

footstepsfrom#27
06-02-2009, 11:29 AM
I have changed my mind---Here is a video clip with more information about the Pharmacist--turns out he is basically a cripple, incapable of wrestling with any of the would-be robbers--and if the 16 year old was in fact moving--he had every right to make sure that this robber would not be a threat to him or the two females who were working under him that day. He had no way of checking to see if the criminal was wounded to the point where he was certain to stay down or where the criminal had been shot b/c of the simple fact that this criminal posed a DANGER and because of that fact--he did the right thing in making sure that this criminal was no longer a threat. In fact I am going to donate to his defense fund.........

Jerome Ersland defense fund
Account# 10062837
The First National Bank and Trust Company
PO BOX 1130 Chickashaw Ok 73023


http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_2502.shtml
"My response to them (people wanting the case dropped) is, you don't have all the evidence, I do."--District Attorney David Prater

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 11:36 AM
"My response to them (people wanting the case dropped) is, you don't have all the evidence, I do."--District Attorney David Prater

David Prater is an elected official who feels as though he is doing the right thing--The Pharmacist also felt as though he was doing the right thing by eliminating a threat to his person as well as two other females--Prater gets to pass judgement on the Pharmacist's actions by bringing charges and a jury will get to pass judgement on Prater's indictment...........

footstepsfrom#27
06-02-2009, 11:40 AM
David Prater is an elected official who feels as though he is doing the right thing--The Pharmacist also felt as though he was doing the right thing by eliminating a threat to his person as well as two other females--Prater gets to pass judgement on the Pharmacist's actions by bringing charges and a jury will get to pass judgement on Prater's indictment...........
None of which changes the truth of his statement.

Rohirrim
06-02-2009, 11:47 AM
I wonder how many of the "he's clearly guilty of murder" people here would even consider convicting this cashier of anything if the situation were a little different. Say, you walked in on this guy molesting your 6 or 7 year old daughter. You shot him in the head, and he was no longer a threat to you or the child, but you still decided to empty the clip in him after waiting 45 seconds.

If you were on that jury, would you convict the man of anything? If you are being consistent, you have to ignore the original crime which resulted in the shooting. All you are doing is evaluating the shooter's behavior after the first shot without context.


The context is that the kid was unarmed, unconscious, and no longer a threat.

Rohirrim
06-02-2009, 11:48 AM
I have changed my mind---Here is a video clip with more information about the Pharmacist--turns out he is basically a cripple, incapable of wrestling with any of the would-be robbers--and if the 16 year old was in fact moving--he had every right to make sure that this robber would not be a threat to him or the two females who were working under him that day. He had no way of checking to see if the criminal was wounded to the point where he was certain to stay down or where the criminal had been shot b/c of the simple fact that this criminal posed a DANGER and because of that fact--he did the right thing in making sure that this criminal was no longer a threat. In fact I am going to donate to his defense fund.........

Jerome Ersland defense fund
Account# 10062837
The First National Bank and Trust Company
PO BOX 1130 Chickashaw Ok 73023


http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_2502.shtml

If that was his intent he could have just knee-capped him.

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 11:50 AM
None of which changes the truth of his statement.

Prater's 'truth' has yet to be defined as such by a group of the Pharmacist's peers.......Prater has made a judgement call based upon the information that he has and the OK law---he can take his interpretations of those 'truths' and gently fit them into the charges against the Pharmacist and he did just that.

Spider
06-02-2009, 11:50 AM
I wonder how many of the "he's clearly guilty of murder" people here would even consider convicting this cashier of anything if the situation were a little different. Say, you walked in on this guy molesting your 6 or 7 year old daughter. You shot him in the head, and he was no longer a threat to you or the child, but you still decided to empty the clip in him after waiting 45 seconds.

If you were on that jury, would you convict the man of anything? If you are being consistent, you have to ignore the original crime which resulted in the shooting. All you are doing is evaluating the shooter's behavior after the first shot without context.

you cant change the scenario and expect an honest answer ,And Child molesting is a much different crime that raises different emotions and line of thinking then an armed Robbery ...........

Rohirrim
06-02-2009, 11:52 AM
Prater's 'truth' has yet to be defined as such by a group of the Pharmacist's peers.......Prater has made a judgement call based upon the information that he has and the OK law---he can take his interpretations of those 'truths' and gently fit them into the charges against the Pharmacist and he did just that.

That pharmacist and his attorney will have a tough time explaining away that video. If he shot him one more time, maybe. Five times? I doubt it. Then, there will be the autopsy report.

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 11:55 AM
If that was his intent he could have just knee-capped him.

And that would be to assume he was a skilled marksman--he was faced with a threat, the threat continued to move after he had emptied his initial weapon (that apparently was not fully loaded)--he had no idea if that threat has been injured to the point where the threat no longer posed a risk ---for example, what if the person on the ground HAD on his person a weapon and had enough strength to grab that weapon and shoot from the ground @ the RPh?) The RPh knew that these criminals were brazen enough to brandish the weapons upon entry into the store, how was he to know that the guy laying on the ground didn't have one? All it takes is one mistake, ONE FALSE assumption and the RPH would be dead INSTEAD of the CRIMINAL INSTIGATOR.

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 11:59 AM
That pharmacist and his attorney will have a tough time explaining away that video. If he shot him one more time, maybe. Five times? I doubt it. Then, there will be the autopsy report.

At my first glance, I thought the same thing--then after learning that this guy was in no shape to get into any type of hand-to-hand altercation coupled with the fact that these criminals entered the Pharmacy brandishing weapons in addition to the fact that the guy on the ground was still moving--I could see how the RPh would be compelled to eliminate ALL risk to himself and the two females in his store--how was he to know that the guy on the ground had no gun on him and that he was not capable of reaching for that gun and shooting @ the RPH?

Rohirrim
06-02-2009, 12:04 PM
At my first glance, I thought the same thing--then after learning that this guy was in no shape to get into any type of hand-to-hand altercation coupled with the fact that these criminals entered the Pharmacy brandishing weapons in addition to the fact that the guy on the ground was still moving--I could see how the RPh would be compelled to eliminate ALL risk to himself and the two females in his store--how was he to know that the guy on the ground had no gun on him and that he was not capable of reaching for that gun and shooting @ the RPH?

Watch the video again. He walks right past the kid without even looking at him - twice. Then, he gets a new gun, calmly walks over and executes him. If he was still worried about the kid, he could have taken the two other employees, walked out the back door, and left the premises until the police arrived.

footstepsfrom#27
06-02-2009, 12:06 PM
Prater's 'truth' has yet to be defined as such by a group of the Pharmacist's peers.......Prater has made a judgement call based upon the information that he has and the OK law---he can take his interpretations of those 'truths' and gently fit them into the charges against the Pharmacist and he did just that.
None of which changes the truth of his statement.

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 12:30 PM
Watch the video again. He walks right past the kid without even looking at him - twice. Then, he gets a new gun, calmly walks over and executes him. If he was still worried about the kid, he could have taken the two other employees, walked out the back door, and left the premises until the police arrived.

Why would you walk outside with 2 females not knowing how many of the criminals were outside or where they were? You could very well be walking right into more problems.The 3 of them were safer inside the store as they could lock the door which creates a slight barrier to any re-intrusions. --given that he elminated the risk of the criminal on the floor.