Brian, what does a juror's private life have to do with the case? And, why in the world are you giving FOX25 an interview/tip? That is stepping over the line a bit, Brian, as it does not really concern you. I do not know why you would put yourself in this situation. Please, explain to me.

Thunder, once again you are proving yourself clueless to the world around you.

Thunder, once again you are proving yourself clueless to the world around you.

No. I want to know what gave you the right to interfere in this case about a juror.

No. I want to know what gave you the right to interfere in this case about a juror.

Do you even know what you're talking about? The story was just on, it was news, and if you're so concerned then you should have watched it. I'm sure it will be on okcfox.com soon.

No, I was just trying to sleep, so I'm back on. Why are you not sharing this with everyone? Why does it always have to be you, you, you, on a lot of cases?

No, I was just trying to sleep, so I'm back on. Why are you not sharing this with everyone? Why does it always have to be you, you, you, on a lot of cases?

Just keep going Thunder..... Keep making your case for something you don't know anything about. You don't even know what you're complaining about - how could you, you didn't see the news story and you made assumptions based on nothing. At least you're consistent.

I'm not making a case. I'm not complaining about anything. I simply asked you a question and you refused to answer. I want to know why did the news media go to you about a juror's misconduct. I want to know why it is you that is providing info to the news media. Why, why, why?

I'm not making a case. I'm not complaining about anything. I simply asked you a question and you refused to answer. I want to know why did the news media go to you about a juror's misconduct. I want to know why it is you that is providing info to the news media. Why, why, why?

He provides information/evidence that he's concerned about to the police and/or media, as we all should. While I don't always agree with his methods, Brian is very good at what he does.

According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by Eyewitness News 5 reporter Amanda Guerra, Jennings is suing Ersland for "grief, loss of companionship and love of Antwun Rayshaun Parker, destruction of the parent-child relationship, funeral expense, pecuniary loss, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees in this matter, and any and all such further relief to which she is entitled in law and in equity."

This is the funniest thing ive read in quite some time. Maybe Ersland can file a countersuit for allowing her "good boy" to place a huge part in ruining his life.
My God i hope this lady isnt still breeding or voting.

Sounds like you remember the facts around my situation about as well as you remember Ersland's (which isn't saying much). Lets see, mine was all dropped and I never skipped a beat. Don't see Ersland's ending quite the same way.

You're exactly right, Brian. You could also teach another poster here that prosecutors do - in fact - sometimes go off like loose cannons and can become fixated. In fact, I could mark you as "Exhibit A" when it comes to that. (I'm not talking about the Ersland case here at all, btw.)

You're exactly right, Brian. You could also teach another poster here that prosecutors do - in fact - sometimes go off like loose cannons and can become fixated. In fact, I could mark you as "Exhibit A" when it comes to that. (I'm not talking about the Ersland case here at all, btw.)

Yeah, I'm sorta the poster child for "When DA's implode their career exercising personal vendettas."

According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by Eyewitness News 5 reporter Amanda Guerra, Jennings is suing Ersland for "grief, loss of companionship and love of Antwun Rayshaun Parker, destruction of the parent-child relationship, funeral expense, pecuniary loss, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees in this matter, and any and all such further relief to which she is entitled in law and in equity."

This is the funniest thing ive read in quite some time. Maybe Ersland can file a countersuit for allowing her "good boy" to place a huge part in ruining his life.
My God i hope this lady isnt still breeding or voting.

I agree. I hope she reads this thread, cuz I want her to know how stupid she is.

Here is a link to juror story..... http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_3358.shtml

Do you see the news value now Thunder? I have no idea how you equated 'juror misconduct' with me digging into her personal life or disrupting the case. Lying to get on a jury is a serious offense both legally and morally. What is surprising is that even though this case is being covered heavily by all the media, non of them caught it to report it.

Here's the charge on OSCN http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2737033&db=Oklahoma (Odd, they set the hearing for Saturday morning - don't see that happening).

Was that another juror/facebook incident, or the same one previously mentioned here?

Punishment is up to Elliot, but instead of jail or community service, if he really wanted to punish, he could always make the errant juror come back and sit in the peanut gallery and watch the next few jury pickin' sessions in his courtroom. Now that's a punishment.

I actually agree with you completely. The kid was scum and, as I've said before, I'd like to see Ersland get a medal. But, the courts are supposed to uphold current law, not do what might be morally right. And Ersland broke the law that the court is supposed to uphold. I also agree, if he hadn't had a gun at all it might have been the end for three innocent people. But, he went too far in re-entering the building, walking almost over the kid, getting a second gun and unloading it. As it is, if Ersland is found not guilty it could set up a precedent that could be used for anti-personal defense activists to use to try to overturn "Make My Day" and concealed carry. I don't want to see that happen.


Not at all, Sooner. He was gold up until he executed the kid. He was completely within the law in shooting him, and would have been in shooting Ingram. He could have kept himself safe by covering Antwun with his weapon from cover and calling 911. Instead, he made sure the kid had no chance for survival. He exceeded his rights with action, and no one ever had that right.

I know he was fine until he went back and got the second gun. Then he went too far. You could say at that point he was a crazy guy with a gun. That's the kind of thing I'm worried about anti-gun folks using against those of us who carry. It's what he did wrong that's the problem, not what he did right.

Was that another juror/facebook incident, or the same one previously mentioned here?

Punishment is up to Elliot, but instead of jail or community service, if he really wanted to punish, he could always make the errant juror come back and sit in the peanut gallery and watch the next few jury pickin' sessions in his courtroom. Now that's a punishment.

Same case. I just mentioned it in passing here the other day assuming the media picked up on it, but they didn't. It was only mentioned vaguely in the courtroom, so I guess they didn't realize what they were hearing.

On the TODAY show this morning they did a piece on how prosecutors, defense attorneys and even the media (well not our media) all routinely cross check jurors with social media sites. They had some clips of potential jurors in the Kasey Anthony trial being confronted by tweets, FaceBook posts and even a mug shot of a guy who claimed he'd never been arrested before.

I was involved in a case awhile back where the husband of a juror contacted the defense attorney in the case and said he could get his wife to vote not guilty and at least cause a hung jury is the defendant would pay off his house! Needless to say we wires the attorney up and got the husband on tape and he was arrested.

Its really amazing to see the amount of people that seem to be against Mr Ersland. There is something called cause and effect and action and reaction. If the thugs didnt decide to commit a felony none of this would even matter. What if Ersland wasnt carrying that day? Would we be talking about a pharmacist and female employess lined up and shot in the back room? And shouldnt the mother take some responsiblilty in this instead of proclaiming my son was a hero and looking for a payday? Regardless whether or not Ersland has any social skills or works full or part time hes surely making a better contribution to society then commiting felonys or having numerous cases against you for unpaid rent I have also heard that Antwun already had a lenghty rap sheet but i cant find anything online to confirm/deny this.
Everything in this case is so twisted so upside down its enough to make your head swim. Dosnt anyone have the guts to speak up and tell the mother that her son was comitting a violent felony and sometimes when you put yourself in these types of situations the outcome can be tragic?

All these what if's and talk about how bad the mom is really makes no difference. The FACT is, he did the right thing but took it way too far. He murdered a kid and should be punished.

Thank you, I thought so myself.

You are great at avoiding questions and ignorning the facts. Typical.

I know he was fine until he went back and got the second gun. Then he went too far. You could say at that point he was a crazy guy with a gun. That's the kind of thing I'm worried about anti-gun folks using against those of us who carry. It's what he did wrong that's the problem, not what he did right.

He was fine until he went out the door after the 2nd robber. His life was no longer threatened after the guy left the store and he put other people lives in danger when he went chasing after him. If he would have shot and killed the 2nd robber outside the store he probably would have been charge in his death too.

He was fine until he went out the door after the 2nd robber. His life was no longer threatened after the guy left the store and he put other people lives in danger when he went chasing after him. If he would have shot and killed the 2nd robber outside the store he probably would have been charge in his death too.

I was kind of shocked he wasn't charged with reckless endangerment for firing those shots outside. Remember he was using a Taurus 'Judge' with .410 shells. He's lucky he didn't pepper innocent bystanders or cars driving by.

He was fine until he went out the door after the 2nd robber. His life was no longer threatened after the guy left the store and he put other people lives in danger when he went chasing after him. If he would have shot and killed the 2nd robber outside the store he probably would have been charge in his death too.


I was kind of shocked he wasn't charged with reckless endangerment for firing those shots outside. Remember he was using a Taurus 'Judge' with .410 shells. He's lucky he didn't pepper innocent bystanders or cars driving by.

Both true.

I was kind of shocked he wasn't charged with reckless endangerment for firing those shots outside. Remember he was using a Taurus 'Judge' with .410 shells. He's lucky he didn't pepper innocent bystanders or cars driving by.

I 'spect they were willing to give a robbery victim the benefit of the doubt on that one, especially since no one was hurt. Plus, with the murder charge, that would just be piling on.

I was involved in a case awhile back where the husband of a juror contacted the defense attorney in the case and said he could get his wife to vote not guilty and at least cause a hung jury is the defendant would pay off his house! Needless to say we wires the attorney up and got the husband on tape and he was arrested

When you see things like this, you have to wonder how some people have enough sense to remember to breathe.

When you see things like this, you have to wonder how some people have enough sense to remember to breathe.

Stupid and Greedy are close cousins. Outside of a Grisham novel, you don't end to hear of people trying to rig juries for altruistic reasons.

Just an FYI, 9 reports they have their 12 for the jury, but are still working on selecting the alternates.
About 2 to 1 women to men, age range 20's to 60's

Just an FYI, 9 reports they have their 12 for the jury, but are still working on selecting the alternates.
About 2 to 1 women to men, age range 20's to 60's

They got a late start due to a juror who arrived late. Didn't start today until about 11am. The Judge was adamant he wanted to start the trial today, but I don't know if that's going to happen. They still have some small matter to hear sides on first.

Jury is picked. They are now choosing alternates. I was in the alternate pool but was excused.

Jury is picked. They are now choosing alternates. I was in the alternate pool but was excused.

Court will start tomorrow at 9am. No time for opening statements today.

I know he was fine until he went back and got the second gun. Then he went too far. You could say at that point he was a crazy guy with a gun. That's the kind of thing I'm worried about anti-gun folks using against those of us who carry. It's what he did wrong that's the problem, not what he did right.
They're always going to grasp at anything that paints gun owners in a negative light. That's just the way things are.

Same case. I just mentioned it in passing here the other day assuming the media picked up on it, but they didn't. It was only mentioned vaguely in the courtroom, so I guess they didn't realize what they were hearing.

On the TODAY show this morning they did a piece on how prosecutors, defense attorneys and even the media (well not our media) all routinely cross check jurors with social media sites. They had some clips of potential jurors in the Kasey Anthony trial being confronted by tweets, FaceBook posts and even a mug shot of a guy who claimed he'd never been arrested before.

I was involved in a case awhile back where the husband of a juror contacted the defense attorney in the case and said he could get his wife to vote not guilty and at least cause a hung jury is the defendant would pay off his house! Needless to say we wires the attorney up and got the husband on tape and he was arrested.

I recently charged a defendant with threatening a violent act. It amazes me that not only would some idiots post that sort of thing on FB, but that they would leave their privacy settings open to the PUBLIC so that the police can print it out and use it as evidence against them.

They're always going to grasp at anything that paints gun owners in a negative light. That's just the way things are.

Well aware. Just don't want to give them any freebies.

Opening statements at 9am. I'm headed there early, its going to be packed.

The thread that would not die...

I saw something on the news yesterday or the day before. TWO YEARS anniversary... WOW!

He is not a cry baby. Put yourself in his shoes.

Its really stupid for all these hotshot lawyers/attorneys to charge $5,000-$10,000 or more a day. REALLY STUPID!

I'd like some kind of laws passed to cap such outrageous rates.

Anyway, Oklahomans really need to get together and start donating toward his defense funds. Send a message to the DA that the people will be backing him up.

Honestly, the DA got no case. We all saw the video. Its inconclusive. Who cares what he did/say afterward. The focus of the case/charges is the event that took place inside the pharmacy. The video did not show the whole bad boy on the floor. The jury could see it as the boy still having a gun in his hand and was a threat.

Brian, I am curious as to why you are attending the trial. Are you with the media or something? Why would you be given special access inside the court room? Its a good thing that you are not on the jury... Geez, what you posted on here is frightening, dude.

You say the David Prater has no case I have seen him prosecute cases before where there was less evidence then in this one. I have seen him prosecute cases with no merit at all and no evidence either but then he is the all powerful David Prater what he says goes. As far as Ersland complaining about his legal fees he knew what it was going to cost when he hired Irven Box if he didn't want to pay it he didn't have to hire him. He should know by now our legal system has nothing to do with guilt or innocense anymore it is all about how much money you have. The only other chance you have is to demand a jury trial and pray you get an honest jury.

I recently charged a defendant with threatening a violent act. It amazes me that not only would some idiots post that sort of thing on FB, but that they would leave their privacy settings open to the PUBLIC so that the police can print it out and use it as evidence against them.

This was before FaceBook, but I was a testifying witness at the Yucatan Liquor Stand murder case. A big piece of evidence against the shooter was the fact he actually had pictures taken of him holding a gun in one hand and the victim's belongings in another hand. Sort of a 90's profile pic or Tweet I bet he wishes he could take back.

Only two active threads, this one and the other one for the trial, so I'm posting it here.

Old article, but thought it be interesting to read.

http://angrywhitedude.com/tag/antwun-parker/

Yep the article pretty much hits the nail on the head. I hope that Mr Ersland files a countersuit again Cleta Jennings for being a unfit mother as well as holding her responsible for her kids actions.

wow... do you need to wear a pointed white hat when you surf that site?

Yep the article pretty much hits the nail on the head. I hope that Mr Ersland files a countersuit again Cleta Jennings for being a unfit mother as well as holding her responsible for her kids actions.

Just a simple question. Does the mom's actions justify killing her son?

Having worked at a pharmacy in Norman while a student at OU, and having had a gun pointed at me twice, and having been ordered to lie face down on the floor while Sirloin Stockade images flashed thru my head, I can say that adrenalin and the survival instinct take over and you stay in that state until well after the incident concludes. A thinking person probably would've realized the threat was neutralized, but a person's whose animal instincts are in overdrive...well you need to experience it for yourself.

Bottom line...if you pull a gun on another person, don't be surprised if the end results don't suit you.

Curious as to how much the jury will factor Ersland not testifying. Yes I know he has that right, however in self defense claims, many speculate the jury likes to hear the defendant's own story.

Yep the article pretty much hits the nail on the head. I hope that Mr Ersland files a countersuit again Cleta Jennings for being a unfit mother as well as holding her responsible for her kids actions.

That would go nowhere fast.

Curious as to how much the jury will factor Ersland not testifying. Yes I know he has that right, however in self defense claims, many speculate the jury likes to hear the defendant's own story.

Actually, in most every murder/manslaughter case I've observed, the defendant does not take the stand.

Just a simple question. Does the mom's actions justify killing her son?
No, but mom getting a bundle doesn't bring him back, either. If she was all that worried about him, she might have worked a little harder at keeping him out of harm's way while he was alive. For her to profit from his death (and in my opinon, it was her own negligence that resulted in the child trying to rob someone in the first place) is repulsive. It is really apples and oranges. Do we really want parents to produce children, expose them to bad influences that lead the child to be a menace to society, then when the child is gunned down, write a check to the parent? IMO, it is appropriate to say the mother deserves NOTHING without saying the child deserved to die. IMO, the kid was a victim before he ever walked into the pharmacy intent on robbing it. His victimhood didn't mean he shouldn't have been reasonably punished but at the same time, the mother might as well have shoved him through the pharmacy door, as far as I am concerned.

Actually, in most every murder/manslaughter case I've observed, the defendant does not take the stand.

And in the cases where they do take the stand, it generally does not play out well. Primarily because the defendant has previously, as here, had fairly loose lips with various versions that come back in his or her face, or had done something he probably shouldn't have attempted. Imagine if you will, this defendant on the stand and being grilled about faking the gunshot wound or his versions of his military service. Or explaining how running out and leaving Parker (whom Ersland first claimed was armed) in the store alone with the women, or not shooting the gun who allegedly had the shotgun outside but did shoot the gun inside with no gun because he (maybe) moved. I imagine most defense attorneys would take the approach that rolling a lot of the evidence before a jury just once was more than enough.

That would go nowhere fast.

Probably so..........Just about as silly as her civil suit....

According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by Eyewitness News 5 reporter Amanda Guerra, Jennings is suing Ersland for "grief, loss of companionship and love of Antwun Rayshaun Parker, destruction of the parent-child relationship, funeral expense, pecuniary loss, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees in this matter, and any and all such further relief to which she is entitled in law and in equity."

Read more: http://www.koco.com/news/27934743/detail.html#ixzz1NTWfIw1e

And in the cases where they do take the stand, it generally does not play out well. Primarily because the defendant has previously, as here, had fairly loose lips with various versions that come back in his or her face, or had done something he probably shouldn't have attempted. Imagine if you will, this defendant on the stand and being grilled about faking the gunshot wound or his versions of his military service. Or explaining how running out and leaving Parker (whom Ersland first claimed was armed) in the store alone with the women, or not shooting the gun who allegedly had the shotgun outside but did shoot the gun inside with no gun because he (maybe) moved. I imagine most defense attorneys would take the approach that rolling a lot of the evidence before a jury just once was more than enough.

Well aware of all the above as well as the downfalls of his testifying. I was just wondering on the lay jurors perspective though.

pecuniary loss

i.e., her share of his future earnings as a robber that were tragically cut short...

Probably so..........Just about as silly as her civil suit....

According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by Eyewitness News 5 reporter Amanda Guerra, Jennings is suing Ersland for "grief, loss of companionship and love of Antwun Rayshaun Parker, destruction of the parent-child relationship, funeral expense, pecuniary loss, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees in this matter, and any and all such further relief to which she is entitled in law and in equity."

Read more: http://www.koco.com/news/27934743/detail.html#ixzz1NTWfIw1e

Actually, her lawsuit could have 'some' merit - but only if Ersland is found guilty. But, if he is, I don't know what she thinks she'll collect. He has no liquid assets or otherwise.

i.e., her share of his future earnings as a robber that were tragically cut short...

There are lots of people who in their youth did some very stupid things have turned their life around and became productive members of society.

There are lots of people who in their youth did some very stupid things have turned their life around and became productive members of society.

Guilty.

There are lots of people who in their youth did some very stupid things have turned their life around and became productive members of society.

Yeah, like painting the graffiti bridge.

Yes, of course people turn things around. We have all see that happen and we've all seen kids that somehow thrive when their parents are the scum of the earth. But this is a case where seeking those damages has to go with the odds. And the odds that someone who has next to no family support, who has been exposed to bad company by his family from a young age and who is robbing pharmacies in his early/mid teens isn't likely to turn around and make something of himself. And if he does, it would be in spite of his mother, not because of her. For her to get a single dime off those types of damages is sickening. That is like allowing a child to murder a loving parent and then collect the life insurance. This mother has done just about everything she can to make sure that child had no economic future. I wish he'd had a chance to turn his life around. Anyone with a heart would. But I don't think that mother is entitled to anything and for her to get these types of damages sets the whole reason for those damages on its head.

Actually, her lawsuit could have 'some' merit - but only if Ersland is found guilty.

Did you mean only if he is found guilty in the criminal case? Did you miss the OJ criminal and civil trials? The burden of proof was different between the two. How would this be different? Are our laws that different from CA?


But, if he is, I don't know what she thinks she'll collect. He has no liquid assets or otherwise.

Who owns the pharmacy? If he is not the owner was he acting as an employee? Did the owner insure adequate training for the firearms they apparently condoned being in the workplace or did they act negligently?

Did you mean only if he is found guilty in the criminal case? Did you miss the OJ criminal and civil trials? The burden of proof was different between the two. How would this be different? Are our laws that different from CA?

Oklahoma law is very diffrent then CA law.


TITLE 21 § 1289.25. Physical or deadly force against intruder

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

Did you mean only if he is found guilty in the criminal case? Did you miss the OJ criminal and civil trials? The burden of proof was different between the two. How would this be different? Are our laws that different from CA?



Who owns the pharmacy? If he is not the owner was he acting as an employee? Did the owner insure adequate training for the firearms they apparently condoned being in the workplace or did they act negligently?

Ersland was only a part time employee. If he is acquitted she won't have a chance against the pharmacy owner (aka, owner's insurance).

A criminal charge has a higher standard of proof than a civil suit. In other words, to find someone guilty of a criminal charge, you have to find that he/she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Heavy burden and much harder to accomplish than finding someone liable in a civil suit.

The burden of proof in a civil suit (the one the mother is bringing) is generally preponderance of the evidence. Sort of like 51%. The burden is more likely than not, even if just a smidgen more. So someone who is found not guilty of a criminal charge may still easily be found civily liable. But someone who is found not guilty in a civil suit is really unlikely to lose a criminal trial because it is harder to convict in the first place.

As to the civil suit, my argument was related to damages the mother might or should receive if she prevailed. Pain and suffering, loss of companionship, blah, blah - I am not necessarily saying she shouldn't get those. It was the pecuniary damages that yanked my chain.

Ersland was only a part time employee. If he is acquitted she won't have a chance against the pharmacy owner (aka, owner's insurance).

So...he was an employee, who acted criminally while on duty, possibly with a company owned weapon, in the what may or may not have been part of his job for which he may or may not have received any training or for which his employer may or may not have done due diligence in finding out his competence.

So...he was an employee, who acted criminally while on duty, possibly with a company owned weapon, in the what may or may not have been part of his job for which he may or may not have received any training or for which his employer may or may not have done due diligence in finding out his competence.

Like I said, "if he is acquitted." Since he was convicted, its a whole new story.

I imagine Cleta Jennings saw $$ signs in her eyes after todays verdict.
All that wonderful hard work you put in parenting has finally paid off.
Cha-Ching.
Isnt America wonderful?

There are lots of people who in their youth did some very stupid things have turned their life around and became productive members of society.

There are not, however, many people who in their youth carried out armed robberies.