Mom Says Antwun Parker Was a Hero

[Uncle Slayton]

http://http://www.koco.com/mostpopul...85/detail.html

(Excerpt below)

OKLAHOMA CITY -- For the first time in a year, the mother of 16-year-old Antwun Parker, who was shot and killed by pharmacist Jerome Ersland, is speaking publicly.

According to police, Parker and a friend tried to rob the pharmacist at gunpoint in May 2009. Investigators said Ersland knocked Parker to the ground with one shot to the head, grabbed a different weapon and fired five more shots into his chest and abdomen.

"A coward is someone who will kill someone when they're done," said Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings. "That's not a hero. The real hero here is Antwun."

Jennings said that while her son did go into the pharmacy with a gun, she believes other people put him up to it.

"I know he was scared to death," she said. "I know Antwun was scared to death when he had to go into that pharmacy not under his own will."

In an exclusive interview with KOCO, Jennings said she was angry when she found out two pathologists with the Oklahoma County Medical Examiner's Office filed conflicting statements, potentially overturning the former chief's decision that Parker's cause of death was homicide.

"That man literally shot my son down, had no remorse, went back, got another gun, reloaded it and came back and shot him five more times," Jennings said.

[nighttrain12]

Once you get past the WTF? comments she made, it is interesting she said Antwun did go in the pharmacy with a gun. The police didn't find one at the scene though. Of course that doesn't matter in determining Ersland's guilt as the second robber clearly had a gun and Ersland naturally assumed both of them did have weapons.

[Midtowner]

The medical examiner has so thoroughly messed that case up that I think Prater is going to have a hell of a time getting a conviction. I don't pretend to know whether those last five shots were fired into a corpse or not, but calling Parker a "hero" here is just plum weetawded. He tried to rob a drug store. No matter what the choices were made by other folks on that day, Parker was in there trying to rob a drug store. He was a failed robber and no hero.

[kevinpate]

On the one hand, multiple variations on was the first shot a kill shot or not out of the ME office isn't supremely helpful to the state's position.
On the other hand, multiple variations of what happened and about his background out of the defendant's mouth isn't supremely helpful to the defense position.
And then there's the tape. Not an answer in and of itself, but useful for they jury when the 12 are assessing credibility of other evidence.

As for mom's comments, momma's love their babies.

[Midtowner]

On the one hand, multiple variations on was the first shot a kill shot or not out of the ME office isn't supremely helpful to the state's position.
On the other hand, multiple variations of what happened and about his background out of the defendant's mouth isn't supremely helpful to the defense position.
And then there's the tape. Not an answer in and of itself, but useful for they jury when the 12 are assessing credibility of other evidence.

As for mom's comments, momma's love their babies.

It's a good thing though that a high profile case such as this is helping to bring to light just how screwed up things are at the ME office. And frankly, if I'm a juror in an Oklahoma case where the ME's office is involved, the state's going to have to do some serious selling to get me to buy anything that office comes up with.

[kevinpate]

It's a good thing though that a high profile case such as this is helping to bring to light just how screwed up things are at the ME office. And frankly, if I'm a juror in an Oklahoma case where the ME's office is involved, the state's going to have to do some serious selling to get me to buy anything that office comes up with.

Not sure I'm all the way out there with you Mid, but I easily concede more than once in the last couple of years it has crossed my mind just how much I miss Fred Jordan.

[flintysooner]

The defendant is supposed to have the presumption of innocence. Seems to be certainly enough room for reasonable doubt based on what I've read thus far which admittedly might be less than what the jury knows.

[Uncle Slayton]

Lots of things don't help the state's case, mainly Prater's insufferable sanctimony and the ongoing version of the Curly Shuffle at the ME's office that makes everyone even remotely associated with science wince inwardly. And Ersland isn't that sympathetic a character. He's odd in a somewhat creepy sort of way, not someone you'd normally pick as 'hero material'.

A more cynical, jaded person might say the real hero here is Charles Darwin. But that'd be cold.

[BBatesokc]

I personally don't think the ME's office is going to be that big of a 'problem' in this case. When you remove all the hype, none of the findings are all that different. I know Dr. Trant (formerly the Chief ME) and have spoken to him several times and he's an extremely smart, kind and professional person. The only problem or discrepancy comes down to the definition of "fatal" and under what conditions the first shot to the deceased's head would have caused death. Anyone who has actually read the reports knows there is no real dispute that the victim was 'alive' when he was shot again repeatedly by Ersland due to the presence of blood in the lungs that was pumped from a beating heart. The questions are was he conscious and how imminent would death have been if the head shot was the only shot fired.

In my opinion the biggest problems are in the defense camp. You've got a defense lawyer who foolishly allowed his client to talk way too much and neither the defense lawyer or the defendant can seem to pick a defense and stick to it. First, Ersland was justified because the victim was moving for a non-existent gun and posed a threat. Then, he's innocent because the first shot was justified and it killed him so the subsequent shots were fired into a corpse.

All that said though, I highly doubt any jury in Oklahoma will find Ersland guilty of anything with the word 'murder' in it.

[Midtowner]

If he was alive and the shots fired hastened death, then you have a murder.

[nighttrain12]

If he was alive and the shots fired hastened death, then you have a murder.

Not if the 'vigilante pharmicist' thought he was still a threat to him.

[BBatesokc]

If he was alive and the shots fired hastened death, then you have a murder.

Not if a jury believes he "perceived" the boy to be a threat. I think how each camp explains the application of "perceived" under the law and in this situation is going to be key in this case. While I personally feel Ersland should face some sort of charge (even if only for discharging his first gun recklessly across four lanes of traffic on S. Penn) it shouldn't be any real act of magic to convince a jury that in the 30 seconds following an armed robbery the victim could still perceive a possibly moving robber as a threat.

[Thunder]

... Its over. Old news to me. The kid is dead. 6 feet under where he deserved. The mother is on drugs, so she dunno what the hell she was saying. The real hero is the Pharmacist. Game over.

[kevinpate]

Some of the problems the defense will have to overcome developed before Box was in the case, if my memory serves correctly.
It's not ideal when it happens, but this is not the first defense team to take a seat at the table after the cards are already dealt.

[flintysooner]

It is a sad story. It easily could have been a different outcome and we would be discussing how awful it was that the kid killed the pharmacist and the two women.

I read an article yesterday about a 14 year old girl who killed a man she was robbing because he laughed. First thing I thought about when I read the article was the Jerome Ersland case even though the facts were substantially different.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...uspect_ca.html

The age of the criminal doesn't seem to make much difference to the gun or the bullet or the death of the victim.

[OKCisOK4me]

Ummmm, what his momma said, that's takin it a little too far!

In regards to this case, I hope Jerome is convicted for murder. How old was this kid again? Do you think he had enough years of deceitfulness to want to create a threatful move whilst laying on the floor of the pharmacy?? I don't think it was his intention to try to get away while laying on the ground with a gun pointed at him. For all we know, it could have been a reaction from his nervous system because of where the first bullet went in. Maybe having been shot he was in shock and his body twitched. Did he deserve that first bullet? Most definitely so--he was robbing the place. But multiple shots afterward for God knows why?

I agree with poster above, I'm definitely a tad bit skeptical of this Ersland cat. For all we know, he was thrown into a PTSD mode and thought an Iraqi was at his feet. I think in an act of war it's probably justified to shoot an enemy multiple times to defend your life if you think you will be cleared by your superiors for that kind of action but in America with a court of law and a jury? They better be glad I'm not on that jury cause I believe that this guy deserves death. And I would pray that it goes that way. I don't think there will be a riot if this guy goes free but OKC doesn't need to be put on the map for the wrong reasons...

[Edmond_Outsider]

There are no heros in this case.

Vigilantism will always be wrong. Ersland had lots of options after his first shot. He choose to seek vengence not self-defence. If Parker was a threat, he left his employees vulnerable so he didn't even choose to protect his people.

He choose vengence and vengence isn't covered under self-defense.

All he had to do was stand over Parker and wait for the police. Had he done that, there would be no issue. Clean shot within his rights.

I'm a bit conflicted over using lethal force over property as a personal choice. As a societal choice, it seems reasonable to allow self-defence.

This isn't that.

[BBatesokc]

There are no heros in this case.

Vigilantism will always be wrong. Ersland had lots of options after his first shot. He choose to seek vengence not self-defence. If Parker was a threat, he left his employees vulnerable so he didn't even choose to protect his people.

He choose vengence and vengence isn't covered under self-defense.

All he had to do was stand over Parker and wait for the police. Had he done that, there would be no issue. Clean shot within his rights.

I'm a bit conflicted over using lethal force over property as a personal choice. As a societal choice, it seems reasonable to allow self-defence.

This isn't that.

Interesting take, but I don't think a jury would ever be convinced that 'vengeance' was an element of any professed crime in this case. Its very easy to sit back and watch the surveillance video over and over and determine what could and should have taken place. The reality is Ersland reported for work that day like any other day. In an instant two young thugs (at the prompting of older more cowardly thugs) entered the pharmacy, produced a weapon and proceeded to rob the place. That same pharmacy had been victimized by robbers in the past and the most recent robbery resulting in the pistol whipping of at least one employee. The danger in the area was so great you had to be buzzed in/out of the pharmacy itself. Unfortunately we are individuals and as such we each have our own individual response to any given stimuli. I dare say many people would have simply froze when confronted with an armed robber and very well could have been killed. Others would have calmly complied and possibly lived or been killed. While others would have done exactly what Ersland did and gone for their weapon to protect themselves, their co-workers and any patrons.

As hypocritical as it may sound, I truly believe DA Prater was bound by his oath of office to prosecute Ersland and the jury is just as obligated to find him innocent of murder.

[bluedogok]

There are no heros in this case.

I would say that statement is pretty accurate, certainly not the the original criminal which precipitated this case even though his mother seems to think so. Some people just won't accept what their children really are.

Vigilantism will always be wrong. Ersland had lots of options after his first shot. He choose to seek vengence not self-defence. If Parker was a threat, he left his employees vulnerable so he didn't even choose to protect his people.

He choose vengence and vengence isn't covered under self-defense.

All he had to do was stand over Parker and wait for the police. Had he done that, there would be no issue. Clean shot within his rights.

Sure he may have "gone off" but after awhile you get sick and tired of dealing with the scum that criminals like this are. I still find it ridiculous that one bullet is OK but multiple bullets are not, talk about splitting hairs. Talk to any police officer, paramedic/fireman about dealing with an injured patient and many times persons with multiple gunshot wounds can still fight. My cousin was working at a hospital emergency room in Sacramento while she was in nursing school, they brought in an obvious gang shooting victim and he had 22 entry wounds and was still alive, he and had to be restrained to be attend to. Someone who has served in combat has probably seen similar feats of those who have been injured and I could see why they wouldn't stop until they thought they were sure the other person was dead. That is not murder, that is the "kill or be killed" survival mentality.

I'm a bit conflicted over using lethal force over property as a personal choice. As a societal choice, it seems reasonable to allow self-defence.

This isn't that.

Anytime YOUR property is threatened it erodes a bit of your "self" as well as I have found out with my home being burglarized twice in the past year. They are not only stealing "things" they are stealing away a bit of the victim as well. Every time I come home I am wary of the door being left open like it was that day and I would have no qualms about sending the perpetrator out of MY HOME in a body bag. The thought that a criminal is a victim in these type of cases is absurd at best.

To me if someone makes the conscious decision to commit a crime of this nature, then they by their action they consent to the possible outcomes which could be arrest or death. I weep for no one (including this kid) who makes that choice to PUT THEIR OWN LIVES AT RISK in the commission of a crime. That is part of the price they pay for the wrong decision. If Antwun hadn't of committed the crime, he would still be alive...that is what seems to get lost.

[gen70]

I would say that statement is pretty accurate, certainly not the the original criminal which precipitated this case even though his mother seems to think so. Some people just won't accept what their children really are.


Sure he may have "gone off" but after awhile you get sick and tired of dealing with the scum that criminals like this are. I still find it ridiculous that one bullet is OK but multiple bullets are not, talk about splitting hairs. Talk to any police officer, paramedic/fireman about dealing with an injured patient and many times persons with multiple gunshot wounds can still fight. My cousin was working at a hospital emergency room in Sacramento while she was in nursing school, they brought in an obvious gang shooting victim and he had 22 entry wounds and was still alive, he and had to be restrained to be attend to. Someone who has served in combat has probably seen similar feats of those who have been injured and I could see why they wouldn't stop until they thought they were sure the other person was dead. That is not murder, that is the "kill or be killed" survival mentality.


Anytime YOUR property is threatened it erodes a bit of your "self" as well as I have found out with my home being burglarized twice in the past year. They are not only stealing "things" they are stealing away a bit of the victim as well. Every time I come home I am wary of the door being left open like it was that day and I would have no qualms about sending the perpetrator out of MY HOME in a body bag. The thought that a criminal is a victim in these type of cases is absurd at best.

To me if someone makes the conscious decision to commit a crime of this nature, then they by their action they consent to the possible outcomes which could be arrest or death. I weep for no one (including this kid) who makes that choice to PUT THEIR OWN LIVES AT RISK in the commission of a crime. That is part of the price they pay for the wrong decision. If Antwun hadn't of committed the crime, he would still be alive...that is what seems to get lost.

Agreed..

[kevinpate]

Whenever the defense atty elected to press an on the record motion to remove the judge from a case, it was a foregone conclusion he would continue the process to the next step if, as here, the trial judge did not recuse. Anything less would give the appearance the effort was a tactic unrelated to the judge, and only a rube would put himself in that position. Whatever else anyone may or may not think of lead defense counsel in the case, he's not a rube.

That said, if one were wanting to wager, go ahead and bet on Judge Elliot hearing this case, barring any unknown health issues between now and the kickoff for jury pickin'

[Double Edge]

A pharmacist lost again today in his legal effort to get a different judge to oversee his murder trial.

Oklahoma County District Judge Bill Graves refused to disqualify District Judge Ray C. Elliott from the trial.

The pharmacist's defense attorneys now will ask the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to disqualify Elliott.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-phar...#ixzz1BQOP9h2G

[kevinpate]

It's not really whether 1 is ok, but many are bad.
It's more like one opportunity to shoot (whether 1 or several rounds) can be seen as self defense, but then departing the store after the other perp, coming back, realizing your empty, walking over to take aother firearm, walking back, looking down at a perp, emptying a clip into a downed perp, then subsequently telling a variety of tales of just what it was that took place, and misrepresenting your background along the way, along with other evidence from the scene, body, etc. does raise a fair question for a jury to hear it all, assess what is the most credible and then decide whether the conduct constitutes murder, or a lesser crime or whether a reasonable doubt exists as to whether a crime occurred at all.

I can see how Prater reached the decision to charge murder one. It'll be up to the 12 jurors to decide if, in their opinion, that was overreaching.

One thing I am convinced of - the defendant here, like so many before him, lacks any significant filtering mechanism between his brain and his lips.

[BBatesokc]

I'll be very curious to see what is deemed inadmissible as far as previous statements, etc.

[sharpshooter]

Ersland will never be convicted. Prater won't find 12 jurors here that will agree to convict Ersland of anything. Things might be different if this all went down on the left or right coast, but not here.

As for Parker's mother saying her son is a hero; rediculous! A good reporter would have asked her just exactly what it was that her son did that was heroic.