http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTNvdhj4jgG6QSuzxN5K1Y527XxQD98G7N00

Seems Antwun Parker and his wing man, Jevontia Ingram thought it would be a good idea to pull guns on pharmacist Jerome Erslund and a few of his customers.

However, Jerome whipped out a pistol and shot Antwun in the head, and chased Jevontia out of the store.  He returned, got another "just in case" pistol, and pumped 5 more shots into Antwun's body.  (Likely while Jevontia was changing his underwear)

Jerome is now charged with First Degree murder as is Jevontia. (Unfortunately for him, it was not the head shot that killed Antwun, it was the body shots.)

My guess is that Jevontia will be properly charged with SECOND degree murder (a death resulting as the product of commission of a crime) and the worst Jerome will be charged with is manslaughter, because he will be able to claim he acted in the heat of passion.

Oh yeah.  And my guess is that robbers will think twice before they mess with Jerome Erslund again.

Will be interesting to see if they can seat a jury of 12 people who would not acquit Jerome.

If Jerome is charged, he'll probably get 2nd degree.  To say that what Jerome did was purely premeditated is quite a stretch.

Still, he'll probably be acquitted.  (I know I'd let him off.)

First shot: justified.

Additional five shots: not.

Really really stupid of him to fire five more shots like that.  He got the kid in the head on the first shot.  WTF did he think he was going to do, rise up and start shooting again?  All he did was succeed in making gun owners look like crazy jackasses, but since this is Oklahoma, I don't think anyone will care. :P

One less criminal...  not a problem in my book.

If I were Jerome, I would find me a pathologist who will testify that Antwun died from that head shot.

That way the worst thing they could get him for then would be abuse of a corpse.

If I were Jerome, I would find me a pathologist who will testify that Antwun died from that head shot.

That way the worst thing they could get him for then would be abuse of a corpse.


I like the way you think.  ;)

I like the way you think.  ;)


Well I've managed to stay out of jail for 50+ years so I've gotta be creative.  ;D

What Jessica said!

The article no longer exists at that link.  So who did the other guy kill? 

I also find it a bit incredible that the pharmacist had a ready gun and the reflexes to blast the first guy right away, and then actually had a backup gun. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_re_us/us_pharmacy_shooting

Comparison to Bernard Goetz, they NYC subway vigilante from 1984 is not quite so apt.  The kids Goetz shot asked for $5.00 and waved a screwdriver at him.  As Bobcat Goldthwaite put it, "Give us five bucks or we'll make your glasses really wobbly!"

The similarity is probably that Ersland, like Goetz, was stressed out feeling constantly harassed and intimidated. 

My guess is that Ersland, a Gulf War vet in a back brace, had been hassled by street punks for years and he finally snapped.  Furthermore, unlike Goetz's "victims," those little thugs had a gun, so Ersland had a reasonable fear for his life. 

I agree with the DA.  First shot was justified.  However, you still can't chase after a fleeing assailant and gun him down, nor can you go all overkill.  First-degree won't fly, but second-degree murder certainly will.

Of course, the right-wingers, the gun nuts, and the white supremacists are creaming their shorts over this guy.  I can sympathize with him a bit, but come on.  He didn't just defend himself.  He went killed a kid who was running away.  That's revenge, not self-defense.

However, if I were Ersland's lawyer, I would emphasize the state of Oklahoma had fostered an ethos of violent retaliation when it called its legislation allowing deadly force a "Make My Day Law."  If the state wants to make an icon out of Dirty Harry, it should come as no surprise when citizens imitate the tactics.  The same right-wingers who are celebrating Ersland as a folk hero will be just as quick to blame "Gangsta Rap" for violence among young blacks. 
::)

AMC was showing the Charles Bronson "Death Wish" movies this weekend.  Great timing!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_re_us/us_pharmacy_shooting

He went killed a kid who was running away. 

AMC was showing the Charles Bronson "Death Wish" movies this weekend.  Great timing!


He didn't fire those extra 5 shots at a kid who was running away.  I surmise that Antwun was either unconscious or otherwise writing on the floor.


The article no longer exists at that link.  So who did the other guy kill? 

I also find it a bit incredible that the pharmacist had a ready gun and the reflexes to blast the first guy right away, and then actually had a backup gun. 


If by "the other guy" you mean Javontia, he would be charged with Second Degree Murder because Antwun died during their robbery escapade.  Second degree robbery applies to anybody who dies (even a fellow perpetrator) due to the commision of a crime.  "Intent to murder" is not required for a conviction, nor does the accused have to have been the one who physically did the killing.  He just had to be in on the original crime.

As I see it, Javontia has a higher likelihood of being convicted than does Jerome.

Ah, okay.  I think the pharmacist would probably get voluntary manslaughter or something like that, but it IS a red state, so you never know... :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_re_us/us_pharmacy_shooting

Comparison to Bernard Goetz, they NYC subway vigilante from 1984 is not quite so apt.  The kids Goetz shot asked for $5.00 and waved a screwdriver at him.  As Bobcat Goldthwaite put it, "Give us five bucks or we'll make your glasses really wobbly!"

The similarity is probably that Ersland, like Goetz, was stressed out feeling constantly harassed and intimidated. 

My guess is that Ersland, a Gulf War vet in a back brace, had been hassled by street punks for years and he finally snapped.  Furthermore, unlike Goetz's "victims," those little thugs had a gun, so Ersland had a reasonable fear for his life. 

I agree with the DA.  First shot was justified.  However, you still can't chase after a fleeing assailant and gun him down, nor can you go all overkill.  First-degree won't fly, but second-degree murder certainly will.

Of course, the right-wingers, the gun nuts, and the white supremacists are creaming their shorts over this guy.  I can sympathize with him a bit, but come on.  He didn't just defend himself.  He went killed a kid who was running away.  That's revenge, not self-defense.

However, if I were Ersland's lawyer, I would emphasize the state of Oklahoma had fostered an ethos of violent retaliation when it called its legislation allowing deadly force a "Make My Day Law."  If the state wants to make an icon out of Dirty Harry, it should come as no surprise when citizens imitate the tactics.  The same right-wingers who are celebrating Ersland as a folk hero will be just as quick to blame "Gangsta Rap" for violence among young blacks. 
::)

AMC was showing the Charles Bronson "Death Wish" movies this weekend.  Great timing!


Regardless of how people want to explain crime, if people start to imitate Ersland, I don't have a problem with it.

The point is, he didn't kill a kid who was running away.  He shot the first guy in the head, and then likely pumped more lead into his corpse.

As you said, the guy was probably tired of being harassed, and if the remedy is killing a criminal, I don't see what the problem is.  That should scare most of the rest of the potential robbers into at least thinking twice before choosing to rob someone in that area.

Regardless of how people want to explain crime, if people start to imitate Ersland, I don't have a problem with it.

The point is, he didn't kill a kid who was running away.  He shot the first guy in the head, and then likely pumped more lead into his corpse.

As you said, the guy was probably tired of being harassed, and if the remedy is killing a criminal, I don't see what the problem is.  That should scare most of the rest of the potential robbers into at least thinking twice before choosing to rob someone in that area.


The issue is that he didn't stop at shooting the guy in the head, nor did he pump in the subsequent rounds immediately after the headshot...so it oversteps the "self-defense" line and goes into "angry white man with a gun" territory.  I think we should applaud the headshot, but to accept the subsequent shots seems like dangerous thinking to me...but then again, I didn't see what happened that he would need to pump five extra shots into the guy with the bleeding head.

The issue is that he didn't stop at shooting the guy in the head, nor did he pump in the subsequent rounds immediately after the headshot...so it oversteps the "self-defense" line and goes into "angry white man with a gun" territory.  I think we should applaud the headshot, but to accept the subsequent shots seems like dangerous thinking to me...but then again, I didn't see what happened that he would need to pump five extra shots into the guy with the bleeding head.


Why does he have to be an angry WHITE man?

Sounded more to me like an angry guy who wanted to make sure the perp's career was over.

My guess is that the dead guy and his buddy were the neighborhood scum bags, and none of the law abiding neighbors are shedding any tears.

You can bet that in the local newspapers his family is blathering on about how "he was a good kid, just getting his life back together.  Helped little olf ladies cross the street and shovelled the neighbor's driveways when it snowed."  They'll likely leave out the part of his juvenile delinquency and the fact that he met his demise by attempting armed robbery on the wrong guy.

All above said, his followup shooting after the perp took the head shot was ill-advised.  If he had gotten the perp "Sicilian style" in the beginning (12-gauge) we would not be talking about the second shots.

Why does he have to be an angry WHITE man?



Because he IS white?  That was poorly worded on my part, I guess.



Sounded more to me like an angry guy who wanted to make sure the perp's career was over.

My guess is that the dead guy and his buddy were the neighborhood scum bags, and none of the law abiding neighbors are shedding any tears.

I think the headshot would have done the job, it's not like this is a bad horror flick where the villain jumps back up after taking a shot in the face and tries to decapitate the hero with a battleaxe.  I'm cool with the self-defense angle and trying to prevent crime, but it worries me that the "hero" in this case showed absolutely no remorse or self-control.


You can bet that in the local newspapers his family is blathering on about how "he was a good kid, just getting his life back together.  Helped little olf ladies cross the street and shovelled the neighbor's driveways when it snowed."  They'll likely leave out the part of his juvenile delinquency and the fact that he met his demise by attempting armed robbery on the wrong guy.

All above said, his followup shooting after the perp took the head shot was ill-advised.  If he had gotten the perp "Sicilian style" in the beginning (12-gauge) we would not be talking about the second shots.


Definitely not good for gun advocates that this story was highlighted in the press.  I'm all for gun ownership...not so much a fan of triggerhappy idiots who, as I tried to state earlier, overstepped the line between self-defense and unnecessary machismo.

The issue is that he didn't stop at shooting the guy in the head, nor did he pump in the subsequent rounds immediately after the headshot...so it oversteps the "self-defense" line and goes into "angry white man with a gun" territory.  I think we should applaud the headshot, but to accept the subsequent shots seems like dangerous thinking to me...but then again, I didn't see what happened that he would need to pump five extra shots into the guy with the bleeding head.


I'd rather he shoot up a corpse to release his anger than to go on a rampage, but I see your point.

Oops! I had the mistaken impression he chased down the other kid who was running away and gunned him down.  Now, that would be pretty solid second-degree murder, wouldn't it!
:D

Depends on how bad the initial head wound was and whether the medical examiner can determine if the kid was already dead or mortally wounded when Ersland emptied the other clip into him.  If the kid was anything more than grazed, he wasn't going to get up and start firing at Ersland.  The threat was removed. 

My guess is if he gets a sympathetic jury, he'll get a manslaughter conviction and might not even have to do much, if any, hard time.

Angry white guy?  There is a stereotype of sh*t angry white guys do and what Ersland did is one of them.  I remember the cultural impact of "Go ahead, make my day!"  Clint Eastwood was playing an angry white guy, and another actor, Ronnie Reagan quoted it to further his political career with one his own key constituencies -- angry white guys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/orangehat.gif

Oops! I had the mistaken impression he chased down the other kid who was running away and gunned him down.  Now, that would be pretty solid second-degree murder, wouldn't it!
:D

Depends on how bad the initial head was and whether the medical examiner can determine if the kid was already dead or mortally wounded when Ersland emptied the other clip into him.  If the kid was anything more than grazed, he wasn't going to get up and start firing at Ersland.  The threat was removed. 

My guess is if he gets a sympathetic jury, he'll get a manslaughter conviction and might not even have to do much, if any, hard time.

Angry white guy?  There is a stereotype of sh*t angry white guys do and what Ersland did is one of them.  I remember the cultural impact of "Go ahead, make my day!"  Clint Eastwood was playing an angry white guy, and another actor, Ronnie Reagan quoted it to further his political career with one his own key constituencies -- angry white guys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/orangehat.gif



Well, it depends on the jury.  They could claim that, even if the first guy shot was dead already, the subsequent shots were a "premeditated intent to kill."  Because our law system generally seems to favor criminals more than victims, what Ersland would have probably been best off doing is just giving the money to the guys and calling the cops (and hope they didn't kill him in the process).

Thankfully, this happened in Oklahoma, so he probably will have a sympathetic jury.

Angry white guy?  There is a stereotype of sh*t angry white guys do and what Ersland did is one of them.  I remember the cultural impact of "Go ahead, make my day!"  Clint Eastwood was playing an angry white guy, and another actor, Ronnie Reagan quoted it to further his political career with one his own key constituencies -- angry white guys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/orangehat.gif



That's sort of funny.  Twice in this thread people are bringing up the "angry white man" stereotype, yet do not want to address the other stereotype that could be brought up in this incident.

Bottom line this incident is not one about stereotypes.  It is about two clowns who attempted a stickup on the wrong guy (who took things too far).  One clown died for his efforts and the other clown will likely spend at least 25-life for his.  The would-be robbery victim may or may not do jail time for his excesses, although I suspect whatever penalty he receives will be minor, right or wrong.

My view... once you try to pull an armed robbery on somebody, all bets are off...  Even if your victim reacts in an extralegal way.

That's sort of funny.  Twice in this thread people are bringing up the "angry white man" stereotype, yet do not want to address the other stereotype that could be brought up in this incident.

Bottom line this incident is not one about stereotypes.  It is about two clowns who attempted a stickup on the wrong guy (who took things too far).  One clown died for his efforts and the other clown will likely spend at least 25-life for his.  The would-be robbery victim may or may not do jail time for his excesses, although I suspect whatever penalty he receives will be minor, right or wrong.

My view... once you try to pull an armed robbery on somebody, all bets are off...  Even if your victim reacts in an extralegal way.


Yes, there is the stereotype of the young black hoodlum who has a funny first name, comes from the projects, and holds up drugstores.  Sometimes he shoots the angry white guy, sometimes the angry white guy shoots him.

I think it's sad we live in a country where so many people wield guns and shoot one another. 

Our justice system does not favor criminals per se.  It favors rich people. 

Yes, there is the stereotype of the young black hoodlum who has a funny first name, comes from the projects, and holds up drugstores.  Sometimes he shoots the angry white guy, sometimes the angry white guy shoots him.

I think it's sad we live in a country where so many people wield guns and shoot one another. 

Our justice system does not favor criminals per se.  It favors rich people. 


I think he would have been a heroic white man rather than an angry white man if he had just done the one headshot for self-defense and then called the cops.  That's all I was saying.

I think he would have been a heroic white man rather than an angry white man if he had just done the one headshot for self-defense and then called the cops.  That's all I was saying.


Heck, in my eyes he woulda been a heroic man of whatever race he is, plugging the guy in the head.

Too bad he took things a tad too far.  :-\\

Heck, in my eyes he woulda been a heroic man of whatever race he is, plugging the guy in the head.

Too bad he took things a tad too far.  :-\\


Yup...if he had been a different race, and did what the guy did, he would've been stuck with the "Angry (insert race here) Man" label too.

\
Depends on how bad the initial head was and whether the medical examiner can determine if the kid was already dead or mortally wounded when Ersland emptied the other clip into him.  If the kid was anything more than grazed, he wasn't going to get up and start firing at Ersland.  The threat was removed. 


Karma for getting to the point.

If BadGuy#1 was a threat, you don't run away from him (abandoning your customers to the mortal threat in the process) to chase down his partner, then return 90 seconds later, walk past the mortal threat to retrieve a second weapon (turning your back on the mortal threat in the process), and 10 seconds after that, decide that he's now a mortal threat, and fire.

If the guy was mortally wounded or dead, no harm, no foul.  You can't kill a corpse.

If the guy was only grazed in the head, maybe reasonable doubt.  It's unlikely, but since the videotape doesn't show what was happening behind the counter, it's possible that the guy was stunned for the first 90-odd seconds, and only moved when the shopkeeper returned with the second weapon.

My bet is the jury acquits.  My hunch - as glad as I am to see one more career criminal who can be guaranteed to never reoffend - is that in this case, they shouldn't.

Remember that thread we had a while back about the bystander who drew his firearm on the driver of a car that did a hit-and-run on a couple of kids, but didn't fire a shot?  This case is the textbook example of why, when the threat is down, you must not fire.  No matter how much the bad guy might deserve it. 

Yes, it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

But it's infinitely better to be a free man for a while, and take your chances that the bad guy dusts himself off and instead of calling it even, organizes a revenge shooting, than it is to take an action that guarantees you'll be judged by twelve next week.  In most cases, "a while" is going to be "the rest of your natural life".  The bad guys operate under the assumption that robber-v-shopkeeper shootings are business, not personal.  Personal grudges are reserved for gang-v-gang conflicts.  Keep it businesslike (when a man taps out, the fight is over), and it'll stay businesslike.  Make it personal (go back to finish him off when he's down) and it'll get personal.

Meh.  My bet is the jury acquits, but no matter what verdict the jury renders, there'll be riots. 

The kid wasn't a career criminal, just a teenager.

So, let this be a lesson to all you boys and girls out there, if you go waving guns at people, you might not get the chance to be a career anything!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/nono.gif

Is it only me who'd far rather live in a society where guys who are little more than children don't carry guns & try holding up shops at gunpoint?

I also don't think I'd choose to shop in a place where the owner fired many times into a (possibly) dead body.

And last, but not least, what the shopkeeper did was not even remotely heroic, even by the somewhat watered-down uses of the word that are frequently heard.

Is it only me who'd far rather live in a society where guys who are little more than children don't carry guns & try holding up shops at gunpoint?

I also don't think I'd choose to shop in a place where the owner fired many times into a (possibly) dead body.

And last, but not least, what the shopkeeper did was not even remotely heroic, even by the somewhat watered-down uses of the word that are frequently heard.


But of course, you can always choose to live in a country where you're instead held up at knifepoint.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime

But of course, you can always choose to live in a country where you're instead held up at knifepoint.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime


No gun crimes in the UK?  That seems kind of unbelievable despite their tougher gun laws.

No gun crimes in the UK?  That seems kind of unbelievable despite their tougher gun laws.


Well, there's definitely gun crime in the U.K., if you count Northern Ireland.

Well, there's definitely gun crime in the U.K., if you count Northern Ireland.


Heh.

Well, in the US, I guess you have a freedom of choice between getting held up by knife or by gun :D  The converse is that a US citizen is more likely to have better options of defending himself with a knife and/or a gun... *shrug*

Heh.

Well, in the US, I guess you have a freedom of choice between getting held up by knife or by gun :D  The converse is that a US citizen is more likely to have better options of defending himself with a knife and/or a gun... *shrug*


Depends on the knife, it depends on the gun, and it depends on the degree of mayhem.  I'd rather get my arm grazed by a .22 than get a machete plunged clear through my intestines!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/couto.gif

Anyway, what goes on in Northern Ireland isn't street crime so much as terrorism and guerrilla warfare!

So, let this be a lesson to all you boys and girls out there, if you go waving guns at people, you might not get the chance to be a career anything!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/nono.gif


You are indeed a wise man, Max.  ;)

I didn't say there was no gun crime in the UK, but examples of guns being used in petty robberies are still extremely low (even in Northern Ireland).

Knife crime, while increasing and frequently bemoaned by the newspapers is still not at the sort of level where the overwhelming majority of the population have anything to worry about at all.  As with a lot of things here, the media make it seem far worse than it actually is, so people have a fear of knife crime way beyond the actual risk - in practise, that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the increasing numbers of youngsters carrying knives these days say they do so for protection... because they're worried about other children carrying knives.

I didn't say there was no gun crime in the UK, but examples of guns being used in petty robberies are still extremely low (even in Northern Ireland).

Knife crime, while increasing and frequently bemoaned by the newspapers is still not at the sort of level where the overwhelming majority of the population have anything to worry about at all.  As with a lot of things here, the media make it seem far worse than it actually is, so people have a fear of knife crime way beyond the actual risk - in practise, that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the increasing numbers of youngsters carrying knives these days say they do so for protection... because they're worried about other children carrying knives.


True...  it does seem like a vicious cycle.

Knife crime, while increasing and frequently bemoaned by the newspapers is still not at the sort of level where the overwhelming majority of the population have anything to worry about at all.  As with a lot of things here, the media make it seem far worse than it actually is, so people have a fear of knife crime way beyond the actual risk - in practise, that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the increasing numbers of youngsters carrying knives these days say they do so for protection... because they're worried about other children carrying knives.


In other words, just like gun crime in the States.

Ban the guns, and the press will terrorize the citizens about knives.  Ban knives, baseball bats, and sooner or later the press will sound like the Monty Python "self-defense against a man with a banana" sketch.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/celebrity-pictures-v-hugo-weaving-knives-gunfight.jpg

In other words, just like gun crime in the States.

Ban the guns, and the press will terrorize the citizens about knives.  Ban knives, baseball bats, and sooner or later the press will sound like the Monty Python "self-defense against a man with a banana" sketch.


Karamel for reference to one of my favorite Python sketches!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/laughing4.gif

Cleese:  Right now you, Mr Apricot.
Chapman: 'Arrison.
Cleese:  Sorry, Mr. 'Arrison.  Come at me with that banana.  Hold it like that,
      that's it.  Now attack me with it.  Come on!  Come on!  Come at me!
      Come at me then!  (Shoots him.)
Chapman: Aaagh! (dies.)
Cleese: Now, I eat the banana. (Does so.)
Palin: You shot him!
Jones: He's dead!
Idle:  He's completely dead!
Cleese:  I have now eaten the banana.  The deceased, Mr Apricot, is now 'elpless.
Palin: You shot him. You shot him dead.
Cleese:  Well, he was attacking me with a banana!
Jones: But you told him to.
Cleese:  Look, I'm only doing me job.  I have to show you how to defend
      yourselves against fresh fruit.