OK City Pharmacy Robbery Murder Trial

[Sig 210]

The adults who planned the pharmacy robbery where a teenager was killed by Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist, are on trial for murder in OK City.

Ersland was also charged with murder. Think his trial is in early May.

The fact that a criminal who was found guilty of armed robbery, kidnapping and assault is on the street says something about the OK "justice system".



.................................................. .................................................. ........

Emanuel D. “E Man” Mitchell testified against the advice of his defense attorney.

Both his defense attorney and the district attorney warned him the jury will learn of his criminal record if he testified. Mitchell has felony convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping and assault.

Mitchell, 33, and Anthony D. “Black” Morrison, 44, are accused of sending two teenagers into the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in 2009 to rob the store of drugs and money. The two men are cousins.

They were charged with first-degree murder after the pharmacist fatally shot one teenager, Antwun “Speedy” Parker.



Read more: Murder defendant testifies in Oklahoma City pharmacy trial | NewsOK.com

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dukalmighty]

Antwun “Speedy” Parker.

Now if his last name was Gonzalez it would be even funnier,but apparently speedy isn't as fast as lead coming out a muzzle at 950+ FPS

[Hiram25]

Too bad his nickname wasn't "Smarty"!

[Sticks]

The adults who planned the pharmacy robbery where a teenager was killed by Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist, are on trial for murder in OK City.

Ersland was also charged with murder. Think his trial is in early May.

That part I find disgusting. I pray that the trial last an hour, and he is acquitted, with a wiped record & reimbursement.

[Chad Rogers]

My understanding is that Ersland is facing a murder charge specifically for walking back into the pharmacy, after unloading at the fleeing robber outside, and then shooting once again the dirtbag he had shot earlier and who was lying on the floor. Is this correct?

[Sig 210]

My understanding is that Ersland is facing a murder charge specifically for walking back into the pharmacy, after unloading at the fleeing robber outside, and then shooting once again the dirtbag he had shot earlier and who was lying on the floor. Is this correct?

You are correct.

[Chad Rogers]

You are correct.

Did Ersland (i.e. an Oklahoman) have to go through required training of some sort in order to have that firearm at the place of business?

[shockwave]

My understanding is that Ersland is facing a murder charge specifically for walking back into the pharmacy, after unloading at the fleeing robber outside, and then shooting once again the dirtbag he had shot earlier and who was lying on the floor. Is this correct?

It's actually a whole lot worse. Ersland shot the robber who was unarmed, hitting him in the head. Justified, no problem. He then chased after the armed punk, unloading the magazine at him. Ersland comes back in, grabs another (loaded) gun, strolls up to the kid on the floor who's both unarmed and immobilized with a gunshot wound to the head and Ersland pounds 5 more rounds into the kid's stomach, killing him. Watch the video if you like.

What really nails Ersland to the wall here is the way he's just so casual and relaxed about walking across the line from "self-defense" to "murder." We should all support the prosecution in this case because people like Ersland are an extreme threat to our rights to gun ownership. What he does here is exactly what the anti-gun community is worried about. He's the poster-child for confiscation.

[Naufragia]

Now if his last name was Gonzalez it would be even funnier,but apparently speedy isn't as fast as lead coming out a muzzle at 950+ FPS

Beat me to it.

I'd almost forgotten about this case. I'll be watching the upcoming trial of the pharmacist with interest. I think he'll have a hard time getting an acquittal, having shot again an already wounded and prone BG. (Although I think that Second Degree Murder would have been a more appropriate charge.)

[socal2310]

(Although I think that Second Degree Murder would have been a more appropriate charge.)

Really? When the video proves premeditation?

He might have been able to plea down if he had shown some visible nerves instead of calmly reloading before shooting the prone, injured, helpless kid lying on the floor. Those actions demonstrated that he knew the kid was no threat when he executed him.

Make no mistake, that was not self defense, it was vigilante justice - exactly what the anti-gun reporters are accusing us of when they say, "took the law into his own hands," after a self defense shooting. How the man felt about what the kid deserved after attempting to rob him is irrelevant, it is perfectly legitimate to use deadly force in defense of life (and depending on jurisdiction, property). Once the threat to either is ended, we are obligated to defer to the courts and not one single self-defense expert would be willing to testify otherwise.

In fact, I wouldn't blame an expert for being willing to provide expert testimony for the prosecution as a way to mitigate backlash against the castle doctrine (which the defense is almost certain to invoke since the law was recently expanded to include businesses).

Ryan

[Naufragia]

Really? When the video proves premeditation?

He might have been able to plea down if he had shown some visible nerves instead of calmly reloading before shooting the prone, injured, helpless kid lying on the floor. Those actions demonstrated that he knew the kid was no threat when he executed him.

Valid point. I'm not legally trained (as I'm sure you've gathered), but I was thinking in terms of so-called "hot-blooded" versus "cold-blooded" murder; and, having just graduated from the prestigious law school of Google Search, I learned this:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

(source)

The words I've put in bold lettering are what I was thinking of. (I mistook second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as being one and the same.) Being robbed at gunpoint will almost certainly cause someone to become "emotionally or mentally disturbed," and I was thinking that the prosecution might have over-played their hand with the first-degree charge (though, as you point out, his apparent calmness during the act will certainly tell against him in court). In the end, of course, it all depends on what the jury will buy.

Take care.

[Sticks]

Given the additional info/background regarding the Pharmacist, I retract my previous statement.

[oneshot]

Valid point. I'm not legally trained (as I'm sure you've gathered), but I was thinking in terms of so-called "hot-blooded" versus "cold-blooded" murder; and, having just graduated from the prestigious law school of Google Search, I learned this:


(source)

The words I've put in bold lettering are what I was thinking of. (I mistook second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as being one and the same.) Being robbed at gunpoint will almost certainly cause someone to become "emotionally or mentally disturbed," and I was thinking that the prosecution might have over-played their hand with the first-degree charge (though, as you point out, his apparent calmness during the act will certainly tell against him in court). In the end, of course, it all depends on what the jury will buy.

Take care.

This is kind of what I was thinking, in that the pharmacist didn't go looking to randomly shoot someone.
He was caught up it all the craziness, and things went too FAR.

1st. or 2nd degree???
Vol. manslaughter?
Probably.

[Sig 210]

i have followed the Ersland shooting since day one. Ersland hurt his cause when he allowed himself to be interviewed on TV: He came across as vigilante; not a guy who defended himself and his employees. Ersland also lied to the police about his military service; claiming combat experience that he did not have. He claimed that the dead perp had a gun. IMO: Had Ersland not lied to the police he might not be trouble.

BTW: The trial will start on 16 May, 2011. It will be televised.

This site has a plethora of links related to Ersland:

http://www.koco.com/news/27109600/detail.html


Late:

The two perps who planned the pharmacy robbery were sentenced to life in prison today. "E Man Mitchell", attacked the prosecutor in court.

http://newsok.com/cousins-found-guil...rticle/3564082

[Naufragia]

i have followed the Ersland shooting since day one. Ersland hurt his cause when he allowed himself to be interviewed on TV: He came across as vigilante; not a guy who defended himself and his employees. Ersland also lied to the police about his military service; claiming combat experience that he did not have. He claimed that the dead perp had a gun. IMO: Had Ersland not lied to the police he might not be trouble.

BTW: The trial will start on 16 May, 2011. It will be televised.

This site has a plethora of links related to Ersland:

Judge Elliott To Remain; Trial Date Set For Ersland - Oklahoma City News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City

Great links. Thanks.