Oklahoma Pharmacy Robber Pleads Out

[Sig 210]

This is the perp who accompanied the robber who was killed by the OK City pharmacist as he was lying on the floor wounded.

Teen Pleads Out In Pharmacy Shooting - Oklahoma City News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City

A metro teenager has pleaded guilty in connection with a botched pharmacy robbery that led to the fatal shooting of his friend.

Jevontia Ingram survived the robbery attempt at Reliable Pharmacy in May. Pharmacist Jerome Ersland fatally shot Antwun Parker, 16.

As part of a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, Ingram confessed to his role in the robbery. He pleaded guilty to charges of murder and conspiracy as a youthful offender, which will spare him a lengthy prison sentence. Instead, he will have an opportunity to be rehabilitated.

Ersland is charged with first-degree murder in connection with Parker's death and could face a life prison sentence. Prosecutors said he continued to fire shots at Parker even after he was incapacitated.

Ersland's attorney Irven Box said he believes Ingram got off easy. He said the plea deal was absurd.

"Keep in mind, he's pleading to a murder charge," Box said. "I think merchants and shop owners should be upset that someone who's actually committed an armed robbery and actually charged with murder is going to get considerably less time served."

Ingram will spend the next three years in a juvenile facility and will be eligible for release just after he turns 18. If he doesn't complete his rehabilitation plan, he could be transferred to prison to serve a life sentence.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[nutz4utwo]

will spare him a lengthy prison sentence. Instead, he will have an opportunity to be rehabilitated.

Rehabilitated...

Minors take advantage of our lame legal system and commit far to many violent acts. When will we start judging people by their actions?

[searcher 45]

I don't know that a jury of 12 will convict the pharmacist.

If I were on the jury he would walk.

[ccroom]

Searcher 45

I agree totally, I feel as soon as Parker & Ingram entered the store with the firearm they lost all rights.

[mlr1m]

I don't know that a jury of 12 will convict the pharmacist.

If I were on the jury he would walk.

Trust me they are out there. Many people believe the prosecutor to be the final word on everything. If he says that they must don something they believe him. I have been on juries with people like that. Its like they have no thoughts of their own. Scary

Michael

[doctruptwn]

The DA in this case is a worthless anti gunner, piece of Crap. Glad I don't live in OKC

[Guardian]

I have to disagree, the pharmacist should not just walk, he's no better then the scum punks who went to rob him. He should do time also. JMHO.

[Janq]

I'll back your stance on that Guardian.

The threat was well ceased and stopped as by his prior shots.
He went off to recover a second gun at that time under no threat at all and came back only to make the choice to terminate the threat with extreme prejudice.

Sorry but that's not how it goes, in America.

We are still an America with laws and in this case penalty of death was not the pharmacists position to make.
Which is exactly what he did with willful intent knowing that his specific action would result in termination of life. whihc is what he wanted.

Damning cased closed video of the incident; YouTube - Ersland Charged With Murder in Pharmacy Shooting

On this specific case the DA/state is correct and in the right to charge this man for his wrong act; The secondary act of five shots so as to terminate what was a nullified and unconscious threat.

- Janq

[Stevew]

The way the lawyer said "considerable less time served" makes me wonder than who. Seems like the lawyer is already seeing his client getting time.

[Stevew]

I still have not seen nor heard what the BG was doing when shot the last five times. I have heard that the shots were close together and the DA states that proves the BG was not moving. At close range it would be pretty easy to track target and group close. Not saying that's what happened. Was blood stains on floor smeared indicating BG was moving.

[Janq]

Steve,

Watch the video per the link I posted.

The BG was as stated _unconscious_ upon being head shot right out the gate, and doing nothing at all but laying prone in a heap.

- Janq

[Eagleks]

In other words, plea to it at 16, and we'll keep you in the Juvenile system until you are 21. Don't , and we go try him as an adult ....

One murder case, committed by a 14 yr old, but the father was obviously behind it ... or encouraged it. Father knew by the minute where he was ... 8:32 a.m. I was in the bathroom. Not about 8:30 I went to the bathroom. The whole thing was to 'use' the juvenile system and kid be out when he was 21.... which he is.

[Guardian]

What I didn't know the other day this new video (thanks Jang) showed more of and says the kid was unarmed also. It just confirms my statement even more now and my conviction on the pharmacist.

[chiefjason]

Sorry but that's not how it goes, in America.
- Janq

But the plea is? Yeah, the guy screwed up big time. But I was not in his head and neither was anyone else. Who knows what you or I will think if we find ourselves in that situation. There were others in the place too, females, that I would think he was trying to protect them as well as himself. In the eyes of the law they both committed first degree murder, correct? And the perp gets a plea deal, what does the shooter get? This should be interesting for sure.

Guardian, they both committed armed robbery. Just because he was not armed does not mean he should not be treated as such. Personally, I would consider him armed until the cops could do the checking. Two guys try to rob me, I will treat them both as though they are armed. If I had to shoot, it would be trying for them both. He just did not bring a gun to the gun fight.

Not saying he was righteous in the shoot. But I'm not ready to throw him under the bus. It does look like he will have to convince 1 of 12 that he did it for a good reason. If he had left him alone after the threat stopped, he would not have to do that.

[Janq]

CJ,

It doesn't matter what he or we might think/have thought as in the immediate.

The law does not legislate against and convict on thoughts.
Our feet are held to fire as based on our actions.

The action in this specific case is/was egregious, and unlawful.
Not because I say so.
The stores own very damning video tape of the entirety of the event says so.
As well so does the law.

As to this plea deal the way things have worked out to that end is proper.
The BGs both committed a crime. One is being penalized as within the law. The second was denied same due to being actively murdered as by the person who initially was the victim, only to later become the aggressor. A BG of equal callousness in his own right. As by view of the law.

The play as by law is IMHO correct.

All three persons acted criminally with felony assault (2 BG vs Pharmacist) AND second degree murder (Pharmacist).

There have been _multiple_ threads at this board in the recent and past 12 months alone discussing this exact same scenario and condition as by theoretical happening.
The law is the law and outside of very narrow conditions we as the GG victims if we get the drop on those who might run up on us we are required by law to exercise restraint after nullifying the threat. Nullifying does not mean killing the threat. It means to stop. Once stopped if the threat is injured but actively stooped we then do not have legal right to go further and kill the person(s).
I won't even touch on the morality of same.

To not understand this by law and appreciate the conditions of how this can occur, which does BTW occur with regularity, would then indicate an individuals lack of understanding as related to law and training too as related to 'shoot or no shoot' conditions.

With complete seriousness I feel sorry for this man, the pharmacist.
I can understand how he must have felt in the moment. As well I can even understand how his fear became in an instant anger and by that he lashed out as he did.

Still though I cannot at all support or endorse his actions (!), without regard to what his thoughts might have been, simply for reason of what I and we all who own or carry guns should better well know and understand.
Law, legality, self restraint and proper application of lethal force as ONLY under situation of real immediate threat of mortal jeopardy.

When he killed that boy with five shots to the torso he did so as without being under situation of real immediate threat of mortal jeopardy.

For those who are unfamiliar or weak on understanding as much you would be well advised to read and _remember_ the comments at this thread; http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ard-times.html
That thread was later nominated and voted in to the DC.com reference archive here; http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ard-times.html

This is serious business people.

You do not get to just do what ever you want and may feel is 'fair' or 'right'.
We live in America not Afghanistan, Beirut, Mexico or Colombia where street justice is the capricious rule of law.

Legality differs slightly for LEOs but in this specific conditional instance not even a LEO would have been able to walk away from such an _action_ unscathed.
This should be viewed by all as being a life lesson by proxy as text book toward what not to do to a BG, after his ability to be a threat has been nullified and ceased.

- Janq

P.S. - Best thing this man should have done was remove himself IMMEDIATELY, and if there were customers on site regardless of gender remove them too, from the area where the BGs body fell slumped over unconscious.
The excuse of ehh he was looking out for others (against what to occur?) is invalid if even that were truly the condition of the case.