Skip to comments.Oklahoma City pharmacist's lawyer sour at leak of report on youth
Posted on 01/04/2010 11:06:25 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
OKLAHOMA CITY A lawyer for a pharmacist charged with killing a teenage would-be robber blasted the leak of a confidential psychologist's report that portrays the dead youth's accomplice in the robbery attempt as a victim instead of a criminal.
"This is another release to the press that is essentially trying to say 'poor young man,'" lawyer Irven Box told The Associated Press on Sunday. "It could prejudice a jury in this case to thinking that someone with an IQ of 72 is actually the victim."
Box represents pharmacist Jerome Ersland, who faces a first-degree murder charge accusing him of using excessive force when he shot 16-year-old Antwun "Speedy" Parker on May 19. The pharmacist, 58, contends he acted in self-defense when he fired at Parker six times.
The Oklahoman newspaper published an article Sunday saying that Jevontai Ingram, 15, has a low IQ and told a psychologist he was feeling lost before the crime. The newspaper said it obtained a case report that concluded that Ingram was in the "borderline range of intellectual ability" and that he demonstrated "significant immaturity."
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
This is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Virtualy all these violent thugs are dummies! Is stupidity now an excuse for armed robbery?
A guy who goes by “Speedy” tries to hold up a pharmacy.
Wonder how he got the name.
Must be one of those Obama abortions that lived.
Sounds like they’re setting the stage for a full out assault on Ersland.
I forsee the criminal case against Ingram as setting the stage for a Civil case against Ersland if he isn’t convicted on the Parker killing. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
Ingram ABSOLUTELY needs to get hooked up for the Parker death. He was smart enough to walk into a drug store and pull a gun on the pharmacist. He was smart enough to run when the pharmacist defended himself and, apparently, he was smart enough to know that something very bad happened because of his actions. That’s enough for a murder charge as far as I’m concerned and, apparently, the DA agrees.
The crappy part of this is that it looks like they’re going to go after Ersland if he doesn’t get a conviction commensurate with what Ingram gets.
There is no doubt in my mind that Ersland went overboard in his actions and should pay a legal price but NONE of this would have happened if Ingram hadn’t decided to go out and lay “street thug”.
He is no doubt a victim of a damaged or nonexistent family, and a toxic social environment that doomed him.
He is not a victim of the pharmacist, who was only defending himself. The moment this damaged youth decided to rob the store, his fate was sealed. The fault lies with a lot of people, his parents and family for sure, and obviously the ultimate fault is his own. The pharmacist, though, is not at fault. He was just defending himself.
That would be phony war hero Ersland, the man that claimed extensive combat experience and even war injuries.
He was a pharmacist that never left the states, he wasn’t even in the army when he claimed to be an army soldier manning a .50 cal against the enemy. So, I have killed a number of people with a .50-caliber and I was a platoon leader from Fort Bragg. Ersland left the Army in February 1989, well before the Gulf War, records show. His first assignment after joining the Air Force was the Altus Air Force Base hospital.
Instead, Jerome Jay Ers-land spent the war in 1991 as the pharmacy chief at the military hospital at Altus Air Force Base in southwestern Oklahoma, records show.
The whack case also claimed a full fledged shootout, with bullets whizzing by and even a little hand to hand in the robbery, it turns out that the bad guy with the gun never fired a shot, and no one ever came close to approaching each other for a struggle.
Ersland is a phony war hero, whack case.
I agree with everything you said except the part where Ersland went overboard.
Once the chain of events is started when someone pulls a gun on you, it is too much to ask them to reason as though they were sitting at a dinner table. Whatever happens to the perp, happens! They pulled the gun and started EVERYTHING!
IMO, this country needs an Open Season Doctrine. Pull a gun on someone, and they cannot be held liable in any way for anything untoward which may happen to you in the chain of events which you started. Period.
You spend a LOT of time criticizing the one who was definding himself and fellow workers, and NOT ONE WORD against those who started the whole melee.
Speaks volumes about you.
No it doesn’t, no one is defending the robbers, they have also been charged with murder, the fact that you would try and make such a sleazy, misdirection trick, speaks volumes about you.
Ersland is a phony war hero whack case, you do at least admit that don’t you?
Often with a sense of regret we euthanize dangerous animals, knowing that it’s for the best. They can’t be reasoned with and are usually not trainable. Humans that exhibit a dangerous nature unchecked by a weak intellect must be treated similarly for the same reason.
Erslands past is not on trial here. I could care less whether he was a war hero or not. What he did saved the lives of several people, and that is all that matters (or should matter)
The boy that Ersland executed was never armed, he was unconscious and flat on his back, with his arms splayed out and his hands open and showing, when Ersland fetched another pistol and emptied it into the unconscious body, Ersland then made up a dramatic cover story that did not hold up.
Ersland is a Walter Mitty, phony war hero type, with a screw loose, we don't need to jump on his bandwagon. That is why the initial wave of support died out as the truth emerged, about the man and his actions.
Phony war heroes are always part of the story, when a story brings them to light.
The robbery attempt was well over when Ersland executed the unconscious robber on the floor, that is why he is charged with murder.
"The boy that Ersland executed was never armed, he was unconscious and flat on his back, with his arms splayed out and his hands open and showing, when Ersland fetched another pistol and emptied it into the unconscious body, Ersland then made up a dramatic cover story that did not hold up."
ansel12 would apparently not euthanize dangerous animals.....nor armed, marauding thugs.
(BTW, ansel12 and Obama/Holder share the same thinking, though he will deny it)
I can see why Ersland and his war hero lies (and robbery lies), don’t bother you.
We'd be setting ourselves up for a whole world of hurt with an "Open Season Doctrine". A gun is nothing more than a tool and when someone misuses a tool and someone else gets hurt there needs to be a price paid.
Ersland should, and probably will, pay a hefty price for what he did. Ingram, unfortunately, may not pay as much of a price and THAT would be a real travesty. If, however, Ingram gets the sentence he deserves and Ersland ends up with, say, "manslaughter", I see the "sympathetic" hammer coming down in a civil suit.
I’m sure it had nothing to do with amphetamines. ;)
Apparently not from how quickly he pulls out his gun.
> Ersland fetched another pistol and emptied it into the unconscious body,
Yes, and when Ersland fetched the other pistol, he calmly turned his back on the kid while he was rummaging around in a drawer to find it. Then he turned around, walked back to the kid and emptied the pistol into him. Red in PA always dances around that part. Anyone who knows right from wrong should know that is wrong.
I still stand by my prediction that I made when this first came out. Ersland will take a plea bargain that will put him in jail for a while, he will lose his pharmacist license, and he never again touch a gun (at least legally). He will also lose everything he has worked for to the survivors of the kid he killed. Sounds like a lot to loose in order to feel good for a couple of minutes.
Yes they did but even the “Castle Doctrine” doesn’t give someone carte blanche to shoot anyone JUST because they are in your house. If you shot and incapacitated an intruder in your house, stepped over him as you chased his buddy out the front door, stepped over him AGAIN as you went off looking for your backup piece and then, after rummaging around for nearly half a minute, went back and shot the unconscious, incapacitated perp 5 more times “just for good measure” you committed a crime.
Just because you have legal claim to act in a particular manner does not mean that you can throw all reason to the four winds in your actions. If a pedestrian steps off the curb in an unmarked section of the roadway and you, in an oncoming vehicle, have time to stop but don’t because “you have the right of way” and bounce the idiot off your grill you have, at a minimum, stepped way, WAY outside the bounds of reasonable moral behavior and, in most cases, would be guilty of a serious crime.
The cameras show us everything that the druggist was doing inside the store, including, "Then he turned around, walked back to the kid and emptied the pistol into him. Red in PA always dances around that part. Anyone who knows right from wrong should know that is wrong. ", the coroner's report and the scene told the investigators about the boys position, being unconscious from the initial head shot before Ersland left the store, and the position of his splayed out arms and open, empty hands, as he laid on his back.
I’m not interested in anything you have to say.
Only a nut case, (like a phony war hero) would execute an unarmed, unconscious, person (after calmly fetching another gun to do it with), and then make up another wild tale about a wild shoot out, with bullets whistling by him, and even a physical hand to hand struggle.
Red in Blue PA, your “hero” not only claimed a shoot out, but he also showed reporters the arm that he bandaged after receiving a bullet wound, all this after we learn that the robber never fired a shot. Kind of puts his fake war stories and fake war injury into the story doesn’t it?
The druggist has a history of mental issues and Psychiatric help.