You people are failing to understand what Murder One charges actually are. Those charges are unjustified in this situation.

Care to elaborate for us the difference between murder one and man one? You should be warned that I watch lots of Law and Order. lol...

Are you serious?? He shot the unarmed kid after turning his back, went to go grab another gun to finish him off. Bragged to the police about nailing him. Lied to cover up his murder. Lied to fabricate an arm wound. Lied about being a combat veteran. Lied about everything. Took a handcuff key to prison with him thinking he'd escape. There's nothing Ersland hasn't lied about. This case is about racism, because how could an old white guy be sent to jail for killing a black kid?

You Fallin people need to get over yourselves...

Uh Oh.....Someones playing the race card. I suppose the next thing you post will be that young Antwun was well on his way to becoming a productive member of society and a future nobel peace prize winner as well. As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.

I read a comment back in this thread and want to clarify, hopefully with the guy that watched the trial. Box only called one witness? Or did I misread that?

I didn't observe the trial, but the defense team called one witness in the defense case and introduced a report of a prior m.e. (I think it was a prior m.e. anyway, don't recall that part of the article off top of my head.) One or another of the defense team also had the opportunity to conduct a cross examination of each of the witnesses called by the state.

Personally, I was surprised they didn't go with manslaughter. This wasn't a situation where the man plotted and schemed for money or revenge or what have you. The situation took place in a very short period of time and I personally think it would have been a relatively easy case, in most instances, to have successfully argued that the man was just freaked out, even considering first walking by the kiddo and reloading. I may be wrong, but I suspect all his lies and shenanigans about being in combat and the alleged injury and the rest of it - after we would have expected his blood to have cooled - caused the jury to think this was a very disturbed individual who took advantage of a situation to kill a kid. Could have been racial, certainly, but I personally think the man was acting out a fantasy of being a hero who didn't take any crap off a street punk of any race. It is a common fantasy and, IMO, understandable. How many of us have said that if someone comes into their home, uninvited, they will leave in a bodybag?

In all candor, if I suspected the man executed this kid, but there wasn't a video establishing it and all the rest of his lies, I probably would have shrugged and said it was tragic but would not have supported criminal charges. Stuff happens when you decide to rob someone and the kid picked the wrong victim - I probably wouldn't have asked too many questions. If more robbers died when they robbed people, it might act as a deterrent. I am just being honest.

But with a video showing what he did, followed by all the lies and other nonsense, I am left with the notion that this wasn't just a situation where a rational man simply wasn't going to back down from a punk and too bad, so sad, the kid picked the wrong victim. While I still think risking death is part of the risks you take when decide to take up armed robbery, I also think there is something fundamentally wrong with the pharmacist. And I suspect this oddness existed long before this child walked through the door.

Frankly, I wonder if this was less about justice for the kid than a concern by the jury that this guy is dangerous. Just my opinion. Perhaps young Speedy could have turned his life around if he'd never attempted to rob the pharmacy but personally believe the fatal decision to walk into that pharmacy with the intent to rob was what sealed his fate, given the extreme consequences of the first (justified) shot.

The first, justified, shot would eventually have killed him (or severely damaged his brain). I personally think the pharmacist's later shots took less from that child than what his family did. They are the ones who raised him to the point where he was willing to walk into that pharmacy intent on terrorizing and robbing people. Since the justified shot was so extreme, they took away his future, IMO.

It is a rational fear of violent thugs that cause rational, law abiding people to arm and be willing to defend themselves. Take that right away and you encourage violent predators to attack, rob and terrorize at their leisure. A lot of us are willing to let the occasional victim cross a legal line from time to time since violent robbers voluntarily place themselves at risk for an excessive response. A large part of the public identifies with the pharmacist and believes he is like "us." Thus the outrage over the verdict by many in the general public.

I suspect the jury didn't see the pharmacist as a rational person when he reacted to the young thugs, which might explain the verdict. They didn't identify with him. Probably didn't like him, either. If they had, they would have bent over backwards to interpret the facts in a way to find excuses for his behavior - stress of the moment, etc.

I didn't watch the trial, nor have I followed it as closely as some so my opinion is not significant. I can't imagine that I would have done what the pharmacist did, don't get me wrong. But I think this was less about Speedy and more about a jury that thought the pharmacist was like something out of Pulp Fiction.

... As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.

The other three involved in the robbery are going to do time, with the two adults doing life plus a term of years if I recall correctly. The young robber who was not killed at the scene will do some time, but not a great deal of time. I can only presume the state felt they had to have him as a witness to get the other two adults who guided him and the dead robber to be at the pharmacy that day. Not knowing the strength of their case on the two adults without his cooperation, I don't have an opinion on whether he got too sweetheart a deal or not.
It appears the state did not think so since they have the ultimate say on the terms of a deal.

As for Parker's momma, being less than a stellar parent, or even being a complete slug of a parent is not something one gets incarcerated for. You'll need to find a way to live with your disappointment as to her.

Uh Oh.....Someones playing the race card. I suppose the next thing you post will be that young Antwun was well on his way to becoming a productive member of society and a future nobel peace prize winner as well. As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.

Well unfortunately you kind of prove my point that it's racism. But the other people involved are behind bars serving murder charges as well (for putting the kids up to it), and if you went out and killed some thugs, that would also still be murder. It's this pervasive mentality exactly. In the 1920's it led to race riots. Today it just leads to message board arguments. We should be so lucky today. :congrats:

Dana, I don't see many who have changed any opinions and are now agreeing with you. I don't think any tide has changed in the least. Well I sure see people now saying that Prater is corrupt when 2 days ago they didn't think so and they are saying he shouldn't be re-elected. Sure sounds like a change in the tide to me.

Uh Oh.....Someones playing the race card. I suppose the next thing you post will be that young Antwun was well on his way to becoming a productive member of society and a future nobel peace prize winner as well. As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.

Can only feel that way if you have kids that are out of their teens already...If you have younger or no kids you damn sure better hope they don't become meth heads..Can be a picture perfect parent and your kids still get caught up with da wrong crowd...This is an extreme case for sure but just sayin

Well unfortunately you kind of prove my point that it's racism. But the other people involved are behind bars serving murder charges as well (for putting the kids up to it), and if you went out and killed some thugs, that would also still be murder. It's this pervasive mentality exactly. In the 1920's it led to race riots. Today it just leads to message board arguments. We should be so lucky today. :congrats:
I don't think a comment on a message board "proves" this was racism so don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for being so enlightened. You might want to consider other comments as a whole, including those who don't think race had anything to do with it but still think he did wrong. You are seeing what you choose to see and being inflamatory.

Can only feel that way if you have kids that are out of their teens already...If you have younger or no kids you damn sure better hope they don't become meth heads..Can be a picture perfect parent and your kids still get caught up with da wrong crowd...This is an extreme case for sure but just sayin

It can happen but in this instance, she was exposing him to a criminal element.

Actually, this really isn't about you, Dana. I didn't say that it was.

I didn't say that it was.
Oh, I though your need to get some sort of public acknowledgment that you were "right" was indicative of what was most important to you. My mistake.

I can't help thinking it is a waste of jail space, to have this guy in prison for life. Speaking of.... he isn't going to be in the same prison as the two adults that were given life in this case, is he?

I don't think a comment on a message board "proves" this was racism so don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for being so enlightened. You might want to consider other comments as a whole, including those who don't think race had anything to do with it but still think he did wrong. You are seeing what you choose to see and being inflamatory.

Oh so you're offended that I see racism... so do you have anything to actually say?

If you go out and "kill some thugs off the street" is it murder or is it not? Part of the reason Ersland got murder one and not manslaughter one is because of the depraved and vengeful, fully cognizant way, in which he executed the kid while he was laying on the ground.

Talk about racism rearing its ugly, ugly head. Reminds me of "American History X." Maybe you guys would have had him eat the curb or whatever. It doesn't matter if someone is a saint or a "thug" you can't decide who gets to live.

The bottom line is if this kid had not gone in to rob this man he would be alive today and this case would have never gone to trial. Now this mother wants to be paid for the death of her child. I am sorry that she lost her child but she should have raised him with morals so that he knew you do not steal from others plain and simple. Instead of blaming others for his death she needs to take responsibility for the fact that she did not raise him properly.

Well I sure see people now saying that Prater is corrupt when 2 days ago they didn't think so and they are saying he shouldn't be re-elected. Sure sounds like a change in the tide to me.

Sounds more like you're indulging in wishful thinking. 3 people on a forum do not a majority make. You sure you're not a buddy of 'crazy protestor guy' that hangs around the courthouse trying to tell people how bad Prater is?

Sounds more like you're indulging in wishful thinking. 3 people on a forum do not a majority make. You sure you're not a buddy of 'crazy protestor guy' that hangs around the courthouse trying to tell people how bad Prater is?I guess everybody is missing the point I was trying to make I thought you of all people would have caught it but I guess you missed it too. Also to answer your question I do not know this person that you are referring to.

The bottom line is if this kid had not gone in to rob this man he would be alive today and this case would have never gone to trial. Now this mother wants to be paid for the death of her child. I am sorry that she lost her child but she should have raised him with morals so that he knew you do not steal from others plain and simple. Instead of blaming others for his death she needs to take responsibility for the fact that she did not raise him properly.

Stated another way, merely because it can be, if the store owner, having subdued a robber into an unconscious state and chased another off robber from the premises, had held a gun on the unconscious robber for protection purposes while awaiting the police, instead of firing multiple shots into him as he lay on the floor unconscious, he would of been the toast of the town, and likely never charged of any offense, notwithstanding his firing his weapon outside and placing uninvolved citizens in fear of their lives.

Yes, mother could have done better raising her lad. And, I don't much expect mother will be cha ching her way to easy street the way some seem to presume. But I do disagree she has no right to blame the pharmacist for taking the life of her son.

It's clear from here and comments at DOK, some folks feel that firing multiple times into an unconscious person is just peachy since he previously wasn't unconscious. The opinion is understandable, but it does fly in the face of the law as it stood on that day.

I can't help thinking it is a waste of jail space, to have this guy in prison for life. Speaking of.... he isn't going to be in the same prison as the two adults that were given life in this case, is he?

It's possible, but unlikely, they would ever cross paths in DOC.

Oh so you're offended that I see racism... so do you have anything to actually say?

If you go out and "kill some thugs off the street" is it murder or is it not? Part of the reason Ersland got murder one and not manslaughter one is because of the depraved and vengeful, fully cognizant way, in which he executed the kid while he was laying on the ground.

Talk about racism rearing its ugly, ugly head. Reminds me of "American History X." Maybe you guys would have had him eat the curb or whatever. It doesn't matter if someone is a saint or a "thug" you can't decide who gets to live.

I've said quite a bit - more substantive that you have, actually. And I sure never said he deserved to die. Unlike you, however, I am not prone to hang a racist label on it and think that tells the tale. I don't see the world in distinct shades of black and white.

ETA, if itsn't a question of being offended so much as disagreeing that racism explains what happened.

Stated another way, merely because it can be, if the store owner, having subdued a robber into an unconscious state and chased another off robber from the premises, had held a gun on the unconscious robber for protection purposes while awaiting the police, instead of firing multiple shots into him as he lay on the floor unconscious, he would of been the toast of the town, and likely never charged of any offense, notwithstanding his firing his weapon outside and placing uninvolved citizens in fear of their lives.

Yes, mother could have done better raising her lad. And, I don't much expect mother will be cha ching her way to easy street the way some seem to presume. But I do disagree she has no right to blame the pharmacist for taking the life of her son.

It's clear from here and comments at DOK, some folks feel that firing multiple times into an unconscious person is just peachy since he previously wasn't unconscious. The opinion is understandable, but it does fly in the face of the law as it stood on that day.

I see everybody's point I really do I also see a few other things that have not been brought up. I also thought that he should have just stood there while waiting on the police since he had scared the other one off. I also was not there at the time so who is to say what any of us would have done in the heat of the moment. The only thing we can say for sure is if they had not gone into the pharmacy to rob it the kid would still be alive today and Ersland and the other 2 would not be in jail.

Based on today's article, it looks like the trial defense team may also be doing the appeal

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacists-attorneys-begin-appeal-process/article/3572107?custom_click=lead_story_title

I think he should get a different attorney. I have been less then impressed with the great attorney Irven Box. I really expected to see some good legal manuvering in the courtroom from this high dollar attorney but all we got was him pissing of everyone involved with the trial before it started and then almost nothing during. I think he all but gave up on the defense when the money ran out.

Irrespective of who the trial counsel is, in my opinion most defendants should seriously consider if they might be better served during the appeal by the presence of different counsel.

Irrespective of who the trial counsel is, in my opinion most defendants should seriously consider if they might be better served during the appeal by the presence of different counsel.

I'd think that would be standard. Or should be.

Sure. If you can afford to pay a new team to get up to speed on the case. That's probably about a $30-50K retainer for starters I'd guess.

Well I sure see people now saying that Prater is corrupt when 2 days ago they didn't think so and they are saying he shouldn't be re-elected. Sure sounds like a change in the tide to me.

Well, if you count Thunder, you're right. LOL

I've said quite a bit - more substantive that you have, actually. And I sure never said he deserved to die. Unlike you, however, I am not prone to hang a racist label on it and think that tells the tale. I don't see the world in distinct shades of black and white.

ETA, if itsn't a question of being offended so much as disagreeing that racism explains what happened.

Well that is the racist statement you are currently defending. I'll quote it against for you to look at what and who you're now defending...


Uh Oh.....Someones playing the race card. I suppose the next thing you post will be that young Antwun was well on his way to becoming a productive member of society and a future nobel peace prize winner as well. As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.

Well that is the racist statement you are currently defending. I'll quote it against for you to look at what and who you're now defending...

This is my original comment that you took exception to:

I don't think a comment on a message board "proves" this was racism so don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for being so enlightened. You might want to consider other comments as a whole, including those who don't think race had anything to do with it but still think he did wrong. You are seeing what you choose to see and being inflamatory.

How you can believe that I am "defending" a racist statement by virtue of the above is just too twisted to be worth trying to untangle.

I find it unsettling how many folks are saying the kid getting killed is cause for celebration or "doing society a favor."

A kid being turned out for armed robbery at this age is a tragedy no matter why.

Anybody having to kill another in self-defense is a tragic and likely to scar that person for years if not forever.

Ersland may be the sort of person who lived for this moment and enjoyed it. People like this exisit. I can't know.

Anyway you look at it, everybody lost.

Woohooo. Let's have a party.

I find it unsettling how many folks are saying the kid getting killed is cause for celebration or "doing society a favor."

A kid being turned out for armed robbery at this age is a tragedy no matter why.

Anybody having to kill another in self-defense is a tragic and likely to scar that person for years if not forever.

Ersland may be the sort of person who lived for this moment and enjoyed it. People like this exisit. I can't know.

Anyway you look at it, everybody lost.

Woohooo. Let's have a party.

I don't think anyone can say Ersland didn't get a mean bite out of a life sandwich. I feel bad for the old guy, who obviously would have never seeked this out. Still, he executed the kid. It sucks all around. Horrible situation. The events that day killed a young boy and filled 4 more prison cells for a very long time. It is an absolute tragedy.

Well, if you count Thunder, you're right. LOL


Nah, Thunder had issues about Prater going back before this case. He's not a convert, he's simply more upset than he was to begin with.

This is my original comment that you took exception to:


How you can believe that I am "defending" a racist statement by virtue of the above is just too twisted to be worth trying to untangle.

I called something that was quite racist what it was, and then you took exception to me calling a guy celebrating Antwun's death racism. I don't see how I'm the twisted one. You were defending highly racist and inflammatory remarks.

Sure. If you can afford to pay a new team to get up to speed on the case. That's probably about a $30-50K retainer for starters I'd guess.

Conversely, if he is as tapped out as his shortly before trial stories indicated, I don't see why he wouldn't be eligible for representation by court appointed counsel on his initial appeal.

Lest anyone scoff at the notion of a public defender, please be aware there are many folk in our state who have been granted sentence modifications, new trials, even get off of death row where you never belonged card (with a note on the back that said oh yeah, you're also leaving DOC and going home too), all due to the representation of court appointed attorneys.

Conversely, if he is as tapped out as his shortly before trial stories indicated, I don't see why he wouldn't be eligible for representation by court appointed counsel on his initial appeal.

Lest anyone scoff at the notion of a public defender, please be aware there are many folk in our state who have been granted sentence modifications, new trials, even get off of death row where you never belonged card (with a note on the back that said oh yeah, you're also leaving DOC and going home too), all due to the representation of court appointed attorneys.

The appeals attorneys at the office of the public defender easily have more appellate experience than any private criminal attorney.

Oh Dana, you live in a reality of your own creation. People are not clamoring for Prater's head. In fact, most public outcry was in support of the charges against Ersland. The fault many people are finding now is in the conviction and sentence. Neither of which does Prater have blood on his hands. He gave a jury of his peers the option of acquittal, lesser charges or murder. The jury chose a murder conviction and life in prison.

I personally disagree with the sentence and I attended most of the trial. But I do not disagree with him being charged and convicted.

You sir are the one who lives in a world of your own creation. This is not the only thread on the internet dealing with the Ersland trial. As Thunder pointed out there is a page going on facebook and I went in and looked at it and there are a bunch of people who are saying Prater needs to be removed. Also I notice that when I ask a question that you can't handle you just get quiet the only time you say anything to me is to attack me as a person and by the way I thought you said a few days ago that you weren't going to respond to my posts anymore.

Dana, just ignore Brian on the politics side. He will find out soon enough on his own time. Lets cut back on the back 'n forth argument, because it will never stop.

Brian, you have your own opinions, but know that you are mostly in the minority here. Most people (trust me it is a lot) disagree with you, but they do not post on here out of fear of being attacked/challenged.

Thunder, just for the record, I give a massive amount of credence to Brian's opinions. Now and then I do not agree with his bottom line. When I was aware of him only thru the media I didn't much like him but having "met" him here, I have gained great admiration for him and his ability to stay objective. Remember, Thunder, he has FAR more exposure to this kind of thing than either you OR me.

Just a suggestion, perhaps a thread name change might be in order at this point. Maybe

Ersland - Trial Ends with Conviction. What's Next?

or

Ersland - Appealing & Beyond

I called something that was quite racist what it was, and then you took exception to me calling a guy celebrating Antwun's death racism. I don't see how I'm the twisted one. You were defending highly racist and inflammatory remarks.

<nevermind>

Maybe a public defender if he's broke...but supposing he's not completely broke, I think one would have to weigh the trade off of what's left in money for his family, his future (whatever money will buy you in prison or after parole) against the odds for or against success, combined with the costs to bring a new team up to the level of knowledge of what he has already paid his current attorney to know.

Freedom would be priceless, or course, but seems like long odds now. I would have bet on acquittal before.

I know, USG.

DE, there is massive donation drive to fund his defense team. The info that I provided earlier, you can get in touch with them to write out a generous check for the cause. Remember, you will be serving the communities of the great state of Oklahoma.

Just a suggestion, perhaps a thread name change might be in order at this point. Maybe

Ersland - Trial Ends with Conviction. What's Next?

or

Ersland - Appealing & Beyond

Agreed.

Just a suggestion, perhaps a thread name change might be in order at this point. Maybe

Ersland - Trial Ends with Conviction. What's Next?

or

Ersland - Appealing & Beyond

Kevin, that is the best, cuz its quite fitting with the following...

http://dundundun.net/ :-)

Maybe a public defender if he's broke...but supposing he's not completely broke, I think one would have to weigh the trade off of what's left in money for his family, his future (whatever money will buy you in prison or after parole) against the odds for or against success, combined with the costs to bring a new team up to the level of knowledge of what he has already paid his current attorney to know.

Freedom would be priceless, or course, but seems like long odds now. I would have bet on acquittal before.

It's actually not a requirement to be destitute, but it is a requirement to be unable to afford the costs of the records and counsel. As you surmise, that's more than a few dollars, new counsel or no. Getting up to speed in a case like this is not an extraordinary effort. A lots of investigation on the front end, more than many cases out there.

As for the outcome, we had very different views. An acquittal would have surprised me greatly. I felt the most likely outcome was conviction, with a possibility for a hung jury. On a hung jury, I felt if it happened it would more likely be if a juror or two dug in their heels on either the top count or the lesser included charge and then refused to budge in their belief.

FWIW, I'm generally not nearly as persuaded with the state's position in a case as I found myself here. It's been more than a tad disconcerting at times.

I suggest: Jerome Ersland executes attempted robber and then lies about being combat vet

I suggest: Jerome Ersland executes attempted robber and then lies about being combat vet

Spartan, that kid was good as dead. Who cares what anyone say! If you look at the time of bullet shattering his evil brain to the time of medical arrvial, then the time to transport to hospital, and to wait for an operating room to be ready. That kid is dead.

Who cares what he lied about afterward. That is his own problem to deal with.

Here are some additional titles.....
From section 8 housing to the penthouse by Cleta Jennings
Gibs me dis gibs me dat by Cleta Jennings
How to raise a productive member of society by Cleta Jennings
How to create a scenario then deny any involvement or take any responsibility by Cleta Jennings
How to draw and play basketball by Antwun Parker
How to keep the NAACP off your back by David Prater
How to keep MLK blvd safe and quiet for one and all by David Prater
And last but not least....
How to take out the trash in 5 easy steps by Jerome Ersland

Spartan, that kid was good as dead. Who cares what anyone say! If you look at the time of bullet shattering his evil brain to the time of medical arrvial, then the time to transport to hospital, and to wait for an operating room to be ready. That kid is dead.

Thunder, I don't think the kid's brain was evil...



Here are some additional titles.....
From section 8 housing to the penthouse by Cleta Jennings
Gibs me dis gibs me dat by Cleta Jennings
How to raise a productive member of society by Cleta Jennings
How to create a scenario then deny any involvement or take any responsibility by Cleta Jennings
How to draw and play basketball by Antwun Parker
How to keep the NAACP off your back by David Prater
How to keep MLK blvd safe and quiet for one and all by David Prater
And last but not least....
How to take out the trash in 5 easy steps by Jerome Ersland

In case anyone was unclear what evil is...

Here are some additional titles.....
From section 8 housing to the penthouse by Cleta Jennings
Gibs me dis gibs me dat by Cleta Jennings
How to raise a productive member of society by Cleta Jennings
How to create a scenario then deny any involvement or take any responsibility by Cleta Jennings
How to draw and play basketball by Antwun Parker
How to keep the NAACP off your back by David Prater
How to keep MLK blvd safe and quiet for one and all by David Prater
And last but not least....
How to take out the trash in 5 easy steps by Jerome Ersland

LOL! I definitely love this! He can write a book after all of these situations is settled.

Spartan, that kid was good as dead. Who cares what anyone say! ...


People who deal with facts instead of emotional desires for starters.

Thunder, I get it. You don't see the difference in the first shot and the other shots. You're wrong under the law is the problem, and you're wrong on your facts. The first shot was not a fatal shot. Period.

If it helps any, as I've noted before. Had that shot been a fatal shot, or had he fired and hit the robber a couple of times right off and any of those would be fatal shots, then you would be correct about this was not a murder 1 case. I'd be right there stomping my foot with you laddie. BUT, and it's a big but, that is not what happened here.

There simply is a difference on what you and some folk think should be ok, and what is actually ok.

It's actually not a requirement to be destitute, but it is a requirement to be unable to afford the costs of the records and counsel. As you surmise, that's more than a few dollars, new counsel or no. Getting up to speed in a case like this is not an extraordinary effort. A lots of investigation on the front end, more than many cases out there.

As for the outcome, we had very different views. An acquittal would have surprised me greatly. I felt the most likely outcome was conviction, with a possibility for a hung jury. On a hung jury, I felt if it happened it would more likely be if a juror or two dug in their heels on either the top count or the lesser included charge and then refused to budge in their belief.

FWIW, I'm generally not nearly as persuaded with the state's position in a case as I found myself here. It's been more than a tad disconcerting at times.


for clarity, my opinion was and is he is guilty of 1st degree murder, and due some punishment that fits that crime, but I expected him to get off much lighter, with a hung jury, innocent from reasonable doubt or whatever.

Totally agree the whole affair is lose lose. It might have been better if they had not had a weapon on the premises. Or not. Hard to say.

I called something that was quite racist what it was, and then you took exception to me calling a guy celebrating Antwun's death racism. I don't see how I'm the twisted one. You were defending highly racist and inflammatory remarks.

Spartan, that is not what I did and you aren't being reasonable. Here is your first statement, flat out claiming that this murder was motivated by racism:


Are you serious?? He shot the unarmed kid after turning his back, went to go grab another gun to finish him off. Bragged to the police about nailing him. Lied to cover up his murder. Lied to fabricate an arm wound. Lied about being a combat veteran. Lied about everything. Took a handcuff key to prison with him thinking he'd escape. There's nothing Ersland hasn't lied about. This case is about racism, because how could an old white guy be sent to jail for killing a black kid?

That statement says more about your opinion about the man's motive than anything else. As near as I can tell, there hasn't been evidence that he was motivated by racism. It might seem to you to be "obvious," since the robbers were black and the pharmacist was white but you don't have any proof of it. What you DO have evidence of is that the man was a flake and a liar in areas that don't touch on race. There has been a lot of criticism of Thunder's take on the facts, based on his worldview, but how is your take any different? You think you know how the world works and flat out defined the whole situation as racially based. You ignored eveything about the situation but skin color. That sounds pretty racist, to me, if you think it is fine to start making charges of racism at the drop of a hat. What, you don't like that? I understand, I don't either but that hasn't slowed you down.

After your comment, this came about:


Uh Oh.....Someones playing the race card. I suppose the next thing you post will be that young Antwun was well on his way to becoming a productive member of society and a future nobel peace prize winner as well. As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.

Your response was:


Well unfortunately you kind of prove my point that it's racism. But the other people involved are behind bars serving murder charges as well (for putting the kids up to it), and if you went out and killed some thugs, that would also still be murder. It's this pervasive mentality exactly. In the 1920's it led to race riots. Today it just leads to message board arguments. We should be so lucky today. emphasis added.

Which led to mine:


I don't think a comment on a message board "proves" this was racism so don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for being so enlightened. You might want to consider other comments as a whole, including those who don't think race had anything to do with it but still think he did wrong. You are seeing what you choose to see and being inflamatory.

I'm a litigator, Spartan. When I see someone take something said on a message board and try to claim that "proves" that a murder by someone not even on the message board was racially motivated, the ignorance and absurdity of the comment hits hard. And that was why I said what I said.

You are now trying to claim you were saying the STATEMENT was racist and that I was defending it. I most certainly did not. Not only am I not defending it, I agree it is a racist statement. What I said was that a comment on a message board doesn't "prove" that the murder was racially motivated.

Duh.

You are tossing around racism and hints of racism like candy in a parade. The current trend for some people to be so quick to make those kinds of charges trivializes what is a very serious issue that should be treated with thought and consideration. I don't know if the pharmacist was motivated by racism and neither do you. No one on this board knows that. All we know is that the child was murdered and that a nearly all white jury found him guilty. For you to claim that racist comments on this board "prove" the murder was racially motivated, and then accuse me of defending racist statements by pointing out that a comment on a board doesn't prove anything, is ridiculous.

1st Degree Murder charge should have never ever been applied to this case. Fact.

Kevin, you can't just go around saying that the first shot to his head was not fatal. There are more than enough doubt if he was barely alive (but about to be dead quickly) or brain dead completely. Get that? Doubt! Everyone can believe what they want, but it was ultimately the Jurors' responsibility to see to it. They did not.

Btw, we still have not seen just where the bullet entered his skull and if there was any exit hole. Brain matters was reported to be exposed (if I remember correctly). Its more than likely that he was good as dead. Let me say this, those Jurors will be having their own Judgment Day and they will regret it.

All we can do is just move on and focus on righting the wrong, which the majority of Oklahomans are already doing right now.

1st Degree Murder charge should have never ever been applied to this case. Fact.


No lad, that's opinion. I can agree it is not your individual opinion, but it's opinion, not a fact. Judging from some comments around the net, by and large it is an opinion often held by folks who also express the opinion that if someone starts to rob a place, and ends up dead, that is ok, irrespective of how they ended up dead or what the law says on the manner of death.



... Kevin, you can't just go around saying that the first shot to his head was not fatal. There are more than enough doubt if he was barely alive (but about to be dead quickly) or brain dead completely. Get that? Doubt! Everyone can believe what they want, but it was ultimately the Jurors' responsibility to see to it. They did not. ...


It is not me declaring it Thunder. It was a part of the evidence presented at the trial. I realize a rather key fact in the case doesn't fit with your desired outcome for the case. That happens a lot of the time. I've noted before I could easily reach a different comfort level on this case under different facts, but I'm not at liberty to change what did and did not happen. The defendant was at liberty to change what happened, but went the route he went. I can agree he tried to change how it looked (and probably sealed his fate in the process) by faking an injury and verbally faking his service to our country and telling more than one falsehood on how things happened inside the store, as well as outside the store.

Twelve people sat and heard it all, and if they had felt your position, based on less information than they had, had a twig of merit, they could have found him not guilty in under 20 minutes if they thought he was not guilty. They could have hung up on a decision. They could have found he acted wrongly, but without a deliberate intent to take a life. Or they could, as they did, decide that on ALL the facts and evidence before them, and being duty bound on their oath to apply the actual law with those facts that he was guilty of the top charge, Murder in the First Degree. That you don't like the way they did their duty as a jury of his peers does not make them failures at their job.


... Btw, we still have not seen just where the bullet entered his skull and if there was any exit hole. Brain matters was reported to be exposed (if I remember correctly). Its more than likely that he was good as dead. Let me say this, those Jurors will be having their own Judgment Day and they will regret it. ...

That's right, you have not. And yet you have convinced yourself the first shot was actually a kill shot or as good as a kill shot. I have not seen the autopsy report in this case either. But I can read the reports of what the jury was told, and unlike you and me, they have seen it. They have seen the crime photos. they have seen everything that either side wanted them to see which is permissible and relevant for them to see.
Yes, the defense had a witness or two excluded, but as I recall they were not physical evidence witnesses. Their testimony would have gone to, in essence, you can't know what it is like unless you experience it.

Nobody excluded any evidence, that I recall anyway, that might have suggested the first shot was fatal. I believe even the defendant's attorneys agreed the first shot was not a fatal shot. Certainly the defendant believed that to be the case. I'll trust you're being emotional and not saying you know more about what happened in the store that day than the police, the medical experts and the defendant combined. None of them said he was more likely as good as dead as he lay their unconscious while the defendant shot him five more times.


... All we can do is just move on and focus on righting the wrong, which the majority of Oklahomans are already doing right now.

The majority of Oklahomans do not have any skin in what does or does not become of the defendant in this case, or any of the other defendants in this case for that matter. As for righting a wrong, if there were errors at the trial which would warrant a new trial, that's what an appeal is for. As far as a commutation, let alone a pardon, sure people can seek those solutions out if they desire to do so. It's not something I would hold my breath waiting on, but certainly the avenues exist.

I think this will likely be my last response to you lad, at least as to the question of this defendant's guilt being decided. We see the available information very differently. You are clinging to a hope for a different result, and that is your choice. I do not anticipate seeing the verdict being changed down the road. I suppose time will tell.

You sir are the one who lives in a world of your own creation. This is not the only thread on the internet dealing with the Ersland trial. As Thunder pointed out there is a page going on facebook and I went in and looked at it and there are a bunch of people who are saying Prater needs to be removed. Also I notice that when I ask a question that you can't handle you just get quiet the only time you say anything to me is to attack me as a person and by the way I thought you said a few days ago that you weren't going to respond to my posts anymore.


Dana, 703 (as of 2:27pm 5/29/2011) people worldwide who took 2 seconds to hit the 'like' button on a pro Ersland FaceBook page doesn't amount to anything. Let me know when the facebook page has at least as many 'likes' as the page dedicated to Kellogg's Pop Tarts with Sprinkles (191,400+) because obviously a breakfast pastry has more fans. As for the oust DA Prater petition. It had a whopping total of 2 signatures at the same time stamp.

Trust me, I have a much more realistic thumb on the temperature of the public's true opinions of our DA than you. I'm a big Prater supporter and even I can come up with 5x as many actual reasons to question his offices past/current actions than you and that still doesn't sway me.

I'm only addressing you now because the trial is over.

FYI, I 'liked' the Ersland page too. You can agree the sentence is too harsh and still acknowledge Prater was doing his job as elected by the people and unchallenged at re-election time.

While working at Children's Hospital I had video of my boss (Jake Lowrey) using a state computer to view hardcore porn in the presence of other state employees in his office. All the while making lewd comments about the images and women in general. I turned it over to authorities and they did nothing because they didn't want to upset the privatization of the hospital.

Good lord, and to think some years back the head of the Children's Hospital only got a year or so in prison for molesting a child. Sounds like not much has changed over there.

Just you watch, Governor Fallin will pardon him if the Judge do not ignore the Jurors' idiotic recommendation. :-)
Oh, yeah, you love Gov. Fallin.

I know, USG.

DE, there is massive donation drive to fund his defense team. The info that I provided earlier, you can get in touch with them to write out a generous check for the cause. Remember, you will be serving the communities of the great state of Oklahoma.

Thunder, there is no such 'massive' drive and even prior to the trial Ersland was able to get very little money via donations. Lets stay with the facts.

Spartan, that is not what I did and you aren't being reasonable. Here is your first statement, flat out claiming that this murder was motivated by racism:



That statement says more about your opinion about the man's motive than anything else. As near as I can tell, there hasn't been evidence that he was motivated by racism. It might seem to you to be "obvious," since the robbers were black and the pharmacist was white but you don't have any proof of it. What you DO have evidence of is that the man was a flake and a liar in areas that don't touch on race. There has been a lot of criticism of Thunder's take on the facts, based on his worldview, but how is your take any different? You think you know how the world works and flat out defined the whole situation as racially based. You ignored eveything about the situation but skin color. That sounds pretty racist, to me, if you think it is fine to start making charges of racism at the drop of a hat. What, you don't like that? I understand, I don't either but that hasn't slowed you down.

After your comment, this came about:



Your response was:

emphasis added.

Which led to mine:



I'm a litigator, Spartan. When I see someone take something said on a message board and try to claim that "proves" that a murder by someone not even on the message board was racially motivated, the ignorance and absurdity of the comment hits hard. And that was why I said what I said.

You are now trying to claim you were saying the STATEMENT was racist and that I was defending it. I most certainly did not. Not only am I not defending it, I agree it is a racist statement. What I said was that a comment on a message board doesn't "prove" that the murder was racially motivated.

Duh.

You are tossing around racism and hints of racism like candy in a parade. The current trend for some people to be so quick to make those kinds of charges trivializes what is a very serious issue that should be treated with thought and consideration. I don't know if the pharmacist was motivated by racism and neither do you. No one on this board knows that. All we know is that the child was murdered and that a nearly all white jury found him guilty. For you to claim that racist comments on this board "prove" the murder was racially motivated, and then accuse me of defending racist statements by pointing out that a comment on a board doesn't prove anything, is ridiculous.

Oh come on. Now you're trying to make a point out of Ersland not participating in this discussion. It's a discussion about Ersland. You're a litigator, cool. I'm an academic, so perhaps then I can make the claim that thinking is more my arena Lol. But in all seriousness, I'm just going to quote once again (if I haven't enough) the statements you don't like me calling racism. Maybe someone else should be the judge.


Uh Oh.....Someones playing the race card. I suppose the next thing you post will be that young Antwun was well on his way to becoming a productive member of society and a future nobel peace prize winner as well. As far as im concerned its one less thug off the streets and its too bad he didnt get the other 3 as well as the worthless excuse of a human being{aka mammy}.


Here are some additional titles.....
From section 8 housing to the penthouse by Cleta Jennings
Gibs me dis gibs me dat by Cleta Jennings
How to raise a productive member of society by Cleta Jennings
How to create a scenario then deny any involvement or take any responsibility by Cleta Jennings
How to draw and play basketball by Antwun Parker
How to keep the NAACP off your back by David Prater
How to keep MLK blvd safe and quiet for one and all by David Prater
And last but not least....
How to take out the trash in 5 easy steps by Jerome Ersland

It is especially interesting because you seem to be insinuating that racism exists nowhere anymore and should not be made into an issue anymore.