Self-defence or murder? Outrage as pharmacist who shot 16-year-old trying to rob his shop gets life sentence

A controversial decision to send a pharmacist to jail for life for shooting dead a young man who tried to rob his store has caused a storm of protest. Jerome Ersland was given a life sentence for the first-degree murder of 16-year-old Antwun Parker at an Oklahoma court last week.

The 59-year-old pharmacist shot the youngster six times during an attempted armed robbery in 2009, leading jurors to decide he had acted beyond the limits of self defence.

Thousands in the area have, however, reacted furiously to the decision, insisting Mr Ersland had simply acted to protect himself, his store and his customers. The debate has now moved online, with many joining groups in his support and ones that argue his punishment is deserved on Facebook.

The argument is similarly divided on social networking site Twitter, with thousands sending out messages of support for either Ersland or the justice system.

One group on Facebook, titled 'Jerome Ersland should not have been found guilty' has more than 2,500 members.

Others, such as the 'Jerome Ersland got what he deserved' group have also attracted much attention.

There have also been petition sites started which hope to send more than 5,000 signatories to the government following the controversial court case.

Support has also come from notable public figures, including Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey. 'I'm gonna spend the rest of my career, however long it may be, trying to right this wrong,' he told ABC News.

Dramatic CCTV footage from May 19 2009 shows Antwun Parker and an accomplice running into the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City and pointing a gun directly at Mr Ersland. The pharmacist, who was once an Air Force lieutenant colonel, can then be seen reaching for a pistol of his own before firing at the two young men, with one of the shots hitting Parker to the ground.

After chasing the accomplice from the store, Ersland then gets a second gun before shooting Parker another five times, almost a minute after he fired the first gunshot.

In court, Mr Ersland's attorneys insisted their client had acted in self-defence. Defence lawyer Irven Box asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine what they would do if they were confronted with the same situation. 'He eliminated the armed robber,' Box said.

Box added to ABC News that the pharmacist had shot repeatedly because he saw Parker was still moving after the first hit so deemed him still to be a threat.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Chance, however, argued that: 'This defendant was absolutely not defending himself or anyone else.'

The jury responded after three and a half hours of deliberation by recommending a life sentence.

Ersland must now be sentenced by Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott on July 11. If he upholds the jury's decision, Ersland will not be eligible for parole for at least 38 years. Ersland's lawyers said they would appeal the murder conviction.

Source





British School reprimands seven-year-old boys for playing 'army game'

They actually used their hands to represent a GUN!

A primary school has been condemned by parents for disciplining two seven-year-old boys after teachers ruled playing army games amounted to "threatening behaviour". Staff at Nathaniel Newton Infant School in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, reprimanded the two boys after they were seen making pistol shapes with their fingers.

Teachers broke up the imaginary classroom shoot-out and contacted the youngsters’ parents, warning them that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The school, which caters for around 180 pupils aged four to seven, said the gun gestures were “unacceptable” and were not permitted at school.

However, parents have described the reaction as “outrageous”, while family groups warned that “wrapping children in cotton wool” damages their upbringing.

Defending its policy, a spokesman for Nathaniel Newton Infant School said: “Far from stopping children from playing we actively encourage it. “However a judgement call has to be made if playing turns into unacceptable behaviour. "The issue here was about hand gestures being made in the shape of a gun towards members of staff which is understandably unacceptable, particularly in the classroom."

A father of one of the boys who was disciplined said: "It’s ridiculous. How can you tell a seven-year-old boy he cannot play guns and armies with his friends.

"Another parent was called for the same reason. We were told to reprimand our son for this and to tell him he cannot play 'guns' anymore. "The teacher said the boys should be reprimanded for threatening behaviour which would not be tolerated at the school.”

The community primary school was rated as “good” overall in an Ofsted report published last year, but warned that children oughtt to have greater freedom to play. The inspectors praised pupils’ behaviour as “outstanding”, telling them in a letter: “Your behaviour is excellent and you work very well together.” They added that they had asked teachers to “make it easier for the children to play and learn outside”.

Parenting groups condemned the school’s reaction to the children’s game of soldiers, warning that it risked causing a rift between the school and parents.

Margaret Morrissey, founder of the family lobby group Parents Outloud, said: “It is madness to try to indoctrinate children aged seven with political correctness in this way. “Children have played cowboys and Indians like this for generations and it does them absolutely no harm whatsoever. “In my experience, it is the children who are banned from playing innocent games like this who then go on to develop a fascination with guns.

“We cannot wrap our children in cotton wool. Allowing them to take a few risks and play games outside is an essential part of growing up. “By reprimanding these youngsters at this age, the school makes a very big issue out of something trivial, which will divide the parents and teachers.”

The case follows a string of similar incidents in which children’s playtime activities have been curbed by overzealous staff over health and safety concerns. Earlier this year, a Liverpool school banned youngsters from playing football with anything other than sponge balls amid fears youngsters might get hurt.

Research last month also found that one in six British schools had banned conkers over concerns of pupils being hit in the face. Other traditional playground games such as British bulldog and even leapfrog are prohibited at 30 per cent 10 per cent of schools respectively, a study by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers union found.

Marcus Jones, the Tory MP for Nuneaton, said: “It is quite apparent that the seven-year-olds would be playing an innocent game. "This is political correctness gone mad. When I was that age that type of game was common place and I don't remember anyone coming to any harm from it."

SOURCE