Folk Hero or Murderer? [Archive] - Page 2 - Straight Dope Message Board

bengangmo

06-01-2009, 02:48 AM

If Erland is rational enough to decide to pre-emptively shoot the robber to eliminate the threat, taking specific steps to carry this out (getting another gun) then I think its quite reasonable to assume that he's rational enough to consider other options to remove himself from the threat. (this would include hiding, tying the robber up, leaving the store or whatever).

If you are going to argue that pre-emptively removing a threat is rational and correct then you should evaluate his actions in light of other rational actions he could have taken - including removing himself from the threat.

Another thought - if you are going to keep a weapon for self defence then I also think there is a certain responsibility you bear to use the weapon mostly rationally - so the idea of "he was hyped and running on fear" when he delivered the second round of shots doesn't hold too much weight for me. The idea being that he is no longer "reacting" - yeah, maybe he was running on adrenaline and not thinking properly, but if you are going to carry a weapon it is somewhat incumbent upon you to NOT still be reacting this way once the immediate threat is removed.

The same way that it is incumbent on you to learn how to drive a car properly if you are going to use one.

E-Sabbath

06-01-2009, 04:49 AM

Kobal2

06-01-2009, 05:44 AM

This is why the liberals have such a hard time getting support, even though most of their positions are popular. Normal people can't manage to muster sympathy for a guy who got shot six times while robbing a convenience store. I seriously just don't understand how your sympathy goes to the robber, and not the guy who was robbed.

And I can't begin to understand how you can't muster any sympathy whatsoever for a kid who got shot 5 times while he was down.

The two are not mutually exclusive, y'know ?
Yeah, yeah, I get it, he's a criminal, the scum of the Earth and all that. He's still a human being, i.e. someone like me.

It's vigilantism when you hunt them down _after_ the crime is committed, and act as judge, jury, and executioner. Or even as police. Vigilante behavior is pre-meditated, while self-defense is spontaneous.

As has been already argued in the thread (and I happen to agree), once the robber is down and unconscious, the robbery is over. The crime has been averted, the danger's mostly gone. Walking to get a second gun and pumping rounds into the prone perp isn't self-defense, it's an execution.

Besides, I would point out that the object of self-defense is not to kill one's assailant, but to prevent or stop the assault. To make the "bad guys" flee, or incapacitate them. Death is the possible yet always regrettable consequence of self-defense, not the goal thereof.

And that's a multiple robbee speaking (although, I admit, never at gunpoint, since guns are outlawed in France and even outlaws don't have them for the most part ;))

ivan astikov

06-01-2009, 06:10 AM

After several views of the video, I think the idea that he acted in anything other than a calculated manner to be nothing but apologism for his actions.

If he was pumped up with adrenaline, and still coming down from being in fear of his life, do you really think he'd have had the clear-headedness to phone the police immediately after finishing off the robber on the floor?

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:10 AM

Ignoring the partner of a robbery is a big mistake.
He wasn't ignored. He was chased from the premises. Obviously Mr. Ersland was satisfied that he was not coming back, or he would have removed the block of wood which prevented the door from closing and locked the door.

The one who is shot needs to be secured starting with a removal of his gun.

He was unarmed. He was unconscious and immobile on the ground. How much more secure could he have been? Other than dead, I mean?

This has to be done with one eye on the door and your gun still drawn. It ends when the police show up and secure the area.

I agree with this last part. Mr. Ersland should have called the cops immediately upon re-rentering the store, and waited for them to come and secure the area, keeping his gun trained on the perp he had already shot.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:13 AM

I'm surprised Monty is confusing vigilantism with self-defense, myself. At least, that's what it looks like he's doing. Monty, if someone tries to rob you, it is not vigilantism to shoot them.

It's vigilantism when you hunt them down _after_ the crime is committed, and act as judge, jury, and executioner. Or even as police. Vigilante behavior is pre-meditated, while self-defense is spontaneous.

Which is what happened here. The robbery was over. That situation had ended.

Mr. Ersland than went and got another gun, returned to the guy on the ground, crouched or bent down, and fired 5 shots point blank into the guy's belly. It was a deliberate, planned action, unlike the first shot that hit the guy in the head, which was a spontaneous (and legitimate) act of self-defense.

ivan astikov

06-01-2009, 06:16 AM

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:17 AM

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:22 AM

Missed the edit window.

One thing that is not clear is how long he took between going out the door, firing off his remaining bullets, and then re-entering the store, as very helpfully, there is a cut in the cctv footage I've seen, at that point, or so it seems.

It was just a few seconds. Locrian provided links to 3 security camera videos in post #54 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11195872&postcount=54). The third link is to the camera outside the store and you can see Mr. Ersland depart the frame and return with no edit.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:30 AM

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 06:56 AM

...He was unarmed.
Ersland didn't know that
... He was unconscious
You don't know that. You are basing that opinion off of the ME's report. I guarantee you that Ersland will find an Expert witness who will say otherwise.
... and immobile
You don't know that either. It takes about a second to draw a gun that is secured behind your back. Think you can react fast enough for that? Put yourself in a back brace like Ersland wears. Still think you can?
...on the ground.
The video is clear in only this respect.

Mr. Ersland should have called the cops immediately upon re-rentering the store, and waited for them to come and secure the area, keeping his gun trained on the perp he had already shot.
Yep. And Ersland, with the same 20/20 hindsight we all have here, should never have let the two in the store in the first place. He should have had duct tape and zip ties ready to tie people up, metal detectors at the door, a bigger caliber weapon...

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 07:28 AM

Ersland didn't know thatThe guy's hands were visible, and empty.
You don't know that. You are basing that opinion off of the ME's report. I guarantee you that Ersland will find an Expert witness who will say otherwise.I also don't know that "Ersland' is his real name. I'm basing that off the news stories. But I go by the information I have, not the information I wish I had.

You don't know that either. It takes about a second to draw a gun that is secured behind your back. Think you can react fast enough for that? Put yourself in a back brace like Ersland wears. Still think you can?Yeah, I think if I already have my gun out and pointed at the unconscious, wounded man on the floor I can react faster than he can draw an imaginary or hypothetical gun, even if I was in a back brace with one arm in a cast and a peg leg, with a patch over one eye.

The video is clear in only this respect.It's clear in many other respects, not just this one respect.

Yep. And Ersland, with the same 20/20 hindsight we all have here, should never have let the two in the store in the first place. He should have had duct tape and zip ties ready to tie people up, metal detectors at the door, a bigger caliber weapon...
:rolleyes:

Martiju

06-01-2009, 07:32 AM

This is why the liberals have such a hard time getting support, even though most of their positions are popular. Normal people can't manage to muster sympathy for a guy who got shot six times while robbing a convenience store. I seriously just don't understand how your sympathy goes to the robber, and not the guy who was robbed.

This is just ridiculous. Apart from the fact that this isn't 'liberals' speaking, it's humans - how can they have a hard time getting support but have popular positions?

Further, I'd hope that 'normal' people are perfectly able to muster sympathy for anyone, regardless of circumstances. Your lack of logic goes further in assuming that sympathy for one party means no sympathy whatsoever for another. It is possible to think that this is ended in an illegal and immoral way - with the death of a fellow human - not only without suggesting that the dead man was innocent or that the shooter was entirely without cause.

Reducing the argument to black and white, right and wrong is not only pointless but also completely at odds with your own legal system - and that of the 'civilised' Western world.

Monty

06-01-2009, 08:21 AM

Monty

06-01-2009, 08:30 AM

I'm surprised Monty is confusing vigilantism with self-defense, myself. At least, that's what it looks like he's doing. Monty, if someone tries to rob you, it is not vigilantism to shoot them.

That would be what happened with the first shot.

It's vigilantism when you hunt them down _after_ the crime is committed, and act as judge, jury, and executioner. Or even as police. Vigilante behavior is pre-meditated, while self-defense is spontaneous.

The non-spontaneous bit would be the next five shots, the ones fired after reloading.

Maybe the next time the robbery victim decides to live out an episode of Law & Order, he'll recall what happened in the end of that episode before acting on that decision.

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 09:15 AM

Monty

Hmm, how does vigilantism go against fighting ignorance? That's just your opinion, bubba.

The abortion doctor was murdered because of vigilantism. Which do you prefer, a nation of laws or a nation were people are murdered because other people don't like them?

Monty

06-01-2009, 09:19 AM

Left something out of my post above.

I'm not confusing jack.

Walker in Eternity

06-01-2009, 09:29 AM

The dead guy's accomplice, the getaway driver and the guy who talked them into the robbery attempt have all been arrested and charged with capital murder, since the death occurred during the commission of a crime, as they should be.

Please excuse my slight hijack, but I didn't quite understand this (not being familiar with US law), does this mean that if a person is murdered while committing a crime his accomplices are implicated in the murder regardless of culpability or not? By culpability I mean that they did not actually kill him.

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 09:32 AM

Yep. And Ersland, with the same 20/20 hindsight we all have here, should never have let the two in the store in the first place. He should have had duct tape and zip ties ready to tie people up, metal detectors at the door, a bigger caliber weapon...

Wow, an unconscious person, who can be easily shot if he shows any signs of not being unconscious, poses no threat requires 20/20 hindsight to figure out?

You must think Ersland to be really incredibly stupid.

ivan astikov

06-01-2009, 09:42 AM

Please excuse my slight hijack, but I didn't quite understand this (not being familiar with US law), does this mean that if a person is murdered while committing a crime his accomplices are implicated in the murder regardless of culpability or not? By culpability I mean that they did not actually kill him.

We seem to have that law in the UK, but it is so arbitrarily used as to be nothing but confusing.

I've heard of cases where 2 parents have been charged with the death of a child, but because it couldn't be decided who caused the fatal blow, nobody is charged with murder.

On the other hand, there are cases where a group are involved in an attack on someone who dies, and they all get charged with the murder, but because no one will admit to giving the fatal blow, all are sentenced similarly, if found guilty.

The law makers have had hundreds of years of human history and experience, and still can't help being asses at times. If they are dealing with property and not human lives they tend to make far fewer mistakes!

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 09:46 AM

The guy's hands were visible, and empty.

Which certainly does not equal unarmed. Just nothing in his hands.

Yeah, I think if I already have my gun out and pointed at the unconscious, wounded man on the floor I can react faster than he can draw an imaginary or hypothetical gun, even if I was in a back brace with one arm in a cast and a peg leg, with a patch over one eye.

How long does it take you to move your hand to your back and fake draw a gun on someone? A second? Maybe a second and a half? Have you ever done any practical shooting or taken CCW styled self defense courses? You might be surprised as to how fast a determined person can get the drop on you and how equally slow one's reaction to said event typically is. Throw in a brace that keeps ones upper body rigid and offers restricted movement and you have an even slower reaction time.

And again, this whole unconscious supposition is based upon the ME's report that could be easily wrong. I posted a link earlier where a woman was shot in the head, through and through, with the same caliber bullet. She made herself a cup of tea while waiting for the police. I read somewhere that the head wound in this case was not particularly serious. I'll have to find that cite... If it is later found out that he was not "really" unconscious, or that there was a good chance that he wasn't, does that change anything in your mind?

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 09:52 AM

I think there's not really any way that a robbery victim, in the middle of an adrenaline rush in an incredibly high-stress situation, could be totally sure that the guy lying unconscious was, in fact, unconscious. For all the pharmacist knew, the guy on the ground could have gotten up at any moment.

I come from a family of mom-and-pop store owners. It's hard enough running a store, worrying about the rent and the bills and the competition from other stores, without also having to worry about someone coming in with a gun and robbing your shop. People who rob are the scum of the earth; like I said before, I would be happy if every one of them spontaneously burst into flames. The more robbers who are shot to death during their "work," the fewer robberies will ultimately occur, once the robbers get the message that holding up a store is akin to a death sentence. And this is the message that they should get.

Every single scumbag in America contemplating sticking up a liquor store or a pawn shop or any other business should be just as scared as someone who was contemplating robbing a police station. They should be just as nervous as someone about to walk naked into a lion's den. Every law abiding shop owner in America who is trying to make a living and support his family in peace should be considered a lion, by default, and robbing them should be considered a suicidal act.

I get what you're saying and I agree people have every right to defend themselves. I think you're over simplifying. If more robbers were killed in the act would they be afraid to make the attempt or would they shoot first? Maybe your attitude would turn more robberies into a gun battles.

I do think that knowing people are willing and able to defend themselves would give real pause to those who thought they could just scare people into handing over their property.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 09:56 AM

Wow, an unconscious person, who can be easily shot if he shows any signs of not being unconscious, poses no threat requires 20/20 hindsight to figure out?

You must think Ersland to be really incredibly stupid.

Give me a break. Everyone can analyze this event like the Zapruder film and come up with whatever conclusion they want, based on hindsight, Monday Morning Quarterbacking or whatever pre-conceived notions of self defense, crime and and punishment, race relations, or whatever else trips their triggers. Ultimately however, nobody knows with any true certainty, what happened except for the guy that is alive and kicking. Most of those crying for this guys head see what they want to see and blindly turn away from any shred of reasonable doubt or alternate scenarios.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:04 AM

Really? Now 'covering him' is something that only supercops are capable of? I'm not acknowledging that Parsons was a continuing threat, only observing that if Ersland thought of the possibility of Parsons coming round and becoming a threat again, he had an option short of 'finishing the job'. And Ersland, by turning his back on Parsons to get the second gun, obviously wasn't worried about either the pals returning or Parsons having a concealed weapon.

Parsons was apparently unconscious on the ground, with a bullet hole in his head, his hands visible and empty, and wasn't moving. Even if Parsons did have a concealed weapon, it doesn't seem unreasonable to sit there, pointing a gun at him, ready to shoot if Parsons goes for something concealed.

Besides which, Ersland obviously wasn't that worried about his pals returning if he wasted five shots on an unconscious man. If you were worried about them coming back, wouldn't you preserve your ready ammunition? If you wanted to ensure Parsons didn't get back up, wouldn't you simply put one more in his head?

note he did not keep a weapon handy after he shot Parsons and was making the call. He walked around the store unarmed waiting for the police so he wasn't thinking of a returning robber.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 10:12 AM

I agree with this last part. Mr. Ersland should have called the cops immediately upon re-rentering the store, and waited for them to come and secure the area, keeping his gun trained on the perp he had already shot.

You do not want to be holding a gun when the cops show up.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 10:16 AM

I get what you're saying and I agree people have every right to defend themselves. I think you're over simplifying. If more robbers were killed in the act would they be afraid to make the attempt or would they shoot first? Maybe your attitude would turn more robberies into a gun battles.

I do think that knowing people are willing and able to defend themselves would give real pause to those who thought they could just scare people into handing over their property.

The point of more robbers being killed in the act is so that more robbery victims can stay alive. Sometimes robbers shoot their victims after getting the loot. Some people die without having put up any kind of a fight at all.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 10:22 AM

The abortion doctor was murdered because of vigilantism. Which do you prefer, a nation of laws or a nation were people are murdered because other people don't like them?

Third trimester abortions? C'mon!

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 10:26 AM

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:34 AM

Been robbed before, at gunpoint. At least thirty minutes later I was still pretty jumpy. I've seen two people shot before, same reaction.

Ersland was not cool and collected 45 seconds after the shooting started. He may not have shown it in the video but you can bet that he was highly strung out and in fear of his life and those other emplyees hiding in the back.
See this isn't a polo match or a friendly game of cards. It's about survival. It's savage combat. He could not know if the BG on the floor had a concealed weapon or if the guy who ran off might return or a third BG might show up. He had to lower the odds and completely eliminate the threat of the robber on the floor.

He wanted to stay alive!

If he had killed the robber initially with the first shot to the head, he would be no less dead than he is now. But Ersland wouldn't have even been charged. How ridiculous is that?

And if the robber was doing this line of work because his kids needed food as opposed to he just hates people, someone he might kill robbing them won't be less dead either.

I think this is a pretty relevant post that got overlooked. How do we the general public judge someone who was being robbed at gunpoint. Regardless of the video it's unrealistic to refer to the guy as calm. There's a good chance he wasn't thinking perfectly rationally.
Still, we do see him walk by the downed robber and turning his back on him to pursue the 2nd robber. When he returns he walks by the downed robber with his gun held in a non firing position. Maybe it's empty, I don't know, but he doesn't seem to perceive any immediate threat as he walks by to get another gun {or is it reload?} He also doesn't seem to perceive any immediate threat as he approaches the downed robber to shoot again. I can totally understand and support an "I'm not taking any chances" attitude. I think murder is out of the question and I sure hope it doesn't come to that. Some version of manslaughter, maybe. We can 2nd guess him and say he could have held the gun on the downed robber or left the premises. I think either of those would have been a better choice. He chose to make sure the attacker wouldn't get up. Who knows what was going on in his head? The fact that he walks by the downed robber twice and turns his back on him is going to be pretty damning. It seems to show he saw no immediate threat.

In reading the other accounts of the average joe fighting back I can understand the feeling of satisfaction to hear about people defending themselves rather than living in fear. There's still a danger of things going to far and justifying gun play for any offense. In one cited case a guy shoots a kid who is outside his window because the kid might be thinking about breaking in.

OTOH, if the average joe starts defending himself we can expect some situations like this to arise. Overall is it a reasonable response to violent crimes and a price we as a society are willing to pay let criminals know they may be risking their lives when they choose to commit a crime?

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:36 AM

You do not want to be holding a gun when the cops show up.

This is true. A local merchant was shot by cops when he chased robbers outside and was so excited he didn't drop his gun when ordered by the police.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:39 AM

Which certainly does not equal unarmed. Just nothing in his hands.

How long does it take you to move your hand to your back and fake draw a gun on someone? A second? Maybe a second and a half? Have you ever done any practical shooting or taken CCW styled self defense courses? You might be surprised as to how fast a determined person can get the drop on you and how equally slow one's reaction to said event typically is. Throw in a brace that keeps ones upper body rigid and offers restricted movement and you have an even slower reaction time.

And again, this whole unconscious supposition is based upon the ME's report that could be easily wrong. I posted a link earlier where a woman was shot in the head, through and through, with the same caliber bullet. She made herself a cup of tea while waiting for the police. I read somewhere that the head wound in this case was not particularly serious. I'll have to find that cite... If it is later found out that he was not "really" unconscious, or that there was a good chance that he wasn't, does that change anything in your mind?

IN the video the merchant walks by the downed robber twice with no sign of alarm or being threatened. He turns his back to him. If he wasn't worried then about a hidden weapon and feigned or recovering unconsciousness why would he be later?

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:43 AM

This is true. A local merchant was shot by cops when he chased robbers outside and was so excited he didn't drop his gun when ordered by the police.

I'd add that the merchant in the video seems able to think clearly enough to drop the weapon when the cops arrive.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 10:43 AM

And I can't begin to understand how you can't muster any sympathy whatsoever for a kid who got shot 5 times while he was down.

The two are not mutually exclusive, y'know ?
Yeah, yeah, I get it, he's a criminal, the scum of the Earth and all that. He's still a human being, i.e. someone like me.

As has been already argued in the thread (and I happen to agree), once the robber is down and unconscious, the robbery is over. The crime has been averted, the danger's mostly gone. Walking to get a second gun and pumping rounds into the prone perp isn't self-defense, it's an execution.

Besides, I would point out that the object of self-defense is not to kill one's assailant, but to prevent or stop the assault. To make the "bad guys" flee, or incapacitate them. Death is the possible yet always regrettable consequence of self-defense, not the goal thereof.

And that's a multiple robbee speaking (although, I admit, never at gunpoint, since guns are outlawed in France and even outlaws don't have them for the most part ;))

When one fires at an assailant in self-defense, one fires at the center of mass, in other words, the heart. When the heart is hit by anything from a 9mm on up it's going to kill the assailant. Shooting to "stop the threat" is one of those legal semantic compromises made when laws allowing carrying were passed. If we as concealed carriers have to use our weapons in self-defense we never use the word "kill". Not when speaking to the cops, not when speaking to a lawyer and not in court.

But when we take those shots, we are defintely intending to kill.

And how did you ever manage to get robbed multiple times when the robber didn't even have a gun?

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:47 AM

The point of more robbers being killed in the act is so that more robbery victims can stay alive. Sometimes robbers shoot their victims after getting the loot. Some people die without having put up any kind of a fight at all.

Thats true. I support people defending themselves and in the long run I think that will help curb crime. I'm only saying there could be a price to pay in more gun battles or robbers shooting first as in the bank robbery example offered. It isn't a given that it's a death sentence for robbers as suggested.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:55 AM

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 11:01 AM

Third trimester abortions? C'mon!

So murder of anyone who performs abortions is okay? Or just abortion doctors you personally disagree with?

Please clarify.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 11:11 AM

IN the video the merchant walks by the downed robber twice with no sign of alarm or being threatened. He turns his back to him. If he wasn't worried then about a hidden weapon and feigned or recovering unconsciousness why would he be later?

The guy on the ground might have moved after passing him twice or made some sort of gesture that was perceived as a threat? Perhaps he thought "oh crap, I never checked to see if this guy is armed or not..." Just a couple of possibilities.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 11:16 AM

So murder of anyone who performs abortions is okay? Or just abortion doctors you personally disagree with?

Please clarify.

Don't want to hijack but...do you have any idea what a third trimester abortion is like?

Kobal2

06-01-2009, 11:16 AM

When one fires at an assailant in self-defense, one fires at the center of mass, in other words, the heart. When the heart is hit by anything from a 9mm on up it's going to kill the assailant. Shooting to "stop the threat" is one of those legal semantic compromises made when laws allowing carrying were passed. If we as concealed carriers have to use our weapons in self-defense we never use the word "kill". Not when speaking to the cops, not when speaking to a lawyer and not in court.

But when we take those shots, we are defintely intending to kill.

Yes. I know. Incidentally, I also support gun control, so...yeah.

And how did you ever manage to get robbed multiple times when the robber didn't even have a gun?

*shrug* I weigh 100 pounds with heavy clothes, am usually by myself, and the only combat sport I ever did was kendo. Which would only really help self defensing if I carried a sword at all times. Which, in turn, would make me amazingly cool, I admit ('cause a shinai just looks wimpy, y'know ? :p)

But mostly, I got robbed because I let myself get robbed, through inattention, naïveté and plain not caring for whatever I have/had in my pockets. I ain't fighting over a 20 bucks CD-player, a cellphone I loathe, a credit card I'll lock down an hour later or two packs of cigarettes.

EDIT : The guy on the ground might have moved after passing him twice or made some sort of gesture that was perceived as a threat? Perhaps he thought "oh crap, I never checked to see if this guy is armed or not..." Just a couple of possibilities.

Yeah, that would have conceivably flown for one more startled bullet. Not five at point blank.

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 11:17 AM

Give me a break. Everyone can analyze this event like the Zapruder film and come up with whatever conclusion they want, based on hindsight, Monday Morning Quarterbacking or whatever pre-conceived notions of self defense, crime and and punishment, race relations, or whatever else trips their triggers. Ultimately however, nobody knows with any true certainty, what happened except for the guy that is alive and kicking. Most of those crying for this guys head see what they want to see and blindly turn away from any shred of reasonable doubt or alternate scenarios.

wrong. Have you forgotten of the security camera? The same security camera showing him turn his back to the murder victim?

In what world do you turn your back to a threat?

No, instead considering that lets call pointing out an unconscious person is no threat "armchair quartering backing".

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 11:18 AM

Really? Knowing we could kill is not the same as intending to. Isn't it possible to just stop the threat to ourselves without wanting to kill?

It's not wanting but needing to kill. A dead perp has 0% chance of hurting you or someone you might be defending. Do you really want to gamble with the life of a loved one?

mswas

06-01-2009, 11:20 AM

First off, I'm not a liberal.

Next, normal people would, or at least should, muster sympathy for someone who was no longer capable of commiting the robbery as he was laid out on the floor and was no longer a danger and therefore was killed, from the evidence at hand, pretty much in cold blood. The sympathy should go towards the victim of a murder.

Finally, I have plenty of sympathy for the victim of the robbery all the way to the point where he was no longer a victim. Being the victim of a crime, which by the way is no longer in progress, is not license to commit a different and more serious crime. Seems to me that there are these nifty things called laws that address this far better than I.

He never stopped being a victim. Ersland was always a victim in this case. It's a tragedy. Sympathy is not a finite thing where we have to decide which side we have sympathy for. I have sympathy for both sides, even though I think both sides made incredibly poor decisions. Shakespeare made quite a career presenting us with such conundrums. This is not Shakespearean but it makes for an honest to goodness tragedy with no heroes and no clear cut villains.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 11:21 AM

Yes. I know. Incidentally, I also support gun control, so...yeah.

*shrug* I weigh 100 pounds with heavy clothes, am usually by myself, and the only combat sport I ever did was kendo. Which would only really help self defensing if I carried a sword at all times. Which, in turn, would make me amazingly cool, I admit ('cause a shinai just looks wimpy, y'know ? :p)

But mostly, I got robbed because I let myself get robbed, through inattention, naïveté and plain not caring for whatever I have/had in my pockets. I ain't fighting over a 20 bucks CD-player, a cellphone I loathe, a credit card I'll lock down an hour later or two packs of cigarettes.

EDIT :

Yeah, that would have conceivably flown for one more startled bullet. Not five at point blank.

Stay alert man!

mswas

06-01-2009, 11:22 AM

wrong. Have you forgotten of the security camera? The same security camera showing him turn his back to the murder victim?

In what world do you turn your back to a threat?

One where you are not thinking straight? Operating on pure reaction.

You guys act like he was sitting there analyzing everything. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

The moral of the story, keep a gun with stopping power under your counter, if you shoot someone, you want them to be dead for real.

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 11:23 AM

Don't want to hijack but...do you have any idea what a third trimester abortion is like?

The question at hand is do you support the vigilante murder of Dr. Tiller?

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 11:25 AM

The guy on the ground might have moved after passing him twice or made some sort of gesture that was perceived as a threat? Perhaps he thought "oh crap, I never checked to see if this guy is armed or not..." Just a couple of possibilities.

Possible. He walks right by after coming back in and shifts his gun to his left hand. I have to wonder what he's seeing to be so casual and not wonder about a threat from what amounts to a wounded robber. Then he brings the gun over and fires repeatedly at point blank range, not from any cover such as behind the counter.

Maybe he heard the wounded man make a sound or try to move and realized he might still be a threat but approaching that close seems to indicate the wounded man wasn't a threat. I can imagine being scared and high on adrenaline but it's hard to imagine approaching any perceived threat that openly and getting that close.

In my book, even if he executed the kid out of rage at being robbed it's still not murder.

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 11:25 AM

One where you are not thinking straight? Operating on pure reaction.

You guys act like he was sitting there analyzing everything. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

The moral of the story, keep a gun with stopping power under your counter, if you shoot someone, you want them to be dead for real.

It's pure reaction to calmly reload a gun with your back turned to a threat?

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 11:27 AM

Thats true. I support people defending themselves and in the long run I think that will help curb crime. I'm only saying there could be a price to pay in more gun battles or robbers shooting first as in the bank robbery example offered. It isn't a given that it's a death sentence for robbers as suggested.

I may not have been clear so I want to point out that I wasn't talking about deterrence. I meant that, say here and now, someone is being robbed. If they pull out a gun and kill the robber then they survive. And in every here and now more robbery victims will survive because they killed the robber. Or at least incapacitated him.

They could wait and see if hopefully he'll just leave after he's collected the goods. But what if he doesn't? What if he decides to go ahead and shoot them? Then they lost out on their chance to survive.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 11:28 AM

wrong. Have you forgotten of the security camera? The same security camera showing him turn his back to the murder victim?

In what world do you turn your back to a threat?
In a high stress world where you were just robbed at gunpoint, multiple threats are present, your head is ringing from firing a gun indoors, and realizing that you might have just killed a man. I think it is easy to think that perhaps one's judgment might be slightly impaired. I give him a break on turning his back to a threat.

No, instead considering that lets call pointing out an unconscious person is no threat "armchair quartering backing".

Sorry, I'm reading this and have no idea what you are trying to say. Please try again.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 11:30 AM

The question at hand is do you support the vigilante murder of Dr. Tiller?

Don't feel sorry for him, some things transcend the law of the land.

And I did propose my own question. Care to answer?

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 11:33 AM

Don't feel sorry for him, some things transcend the law of the land.

And it's up to the vigilante, not the people who actually live in that land, to define those things eh?

hansel

06-01-2009, 11:35 AM

Don't feel sorry for him, some things transcend the law of the landSo that's a yes, you do support vigilantism and the killing of George Tiller.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 11:38 AM

It's not wanting but needing to kill. A dead perp has 0% chance of hurting you or someone you might be defending. Do you really want to gamble with the life of a loved one?

No. I do see the point. Imagine how bad it would be to defend yourself and then have your mercy backfire when a wounded criminal surprises you. I really have no idea what I would do. I would hope I would have the presence of mind to not kill unnecessarily and not be foolhardy with mercy. I don't own a gun so I can understand if I swung a bat a pipe or a knife in defense I'd want to make sure they were unable to hurt me or anyone else. I would hope my first priority would be defending myself and my loved ones and showing mercy to an attacker once I'm sure that's done.

That's what gives me pause watching the video. It seems the merchant has successfully protected himself , his property,and his employees. He appears to be unconcerned about the downed robber as a serious threat and still shoots him five times at close range. It may be understandable rage in the heat of a gun battle but it doesn't seem like self defense.

The Tao's Revenge

06-01-2009, 11:39 AM

And I did propose my own question. Care to answer?

Sneaky edit:p

It sounds horrible, but how many people actually get those? Dr. Tiller wasn't murdered over third trimester abortions, but because he performed abortions at all.

If you don't agree with a law it's up to you to either convince the necessary majority to change that law, or let society live with the rules it chooses.

Kobal2

06-01-2009, 11:40 AM

In a high stress world where you were just robbed at gunpoint, multiple threats are present, your head is ringing from firing a gun indoors, and realizing that you might have just killed a man. I think it is easy to think that perhaps one's judgment might be slightly impaired. I give him a break on turning his back to a threat.

Stop me if I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying it's understandable, or conceivable if you will to maybe shoot a guy 5 times because you're shocked by the sudden realization you might have just killed him ?

Dude, that's even loopier than my reasonings.

E-Sabbath

06-01-2009, 11:40 AM

It was a deliberate, planned action, unlike the first shot that hit the guy in the head, which was a spontaneous (and legitimate) act of self-defense.

I never disagreed with that, Bo. It's just what Monty was calling vigilanteism seemed to include the first shot as well. I don't see the second series of shots getting 'a lot of support'. Just the first one.

E-Sabbath

06-01-2009, 11:43 AM

That would be what happened with the first shot.

The non-spontaneous bit would be the next five shots, the ones fired after reloading.

Well, I can't disagree with that at all, Monty. I can think about the 40 shots the cops fired at Abner Louima, and conclude that some weird shit happens in combat situations, and maybe this guy has a defense. (Especially since it's Oklahoma. In Texas, I'm pretty sure he'd be scot-free, Oklahoma's laws are similar but not the same.)

But generally, I'm not really seeing support here for the next five, just the first one.

Edit: Yes, Monty, you were confusing at least one thing, you were confusing me. And I'm going to stick with that. :)

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 11:46 AM

Sneaky edit:p

It sounds horrible, but how many people actually get those? Dr. Tiller wasn't murdered over third trimester abortions, but because he performed abortions at all.

If you don't agree with a law it's up to you to either convince the necessary majority to change that law, or let society live with the rules it chooses.

I do believe wholeheartedly in what you are saying.

But third trimester abortions are atrocious. And he was performing them. After 21 weeks is what is recorded.

mswas

06-01-2009, 11:47 AM

So that's a yes, you do support vigilantism and the killing of George Tiller.

Why do you need to mischaracterize what he said? He stated his case plainly. He doesn't feel sorry for the death of a murderer. That doesn't mean he thinks that vigilantes should be able to flaunt the law of the land.

There is simply no reason to twist his words in this case. You can hate his opinions with righteous indignation as they stand without putting words into his mouth.

Scumpup

06-01-2009, 11:49 AM

This is not Shakespearean but it makes for an honest to goodness tragedy with no heroes and no clear cut villains.

I fail to see how armed robbers are not clear cut villains.

mswas

06-01-2009, 11:52 AM

I fail to see how armed robbers are not clear cut villains.

Well he became a victim when he was incapacitated and shot to death. That doesn't make Ersland a villain. At worst Ersland is an anti-hero. But in all fairness I'll concede that an armed robber is a clear cut villain, but that he can still be a victim.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 11:53 AM

I may not have been clear so I want to point out that I wasn't talking about deterrence. I meant that, say here and now, someone is being robbed. If they pull out a gun and kill the robber then they survive. And in every here and now more robbery victims will survive because they killed the robber. Or at least incapacitated him.

They could wait and see if hopefully he'll just leave after he's collected the goods. But what if he doesn't? What if he decides to go ahead and shoot them? Then they lost out on their chance to survive.

I see. I was responding to another poster who said robbers should see every robbery as a death sentence, and thinking of possible effects of more people defending themselves with guns.

If people decide to defend themselves with a gun I hope they take the time to target practice and take a gun safety course.

It's also possible that in pulling a gun in self defense you escalate the situation and increase your own chances of being shot as well as anyone else. What if the merchant had missed and instead he was the one with a bullet in the head? I don't know of any statistics on that and in general support people defending themselves.

mswas

06-01-2009, 11:55 AM

I see. I was responding to another poster who said robbers should see every robbery as a death sentence, and thinking of possible effects of more people defending themselves with guns.

If people decide to defend themselves with a gun I hope they take the time to target practice and take a gun safety course.

It's also possible that in pulling a gun in self defense you escalate the situation and increase your own chances of being shot as well as anyone else. What if the merchant had missed and instead he was the one with a bullet in the head? I don't know of any statistics on that and in general support people defending themselves.

I always heard quoted that citizens who are likely to pull a gun to defend themselves are generally better shots than either criminals or police because they are more likely to be gun enthusiasts and take their gun to the range regularly.

I bet SenorBeef would be the best person to answer this question.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 11:57 AM

Well he became a victim when he was incapacitated and shot to death. That doesn't make Ersland a villain. At worst Ersland is an anti-hero. But in all fairness I'll concede that an armed robber is a clear cut villain, but that he can still be a victim.

I think if the kid is a victim he's a victim of the bastard who talked them into the robbery. My son got involved with an adult who taught teens how to shoplift convincing them they wouldn't face any severe punishment if caught. He served as their fence.
Didn't someone mention others being arrested. A get away driver and someone who planned it. I'm thinking there's an adult in there who got this kid killed other than the merchant.

Cheesesteak

06-01-2009, 11:59 AM

He appears to be unconcerned about the downed robber as a serious threat and still shoots him five times at close range. Let's all take another look at the video. Starting from the point where the robber is downed (and out of frame) the shop owner doesn't even spare a glace his way. You wouldn't have a clue that anyone was there until he bent down to shoot him.

He walked right past this dangerous, gun toting robber, turned his back to him and walked, in full view, to pick up his other gun, looking down into the drawer to check it or load it or whatever, then walked to within a couple of feet to pump more bullets into him.

I wouldn't bat an eye if he put 10 bullets into him at the start, but you leave, turn your back, don't even look at him while walking past, you no longer get to pull out the self defense card.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 12:01 PM

I see. I was responding to another poster who said robbers should see every robbery as a death sentence, and thinking of possible effects of more people defending themselves with guns.

If people decide to defend themselves with a gun I hope they take the time to target practice and take a gun safety course.

It's also possible that in pulling a gun in self defense you escalate the situation and increase your own chances of being shot as well as anyone else. What if the merchant had missed and instead he was the one with a bullet in the head? I don't know of any statistics on that and in general support people defending themselves.

Unfortunately not everyone should carry a gun. Some people just aren't capable of handling one. And the consequences could be devastating. Hopefully those of us that do might be around when those people are in danger.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 12:01 PM

I always heard quoted that citizens who are likely to pull a gun to defend themselves are generally better shots than either criminals or police because they are more likely to be gun enthusiasts and take their gun to the range regularly.

I bet SenorBeef would be the best person to answer this question.

I have a friend who was the victim of a home invasion years ago. He owns some serious firepower now and practices.

I was thinking of someone who buys a gun for defense without being an enthusiast. If they live in a "bad" neighborhood and decide to own a weapon just in case , I hope they practice.

hansel

06-01-2009, 12:03 PM

Didn't someone mention others being arrested. A get away driver and someone who planned it. I'm thinking there's an adult in there who got this kid killed other than the merchant.The teen who got away, and two 22 year olds who were waiting in the car, have all been arrested and are now facing felony murder charges because of Parson's death.

Una Persson

06-01-2009, 12:03 PM

As a very pro-gun rights, pro-self-defense, and a licensed CCW holder who carries, I can't back the guy in the OP. The first shot, yes. And if he'd emptied his gun into the person all at once, yes. Even if he'd chased them out of the store firing, well, I'd put that into a grey area of "adrenaline madness." But the stopping, getting another gun, then administering the coup de grace, no, I can't ethically or morally support that in this case.

This guy, however, is a drooling idiot.
Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges.
Funny how the NAACP didn't castigate the dead men for the armed robbery that led to their deaths in the first place, huh. :dubious:

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 12:04 PM

I always heard quoted that citizens who are likely to pull a gun to defend themselves are generally better shots than either criminals or police because they are more likely to be gun enthusiasts and take their gun to the range regularly.

I bet SenorBeef would be the best person to answer this question.

Not to beat SenorBeef to the punch but this is true. Our own police force is issued 50 rounds!!! per year for target practice. 50 rounds!!!

Most folks I know fire over a thousand rounds a year.

mswas

06-01-2009, 12:06 PM

I think if the kid is a victim he's a victim of the bastard who talked them into the robbery. My son got involved with an adult who taught teens how to shoplift convincing them they wouldn't face any severe punishment if caught. He served as their fence.
Didn't someone mention others being arrested. A get away driver and someone who planned it. I'm thinking there's an adult in there who got this kid killed other than the merchant.

I agree, and while I hope that Ersland gets off light, I don't think he lacks responsibility in this. He shot a guy he didn't need to shoot, that's murder.

mswas

06-01-2009, 12:07 PM

Not to beat SenorBeef to the punch but this is true. Our own police force is issued 50 rounds!!! per year for target practice. 50 rounds!!!

Most folks I know fire over a thousand rounds a year.

Yup, that's retarded. I went to school with a cop who taught shooting at the police range.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 12:09 PM

You do not want to be holding a gun when the cops show up.

Caller: I need the police. I just shot a robber.
911: Is he still there? Or did you chase him off?
Caller: One ran away. The one I shot is lying on my floor bleeding.
911: Officers are on the way.
Caller: I'm keeping my gun on this guy until you get here.
911: I'll make sure the officers are aware, sir.

Then when the cops show up, you drop the weapon and let them take control of the situation.

How do I know this? I was the caller. I saw a guy beating his girlfriend in the street, called the cops, and then went outside and wailed on the guy. Subdued him and held him until police showed up. I had a pipe in my hand, not a gun, but that's how you deal with it: you communicate information to the police so they can do their job properly.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 12:15 PM

Caller: I need the police. I just shot a robber.
911: Is he still there? Or did you chase him off?
Caller: One ran away. The one I shot is lying on my floor bleeding.
911: Officers are on the way.
Caller: I'm keeping my gun on this guy until you get here.
911: I'll make sure the officers are aware, sir.

Then when the cops show up, you drop the weapon and let them take control of the situation.

How do I know this? I was the caller. I saw a guy beating his girlfriend in the street, called the cops, and then went outside and wailed on the guy. Subdued him and held him until police showed up. I had a pipe in my hand, not a gun, but that's how you deal with it: you communicate information to the police so they can do their job properly.

Why did you say that you shot him?
And why did you say that he was bleeding on the floor?

Sounds like you did just what Ersland did but with a pipe.
You could have run out there and shouted "STOP!! GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW!! I HAVE A WEAPON!!

But no, you just "wailed on him".

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 12:18 PM

As a very pro-gun rights, pro-self-defense, and a licensed CCW holder who carries, I can't back the guy in the OP. The first shot, yes. And if he'd emptied his gun into the person all at once, yes. Even if he'd chased them out of the store firing, well, I'd put that into a grey area of "adrenaline madness." But the stopping, getting another gun, then administering the coup de grace, no, I can't ethically or morally support that in this case.

This guy, however, is a drooling idiot.

Funny how the NAACP didn't castigate the dead men for the armed robbery that led to their deaths in the first place, huh. :dubious:

Una you should know better than this. You don't know that the NAACP didn't say anything castigating the robbers, do you? All you know is that the story didn't quote him saying anything castigating about the robbers, right?

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 12:23 PM

Why did you say that you shot him?
And why did you say that he was bleeding on the floor?

Sounds like you did just what Ersland did but with a pipe.
You could have run out there and shouted "STOP!! GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW!! I HAVE A WEAPON!!

But no, you just "wailed on him".

:rolleyes:
yeah, i was silent like a ninja. I didn't yell or breathe, and the sound of my front door opening didn't make any noise either. My feet didn't make any sound on the pavement, because I wushu.

I'm not typing epics for your enjoyment. I'm not about to list every second-by-second detail of every incident I've ever been thru.

FTR, of course I yelled. But it was more "HEY! KNOCK IT OFF! LET HER GO!" then he got a crack in the back with a steel pipe, because he didn't let her go.

Seriously, stick to talking about facts you know. Ask questions if you need more facts. But stop making suppositions and hypotheticals that support a conclusion you desire. You don't do yourself or your position any good that way.

And btw, my situation was different than Mr. Ersland's in that I didn't continue to beat the guy after I had him subdued.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 12:27 PM

Seriously, Dewd.

What about the gun in the call and the bleeding.

And after you yelled at him you hit him. Was he not stopping his attack?

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 12:30 PM

Seriously, Dewd.

What about the gun in the call and the bleeding.

And after you yelled at him you hit him. Was he not stopping his attack?

Please re-read, this time with your comprehension setting at "full".

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 12:32 PM

Let's all take another look at the video. Starting from the point where the robber is downed (and out of frame) the shop owner doesn't even spare a glace his way. You wouldn't have a clue that anyone was there until he bent down to shoot him.
What video are you watching? I watched it again to make sure I wasn't imagining it. He looks at the downed robber before he leaves the store and again when he comes back in. I noticed the caption underneath says he claims to have shot him the 2nd time when he was trying to get up. In the first angle he seems to be hurrying a bit before he fires a 2nd time. The 2nd one not so much.
It's possible he knew he hit the kid in the head and a glance confirmed it. He may have thought the kid was dead when he left the store and when he walked by him coming back in. Then when he heard him trying to get up he fired again.
I'd like to hear his side of it. He did walk right up to him so I still have a hard time thinking he saw the kid as a threat even if he was trying to get up, but realistically, in that situation, you don't wait to see how conscious he is and if he's got a gun. You make sure he can't hurt you.

I thought he was dead after I saw two people trying to rob me with a gun and I opened fire.

As I was reloading or whatever I heard him trying to get up. At that point not knowing how much of a threat he was I fired again and made sure he was dead.

The part that gets me is walking right up to him. If he heard him moving and thought he might be a threat why not shoot from behind the counter rather than expose yourself to a potential threat? I think that means he saw no weapon. Still, should he be required to wait until he did have a gun pointing at him?

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 12:39 PM

:rolleyes:
yeah, i was silent like a ninja. I didn't yell or breathe, and the sound of my front door opening didn't make any noise either. My feet didn't make any sound on the pavement, because I wushu.

I'm not typing epics for your enjoyment. I'm not about to list every second-by-second detail of every incident I've ever been thru.

FTR, of course I yelled. But it was more "HEY! KNOCK IT OFF! LET HER GO!" then he got a crack in the back with a steel pipe, because he didn't let her go.

Seriously, stick to talking about facts you know. Ask questions if you need more facts. But stop making suppositions and hypotheticals that support a conclusion you desire. You don't do yourself or your position any good that way.

And btw, my situation was different than Mr. Ersland's in that I didn't continue to beat the guy after I had him subdued.

What kind of weapon was he brandishing?
What about you shooting someone bleeding on the floor?

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 12:43 PM

I saw a guy beating his girlfriend in the street, called the cops, and then went outside and wailed on the guy.

You said it yourself.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 12:44 PM

Stop me if I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying it's understandable, or conceivable if you will to maybe shoot a guy 5 times because you're shocked by the sudden realization you might have just killed him ?

Dude, that's even loopier than my reasonings.

No, the question that I answered with that response relates to why he would turn his back to a potential threat. My point is that in real life, not Law and Order, or the Shield, etc., stress makes people act differently than they do on TV or as compared to our preconceived notions of how someone should act n any given situation.

That specific response that you quoted had nothing to do with the second series of shots.

mswas

06-01-2009, 12:47 PM

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 12:48 PM

I agree, and while I hope that Ersland gets off light, I don't think he lacks responsibility in this. He shot a guy he didn't need to shoot, that's murder.

I can't see it as murder in this situation. some form of manslaughter with extenuating circumstances maybe.

Even if he executed the kid out of rage then fact remains that he was the one robbed at gunpoint. If he did indeed hear the kid getting trying to get up and thought a threat was still present he's justified in defending himself.

If I wounded an armed burglar I really don't know what I'd do. Would I have the presence of mind to say "Lay down on the floor and hands behind your back" Would I check to see who had what weapon? Or, would I shoot until I was sure there was no threat?

The tape indicates he approached the kid and saw no weapon. That's where the question comes in to me. He's wounded and down with no weapon in sight. Granted the merchant doesn't know whether he has a concealed weapon or not so there is still a chance the kid's a real threat. Why not stay behind the counter and see if he reaches for anything? He's shooting with one hand. Can't you dial 911 with the other?

I feel bad for the poor stupid kid. He fumbles with his mask when he first comes in and he barely gets it in place when he takes a bullet to the head. I feel bad but I don't blame the merchant for the kids actions. Shoplifting is not the same as armed robbery.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Caller: I need the police. I just shot a robber.
911: Is he still there? Or did you chase him off?
Caller: One ran away. The one I shot is lying on my floor bleeding.
911: Officers are on the way.
Caller: I'm keeping my gun on this guy until you get here.
911: I'll make sure the officers are aware, sir.

Then when the cops show up, you drop the weapon and let them take control of the situation.

How do I know this? I was the caller. I saw a guy beating his girlfriend in the street, called the cops, and then went outside and wailed on the guy. Subdued him and held him until police showed up. I had a pipe in my hand, not a gun, but that's how you deal with it: you communicate information to the police so they can do their job properly.

I get it. In this case it appears the merchant heard the kid in his store trying to get up before he called the police. {providing his claim is true} So he chose to eliminate any possibility of threat before he called the cops.

I've got a loaded weapon. He's down and bloody with no weapon in sight. It does seem to me he could have covered the injured boy while dialing 911.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Snowboarder Bo In all fairness you did describe a situation where someone was shot. Then went on to say it was something you were involved in, then changed it to a steel pipe.

I understand entirely what you are getting at, but you did word it pretty poorly.

conceded

The dialogue was what Mr. Ersland could have said to keep himself from being shot by police when they arrived.

My story differed in that it was an assault taking place, and I used a length of pipe. I also placed the 911 call before I stepped in to the situation. But I alerted the officers that I would be there with a weapon in hand, that I was stopping the fight, not a part of it.

My apologies for the poor wording. I'm trying to do 6 things at once atm.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 01:01 PM

The teen who got away, and two 22 year olds who were waiting in the car, have all been arrested and are now facing felony murder charges because of Parson's death.

Right. The fucking 22 year olds talked two teens into attempting an armed robbery.

Was it even a real gun? I was trying to determine in the video if the kid ever fired or just fled when the merchant opened fire?

treis

06-01-2009, 01:02 PM

No, the question that I answered with that response relates to why he would turn his back to a potential threat. My point is that in real life, not Law and Order, or the Shield, etc., stress makes people act differently than they do on TV or as compared to our preconceived notions of how someone should act n any given situation.

That specific response that you quoted had nothing to do with the second series of shots.

I think everyone is well aware that people do stupid or bizarre things when under stress. That's not the point. It isn't just "he turned his back on him", therefore he didn't think he was a threat. It is "the sum of his actions and his body language show that he didn't perceive a threat". You keep ignoring this, and the only reason that I can think of is that you don't have a good defense for it.

Una Persson

06-01-2009, 01:10 PM

Una you should know better than this. You don't know that the NAACP didn't say anything castigating the robbers, do you? All you know is that the story didn't quote him saying anything castigating about the robbers, right?
You're incorrect in assuming I just went off of the link in the OP. I searched around quite a bit and found various portions of the NAACP's statements, but none where they castigated the criminals. The closest I found was the statement by Reginald Mitchell:
These two kids made an egregious mistake," said the Rev. Reginald Mitchell, president of the Oklahoma City branch of the NAACP. "The community is going to have to take ownership. These are our problems."
That's a good start, but I'd hardly call that castigation. A "mistake" is having fender-bender, not committing armed robbery.

From KOCO, I find this oddly conflicting statement:
State NAACP president Anthony Douglas said the judicial system should be allowed to run its course and the organization won't take sides on Ersland's guilt or innocence.
So...one can go on record calling it an "execution-style murder", yet also claim one won't take sides? That's some old-school double-talk there.

From KSBI, I find this:
"The district attorney has properly done his job, bringing the charge of murder, as we believe the circumstance so dictates," NAACP Oklahoma President Anthony Douglas said. "Self-defense is one thing, and it is our right, and an unusual executional--executional-style murder is something different and our society should not condone it and we are hear to speak against such conduct."
Which is different than previously quoted ('executional" is not a word in my dictionaries, but oh well).

I think Franco Cevallos from the Hispanic Action Coalition gets it - he mirrors my opinions:
"Mr. Ersland should have stopped after he shot him the first time," Cevallos said. "He was unarmed, he was not a threat for him, he was disabled, he should have stopped there. He didn't have to play rambo and go get a gun and unload it another five times that, that is shameful."

All places I can find full video of the NAACP's response are behind for-pay sites, and I can't get to Youtube from here. There doesn't seem to be a transcript I can find on the NAACP's website.

Of course, you could shatter my objections completely and get a retraction from me by just linking to the full transcript showing where they did castigate him.

Finally, and I do mean finally, starting posts with "you should know better than this" may be a convenient way to insult someone in GD while skirting under the Rules, but it's also not very nice.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 01:11 PM

Funny how the NAACP didn't castigate the dead men for the armed robbery that led to their deaths in the first place, huh. :dubious:

I noticed in the comments that a black person who was the victim of violent crime agrees with you. They were robbers and he was the intended victim who fought back. It's not a race issue.

CurtC

06-01-2009, 01:32 PM

Or maybe the guy just killed him for fun. I don't know. It's all about state of mind.

I think it's likely that the store manager was aware of the possibility of continuing legal troubles with a wounded, and not dead, robber. Dead robbers don't sue you.

That would make the final shots more cold-blooded, but on the other hand, to convict him in this situation would require that you know it was cold-blooded murder and not that he was still scared for his life, from a wounded but alive robber waking up and attacking again.

He won't be convicted.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 01:32 PM

Caller: I need the police. I just shot a robber.
911: Is he still there? Or did you chase him off?
Caller: One ran away. The one I shot is lying on my floor bleeding.
911: Officers are on the way.
Caller: I'm keeping my gun on this guy until you get here.
911: I'll make sure the officers are aware, sir.

Then when the cops show up, you drop the weapon and let them take control of the situation.

How do I know this? I was the caller. I saw a guy beating his girlfriend in the street, called the cops, and then went outside and wailed on the guy. Subdued him and held him until police showed up. I had a pipe in my hand, not a gun, but that's how you deal with it: you communicate information to the police so they can do their job properly.

Did he have a weapon? If not, why did you meet him with unequal force?

ivan astikov

06-01-2009, 01:45 PM

ivan astikov

06-01-2009, 01:51 PM

And how did you ever manage to get robbed multiple times when the robber didn't even have a gun?

Erm...knives, perhaps? Or a machete. Maybe an axe. But usually knives.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 01:54 PM

Erm...knives, perhaps? Or a machete. Maybe an axe. But usually knives.

He already answered the question. But the best defense against a knife is to run like hell.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 02:15 PM

Anyone want to take 10/1 that Mr Hero-Pharmacist doesn't go a year before he gets shot dead by one of the dead kid's friends, if he eventually gets off with this? ( Probably be a lot quicker if he gets bailed.)

Sure, send me a PM and we can work out the details. This isn't the wild west and anyone who would go looking for trouble with this guy also knows he is armed. One can further bet that he will be better armed after this occasion.

Criminals are cowards and prey on the weak. This guy has proven, for right or for wrong, that he has no compunction in defending himself.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 02:19 PM

Did he have a weapon? If not, why did you meet him with unequal force?

Is this a serious question? Since when does defending yourself or others mean "make sure you have the same weapon"

kaylasdad99

06-01-2009, 02:27 PM

Wait, Oklahoma calls it a "Make My Day" law? WTF is that?

Yay, I get to kill a human being and not face legal consequences!

He's a murderer.

Una Persson

06-01-2009, 02:30 PM

I noticed in the comments that a black person who was the victim of violent crime agrees with you. They were robbers and he was the intended victim who fought back. It's not a race issue.
I didn't say it was a race issue; I think it's, like many things, a politically opportunistic issue.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 02:31 PM

Wait, Oklahoma calls it a "Make My Day" law? WTF is that?

Yay, I get to kill a human being and not face legal consequences!

He's a murderer.

Because you don't like the slang term for the law?

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 02:33 PM

I didn't say it was a race issue; I think it's, like many things, a politically opportunistic issue.

I know you didn't. The NAACP implied it was by getting involved and making the comments you pointed out.

Kobal2

06-01-2009, 02:35 PM

He already answered the question. But the best defense against a knife is to run like hell.

Pack and a half a day. I couldn't run away from a guy in a wheelchair :p.

But like I said, in the end it's just that I don't care all that much about it. If I really cared, I could get a stun gun, pepper spray, carry a knife or knuckle dusters or whatever. Even jump through hoops and get a gun license. I just don't feel the need to. Shit happens. Sometimes you're lucky and there's a cop (or, in one memorable case, a band of communist skinheads) to get you out of the pickle. Sometimes you hand over the lunch money. It's not a huge deal to me. It's just the background noise of living in the big city.

And in the end, I guess I always felt pretty safe, even back when I had to take one of the worst subway lines every day, and even during the robberies themselves. I feel like I can trust my "gangstas" to be... well, idiots, OK, but practical idiots who don't want to risk a murder rap for the hell of it.

aldiboronti

06-01-2009, 02:40 PM

From the linked article in Snowboarder Bo's post on the first page (#16 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11195626&postcount=16)):

Ersland then pulled out his bigger gun, the Taurus, to go after the other robber, but Parker tried to get up. Fearing for his safety, and not knowing the Parker was actually unarmed, Ersland then pumped five more shots into Parker's chest, which proved fatal.

It's also stated there that Ersland is a disabled war veteran and the option of flight from the robbers was not available to him.

If these facts are as stated I have no problem at all with the shooting.

kaylasdad99

06-01-2009, 02:44 PM

Because you don't like the slang term for the law?No, because he shot to death an unconscious, incapacitated person who, for all that he had harmed him, no longer posed any sort of reasonable threat of further harm.

My disdain for the flippancy of the law's nickname is separate from that.

I should have been clear that I intended two different statements by saying He's a murderer. btw.

Cheesesteak

06-01-2009, 02:51 PM

It's also stated there that Ersland is a disabled war veteran and the option of flight from the robbers was not available to him.Yet, he was somehow magically imbued with the ability to chase down an uninjured robber who had a 30 second head start.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 03:05 PM

From the linked article in Snowboarder Bo's post on the first page (#16 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11195626&postcount=16)):

It's also stated there that Ersland is a disabled war veteran and the option of flight from the robbers was not available to him.

If these facts are as stated I have no problem at all with the shooting.

That's kinda how I feel as well except a man man shot in the head trying to get up isn't automatically a threat. When he approached the kid at such close range it seems clear he saw no weapon. Is there a problem with waiting or even trying to warn the kid. "Stay down keep your hands where I can see them?"

Since he left the store to pursue the other robber and then came back the option of flight clearly was available. I believe I would be pretty nervous about a man who possibly has a gun getting up. That probably means I'd stay behind some cover rather than walk up to point blank range. He didn't walk out in the open when the first robber brandished a weapon. He shot from behind the counter.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 03:19 PM

Is this a serious question? Since when does defending yourself or others mean "make sure you have the same weapon"

My point is: It doesn't.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 03:21 PM

Pack and a half a day. I couldn't run away from a guy in a wheelchair :p.

But like I said, in the end it's just that I don't care all that much about it. If I really cared, I could get a stun gun, pepper spray, carry a knife or knuckle dusters or whatever. Even jump through hoops and get a gun license. I just don't feel the need to. Shit happens. Sometimes you're lucky and there's a cop (or, in one memorable case, a band of communist skinheads) to get you out of the pickle. Sometimes you hand over the lunch money. It's not a huge deal to me. It's just the background noise of living in the big city.

And in the end, I guess I always felt pretty safe, even back when I had to take one of the worst subway lines every day, and even during the robberies themselves. I feel like I can trust my "gangstas" to be... well, idiots, OK, but practical idiots who don't want to risk a murder rap for the hell of it.

And I really, truly hope someone doesn't decide to hurt you one day just for the heck of it.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 03:23 PM

Yet, he was somehow magically imbued with the ability to chase down an uninjured robber who had a 30 second head start.

I must have missed where the details of the chasing down were hashed out. What defines "chasing down" to you? As far as I can tell, he didn't chase down shit, as the kid got away. He was as effective as the old man next door to me yelling at my kids to stay off of his lawn.

Cheesesteak

06-01-2009, 03:28 PM

I was simply responding to the contradiction in the quote. Ersland went for his Taurus to "go after" the other robber, yet was a disabled war veteran who was physically unable to flee.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 03:33 PM

I was simply responding to the contradiction in the quote. Ersland went for his Taurus to "go after" the other robber, yet was a disabled war veteran who was physically unable to flee.

And you used the term "chasing down" to widen the contradiction as though he ran a 4.4/40 yard dash to get the guy. Yeah, I got it.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 03:34 PM

I must have missed where the details of the chasing down were hashed out. What defines "chasing down" to you? As far as I can tell, he didn't chase down shit, as the kid got away. He was as effective as the old man next door to me yelling at my kids to stay off of his lawn.

While he didn't chase anyone down he did leave the store to pursue the other robber. Clearly the idea that he couldn't flee because he's disabled is bullshit.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 03:37 PM

My point is: It doesn't.

okay. How is that relevant to the discussion?
In this case the robbers had a gun and so did the intended victim.

Cheesesteak

06-01-2009, 03:46 PM

And you used the term "chasing down" to widen the contradiction as though he ran a 4.4/40 yard dash to get the guy. Yeah, I got it.My apologies for using a tiny bit of hyperbole in making my point. I also suggested that his ability to chase the guy down was due to magical powers. Maybe you could explain to me how magic doesn't actually work.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 03:58 PM

My apologies for using a tiny bit of hyperbole in making my point. I also suggested that his ability to chase the guy down was due to magical powers. Maybe you could explain to me how magic doesn't actually work.

hyperbole is fine on occasion. Was it also hyperbole when you inaccurately described the video a few posts back?

Chopper9760

06-01-2009, 03:59 PM

Why do so many people care that a criminal, someone caught on tape threatening another person's life and livelihood, is dead?

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that." Well, you should have taught your 'baby,' a sixteen year old, about right and wrong. You should have taught him NOT TO ROB PEOPLE.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 04:15 PM

While he didn't chase anyone down he did leave the store to pursue the other robber. Clearly the idea that he couldn't flee because he's disabled is bullshit.

Agree, and for the record, I never stated he was unable to flee, only that his reactions to close quarter threats would be restricted. It was the term "chasing down" that got me.

JXJohns

06-01-2009, 04:17 PM

My apologies for using a tiny bit of hyperbole in making my point. I also suggested that his ability to chase the guy down was due to magical powers. Maybe you could explain to me how magic doesn't actually work.

Like I said, I knew quite well what you were doing. Your hyperbole fell a little flat for me.

Monty

06-01-2009, 04:19 PM

I never disagreed with that, Bo. It's just what Monty was calling vigilanteism seemed to include the first shot as well.

How on Earth did you get that from my posts?

hansel

06-01-2009, 04:32 PM

Why do so many people care that a criminal, someone caught on tape threatening another person's life and livelihood, is dead?We don't care that the criminal is dead. We care that Ersland executed him. We care about vigilantism being wrong. These aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 04:40 PM

Agree, and for the record, I never stated he was unable to flee, only that his reactions to close quarter threats would be restricted. It was the term "chasing down" that got me.

I get it. Another posted had mentioned his being unable to flee.

ivan astikov

06-01-2009, 04:43 PM

Sure, send me a PM and we can work out the details.
No need for PM's...how many matchsticks do you want to stake? I'm a little disappointed that someone would consider making a profit on an event like this, tbh! :dubious:

This isn't the wild west and anyone who would go looking for trouble with this guy also knows he is armed. One can further bet that he will be better armed after this occasion.
It'll only need him to drop his guard once.

Criminals are cowards and prey on the weak.
Except when they aren't and don't.( Ever hear of criminals who rob drug-dealers? What about bank-robbers, are they cowards?). Generalise much?

This guy has proven, for right or for wrong, that he has no compunction in defending himself.
Or to shoot robbers cold-bloodedly.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 04:52 PM

[QUOTE=ivan astikov;11201287]No need for PM's...how many matchsticks do you want to stake? I'm a little disappointed that someone would consider making a profit on an event like this, tbh! :dubious:

As disappointed as someone suggesting a bet with odds over such an event? Sheesh!

Captain Carrot

06-01-2009, 04:53 PM

Why do so many people care that a criminal, someone caught on tape threatening another person's life and livelihood, is dead?Because he should have been sent to prison, not shot in cold blood.
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that." Well, you should have taught your 'baby,' a sixteen year old, about right and wrong. You should have taught him NOT TO ROB PEOPLE.As we know, children always learn what their parents try to teach them.

SteveG1

06-01-2009, 04:59 PM

Story here (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7713776).

IMO, this guy should be found guilty of murder, but given some recent vigilante cases in Texas, where the state's new(ish, now) Castle law was invoked, I'm not at all confident that things will play out that way.

FTR, I have no problem with the fact that he shot the guy. It's going back after the guy isn't a threat and pumping 5 more rounds into him that bothers me.

So, Dopers: folk hero or murderer?
The guy was down, he was no longer a threat. The shop keeper was no longer in danger, and did not HAVE to shoot him some more.

L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

06-01-2009, 05:02 PM

Why do so many people care that a criminal, someone caught on tape threatening another person's life and livelihood, is dead? I don't give a shit that the guy is dead. He could have died with the first shot to the head and I would have supported the shopkeeper's legal defense fund with my hard earned money. The problem is him emptying 5 shots at point blank range into the wounded (possibly unconscious) and prone criminal. This is an execution and I did not see a jury of his peers sentence this man to death. Rule of Law and all that. The guy was not afraid for his life, he turned his back on the robber several times without concern. After exercising his right of self defense, he decided that it was not enough and executed the criminal. Not OK...

Dallas Jones

06-01-2009, 05:32 PM

Please excuse my slight hijack, but I didn't quite understand this (not being familiar with US law), does this mean that if a person is murdered while committing a crime his accomplices are implicated in the murder regardless of culpability or not? By culpability I mean that they did not actually kill him.

I'm not sure if anyone clearly answered your question, but you have it right. If you and a partner go downtown to commit a felony and you don't have a gun but he does, even if you do not know he has a gun, and he kills someone during the commition of the crime, you are now charged with murder during a felony too. Getaway car driver is just as responsible even if he stayed in the car the whole time.

Even though you didn't shoot, didn't carry a gun, you get the same charges. Typically the police use this to convince you to testify against your partner in exchange for a lessor charge. Because they really want the shooter.

Many a poor boy sitting in prison asking himself "what the hell happened!??" I thought we were just stealing beer and cigarettes and now I'm in jail for life!

even sven

06-01-2009, 05:43 PM

Why do so many people care that a criminal, someone caught on tape threatening another person's life and livelihood, is dead

Because I believe the death penalty is not appropriate for a robbery? Because I believe that even if it is, we are all (even criminals) entitled to due process and the protection of that is one of the foundations of a just a society? Because I believe that nobody should ever calmly walk over and unload a gun into an unconcious unarmed human being?

Chopper9760

06-01-2009, 05:45 PM

I know that his use of force was excessive and I know that you're all right about condoning vigilantism but I just can't change my opinion on this one.

Yes, the pharmacist went too far but that kid shouldn't have tried to rob him. I'd rather err on the side of the citizen defending his business than the criminal trying to rob him.

Baal Houtham

06-01-2009, 05:53 PM

This reminds me of something funny that happened yesterday.

As I drove along I-270 I noticed that many of the cars were violating the speed limit. Which was clearly posted!

Worried that law-abiding motorists might be injured by these reckless lawbreakers, I pulled out my (legal) handgun and began shooting the driver of every car that passed me.

That forced most of them off the road, involuntarily. However there were a few that that seemed to be trying to drive away after spinning out onto the shoulder. Obviously I had to stop and pump additional shots into them at close range.

When I woke up today I was worried that possibly my actions could lead to serious legal problems, so it's good to see so many people in this thread supporting personal administration of the death penalty, no matter what the actual legal penalty for a certain offense might be.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:15 PM

Una I stand corrected and apologize. I meant no personal slight. Thank you for the additional information.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 06:16 PM

Did he have a weapon? If not, why did you meet him with unequal force?

Not that I saw. Why wouldn't I meet him with as much force as I had to bear?

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 06:42 PM

Not that I saw. Why wouldn't I meet him with as much force as I had to bear?

You would and should. See it just seems so hypocritical that it would have been okay to kill him with the first shot to the head but not okay to kill him while he is laying there. His own fault that he didn't bring a savage enough attack to Ersland that day. Dead is dead is dead. Ersland produced a savage enough defense to keep himself alive.

And I really can't fathom how it could be any different to try and stay alive during wartime as opposed to "peacetime".

Stoid

06-01-2009, 06:42 PM

How can this even be a question? Murder. Period.

Captain Carrot

06-01-2009, 07:07 PM

You would and should. See it just seems so hypocritical that it would have been okay to kill him with the first shot to the head but not okay to kill him while he is laying there. Because the first is self-defense and the second is premeditated murder.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 07:08 PM

You would and should. See it just seems so hypocritical that it would have been okay to kill him with the first shot to the head but not okay to kill him while he is laying there. His own fault that he didn't bring a savage enough attack to Ersland that day. Dead is dead is dead. Ersland produced a savage enough defense to keep himself alive.

And I really can't fathom how it could be any different to try and stay alive during wartime as opposed to "peacetime".

Isn't it also frowned upon to shoot a wounded and helpless enemy solider in a war?
I think so.
Is it really hard to understand the objection to shooting a wounded, helpless, non threatening individual even though he may have been threatening moments before?

That's the question for me. We have no real way of knowing but executing a helpless wounded person, criminal or not, teenager or not, doesn't seem like self defense in any scenario.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 07:16 PM

Because the first is self-defense and the second is premeditated murder.

You can't separate the two actions in this case. They are related. If you walk up to a person you see laying on the sidewalk and shoot him out of the blue, that is murder.

Una Persson

06-01-2009, 07:16 PM

Una I stand corrected and apologize. I meant no personal slight. Thank you for the additional information.
No problem, we're cool.

hansel

06-01-2009, 07:19 PM

You can't separate the two actions in this case. They are related. If you walk up to a person you see laying on the sidewalk and shoot him out of the blue, that is murder.Ersland separated the two actions very nicely when he turned his back on Parson and left him alone to retrieve another gun.

Do you really not see why a bunch of people view the two parts differently?

hansel

06-01-2009, 07:20 PM

Yes, the pharmacist went too far but that kid shouldn't have tried to rob him. I'd rather err on the side of the citizen defending his business than the criminal trying to rob him.Accepting one does not require denying the other. The kid shouldn't have robbed him, and Ersland shouldn't have executed the kid. It's not either-or.

snailboy

06-01-2009, 07:26 PM

I'm kind of on the fence on this one. The first shot was obviously self-defense. No reasonable human being would argue with that. The other shots are tough to gauge. I don't think you should be able to shoot an unarmed, unconscious man even if he just robbed you. But both of those weren't necessarily true or wouldn't necessarily remain true. The owner probably didn't know the guy was unarmed. His partner was, so why take chances? The unconscious thing is a tougher call. Someone a few posts back said the owner's claim was that the guy had regained consciousness. Even if that wasn't true, it may have became true in another minute or two. I don't know. I would prefer that he had just held the gun towards him, but in the heat of the moment, you don't think so well. I don't like it, and I think his intent may have been murder, but without more facts against him, I probably wouldn't convict him. I definitely don't feel sorry for the robber though. And it's definitely retarded to compare this to going to the robber's house some other day and shooting him out of vengence.

As for a couple of other things, why should he have fled? For one thing, that's his pharmacy. He shouldn't have to run and leave it in the hands of armed robbers. He has a right to defend what's his. Second, the other pharmacists (techs or whatever) may have still been in there somewhere. Nothing I saw indicated they left the building, or that he knew they left the building, so he could have been leaving them defenseless with an armed robber had he fled.

Furthermore, while I think the other robbers are sacks of shit, I think it's ridiculous to charge them with murder. That would make sense if they went to commit this heist and an innocent bystander got shot, even if by the owner trying to defend himself. (Although that's pretty much the definition of manslaughter.) But in this case it was one of their own. Charging them for murder doesn't really make me feel sorry for them, but it's completely illogical.

PS: I didn't read through this entire thread, just the first two pages and last page, so I may have missed something. I'm not reading hundreds of posts to catch up.

Una Persson

06-01-2009, 07:27 PM

And the more I read about this case, the more I feel that the Pharmacist was in the wrong.

I'd draw my weapon to defend myself. I'd shoot someone if I felt like my life or safety was threatened. And yes, I'd kill someone who wouldn't stop, as terrible a thing as that would be. But to shoot someone, injuring them, then return and shoot them while they're just laying there? A line was crossed - I don't know if it's "murder" for the sole reason that I can believe the pharmacist was running on adrenaline, but it's certainly (IMO) some sort of manslaughter.

I agree with some in here that the law should err on the side of the crime victim. My opinion is that to err on the side of victim in this case is to bend the intent of the law on self-defense to the point of breaking.

Snowboarder Bo

06-01-2009, 07:27 PM

hansel

06-01-2009, 07:33 PM

Furthermore, while I think the other robbers are sacks of shit, I think it's ridiculous to charge them with murder. That would make sense if they went to commit this heist and an innocent bystander got shot, even if by the owner trying to defend himself. (Although that's pretty much the definition of manslaughter.) But in this case it was one of their own. Charging them for murder doesn't really make me feel sorry for them, but it's completely illogical.I'm quite happy with the adults getting charged with felony murder. For one thing, they were the instigators of the armed robbery, who sent two teens in to live or die in their place. They're fully responsible for the death of Parsons (and no, this doesn't excuse Ersland--responsibility isn't zero-sum).

The general reasoning behind the felony murder charge is that you're responsible for the consequences of your bad actions, whatever they are; that by undertaking those bad actions, you're accepting responsibility for their outcome, foreseen or not. I have no problem with that. I don't think the adults should escape responsibility just because they sent two kids in their place.

Cheesesteak

06-01-2009, 08:09 PM

hyperbole is fine on occasion. Was it also hyperbole when you inaccurately described the video a few posts back?You mean the part where I watched him walk past the downed robber twice turning his back, rooting through a drawer, and not appearing to give him a second thought, until he walked up and shot him? What's inaccurate is implying that this guy thought the downed robber was a threat to his life, and that the only way to ensure his personal safety was to pump 5 bullets into him.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 08:31 PM

You mean the part where I watched him walk past the downed robber twice turning his back, rooting through a drawer, and not appearing to give him a second thought, until he walked up and shot him? What's inaccurate is implying that this guy thought the downed robber was a threat to his life, and that the only way to ensure his personal safety was to pump 5 bullets into him.

Yeah that's the part all right. Now that you're carefully rewording it I think you're aware of what's inaccurate about it. Needless or careless hyperbole in a situation where small details may matter quite a bit doesn't help the discussion.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 08:33 PM

I'm quite happy with the adults getting charged with felony murder. For one thing, they were the instigators of the armed robbery, who sent two teens in to live or die in their place. They're fully responsible for the death of Parsons (and no, this doesn't excuse Ersland--responsibility isn't zero-sum).

The general reasoning behind the felony murder charge is that you're responsible for the consequences of your bad actions, whatever they are; that by undertaking those bad actions, you're accepting responsibility for their outcome, foreseen or not. I have no problem with that. I don't think the adults should escape responsibility just because they sent two kids in their place.

Exactly. That at least is negligent homicide on their part.

Li'l Pluck

06-01-2009, 09:41 PM

That video doesn't conclusively show what exactly happened. People can get grazed by head-shot bullets and be stunned and bleed like stuck pigs, then move or whatever thereafter.

Oh, yeah, it didn't occur to me that the dude could've just been grazed because what I'd read about the incident didn't give me that impression. At any rate, what you've said makes sense.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 09:43 PM

Oh, I see. You thought you were setting me up to contradict myself. Nice try.

No, you answered as expected. I wanted to illustrate how a disparity of force can be justified.

hansel

06-01-2009, 09:43 PM

Exactly. That at least is negligent homicide on their part.To put it another way: say Parsons had killed Ersland. Would you (general you, not Cosmodan you) think that the two adults aren't responsible for Ersland's death?

Li'l Pluck

06-01-2009, 09:45 PM

Li'l Pluck, I don't recall anyone in this thread arguing that death or prison is a deterrent to armed robbery.

Well, Captain Carrot beat me to it (thanks, Captain Carrot), but yes, you recall incorrectly.

jimpatro

06-01-2009, 09:51 PM

Well, Captain Carrot beat me to it (thanks, Captain Carrot), but yes, you recall incorrectly.

I answered that statement. Those who were arguing against a deterrent factor were creating a strawman. At least where I'm concerned. I never suggested that shooting robbers could be a deterrent to future robberies.

You'll notice Captain Carrot didn't retort.

Li'l Pluck

06-01-2009, 09:54 PM

Why wouldn't it? Does a disregard for harm caused to innocent people turn off a person's ability to perform cost/benefit analyses altogether?

A criminal, especially one who commits crimes for the material rewards, isn't going to commit crimes if they believe the probable downsides outweigh the probable upsides. Killing robbers increases the downsides (death) and reduces the upsides (likelihood of getting away with the loot), thereby providing a disincentive to rob people.

Well, I was thinking in terms of mentally unstable persons, something that I'm sure a reading of the paragraph that followed the one that you quoted would've clarified before you could even ask me.

The post (#237) is still there in its entirety if you want to go back and re-read it.

snailboy

06-01-2009, 10:09 PM

To put it another way: say Parsons had killed Ersland. Would you (general you, not Cosmodan you) think that the two adults aren't responsible for Ersland's death?

In that case, they would be accomplices to murder and I wouldn't have a problem if they were charged with murder. If you go in with guns out threatening violence and some innocent bystander gets killed, no matter by whom, you damn sure should be held responsible.

But in this case, it wasn't an innocent who got shot; it was one of their own. It was more akin to suicide than murder. Maybe if he was a minor and someone talked him into it, then maybe they it would be logical to convict that person of murder or manslaughter. But I'm assuming he was a grown man who made his own decision and got shot in self defense. He brought it on himself. Karma has been served.

hansel

06-01-2009, 10:25 PM

But in this case, it wasn't an innocent who got shot; it was one of their own. It was more akin to suicide than murder. Maybe if he was a minor and someone talked him into it, then maybe they it would be logical to convict that person of murder or manslaughter. But I'm assuming he was a grown man who made his own decision and got shot in self defense. He brought it on himself. Karma has been served.First, the kid who was killed was 16. But that's not the issue, since felony murder is about consequences stemming from underlying crimes. If you accept that the adults would be responsible for Ersland's death, then you accept that they are responsible for the unintended consequences of the intended act that they began when they handed Parker a gun. If you accept that, then Parker's death is an unintended consequence for which they are responsible. That Parker might get killed is just as possible as Ersland getting killed; both possible deaths stem from the same underlying act.

[This whole time I've been calling the dead robber Parsons. It's Parker.]

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:26 PM

To put it another way: say Parsons had killed Ersland. Would you (general you, not Cosmodan you) think that the two adults aren't responsible for Ersland's death?

No, they would be. You knew I was agreeing with you right?

hansel

06-01-2009, 10:44 PM

No, they would be. You knew I was agreeing with you right?Yep. That's why I clarified what I meant by 'you'.

cosmosdan

06-01-2009, 10:53 PM

In that case, they would be accomplices to murder and I wouldn't have a problem if they were charged with murder. If you go in with guns out threatening violence and some innocent bystander gets killed, no matter by whom, you damn sure should be held responsible.

But in this case, it wasn't an innocent who got shot; it was one of their own. It was more akin to suicide than murder. Maybe if he was a minor and someone talked him into it, then maybe they it would be logical to convict that person of murder or manslaughter. But I'm assuming he was a grown man who made his own decision and got shot in self defense. He brought it on himself. Karma has been served.

In this case because it was two adults who talked two minors into armed robbery I especially blame them but the law, as I understand it, is that when you conspire with others to commit an illegal act you share the responsibility for unintended consequences. I think that's reasonable but I doubt the courts pursue it very literally in most cases.
If three people plan to break and enter and one carries a pistol that the other two don't even know about, if someone is killed the two that participated are still complicit in the killing even though they had technically no part in planning or executing it. Similarly , if men plan an armed robbery and one of them is killed the others who planned it share responsibility for their partners death.

ivan astikov

06-02-2009, 06:27 AM

[QUOTE]

As disappointed as someone suggesting a bet with odds over such an event? Sheesh!

Why do you think I offered such attractive odds, if not to see who'd be interested in taking my bet?

JXJohns

06-02-2009, 10:53 AM

No need for PM's...how many matchsticks do you want to stake? I'm a little disappointed that someone would consider making a profit on an event like this, tbh! :dubious:
I know that you may not have been serious, but if you offer odds, you expect to make an otherwise unattractive bet appealing enough to get some one to take the wager. You still expect to win/profit however.

It'll only need him to drop his guard once.
These are young punk kids, not some sort of hit squad. A good portion of the "crew" is now in the custody of the State of Oklahoma as well.

Except when they aren't and don't.( Ever hear of criminals who rob drug-dealers? What about bank-robbers, are they cowards?). Generalise much?
Anyone who breaks the law to get things that don't belong to them are in my book cowards. They chose the easy path rather than work for what they wanted like 99.9% of the rest of us. If they use force of arms to accomplish their activities, it makes them even a bigger coward by preying on the weak.

So yes, criminals by their very actions, are cowards. There is a poster here from the UK who used to burglarize homes. I don't recall his name, but his actions fit the description quite well.

Or to shoot robbers cold-bloodedly.
Exactly. He's a proven killer now, regardless of whether one thinks his actions right or wrong. There is, or should be no doubt that he wont hesitate should he find himself in a similar situation again.

Fenris

06-02-2009, 11:53 AM

Wait, Oklahoma calls it a "Make My Day" law? WTF is that?

At least in Colorado, the term "Make My Day" law was originated as a derisive term employed by the opponents of the law.

The term was...what's the phrase? "taken back"(?)* by proponents and adopted enthusiastically, but it came from the anti-self defense side of the argument.

(Sorry, no cites--but I remember the debate clearly from the time--one of the two papers started using the term "Make My Day" bill to refer to it in the news pages and there was quite a controversy about editorializing that way)

*reclaimed? What's the term for what some gay people want to do with the word "queer"?

Zebra

06-02-2009, 12:09 PM

If the robber was already dead, aren't there laws against 'vandalizing' a corpse?

JXJohns

06-02-2009, 01:05 PM

He wasn't dead though. The fatal rounds came from the second shooting.

ivan astikov

06-02-2009, 01:59 PM

I know that you may not have been serious, but if you offer odds, you expect to make an otherwise unattractive bet appealing enough to get some one to take the wager. You still expect to win/profit however.
My point was to get over the idea that this guy has made himself a prime target for revenge. I phrased it the way I did, out of curiosity

These are young punk kids, not some sort of hit squad. A good portion of the "crew" is now in the custody of the State of Oklahoma as well.
And you know this, how?

Anyone who breaks the law to get things that don't belong to them are in my book cowards. They chose the easy path rather than work for what they wanted like 99.9% of the rest of us. If they use force of arms to accomplish their activities, it makes them even a bigger coward by preying on the weak.
Does your book have all its illustrations in black and white?

So yes, criminals by their very actions, are cowards. There is a poster here from the UK who used to burglarize homes. I don't recall his name, but his actions fit the description quite well.
Umm... that'd be me. :rolleyes:

Exactly. He's a proven killer now, regardless of whether one thinks his actions right or wrong. There is, or should be no doubt that he wont hesitate should he find himself in a similar situation again.

He can't stay in his store forever and it'll only take one of those cowards with a gun to settle the score.

Scumpup

06-02-2009, 02:13 PM

ivan astikov

06-02-2009, 02:40 PM

Why don't you provide us with a few cites of punk-ass criminals like the ones under discussion here taking lethal revenge on citizens who fought back? Right now it just sounds like you huffing and puffing for your fellow criminals.

I think I'd have no problem citing cases of criminals getting revenge on other criminals, so I doubt they'd shy away from honest citizens. Why do you think they have the Witness Protection schemes? If it doesn't happen often, it's more likely because the target has upped sticks and gone elsewhere, than because 'criminals'* were too afraid to confront them.

* I put the word in quotes because. say the dead boy's cousin with no previous form decides to do the dirty deed? He will be a criminal because he decided to avenge a family member.

The Tooth

06-02-2009, 02:55 PM

The idea of walking into someone's business with a gun and robbing them should be as scary as jumping off the Grand Canyon. It should be considered suicide. The world will be a safer place when it is considered suicidal to rob anyone.

No it won't, it'll be full of petty criminals willing to kill all witnesses. If I'll fry for stealing the gum and I'll fry for killing the clerk, why not eliminate witnesses? I'd have nothing to lose.

You rob someone, you forfeit your rights.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, as vigilantism is still illegal. What if I rob someone and don't get caught, but the clerk recognizes me a month later elsewhere?

JXJohns

06-02-2009, 03:07 PM

My point was to get over the idea that this guy has made himself a prime target for revenge. I phrased it the way I did, out of curiosity
OK.

And you know this, how?
The gunman, the wheelman, the godfather and another d-bag have all been arrested. That fact is not in dispute as far as I know.

Does your book have all its illustrations in black and white?
The noble criminal angle? Is that really the line you want to take? Unless you are Keanu Reeves in the movie Point Break, and your girlfriend is being held hostage so you have to rob a bank to save her life, every shit-bag criminal has a choice to make before they break the law. It is the cowardly who breaks society's rules to better themselves. That works for violent or non violent criminals FWIW.

Umm... that'd be me. :rolleyes:
Well, that explains the difference in our opinions. You might fancy yourself as a hell of a guy, and you may be now, but when you were preying on others by taking that which did not belong to you, you were a cowardly criminal. Is that black and white enough for you?

He can't stay in his store forever and it'll only take one of those cowards with a gun to settle the score.
How did that work for the first two? One is dead and the other in jail. Do you think they kept the real talent in reserve just in case a vendetta was necessary?

ivan astikov

06-02-2009, 03:42 PM

The gunman, the wheelman, the godfather and another d-bag have all been arrested. That fact is not in dispute as far as I know.

And you don't think they have family or friends who might be hot-headed enough to seek revenge? We'll see!

The noble criminal angle? Is that really the line you want to take? Unless you are Keanu Reeves in the movie Point Break, and your girlfriend is being held hostage so you have to rob a bank to save her life, every shit-bag criminal has a choice to make before they break the law. It is the cowardly who breaks society's rules to better themselves. That works for violent or non violent criminals FWIW.
You might not think so, but I find anyone who is prepared to deal heroin or crack has to have at least a little bottle, and the same goes for anyone who can carry off a bank robbery or armed blag without hurting anyone. These people are just as courageous as the cop who goes into a drug-den backed by 20 accomplices.

Well, that explains the difference in our opinions. You might fancy yourself as a hell of a guy, and you may be now, but when you were preying on others by taking that which did not belong to you, you were a cowardly criminal. Is that black and white enough for you?
Yup. At least I know where I stand with you.

How did that work for the first two? One is dead and the other in jail. Do you think they kept the real talent in reserve just in case a vendetta was necessary?
Don't try and make out the guy was like Charley Bronson or something! He was hidden from the gunman and took a pot-shot at an unarmed boy( Yes, if he was armed, do you think he would not have had it out already?). Up to that point, he could have claimed to be a bit of a hero, but his actions afterwards turned him into an executioner.

JXJohns

06-02-2009, 04:00 PM

And you don't think they have family or friends who might be hot-headed enough to seek revenge? We'll see!

No. Revenge against what? Shooting him in the head while his life was threatened?

You might not think so, but I find anyone who is prepared to deal heroin or crack has to have at least a little bottle, and the same goes for anyone who can carry off a bank robbery or armed blag without hurting anyone. These people are just as courageous as the cop who goes into a drug-den backed by 20 accomplices.
Yeah... sure... :rolleyes:

Yup. At least I know where I stand with you.
I'm glad there is no doubt.

Don't try and make out the guy was like Charley Bronson or something! He was hidden from the gunman and took a pot-shot at an unarmed boy( Yes, if he was armed, do you think he would not have had it out already?). Up to that point, he could have claimed to be a bit of a hero, but his actions afterwards turned him into an executioner.

The dumbass walked into an armed robbery and then put his mask on, and you expect him to have gone in with his gun had he been armed? Did I forget to tell you that I think most criminals are stupid too?

Ersland's actions eliminated the multiple threats against him, his employees, any customers that may have been in the store, and any future victims that Parker would have threatened. Hero might be a bit much, but not too far off of the mark. Those last 5 shots do not take away from the fact that he stood his ground against the low lifes that threatened him and who attempted to take what was not theirs through lethal force. That fact will remain in the back of the minds of any wishing to seek retribution upon him.

ivan astikov

06-02-2009, 04:27 PM

No. Revenge against what? Shooting him in the head while his life was threatened?
No. Executing him without trial.

Yeah... sure... :rolleyes:
It's no more out there than your "all criminals are cowards" schtick.

I'm glad there is no doubt.

There's no doubt you have a high opinion of your opinions.

The dumbass walked into an armed robbery and then put his mask on, and you expect him to have gone in with his gun had he been armed?

Why, has it been announced he was armed?

Did I forget to tell you that I think most criminals are stupid too?

Most? Do you want to be more specific?

Ersland's actions eliminated the multiple threats against him, his employees, any customers that may have been in the store, and any future victims that Parker would have threatened. Hero might be a bit much, but not too far off of the mark. Those last 5 shots do not take away from the fact that he stood his ground against the low lifes that threatened him and who attempted to take what was not theirs through lethal force. That fact will remain in the back of the minds of any wishing to seek retribution upon him.

Is he paying you a retainer?

Scumpup

06-02-2009, 04:54 PM

Still waiting on those cites.
Witness protection is typically to protect the shitbag who squealed from the shitbags on whom he squealed. I daresay it but seldom involves street-level shitbags who do stuff like attempt to hold up a pharmacy.

JXJohns

06-02-2009, 05:09 PM

Is he paying you a retainer?

I'd do it pro bono.

tomndebb

06-02-2009, 05:14 PM

mutantmoose

06-02-2009, 07:57 PM

That was a helluva shot though - from across the room, with a handgun, during a real life dangerous situation, one shot to the head. Only bad point (from a tactical viewpoint) is that he shot the wrong guy. He shoulda shot the one with the gun first.

Another point to consider is that the guy who got shot may have been innocent. He may have been being coerced into committing the robbery by the guy with the gun. So from a legal standpoint you can't necessarily just shoot someone who appears to be robbing you (in the way he did) because there are situations (rare though they may be) where someone robbing you is not committing a crime - eg if they are acting under duress.

I realise that this was probably not happening in this particular case but I'm taking the wider view - there may be situations where this does happen. Thus the law doesn't allow you to pump five bullets into someone who's no longer a threat because there are, in existence, legal reasons why that person may yet be innocent. You don't know all the facts at this stage. Since the reasons for him robbing you are unknown at this time, we need to have a trial to uncover them. If you shoot him, we can't have a trial to determine his guilt or innocence. So the law frowns on "finishing them off".

Once they're not a threat the law doesn't want you murdering them because there may exist legal reasons why they were robbing you. The fact of the existence of these few legal reasons means the law wants them alive just to establish whether they are true in this case. If it wasn't for these reasons you could probably shoot them and the law won't bat an eye.

Freudian Slit

06-02-2009, 07:59 PM

tomndebb

06-02-2009, 08:14 PM

What exactly IS the bravery of being a bank robber, ivan? I loved Dog Day Afternoon as much as the next person, but I don't think that putting a gun to someone's head and demanding money is all that brave.In that I have already told Ivan that that subject is off topic for this thread, I would strongly urge you to withdraw the questiona and, if you are really interested, open a separate thread to discuss it.

[ /Modding ]

Freudian Slit

06-02-2009, 08:17 PM

Snowboarder Bo

06-02-2009, 08:23 PM

NM, topic off limits per last 2 posts.

DfrntBreign

06-02-2009, 11:10 PM

Wait, Oklahoma calls it a "Make My Day" law? WTF is that?

Yay, I get to kill a human being and not face legal consequences!

He's a murderer.

No, in Oklahoma it's called "Stand Your Ground", but it's patterned after similar laws in Texas and Florida that are called "Make My Day" laws. The way it's described (on local news) is you have the right to use deadly force on your own property if you "feel a grave and imminent threat". Not quite a blanket absolution, but a little vague for my tastes. Part of why this is such a big story here is because it is expected to be the first real legal challenge to the law.

And I agree with you. Homicide. I still haven't seen or heard anything to change my mind. But I do hope the eventual jury has access to a lot more evidence than we do.

Kimstu

06-03-2009, 12:07 AM

But third trimester abortions are atrocious. And he was performing them. After 21 weeks is what is recorded.

Excuse my picking up this hijack again, but just to clarify: Third trimester abortions are illegal in Kansas except when deemed medically necessary to save the mother from death or irreparable physical harm, or when the fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb, including many cases where the fetus has already died inside the womb.

The late-term abortions performed by the murdered Dr. Tiller were not done for kicks or on a whim, but in order to save women's lives and health. No matter how physically repulsive the procedure for performing late-term abortions may be, are you really saying that you'd rather see pregnant women die, or get serious infections from keeping dead fetuses in their wombs, than have their pregnancies aborted by a repulsive procedure?

Despite what you may hear from anti-abortion organizations trying to pump up indignation and sympathy for their cause, late-term abortions are not widely available on demand in the US or frequently sought. They are heavily regulated, and the vast majority of the women who seek them are facing tragic and traumatic medical emergencies. Focusing on the "atrociousness" of the procedure while deliberately ignoring the circumstances that make the procedure medically necessary is shortsighted at best, and downright deceptive at worst.

Snowboarder Bo

06-03-2009, 12:24 AM

No, you answered as expected. I wanted to illustrate how a disparity of force can be justified.

I can only wonder what purpose you thought you would be serving by this. I have never said he used too much force, or that his gun was too big, or anything similar. I don't recall that anyone else in this thread has either.

Unless you are going to argue that Mr. Ersland was justified in using overwhelming force against zero force (or resistance), your point is lost on me.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:33 AM

Excuse my picking up this hijack again, but just to clarify: Third trimester abortions are illegal in Kansas except when deemed medically necessary to save the mother from death or irreparable physical harm, or when the fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb, including many cases where the fetus has already died inside the womb.

The late-term abortions performed by the murdered Dr. Tiller were not done for kicks or on a whim, but in order to save women's lives and health. No matter how physically repulsive the procedure for performing late-term abortions may be, are you really saying that you'd rather see pregnant women die, or get serious infections from keeping dead fetuses in their wombs, than have their pregnancies aborted by a repulsive procedure?

Despite what you may hear from anti-abortion organizations trying to pump up indignation and sympathy for their cause, late-term abortions are not widely available on demand in the US or frequently sought. They are heavily regulated, and the vast majority of the women who seek them are facing tragic and traumatic medical emergencies. Focusing on the "atrociousness" of the procedure while deliberately ignoring the circumstances that make the procedure medically necessary is shortsighted at best, and downright deceptive at worst.

A woman getting a serious infection from a dead fetus in her womb. How would this qualify as an abortion?

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:35 AM

I can only wonder what purpose you thought you would be serving by this. I have never said he used too much force, or that his gun was too big, or anything similar. I don't recall that anyone else in this thread has either.

Unless you are going to argue that Mr. Ersland was justified in using overwhelming force against zero force (or resistance), your point is lost on me.

But you don't know that there was zero force. There may have been potential force. As long as scumbag was alive there was.

Snowboarder Bo

06-03-2009, 12:42 AM

But you don't know that there was zero force. There may have been potential force. As long as scumbag was alive there was.

:rolleyes:

I am forming my opinion from the information that is available. What are you using?

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:45 AM

:rolleyes:

I am forming my opinion from the information that is available. What are you using?

Imagination. One must consider what might happen if one doesn't act. As mentioned before, the guy on the floor could have revived and pulled a gun. His buddies could have come back. There were four total. He at least lowered the odds to three against one.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:46 AM

:rolleyes:

I am forming my opinion from the information that is available. What are you using?

Available to you. After the fact. What was available to Mr. Ersland?

bengangmo

06-03-2009, 12:53 AM

Imagination. One must consider what might happen if one doesn't act. As mentioned before, the guy on the floor could have revived and pulled a gun. His buddies could have come back. There were four total. He at least lowered the odds to three against one.

Yeah, and a car might crash through the door running over the crook and making the point moot, by walking towards the robber Ersland might step into the path of a rogue meteorite.

I don't think its very wise, rational, proper or justifiable to shoot somebody 5 times based on things that you can conjure from your imaginations of what might happen

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:58 AM

Yeah, and a car might crash through the door running over the crook and making the point moot, by walking towards the robber Ersland might step into the path of a rogue meteorite.

I don't think its very wise, rational, proper or justifiable to shoot somebody 5 times based on things that you can conjure from your imaginations of what might happen

Could be wise enough to save your life. And in this case Ersland's life comes before the guy who would violently rob him. Ersland being the one minding his own business, not hurting a fly. Parker being the one who would put another human's life in peril for money.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 01:00 AM

Yeah, and a car might crash through the door running over the crook and making the point moot, by walking towards the robber Ersland might step into the path of a rogue meteorite.

I don't think its very wise, rational, proper or justifiable to shoot somebody 5 times based on things that you can conjure from your imaginations of what might happen

Are you truly saying it as likely that a car could come crashing through the door as one or more robbers could come running in the door?

Oh ,and forgot about the meteorite.

Monty

06-03-2009, 01:22 AM

Kimstu

06-03-2009, 01:24 AM

A woman getting a serious infection from a dead fetus in her womb. How would this qualify as an abortion?

The medical procedure for terminating a pregnancy, that is, extracting a fetus from a uterus before it is born and in a way it cannot survive, is essentially the same whether the fetus is alive or dead when the procedure begins. Draconian legal restrictions on late-term abortions either ban D&X outright, even when the fetus is already dead, or require enforcement procedures that make it much more difficult to get D&X done to remove a dead fetus.

Late-term abortions may be physically gruesome, but they are not acts of gratuitous savage slaughter as the anti-abortion movement likes to portray them. They are a very tiny minority of all abortions, and the vast majority of them are medically necessary by anybody's standards. They save women's lives.

bengangmo

06-03-2009, 04:33 AM

Could be wise enough to save your life. And in this case Ersland's life comes before the guy who would violently rob him. Ersland being the one minding his own business, not hurting a fly. Parker being the one who would put another human's life in peril for money.

On this basis it could also be wise to off every mugger in New York, and every child of every mugger. After all a mugger might maybe kill me, and we all know that kids learn from their parents.

This is one thing that I hate about this board, arguements become ad absurditum - Parker "might" have done any number of things, perhaps he also had a stick of dynamite rigged to blow if his heart stopped beating.

What you should be debating here is the most likely scenario given the facts at hand, which from what I understand of the reports are:
1) He (Parker) was for all practical purposes unconscious
2) His hands were in view
3) Ersland never saw him with a gun
4) Ersland already had a gun in hand and could have covered him from a position of relative cover, or a difficult position for Parker to aim and shoot
5) Ersland could also have absented himself from the "threat to his life" altogether (not saying its his responsibility to do so, just that he could have)

You can argue till the cows come home on what Parker "might" have been carrying, but if you were a betting man, would you really bet on any of those possibilities with odds of even money?

Remember you are talking someone's life here, whether you think he has the right to live or not is a separate debate, but Ersland should not get to be judge, jury and executioner on some sort of spurious "could have" reasoning.

This is the same sort of reasoning that the decidinator used in Iraq, and that really won lots of friends and respect right?

ivan astikov

06-03-2009, 05:17 AM

TWEEEEEEEEET!!!!!

Personals shot at ivan astikov are not permitted, here, just because he has admitted to engaging in criminal behavior.

Everyone knock it off.

= = =

OTOH, Ivan, this schtick of jumping into thread to defend the poor beleaguered criminals has long since gotten old. Billy the Kid might have just been caught on the wrong side of history, but most felons who have become folk heroes--Jesse James and that sort--were just evil gits who happened to find a sympathetic press. Your constant attempt to portray the "heroic" qualities of criminals, particularly in threads where that is not an issue, does nothing but disrupt threads. If you want another go at presenting "crook as wqonderful human being," then open up a separate thread to discuss it. (It will likely wind up in the Pit, but you can have your say, there.)

[ /Moderating ]

Why would I want to start such a thread when I've never said anything like that? Nice attempt at misrepresentation tho', I'll give you that much.

My purpose in these kinds of threads, is not so much to defend the "poor beleaguered criminal" as it is to counter the suggestions of straight-heads who maybe know nothing about criminals, except what they see on COPS, and through the general media.

Really, the person you should be having a go at is JXJohns, for his constant mantra of "all criminals are cowards...because I think so", if you want to lessen the ignorance around here. :rolleyes:

Uzi

06-03-2009, 05:22 AM

Remember you are talking someone's life here, ...

Yeah, Ersland's. Ersland, who up until Parker and friends decided to visit him was minding his own business. Now maybe Ersland is some former Mafia hitman in the witness protection program, or some super soldier made out of steel, otherwise any benefit of the doubt should go to him and not the criminals who he was defending himself against.

Carmady

06-03-2009, 05:43 AM

You can argue till the cows come home on what Parker "might" have been carrying, but if you were a betting man, would you really bet on any of those possibilities with odds of even money?

Maybe it was a mercy kill. The first head shot may have left the robber in pain with no chance of survival.

Seriously though, if you are ever the victim of an armed home invasion, I can guarantee you will treat all of the intruders as though they are armed, not just the ones you can see holding guns to the heads of your family.

"Hmm... he is part of a team doing armed home invasions, but I'll bet he isn't even armed. And I'm no doctor, but I can totally tell he's really out. Honey, go pat him down and make sure."

ivan astikov

06-03-2009, 05:49 AM

Blake

06-03-2009, 06:06 AM

Would people be viewing Ersland so favourably if one of the shots he had fired while chasing the retreating robber had hit a passer-by, as a result of his adrenaline-fuelled effort to protect himself and his colleagues? He obviously didn't hit the robber, but he must have fired them, otherwise, why would he have needed another gun? Is that really the sort of behaviour you want to encourage?

We could say precisely the same thing if Ersland had dashed to the phone and dialled 911:

Would people be viewing Ersland so favourably if the police car responding to his call had hit a passer-by, as a result of his adrenaline-fuelled effort to protect himself and his colleagues? Is that really the sort of behaviour you want to encourage?

The fact is that any attempt to respond in a timely manner to an armed robbery has some potential to lead to accidental civilian deaths. Unless you can provide objective evidence that shooting is more likely to lead to civilian injuries than calling 911 then I can only assume that you are advocating that we not respond at all to armed robberies.

Is that what you are advocating? If not then your whole argument is a classic example of special pleading.

Scumpup

06-03-2009, 06:34 AM

Ivan, based on his previous appearances in threads about criminals and guns, is most likely about to tell us either
a) It was Ersland's fault he got robbed due to inadequate security measures on his part.
or
b) Ersland should have just given over the money/drugs to the robbers who really meant him no harm.
and in addition will definitely tell us
c) The four robbers were blamesless in all this; they were forced into a life of crime by a cold, uncaring society.

Freudian Slit

06-03-2009, 08:57 AM

In that I have already told Ivan that that subject is off topic for this thread, I would strongly urge you to withdraw the questiona and, if you are really interested, open a separate thread to discuss it.

[ /Modding ]

I have done so here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11206792#post11206792).

Snowboard, I would be interested to see what you have to say. I think it was you who I'm referring to in the OP (I think you edited your post when you saw that this topic was off limits here).

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 09:33 AM

Well, Ersland didn't fire in the direction of the hypothetical friends and family of the robber. He shot, from all the evidence at hand, the incapacitated robber who had less chance of getting up to create a threat than the chance of a meteorite striking in the general vicinity of Ersland.

You really believe this? A meteorite. As opposed to a guy getting up from a wound which you don't even know the severity of. Too much TV.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 09:35 AM

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 09:50 AM

On this basis it could also be wise to off every mugger in New York, and every child of every mugger. After all a mugger might maybe kill me, and we all know that kids learn from their parents.

This is one thing that I hate about this board, arguements become ad absurditum - Parker "might" have done any number of things, perhaps he also had a stick of dynamite rigged to blow if his heart stopped beating.

What you should be debating here is the most likely scenario given the facts at hand, which from what I understand of the reports are:
1) He (Parker) was for all practical purposes unconscious
2) His hands were in view
3) Ersland never saw him with a gun
4) Ersland already had a gun in hand and could have covered him from a position of relative cover, or a difficult position for Parker to aim and shoot
5) Ersland could also have absented himself from the "threat to his life" altogether (not saying its his responsibility to do so, just that he could have)

You can argue till the cows come home on what Parker "might" have been carrying, but if you were a betting man, would you really bet on any of those possibilities with odds of even money?

Remember you are talking someone's life here, whether you think he has the right to live or not is a separate debate, but Ersland should not get to be judge, jury and executioner on some sort of spurious "could have" reasoning.

This is the same sort of reasoning that the decidinator used in Iraq, and that really won lots of friends and respect right?

Every mugger should be killed. During the act. To insure 100% that the victims survive.

So if his hands were in view and Ersland never saw him with a gun this makes it completely impossible for him to have had one concealed?

How do you know that for all practical purposes that Parker was unconscious? And on top of that incapable of regaining consciousness?

Relative cover, huh?
A difficult position for Parker to aim and shoot?
I see that what you want is a fair fight. Parker doesn't deserve it. And as someone fighting for his life Ersland certainly need not provide it. As someone once said "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck".

So maybe you'd flee and leave the ladies alone, You've suggested that is acceptable. But Ersland is made of more than that.

Ersland was no judge, jury or executioner. He was a combatant who waged a counter-attack intending to win.

Ad absurditum indeed.

ivan astikov

06-03-2009, 10:38 AM

That didn't happen.

If the downed robber could have made a threatening move before Ersland pumped 5 bullets into him, any one of the shots he fired when he went all Rambo and chased the the gunman out of the shop, could have hit little Tommy as he was walking with his Mom.

Cheesesteak

06-03-2009, 10:41 AM

So maybe you'd flee and leave the ladies alone, You've suggested that is acceptable. But Ersland is made of more than that.Get your eyes checked, Ersland LEFT! He left, gun in hand, to chase down the robber who ran off, leaving the ladies alone with the downed robber.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 11:43 AM

Every mugger should be killed. During the act. To insure 100% that the victims survive.

Mmm. And what should happen when muggers start shooting people from the bushes and robbing their still-bleeding corpses?

Ersland was no judge, jury or executioner. He was a combatant who waged a counter-attack intending to win.

No, he was someone who neutralized a threat, then killed someone who was not threatening him. I imagine the words 'potential threat' will come streaming at me over the internet now, and I have to ask who presents more of a potential threat: a known criminal lying on the ground bleeding with a bullet in his head, or you, upright and conscious and perfectly capable of doing me harm.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 12:06 PM

Mmm. And what should happen when muggers start shooting people from the bushes and robbing their still-bleeding corpses?
Don't you have to make quite a leap to assume that muggers and petty thugs will graduate to murder?

No, he was someone who neutralized a threat, then killed someone who was not threatening him. I imagine the words 'potential threat' will come streaming at me over the internet now, and I have to ask who presents more of a potential threat: a known criminal lying on the ground bleeding with a bullet in his head, or you, upright and conscious and perfectly capable of doing me harm.

If you are a bystander and not someone who is attempting to rob the store, I would imagine that the biggest threat in the room to you is still the guy on the ground.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:07 PM

Mmm. And what should happen when muggers start shooting people from the bushes and robbing their still-bleeding corpses?

No, he was someone who neutralized a threat, then killed someone who was not threatening him. I imagine the words 'potential threat' will come streaming at me over the internet now, and I have to ask who presents more of a potential threat: a known criminal lying on the ground bleeding with a bullet in his head, or you, upright and conscious and perfectly capable of doing me harm.

So when confronted by an armed robber you would rather just take the chance that they will just leave when they have the money? Rather than insure that you or someone with you will not be hurt?

It's obvious who is more of a threat. BUt the person on the floor is not a zero threat.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 12:08 PM

Get your eyes checked, Ersland LEFT! He left, gun in hand, to chase down the robber who ran off, leaving the ladies alone with the downed robber.

Then he came back, saw what he considered a threat where there was not one earlier, grabbed another gun with far more stopping power and eliminated the threat.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:09 PM

Mmm. And what should happen when muggers start shooting people from the bushes and robbing their still-bleeding corpses?

No, he was someone who neutralized a threat, then killed someone who was not threatening him. I imagine the words 'potential threat' will come streaming at me over the internet now, and I have to ask who presents more of a potential threat: a known criminal lying on the ground bleeding with a bullet in his head, or you, upright and conscious and perfectly capable of doing me harm.

And yeah, "potential threat". If you'd read the entire thread you'd have encountered it several times.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:10 PM

Get your eyes checked, Ersland LEFT! He left, gun in hand, to chase down the robber who ran off, leaving the ladies alone with the downed robber.

Check YOUR eyes. He came back.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:12 PM

If the downed robber could have made a threatening move before Ersland pumped 5 bullets into him, any one of the shots he fired when he went all Rambo and chased the the gunman out of the shop, could have hit little Tommy as he was walking with his Mom.

That's why one of our most important rules of gun handling is: Know your target and what is beyond it.

Cheesesteak

06-03-2009, 12:23 PM

Check YOUR eyes. He came back.Yeah, after leaving the women in the store alone with a dangerous robber who could leap up at any moment and kill them.

At least, I'm apparently supposed to believe the robber was so dangerous that Ersland couldn't possibly safely be in the same room with him, even though Ersland was armed and could be standing at the ready behind the counter. Yet, it was totally OK to walk out of the store, leaving the unarmed women alone with him, just as long as he came back eventually.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:30 PM

Yeah, after leaving the women in the store alone with a dangerous robber who could leap up at any moment and kill them.

You're gonna have to make up your mind. You've been arguing that this wasn't possible. You can't just use whatever argument is convenient.

Cheesesteak

06-03-2009, 12:41 PM

You're gonna have to make up your mind. You've been arguing that this wasn't possible.I know it's not possible, which is why I haven't been suggesting the Ersland is some awesome dude who pumped 5 shots into a dangerous criminal in an effort to defend himself and his store's staff. You have suggested that, but haven't offered up a reason why he would leave his staff alone in the store with this dangerous criminal, instead of staying there to make sure they were safe.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:45 PM

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 12:46 PM

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 01:00 PM

I know it's not possible, which is why I haven't been suggesting the Ersland is some awesome dude who pumped 5 shots into a dangerous criminal in an effort to defend himself and his store's staff. You have suggested that, but haven't offered up a reason why he would leave his staff alone in the store with this dangerous criminal, instead of staying there to make sure they were safe.

I'll try...

He dropped robber #1 with a headshot using a small caliber pistol. He went out the door to determine the intentions of robber #2. He notices that robber two is running like coward leaving his pal behind. Once outside, he realizes that he has turned his back on a potential threat. Then he comes back, see what he considers a threat where there was not one earlier, grabs another gun with far more stopping power and eliminates the threat.

Cheesesteak

06-03-2009, 01:06 PM

Then he comes back, see what he considers a threat where there was not one earlier, then walks past said threat keeping his back to the threat for 10 or more seconds while he roots around in a drawer tograbs another gun with far more stopping power and eliminates the threat.I don't know about you, but if I see a guy who is so dangerous that I MUST kill him in order to be safe, I'm not turning my back on him to locate a more powerful gun, I'm using the gun I've got in my hand, or at least keeping my eye on him at all times.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 01:13 PM

And yeah, "potential threat". If you'd read the entire thread you'd have encountered it several times.

Yeah, that's why I saw it coming and nipped it in the bud. Do you disagree that you, upright and conscious, present more of a 'potential threat' then someone lying unconscious and bleeding on the ground?

Cheesesteak

06-03-2009, 01:18 PM

Adrenaline. His mind racing. The heat of the moment.Well then, maybe his decision to kill the kid wasn't all that well thought out either.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 01:20 PM

Yeah, that's why I saw it coming and nipped it in the bud. Do you disagree that you, upright and conscious, present more of a 'potential threat' then someone lying unconscious and bleeding on the ground?

Post #462

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 01:22 PM

then walks past said threat keeping his back to the threat for 10 or more seconds while he roots around in a drawer toI don't know about you, but if I see a guy who is so dangerous that I MUST kill him in order to be safe, I'm not turning my back on him to locate a more powerful gun, I'm using the gun I've got in my hand, or at least keeping my eye on him at all times.

That works too. I am sure that if either of us end up in a similar situation, we will now know exactly how to do it right. Don't forget to smile for the camera.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 01:23 PM

Post #462

I prefer 461.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 01:34 PM

So when confronted by an armed robber you would rather just take the chance that they will just leave when they have the money? Rather than insure that you or someone with you will not be hurt?

We aren't talking about an armed robber any more. We're talking about an unconscious man lying on the ground with a bullet in his head. And no, I wouldn't continue to fire once the threat is neutralized.

It's obvious who is more of a threat.

Then shooting one of you (hypothetically, of course) would be justified? Just on the basis that you pose more of a potential threat than an unconscious man? I don't know that the guy would even pull the trigger, but I feel confident you would. You are more of a threat.

BUt the person on the floor is not a zero threat.

Yes, our murderer could've tripped over him on the way to get another gun.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 01:39 PM

Don't you have to make quite a leap to assume that muggers and petty thugs will graduate to murder?

Why wouldn't they? Because it's against the law?

If you are a bystander and not someone who is attempting to rob the store, I would imagine that the biggest threat in the room to you is still the guy on the ground.

And so rather than call the police while covering the guy with a weapon, you'd just kill him. Okay, but you can't convince me that wouldn't make you a murderer.

Cheesesteak

06-03-2009, 01:51 PM

I am sure that if either of us end up in a similar situation, we will now know exactly how to do it right. I know, it's just so darn difficult to remember to keep extremely dangerous individuals within your line of sight, instead of turning your back on them to root around in a drawer. Such a fine point of self defense.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 02:02 PM

Why wouldn't they? Because it's against the law?
No, because it takes far more to kill someone than to roll them for their wallet. Note the number of assaults in the US v. the number of murders annually.

And so rather than call the police while covering the guy with a weapon, you'd just kill him. Okay, but you can't convince me that wouldn't make you a murderer.

Which has shit to do with your scenario that I responded to. In that situation, the criminal who planned on a career of armed robbery was always the threat, not the guy who was manning the store.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 02:03 PM

We aren't talking about an armed robber any more.

Yes we are. My comment was in reference to you suggesting that robbers would now shoot from the bushes if we just start to shoot them while they are robbing us.

So, I'll pose it as a formal question. Would you gamble with your life or a loved one's by just standing by and hoping they will just leave with the money and not kill somebody. Or would you take the initiative and make the chances of that ZERO by killing the robber first.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 02:04 PM

I know, it's just so darn difficult to remember to keep extremely dangerous individuals within your line of sight, instead of turning your back on them to root around in a drawer. Such a fine point of self defense.

Happens all the time because oddly enough, when confronted with real threats, people don't always act the way they are supposed to. Go figure...

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 02:06 PM

then walks past said threat keeping his back to the threat for 10 or more seconds while he roots around in a drawer toI don't know about you, but if I see a guy who is so dangerous that I MUST kill him in order to be safe, I'm not turning my back on him to locate a more powerful gun, I'm using the gun I've got in my hand, or at least keeping my eye on him at all times.

One of the most effective tricks I used when quarterbacking was looking in the opposite direction of my intended receiver. Used peripheral vision. Got 'em every time.

jimpatro

06-03-2009, 02:10 PM

Don't you have to make quite a leap to assume that muggers and petty thugs will graduate to murder?

Unfortunately, it's a problem here in Texas and other places as well. Mostly gangs. An ititiation thing.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 07:02 PM

No, because it takes far more to kill someone than to roll them for their wallet. Note the number of assaults in the US v. the number of murders annually.

Yes, but that's in a country where muggers aren't killed 100% of the time. You posited that. I think raising the stakes would make more, not less, trouble.

Which has shit to do with your scenario that I responded to. In that situation, the criminal who planned on a career of armed robbery was always the threat, not the guy who was manning the store.

No, not always. Shooting him in the head proved effective in neutralizing the threat.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 07:14 PM

No, not always. Shooting him in the head proved effective in neutralizing the threat.

And even still, the law abiding pharmacist was still a lesser threat to anyone not attempting to rob him. You'll note that nobody, except for the bad guys, got shot that day.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 07:27 PM

Yes we are. My comment was in reference to you suggesting that robbers would now shoot from the bushes if we just start to shoot them while they are robbing us.

So, I'll pose it as a formal question. Would you gamble with your life or a loved one's by just standing by and hoping they will just leave with the money and not kill somebody. Or would you take the initiative and make the chances of that ZERO by killing the robber first.

I'd shoot him were I in a position to do so. I wouldn't go do something else then come back to finish the job, because that's murder. And unnecessary.

My question to you is, what if you knocked the man unconscious with a rock instead of a bullet. Would you crush the head of an unconscious person with a rock? How would you argue standing next to an unconscious man is a situation in which you are in such danger that killing him is necessary? That's how I see the pharmacist's situation. The danger was past. The threat had been neutralized.

I'm not a lawyer, but I seriously believe that would be mentioned often in a court in Canada. The US may differ, but I was raised here, and self-defense laws aren't the same. The fellow's actions may not be murder in his state; the mere belief that a threat is present may be sufficient. But when it comes to asking if he's a folk hero or a murderer, I vote murderer.

As for the hypotheticals, I also believe that a petty thief who knows just getting caught will mean his death will not be too concerned about killing someone. Or maybe they will be concerned about it. But they'll still do it to avoid getting caught. Not all of them, sure, but some. The crime will come to fit the punishment.

Snowboarder Bo

06-03-2009, 07:35 PM

One of the most effective tricks I used when quarterbacking was looking in the opposite direction of my intended receiver. Used peripheral vision. Got 'em every time.

So are you saying that you would do something to deliberately provoke a reaction in the downed robber, so that you would have plausible justification for killing him?

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 07:43 PM

And even still, the law abiding pharmacist was still a lesser threat to anyone not attempting to rob him. You'll note that nobody, except for the bad guys, got shot that day.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're using 'threat' as some sort of social designator. There's no threatometer on which the robber sits higher than the pharmacist and anyone not trying to rob him. This isn't about good guys and bad guys, this is about whether or not person A posed a threat to person B when person B killed him. As far as I can see, person A was well and truly not a threat. As I said, I'm willing to believe the law may come down on person B's side but that doesn't change my opinion of B's actions much.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 08:19 PM

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're using 'threat' as some sort of social designator. There's no threatometer on which the robber sits higher than the pharmacist and anyone not trying to rob him. This isn't about good guys and bad guys, this is about whether or not person A posed a threat to person B when person B killed him. As far as I can see, person A was well and truly not a threat. As I said, I'm willing to believe the law may come down on person B's side but that doesn't change my opinion of B's actions much.

Here is the deal, I was responding to the nonsense that you posted way up there...
No, he was someone who neutralized a threat, then killed someone who was not threatening him. I imagine the words 'potential threat' will come streaming at me over the internet now, and I have to ask who presents more of a potential threat: a known criminal lying on the ground bleeding with a bullet in his head, or you, upright and conscious and perfectly capable of doing me harm.

I stuck with it the entire time while you scurried about with different topics apparently forgetting what inspired our little circle jerk in the first place. Your question was this:

...and I have to ask who presents more of a potential threat: a known criminal lying on the ground bleeding with a bullet in his head, or you, upright and conscious and perfectly capable of doing me harm.

My only response was that even if on the ground and bleeding, the shitbag criminal in this situation is a bigger threat to YOU than a law abiding shop keeper. See, the pharm used his gun to defend his life. The shitbag and his pal used theirs to threaten lives.

The Tooth

06-03-2009, 08:29 PM

Not when he took five bullets he wasn't.

JXJohns

06-03-2009, 09:22 PM

Not when he took five bullets he wasn't.

At that point there were no more threats.

Carmady

06-03-2009, 09:37 PM

I wonder if people are treating this differently because it was in a store rather than a home.

Imagine being the victim of an armed home invasion. Some of the intruders have guns pointed at your daughter's head.

Do you make a bet that only the ones currently aiming their guns are armed?

Now say you shoot one intruder, and they go down.

Do you make a bet that they aren't faking and won't regain consciousness?

Do you ask your daughter to check their pockets for weapons and wave her hand in front of their face to see if they are really out?

Betting is fine most of the time. Within 30 seconds of being attacked by armed intruders may not be one of those times.

tomndebb

06-03-2009, 09:37 PM

. . . the shitbag criminal in this situation is a bigger threat to YOU than a law abiding shop keeper.There is no "law abiding shop keeper" in this story. Only a couple of stupid crooks and a gunhappy murderer whose continued firing of a weapon beyond the point of actual defense made him more of a threat than the original idiots.

I have little to no sympathy for the robber up to the point where he fell, but your wild claims of "threat" from a person on the ground along with your defense of murder on the grounds that "they started it" are simply not compelling.

Carmady

06-03-2009, 09:46 PM

There is no "law abiding shop keeper" in this story. Only a couple of stupid crooks and a gunhappy murderer whose continued firing of a weapon beyond the point of actual defense made him more of a threat than the original idiots.

This is ridiculous.

Even if you think the shop keeper is a murderer, it is absurd to say he was more of a threat than the gunmen who invaded his store and threatened to kill him.

It boggles the mind even imagining how you came up with that.

"See, he is more of a threat, because armed robbers never hurt anyone, but all it takes for this shop keeper to shoot a robber is for his store to be invaded by gunmen threatening to kill him."

Snowboarder Bo

06-03-2009, 09:54 PM

This is ridiculous.

Even if you think the shop keeper is a murderer, it is absurd to say he was more of a threat than the gunmen who invaded his store and threatened to kill him.

It boggles the mind even imagining how you came up with that.

It boggles your mind, maybe.

Let's say I walked into the store as he was crouched down and killing the would-be robber. He has at least 1 bullet left, and he's looking at an eyewitness who will be telling police "I walked in and he was shooting this guy on the ground over and over and over again". If he shoots me right then, it will be his story alone that the police will hear.

You don't think that's a dangerous man?

Carmady

06-03-2009, 10:03 PM

Let's say I walked into the store as he was crouched down and killing the would-be robber. He has at least 1 bullet left, and he's looking at an eyewitness who will be telling police "I walked in and he was shooting this guy on the ground over and over and over again". If he shoots me right then, it will be his story alone that the police will hear.

You don't think that's a dangerous man?

Let's say I walked in after you, and he didn't like my haircut so he started shooting at me. You're right, he does sound dangerous now.

It turns out he was preparing to go on a random killing spree before the gunmen entered his store and threatened to kill him.

If anything, we should be thanking the armed robbers. If it wasn't for their silly prank of invading stores and sticking guns up to people's faces, this guy might have done some real damage.

tomndebb

06-03-2009, 10:04 PM

This is ridiculous.

Even if you think the shop keeper is a murderer, it is absurd to say he was more of a threat than the gunmen who invaded his store and threatened to kill him.

It boggles the mind even imagining how you came up with that.I simply read the stories for comprehension. First he ran down the street shooting after the crook who was no longer threatening him, endangering anyone on the street.

Then he fired a gun into a person at close range with no concern for whether those rounds would ricochet.

So, we have one idiot who waved a gun around, (and did not even fire it when under fire, himself), and one idiot who appears to have fired around ten rounds in the middle of a city. The shopkeeper is clearly more of a threat to any bystander than the crook.