Folk Hero or Murderer?

[JXJohns]

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 guess we'll see what the jury says about that, if it even goes to court.

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.
I didn't defend anything recently, other than to say that the criminal who meant nothing but harm in that situation is a bigger threat no matter what shape he is in, figuratively speaking perhaps, than the pharmacist. Ersland, if they had picked any other shop to rob, would have more likely than not never killed another person in his life. That is unless someone has credible evidence of his homicidal tendencies prior to this event. I'm all ears...

His actions are debatable for sure (10+ pages here alone) but are nowhere near black and white murder. I find it hard to believe that there are so many here who, in any other situation, would reserve some doubt, especially given the fact that the video is NOT clear what shape the robber was in when he got shot the second time. After all, the only thing we base the unconscious claim on is the report of the ME. I provided a cite pages ago where a woman was shot with the same caliber weapon, through and through, and made herself a cup of tea while waiting for the police to arrive. It's not that cut and dry.

Similar supposition and theories get shot down instantly in every 9/11 or Kennedy thread, but for some reason, perhaps because the act of self defense is so heinous to so many here, that element of doubt goes out the window and minds are shut. I can find plenty of "experts" that say that the planes couldn't be flown into the buildings by amateurs or that the steel in the WTC was cut with thermite and they will be summarily be shot down in short order.

In this case for some reason however, the ME in OKC is given the benefit of the doubt as though he was Dr Quincy or something.

[jimpatro]

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?

No, I meant that Ersland might've made the perp on the floor, who may have been stirring, think that he wasn't even concerned with him. When actually Ersland was full aware of what was going on.

I think maybe the naysayers might be assuming something that could be swaying their opinion. Could it be that some of you think that when someone gets shot in the head they are automatically incapacitated? There could be a hundred ways to get shot in the head and many of them could leave a person in full control of his body.

[Snowboarder Bo]

A Medical Examiner is not an "expert". He is an expert. No quotation marks. It's his professional job to examine the corpse and tell us what, in his considered, expert, trained and experienced opinion happened. It's what he is paid to do.

That's why so many of us lend credence to his words.

[Snowboarder Bo]

No, I meant that Ersland might've made the perp on the floor, who may have been stirring, think that he wasn't even concerned with him. When actually Ersland was full aware of what was going on.

I think maybe the naysayers might be assuming something that could be swaying their opinion. Could it be that some of you think that when someone gets shot in the head they are automatically incapacitated? There could be a hundred ways to get shot in the head and many of them could leave a person in full control of his body.

No, it's because the best information we have, and the most expert person involved, says that he was unconscious. Unconscious people are, pretty much by definition, incapacitated.

[JXJohns]

A Medical Examiner is not an "expert". He is an expert. No quotation marks. It's his professional job to examine the corpse and tell us what, in his considered, expert, trained and experienced opinion happened. It's what he is paid to do.

That's why so many of us lend credence to his words.

Right, but it is a guarantee that Ersland will find another expert ME who will review the reports and state otherwise.

Which will you believe at that point? How about I take a guess.

[JXJohns]

... I think maybe the naysayers might be assuming something that could be swaying their opinion. Could it be that some of you think that when someone gets shot in the head they are automatically incapacitated? There could be a hundred ways to get shot in the head and many of them could leave a person in full control of his body.

Head shot, through and through with a .380 (http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Woman_gets_shot_in_head,_makes_cup_of_tea&in_article_id=627028&in_page_id=2)

[Snowboarder Bo]

Right, but it is a guarantee that Ersland will find another expert ME who will review the reports and state otherwise.

Which will you believe at that point? How about I take a guess.

I'll believe the impartial ME over the one that Mr. Ersland pays.

You apparently don't believe the ME, or don't trust his judgement and experience. Why not?

[jimpatro]

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.



Well, if I thought a couple more Neanderthals might be storming into the cave I might finish him off to better the odds. The thing is, if I don't, it could be the end of me. I'd rather err on my side than his.

[Monty]

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.

Actually, too much Logic.

[jimpatro]

Actually, too much Logic.

You're serious? Zero logic.

[JXJohns]

I'll believe the impartial ME over the one that Mr. Ersland pays.

You apparently don't believe the ME, or don't trust his judgement and experience. Why not?

See my previous link to start with. Similar caliber gun, drastically different result = reasonable doubt to the ME's opinion.

Second, with that in mind, I can imagine a possibility where Parker flinched or more, enough for Ersland to consider him a new threat, even after he had already dropped him with a headshot.

Third, the video is not conclusive as to the status of Parker other than he was down.

Fourth, nothing in Ersland's past has been brought forward to indicate any latent homicidal tendencies.

That's what I have so far. All that plus the nagging thought that if Parker wouldn't have decided to commit armed robbery, he'd be alive right now. He made a bad decision and it cost him his life.

[Monty]

You're serious? Zero logic.

Yes, I'm serious. Plus, I, along with quite a few others here, are displaying far more logic on this issue than you are. Your posts are, essentially, gainsaying/naysaying. If this thread gets moved to the Pit or if someone decides to Pit you regarding your posts in this thread, I'll be happy to explain it further to you in that forum.

[Kobal2]

See my previous link to start with. Similar caliber gun, drastically different result = reasonable doubt to the ME's opinion.

That's... OK, not the Pit. Moderation called for : that is a misguided opinion to hold, sir.

Fourth, nothing in Ersland's past has been brought forward to indicate any latent homicidal tendencies.

Yup. Until he murdered someone, there was no indication he was a murderer. That's always a problem with these guys ! They oughta be shot in the crib, I tell ya.

[tomndebb]

I guess we'll see what the jury says about that, if it even goes to court.


I didn't defend anything recently, other than to say that the criminal who meant nothing but harm in that situation is a bigger threat no matter what shape he is in, figuratively speaking perhaps, than the pharmacist. Ersland, if they had picked any other shop to rob, would have more likely than not never killed another person in his life. That is unless someone has credible evidence of his homicidal tendencies prior to this event. I'm all ears...This event is the matter under discussion. Ersland fired multiple bullets on a public street at a person running away and fired five more bullets into an injured person with no apparent concern for ricochets. That makes him far more dangerous to the public in this case.

If his lawyers come up with a defense of temporary insanity, I am not going to go calling for his head or defaming the lawyers and if I were the prosecutor, I would probably go with a charge of Second Degree Murder, (or whatever Oklahoma uses for "not premeditated"), but the claims that he was justified for the killing because Parker "was a threat" are clearly belied by the fact that he walked past Parker, leaving his back to the kid, while he dug out his other gun and that he made no effort to secure or examine the kid for weapons before he shot him. If Parker was such a threat, (or if Ersland perceived Parker to be a threat), Ersland demonstrated a complete indifference to that threat in the videos.

[JXJohns]

That's... OK, not the Pit. Moderation called for : that is a misguided opinion to hold, sir.

Oh please... If you can't respond without resorting to Pit rules, hang it up.

[JXJohns]

...If his lawyers come up with a defense of temporary insanity, I am not going to go calling for his head or defaming the lawyers and if I were the prosecutor, I would probably go with a charge of Second Degree Murder, (or whatever Oklahoma uses for "not premeditated"), but the claims that he was justified for the killing because Parker "was a threat" are clearly belied by the fact that he walked past Parker, leaving his back to the kid, while he dug out his other gun and that he made no effort to secure or examine the kid for weapons before he shot him. If Parker was such a threat, (or if Ersland perceived Parker to be a threat), Ersland demonstrated a complete indifference to that threat in the videos.

So, since the camera didn't show it, there is no way possible that Parker may have awoke from his unconscious state? How about a nervous system reaction that caused him to flinch in a way that seemed threatening? All I'm saying is that there are plenty of alternatives out there.

For the record, I too am troubled by the shots fired in the street. Negligent discharge of a firearm seems warranted.

[Kobal2]

Oh please... If you can't respond without resorting to Pit rules, hang it up.

I can't call you an idiot here. So I don't.

Yet I figured it was obvious enough to anyone else but you that your number 1 argument was so powerfully stupid I could make fun of it with impunity. History will judge me.

But for your benefit : essentially, you dig up one story about somebody shot in the head who didn't lose consciousness, and from it derive that people shot in the head are unlikely to lose consciousness. Converse fallacy of accident : you derive the rule from the exception.

Neverminding the conclusions of a doctor, trained in examining wounds, and expert (to the extent of human knowledge of the brain) in telling the consequences of this or that head trauma, who actually examined the kid's wounds. In person, and in the flesh. But hey, he's just an "expert", what the hell does he know that you don't ?

[JXJohns]

I can't call you an idiot here. So I don't.

Yet I figured it was obvious enough to anyone else but you that your number 1 argument was so powerfully stupid I could make fun of it with impunity. History will judge me.

But for your benefit : essentially, you dig up one story about somebody shot in the head who didn't lose consciousness, and from it derive that people shot in the head are unlikely to lose consciousness. Converse fallacy of accident : you derive the rule from the exception.

Neverminding the conclusions of a doctor, trained in examining wounds, and expert (to the extent of human knowledge of the brain) in telling the consequences of this or that head trauma, who actually examined the kid's wounds. In person, and in the flesh. But hey, he's just an "expert", what the hell does he know that you don't ?

I said it is possible, not that it was unlikely, and provided proof with a credible cite. The .380 is well known for being underpowered for self defense.

The rest is your own delusion.

[Kobal2]

I said it is possible, not unlikely, and provided proof. The .380 is well know for being underpowered for self defense.

The rest is your own delusion.

I suggest you look up what "reasonable doubt" entails.

[tomndebb]

So, since the camera didn't show it, there is no way possible that Parker may have awoke from his unconscious state? How about a nervous system reaction that caused him to flinch in a way that seemed threatening? All I'm saying is that there are plenty of alternatives out there. That is not what the video shows. The video shows Ersland leaning down to put the pistol in Parker's abdomen. If Parker was suddenly jerking around in a suspicious manner, then Ersland's natural reaction would be to shoot from his standing position at Parker on the floor--one does not lean in to a threatening situation. If Parker did not jerk until Ersland was crouched over him, then it would seem that Ersland would have been firing as he jerked back from Parker's "threatening" motion. Neither happened.

[JXJohns]

That is not what the video shows. The video shows Ersland leaning down to put the pistol in Parker's abdomen. If Parker was suddenly jerking around in a suspicious manner, then Ersland's natural reaction would be to shoot from his standing position at Parker on the floor--one does not lean in to a threatening situation. If Parker did not jerk until Ersland was crouched over him, then it would seem that Ersland would have been firing as he jerked back from Parker's "threatening" motion. Neither happened.

Unlike most, I am willing to consider other scenarios, this one included. The video is not conclusive, we all know it and we see what we want.

[JXJohns]

I suggest you look up what "reasonable doubt" entails.

I'll get right on that.

[Uzi]

What amazes me is all the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. "I'd do this", or "I'd do that" in a given scenario. Who the hell actually knows what they'd do until they were standing in his shoes? No one. All we can say for sure is that one moment Ersland was serving customers and the next his world is turned upside down. Maybe he shouldn't have plugged the kid again. Maybe the kid was coherent enough to threaten Ersland with revenge. Who the hell knows? Maybe Ersland is a cold blooded killer. Yet if he was rational enough to do that why wasn't he rational enough to pull the tapes from the video camera implicating himself in murder?

[Kobal2]

What amazes me is all the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. "I'd do this", or "I'd do that" in a given scenario. Who the hell actually knows what they'd do until they were standing in his shoes? No one. All we can say for sure is that one moment Ersland was serving customers and the next his world is turned upside down. Maybe he shouldn't have plugged the kid again. Maybe the kid was coherent enough to threaten Ersland with revenge. Who the hell knows? Maybe Ersland is a cold blooded killer. Yet if he was rational enough to do that why wasn't he rational enough to pull the tapes from the video camera implicating himself in murder?

Maybe because while his shooting is murky at best and quite possibly not criminal, tampering with evidence is 100% of the time ?

[jimpatro]

But for your benefit : essentially, you dig up one story about somebody shot in the head who didn't lose consciousness, and from it derive that people shot in the head are unlikely to lose consciousness.


"Unlikely"? That is a disingenuous argument. No one said unlikely.

[jimpatro]

Yes, I'm serious. Plus, I, along with quite a few others here, are displaying far more logic on this issue than you are. Your posts are, essentially, gainsaying/naysaying. If this thread gets moved to the Pit or if someone decides to Pit you regarding your posts in this thread, I'll be happy to explain it further to you in that forum.

You think that calling me an asshole in the Pit is going to prove your point?

Fer gosh' sake, you believe it's more likely for a meteorite to appear than for a person who may not be fully incapacitated to revive from unconsciousness! And that's you saying that. I haven't really seen anyone else supporting that notion.

[Kobal2]

"Unlikely"? That is a disingenuous argument. No one said unlikely.

Let me guess : you don't know what the legal term "reasonable doubt" means either ? There's a reason (heh) for the "reasonable" qualifier. Yes, it is possible the kid suddenly regained consciousness like a slasher flick monster. It's also possible he was dancing the limbo naked right under the counter line. It is, however, very unlikely.

Besides, a jury doesn't (and, by extension, we don't) pass judgment on what might be, but what we do know is, and apply Occam's Razor accordingly. It's probable that a guy, shot in the head in such fashion that a forensic doc working with firsthand data feels certain would make anyone unconscious, was indeed unconscious, medical miracles notwithstanding. It's probable that a guy who calmly and deliberately walks to get another gun and turns his back on the "threat" doesn't feel threatened. Not 100% certain, but most probable.

If you want to hold onto your extraordinary disculpating scenario, and convince us it does indeed cast reasonable doubt on Ersland's actions, you have to show extraordinary proof that it is likely, not just possible.

[Carmady]

If you want to hold onto your extraordinary disculpating scenario, and convince us it does indeed cast reasonable doubt on Ersland's actions, you have to show extraordinary proof that it is likely, not just possible.



I guess this is where we differ.

It would require extraordinary proof for me to consider convicting someone for shooting one of a team of armed robbers who surprised him in the middle of his work day with a gun up to his skull.

The intruder being unconscious isn't the issue. Did Ersland believe he was unconscious, and did he believe he could wake up if so?

And even if I did find his actions to be criminal, the fact that he was surprised with a gun to his head would be a mitigating factor.

I imagine you would be shocked to find your life about to end, and everything happened extremely quickly after that point.

[Kobal2]

I guess this is where we differ.

It would require extraordinary proof for me to consider convicting someone for shooting one of a team of armed robbers who surprised him in the middle of his work day with a gun up to his skull.

Shooting him the first time isn't the issue. He was perfectly within his rights, everyone agrees on this. It's the next 5, at point blank, on an unconscious kid that stick in people's craw. Because at that time he had no gun to his head, and he wasn't surprised anymore either (surprise only lasts one round :))

The intruder being unconscious isn't the issue. Did Ersland believe he was unconscious, and did he believe he could wake up if so?

Of course it's the issue. If you don't feel threatened, it can't be self defense. If the attacker can't attack you anymore, you can't keep attacking him and still claim self-defense. It just doesn't work that way. Ersland was defending himself. And then he wasn't. But he kept shooting. Apparently quite calmly and deliberately, too (although I do realize some people "ice up" when they're scared out of their wits or very, very angry).

And even if I did find his actions to be criminal, the fact that he was surprised with a gun to his head would be a mitigating factor.

Sure. But that's a separate issue.

[Carmady]

Shooting him the first time isn't the issue. He was perfectly within his rights, everyone agrees on this. It's the next 5, at point blank, on an unconscious kid that stick in people's craw. Because at that time he had no gun to his head, and he wasn't surprised anymore either


I don't know about that. If I was at work and all of a sudden had a gun pointed at me and felt my life about to end, the shock would probably last at least 30 seconds. YMMV.

In that state of shock, I can easily imagine thinking that the intruder on the ground was still a threat, since for all I knew they could be faking or wake up any second.


Of course it's the issue. If you don't feel threatened, it can't be self defense. If the attacker can't attack you anymore, you can't keep attacking him and still claim self-defense. It just doesn't work that way. Ersland was defending himself. And then he wasn't. But he kept shooting. Apparently quite calmly and deliberately, too (although I do realize some people "ice up" when they're scared out of their wits or very, very angry).


That is what I said. The issue is whether he believed the intruder was unconscious or could wake up any second. Not whether he was actually unconscious.

Also, thank you for at least acknowledging the possibility that Ersland is not a robot soldier who remained perfectly calm seconds after having his life nearly ended by armed robbers.

I don't know why that seems to be the default conclusion. Far more likely is that he "iced up" due to extreme shock and fear.

[cosmosdan]

Shooting him the first time isn't the issue. He was perfectly within his rights, everyone agrees on this. It's the next 5, at point blank, on an unconscious kid that stick in people's craw. Because at that time he had no gun to his head, and he wasn't surprised anymore either (surprise only lasts one round :))


I've seen this a lot. I'd like top point out that we don't know that the kid was unconscious, do we? The pharmacist said the wounded robber regained consciousness and was trying to get up. Maybe that's not the case but I'm one of those who would give the benefit of the doubt to the guy being robbed at gunpoint without very strong evidence to the contrary.

I watched the video several times. I saw him walk by the downed robber with apparently no concern and then come back. The fact that he got to point blank range indicates to me he didn't see a weapon. It's possible he thought the downed robber was dead and when he heard him trying to get up he decided to make sure that threat was ended.

It's also possible he just executed the robber out of rage. Still, without more substantial evidence I wouldn't be so quick to judge him guilty of executing an unconscious person.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I've seen this a lot. I'd like top point out that we don't know that the kid was unconscious, do we? The pharmacist said the wounded robber regained consciousness and was trying to get up. Maybe that's not the case but I'm one of those who would give the benefit of the doubt to the guy being robbed at gunpoint without very strong evidence to the contrary.

I watched the video several times. I saw him walk by the downed robber with apparently no concern and then come back. The fact that he got to point blank range indicates to me he didn't see a weapon. It's possible he thought the downed robber was dead and when he heard him trying to get up he decided to make sure that threat was ended.

It's also possible he just executed the robber out of rage. Still, without more substantial evidence I wouldn't be so quick to judge him guilty of executing an unconscious person.

It now appears that Mr. Ersland may have been less than truthful in his statements to news media and the police. cite (http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432?custom_click=lead_story_title)

A police detective said Ersland lied to the police and news reporters about the shooting. Ersland, for instance, said the robbers shot at him. "Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” he told The Oklahoman. "I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” Prosecutors say there is no evidence anyone but Ersland fired inside the store.

I found this too (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-shooting-justified-story,0,3766042.story): (bolding mine)
An expert opinion was sought, and Charles Smith of the Oklahoma Rifle Association, which lobbied hard for the state's Stand Your Ground law, stepped forward to weigh in. After watching the surveillance video, Smith agreed that the first shot at Parker was fully justified. But when Ersland walked back into the store, grabbed another gun, and fired five shots to the stomach of the teen, Smith said he'd have to draw the line there. So he agrees with the district attorney's decision, although he concedes he doesn't know what was going through Ersland's mind at the time of the shooting.

[Kobal2]

I don't know about that. If I was at work and all of a sudden had a gun pointed at me and felt my life about to end, the shock would probably last at least 30 seconds. YMMV.

Sorry, it was a D&D joke. In D&D, when you attack somebody by surprise, you get a free round to hit them, before the "real" combat starts. A round is defined as lasting 6 seconds (although you wouldn't believe how much stuff players can cram in those 6 seconds :p).

In that state of shock, I can easily imagine thinking that the intruder on the ground was still a threat, since for all I knew they could be faking or wake up any second.

That is what I said. The issue is whether he believed the intruder was unconscious or could wake up any second. Not whether he was actually unconscious.

But that's the thing : self-defense doesn't apply when you think your aggressor may be a threat at some undeterminate point in the future. It's about immediate danger - you're supposed to wait until the last second to shoot. Self-defense, especially with deadly force, comes into play for imminent harm, not hypothetical future harm. Of course, what constitutes "the last second" is a grey area, but consider this hypothetical :

You are attacked by a goon with a gun. He's not the sharpest banana in the drawer, so you manage to draw your gun too, and it ends in a Mexican standoff. Your assailant loses it, drops his gun and runs away. You draw a bead on him and shoot him in the back from 50 yards. Is that self-defense ? And if not, how is a man running away different from an unconscious, visibly unarmed man ?

Also, thank you for at least acknowledging the possibility that Ersland is not a robot soldier who remained perfectly calm seconds after having his life nearly ended by armed robbers.

I don't know why that seems to be the default conclusion. Far more likely is that he "iced up" due to extreme shock and fear.

Well, my own emotional response to the video is "dude is pissed as Hell and wants someone to pay for the fright". Which is most probably bullshit - that's just how I would react, thus how I read his actions in my frame of reference. He could just as well be a robot soldier, or a Klan member or whatever. Heck, for all I know he really did want to play it safe and rationally deduced it was the morally right thing to do. I'm sure there are tons of reasons why one guy would shoot another.
Still, while his intent and emotional state (and the eloquence of his lawyer on this regards, should it go to court) might conceivably make the difference between manslaughter, murder in the 3rd and murder in the 2nd, one'd have to work really hard to convince me that there's absolutely no foul. Like I said earlier, I could have understood one more bullet. But 5, and at point-blank, really feels like spiteful overkill. Emphasis on kill, as in intent to.

[cosmosdan]

It now appears that Mr. Ersland may have been less than truthful in his statements to news media and the police. cite (http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432?custom_click=lead_story_title)



I found this too (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-shooting-justified-story,0,3766042.story): (bolding mine)

Neither of those are conclusive are they? It doesn't affect my position. I watched the video trying to determine if the robber's with the gun fired. I can't tell. Even if the robber's gun wasn't fired Ersland still believed he was in mortal danger.

for me the bottom line is we just can't tell and in this case I'd rather give Ersland the benefit of the doubt and not prosecute someone for defending themselves.

Really helpful for them to publically announce Ersland wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore wasn't it?

[YogSosoth]

It's a public trial, what are they supposed to do, lie?

[cosmosdan]

It's a public trial, what are they supposed to do, lie?

I meant the reporters. They didn't need to lie. Just have sense enough to leave out that detail.

[cosmosdan]

I posted this on facebook to get some reactions from friends. Like SDMB the responses were mixed. One friend related a relevant story.


Years ago his older brother was working at Ho Jos. One night they were having an after hours Bday party for one of the girls and two armed men came in through a skylight. Two girls were in the upstairs locker room changing and the perps tied them up. When older brother went to look for them he caught a glimpse of one robber and went to the office to get his 9mm. When he started back upstairs they were coming down and they opened fore with fly automatic weapons. Now other employees were fleeing and finding places to hide. Older brother hid behind a desk or counter and waited. When they came in and he had a shot he took it. He wounded one and the other fled once he realized victims might shoot back. Here's the point where older brother could have finished off the wounded perp but he didn't. He hesitated waiting to see if they would flee or return fire or what. The wounded robber went back upstairs to where the the two girls were tied up and raped them while the police were getting organized and deciding what to do. Older brother still regrets not taking that perp out when he had the chance and saving the girls from rape. He also lost his job for even having a weapon at work.

IMO that shows the point of why it's so hard to judge the pharmacist. Sometimes , when faced with an armed and potentially deadly threat, the only sure remedy is to make very sure your enemy is incapable of hurting you or anyone else. An act of mercy can wind up hurting you or someone else. Would you rather have to live with the fact you killed an armed robber or that you didn't when you could have and that cost you or someone else?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Neither of those are conclusive are they? It doesn't affect my position. I watched the video trying to determine if the robber's with the gun fired. I can't tell. Even if the robber's gun wasn't fired Ersland still believed he was in mortal danger.

for me the bottom line is we just can't tell and in this case I'd rather give Ersland the benefit of the doubt and not prosecute someone for defending themselves.

Really helpful for them to publically announce Ersland wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore wasn't it?
He's not being prosecuted for defending himself. He's being prosecuted for murder.

[cosmosdan]

He's not being prosecuted for defending himself. He's being prosecuted for murder.

Really? What a revelation! Are you suggesting just the fact that he's being prosecuted for murder means he's guilty? I didn't think it worked that way.

[emcee2k]

I posted this on facebook to get some reactions from friends. Like SDMB the responses were mixed. One friend related a relevant story.


Years ago his older brother was working at Ho Jos. One night they were having an after hours Bday party for one of the girls and two armed men came in through a skylight. Two girls were in the upstairs locker room changing and the perps tied them up. When older brother went to look for them he caught a glimpse of one robber and went to the office to get his 9mm. When he started back upstairs they were coming down and they opened fore with fly automatic weapons. Now other employees were fleeing and finding places to hide. Older brother hid behind a desk or counter and waited. When they came in and he had a shot he took it. He wounded one and the other fled once he realized victims might shoot back. Here's the point where older brother could have finished off the wounded perp but he didn't. He hesitated waiting to see if they would flee or return fire or what. The wounded robber went back upstairs to where the the two girls were tied up and raped them while the police were getting organized and deciding what to do. Older brother still regrets not taking that perp out when he had the chance and saving the girls from rape. He also lost his job for even having a weapon at work.

IMO that shows the point of why it's so hard to judge the pharmacist. Sometimes , when faced with an armed and potentially deadly threat, the only sure remedy is to make very sure your enemy is incapable of hurting you or anyone else. An act of mercy can wind up hurting you or someone else. Would you rather have to live with the fact you killed an armed robber or that you didn't when you could have and that cost you or someone else?

Is this supposed to be a true story? It seems incredibly unlikely.

[JXJohns]

Is this supposed to be a true story? It seems incredibly unlikely.

Not calling you a liar Cosmo, but your friend of a friend's brother might have exaggerated a bit. The full auto gun part of the story makes it pretty hard to believe.

[jimpatro]

Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Even if it didn't happen, something like it could or probably has.

That's why you don't show mercy. The bad guys brought it on themselves. It's too bad if they assumed that victims won't fight back savagely to stay alive. Even if Ersland shouldn't have taken those last five shots he should be given a pass because he was in a hell on earth scenario that he never would have chosen for himself. If it's determined that Parker was guilty of robbery (duh) then Ersland should be excused for fighting to survive.
Oh, but a victim shouldn't be able to consider possibilities in the context of a life and death struggle, boo hoo.


Here's a concept, it should be determined that Parker's death could not be classified as murder because he was guilty of robbery. Now that would be a precedent to set.

[Cheesesteak]

The full auto gun part of the story makes it pretty hard to believe.The full auto part is way easier to believe than the "I just got shot breaking into a Ho Jo's, instead of running away, I'm going to stop off in the locker room to rape a couple of girls before the police arrive." and the "I just shot a guy who's broken into the restaurant with fully automatic weapons, instead of disarming him and making sure he doesn't get away until the police show up, I'll 'hesitate' and let him have free run of the place for as long as he wants."

[StusBlues]

Prediction: he pleads to manslaughter 2, suspended sentence. No way he actually gets found guilty of murder after having a gun in his face 30 seconds earlier. Nobody wants that trial.

I'm not arguing that this is the way it SHOULD be. I'm saying this is the way it IS.

[JXJohns]

The full auto part is way easier to believe than the "I just got shot breaking into a Ho Jo's, instead of running away, I'm going to stop off in the locker room to rape a couple of girls before the police arrive." and the "I just shot a guy who's broken into the restaurant with fully automatic weapons, instead of disarming him and making sure he doesn't get away until the police show up, I'll 'hesitate' and let him have free run of the place for as long as he wants."

I suppose, if you look at it that way... :)

[cosmosdan]

Not calling you a liar Cosmo, but your friend of a friend's brother might have exaggerated a bit. The full auto gun part of the story makes it pretty hard to believe.

I'm retelling it the way it was told to me and I know my friend is not a liar or prone to great exaggeration. The full auto surprised me as well but his brother said he ran he heard the bullets hitting. Regardless, even if the full auto is embellishment, and they had had automatic pistols, the point remains the same as it relates to the thread.

[cosmosdan]

The full auto part is way easier to believe than the "I just got shot breaking into a Ho Jo's, instead of running away, I'm going to stop off in the locker room to rape a couple of girls before the police arrive." and the "I just shot a guy who's broken into the restaurant with fully automatic weapons, instead of disarming him and making sure he doesn't get away until the police show up, I'll 'hesitate' and let him have free run of the place for as long as he wants."


You're assuming a lot of things you have no information about in order to dis the story. You're needlessly assuming something negative about someone in a life and death situation and what you think they should have done. Been in a few gunfights have ya?

[Kobal2]

Here's a concept, it should be determined that Parker's death could not be classified as murder because he was guilty of robbery. Now that would be a precedent to set.

Ah, but of course. Criminals have no rights, because they're criminals ! And terrorists have no rights, because they're terrorists. Lots of that going around these days...

Go back to the 12th century, please.

[Baal Houtham]

Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Even if it didn't happen, something like it could or probably has.

That's why you don't show mercy.

Exactly. And the headshot robber on the floor could have had an self-aiming, automatic weapon implanted in his guts that emerged, Alien style, after he was on the floor for half a minute.

Even if it didn't happen, something like it could. Or probably has in the movies sometime.

[jimpatro]

Ah, but of course. Criminals have no rights, because they're criminals ! And terrorists have no rights, because they're terrorists. Lots of that going around these days...

Go back to the 12th century, please.

Never been there. A criminal in the act of being a criminal does not require the victim to wait for a judge and jury to show up. The victim must do what he/she can to survive. That old tired saying comes to mind: Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[jimpatro]

Exactly. And the headshot robber on the floor could have had an self-aiming, automatic weapon implanted in his guts that emerged, Alien style, after he was on the floor for half a minute.

Even if it didn't happen, something like it could. Or probably has in the movies sometime.

Talk about hyperbole. The perp just having a simple concealed pistol on his person is so far-fetched? Ersland couldn't know if he did or not. He shouldn't have to take the chance.

[jimpatro]

Ah, but of course. Criminals have no rights, because they're criminals ! And terrorists have no rights, because they're terrorists. Lots of that going around these days...

Go back to the 12th century, please.

When Ersland took that first shot, do you believe Parker had a right not get shot?

[jimpatro]

Ah, but of course. Criminals have no rights, because they're criminals ! And terrorists have no rights, because they're terrorists. Lots of that going around these days...

Go back to the 12th century, please.

And oh yeah, criminals shouldn't have rights. As terrorists should have no rights. Now alleged criminals and terrorists.

If somebody is standing there with a gun to your face demanding your money, is that person a criminal? Or just alleged since no trial has happened yet?

[Baal Houtham]

Talk about hyperbole. The perp just having a simple concealed pistol on his person is so far-fetched? Ersland couldn't know if he did or not. He shouldn't have to take the chance.

You had no problems with accepting the extremely unlikely story from Cosmosdan's Facebook friend. In fact you didn't care if it was true, because it "could" have been.

My post was implying that your evaluation of the risks faced by the pharmacist was also extremely questionable.

[jimpatro]

Fact is stranger than fiction.

[cosmosdan]

Ah, but of course. Criminals have no rights, because they're criminals ! And terrorists have no rights, because they're terrorists. Lots of that going around these days...

Go back to the 12th century, please.

When someone shows intent to use deadly force on you you have every right to use deadly force on them in self defense. That not a matter of the crimminal having rights, it's a matter of survival and the victims right to protect their life, the lives of others and their property. I hope you'd at least agree with that.

In this case there's a serious question about the 2nd shooting of someone who'd just seconds ago committed an armed robbery. Was the pharmicist still threatened enough to warrent those fatal shots? Maybe he wasn't. It may have been an act of rage or something else. I'm only saying is that unless there is really conclusive evidence against him, {more conclusive than the video} I'd rather give the robbee the benefit of the doubt rather than the robber.

[cosmosdan]

You had no problems with accepting the extremely unlikely story from Cosmosdan's Facebook friend. In fact you didn't care if it was true, because it "could" have been.

My post was implying that your evaluation of the risks faced by the pharmacist was also extremely questionable.

You can believe what you want to but you really have no reason to judge that story extremely unlikely. There is really nothing outrageously far fetched in it. You don't know me or my friend but I've known him for years and know his character. He's not a liar or prone to gross exaggeration. Allowing for some embellishment I believe the basics which are, His brother working at Ho Jos was involved in a an armed breakin and shooting. He shot one perp but didn't kill him and this crimminal later raped a waitress.
As I said, substitute pistols for filly automatic weapons if you like , the point remains the same. Or just use your imagination and a little reason.

In a life and death confrontation, some hesitation or showing mercy to someone who was willing to shoot you , could result in you or someone else being hurt. The way to make sure that doesn't happen is to make sure the person who threatened you is unable to do it.

[emcee2k]

You can believe what you want to but you really have no reason to judge that story extremely unlikely. There is really nothing outrageously far fetched in it. You don't know me or my friend but I've known him for years and know his character. He's not a liar or prone to gross exaggeration. Allowing for some embellishment I believe the basics which are, His brother working at Ho Jos was involved in a an armed breakin and shooting. He shot one perp but didn't kill him and this crimminal later raped a waitress.
As I said, substitute pistols for filly automatic weapons if you like , the point remains the same. Or just use your imagination and a little reason.

In a life and death confrontation, some hesitation or showing mercy to someone who was willing to shoot you , could result in you or someone else being hurt. The way to make sure that doesn't happen is to make sure the person who threatened you is unable to do it.

Even if it is true, it's not really applicable to this situation. In your story the wounded criminal, is still mobile, still armed and heading back upstairs where more people are. Yes, the older brother should have shot him again, and I'm sure if he had, no one would be calling him a murderer.

[Uzi]

In your story the wounded criminal, is still mobile, still armed and heading back upstairs where more people are. Yes, the older brother should have shot him again, and I'm sure if he had, no one would be calling him a murderer.

A lot of people would consider it murder if the criminal appeared to be running away.

[cosmosdan]

Even if it is true, it's not really applicable to this situation. In your story the wounded criminal, is still mobile, still armed and heading back upstairs where more people are. Yes, the older brother should have shot him again, and I'm sure if he had, no one would be calling him a murderer.

It is not exactly analogous but the point being made is perfectly applicable.

If the pharmacist did hear or see what he had thought was an unconscious or dead robber starting to move, trying to get up, he had no way of knowing if he had a weapon on him. He had to choose between several options. He chose the one that made him and the others safest.

[emcee2k]

A lot of people would consider it murder if the criminal appeared to be running away.
Well, ideally, he should first say "stop, or I'll shoot", or something similar. But, depending on where the gunman was, and fast he was moving, he might not have had time, since once he makes it upstairs, The Older Brother would likely be walking into "automatic weapon" fire if he tried to follow. But really given the intensity of the situation, and how fast things probably played out, I wouldn't expect TOB to be able to think things through that far. So I guess what I mean to say, is no reasonable person would call him a murderer.

It is not exactly analogous but the point being made is perfectly applicable.

If the pharmacist did hear or see what he had thought was an unconscious or dead robber starting to move, trying to get up, he had no way of knowing if he had a weapon on him. He had to choose between several options. He chose the one that made him and the others safest.

No, the issue with the pharmacist's actions, the only reason they're being discussed here, is that the robber at least appeared incapacitated, with no visible weapon. The video showed other possible victims leaving the area immediately. The robber wasn't moving towards them, wasn't mobile, and in all likelihood wasn't moving at all. Ersland walk past him to retrieve a second weapon, it wasn't a reaction to robbers action. This is completely different from the situation you described.

If, however, you have another friend on Facebook, who has a relative who shot a robber or possible assailant, so that they appeared to be incapacitated, only for them come to, produce a concealed weapon and murder/rape/injure, someone, leaving the relative with regret for not finishing the job, then feel free to submit that story as anecdotal evidence.

[cosmosdan]

Well, ideally, he should first say "stop, or I'll shoot", or something similar. But, depending on where the gunman was, and fast he was moving, he might not have had time, since once he makes it upstairs, The Older Brother would likely be walking into "automatic weapon" fire if he tried to follow. But really given the intensity of the situation, and how fast things probably played out, I wouldn't expect TOB to be able to think things through that far. So I guess what I mean to say, is no reasonable person would call him a murderer. I notice you're assuming the wounded perp still has a weapon as he is trying to get away. Is that because it fits better with your conclusion or did you have some other reason for assuming things not stated? I only say because I notice this pattern when people read a story they are skeptical of. Rather than ask questions to clarify they simply assume things they don't actually know. I suppose it's the opposite of people embellishing stories in the retelling.



No, the issue with the pharmacist's actions, the only reason they're being discussed here, is that the robber at least appeared incapacitated, with no visible weapon. The video showed other possible victims leaving the area immediately. The robber wasn't moving towards them, wasn't mobile, and in all likelihood wasn't moving at all. Ersland walk past him to retrieve a second weapon, it wasn't a reaction to robbers action. This is completely different from the situation you described. It's really ridiculous for you to compare the details of two armed robberies in which both victims returned fire and describe it as completely different or inapplicable. Yes there are differences and I'm aware of them.

Did Ersland walk past him to get the gun specifically to kill the robber or was he merely making sure he could still protect himself since the weapon he had might be empty or nearly so?

If the downed robber was completely immobile did Ersland even know he was alive as he walked past? Did he move or make a noise after Ersland walked past? Did he try to get up?

I've said this several times, it may be that Ersland executed an unconscious robber out of rage or some other reason. It may also be that when he realized the downed robber was conscious and trying to get up he chose an action that ensured his safety with no regard for someone who just tried an armed robbery.

If, however, you have another friend on Facebook, who has a relative who shot a robber or possible assailant, so that they appeared to be incapacitated, only for them come to, produce a concealed weapon and murder/rape/injure, someone, leaving the relative with regret for not finishing the job, then feel free to submit that story as anecdotal evidence.

Nice sarcasm. It's still ridiculous to say they're completely different.
I do have another facebook friend who has his degree in criminology. He noted that police are trained in "the use of force continuum" over and over again about what situations justifies deadly force. Even then they don't always follow training when the bullets start flying. You can't expect a civilian defending himself to behave under those guidelines. He says if the kid was on the floor unconscious the 2nd shooting can't really be justified but if he regained consciousness and was trying to get up the use of force continuum applies and murder is out of the question. IHO.

In reading more recent articles I get the impression that the DA will regret bringing charges against Ersland.

[cosmosdan]

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.

Did you notice how many seconds he was out of the store. Not many. He looks at the downed robber before he leaves. It's possible he thought the downed robber was dead or completely unconscious until he tried to get up.

[cosmosdan]

That is not what the video shows. The video shows Ersland leaning down to put the pistol in Parker's abdomen. If Parker was suddenly jerking around in a suspicious manner, then Ersland's natural reaction would be to shoot from his standing position at Parker on the floor--one does not lean in to a threatening situation. If Parker did not jerk until Ersland was crouched over him, then it would seem that Ersland would have been firing as he jerked back from Parker's "threatening" motion. Neither happened.

That's the part that bothered me the most. I can't believe Ersland saw any immediate threat and approached that close. Either he saw Parker a threat because he was still alive at all, or he just executed him.

[Baal Houtham]

That's the part that bothered me the most. I can't believe Ersland saw any immediate threat and approached that close. Either he saw Parker a threat because he was still alive at all, or he just executed him.

Yes. And as has been repeated repeatedly, Ersland walked past the guy twice and didn't cower in fear, and Ersland didn't grab a heavy object in case he was attacked while reloading, and he didn't shoot from a position of safety. The second choice, "just executed him" seems much more likely.

And Mr. Cosmosdan, I can't totally dismiss your tale of rape and gunplay at Howard Johnsons, but if it's true, my BS detector needs a factory tuneup. So, if you could trouble your friend to get a few details from his friend, I'd be interested in knowing what year, and in what city this took place.

[Kobal2]

And oh yeah, criminals shouldn't have rights. As terrorists should have no rights. Now alleged criminals and terrorists.

If somebody is standing there with a gun to your face demanding your money, is that person a criminal? Or just alleged since no trial has happened yet?

Doesn't matter, Einstein. Even convicted, proven, taped on camera and sitting on death row, guess what ? The criminal still has rights, one of 'em being the right not to be killed by anyone feels they have the right to.

But I guess I owe you an apology - 12th century was off base. You're more of a 17th-18th, Isaac Parker, lynch mob kinda guy.

When someone shows intent to use deadly force on you you have every right to use deadly force on them in self defense. That not a matter of the crimminal having rights, it's a matter of survival and the victims right to protect their life, the lives of others and their property. I hope you'd at least agree with that.

In this case there's a serious question about the 2nd shooting of someone who'd just seconds ago committed an armed robbery. Was the pharmicist still threatened enough to warrent those fatal shots? Maybe he wasn't. It may have been an act of rage or something else. I'm only saying is that unless there is really conclusive evidence against him, {more conclusive than the video} I'd rather give the robbee the benefit of the doubt rather than the robber.

I agree on most of that, and I already said numerous times I had no problem with the first shot. But that's not what Judge Dredd here was saying. He said Parker's death could not have been murder, because he was a criminal in the middle of a crime. Ergo, he was fair game, no matter the circumstances.
Do you really want to defend such a statement ? Do you think it's an idea well thought through ?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I notice that people are still willing to give Mr. Ersland the benefit of the doubt, even tho he has been caught in at least one lie.

It is clear from the video that the only shots fired were by Mr. Ersland.

Even if it isn't clear to you, it should be clear that when the police say "There is no evidence that anyone fired shots other than Mr. Ersland" they are talking about,well, evidence of shots fired. No bullet from the robber's gun in the ceiling, no bullet holes or other damage anywhere in the store from shots other than Mr. Ersland's, no casings (if the robbers' gun was an automatic pistol), no evidence of muzzle blast... NO EVIDENCE.

If you think that the police are lying, or covering up for the robbers, I'd sure like to hear why you think that.

Mr. Ersland has thus already shown us that he is not truthful, and so cannot be trusted. Why do you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he did the right thing?

[jimpatro]

But I guess I owe you an apology - 12th century was off base. You're more of a 17th-18th, Isaac Parker, lynch mob kinda guy.



Touch a nerve buddy boy?
Can't even answer simple questions?

[jimpatro]

I notice that people are still willing to give Mr. Ersland the benefit of the doubt, even tho he has been caught in at least one lie.

It is clear from the video that the only shots fired were by Mr. Ersland.

Even if it isn't clear to you, it should be clear that when the police say "There is no evidence that anyone fired shots other than Mr. Ersland" they are talking about,well, evidence of shots fired. No bullet from the robber's gun in the ceiling, no bullet holes or other damage anywhere in the store from shots other than Mr. Ersland's, no casings (if the robbers' gun was an automatic pistol), no evidence of muzzle blast... NO EVIDENCE.

If you think that the police are lying, or covering up for the robbers, I'd sure like to hear why you think that.

Mr. Ersland has thus already shown us that he is not truthful, and so cannot be trusted. Why do you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he did the right thing?

You don't have to wait for somone aiming a gun at you to fire first before you fire.
It would be a needless lie. He probably felt his own casings hiitting him.

[Kobal2]

I answered it. Doesn't matter who or what Parker was. He could have been a kitten raping Nazi on fire - that would not have given Ersland the right to execute him (assuming that's what he did, which is the most likely explanation).

[jimpatro]

Since you're confused, I'll try again.

If somebody is standing there with a gun to your face demanding your money, is that person a criminal? Or just alleged since no trial has happened yet?

[jimpatro]

"Einstein"? Sarcastically of course.

"Lynch mob kinda guy"?

"Judge Dredd"?

[Kobal2]

Since you're confused, I'll try again.

If somebody is standing there with a gun to your face demanding your money, is that person a criminal? Or just alleged since no trial has happened yet?

Yes. He's a criminal. What does that staggering revelation accomplish, exactly ?

[Scumpup]

I answered it. Doesn't matter who or what Parker was. He could have been a kitten raping Nazi on fire - that would not have given Ersland the right to execute him (assuming that's what he did, which is the most likely explanation).

No. It is the explanation that you favor. Since the available security footage does not show the wounded robber, you know fuck-all about what he was doing when Ersland killed him.

[jimpatro]

Yes. He's a criminal. What does that staggering revelation accomplish, exactly ?

You must know. Since you side stepped that question previously.

[tomndebb]

TWEEEET!!

Any more personal comments and this thread is done.

[ /Moderating ]

[Kobal2]

You must know. Since you side stepped that question previously.

I didn't side-step it, I followed it to its next logical step. Twice. Of course, now you're the one "side-stepping" a simple question...

Allow me to cut to the chase : "A would-be robber is a criminal" isn't exactly an inconvenient truth, you know ? But just because Parker was a "bad guy", doesn't automagically make Ersland a "good guy". Morality is a tiny teensy bit more complex than that.

[jimpatro]

I didn't side-step it, I followed it to its next logical step. Twice. Of course, now you're the one "side-stepping" a simple question...

Allow me to cut to the chase : "A would-be robber is a criminal" isn't exactly an inconvenient truth, you know ? But just because Parker was a "bad guy", doesn't automagically make Ersland a "good guy". Morality is a tiny teensy bit more complex than that.

Ersland is just automatically the guy who is allowed to survive. Using whatever means necessary. It's savage, brutal survival.
Again, Parker is no more dead having been shot 5 more times than if he had died from the first shot to the head.

[emcee2k]

I notice you're assuming the wounded perp still has a weapon as he is trying to get away. Is that because it fits better with your conclusion or did you have some other reason for assuming things not stated? I only say because I notice this pattern when people read a story they are skeptical of. Rather than ask questions to clarify they simply assume things they don't actually know. I suppose it's the opposite of people embellishing stories in the retelling.

I assumed he had a weapon because you said he had one, you never said he dropped it, and I can think of no logical reason why he would drop it, unless he intended on surrendering (which he apparently didn't since he ran away), or if was shot out of his hand Western style.

Yes, I'm skeptical of the story you posted. As you said, I don't know your friend, so unlike you, I can't take into account any knowledge of how trustworthy he is. I know you said he is, but, I don't know you either. I'm not calling you a liar (I read the sticky), I just have no gauge of your credibility one way or another.

In other words, all I have to go on is the actual contents of the story, which happens to have multiple believability issues. Which if pressed, I could individually point out, but that would probably be going a little too far off track. We're already riding the rails.

If this were the other way around, if I had came here an posted that story, I have a hard time believing you wouldn't be equally skeptical. If not, well, than I'm sorry to say, you're a very gullible person.

It's really ridiculous for you to compare the details of two armed robberies in which both victims returned fire and describe it as completely different or inapplicable. Yes there are differences and I'm aware of them.

Did Ersland walk past him to get the gun specifically to kill the robber or was he merely making sure he could still protect himself since the weapon he had might be empty or nearly so?

If the downed robber was completely immobile did Ersland even know he was alive as he walked past? Did he move or make a noise after Ersland walked past? Did he try to get up?

I've said this several times, it may be that Ersland executed an unconscious robber out of rage or some other reason. It may also be that when he realized the downed robber was conscious and trying to get up he chose an action that ensured his safety with no regard for someone who just tried an armed robbery.

I think you're missing my point. It's not the fact that there are differences, it what the differences are. The whole point of contention is whether or not the robber in the pharmacy was sufficiently incapacitated, that lethal force was unwarranted. In your story the criminal clearly wasn't incapacitated at all. he was able walk, was likely still armed, and heading in the direction of possible victims.

If you post a story as an example of a possible outcome of Ersland not killing that kid (not specifically someone being raped, but you know what I mean), then the circumstances of that story that led to that outcome should be similar to those in those actually occurred. The man in your story was able to rape those girls because he wasn't incapacitated, even arguably so. That was not the case in the pharmacy incident, that's why it isn't applicable.

Nice sarcasm. It's still ridiculous to say they're completely different.

I'll admit I was being a bit facetious, but that certainly wasn't sarcasm. I mean really, if you have a story like that, feel free to share, it would definitely add to the discussion.

I do have another facebook friend who has his degree in criminology. He noted that police are trained in "the use of force continuum" over and over again about what situations justifies deadly force. Even then they don't always follow training when the bullets start flying. You can't expect a civilian defending himself to behave under those guidelines. He says if the kid was on the floor unconscious the 2nd shooting can't really be justified but if he regained consciousness and was trying to get up the use of force continuum applies and murder is out of the question. IHO.

In reading more recent articles I get the impression that the DA will regret bringing charges against Ersland.

It may very well come down to whether or not the robber was conscious, depending on how the laws are written in that state.

Or, it may come down to the jury's impression of Ersland's state of mind during the event. If based on the evidence available to them (likely more than we have) they believe he still felt threatened, or felt the other employees in the store were threatened while robber was on the ground, or they feel that due to the circumstances, he wasn't thinking clearly, he'll like get off, otherwise he's likely going to prison.

From what I've seen in the videos, his actions appear very deliberate. He doesn't show signs of someone who feels threatened. He turns his back to the guy on the floor more than once. He walks directly to his second gun, and it doesn't appear to be a reaction to anything happening in the room.

If I had to make a guess, and I do since I don't know, I'd say Ersland did what he did because he didn't think it was wrong or illegal. Hence, he didn't care about the cameras or possible other witnesses. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who are under the impression that if someone attempts to rob them on their own property (or in this case, property they are in charge of), they have a legal right to kill the person, regardless of the situation.

[Snowboarder Bo]

You don't have to wait for somone aiming a gun at you to fire first before you fire.
It would be a needless lie. He probably felt his own casings hiitting him.

I think you should have said "it was a needless lie", unless you have some cite that claims he didn't say what the police and news media recorded him saying.

And it clearly wasn't "needless" in Mr. Ersland's mind. I mean, he did say it after all.

[jimpatro]

I think you should have said "it was a needless lie", unless you have some cite that claims he didn't say what the police and news media recorded him saying.

And it clearly wasn't "needless" in Mr. Ersland's mind. I mean, he did say it after all.

I meant that I don't think he was lying. As I said in my post, he may have been hit by flying casings thus thinking he was shot.

And I meant that if he had lied, he had no reason to. The perp pulled a gun first but Ersland can shoot first if he has the chance. And he did.

[Kobal2]

Ersland is just automatically the guy who is allowed to survive. Using whatever means necessary. It's savage, brutal survival.

Like morality, it's not a zero sum game. They were both allowed to survive. Unless you can demonstrate that the only way Ersland could have survived the encounter was by killing a prone and quite probably unconscious guy ?

Again, Parker is no more dead having been shot 5 more times than if he had died from the first shot to the head.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. If he was dead from the headshot it was no biggie shooting him some more ? Parker had the same chances of surviving 5 point-blank gut shots as one headshot ? What ?

[jimpatro]

Like morality, it's not a zero sum game. They were both allowed to survive. Unless you can demonstrate that the only way Ersland could have survived the encounter was by killing a prone and quite probably unconscious guy ?



I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. If he was dead from the headshot it was no biggie shooting him some more ? Parker had the same chances of surviving 5 point-blank gut shots as one headshot ? What ?

No, Parker should not be allowed to survive. Why should he?

And regarding the first head shot and subsequent 5 belly shots.
There are those who are fine with the first shot to the head but not with last shots. It's hypocrisy that it's okay for him to have died from the head shot but not the belly shots. He no less dead one way or the other. Although Ersland is alive either way and that's what's most important. It's all been covered up thread.

[Stealth Potato]

And regarding the first head shot and subsequent 5 belly shots.
There are those who are fine with the first shot to the head but not with last shots. It's hypocrisy that it's okay for him to have died from the head shot but not the belly shots. He no less dead one way or the other.

Wait... what? I'm not sure I follow. It seems to me that your claim of "hypocrisy" is based on a pretty egregious equivocation. Yes, he'd be no more dead from five fatal belly shots than from one fatal headshot, but there are other differences you can't ignore, such as, for example, the circumstances under which the shots were delivered. Since it's a matter of law that it is generally okay to shoot and kill someone who is a current and deliberate threat to someone's safety, and not generally okay otherwise, the distinction between circumstances becomes extremely important.

I don't see how you could possibly think that someone observing this difference is made a "hypocrite."

[Kobal2]

No, Parker should not be allowed to survive. Why should he?

Because there's no death penalty for robbery ? Because it's not Ersland's decision ? Because he's got the right to live, even though he committed one crime ? I dunno. Obviously you're of the opinion that all criminals should be shot. Thankfully, justice doesn't happen to agree with you.

There are those who are fine with the first shot to the head but not with last shots. It's hypocrisy that it's okay for him to have died from the head shot but not the belly shots. He no less dead one way or the other. Although Ersland is alive either way and that's what's most important. It's all been covered up thread.

As has been belabored the point you refuse to consider : that while he was demonstrably threatening Ersland before the first shot*, it's doubtful he still was while on the ground unconscious, esp. when Ersland doesn't display any sign of feeling threatened. The whole point is that while it would have been okay to kill him with the first shot, it is not to have killed him with the subsequent, calculated five. It's not the end result that matters, but the circumstances and intent behind each specific, separate act.
I know, I know, it's a non-trivial concept. Take your time.

Heh, here's is an amusing way to make the point crystal : if the end result is what matters to you, then Parker & his mate are not thieves, since there was no robbery. See how silly that sounds ?

* well, in a strictly technical sense, only his buddy was, since he was the one with the only gun. But I'll grant you that it's a meaningless distinction, as the assumption that he had one is reasonable.

[emcee2k]

I meant that I don't think he was lying. As I said in my post, he may have been hit by flying casings thus thinking he was shot.

And I meant that if he had lied, he had no reason to. The perp pulled a gun first but Ersland can shoot first if he has the chance. And he did.

Shell casing and bullets leave distinctly different wounds. This is something an owner of multiple guns (or for that matter, anyone who thinks about it) would know.

Even if it doesn't help his case to lie, it doesn't mean he wouldn't. He could have simply felt it made him look slightly better if the robbers fired at him.

No, Parker should not be allowed to survive. Why should he?

Because robbery isn't a capital offense.

And regarding the first head shot and subsequent 5 belly shots.
There are those who are fine with the first shot to the head but not with last shots. It's hypocrisy that it's okay for him to have died from the head shot but not the belly shots. He no less dead one way or the other. Although Ersland is alive either way and that's what's most important. It's all been covered up thread.

When Ersland took the first shot the robber was still obviously an active potential threat. He was still mobile and, his accomplice was armed, and could very likely have been too. Ersland's actions can be easily seen as self preservation, and protection of those around him. If the perp had died from this shot, it would have been unfortunate, but it wouldn't have been murder.

When he took the second shot (and the next four), it was no longer so clear cut (and in my opinion, very likely) that the robber was threat, or that the pharmacist perceived him as one.

I don't really see where the hypocrisy comes in.

Edit: I see I took too long to type that...

[Unregistered Bull]

I used to let these clearly illegal shootings fly. You never know when a loved one or friend might cross the line a little bit when they're scared. But with the growing blood thirstiness, bigotry, and racism in the gun community, especially as it is represented on the internet, for our own good, this guy needs to be punished.

[jimpatro]

Because there's no death penalty for robbery ? Because it's not Ersland's decision ? Because he's got the right to live, even though he committed one crime ? I dunno. Obviously you're of the opinion that all criminals should be shot. Thankfully, justice doesn't happen to agree with you.



As has been belabored the point you refuse to consider : that while he was demonstrably threatening Ersland before the first shot*, it's doubtful he still was while on the ground unconscious, esp. when Ersland doesn't display any sign of feeling threatened. The whole point is that while it would have been okay to kill him with the first shot, it is not to have killed him with the subsequent, calculated five. It's not the end result that matters, but the circumstances and intent behind each specific, separate act.
I know, I know, it's a non-trivial concept. Take your time.

Heh, here's is an amusing way to make the point crystal : if the end result is what matters to you, then Parker & his mate are not thieves, since there was no robbery. See how silly that sounds ?

* well, in a strictly technical sense, only his buddy was, since he was the one with the only gun. But I'll grant you that it's a meaningless distinction, as the assumption that he had one is reasonable.

There was a robbery. Maybe you're the silly one.

I'm talking about Parker's death during the robbery. The distinction of when the robbery ended is one factor that will be decided in court.

[Kobal2]

... you don't grasp rethorical points either. Grand.
I'm done here, I'll let a jury of my peers decide whether or not I've been patient enough. Right now, my neurons are seriously considering self-defense against your remarkable obtuseness.

[emcee2k]

There was a robbery. Maybe you're the silly one.
Did you feel a little breeze in your hair when that one was sailing over?

[jimpatro]

I did feel a weak analogy.
You cannot tell what Ersland was feeling or thinking by his actions. You may think you can but you give yourself too much credit.

[jimpatro]

Shell casing and bullets leave distinctly different wounds. This is something an owner of multiple guns (or for that matter, anyone who thinks about it) would know.


What do wounds have to do with anything? Ersland thought he was shot. That's all. He just thought he was.

[jimpatro]

Even if it doesn't help his case to lie, it doesn't mean he wouldn't. He could have simply felt it made him look slightly better if the robbers fired at him.




Why would he think it would make him look better. I have never heard the concept that one must fire second in combat in order to be justified. Where did you come up with that?

[jimpatro]

... you don't grasp rethorical points either. Grand.
I'm done here, I'll let a jury of my peers decide whether or not I've been patient enough. Right now, my neurons are seriously considering self-defense against your remarkable obtuseness.

Okay peers, chime in! Has he been patient enough?:D

[cosmosdan]

Mr. Ersland has thus already shown us that he is not truthful, and so cannot be trusted. Why do you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he did the right thing?


It doesn't require assuming he did the right thing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can recognize that that it's possible he executed the kid, as I have several times, and still be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if we lack very clear strong evidence. Why? Because he was the one who was the victim of an armed robbery and the dead boy was one of the robbers.

With those facts I think we require very strong and clear evidence to charge a man who defended himself in an armed robbery with homicide. Lacking said evidence, we accept his story , all the while knowing he could be lying.

[emcee2k]

What do wounds have to do with anything? Ersland thought he was shot. That's all. He just thought he was.

Because you tell if you've been shot by whether or not you have bullet wound. It's like right at the top of the list of symptoms.

He may very well have thought he was shot at...

Why would he think it would make him look better. I have never heard the concept that one must fire second in combat in order to be justified. Where did you come up with that?

I didn't come up with that. I'm not taking about laws are rules here, I'm talking about the way people think. If it makes you look bad for shooting someone, people tend to think they can make themselves look better if they say "Well they shot at me, too".

[cosmosdan]

Yes. And as has been repeated repeatedly, Ersland walked past the guy twice and didn't cower in fear, and Ersland didn't grab a heavy object in case he was attacked while reloading, and he didn't shoot from a position of safety. The second choice, "just executed him" seems much more likely. I can understand it seeming that way but I maintain that lacking clear strong evidence , "what it seems", doesn't outweigh the fact he was the victim of an armed robbery. IMHO. I would imagine if he suddenly realized the downed robber was alive, conscious, and trying to get up, his only thought was to remove all question of a possible attack.

And Mr. Cosmosdan, I can't totally dismiss your tale of rape and gunplay at Howard Johnsons, but if it's true, my BS detector needs a factory tuneup. So, if you could trouble your friend to get a few details from his friend, I'd be interested in knowing what year, and in what city this took place.

I'll ask him but there's a good chance he doesn't care what skeptics on a discussion board think. I understand the doubts about fully automatic weapons. It sounded hard to believe when he told me. I've already said the point I'm making stands even if that is embellishment. Other than that there are unanswered questions about the details of the crime but I see no reason to find the other details far fetched or extremely unlikely.

regardless my point doesn't require a specific true account but merely a little reasoning and imagination. If you wound an armed robber you and anyone else around will not be safe from harm unless you're sure that person can't hurt you. A moments hesitation or misplaced mercy can cost dearly.

[cosmosdan]

I agree on most of that, and I already said numerous times I had no problem with the first shot. But that's not what Judge Dredd here was saying. He said Parker's death could not have been murder, because he was a criminal in the middle of a crime. Ergo, he was fair game, no matter the circumstances.
Do you really want to defend such a statement ? Do you think it's an idea well thought through ?

As a matter of fact I'd say premeditated murder would be a very bad call. Manslaughter with extenuating circumstances maybe. I think it's hard to claim premeditation in an event only seconds long in which everyone agrees the first shot was justified.

I don't think Parker was fair game regardless of circumstances. I'd say he was the victim of a dangerous situation that he consciously placed himself and innocent others in.

[jimpatro]

I didn't come up with that. I'm not taking about laws are rules here, I'm talking about the way people think. If it makes you look bad for shooting someone, people tend to think they can make themselves look better if they say "Well they shot at me, too".

Which people say this? You're pulling that out of your ass.

[jimpatro]

Because you tell if you've been shot by whether or not you have bullet wound. It's like right at the top of the list of symptoms.

He may very well have thought he was shot at...




What does a bullet wound look like? You probably think they all look the same.
It could be a huge gaping hole or it could be a barely visible scrape. It could feel like being hit by a car or it could feel like a rush of air. Being hit by a flying casing fits somewhere in between.

[cosmosdan]

I assumed he had a weapon because you said he had one, you never said he dropped it, and I can think of no logical reason why he would drop it, unless he intended on surrendering (which he apparently didn't since he ran away), or if was shot out of his hand Western style.
How about the logic of dropping it when he was shot? Does that seem too far fetched for you? Skepticism is a healthy thing but it's also good to be aware of what you don't know and, rather than assume things based on sparse details , ask for clarification while refraining from unnecessary judgment.
Yes, I'm skeptical of the story you posted. As you said, I don't know your friend, so unlike you, I can't take into account any knowledge of how trustworthy he is. I know you said he is, but, I don't know you either. I'm not calling you a liar (I read the sticky), I just have no gauge of your credibility one way or another. So it's best to judge it as far fetched? Granted you have no reason to assume it's all true but you also have no real reason to assume it's not. I've seen lot's more unlikely things on true police videos or read about them. That's what gets me about people calling "bullshit"

In other words, all I have to go on is the actual contents of the story, which happens to have multiple believability issues. Which if pressed, I could individually point out, but that would probably be going a little too far off track. We're already riding the rails. I agree it's off topic and I only told the story to make a related point. Still, considering I just pointed out a very obvious reason you seem to have casually missed while judging it unbelievable you might want to consider there are very real understandable answers to the your other doubts.

If this were the other way around, if I had came here an posted that story, I have a hard time believing you wouldn't be equally skeptical. If not, well, than I'm sorry to say, you're a very gullible person.

Having no reason to embrace or doubt I would refrain from judgment. There's simply nothing outrageously far fetched about the story with the possible exception of full auto weapons.

Let me pose a question and present a perfectly reasonable answer

Why didn't the wounded perp escape when he had the chance rather than stay and attack the waitresses. Doesn't make sense.

Until he was shot he didn't know anyone but his partner and him had a gun. They were in a building at night that they didn't know that well so neither was positive which way was out. He couldn't run because he was shot in the hip so he scooted back the way he had come which led back upstairs. Once there he had no way out because he couldn't leave by the skylight they had entered through. Wounded, scared and angry he barricades himself in and takes out his frustrations on the girls. There are lots of perfectly reasonable possibilities with a little thought.



I think you're missing my point. It's not the fact that there are differences, it what the differences are. The whole point of contention is whether or not the robber in the pharmacy was sufficiently incapacitated, that lethal force was unwarranted. Agreed. That's the part the available evidence isn't clear about.

In your story the criminal clearly wasn't incapacitated at all. he was able walk, was likely still armed, and heading in the direction of possible victims. Again you assume too much.

If you post a story as an example of a possible outcome of Ersland not killing that kid (not specifically someone being raped, but you know what I mean), then the circumstances of that story that led to that outcome should be similar to those in those actually occurred. The man in your story was able to rape those girls because he wasn't incapacitated, even arguably so. That was not the case in the pharmacy incident, that's why it isn't applicable.

Good Lord man, think! The point is that if my friends older brother had pumped five bullets into that mans belly the girls would not have been assaulted. That's the regret he has to live with.





It may very well come down to whether or not the robber was conscious, depending on how the laws are written in that state.

Or, it may come down to the jury's impression of Ersland's state of mind during the event. If based on the evidence available to them (likely more than we have) they believe he still felt threatened, or felt the other employees in the store were threatened while robber was on the ground, or they feel that due to the circumstances, he wasn't thinking clearly, he'll like get off, otherwise he's likely going to prison.

From what I've seen in the videos, his actions appear very deliberate. He doesn't show signs of someone who feels threatened. He turns his back to the guy on the floor more than once. He walks directly to his second gun, and it doesn't appear to be a reaction to anything happening in the room.


I watched to see if there was any sign of the perp regaining consciousness and trying to get up. The only thing I noticed is that Ersland might be hurrying over to Parker {as much as he can} Maybe that means he just realized Parker is alive and conscious.

[emcee2k]

Good Lord man, think! The point is that if my friends older brother had pumped five bullets into that mans belly the girls would not have been assaulted. That's the regret he has to live with.

Yes. I get the point of your story. I got it when I first read it. What I don't get is why you posted it. I take it that its supposed to be an example of what could have happened if the pharmacist hadn't shot the robber 5 more times, as in, someone else being hurt after the perp was wounded.

The whole issue here, though, is that a lot of people believe the perp in the pharmacy was fully incapacitated already, after being shot the first time. Whereas, in your story, it should be obvious to anyone that the perp wasn't incapacitated after the first shot. He was able to rape those girls because he was still mobile. In the pharmacy, the perp was no longer mobile.

Your story isn't applicable. For it to be applicable, it would need to involve a perp in a similar situation (i.e. on the ground, in mobile, possibly appearing unconscious, and appearing to be much less of a threat), coming to, and hurting someone.

I have to go to work now, so I'll reply to the rest of your post when I get back.

[emcee2k]

How about the logic of dropping it when he was shot? Does that seem too far fetched for you? Skepticism is a healthy thing but it's also good to be aware of what you don't know and, rather than assume things based on sparse details , ask for clarification while refraining from unnecessary judgment.

There's no real cause and effect between being shot and dropping your gun. Yes, it could've happened, but given that's rather important detail to leave out of a story like that, it's a much bigger assumption to thing that he had dropped the gun.

But let's say he did drop it. Maybe after being shot he was going to surrender, but then changed his mind just after dropping the gun and instead ran upstairs. OK, he's unarmed, but he's still running back to where the other possible victims are. Being a grown man, he still could possibly overpower those girls (since The Older Brother probably didn't know they were tied up), and seeing as how fully automatic weapons by their self seem a bit much, it wouldn't unreasonable to think he may have another weapon on him. TOB taking another shot would have been completely understandable.

So it's best to judge it as far fetched? Granted you have no reason to assume it's all true but you also have no real reason to assume it's not. I've seen lot's more unlikely things on true police videos or read about them. That's what gets me about people calling "bullshit"

I have multiple reason to assume it's not, and they're all within the text of the story. I didn't watch this in a true police video, nor did I read it in a reliable publication. I read it on an internet message board, in a post by someone I don't happen to know. When I read or hear a rather fantastic story from a source I don't know to be reliable, my default response is skepticism. Otherwise, I'd believe every unlikely story that gets forwarded into my email inbox.

I agree it's off topic and I only told the story to make a related point. Still, considering I just pointed out a very obvious reason you seem to have casually missed while judging it unbelievable you might want to consider there are very real understandable answers to the your other doubts.

Having no reason to embrace or doubt I would refrain from judgment. There's simply nothing outrageously far fetched about the story with the possible exception of full auto weapons.

But, if I had posted that story, you should have reason to doubt. And out of all those reasons the automatic weapons was one of the less glaring. And, of course you could come up with possible explanations for each of those issues, that's why I said it was unlikely, not impossible. But they add up, and for such a short story, my count of six issues is a bit much.


Again you assume too much.

You said he went back upstairs. That covers walking, and heading towards possible victims, I already covered likely still armed.

I watched to see if there was any sign of the perp regaining consciousness and trying to get up. The only thing I noticed is that Ersland might be hurrying over to Parker {as much as he can} Maybe that means he just realized Parker is alive and conscious.

I don't know, he seemed to be moving basically the same speed the whole time to me. Which makes sense, given the situation I'd think he would want to go full speed right out of the gate. Which wasn't very fast, probably because of that back brace.

The forensics lab could probably use the different camera angles create a 3D computer simulation of the whole event and determine his exact speed at any given moment, but that's a bit beyond me.

[cosmosdan]

Yes. I get the point of your story. I got it when I first read it. What I don't get is why you posted it. I take it that its supposed to be an example of what could have happened if the pharmacist hadn't shot the robber 5 more times, as in, someone else being hurt after the perp was wounded. Yes but in a nonspecific way. A wounded perp is still dangerous to you and others. A dead one isn't.

The whole issue here, though, is that a lot of people believe the perp in the pharmacy was fully incapacitated already, after being shot the first time. Whereas, in your story, it should be obvious to anyone that the perp wasn't incapacitated after the first shot. He was able to rape those girls because he was still mobile. In the pharmacy, the perp was no longer mobile.
I agree, but we've established that we don't know if the downed perp in the drugstore was trying to get up or not. In court case about homicide it's beyon d reasonable doubt rather than more likely than not. That's what I've been saying all along. Regardless of what you or I think is probably true without clear strong evidence showing the robber could not have been trying to get up the reasonable doubt goes to the guy who was being robbed at gunpoint. IMHO.
What we don't want is for a hospitalized druggist to talk about his regret because he didn't finsh off an armed robber who manged to get away and hurt someone in the process. See how it applies now?
Your story isn't applicable. For it to be applicable, it would need to involve a perp in a similar situation (i.e. on the ground, in mobile, possibly appearing unconscious, and appearing to be much less of a threat), coming to, and hurting someone. Sorry, I don't agree. Based on the point I'm trying to make I think it is.

[emcee2k]

Yes but in a nonspecific way. A wounded perp is still dangerous to you and others. A dead one isn't.


I agree, but we've established that we don't know if the downed perp in the drugstore was trying to get up or not. In court case about homicide it's beyon d reasonable doubt rather than more likely than not. That's what I've been saying all along. Regardless of what you or I think is probably true without clear strong evidence showing the robber could not have been trying to get up the reasonable doubt goes to the guy who was being robbed at gunpoint. IMHO.
What we don't want is for a hospitalized druggist to talk about his regret because he didn't finsh off an armed robber who manged to get away and hurt someone in the process. See how it applies now?
Sorry, I don't agree. Based on the point I'm trying to make I think it is.

First of all,with the medical examiner saying he was unconscious, if nothing else comes out that can prove that wrong (which is unlikely, since medical examiners do this for a living), I'd say there's clear, strong evidence that he wasn't getting back up.

In regards to the story, even in the very unlikely situation the robber did begin to move, that's still far different than already up, still moving, and heading towards other victims.

Which people say this? You're pulling that out of your ass.

Why do you think prosecutors go on in court about how heinous the crime was even though that has nothing to do with whether or not the defendant did it? Why do think defense attorneys often try to attack the character of the victim even when it in no way legally justifies the crime or prove the defendants innocence?

It's because juries are made up of ordinary people who are affected by those things. The same way, Ersland claiming to have been shot or shot at, makes him appear more of a victim, therefor people would be more sympathetic toward him, and more likely to believe his actions were justified.

[cosmosdan]

First of all,with the medical examiner saying he was unconscious, if nothing else comes out that can prove that wrong (which is unlikely, since medical examiners do this for a living), I'd say there's clear, strong evidence that he wasn't getting back up. Please provide a cite where the medical examiner is saying he was definitely unconscious.

In regards to the story, even in the very unlikely situation the robber did begin to move, that's still far different than already up, still moving, and heading towards other victims.
And exactly what difference does that make? Moving, trying to get up. indicates he might pose a threat since seconds ago he was a culprit in an armed robbery. We're talking about a druggist not a trained police officer. If a criminal who was willing to kill you moments ago is conscious and moving then he's a threat.

[emcee2k]

Please provide a cite where the medical examiner is saying he was definitely unconscious.

Prosecutors charged Ersland with murder after the medical examiner reported Parker was alive, unconscious and on the floor when Ersland fired five shots into his abdomen, killing him.

--The Oklahoman (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacy-robbery-suspect-arrested-this-afternoon-in-wewoka/article/3374800)

And exactly what difference does that make? Moving, trying to get up. indicates he might pose a threat since seconds ago he was a culprit in an armed robbery. We're talking about a druggist not a trained police officer. If a criminal who was willing to kill you moments ago is conscious and moving then he's a threat.

It makes a big difference, since by time Ersland got back with the gun, the robber was still on the ground, and still unarmed. It's still very debatable whether he should have fired his gun. While in your story, it's far less debatable.

[bengangmo]

I posted this on facebook to get some reactions from friends. Like SDMB the responses were mixed. One friend related a relevant story.


Years ago his older brother was working at Ho Jos. One night they were having an after hours Bday party for one of the girls and two armed men came in through a skylight. Two girls were in the upstairs locker room changing and the perps tied them up. When older brother went to look for them he caught a glimpse of one robber and went to the office to get his 9mm. When he started back upstairs they were coming down and they opened fore with fly automatic weapons. Now other employees were fleeing and finding places to hide. Older brother hid behind a desk or counter and waited. When they came in and he had a shot he took it. He wounded one and the other fled once he realized victims might shoot back. Here's the point where older brother could have finished off the wounded perp but he didn't. He hesitated waiting to see if they would flee or return fire or what. The wounded robber went back upstairs to where the the two girls were tied up and raped them while the police were getting organized and deciding what to do. Older brother still regrets not taking that perp out when he had the chance and saving the girls from rape. He also lost his job for even having a weapon at work.

IMO that shows the point of why it's so hard to judge the pharmacist. Sometimes , when faced with an armed and potentially deadly threat, the only sure remedy is to make very sure your enemy is incapable of hurting you or anyone else. An act of mercy can wind up hurting you or someone else. Would you rather have to live with the fact you killed an armed robber or that you didn't when you could have and that cost you or someone else?

Somebody with a gunshot wound went and raped two girls while police were getting organised? That seems very unlikely.

The friend went and got a gun, but didn't ask staff to leave along the way?

This story just doesn't seem to square with logic

[cosmosdan]

There's no real cause and effect between being shot and dropping your gun. Yes, it could've happened, but given that's rather important detail to leave out of a story like that, it's a much bigger assumption to thing that he had dropped the gun. Comon. You just said you couldn't think of any logical reason why he would drop it and I provided a very logical and fairly obvious reason that you hadn't thought of. It's not about cause and effect. It's about plausibility. Being shot and dropping your weapon is pretty dam plausible. Because of that I'm also suggesting that all the points in the story you find far fetched are have equally plausible reasonable answers. According to the evidence we just saw, just because you haven't thought of it, doesn't mean it's highly unlikely.





I have multiple reason to assume it's not, and they're all within the text of the story. I didn't watch this in a true police video, nor did I read it in a reliable publication. I read it on an internet message board, in a post by someone I don't happen to know. When I read or hear a rather fantastic story from a source I don't know to be reliable, my default response is skepticism. Otherwise, I'd believe every unlikely story that gets forwarded into my email inbox.
Non Sequiter. Skepticism can mean you acknowledge it may or may not be true, which is different than calling it very unlikely. I understand that there's no reason to eagerly accept a story on a discussion board as true. I'd say there's equally no reason to dismiss it as untrue when you lack details and evidence. There's nothing that far fetched about the story. I purposely told an abbreviated version lacking in details because it wasn't about convincing anyone but rather making a point that related to the thread subject. The lack of detail has nothing to do with believability. It logically means you don't have enough details to make a conclusive judgment. Instead you assume things without evidence and declare it's extremely unlikely. That's your call. It doesn't matter to me.



But, if I had posted that story, you should have reason to doubt. And out of all those reasons the automatic weapons was one of the less glaring. And, of course you could come up with possible explanations for each of those issues, that's why I said it was unlikely, not impossible. But they add up, and for such a short story, my count of six issues is a bit much.
Considering the example we just discussed I'd say your math is what should be doubted. Regardless, your belief or doubt is irrelevant to the thread.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Considering the example we just discussed I'd say your math is what should be doubted. Regardless, your belief or doubt is irrelevant to the thread.

So is your bullshit fantasy story.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Years ago his older brother was working at Ho Jos. One night they were having an after hours Bday party for one of the girls and two armed men came in through a skylight. Two girls were in the upstairs locker room changing and the perps tied them up. When older brother went to look for them he caught a glimpse of one robber and went to the office to get his 9mm. When he started back upstairs they were coming down and they opened fore with fly automatic weapons. Now other employees were fleeing and finding places to hide. Older brother hid behind a desk or counter and waited. When they came in and he had a shot he took it. He wounded one and the other fled once he realized victims might shoot back. Here's the point where older brother could have finished off the wounded perp but he didn't. He hesitated waiting to see if they would flee or return fire or what. The wounded robber went back upstairs to where the the two girls were tied up and raped them while the police were getting organized and deciding what to do. Older brother still regrets not taking that perp out when he had the chance and saving the girls from rape. He also lost his job for even having a weapon at work.

ITT: badly written fiction.

[cosmosdan]

Somebody with a gunshot wound went and raped two girls while police were getting organised? That seems very unlikely.

The friend went and got a gun, but didn't ask staff to leave along the way?

This story just doesn't seem to square with logic

What type of logic do you apply to an armed robbery with gunplay from robber and intended victim? Perhaps you can explain the logic of a serial rapist or a simple compulsive shoplifter. IOW, how the hell do you logically explain extreme occurrences in the human condition? Think of outlandish things you've read about or seen reported as fact and accepted and then tell me how this story is so very unlikely. Things that don't make rational sense happen in real human life all the time and especially in violent crime. I understand healthy skepticism but the desire to piss on this story you know so little about baffles me.

I don't see anything any more unlikely about it than the true story we're discussing in the thread. Imagine that's a story someone related rather than actual news. Is it unlikely? I suppose, but we know unlikely things do happen among a population of hundreds of millions. It's unlikely to win the lottery but yet someone just won over 200 million. Do you believe that?

[The Tao's Revenge]

So 1 out 200 million people shot will rape your sisters?

[jimpatro]

ITT: badly written fiction.

Ask a cop if they've ever heard of anything like that and they'll tell you some doozies.

[cosmosdan]

So is your bullshit fantasy story.

This really hurts because I value your opinion so much. Oh wait. I don't value it at all.
Whew! What a relief.
Honestly, I don't get the seemingly random arbitrary need to piss on this story but if it makes you feel special or clever or whatever, knock yourself out.

What I'd point out to the skeptics who seem to think you have reasoned this out is that violent crime and other extreme human behavior often doesn't follow a logical reasonable pattern. IMO imagining you can logically decide whether this is plausible based on so few details is in itself illogical and unreasonable but hey.YMMV.

[jimpatro]

Somebody with a gunshot wound went and raped two girls while police were getting organised? That seems very unlikely.

The friend went and got a gun, but didn't ask staff to leave along the way?

This story just doesn't seem to square with logic

You seem to think something unlikely can't happen. People who fall out of planes and live would tell you different. Or do you believe that never really happens?

[jimpatro]

First of all,with the medical examiner saying he was unconscious, if nothing else comes out that can prove that wrong (which is unlikely, since medical examiners do this for a living), I'd say there's clear, strong evidence that he wasn't getting back up.

In regards to the story, even in the very unlikely situation the robber did begin to move, that's still far different than already up, still moving, and heading towards other victims.



Why do you think prosecutors go on in court about how heinous the crime was even though that has nothing to do with whether or not the defendant did it? Why do think defense attorneys often try to attack the character of the victim even when it in no way legally justifies the crime or prove the defendants innocence?

It's because juries are made up of ordinary people who are affected by those things. The same way, Ersland claiming to have been shot or shot at, makes him appear more of a victim, therefor people would be more sympathetic toward him, and more likely to believe his actions were justified.

Anyone with a concealed carry and tactical training, and that's a lot of people, will absolutely try to get the first shot off. If the bad guy does then you might be too dead to counter. And none will feel guilty for doing it. It's how you stay alive. It just is not a point of contention in a robbery trial. A victim obviously must protect themselves from the threat of a gun pointed at them.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Ask a cop if they've ever heard of anything like that and they'll tell you some doozies.

Let's see.

1 someone is shot, after repelling, mission impossible style through a skylight
2 they wonder off, instead of fleeing, seeking medical treatment, or dealing with the still armed older brother


How about someone cough up a cite for this fiction or retract it?

[cosmosdan]

ITT: badly written fiction.

Hasty opinion. The old adage about them is true.

[cosmosdan]

So 1 out 200 million people shot will rape your sisters?

And evidently 6 out of 10 posters will be opinionated enough to make a snap judgment based on very little information and seemingly enjoy pissing on a story for no good reason. Go figure.


That's enough of a hijack for me. For the sake of GD and the thread I'm done with this foolishness.

[jimpatro]

Let's see.

1 someone is shot, after repelling, mission impossible style through a skylight
2 they wonder off, instead of fleeing, seeking medical treatment, or dealing with the still armed older brother


How about someone cough up a cite for this fiction or retract it?

You just really have no idea what's out there, huh?

[RedFury]

cosmosdan, Tarantino has nothing on you. Except of course, oodles of talent and a grasp of verisimilitude to real life events. And as far-fetched as he can be that's saying something.

---

As for the OP, as many here have said before, initial defensive shot, justified and deserved. Thereafter, a clearly cut case of vigilantism. IOW, a murder.

I too am mystified that this case is even up for "debate." It's simply putrid pulp fiction to do so.

Shoot them all and let Og sort it out! Yew-haaw!

[The Tao's Revenge]

You just really have no idea what's out there, huh?

Apparently whatever is out there means you should shoot every single person, including jay walkers, just in case they rape your sisters.

Seriously it's a pretty ill thought out point. His point seems to be "you should kill everone you have the chance because you don't know what they might do."

By that logic you should be shooting anyone with in range. One of them could rape your sister you know.

That's why the law calls for reasonable force. People laying unconscious in a pool of their own blood aren't reasonably likely to rape your sister. Anything beyond reasonable force is vigilantism, and I thought you agreed vigilantism was bad?

Hasty opinion. The old adage about them is true.

Shovel bullshit, Yoda does not. Not Yoda, you are.

[jimpatro]

I was talking about the really wierd things that happen in this great big world. You need to explore what's out there.

[jimpatro]

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?

So, going back to the OP, if the Castle Law was invoked in Texas and the "vigilantes" were found to be within the law then they weren't really vigilantes were they?

And, no, not a folk hero nor a murderer, just a survivor.

[cosmosdan]

Let's see.

1 someone is shot, after repelling, mission impossible style through a skylight
2 they wonder off, instead of fleeing, seeking medical treatment, or dealing with the still armed older brother


How about someone cough up a cite for this fiction or retract it?


Here's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11224678#post11224678) the cite you warrant.

[cosmosdan]

cosmosdan, Tarantino has nothing on you. Except of course, oodles of talent and a grasp of verisimilitude to real life events. And as far-fetched as he can be that's saying something.

Feel free to visit the "cite" I just posted.

[cosmosdan]

Shovel bullshit, Yoda does not. Not Yoda, you are.

But meaningless gibberish you certainly are.

[Snowboarder Bo]

So, going back to the OP, if the Castle Law was invoked in Texas and the "vigilantes" were found to be within the law then they weren't really vigilantes were they?

And, no, not a folk hero nor a murderer, just a survivor.

And if wishes were fishes you'd eat like a king.

[Uzi]

That's why the law calls for reasonable force. People laying unconscious in a pool of their own blood aren't reasonably likely to rape your sister. Anything beyond reasonable force is vigilantism, and I thought you agreed vigilantism was bad?

Says the guy who thinks cruise missiles should be launched at government buildings in North Korea until they release two journalists. Link (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11223688&postcount=31)

An interesting take on the world you have there. A guy defending himself from a criminal can't ensure that the criminal won't get up and attack him, but random people who may not even know about any journalists being held captive, let alone have anything to do with it, deserve to be blown up to release them. Maybe Ersland was tired of dealing with the criminals like you're tired of dealing with NK?

[The Tao's Revenge]

ITT: cosmodan doesn't know what the fuck cite means. A pit thread of you complaining about people wanting a cite, and people pointing out your story is prolly bullshit isn't a cite.




Says the guy who thinks cruise missiles should be launched at government buildings in North Korea until they release two journalists. Link (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11223688&postcount=31)

An interesting take on the world you have there. A guy defending himself from a criminal can't ensure that the criminal won't get up and attack him, but random people who may not even know about any journalists being held captive, let alone have anything to do with it, deserve to be blown up to release them. Maybe Ersland was tired of dealing with the criminals like you're tired of dealing with NK?

Would you tell me the part where a teenager, laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood, who could easily be shot if he moved, posed a threat?

Yes using the threat of military force against a brutal dictator and the government that supports him to free our own people is totally the same thing as murdering an unconscious teenager laying a pool of his own blood. Clearly you feel one must be an absolute pacifist to oppose any murder.

Lets say may positions are totally inconstant however. How the fuck does that change whether I'm right or or wrong in this thread?

Do you have anything better then an Ad Hominid attack?

[Uzi]

Lets say may positions are totally inconstant however. How the fuck does that change whether I'm right or or wrong in this thread?

It doesn't. I agree with your stance on NK. Why kowtow to lunatics. I just wouldn't do it for people who don't understand the proper usage of a GPS. Now if they were on the correct side of the border and were abducted, then my stance would change. But if I was the US, I'd be talking to China and getting them on board at is was their border that would have been violated.
I would prefer that people don't have to kill other people. Some people just need killing, though. People in the process of committing violent acts should expect it. And until society (ie. the cops) arrive to take control of the situation, I'm inclined to look the other way, or give a strong benefit of the doubt, for those who have to, through no fault of their own, protect themselves from the dregs of that society.

[cosmosdan]

ITT: cosmodan doesn't know what the fuck cite means. A pit thread of you complaining about people wanting a cite, and people pointing out your story is prolly bullshit isn't a cite.

I'm sorry. I should have posted a picture of me grabbing my crotch so you'd understand sarcasm when you read it. I know exactly what a cite is and that's why I chose " here's the cite you warrant" and used quotes in the next reference to it. Sheesh!


Would you tell me the part where a teenager, laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood, who could easily be shot if he moved, posed a threat?

you're assuming facts you don't know are true.

[cosmosdan]

Somebody with a gunshot wound went and raped two girls while police were getting organised? That seems very unlikely.

The friend went and got a gun, but didn't ask staff to leave along the way?

This story just doesn't seem to square with logic

Can we keep in mind that the subject of the thread is already an incredibly unlikely event? Armed robberies happen but what are the chances the average person will be involved in a shooting with an armed criminal? Pretty dam unlikely right? However, when the category already is "shootings between armed robbers and armed civilians", a pretty small group I'd suspect, the chances that something outrageous and otherwise highly unlikely might happen goes up considerably, wouldn't you say?

[Snowboarder Bo]

you're assuming facts you don't know are true.

No, Toa is going by the facts as we know them. He's forming an opinion from the available evidence and the expert opinion of the Medical Examiner. There's no assumption at all, other than that the ME is in fact qualified and that the security video has not been edited or tampered with in some undetectable way. Those assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

You, however, are asking us to assume that you have a friend, assume that your friend has a brother, assume that said brother worked at a HoJos, assume that a HoJos has a skylight, a locker room, 2 perps armed with fully automatic weapons, etc. etc. You are asking us to assume that your whole story is true. If you could just provide a cite, we could stop assuming and actually deal with known facts. It's you are full of assumptions, and you want us to join you.

Sorry, but that's not how this is gonna work. You are the one full of assumptions. When come back, bring facts.

[jimpatro]

And if wishes were fishes you'd eat like a king.

Wishes? Huh?

[jimpatro]

ITT: cosmodan doesn't know what the fuck cite means. A pit thread of you complaining about people wanting a cite, and people pointing out your story is prolly bullshit isn't a cite.






Would you tell me the part where a teenager, laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood, who could easily be shot if he moved, posed a threat?

Yes using the threat of military force against a brutal dictator and the government that supports him to free our own people is totally the same thing as murdering an unconscious teenager laying a pool of his own blood. Clearly you feel one must be an absolute pacifist to oppose any murder.

Lets say may positions are totally inconstant however. How the fuck does that change whether I'm right or or wrong in this thread?

Do you have anything better then an Ad Hominid attack?

Prolly? Ad hominid?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Prolly? Ad hominid?

Prolly (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prolly%20) is a perfectly cromulent word.

I admit I chuckled at ad hominid, tho.

[jimpatro]

No, Toa is going by the facts as we know them. He's forming an opinion from the available evidence and the expert opinion of the Medical Examiner. There's no assumption at all, other than that the ME is in fact qualified and that the security video has not been edited or tampered with in some undetectable way. Those assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

You, however, are asking us to assume that you have a friend, assume that your friend has a brother, assume that said brother worked at a HoJos, assume that a HoJos has a skylight, a locker room, 2 perps armed with fully automatic weapons, etc. etc. You are asking us to assume that your whole story is true. If you could just provide a cite, we could stop assuming and actually deal with known facts. It's you are full of assumptions, and you want us to join you.

Sorry, but that's not how this is gonna work. You are the one full of assumptions. When come back, bring facts.

Assuming he has a friend is hard for you?
You can't warp around that his friend has a brother?
And so on.
Boy, it's just all too unbelievable.:rolleyes:

[Snowboarder Bo]

Assuming he has a friend is hard for you?
You can't warp around that his friend has a brother?
And so on.
Boy, it's just all too unbelievable.:rolleyes:

I can well believe that he has a friend, and that the friend might have a brother. I don't know that those things are true, but I'm wiling to assume that they are true. I'm not expecting a cite for that part of the story. Heck, I'll even grant that there might be a place known as HoJo's. :D

The rest is, ahem, not so likely. In fact, I doubt it so strongly, I'll call bullshit and wait for a cite, as was requested earlier.

Still waiting..... :rolleyes:

[crickets]

And the issue isn't just that it's "unbelievable", the issue with his story is that it's not supported at all by any verifiable source.

[jimpatro]

I can well believe that he has a friend, and that the friend might have a brother. I don't know that those things are true, but I'm wiling to assume that they are true. I'm not expecting a cite for that part of the story. Heck, I'll even grant that there might be a place known as HoJo's. :D

The rest is, ahem, not so likely. In fact, I doubt it so strongly, I'll call bullshit and wait for a cite, as was requested earlier.

Still waiting..... :rolleyes:

[crickets]

And the issue isn't just that it's "unbelievable", the issue with his story is that it's not supported at all by any verifiable source.

The issue, as it relates to Ersland's case, is that it is possible. No one can say that it is completely impossible. It is not completely impossible that Parker was stirring on the floor. It is not completely impossible that he regained consciousness. And it is extremely possible that he could have had a gun on him. It's been determined that he didn't. How could Ersland know. Tactically, he must assume that he does.

I thnk that the naysayers feel that if Cosmosdan's story is impossible then Ersland's needing to further stop Parker is just as impossible.

[cosmosdan]

No, Toa is going by the facts as we know them. He's forming an opinion from the available evidence and the expert opinion of the Medical Examiner. There's no assumption at all, other than that the ME is in fact qualified and that the security video has not been edited or tampered with in some undetectable way. Those assumptions are perfectly reasonable. We don't know that the kid was unconscious. That's the issue. Ersland said he was trying to get up. You might believe otherwise but you don't have sufficient
evidence to know. In accusations of murder those details are pretty important. You mentioned the ME. The ME only said the kid was alive after the first shot and said nothing about the kid being unconscious. That's also significant and an error on your part.
You, however, are asking us to assume that you have a friend, assume that your friend has a brother, assume that said brother worked at a HoJos, assume that a HoJos has a skylight, a locker room, 2 perps armed with fully automatic weapons, etc. etc. You are asking us to assume that your whole story is true. If you could just provide a cite, we could stop assuming and actually deal with known facts. It's you are full of assumptions, and you want us to join you.

Sorry, but that's not how this is gonna work. You are the one full of assumptions. When come back, bring facts. You're wrong again. I'm not asking anyone to assume my story is true. I told it to make one simple point that is relevant and true whether my story is true or not. I honestly don't give a rats ass who believes it's. What I find really annoying is folks dissing it with bullshit they mistakenly call critical thinking. Doubt or disbelieve. I don't care. Just don't spew crap and call it logic to justify your disbelief.

[Baal Houtham]

You're wrong again. I'm not asking anyone to assume my story is true. I told it to make one simple point that is relevant and true whether my story is true or not. I honestly don't give a rats ass who believes it's. What I find really annoying is folks dissing it with bullshit they mistakenly call critical thinking. Doubt or disbelieve. I don't care. Just don't spew crap and call it logic to justify your disbelief.

I have a friend who was held up in gas station. He shot the robber but when he pumped five bullets into the robbers body, they ricocheted off the concrete floor and killed two passerbys. This shows that the pharmacist was grossly irresponsible even if he's found not-guilty of murder.

I didn't tell this story earlier, because it isn't true I couldn't figure out how it was relevant to the discussion. Apparently that doesn't matter though. People are killed by ricochets all the time. That's what matters.

I can make up some more stories if you like, now that I know that it's okay and that they reinforce my argument.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I thought you were done with this thread, cosmosdan. Didn't you say:

That's enough of a hijack for me. For the sake of GD and the thread I'm done with this foolishness.

?

Even if all you meant was you were done with the hijack, here you are, bringing it up and defending your unverifiable story again (#633). And again (#634). And again (#642).

[Carmady]

Speaking of not believing people, I don't believe a single one of the anti-shopkeeper crowd would behave as their rhetoric suggests they would.

If you are the victim of a home invasion and armed robbers have a gun to your daughter's head, and you are lucky enough to shoot first, you finish them off. You don't wait to see if they will open their eyes and murder your family so you can properly retaliate. If you see any sign that they are still a threat, you end it. Any sign of movement, you end it. You don't let your family be murdered to protect home invaders.

[Baal Houtham]

Speaking of not believing people, I don't believe a single one of the anti-shopkeeper crowd would behave as their rhetoric suggests they would.

If you are the victim of a home invasion and armed robbers have a gun to your daughter's head, and you are lucky enough to shoot first, you finish them off. You don't wait to see if they will open their eyes and murder your family so you can properly retaliate. If you see any sign that they are still a threat, you end it. Any sign of movement, you end it. You don't let your family be murdered to protect home invaders.

Hmm. I'm guessing that the vast majority of the "anti-shopkeeper" people would say that they might fire until their gun was empty, but they wouldn't reload and shoot an robber lying on the floor at point blank range.

The forum for polls is, I believe, IMHO. But of course you can't trust anyone to tell the truth, so I'm not sure there's any point in asking people about it.

[gonzomax]

Speaking of not believing people, I don't believe a single one of the anti-shopkeeper crowd would behave as their rhetoric suggests they would.

If you are the victim of a home invasion and armed robbers have a gun to your daughter's head, and you are lucky enough to shoot first, you finish them off. You don't wait to see if they will open their eyes and murder your family so you can properly retaliate. If you see any sign that they are still a threat, you end it. Any sign of movement, you end it. You don't let your family be murdered to protect home invaders.

How do you know that to be true? The only option is not to finish him. The shopkeeper might have just watched him die without empying a gun into him. He was shot in the head .

[Snowboarder Bo]

Speaking of not believing people, I don't believe a single one of the anti-shopkeeper crowd would behave as their rhetoric suggests they would.

If you are the victim of a home invasion and armed robbers have a gun to your daughter's head, and you are lucky enough to shoot first, you finish them off. You don't wait to see if they will open their eyes and murder your family so you can properly retaliate. If you see any sign that they are still a threat, you end it. Any sign of movement, you end it. You don't let your family be murdered to protect home invaders.

No one in this thread has been "anti-shopkeeper". Many, hell MOST of us have just been "anti-pump-5-more-shots-into-the-kid-who's-already-shot-in-the-head-and-incapacitated-and-unarmed" is all.

[Carmady]

No one in this thread has been "anti-shopkeeper". Many, hell MOST of us have just been "anti-pump-5-more-shots-into-the-kid-who's-already-shot-in-the-head-and-incapacitated-and-unarmed" is all.


That is being anti-shopkeeper, because you have provided exactly zero reason why the shopkeeper was not 100% justified in assuming all the robbers were armed. The fact that you keep bringing that point up shows your strange bias against the shopkeeper.

Again, if you were in a similar situation I guarantee you would assume the entire team of home invaders was armed. You aren't going to watch your daughter get murdered because you made some bizarre guess about which of the intruders brought a gun.

[Snowboarder Bo]

That is being anti-shopkeeper, because you have provided exactly zero reason why the shopkeeper was not 100% justified in assuming all the robbers were armed. The fact that you keep bringing that point up shows your strange bias against the shopkeeper.

Uh, we have brought this up: the law doesn't allow you to shoot people based on assumptions.

Again, if you were in a similar situation I guarantee you would assume the entire team of home invaders was armed. You aren't going to watch your daughter get murdered because you made some bizarre guess about which of the intruders brought a gun.

There was no need to guess. Mr. Parker did not have a gun in either of his hands when Mr. Ersland pumped 5 bullets into him at point blank range. By definition, someone is only armed if they have a weapon equipped. Mr. Parker was not armed.

[Carmady]

Uh, we have brought this up: the law doesn't allow you to shoot people based on assumptions.



There was no need to guess. Mr. Parker did not have a gun in either of his hands when Mr. Ersland pumped 5 bullets into him at point blank range. By definition, someone is only armed if they have a weapon equipped. Mr. Parker was not armed.


So, to reiterate:


1. The shopkeeper had every reason to believe all of the intruders had guns, since they burst into the store with ski masks and indeed aimed a gun at him.


2. The ME did not say that the intruder could not have regained consciousness (actually I don't even see where the ME said he was unconscious) and shot the shopkeeper and the women in the store.


3. The shopkeeper claims the intruder moved.


4. All within 30 seconds.


These are the simple facts. You can argue that people ought to let their families be murdered in order to protect home invaders, but I guarantee you would not do so yourself.

Home invaders try to murder your family, you get lucky enough to stop them, you end it. If you see them move, you have to finish them off. You don't let your family be murdered for the sake of the home invaders themselves.

[Uzi]

You don't let your family be murdered for the sake of the home invaders themselves.

Actually, I get from the people posting here that they are such cool headed individuals with such steely nerves after having faced many similar life and death situations that they can make fully rational decisions in very short time spans, so yes, being such He-Men, they can afford to be merciful.

[JXJohns]

Actually, I get from the people posting here that they are such cool headed individuals with such steely nerves after having faced many similar life and death situations that they can make fully rational decisions in very short time spans, so yes, being such He-Men, they can afford to be merciful.

I got the same thing. That and the fact that they would employ every move that they have ever seen on TV from covering a downed intruder to tying them up with whatever was availabe.

[bengangmo]

The issue, as it relates to Ersland's case, is that it is possible. No one can say that it is completely impossible. It is not completely impossible that Parker was stirring on the floor. It is not completely impossible that he regained consciousness. And it is extremely possible that he could have had a gun on him. It's been determined that he didn't. How could Ersland know. Tactically, he must assume that he does.

I thnk that the naysayers feel that if Cosmosdan's story is impossible then Ersland's needing to further stop Parker is just as impossible.

"tactically assuming he does" implies a rational thought process.

this would take the wind out of hte sails of a lot of people that are saying he acted in the heat of the moment.

If you are thinking "tactically" there are a lot of options open to you other than pumping five rounds into somebody that was TRYING to get up.

And anyway - if Ersland was thinking rationally at all - why did he even go back to put himself into harms way? Why not just let the police handle it. He acted like judge, jury and executioner with the additional shots.

[Snowboarder Bo]

So, to reiterate:

1. The shopkeeper had every reason to believe all of the intruders had guns, since they burst into the store with ski masks and indeed aimed a gun at him.

No, they didn't. Watch the video. Mr. Parker was trying to put his mask on, never succeeding in doing so before he was shot in the head. Mr. Parker did not have a gun, therefore he could not have aimed a gun at anyone. Mr. Ersland was well within his rights to shoot at the 2 of them initially, but after seeing that the downed Mr. Parker had empty hands, that "belief" cannot be justified. (Start the betting pool on the argument-to-come that Mr. Ersland did not see Mr. Parker's hands... even tho he stepped over him and later approached within 2 feet to deliver the killing shots.)

2. The ME did not say that the intruder could not have regained consciousness (actually I don't even see where the ME said he was unconscious) and shot the shopkeeper and the women in the store.Many of the original news stories have been taken down and replaced with the AP story. In the AP story, the prosecuter is quoted as saying Mr. Parker was unconscious. I seem to remember the ME saying it in one of the NewsOK stories, but can't find it now. I may have mis-spoken in a previous post. Sorry.

The ME also does not say that the intruder could not have turned into a giant babyeating squid, or that he could not have been a trumpet player, or any thousand other things.

3. The shopkeeper claims the intruder moved.Mr. Ersland also claims that the robbers shot his watch off and that they both had guns blazing at him from 2 sides. THAT IS FALSE. Watch the video. The gunman never fired a shot.

Mr. Ersland is not a credible witness, and the opinion of his ex-wives, his son, and mental health experts who have seen him is that he is (at the very least) borderline sociopathic. One ex-wife claims he abused the very drugs he was selling.

4. All within 30 seconds.You can't even get this right. The robbers entered the store at approximately 15:40:33.648 (that's 3:40pm and 33.6481 seconds). At 15:40:51.700 Mr. Ersland exits the store to chase after the fleeing robber. At 15:41:14.669 Mr. Ersland re-enters the store. At 15:41:32.009 he shoots Mr. Parker again. At 15:41:34.009 Mr. Ersland turns away from Mr. Parker, having killed him. That's over a minute, twice as long as you thought even tho all you had to do was look at the clock in the video.

These are the simple facts. You can argue that people ought to let their families be murdered in order to protect home invaders, but I guarantee you would not do so yourself.You didn't get any of the facts right, and no one has argued that gun-toting robbers should be allowed to shoot people.
Home invaders try to murder your family, you get lucky enough to stop them, you end it. If you see them move, you have to finish them off. You don't let your family be murdered for the sake of the home invaders themselves.
Holy crap, you even got this wrong. It wasn't a home invasion, it was a drug store robbery. Haven't you been paying attention at all? :smack:

[Snowboarder Bo]

I retract my apology from my previous post:

Many of the original news stories have been taken down and replaced with the AP story. In the AP story, the prosecuter is quoted as saying Mr. Parker was unconscious. I seem to remember the ME saying it in one of the NewsOK stories, but can't find it now. I may have mis-spoken in a previous post. Sorry.

I was right. The ME did say it. emcee2k had the NewsOK story in one of his posts. cite (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacy-robbery-suspect-arrested-this-afternoon-in-wewoka/article/3374800)Prosecutors charged Ersland with murder after the medical examiner reported Parker was alive, unconscious and on the floor when Ersland fired five shots into his abdomen, killing him.

[emcee2k]

Comon. You just said you couldn't think of any logical reason why he would drop it and I provided a very logical and fairly obvious reason that you hadn't thought of. It's not about cause and effect. It's about plausibility. Being shot and dropping your weapon is pretty dam plausible. Because of that I'm also suggesting that all the points in the story you find far fetched are have equally plausible reasonable answers. According to the evidence we just saw, just because you haven't thought of it, doesn't mean it's highly unlikely.

No. No. No.

It's entirely about cause and effect. You say he could have dropped his gun when he was shot. As in he dropped his gun (the effect) because he was shot (the cause). Why did being shot being shot cause him to drop the gun? Was he shot in the hand? There's no reflex reaction to being shot that causes you to loosen your grip.

If your story is to be believed, the most probable situation involves a man or teen armed with a fully automatic weapon heading towards possible victims. If the ME in this pharmacy case is to be believed, the most probable situation involves an unarmed, unconscious, motionless 16 year old.

Yes, we can start tweaking and adjusting those two situations with increasingly unlikely possibilities until your story becomes applicable to the actual situation, but that's a long way to go.

Non Sequiter. Skepticism can mean you acknowledge it may or may not be true, which is different than calling it very unlikely. I understand that there's no reason to eagerly accept a story on a discussion board as true. I'd say there's equally no reason to dismiss it as untrue when you lack details and evidence. There's nothing that far fetched about the story. I purposely told an abbreviated version lacking in details because it wasn't about convincing anyone but rather making a point that related to the thread subject. The lack of detail has nothing to do with believability. It logically means you don't have enough details to make a conclusive judgment. Instead you assume things without evidence and declare it's extremely unlikely. That's your call. It doesn't matter to me.

I'm not going to argue semantics. If you use a different definition for the word skepticism than I do, then let me rephrase that: When I read or hear a rather fantastic story from a source I don't know to be reliable, my default response is doubt. In this case, that doubt isn't based on the details that were left out, it's based on the details that were included.

I'm not going to reply to jimpatro anymore. I'm beginning to wonder if even he believes what he's saying.

[Carmady]

No, they didn't. Watch the video. Mr. Parker was trying to put his mask on, never succeeding in doing so before he was shot in the head. Mr. Parker did not have a gun, therefore he could not have aimed a gun at anyone.

If two intruders with ski masks burst into your room and one of them points a gun at you, it is reasonable to assume and act as though both have guns.

Not only is it reasonable, if there are people around you need to protect it would be improper not to make such an assumption.

If it was your own or your family's lives in danger of ending, you would make such an assumption too.



I seem to remember the ME saying it in one of the NewsOK stories


I hadn't read any version of the story that mentioned the ME saying that, thank you for finding a cite.

Given the mental state the shopkeeper was likely in right after robbers burst into his store and aimed a gun at him, it wouldn't have taken much to consider the downed intruder a threat.

This is why early on in the thread I said it would come down to the mental state of the shopkeeper. He didn't know what we know after the fact.



That's over a minute, twice as long as you thought


When I watched it I didn't think I needed more than a rough estimate of the time. I don't think it changes anything.


It wasn't a home invasion, it was a drug store robbery.

I only mention it because it seems you are completely unable to relate to people who work in drug stores, and how they might react when intruders burst in and aim a gun at them.

So if you were the victim of a home invasion, intruders in ski masks aim a gun at your daughter, and you shoot them even after they are down, you are justified.

Because you aren't a robot. When criminals in ski masks try to murder you and your family, your mind goes into a different mode, and you end the threat.

But that's different. Because it's a home. Not a store. Totally different. Why?

[Kobal2]

So if you were the victim of a home invasion, intruders in ski masks aim a gun at your daughter, and you shoot them even after they are down, you are justified.

Because you aren't a robot. When criminals in ski masks try to murder you and your family, your mind goes into a different mode, and you end the threat.

But that's different. Because it's a home. Not a store. Totally different. Why?

Not that I'm an expert on the various expressions of Castle Doctrine, but I think the distinction is that one's home is considered to be one's ultimate refuge from harm, the one place where it has been deemed reasonable to be laxer and allow more leeway to self-defense claims. If even your home isn't safe, where can you run to ? Hence the provision that one's home is the one place where the "duty to retreat" can't apply.

By contrast, one's workplace isn't one's ultimate refuge from harm, nor can it be - your coworkers are strangers, the customers also. I would also suggest that, in my mind at least, "defending one's home and family" doesn't carry the same emotional weight as "defending one's workplace and coworkers".

[cosmosdan]

No. No. No.

It's entirely about cause and effect. You say he could have dropped his gun when he was shot. As in he dropped his gun (the effect) because he was shot (the cause). Why did being shot being shot cause him to drop the gun? Was he shot in the hand? There's no reflex reaction to being shot that causes you to loosen your grip. I don't agree on this. You wanted a logical reason why he might have dropped his gun because you couldn't think of any. Being shot is certainly a logical reason. Falling downstairs doesn't necessarily result in breaking an arm but explaining a broken arm with "I fell downstairs" is certainly plausible and reasonable. He dropped his weapon when he was shot is also a perfectly reasonable statement that doesn't stretch the imagination.

Aside from that since you have provided the cite I requested about the ME I'm willing to concede the point about Ersland. The previous links I read only stated that the ME said the wounded robber was alive at the time of the second shooting After reading your cite I'd agree with you that is strong clear evidence providing the paper got it right. That tips the scales for me. Whether he'll actually be convicted remains a question.

[Snowboarder Bo]

If two intruders with ski masks burst into your room and one of them points a gun at you, it is reasonable to assume and act as though both have guns.Yeah, and no one here has argued that it wasn't reasonable for Mr. Ersland to act the way he did when he first started shooting. No one. Not me, not you, not anyone else who has posted in this thread.

But once the robbery is over (1 man down, 1 man gone) it is not reasonable to continue to act as if he (Mr. Ersland) is still under imminent threat without any evidence to support the assumption, and with plenty of evidence that there is no imminent threat. Mr. Parker was on his back, his hands were empty, and according to the ME he was unconscious. He also had just been shot in the head.

The law does not allow you to shoot people because you assumed that they were a threat.

Not only is it reasonable, if there are people around you need to protect it would be improper not to make such an assumption.

If it was your own or your family's lives in danger of ending, you would make such an assumption too.

FFS, stop telling me what I would do. You don't know me. You don't know my family. For all you know, I hate my family and would watch passively, filled with glee, as an intruder did what I secretly wished I could do.

If you want to describe what you would do, go right ahead. But leave me out of it. I mean, wtf, are some kind of über-control-freak?

I hadn't read any version of the story that mentioned the ME saying that, thank you for finding a cite.

Given the mental state the shopkeeper was likely in right after robbers burst into his store and aimed a gun at him, it wouldn't have taken much to consider the downed intruder a threat.

This is why early on in the thread I said it would come down to the mental state of the shopkeeper. He didn't know what we know after the fact.

He knew, or should have known, that the guy he stepped over twice, and then returned to within 2 feet of to shoot in the belly, had empty hands. Mr. Ersland has a bad back, he's not blind. He had to have looked at Mr. Parker. When he saw no gun, he should have restrained his trigger finger.

When I watched it I didn't think I needed more than a rough estimate of the time. I don't think it changes anything.

You didn't say it was a rough estimate of time, you said it was a fact. It wasn't. Your "fact" was wrong. You haven't been using facts in your arguments at all. You've just been trying to justify your opinion, which seems to have been formed right after reading the headline "Pharmacist shoots robber, gets charged with murder".

I only mention it because it seems you are completely unable to relate to people who work in drug stores, and how they might react when intruders burst in and aim a gun at them.

This statement is so far diverged from reality, I have to wonder if you read anything other than the headline of the news story before you first posted. Go back and read the very first post in the thread.

So if you were the victim of a home invasion, intruders in ski masks aim a gun at your daughter, and you shoot them even after they are down, you are justified.No, you aren't. The law does not allow you to execute people.

Because you aren't a robot. When criminals in ski masks try to murder you and your family, your mind goes into a different mode, and you end the threat.Once the men are down, the threat is over. You are talking about ending their lives, nothing more. You are advocating the cold blooded murder of defenseless humans, without a trial. You are advocating bloodthirst, not justice. In fact, what you are advocating flies in the face of everything that millions of people have fought and died for: our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our whole way of life. You are directly repudiating the justice system, the right to a trial by jury, and due process.

But that's different. Because it's a home. Not a store. Totally different. Why?
It's different because it's another fact you keep getting wrong. Again, you aren't using facts to discuss the situation at hand. If, to you, a home invasion is no different than a drug store robbbery, why do you keep bringing it up? Just deal with the actual situation, which was a drug store robbery.

[rowe]

Can a medical examiner really determine whether or not a dead person was conscious at a specific time? I'm genuinely curious about this...

[Cheesesteak]

The ME isn't saying he was unconscious at a "specific time", he's saying that the injury to his head was severe enough to render him unconscious. In terms of whether or not they can do it, determining the outcome of injury seems to me to be a pretty major aspect of the job.

[treis]

For the 4th or 5th time, it doesn't matter what outlandish scenarios you can come up. The actions by Ersland on the video clearly show that he felt no danger and was not in fear for his life when he finished off the robber.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I know that this is now old news and all, but I've still been following the case as best I can; the application of so-called Castle Laws interests me.

Anyway, new information is now coming to light that could call into question nearly everything Mr. Ersland has said publicly. It seems that he has lied about his military service. link (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10793326)

After the shooting, Ersland told police and reporters that he was a veteran of the first Gulf War and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

But Ersland's military records released to the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office dispute that. The records show Ersland being at Altus Air Force Base.

At this point, it certainly seems to me that Mr. Ersland knew that he had crossed the line into impropriety and he was doing what he could to further buoy his image (and taint the facts in his favor).

So, just an update.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Killing thugs who attacked your and attempted to rob your property is not murder.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Killing thugs who attacked your and attempted to rob your property is not murder.

I suggest you read thru the whole thread before posting your uninformed opinion(s).

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I suggest you read thru the whole thread before posting your uninformed opinion(s).

How would he know if the robber had a gun on him and would use it even though he was wounded?

[tomndebb]

There is already enough heat generated in this thread without re-opening old wounds. I am closing it. Anyone who wants to discuss the matter rationally may open a new thread, otherwise, take it to The BBQ Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5).

[ /Modding ]