Folk Hero or Murderer?

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

There is no doubt that what was taking place was a robbery. At no time in this discussion has AT advocated killing innocent people. I agree with him (and others) that shooting a perpetrator during the commission of a robbery is a valid and proper response.

On the contrary, that's exactly what he's doing. Without a substantial appeals process, the odds of executing an innocent person skyrocket. As it is, people have been exonerated on death row and, unfortunately, posthumously.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Nava

... so if in a soccer game, a guy from, say, the Spanish team, kicks someone from, say, the Italian team, it's the fault of the Italian coach? Or maybe the Italian masseur? Man, not even sportscasters had been able to come up with such ilogic, so far.

Shooting the guys trying to rob you: self defense.
Shooting a guy that's unconscious on the floor: murder.

That's not even an actual response to what was said.

They didn't go to the store and then their friend decided to pull out a gun, which is what your analogy implies. They all went with the intent to commit violence. So yes, they are all responsible for the violence that was committed.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

On the contrary, that's exactly what he's doing. Without a substantial appeals process, the odds of executing an innocent person skyrocket. As it is, people have been exonerated on death row and, unfortunately, posthumously.

You are talking about situations other than the one under discussion. In THIS instance, there is zero doubt that the person shot and killed had been trying to rob the place.

If you'd like to discuss the death penalty and the appropriateness of the appeals process, I respectfully ask that you start a thread on that topic.

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

You are talking about situations other than the one under discussion.

So was Argent Towers.

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

If you'd like to discuss the death penalty and the appropriateness of the appeals process, I respectfully ask that you start a thread on that topic.

And I am not the one who brought it up in the first place.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by mswas

That's not even an actual response to what was said.

They didn't go to the store and then their friend decided to pull out a gun, which is what your analogy implies. They all went with the intent to commit violence. So yes, they are all responsible for the violence that was committed.

I agree with this.

A better analogy might be that, at a soccer game, the left wing kicks in the game-winning goal. Does his whole team win? Does the whole other team lose?

Answer: The team went with the collective intent to play a soccer game. The whole team wins or loses.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

So was Argent Towers.

And I am not the one who brought it up in the first place.

AT seemed to be expounding on his answer to try and show that he has some consistency in his perceptions and position, not to introduce a new subject to the thread.

[Argent Towers]

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

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

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

[Lust4Life]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Is this a serious question? He pumped 5 bullets into a kid lying helpless and unconscious on the ground. How the hell is that anything but murder?

From my understanding, he shot the kid, kid goes down, is no longer a threat and the kid has no weapon. The guy goes after the kid's co-wannabe robber. Then the guy goes back to get another gun, goes back and shoots the kid 5 more times while the kid is lying unconscious (coroner says not dead) on the floor.

The fact this could even be considered a "debate" is sad.

No he didn't pump 5 rounds into a helpless "Kid",he killed a nasty loathsome piece of filth who while trying to make money would have happily murdered YOUR mother,YOUR child,Your sibling.

That particular piece of filth will never again threaten to murder anyone to get a bit of money to buy booze or drugs,that nasty laothsome piece of filth will no longer beat his girlfriend up or his mom,or anyone who gets in his way when he's in a bad mood.

Boo Hoo there is one piece of filth less in the world.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

No he didn't pump 5 rounds into a helpless "Kid",he killed a nasty loathsome piece of filth who while trying to make money would have happily murdered YOUR mother,YOUR child,Your sibling.

That particular piece of filth will never again threaten to murder anyone to get a bit of money to buy booze or drugs,that nasty laothsome piece of filth will no longer beat his girlfriend up or his mom,or anyone who gets in his way when he's in a bad mood.

Boo Hoo there is one piece of filth less in the world.

Please explain how "unconscious" is not "helpless", in your opinion.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

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

For all I know, my neighbors could be about to blow up my house with a bazooka. Am I justified in opening fire on them?

[Argent Towers]

You seriously think that situation is in ANY WAY comparable to a guy lying on your floor who was just moments earlier attempting to forcibly rob you under threat of death? Please man, you've been reasonable and logical in this thread - surely you can see the difference.

Robbers are not Robin Hood figures, despite an American mythology that even today still makes them out to be glamorous figures. Heat is a great movie but guess what - most robbers are not suave, sophisticated, cultured, sensitive men like Neil Macaulay (Robert DeNiro) who are "just after the bank's money" and "want to hurt no one," as he announces in that film during the bank robbery. This is not a representative sample of armed robbers.

The same people who commit armed robbery are the same people who beat their wives and children, the same people who deal drugs and circulate illegal weapons among criminals, the same people who have 900 children that all grow up in broken homes with dysfunctional parents and introduce more future criminals into the world. They should be removed from the gene pool.

[jimpatro]

SnowboarderBo

Please explain how "unconscious" is not "helpless", in your opinion.

How do you know he was unconscious?
Did you ever hear that being unconscious can lead to being conscious?

Have you ever been in a life threatening situation that you can just dismiss the stress Ersland was going through?

[jimpatro]

SnowboarderBo

For all I know, my neighbors could be about to blow up my house with a bazooka. Am I justified in opening fire on them?

Are you serious with this?

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

For all I know, my neighbors could be about to blow up my house with a bazooka. Am I justified in opening fire on them?

That depends. Have your neighbors demonstrated that they possess a bazooka, threatened to blow up your house with a bazooka or demonstrated a lack of regard for the laws that would prohibit them from blowing up your house with a bazooka?

[hansel]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

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

In which case, Ersland could have covered him with his gun until the police arrived. Shooting an apparently unarmed Parsons multiple times while he was on the ground was totally unnecessary for self-defense. Ersland wasn't even worried about the possibility of Parsons 'playing possum' anyway, given how often he turned his back on him.

One thing to note: Ersland is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He has combat experience. He's been trained to keep his wits about him while under fire. He's been trained to evaluate threats and function while in danger.

Argent, what if instead of reloading his gun, Ersland had grabbed a knife and slit Parson's throat, instead of shooting him? Would that still be justifiable self-defense?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

You seriously think that situation is in ANY WAY comparable to a guy lying on your floor who was just moments earlier attempting to forcibly rob you under threat of death? Please man, you've been reasonable and logical in this thread - surely you can see the difference.

I saw my neighbors with a bazooka. I saw them point it at my house. Then they went inside their house. How can I know they aren't pointing it at me from inside?
The way I follow your line of thinking, I should open fire because there is potential for a threat.

In this case, the original threat was over with. One robber unconscious, immobile and seriously wounded. The other robber fled the premises. You seem to be advocating that it is proper to then remove any possibility of future threat, even when there is no evidence to suggest that there is, or will be, any other future threat.

Please explain what extant threat an unconscious, immobile, injured man poses to a conscious, mobile, uninjured man who is armed with a loaded pistol, in your opinion.

Robbers are not Robin Hood figures, despite an American mythology that even today still makes them out to be glamorous figures. Heat is a great movie but guess what - most robbers are not suave, sophisticated, cultured, sensitive men like Neil Macaulay (Robert DeNiro) who are "just after the bank's money" and "want to hurt no one," as he announces in that film during the bank robbery. This is not a representative sample of armed robbers.

The same people who commit armed robbery are the same people who beat their wives and children, the same people who deal drugs and circulate illegal weapons among criminals, the same people who have 900 children that all grow up in broken homes with dysfunctional parents and introduce more future criminals into the world. They should be removed from the gene pool.

I don't think I've said anything here that would lead anyone to believe that I view robbers in general, or these robbers, as sympathetic people.

I also think you paint with a broad brush in your last paragraph.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

SnowboarderBo


How do you know he was unconscious?
Did you ever hear that being unconscious can lead to being conscious?

Have you ever been in a life threatening situation that you can just dismiss the stress Ersland was going through?

All of the information we have indicates that he was unconscious.

The fact that he "might wake up and might have a gun" is supposition without any evidence.

If it is OK to shoot this kid without any extant evidence of a threat, why is it not OK for me to open fire on my neighbors without any direct evidence of a threat? I know that the potential for a threat might be there, after all.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by hansel

In which case, Ersland could have covered him with his gun until the police arrived. Shooting an apparently unarmed Parsons multiple times while he was on the ground was totally unnecessary for self-defense. Ersland wasn't even worried about the possibility of Parsons 'playing possum' anyway, given how often he turned his back on him.

This assumes that Ersland is a rational commando who is fully lucid of every decision he is making while he makes them.

One thing to note: Ersland is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He has combat experience. He's been trained to keep his wits about him while under fire. He's been trained to evaluate threats and function while in danger.

That training could be working against him, because his training would teach him to eliminate threats. In a war scenario it's perfectly legitimate to deliver a killing blow to a downed enemy. Also, not all trained soldiers are special forces who are taught to think clearly under extreme pressure.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

SnowboarderBo


How do you know he was unconscious?
Did you ever hear that being unconscious can lead to being conscious?

Have you ever been in a life threatening situation that you can just dismiss the stress Ersland was going through?

Yes, I have been in life-threatening situations more than once. I have been shot at on 2 different occassions, been in a fight where the other guy had a knife, been chased by a group of men with baseball bats and have nearly been run down by vehicles while on foot and on a bicycle.

And no, I don't dismiss the stress that Mr. Ersland was going through.

But what he did was wrong. He executed that young man.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by hansel

Argent, what if instead of reloading his gun, Ersland had grabbed a knife and slit Parson's throat, instead of shooting him? Would that still be justifiable self-defense?

It wouldn't be justifiable self-defense in a court of law, that's for sure. But it would be a wonderful thing, in my opinion.

There's the law, and there's my opinion. I would never personally do anything like that because I know I'd be in huge trouble and there's no way I'd throw my whole life away over it. But I think it would be great if every single armed robber got his throat slit.

I think I've made my stance on robbers very clear here. I ain't moving an inch on it, either. They're shitbags, I've got zero sympathy for them, and I truly believe they deserve to die. If for the next month, every single armed robber in the United States was shot to death by his intended victim, and all of these cases were widely reported in the news, I highly suspect the instance of armed robbery would go down in short order. Like I said, people should view armed robbery as a suicidal act.

[jimpatro]

If Ersland just ignores the guy on the floor and goes over to make the call, said guy could pull out a gun and shoot him. Why is it so hard to imagine this? There is some percentage of chance it could happen. Ersland emptied his mag into the BG on the floor. Now 0% chance it could happen.

The robber chose to use violence to make money. He was met with violence and resolve and got what was necessary for Ersland to remain among the living. To create a distinction between dead having been shot in the head once and dead having been shot 5 times while on the floor gives the BG more significance than he's worth.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

If Ersland just ignores the guy on the floor and goes over to make the call, said guy could pull out a gun and shoot him. Why is it so hard to imagine this? There is some percentage of chance it could happen. Ersland emptied his mag into the BG on the floor. Now 0% chance it could happen.

The robber chose to use violence to make money. He was met with violence and resolve and got what was necessary for Ersland to remain among the living. To create a distinction between dead having been shot in the head once and dead having been shot 5 times while on the floor gives the BG more significance than he's worth.

There are two different issues at work here.

Yes, the guy on the ground got what was coming to him, no doubt about it. I feel sorry for him in a vague abstract way in that it's a life wasted at such young age over a stupid decision.

But there is also the unnecessary use of force aspect on the part of Ersland. I think that Ersland absolutely crossed the line. I think he should face charges for it, but I also sort of hope that the sentencing is light.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by mswas

This assumes that Ersland is a rational commando who is fully lucid of every decision he is making while he makes them.

Legally, Ersland's best chance will probably be some form of 'heat of the moment' defense. But his training cuts both ways: Yes, he was trained to kill, but he was also trained not to turn his back on an armed enemy.

The basic problem for Ersland here is that he clearly acted like Parsons wasn't a threat anymore. He took the time to reload his gun (or get a second gun, it's not exactly clear which from the reporting). He turned his back on Parsons several times. That indicates both premeditation and no longer perceiving a threat.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I think I've made my stance on robbers very clear here. I ain't moving an inch on it, either. They're shitbags, I've got zero sympathy for them, and I truly believe they deserve to die. If for the next month, every single armed robber in the United States was shot to death by his intended victim, and all of these cases were widely reported in the news, I highly suspect the instance of armed robbery would go down in short order. Like I said, people should view armed robbery as a suicidal act.

Have you noticed that no one here is arguing for sympathy for Parsons? No one is trying to get you to move an inch on whether Parsons deserved to die. My opposition to Ersland derives from a "civilian executions are bad" place.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

If Ersland just ignores the guy on the floor and goes over to make the call, said guy could pull out a gun and shoot him.

Ersland did just ignore the guy on the floor several times--when running after the second robber, and when heading into the back room to reload at a walking pace. Even putting five bullets into Parson's gut isn't a guarantee that Parsons is dead--much less so, anyway, than five to the head would be.

Would Ersland have been justified in cutting Parson's head off with a knife to reduce the threat to zero? After all, that's the only way to make sure.

[jimpatro]

hansel

The basic problem for Ersland here is that he clearly acted like Parsons wasn't a threat anymore. He took the time to reload his gun (or get a second gun, it's not exactly clear which from the reporting). He turned his back on Parsons several times. That indicates both premeditation and no longer perceiving a threat.

I will agree that this makes sense to us now but in the cloud of stress...

[jimpatro]

mswas

In a war scenario it's perfectly legitimate to deliver a killing blow to a downed enemy.

See that's the thing. Just because those involved weren't wearing uniforms of opposing forces doesn't mean this wasn't war. This was cold hearted kill or die, it's me or you combat.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

mswas


See that's the thing. Just because those involved weren't wearing uniforms of opposing forces doesn't mean this wasn't war. This was cold hearted kill or die, it's me or you combat.

Yeah, we are in agreement. My point was that if you are going to point to his training then his training should work in his favor and not against him, because he was trained to put the enemy down. But at the same time peace-time civilian law is run by a very different code than actual war between nations.

I'd also point out that there was minimal street fighting in the first gulf war. A lot of soldiers saw very little action other than just driving across the desert.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

See that's the thing. Just because those involved weren't wearing uniforms of opposing forces doesn't mean this wasn't war. This was cold hearted kill or die, it's me or you combat.

Okay, this is just silly. It wasn't war. It was a robbery that had ended once someone was down and the other run off. As a combat veteran, Ersland can be expected to recognize the difference. If Ersland perceived a continuing threat from someone with a bullet in their head, laying down with their hands visible, he could have simply covered Parsons while calling the police.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by hansel

Okay, this is just silly. It wasn't war. It was a robbery that had ended once someone was down and the other run off. As a combat veteran, Ersland can be expected to recognize the difference. If Ersland perceived a continuing threat from someone with a bullet in their head, laying down with their hands visible, he could have simply covered Parsons while calling the police.

Prove that he is a combat veteran. There was very little actual soldier to soldier combat in the first gulf war.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by mswas

Prove that he is a combat veteran. There was very little actual soldier to soldier combat in the first gulf war.

Fine, I don't know if he had combat experience. Regardless, he was a trained soldier. Doesn't change my point that he had many other options besides pumping five more shots into Parsons--five shots that are actually less likely to kill Parsons than a lot of others.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by hansel

Fine, I don't know if he had combat experience. Regardless, he was a trained soldier. Doesn't change my point that he had many other options besides pumping five more shots into Parsons--five shots that are actually less likely to kill Parsons than a lot of others.

I agree but your argument can be used against your line of reasoning. Turning his back on him might have been as bad thinking as shooting him. Maybe that's not evidence that he was confident the guy was down, but evidence that he wasn't thinking clearly.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by mswas

I agree but your argument can be used against your line of reasoning. Turning his back on him might have been as bad thinking as shooting him. Maybe that's not evidence that he was confident the guy was down, but evidence that he wasn't thinking clearly.

And which do you believe? That he wasn't thinking clearly or that he didn't think Parsons was a threat? We can easily construct a narrative where Ersland was confused, was stressed, was pumped on adrenaline and reasoning badly. We can just as easily construct a narrative where Ersland decided "I'm going to make sure this piece of shit never robs again." Argent has eloquently articulated the latter viewpoint here, and watching the tapes, I think the latter narrative is the likely one.

Here's something that's indicative: the five shots went into Parson's belly. Not his chest, not his head. That's not making sure a threat's down, that's anger. Soldiers are taught to shoot for center mass, which effectively means the chest. When you shoot man-shaped targets in the army, the bullseye is over the heart, and we can be pretty confident that Ersland had that training.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by hansel

And which do you believe? That he wasn't thinking clearly or that he didn't think Parsons was a threat? We can easily construct a narrative where Ersland was confused, was stressed, was pumped on adrenaline and reasoning badly. We can just as easily construct a narrative where Ersland decided "I'm going to make sure this piece of shit never robs again." Argent has eloquently articulated the latter viewpoint here, and watching the tapes, I think the latter narrative is the likely one.

The latter narrative is not mutually exclusive with the former narrative. He could have shot the guy in anger and still not have been thinking clearly.

Here's something that's indicative: the five shots went into Parson's belly. Not his chest, not his head. That's not making sure a threat's down, that's anger. Soldiers are taught to shoot for center mass, which effectively means the chest. When you shoot man-shaped targets in the army, the bullseye is over the heart, and we can be pretty confident that Ersland had that training.

Maybe.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by mswas

The latter narrative is not mutually exclusive with the former narrative. He could have shot the guy in anger and still not have been thinking clearly.

True, but in neither narrative is Ersland not guilty of murder. Perhaps there's an argument from the first narrative that would defeat the premeditation requirement for first degree murder (though I doubt it). It's still murder. The problem was getting the second gun: if I understand correctly, demonstrating premeditation is all about demonstrating prior steps to facilitate the killing that indicate a decision and planning. Had Ersland walked back into the store and immediately put two more into Parson's head, he could have just said "Parsons was still moving". Getting a second gun and coming back to finish the job is what will sink him, if the "he needed killin' " jurors don't win.

[mswas]

Sure, it's still murder, I agree with that, but the extenuating circumstances do moderate it a bit.

So I think the answer to the OP is: Yes, yes he is.

[NinetyWt]

Originally Posted by Nava

... so if in a soccer game, a guy from, say, the Spanish team, kicks someone from, say, the Italian team, it's the fault of the Italian coach? Or maybe the Italian masseur? Man, not even sportscasters had been able to come up with such ilogic, so far.

No. I mean, if the Spanish team goes in to win against Italy, and two or three make mistakes which cause a loss, then we'd say "Spain's team lost". Or if two or three caused a win, we'd still say "Spain's team won". Snowboarder Bo and mswas have explained it upthread.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

It seems to me to be a case of murder, unlawful killing. The best defense I can see is the adrenaline rush idea. That does not excuse murder but it would, or ought to, mitigate the sentence.

I honestly don't think he is going to be convicted. And if he does it will probably be a slap on the wrist, and rightfully so. If I were on the jury I'd vote to let him go.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Unless anyone thinks that crooks would be more likely to start ripping off pharmacies after this, you may as well call it heroic.

If the end result is that robbers are more likely to kill thier victims first, is it still heroic? Because the lesson I see here for would-be thieves is to shot first as the store owner may be armed.

[jimpatro]

It would be shame if he did any time. If the scum hadn't assaulted the pharmacy that day, Ersland would have just gone on the rest of his life not hurting a fly.

[jimpatro]

Death of Rats

If the end result is that robbers are more likely to kill thier victims first, is it still heroic? Because the lesson I see here for would-be thieves is to shot first as the store owner may be armed.

They already do that sometimes.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

If the end result is that robbers are more likely to kill thier victims first, is it still heroic? Because the lesson I see here for would-be thieves is to shot first as the store owner may be armed.

My sister-in-law manages a bank branch in Ohio. They pay off-duty cops to be security guards so that an armed person is right in the bank. During a robbery attempt, the robber walked in and, knowing about the off-duty cop there, had his gun out and started shooting before anything else. In the exchange of fire, the robber was wounded and the cop killed. [Robber fled, was later caught and is on death row].

By way of contrast, a family friend spent his career in the RCMP. Their policy for responding to bank robberies was to stop outside the bank and wait for the robbers to exit, then arrest them. In no cases they handled this way was anyone hurt or shots fired.

[treis]

Definitely murder. Several of his actions indicate that he was not acting in self defense.

(1) If you are acting in self defense, you do not chase after the threat

(2) He would not have nonchalantly walked past the guy on the ground if he thought he was a threat

(3) He would have covered him with his gun when he walked back in

(4) He would not have turned his back on a threat

(5) He would not have stopped to reload in range of the threat

(6) He would not have closed within such close distance of a threat

(7) If the guy on the ground made a move you would have seen a reaction on the shooters face. You don't. He walked over there with the intention of shooting him.

I give people a lot of lee way when acting in self defense. It isn't their fault that the situation occured, and people sometimes lose their head in heated situations. I don't arm chair quarterback and say well if he did this or if he did that. The difference in this situation is that the guys actions demonstrated little fear. In fact, they show just the opposite. He appeared to be very much in control and appears to have shot the robber because he wanted to kill him for robbing his store.

I don't like the idea that the robber was scum that deserved to die. It is true that if you intentionally put the life of someone else in danger you open yourself up for a lethal self defense reaction. I have little sympathy for those that die in these situations. However, I also believe in the possibility of redemption. This robber isn't a sadist that tortured people to death, he isn't a rapist that got pleasure from the misery of others. He is an idiot that was willing to put the lives of others in danger for monetary gain. That is something I can see going away with age and wisdom. Unfortunately, that is a chance this person will never get.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by mswas

One question I have is:

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE RElEVANCE OF THE VICTiM'S race?


Bryan Ekers May you forgive me for embellishing and emphasizing my question.

Some people think the robber's race was quite relevant. Maybe the shop clerk wouldn't have killed him if he wasn't black.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by treis

He is an idiot that was willing to put the lives of others in danger for monetary gain. That is something I can see going away with age and wisdom. Unfortunately, that is a chance this person will never get.

Armed robbers don't get wiser with age. They just get better at robbing people. Ask a cop, judge, or anyone in the field of criminal law.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

Armed robbers don't get wiser with age. They just get better at robbing people. Ask a cop, judge, or anyone in the field of criminal law.

Special Pleading

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by interface2x

So do you believe that all people convicted of armed robbery should be given the death penalty regardless of situation?

Just because you don't have the right to live doesn't mean the government has the right to kill you. The government wasn't threatened by the robber, but the shop clerk was. The shop clerk had every right to respond to the threat with deadly force.

[jimpatro]

treis

However, I also believe in the possibility of redemption. This robber isn't a sadist that tortured people to death, he isn't a rapist that got pleasure from the misery of others. He is an idiot that was willing to put the lives of others in danger for monetary gain. That is something I can see going away with age and wisdom. Unfortunately, that is a chance this person will never get.

Although there is 100% chance that he will never rob anyone or kill anyone in the future.
See, it's best to err on the side of innocent people who live and let live rather than a criminal who may or may not be redeemed.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

If the end result is that robbers are more likely to kill thier victims first, is it still heroic? Because the lesson I see here for would-be thieves is to shot first as the store owner may be armed.

Which still raises the bar on the barrier to entry of armed robbery as a profession thus decreasing the amount of armed robbery, and still likely reducing the amount of murder overall as only those who go with the intent to kill will commit robbery, so you'll get fewer heat of the moment murders by people who never wanted to kill anyone, they just wanted to rob someone.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

Yeah, killing innocent people is fun.

Innocent people? Huh?