That video doesn’t conclusively show what exactly happened. People can get grazed by head-shot bullets and be stunned and bleed like stuck pigs, then move or whatever thereafter.
I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it could have. I’m surprised to see so many condemning this guy based on what can only be called inconclusive video evidence.
Li’l Pluck, I don’t recall anyone in this thread arguing that death or prison is a deterrent to armed robbery.
And a person can be wounded in the head all kinds of ways. Why do you think soldiers wear helmets? So that a bullet that might graze his head only grazes the helmet. Less ouch. LE said that in this case it was a minor wound.
Actually, several people have.
{Wrong message board!}
I do recall at least one attempt to convince us that armed citizens won’t deter crime. But that wasn’t an argument being waged by those of us defending Ersland’s actions. Read strawman.
Why wouldn’t it? Does a disregard for harm caused to innocent people turn off a person’s ability to perform cost/benefit analyses altogether?
A criminal, especially one who commits crimes for the material rewards, isn’t going to commit crimes if they believe the probable downsides outweigh the probable upsides. Killing robbers increases the downsides (death) and reduces the upsides (likelihood of getting away with the loot), thereby providing a disincentive to rob people.
Snowboard Bo: You’re trying to reason with people who are thrilled with vigilantism. Odd thing, that, on this board vigilantism gets a lot of support. I’d think, given the board’s stated mission, the opposite would be the case.
Yes, I know. 'Tis a failing of mine, that I try to reason with everyone, perhaps.
As I said in the OP tho, I have no problem with Mr. Ersland’s initial shooting. I firmly believe that he was well within his rights to have shot during the robbery. It’s only after the robbery attempt is concluded, and he gets another gun and pumps 5 rounds into the guy lying on the ground, helpless, that I have a problem with his actions.
And yes, I’m somewhat surprised at the number of people here, who I suspect would otherwise consider themselves big fans of law enforcement, that have called this killing not only justifiable, but desirable.
I think this guy should be convicted of murder, but his sentence reduced to probation
Hansel’s post #133 is the kicker for me. Ersland shot Parsons 5 times in the belly. If he truly was frightened for his life, he would have fired into his face. That, to me, demonstrates that Ersland was perfectly lucid in his vengence and went back knowing and wanting to kill Parsons, not any adrenaline-fueled self-defense claim
Look, everyone’s making a lot of assumptions on Ersland’s state of mind. Yes, someone could be so high from the robbery that he’s not thinking straight, thats believable. And its also believable that a trained former soldier executed someone he considered scum just because he can. But all we can judge a man is on the actions and the facts known about the case. Those facts, as the video shows, point heavily towards Ersland not feeling a threat from Parsons anymore and simply wanting to kill him
With that said, I think Ersland should be free but on probation. What he did was wrong, but given the situation, understandable. He shouldnt get off scot free, so I’d rather have him convicted than not. But I dont think he should serve a long prison sentence either
Monty
Hmm, how does vigilantism go against fighting ignorance? That’s just your opinion, bubba.
Yeah. He said that. See the part there where he said “I’d think”?
ETA: jimpatro, your posts would be easier to read if you used the Quote feature properly. I sometimes think you are addressing a poster with a quote, rather than quoting the poster.
Exactly. And the part where I said “I’d think” is the opposite of what vigilantes are doing. In my case, I’m thinking; in their case, they’re just committing a crime.
This is why the liberals have such a hard time getting support, even though most of their positions are popular. Normal people can’t manage to muster sympathy for a guy who got shot six times while robbing a convenience store. I seriously just don’t understand how your sympathy goes to the robber, and not the guy who was robbed.
Ignoring the partner of a robbery is a big mistake. The one who is shot needs to be secured starting with a removal of his gun. This has to be done with one eye on the door and your gun still drawn. It ends when the police show up and secure the area.
If Erland is rational enough to decide to pre-emptively shoot the robber to eliminate the threat, taking specific steps to carry this out (getting another gun) then I think its quite reasonable to assume that he’s rational enough to consider other options to remove himself from the threat. (this would include hiding, tying the robber up, leaving the store or whatever).
If you are going to argue that pre-emptively removing a threat is rational and correct then you should evaluate his actions in light of other rational actions he could have taken - including removing himself from the threat.
Another thought - if you are going to keep a weapon for self defence then I also think there is a certain responsibility you bear to use the weapon mostly rationally - so the idea of “he was hyped and running on fear” when he delivered the second round of shots doesn’t hold too much weight for me. The idea being that he is no longer “reacting” - yeah, maybe he was running on adrenaline and not thinking properly, but if you are going to carry a weapon it is somewhat incumbent upon you to NOT still be reacting this way once the immediate threat is removed.
The same way that it is incumbent on you to learn how to drive a car properly if you are going to use one.
I’m surprised Monty is confusing vigilantism with self-defense, myself. At least, that’s what it looks like he’s doing. Monty, if someone tries to rob you, it is not vigilantism to shoot them.
It’s vigilantism when you hunt them down after the crime is committed, and act as judge, jury, and executioner. Or even as police. Vigilante behavior is pre-meditated, while self-defense is spontaneous.
And I can’t begin to understand how you can’t muster any sympathy whatsoever for a kid who got shot 5 times while he was down.
The two are not mutually exclusive, y’know ?
Yeah, yeah, I get it, he’s a criminal, the scum of the Earth and all that. He’s still a human being, i.e. someone like me.
As has been already argued in the thread (and I happen to agree), once the robber is down and unconscious, the robbery is over. The crime has been averted, the danger’s mostly gone. Walking to get a second gun and pumping rounds into the prone perp isn’t self-defense, it’s an execution.
Besides, I would point out that the object of self-defense is not to kill one’s assailant, but to prevent or stop the assault. To make the “bad guys” flee, or incapacitate them. Death is the possible yet always regrettable consequence of self-defense, not the goal thereof.
And that’s a multiple robbee speaking (although, I admit, never at gunpoint, since guns are outlawed in France and even outlaws don’t have them for the most part ;))
After several views of the video, I think the idea that he acted in anything other than a calculated manner to be nothing but apologism for his actions.
If he was pumped up with adrenaline, and still coming down from being in fear of his life, do you really think he’d have had the clear-headedness to phone the police immediately after finishing off the robber on the floor?
He wasn’t ignored. He was chased from the premises. Obviously Mr. Ersland was satisfied that he was not coming back, or he would have removed the block of wood which prevented the door from closing and locked the door.
He was unarmed. He was unconscious and immobile on the ground. How much more secure could he have been? Other than dead, I mean?
I agree with this last part. Mr. Ersland should have called the cops immediately upon re-rentering the store, and waited for them to come and secure the area, keeping his gun trained on the perp he had already shot.
Which is what happened here. The robbery was over. That situation had ended.
Mr. Ersland than went and got another gun, returned to the guy on the ground, crouched or bent down, and fired 5 shots point blank into the guy’s belly. It was a deliberate, planned action, unlike the first shot that hit the guy in the head, which was a spontaneous (and legitimate) act of self-defense.