I have a friend who was the victim of a home invasion years ago. He owns some serious firepower now and practices.
I was thinking of someone who buys a gun for defense without being an enthusiast. If they live in a “bad” neighborhood and decide to own a weapon just in case , I hope they practice.
The teen who got away, and two 22 year olds who were waiting in the car, have all been arrested and are now facing felony murder charges because of Parson’s death.
As a very pro-gun rights, pro-self-defense, and a licensed CCW holder who carries, I can’t back the guy in the OP. The first shot, yes. And if he’d emptied his gun into the person all at once, yes. Even if he’d chased them out of the store firing, well, I’d put that into a grey area of “adrenaline madness.” But the stopping, getting another gun, then administering the coup de grace, no, I can’t ethically or morally support that in this case.
This guy, however, is a drooling idiot.
Funny how the NAACP didn’t castigate the dead men for the armed robbery that led to their deaths in the first place, huh. :dubious:
Not to beat SenorBeef to the punch but this is true. Our own police force is issued 50 rounds!!! per year for target practice. 50 rounds!!!
Most folks I know fire over a thousand rounds a year.
I agree, and while I hope that Ersland gets off light, I don’t think he lacks responsibility in this. He shot a guy he didn’t need to shoot, that’s murder.
Yup, that’s retarded. I went to school with a cop who taught shooting at the police range.
Caller: I need the police. I just shot a robber.
911: Is he still there? Or did you chase him off?
Caller: One ran away. The one I shot is lying on my floor bleeding.
911: Officers are on the way.
Caller: I’m keeping my gun on this guy until you get here.
911: I’ll make sure the officers are aware, sir.
Then when the cops show up, you drop the weapon and let them take control of the situation.
How do I know this? I was the caller. I saw a guy beating his girlfriend in the street, called the cops, and then went outside and wailed on the guy. Subdued him and held him until police showed up. I had a pipe in my hand, not a gun, but that’s how you deal with it: you communicate information to the police so they can do their job properly.
Why did you say that you shot him?
And why did you say that he was bleeding on the floor?
Sounds like you did just what Ersland did but with a pipe.
You could have run out there and shouted "STOP!! GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW!! I HAVE A WEAPON!!
But no, you just “wailed on him”.
Una you should know better than this. You don’t know that the NAACP didn’t say anything castigating the robbers, do you? All you know is that the story didn’t quote him saying anything castigating about the robbers, right?
:rolleyes:
yeah, i was silent like a ninja. I didn’t yell or breathe, and the sound of my front door opening didn’t make any noise either. My feet didn’t make any sound on the pavement, because I wushu.
I’m not typing epics for your enjoyment. I’m not about to list every second-by-second detail of every incident I’ve ever been thru.
FTR, of course I yelled. But it was more “HEY! KNOCK IT OFF! LET HER GO!” then he got a crack in the back with a steel pipe, because he didn’t let her go.
Seriously, stick to talking about facts you know. Ask questions if you need more facts. But stop making suppositions and hypotheticals that support a conclusion you desire. You don’t do yourself or your position any good that way.
And btw, my situation was different than Mr. Ersland’s in that I didn’t continue to beat the guy after I had him subdued.
Seriously, Dewd.
What about the gun in the call and the bleeding.
And after you yelled at him you hit him. Was he not stopping his attack?
Please re-read, this time with your comprehension setting at “full”.
What video are you watching? I watched it again to make sure I wasn’t imagining it. He looks at the downed robber before he leaves the store and again when he comes back in. I noticed the caption underneath says he claims to have shot him the 2nd time when he was trying to get up. In the first angle he seems to be hurrying a bit before he fires a 2nd time. The 2nd one not so much.
It’s possible he knew he hit the kid in the head and a glance confirmed it. He may have thought the kid was dead when he left the store and when he walked by him coming back in. Then when he heard him trying to get up he fired again.
I’d like to hear his side of it. He did walk right up to him so I still have a hard time thinking he saw the kid as a threat even if he was trying to get up, but realistically, in that situation, you don’t wait to see how conscious he is and if he’s got a gun. You make sure he can’t hurt you.
I thought he was dead after I saw two people trying to rob me with a gun and I opened fire.
As I was reloading or whatever I heard him trying to get up. At that point not knowing how much of a threat he was I fired again and made sure he was dead.
The part that gets me is walking right up to him. If he heard him moving and thought he might be a threat why not shoot from behind the counter rather than expose yourself to a potential threat? I think that means he saw no weapon. Still, should he be required to wait until he did have a gun pointing at him?
What kind of weapon was he brandishing?
What about you shooting someone bleeding on the floor?
You said it yourself.
No, the question that I answered with that response relates to why he would turn his back to a potential threat. My point is that in real life, not Law and Order, or the Shield, etc., stress makes people act differently than they do on TV or as compared to our preconceived notions of how someone should act n any given situation.
That specific response that you quoted had nothing to do with the second series of shots.
Snowboarder Bo In all fairness you did describe a situation where someone was shot. Then went on to say it was something you were involved in, then changed it to a steel pipe.
I understand entirely what you are getting at, but you did word it pretty poorly.
I can’t see it as murder in this situation. some form of manslaughter with extenuating circumstances maybe.
Even if he executed the kid out of rage then fact remains that he was the one robbed at gunpoint. If he did indeed hear the kid getting trying to get up and thought a threat was still present he’s justified in defending himself.
If I wounded an armed burglar I really don’t know what I’d do. Would I have the presence of mind to say “Lay down on the floor and hands behind your back” Would I check to see who had what weapon? Or, would I shoot until I was sure there was no threat?
The tape indicates he approached the kid and saw no weapon. That’s where the question comes in to me. He’s wounded and down with no weapon in sight. Granted the merchant doesn’t know whether he has a concealed weapon or not so there is still a chance the kid’s a real threat. Why not stay behind the counter and see if he reaches for anything? He’s shooting with one hand. Can’t you dial 911 with the other?
I feel bad for the poor stupid kid. He fumbles with his mask when he first comes in and he barely gets it in place when he takes a bullet to the head. I feel bad but I don’t blame the merchant for the kids actions. Shoplifting is not the same as armed robbery.
I get it. In this case it appears the merchant heard the kid in his store trying to get up before he called the police. {providing his claim is true} So he chose to eliminate any possibility of threat before he called the cops.
I’ve got a loaded weapon. He’s down and bloody with no weapon in sight. It does seem to me he could have covered the injured boy while dialing 911.
conceded
The dialogue was what Mr. Ersland could have said to keep himself from being shot by police when they arrived.
My story differed in that it was an assault taking place, and I used a length of pipe. I also placed the 911 call before I stepped in to the situation. But I alerted the officers that I would be there with a weapon in hand, that I was stopping the fight, not a part of it.
My apologies for the poor wording. I’m trying to do 6 things at once atm.