No it won’t, it’ll be full of petty criminals willing to kill all witnesses. If I’ll fry for stealing the gum and I’ll fry for killing the clerk, why not eliminate witnesses? I’d have nothing to lose.
I’m pretty sure that’s not the case, as vigilantism is still illegal. What if I rob someone and don’t get caught, but the clerk recognizes me a month later elsewhere?
OK.
The gunman, the wheelman, the godfather and another d-bag have all been arrested. That fact is not in dispute as far as I know.
The noble criminal angle? Is that really the line you want to take? Unless you are Keanu Reeves in the movie Point Break, and your girlfriend is being held hostage so you have to rob a bank to save her life, every shit-bag criminal has a choice to make before they break the law. It is the cowardly who breaks society’s rules to better themselves. That works for violent or non violent criminals FWIW.
Well, that explains the difference in our opinions. You might fancy yourself as a hell of a guy, and you may be now, but when you were preying on others by taking that which did not belong to you, you were a cowardly criminal. Is that black and white enough for you?
How did that work for the first two? One is dead and the other in jail. Do you think they kept the real talent in reserve just in case a vendetta was necessary?
And you don’t think they have family or friends who might be hot-headed enough to seek revenge? We’ll see!
You might not think so, but I find anyone who is prepared to deal heroin or crack has to have at least a little bottle, and the same goes for anyone who can carry off a bank robbery or armed blag without hurting anyone. These people are just as courageous as the cop who goes into a drug-den backed by 20 accomplices.
Yup. At least I know where I stand with you.
Don’t try and make out the guy was like Charley Bronson or something! He was hidden from the gunman and took a pot-shot at an unarmed boy( Yes, if he was armed, do you think he would not have had it out already?). Up to that point, he could have claimed to be a bit of a hero, but his actions afterwards turned him into an executioner.
No. Revenge against what? Shooting him in the head while his life was threatened?
Yeah… sure… :rolleyes:
I’m glad there is no doubt.
The dumbass walked into an armed robbery and then put his mask on, and you expect him to have gone in with his gun had he been armed? Did I forget to tell you that I think most criminals are stupid too?
Ersland’s actions eliminated the multiple threats against him, his employees, any customers that may have been in the store, and any future victims that Parker would have threatened. Hero might be a bit much, but not too far off of the mark. Those last 5 shots do not take away from the fact that he stood his ground against the low lifes that threatened him and who attempted to take what was not theirs through lethal force. That fact will remain in the back of the minds of any wishing to seek retribution upon him.
No. Executing him without trial.
It’s no more out there than your “all criminals are cowards” schtick.
There’s no doubt you have a high opinion of your opinions.
Why, has it been announced he was armed?
Most? Do you want to be more specific?
Is he paying you a retainer?
Still waiting on those cites.
Witness protection is typically to protect the shitbag who squealed from the shitbags on whom he squealed. I daresay it but seldom involves street-level shitbags who do stuff like attempt to hold up a pharmacy.
I’d do it pro bono.
TWEEEEEEEEET!!!
Personals shot at ivan astikov are not permitted, here, just because he has admitted to engaging in criminal behavior.
Everyone knock it off.
= = =
OTOH, Ivan, this schtick of jumping into thread to defend the poor beleaguered criminals has long since gotten old. Billy the Kid might have just been caught on the wrong side of history, but most felons who have become folk heroes–Jesse James and that sort–were just evil gits who happened to find a sympathetic press. Your constant attempt to portray the “heroic” qualities of criminals, particularly in threads where that is not an issue, does nothing but disrupt threads. If you want another go at presenting “crook as wqonderful human being,” then open up a separate thread to discuss it. (It will likely wind up in the Pit, but you can have your say, there.)
[ /Moderating ]
That was a helluva shot though - from across the room, with a handgun, during a real life dangerous situation, one shot to the head. Only bad point (from a tactical viewpoint) is that he shot the wrong guy. He shoulda shot the one with the gun first.
Another point to consider is that the guy who got shot may have been innocent. He may have been being coerced into committing the robbery by the guy with the gun. So from a legal standpoint you can’t necessarily just shoot someone who appears to be robbing you (in the way he did) because there are situations (rare though they may be) where someone robbing you is not committing a crime - eg if they are acting under duress.
I realise that this was probably not happening in this particular case but I’m taking the wider view - there may be situations where this does happen. Thus the law doesn’t allow you to pump five bullets into someone who’s no longer a threat because there are, in existence, legal reasons why that person may yet be innocent. You don’t know all the facts at this stage. Since the reasons for him robbing you are unknown at this time, we need to have a trial to uncover them. If you shoot him, we can’t have a trial to determine his guilt or innocence. So the law frowns on “finishing them off”.
Once they’re not a threat the law doesn’t want you murdering them because there may exist legal reasons why they were robbing you. The fact of the existence of these few legal reasons means the law wants them alive just to establish whether they are true in this case. If it wasn’t for these reasons you could probably shoot them and the law won’t bat an eye.
What exactly IS the bravery of being a bank robber, ivan? I loved Dog Day Afternoon as much as the next person, but I don’t think that putting a gun to someone’s head and demanding money is all that brave.
In that I have already told Ivan that that subject is off topic for this thread, I would strongly urge you to withdraw the questiona and, if you are really interested, open a separate thread to discuss it.
[ /Modding ]
Oops, sorry. Didn’t see that post. Question withdrawn.
NM, topic off limits per last 2 posts.
No, in Oklahoma it’s called “Stand Your Ground”, but it’s patterned after similar laws in Texas and Florida that are called “Make My Day” laws. The way it’s described (on local news) is you have the right to use deadly force on your own property if you “feel a grave and imminent threat”. Not quite a blanket absolution, but a little vague for my tastes. Part of why this is such a big story here is because it is expected to be the first real legal challenge to the law.
And I agree with you. Homicide. I still haven’t seen or heard anything to change my mind. But I do hope the eventual jury has access to a lot more evidence than we do.
Excuse my picking up this hijack again, but just to clarify: Third trimester abortions are illegal in Kansas except when deemed medically necessary to save the mother from death or irreparable physical harm, or when the fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb, including many cases where the fetus has already died inside the womb.
The late-term abortions performed by the murdered Dr. Tiller were not done for kicks or on a whim, but in order to save women’s lives and health. No matter how physically repulsive the procedure for performing late-term abortions may be, are you really saying that you’d rather see pregnant women die, or get serious infections from keeping dead fetuses in their wombs, than have their pregnancies aborted by a repulsive procedure?
Despite what you may hear from anti-abortion organizations trying to pump up indignation and sympathy for their cause, late-term abortions are not widely available on demand in the US or frequently sought. They are heavily regulated, and the vast majority of the women who seek them are facing tragic and traumatic medical emergencies. Focusing on the “atrociousness” of the procedure while deliberately ignoring the circumstances that make the procedure medically necessary is shortsighted at best, and downright deceptive at worst.
I can only wonder what purpose you thought you would be serving by this. I have never said he used too much force, or that his gun was too big, or anything similar. I don’t recall that anyone else in this thread has either.
Unless you are going to argue that Mr. Ersland was justified in using overwhelming force against zero force (or resistance), your point is lost on me.
A woman getting a serious infection from a dead fetus in her womb. How would this qualify as an abortion?
But you don’t know that there was zero force. There may have been potential force. As long as scumbag was alive there was.
:rolleyes:
I am forming my opinion from the information that is available. What are you using?
Imagination. One must consider what might happen if one doesn’t act. As mentioned before, the guy on the floor could have revived and pulled a gun. His buddies could have come back. There were four total. He at least lowered the odds to three against one.