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.
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.
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.”
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.
I suppose, if you look at it that way… 
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
When Ersland took that first shot, do you believe Parker had a right not get shot?
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?
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.
Fact is stranger than fiction.
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.
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.
A lot of people would consider it murder if the criminal appeared to be running away.
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.