Well, ideally, he should first say “stop, or I’ll shoot”, or something similar. But, depending on where the gunman was, and fast he was moving, he might not have had time, since once he makes it upstairs, The Older Brother would likely be walking into “automatic weapon” fire if he tried to follow. But really given the intensity of the situation, and how fast things probably played out, I wouldn’t expect TOB to be able to think things through that far. So I guess what I mean to say, is no reasonable person would call him a murderer.
No, the issue with the pharmacist’s actions, the only reason they’re being discussed here, is that the robber at least appeared incapacitated, with no visible weapon. The video showed other possible victims leaving the area immediately. The robber wasn’t moving towards them, wasn’t mobile, and in all likelihood wasn’t moving at all. Ersland walk past him to retrieve a second weapon, it wasn’t a reaction to robbers action. This is completely different from the situation you described.
If, however, you have another friend on Facebook, who has a relative who shot a robber or possible assailant, so that they appeared to be incapacitated, only for them come to, produce a concealed weapon and murder/rape/injure, someone, leaving the relative with regret for not finishing the job, then feel free to submit that story as anecdotal evidence.
I notice you’re assuming the wounded perp still has a weapon as he is trying to get away. Is that because it fits better with your conclusion or did you have some other reason for assuming things not stated? I only say because I notice this pattern when people read a story they are skeptical of. Rather than ask questions to clarify they simply assume things they don’t actually know. I suppose it’s the opposite of people embellishing stories in the retelling.
It’s really ridiculous for you to compare the details of two armed robberies in which both victims returned fire and describe it as *completely different * or inapplicable. Yes there are differences and I’m aware of them.
Did Ersland walk past him to get the gun specifically to kill the robber or was he merely making sure he could still protect himself since the weapon he had might be empty or nearly so?
If the downed robber was completely immobile did Ersland even know he was alive as he walked past? Did he move or make a noise after Ersland walked past? Did he try to get up?
I’ve said this several times, it may be that Ersland executed an unconscious robber out of rage or some other reason. It may also be that when he realized the downed robber was conscious and trying to get up he chose an action that ensured his safety with no regard for someone who just tried an armed robbery.
Nice sarcasm. It’s still ridiculous to say they’re completely different.
I do have another facebook friend who has his degree in criminology. He noted that police are trained in “the use of force continuum” over and over again about what situations justifies deadly force. Even then they don’t always follow training when the bullets start flying. You can’t expect a civilian defending himself to behave under those guidelines. He says if the kid was on the floor unconscious the 2nd shooting can’t really be justified but if he regained consciousness and was trying to get up the use of force continuum applies and murder is out of the question. IHO.
In reading more recent articles I get the impression that the DA will regret bringing charges against Ersland.
Did you notice how many seconds he was out of the store. Not many. He looks at the downed robber before he leaves. It’s possible he thought the downed robber was dead or completely unconscious until he tried to get up.
That’s the part that bothered me the most. I can’t believe Ersland saw any *immediate *threat and approached that close. Either he saw Parker a threat because he was still alive at all, or he just executed him.
Yes. And as has been repeated repeatedly, Ersland walked past the guy twice and didn’t cower in fear, and Ersland didn’t grab a heavy object in case he was attacked while reloading, and he didn’t shoot from a position of safety. The second choice, “just executed him” seems much more likely.
And Mr. Cosmosdan, I can’t totally dismiss your tale of rape and gunplay at Howard Johnsons, but if it’s true, my BS detector needs a factory tuneup. So, if you could trouble your friend to get a few details from his friend, I’d be interested in knowing what year, and in what city this took place.
Doesn’t matter, Einstein. Even convicted, proven, taped on camera and sitting on death row, guess what ? The criminal still has rights, one of 'em being the right not to be killed by anyone feels they have the right to.
But I guess I owe you an apology - 12th century was off base. You’re more of a 17th-18th, Isaac Parker, lynch mob kinda guy.
I agree on most of that, and I already said numerous times I had no problem with the first shot. But that’s not what Judge Dredd here was saying. He said Parker’s death could not have been murder, because he was a criminal in the middle of a crime. Ergo, he was fair game, no matter the circumstances.
Do you really want to defend such a statement ? Do you think it’s an idea well thought through ?
I notice that people are still willing to give Mr. Ersland the benefit of the doubt, even tho he has been caught in at least one lie.
It is clear from the video that the only shots fired were by Mr. Ersland.
Even if it isn’t clear to you, it should be clear that when the police say “There is no evidence that anyone fired shots other than Mr. Ersland” they are talking about,well, evidence of shots fired. No bullet from the robber’s gun in the ceiling, no bullet holes or other damage anywhere in the store from shots other than Mr. Ersland’s, no casings (if the robbers’ gun was an automatic pistol), no evidence of muzzle blast… NO EVIDENCE.
If you think that the police are lying, or covering up for the robbers, I’d sure like to hear why you think that.
Mr. Ersland has thus already shown us that he is not truthful, and so cannot be trusted. Why do you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he did the right thing?
You don’t have to wait for somone aiming a gun at you to fire first before you fire.
It would be a needless lie. He probably felt his own casings hiitting him.
I answered it. Doesn’t matter who or what Parker was. He could have been a kitten raping Nazi on fire - that would not have given Ersland the right to execute him (assuming that’s what he did, which is the most likely explanation).
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?
No. It is the explanation that you favor. Since the available security footage does not show the wounded robber, you know fuck-all about what he was doing when Ersland killed him.
I didn’t side-step it, I followed it to its next logical step. Twice. Of course, now you’re the one “side-stepping” a simple question…
Allow me to cut to the chase : “A would-be robber is a criminal” isn’t exactly an inconvenient truth, you know ? But just because Parker was a “bad guy”, doesn’t automagically make Ersland a “good guy”. Morality is a tiny teensy bit more complex than that.
Ersland is just automatically the guy who is allowed to survive. Using whatever means necessary. It’s savage, brutal survival.
Again, Parker is no more dead having been shot 5 more times than if he had died from the first shot to the head.
I assumed he had a weapon because you said he had one, you never said he dropped it, and I can think of no logical reason why he would drop it, unless he intended on surrendering (which he apparently didn’t since he ran away), or if was shot out of his hand Western style.
Yes, I’m skeptical of the story you posted. As you said, I don’t know your friend, so unlike you, I can’t take into account any knowledge of how trustworthy he is. I know you said he is, but, I don’t know you either. I’m not calling you a liar (I read the sticky), I just have no gauge of your credibility one way or another.
In other words, all I have to go on is the actual contents of the story, which happens to have multiple believability issues. Which if pressed, I could individually point out, but that would probably be going a little too far off track. We’re already riding the rails.
If this were the other way around, if I had came here an posted that story, I have a hard time believing you wouldn’t be equally skeptical. If not, well, than I’m sorry to say, you’re a very gullible person.
I think you’re missing my point. It’s not the fact that there are differences, it what the differences are. The whole point of contention is whether or not the robber in the pharmacy was sufficiently incapacitated, that lethal force was unwarranted. In your story the criminal clearly wasn’t incapacitated at all. he was able walk, was likely still armed, and heading in the direction of possible victims.
If you post a story as an example of a possible outcome of Ersland not killing that kid (not specifically someone being raped, but you know what I mean), then the circumstances of that story that led to that outcome should be similar to those in those actually occurred. The man in your story was able to rape those girls because he wasn’t incapacitated, even arguably so. That was not the case in the pharmacy incident, that’s why it isn’t applicable.
I’ll admit I was being a bit facetious, but that certainly wasn’t sarcasm. I mean really, if you have a story like that, feel free to share, it would definitely add to the discussion.
It may very well come down to whether or not the robber was conscious, depending on how the laws are written in that state.
Or, it may come down to the jury’s impression of Ersland’s state of mind during the event. If based on the evidence available to them (likely more than we have) they believe he still felt threatened, or felt the other employees in the store were threatened while robber was on the ground, or they feel that due to the circumstances, he wasn’t thinking clearly, he’ll like get off, otherwise he’s likely going to prison.
From what I’ve seen in the videos, his actions appear very deliberate. He doesn’t show signs of someone who feels threatened. He turns his back to the guy on the floor more than once. He walks directly to his second gun, and it doesn’t appear to be a reaction to anything happening in the room.
If I had to make a guess, and I do since I don’t know, I’d say Ersland did what he did because he didn’t think it was wrong or illegal. Hence, he didn’t care about the cameras or possible other witnesses. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who are under the impression that if someone attempts to rob them on their own property (or in this case, property they are in charge of), they have a legal right to kill the person, regardless of the situation.
I think you should have said “it was a needless lie”, unless you have some cite that claims he didn’t say what the police and news media recorded him saying.
And it clearly wasn’t “needless” in Mr. Ersland’s mind. I mean, he did say it after all.