I meant that I don’t think he was lying. As I said in my post, he may have been hit by flying casings thus thinking he was shot.
And I meant that if he had lied, he had no reason to. The perp pulled a gun first but Ersland can shoot first if he has the chance. And he did.
Like morality, it’s not a zero sum game. They were both allowed to survive. Unless you can demonstrate that the only way Ersland could have survived the encounter was by killing a prone and quite probably unconscious guy ?
I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. If he was dead from the headshot it was no biggie shooting him some more ? Parker had the same chances of surviving 5 point-blank gut shots as one headshot ? What ?
No, Parker should not be allowed to survive. Why should he?
And regarding the first head shot and subsequent 5 belly shots.
There are those who are fine with the first shot to the head but not with last shots. It’s hypocrisy that it’s okay for him to have died from the head shot but not the belly shots. He no less dead one way or the other. Although Ersland is alive either way and that’s what’s most important. It’s all been covered up thread.
Wait… what? I’m not sure I follow. It seems to me that your claim of “hypocrisy” is based on a pretty egregious equivocation. Yes, he’d be no more dead from five fatal belly shots than from one fatal headshot, but there are other differences you can’t ignore, such as, for example, the circumstances under which the shots were delivered. Since it’s a matter of law that it is generally okay to shoot and kill someone who is a current and deliberate threat to someone’s safety, and not generally okay otherwise, the distinction between circumstances becomes extremely important.
I don’t see how you could possibly think that someone observing this difference is made a “hypocrite.”
Because there’s no death penalty for robbery ? Because it’s not Ersland’s decision ? Because he’s got the right to live, even though he committed one crime ? I dunno. Obviously you’re of the opinion that all criminals should be shot. Thankfully, justice doesn’t happen to agree with you.
As has been belabored the point you refuse to consider : that while he was demonstrably threatening Ersland before the first shot*, it’s doubtful he still was while on the ground unconscious, esp. when Ersland doesn’t display any sign of feeling threatened. The whole point is that while it would have been okay to kill him with the first shot, it is not to have killed him with the subsequent, calculated five. It’s not the end result that matters, but the circumstances and intent behind each specific, separate act.
I know, I know, it’s a non-trivial concept. Take your time.
Heh, here’s is an amusing way to make the point crystal : if the end result is what matters to you, then Parker & his mate are not thieves, since there was no robbery. See how silly that sounds ?
Shell casing and bullets leave distinctly different wounds. This is something an owner of multiple guns (or for that matter, anyone who thinks about it) would know.
Even if it doesn’t help his case to lie, it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t. He could have simply felt it made him look slightly better if the robbers fired at him.
Because robbery isn’t a capital offense.
When Ersland took the first shot the robber was still obviously an active potential threat. He was still mobile and, his accomplice was armed, and could very likely have been too. Ersland’s actions can be easily seen as self preservation, and protection of those around him. If the perp had died from this shot, it would have been unfortunate, but it wouldn’t have been murder.
When he took the second shot (and the next four), it was no longer so clear cut (and in my opinion, very likely) that the robber was threat, or that the pharmacist perceived him as one.
I don’t really see where the hypocrisy comes in.
Edit: I see I took too long to type that…
I used to let these clearly illegal shootings fly. You never know when a loved one or friend might cross the line a little bit when they’re scared. But with the growing blood thirstiness, bigotry, and racism in the gun community, especially as it is represented on the internet, for our own good, this guy needs to be punished.
There was a robbery. Maybe you’re the silly one.
I’m talking about Parker’s death during the robbery. The distinction of when the robbery ended is one factor that will be decided in court.
… you don’t grasp rethorical points either. Grand.
I’m done here, I’ll let a jury of my peers decide whether or not I’ve been patient enough. Right now, my neurons are seriously considering self-defense against your remarkable obtuseness.
Did you feel a little breeze in your hair when that one was sailing over?
I did feel a weak analogy.
You cannot tell what Ersland was feeling or thinking by his actions. You may think you can but you give yourself too much credit.
What do wounds have to do with anything? Ersland thought he was shot. That’s all. He just thought he was.
Why would he think it would make him look better. I have never heard the concept that one must fire second in combat in order to be justified. Where did you come up with that?
Okay peers, chime in! Has he been patient enough?
It doesn’t require assuming he did the right thing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can recognize that that it’s possible he executed the kid, as I have several times, and still be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if we lack very clear strong evidence. Why? Because he was the one who was the victim of an armed robbery and the dead boy was one of the robbers.
With those facts I think we require very strong and clear evidence to charge a man who defended himself in an armed robbery with homicide. Lacking said evidence, we accept his story , all the while knowing he could be lying.
Because you tell if you’ve been shot by whether or not you have bullet wound. It’s like right at the top of the list of symptoms.
He may very well have thought he was shot at…
I didn’t come up with that. I’m not taking about laws are rules here, I’m talking about the way people think. If it makes you look bad for shooting someone, people tend to think they can make themselves look better if they say “Well they shot at me, too”.
I can understand it seeming that way but I maintain that lacking clear strong evidence , “what it seems”, doesn’t outweigh the fact he was the victim of an armed robbery. IMHO. I would imagine* if *he suddenly realized the downed robber was alive, conscious, and trying to get up, his only thought was to remove all question of a possible attack.
I’ll ask him but there’s a good chance he doesn’t care what skeptics on a discussion board think. I understand the doubts about fully automatic weapons. It sounded hard to believe when he told me. I’ve already said the point I’m making stands even if that is embellishment. Other than that there are unanswered questions about the details of the crime but I see no reason to find the other details far fetched or extremely unlikely.
regardless my point doesn’t require a specific true account but merely a little reasoning and imagination. If you wound an armed robber you and anyone else around will not be safe from harm unless you’re sure that person can’t hurt you. A moments hesitation or misplaced mercy can cost dearly.
As a matter of fact I’d say premeditated murder would be a very bad call. Manslaughter with extenuating circumstances maybe. I think it’s hard to claim premeditation in an event only seconds long in which everyone agrees the first shot was justified.
I don’t think Parker was fair game regardless of circumstances. I’d say he was the victim of a dangerous situation that he consciously placed himself and innocent others in.
Which people say this? You’re pulling that out of your ass.
What does a bullet wound look like? You probably think they all look the same.
It could be a huge gaping hole or it could be a barely visible scrape. It could feel like being hit by a car or it could feel like a rush of air. Being hit by a flying casing fits somewhere in between.