Yeah, and no one here has argued that it wasn’t reasonable for Mr. Ersland to act the way he did when he first started shooting. No one. Not me, not you, not anyone else who has posted in this thread.
But once the robbery is over (1 man down, 1 man gone) it is not reasonable to continue to act as if he (Mr. Ersland) is still under imminent threat without any evidence to support the assumption, and with plenty of evidence that there is no imminent threat. Mr. Parker was on his back, his hands were empty, and according to the ME he was unconscious. He also had just been shot in the head.
The law does not allow you to shoot people because you assumed that they were a threat.
FFS, stop telling me what I would do. You don’t know me. You don’t know my family. For all you know, I hate my family and would watch passively, filled with glee, as an intruder did what I secretly wished I could do.
If you want to describe what you would do, go right ahead. But leave me out of it. I mean, wtf, are some kind of über-control-freak?
He knew, or should have known, that the guy he stepped over twice, and then returned to within 2 feet of to shoot in the belly, had empty hands. Mr. Ersland has a bad back, he’s not blind. He had to have looked at Mr. Parker. When he saw no gun, he should have restrained his trigger finger.
You didn’t say it was a rough estimate of time, you said it was a fact. It wasn’t. Your “fact” was wrong. You haven’t been using facts in your arguments at all. You’ve just been trying to justify your opinion, which seems to have been formed right after reading the headline “Pharmacist shoots robber, gets charged with murder”.
This statement is so far diverged from reality, I have to wonder if you read anything other than the headline of the news story before you first posted. Go back and read the very first post in the thread.
No, you aren’t. The law does not allow you to execute people.
Once the men are down, the threat is over. You are talking about ending their lives, nothing more. You are advocating the cold blooded murder of defenseless humans, without a trial. You are advocating bloodthirst, not justice. In fact, what you are advocating flies in the face of everything that millions of people have fought and died for: our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our whole way of life. You are directly repudiating the justice system, the right to a trial by jury, and due process.
It’s different because it’s another fact you keep getting wrong. Again, you aren’t using facts to discuss the situation at hand. If, to you, a home invasion is no different than a drug store robbbery, why do you keep bringing it up? Just deal with the actual situation, which was a drug store robbery.