What an interesting world you must live in. Everyone is either 100% good or 100% evil forever. No good person has ever been pushed to end of their rope to attempt crime, no bad person has ever had a change of heart and been redeemed.
Clearly that robber, laying helpless in a pool of his own blood, didn’t deserve a fair trial under the law to see if his crime justified the death penalty. You do believe in the rule of law right?
People like you are savages.
I have trouble finding a whole lot of sympathy for the victims here. I can’t imagine this is anything but manslaughter, or something less than murder. The pharmacy owner didn’t start this situation and it is somewhat understandable that he made a mistake in firing the second volley of shots. The idea that he should spend the rest of his life in prison is laughable. Is he somehow a threat to law abiding citizens?
I am also having trouble with Bernie Goetz being mentioned in the same breath as Charles Manson. I was only 11 when Goetz shot, but I understand his motives and can’t help but think that he had something to do with the changed climate in NYC.
Many people in NY idolized Bernie Goetz. The liberal crowd who was raised to have their hearts bleed for poor “inner-city youth” criminals who were naturally just acting out because of the evil racist system condemned him, of course, but average Joe and Jane in Brooklyn and Queens loved Goetz for finally giving some payback to the thugs who had been scaring the bejeezus out of New Yorkers for decades. New York during the 80s and early 90s was a scary place and I can remember the sense of fear when I heard my New York relatives talk about it as a little kid. The citizens of New York had been totally cowed into submission by street crime - the Goetz incident made a lot of them feel good even if they didn’t publicly admit it.
It seems to me to be a case of murder, unlawful killing. The best defense I can see is the adrenaline rush idea. That does not excuse murder but it would, or ought to, mitigate the sentence.
So do you believe that all people convicted of armed robbery should be given the death penalty regardless of situation?
The law holds that one life is of much value as another. Equal justice under law and all that.
I don’t think that Argent requires a conviction in a court of law for the death penalty to be applicable. I’m sure he’ll clarify if I’ve interpreted his stance incorrectly.
Hopefully, he’ll answer the questions I posed to him in post #77 as well. Scumpup, if you’d like to answer those as well, I’d find it enlightening.
I think they should be eligible for the death penalty. I am in favor of the death penalty being used for crimes other than murder, including rape and armed robbery. And I think it should happen fast, not after years of appeals. I do not personally believe that all lives are equal. This concept doesn’t make sense. If someone is a criminal who seeks to make money by coercing people under the threat of death, his life is not equal to that of an innocent person who has harmed no one.
morally reprehensible but legally i don’t see anything that would be enough to overturn it from self-defense to manslaughter in the eyes of the texas legal system. This was a shade darker than Bernie Goetz, who indeed was a folk-hero murderer.
So was Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett, Robin Hood, Shaka Zulu, Geronimo, Wiliam Tell…
As for post 77 I think that as long as the robber was in his store, he posed a threat. If the guy had hunted the robber down and killed him at his house, I certainly wouldn’t try to argue that it would be anything other than murder. But I also wouldn’t shed a tear over it nor have an ounce of sympathy for the murder victim. Someone who robs people, in my opinion, deserves to be killed. That is a risk they are assuming when they choose to pursue the career of robbery. It’s part of the job description, an occupational hazard that they willingly accept. All robbers should spontaneously combust for all I care. I wouldn’t give a damn.
Thank you for answering.
Can you please describe, as you see it, the threat that an unconscious individual poses? Specifically, can you describe the threat that an unconscious individual poses to a man armed with a loaded pistol?
Been robbed before, at gunpoint. At least thirty minutes later I was still pretty jumpy. I’ve seen two people shot before, same reaction.
Ersland was not cool and collected 45 seconds after the shooting started. He may not have shown it in the video but you can bet that he was highly strung out and in fear of his life and those other emplyees hiding in the back.
See this isn’t a polo match or a friendly game of cards. It’s about survival. It’s savage combat. He could not know if the BG on the floor had a concealed weapon or if the guy who ran off might return or a third BG might show up. He had to lower the odds and completely eliminate the threat of the robber on the floor.
He wanted to stay alive!
If he had killed the robber initially with the first shot to the head, he would be no less dead than he is now. But Ersland wouldn’t have even been charged. How ridiculous is that?
And if the robber was doing this line of work because his kids needed food as opposed to he just hates people, someone he might kill robbing them won’t be less dead either.
Head wounds are not always fatal. It is not unheard-of for an unconscious person to regain consciousness. Until the cops arrive, the potential threat still exists.
Yeah, killing innocent people is fun.
I can actually get one hundred percent behind this. Except for the risk of accidental identification of a robbery, but, you know, I can still get behind this. Note: This is for people who are actually in the process of robbing someone. The difference between that and being tried for armed robbery is that generally, it’s a hundred percent sure the guy with a gun and a mask who tells you to give him your money, is, in fact, the robber who told you to give him your money.
Being tried for armed robbery may involve being caught days, weeks, months, years later.
There is no doubt that what was taking place was a robbery. At no time in this discussion has AT advocated killing innocent people. I agree with him (and others) that shooting a perpetrator during the commission of a robbery is a valid and proper response.
Where I differ is in the propriety of shooting a robbery suspect after the attempted robbery is over, while he is unconscious, immobile and defenseless.
I disagree completely. They are entirely responsible and should be tried as such. If they were not committing armed robbery, he wouldn’t have killed anyone that night. It’s their fault and they should be tried as such. They created the situation.
… so if in a soccer game, a guy from, say, the Spanish team, kicks someone from, say, the Italian team, it’s the fault of the Italian coach? Or maybe the Italian masseur? Man, not even sportscasters had been able to come up with such ilogic, so far.
Shooting the guys trying to rob you: self defense.
Shooting a guy that’s unconscious on the floor: murder.
I am actually not in favor of the death penalty. To be clear I am in favor of giving the victim of a crime extremely wide latitude in deciding how much force is appropriate. Citizens are not trained police officers or military. They should not be expected to excersize perfect judgement when in fear of their life. Thus I forgive Goetz and I think this guy over reacted, but the law should be lenient when dealing with him.
He did not create the situation that led to this shooting. That to me is the key to his responsibility.
I agree with this.