On the contrary, that’s exactly what he’s doing. Without a substantial appeals process, the odds of executing an innocent person skyrocket. As it is, people have been exonerated on death row and, unfortunately, posthumously.
That’s not even an actual response to what was said.
They didn’t go to the store and then their friend decided to pull out a gun, which is what your analogy implies. They all went with the intent to commit violence. So yes, they are all responsible for the violence that was committed.
You are talking about situations other than the one under discussion. In THIS instance, there is zero doubt that the person shot and killed had been trying to rob the place.
If you’d like to discuss the death penalty and the appropriateness of the appeals process, I respectfully ask that you start a thread on that topic.
So was Argent Towers.
And I am not the one who brought it up in the first place.
I agree with this.
A better analogy might be that, at a soccer game, the left wing kicks in the game-winning goal. Does his whole team win? Does the whole other team lose?
Answer: The team went with the collective intent to play a soccer game. The whole team wins or loses.
AT seemed to be expounding on his answer to try and show that he has some consistency in his perceptions and position, not to introduce a new subject to the thread.
I think there’s not really any way that a robbery victim, in the middle of an adrenaline rush in an incredibly high-stress situation, could be totally sure that the guy lying unconscious was, in fact, unconscious. For all the pharmacist knew, the guy on the ground could have gotten up at any moment.
I come from a family of mom-and-pop store owners. It’s hard enough running a store, worrying about the rent and the bills and the competition from other stores, without also having to worry about someone coming in with a gun and robbing your shop. People who rob are the scum of the earth; like I said before, I would be happy if every one of them spontaneously burst into flames. The more robbers who are shot to death during their “work,” the fewer robberies will ultimately occur, once the robbers get the message that holding up a store is akin to a death sentence. And this is the message that they should get.
Every single scumbag in America contemplating sticking up a liquor store or a pawn shop or any other business should be just as scared as someone who was contemplating robbing a police station. They should be just as nervous as someone about to walk naked into a lion’s den. Every law abiding shop owner in America who is trying to make a living and support his family in peace should be considered a lion, by default, and robbing them should be considered a suicidal act.
No he didn’t pump 5 rounds into a helpless “Kid”,he killed a nasty loathsome piece of filth who while trying to make money would have happily murdered YOUR mother,YOUR child,Your sibling.
That particular piece of filth will never again threaten to murder anyone to get a bit of money to buy booze or drugs,that nasty laothsome piece of filth will no longer beat his girlfriend up or his mom,or anyone who gets in his way when he’s in a bad mood.
Boo Hoo there is one piece of filth less in the world.
Please explain how “unconscious” is not “helpless”, in your opinion.
For all I know, my neighbors could be about to blow up my house with a bazooka. Am I justified in opening fire on them?
You seriously think that situation is in ANY WAY comparable to a guy lying on your floor who was just moments earlier attempting to forcibly rob you under threat of death? Please man, you’ve been reasonable and logical in this thread - surely you can see the difference.
Robbers are not Robin Hood figures, despite an American mythology that even today still makes them out to be glamorous figures. Heat is a great movie but guess what - most robbers are not suave, sophisticated, cultured, sensitive men like Neil Macaulay (Robert DeNiro) who are “just after the bank’s money” and “want to hurt no one,” as he announces in that film during the bank robbery. This is not a representative sample of armed robbers.
The same people who commit armed robbery are the same people who beat their wives and children, the same people who deal drugs and circulate illegal weapons among criminals, the same people who have 900 children that all grow up in broken homes with dysfunctional parents and introduce more future criminals into the world. They should be removed from the gene pool.
SnowboarderBo
How do you know he was unconscious?
Did you ever hear that being unconscious can lead to being conscious?
Have you ever been in a life threatening situation that you can just dismiss the stress Ersland was going through?
SnowboarderBo
Are you serious with this?
That depends. Have your neighbors demonstrated that they possess a bazooka, threatened to blow up your house with a bazooka or demonstrated a lack of regard for the laws that would prohibit them from blowing up your house with a bazooka?
In which case, Ersland could have covered him with his gun until the police arrived. Shooting an apparently unarmed Parsons multiple times while he was on the ground was totally unnecessary for self-defense. Ersland wasn’t even worried about the possibility of Parsons ‘playing possum’ anyway, given how often he turned his back on him.
One thing to note: Ersland is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He has combat experience. He’s been trained to keep his wits about him while under fire. He’s been trained to evaluate threats and function while in danger.
Argent, what if instead of reloading his gun, Ersland had grabbed a knife and slit Parson’s throat, instead of shooting him? Would that still be justifiable self-defense?
I saw my neighbors with a bazooka. I saw them point it at my house. Then they went inside their house. How can I know they aren’t pointing it at me from inside?
The way I follow your line of thinking, I should open fire because there is potential for a threat.
In this case, the original threat was over with. One robber unconscious, immobile and seriously wounded. The other robber fled the premises. You seem to be advocating that it is proper to then remove any possibility of future threat, even when there is no evidence to suggest that there is, or will be, any other future threat.
Please explain what extant threat an unconscious, immobile, injured man poses to a conscious, mobile, uninjured man who is armed with a loaded pistol, in your opinion.
I don’t think I’ve said anything here that would lead anyone to believe that I view robbers in general, or these robbers, as sympathetic people.
I also think you paint with a broad brush in your last paragraph.
All of the information we have indicates that he was unconscious.
The fact that he “might wake up and might have a gun” is supposition without any evidence.
If it is OK to shoot this kid without any extant evidence of a threat, why is it not OK for me to open fire on my neighbors without any direct evidence of a threat? I know that the potential for a threat might be there, after all.
This assumes that Ersland is a rational commando who is fully lucid of every decision he is making while he makes them.
That training could be working against him, because his training would teach him to eliminate threats. In a war scenario it’s perfectly legitimate to deliver a killing blow to a downed enemy. Also, not all trained soldiers are special forces who are taught to think clearly under extreme pressure.
Yes, I have been in life-threatening situations more than once. I have been shot at on 2 different occassions, been in a fight where the other guy had a knife, been chased by a group of men with baseball bats and have nearly been run down by vehicles while on foot and on a bicycle.
And no, I don’t dismiss the stress that Mr. Ersland was going through.
But what he did was wrong. He executed that young man.
It wouldn’t be justifiable self-defense in a court of law, that’s for sure. But it would be a wonderful thing, in my opinion.
There’s the law, and there’s my opinion. I would never personally do anything like that because I know I’d be in huge trouble and there’s no way I’d throw my whole life away over it. But I think it would be great if every single armed robber got his throat slit.
I think I’ve made my stance on robbers very clear here. I ain’t moving an inch on it, either. They’re shitbags, I’ve got zero sympathy for them, and I truly believe they deserve to die. If for the next month, every single armed robber in the United States was shot to death by his intended victim, and all of these cases were widely reported in the news, I highly suspect the instance of armed robbery would go down in short order. Like I said, people should view armed robbery as a suicidal act.