If Ersland just ignores the guy on the floor and goes over to make the call, said guy could pull out a gun and shoot him. Why is it so hard to imagine this? There is some percentage of chance it could happen. Ersland emptied his mag into the BG on the floor. Now 0% chance it could happen.
The robber chose to use violence to make money. He was met with violence and resolve and got what was necessary for Ersland to remain among the living. To create a distinction between dead having been shot in the head once and dead having been shot 5 times while on the floor gives the BG more significance than he’s worth.
Yes, the guy on the ground got what was coming to him, no doubt about it. I feel sorry for him in a vague abstract way in that it’s a life wasted at such young age over a stupid decision.
But there is also the unnecessary use of force aspect on the part of Ersland. I think that Ersland absolutely crossed the line. I think he should face charges for it, but I also sort of hope that the sentencing is light.
Legally, Ersland’s best chance will probably be some form of ‘heat of the moment’ defense. But his training cuts both ways: Yes, he was trained to kill, but he was also trained not to turn his back on an armed enemy.
The basic problem for Ersland here is that he clearly acted like Parsons wasn’t a threat anymore. He took the time to reload his gun (or get a second gun, it’s not exactly clear which from the reporting). He turned his back on Parsons several times. That indicates both premeditation and no longer perceiving a threat.
Have you noticed that no one here is arguing for sympathy for Parsons? No one is trying to get you to move an inch on whether Parsons deserved to die. My opposition to Ersland derives from a “civilian executions are bad” place.
Ersland did just ignore the guy on the floor several times–when running after the second robber, and when heading into the back room to reload at a walking pace. Even putting five bullets into Parson’s gut isn’t a guarantee that Parsons is dead–much less so, anyway, than five to the head would be.
Would Ersland have been justified in cutting Parson’s head off with a knife to reduce the threat to zero? After all, that’s the only way to make sure.
See that’s the thing. Just because those involved weren’t wearing uniforms of opposing forces doesn’t mean this wasn’t war. This was cold hearted kill or die, it’s me or you combat.
Yeah, we are in agreement. My point was that if you are going to point to his training then his training should work in his favor and not against him, because he was trained to put the enemy down. But at the same time peace-time civilian law is run by a very different code than actual war between nations.
I’d also point out that there was minimal street fighting in the first gulf war. A lot of soldiers saw very little action other than just driving across the desert.
Okay, this is just silly. It wasn’t war. It was a robbery that had ended once someone was down and the other run off. As a combat veteran, Ersland can be expected to recognize the difference. If Ersland perceived a continuing threat from someone with a bullet in their head, laying down with their hands visible, he could have simply covered Parsons while calling the police.
Fine, I don’t know if he had combat experience. Regardless, he was a trained soldier. Doesn’t change my point that he had many other options besides pumping five more shots into Parsons–five shots that are actually less likely to kill Parsons than a lot of others.
I agree but your argument can be used against your line of reasoning. Turning his back on him might have been as bad thinking as shooting him. Maybe that’s not evidence that he was confident the guy was down, but evidence that he wasn’t thinking clearly.
And which do you believe? That he wasn’t thinking clearly or that he didn’t think Parsons was a threat? We can easily construct a narrative where Ersland was confused, was stressed, was pumped on adrenaline and reasoning badly. We can just as easily construct a narrative where Ersland decided “I’m going to make sure this piece of shit never robs again.” Argent has eloquently articulated the latter viewpoint here, and watching the tapes, I think the latter narrative is the likely one.
Here’s something that’s indicative: the five shots went into Parson’s belly. Not his chest, not his head. That’s not making sure a threat’s down, that’s anger. Soldiers are taught to shoot for center mass, which effectively means the chest. When you shoot man-shaped targets in the army, the bullseye is over the heart, and we can be pretty confident that Ersland had that training.
The latter narrative is not mutually exclusive with the former narrative. He could have shot the guy in anger and still not have been thinking clearly.
True, but in neither narrative is Ersland not guilty of murder. Perhaps there’s an argument from the first narrative that would defeat the premeditation requirement for first degree murder (though I doubt it). It’s still murder. The problem was getting the second gun: if I understand correctly, demonstrating premeditation is all about demonstrating prior steps to facilitate the killing that indicate a decision and planning. Had Ersland walked back into the store and immediately put two more into Parson’s head, he could have just said “Parsons was still moving”. Getting a second gun and coming back to finish the job is what will sink him, if the "he needed killin’ " jurors don’t win.
No. I mean, if the Spanish team goes in to win against Italy, and two or three make mistakes which cause a loss, then we’d say “Spain’s team lost”. Or if two or three caused a win, we’d still say “Spain’s team won”. Snowboarder Bo and mswas have explained it upthread.
I honestly don’t think he is going to be convicted. And if he does it will probably be a slap on the wrist, and rightfully so. If I were on the jury I’d vote to let him go.
If the end result is that robbers are more likely to kill thier victims first, is it still heroic? Because the lesson I see here for would-be thieves is to shot first as the store owner may be armed.
It would be shame if he did any time. If the scum hadn’t assaulted the pharmacy that day, Ersland would have just gone on the rest of his life not hurting a fly.