Oh, of course robbers all deserve death, and the world is a better place with them dead. And don’t even get me started about jaywalkers! Every time they step into the street against the light, there’s a chance some driver will swerve to miss them and hit a telephone pole. And yet, those scum still scorn the law and put other people at risk just for their convenience! A real hero would step on the gas and aim every time he sees a jaywalker: That’ll teach those criminal scum a lesson!
All criminals should die, because they’ve made their own choices to be criminals. Well, all criminals except murderers, that is: Murderers of course are absolutely necessary, since they’re the only way to do away with the rest of the criminals, so they should be applauded instead.
An odd belief would be one that is not held by any sizeable portion of any society, therefore odd. The death penalty for larceny is odd. It has been out of fashion since the time of Hammurabi.
As mentioned before, he might have had a concealed weapon. His initial actions of attempting to rob the store by force erased any cause for due course by one of his victims.
Note, also, that I did not claim that no one could argue for their odd beliefs, only that the inflammatory language accompanying those arguments was not appropriate to this forum.
He might’ve. It still would have been sufficient to cover him and wait for police. If Parsons actually reached for a concealed weapon, shooting him again would probably be justified. Hypothetical threats don’t count, though. If Ersland argued that he was worried Parsons would survive and seek revenge once out of prison, would shooting him again be justified?
He could position himself where he was in the first place, behind the counter, with the gun pointed at Parsons, called the police, and watched both Parsons and the door. Or perhaps in the corner on the other side of the door where he’s invisible from the outside, so that if the second robber returned, Ersland would be behind him on entering. We can do this all day, constructing various scenarios. The point remains that Ersland had many reasonable options short of adding five shots to Parsons.
Hypothetical threats don’t count for the purpose of justifiable homicide. The right to use deadly force to defend yourself is from immediate threats, not potentially difficult tactical situations.
Real life isn’t like TV ok? The Pharm didn’t know that the perp didn’t have a concealed piece on him, a knife, handgun, whatever. “Covering” the guy on the ground takes 100% attention leaving open the chance that the guys pals come storming through the door for their pal. If you imply he should have covered him, by defacto you recognize the fact that he was still a threat, as were the other two or three assholes outside.
The Pharm is a disabled vet, not TJ Hooker.
All of which are easy to suggest by Monday Morning Quarterbacks here, not so much as the shit is going down.
Hypothetical threats don't count for the purpose of justifiable homicide. The right to use deadly force to defend yourself is from immediate threats, not potentially difficult tactical situations.
Yes that’s right, from a legal standpoint. But it wasn’t following the law that was going through Erslands head. It was staying alive. He had to resort to brutal, savage force to ensure that.
He didn’t choose to be a part of that situation. The robbers thrust it upon him. He should not have to serve a single day for reacting to survive.
Really? Now ‘covering him’ is something that only supercops are capable of? I’m not acknowledging that Parsons was a continuing threat, only observing that if Ersland thought of the possibility of Parsons coming round and becoming a threat again, he had an option short of ‘finishing the job’. And Ersland, by turning his back on Parsons to get the second gun, obviously wasn’t worried about either the pals returning or Parsons having a concealed weapon.
Parsons was apparently unconscious on the ground, with a bullet hole in his head, his hands visible and empty, and wasn’t moving. Even if Parsons did have a concealed weapon, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to sit there, pointing a gun at him, ready to shoot if Parsons goes for something concealed.
Besides which, Ersland obviously wasn’t that worried about his pals returning if he wasted five shots on an unconscious man. If you were worried about them coming back, wouldn’t you preserve your ready ammunition? If you wanted to ensure Parsons didn’t get back up, wouldn’t you simply put one more in his head?
The whole point of the charge of premeditated murder is that Ersland was no longer ‘reacting to survive’. He was in control of the situation. He turned his back on Parsons and got another gun. He was making decisions and carrying them out. This wasn’t his reptilian brain doing whatever’s necessary to live through the day.
How much did the highly educated financiers steal.?They took the world economy down . They stole billions. I do not recall board members pleading for their deaths.
The kid was down and not a threat. He was murdered. If the shooter felt he was right because he still felt threatened, then he should hunt down the kids family. They may not be so understanding. He has to make sure they wont come after him. The kids parents ,brothers,sisters and friends have got to be eliminated.
They might not deserve it, but they routinely get it. If you want to argue that robbers should be put in jail for life or executed, fine. That is a separate issue. The issue here is whether a victim has the right to unilaterally impose justice on their attacker. They most emphatically do not. They have the right to defend themselves, and they have a great deal of leeway to do so in my mind. The actions of this guy are not those of a person acting in self defense. They are the actions of a man that has decided to kill someone for robbing his store.
So you’re going to have to come up with a number then. What amount of money would satisfy you? Where do you draw the line. Anyway it wasn’t about Ersland saving the company money. He just didn’t want to die.
gonzomax
Takes some time to hunt down the family. It would be premeditated murder. This event happened in less than a minute.
