How so? Even if the only true things are two armed robbers come in , one is wounded not killed, and later harms employee, doesn’t that make the point?
I’ve said several times that I wouldn’t expect anyone to accept a post on a message board without question.
So in the category of armed shootouts between civilians and robbers in which one might expect to find events that are hard to believe or understand as rational my abbreviated story was just ridiculous? It’s obvious people seem to think that way.
I prefer the stance of I don’t have adequate information to make a judgment call. There’s no need to believe it, and equally none to piss all over it. IMHO especially since we were already discussing a rather bizarre unlikely but none the less true event.
All except this one. I don’t think having sympathy for a man who’s life was being threatened during an armed robbery and was then thrust into a tragic situation is questionable judgment at all.
I am also able to recognize the tragedy of a young teen being killed in a moment of bad judgment. I feel sympathy for his parents who lost a son. I don’t feel sympathy for the adults who talked those kids into committing the robbery.
Other than that, we disagree and there;s no need to keep hashing it out.
The whole case is about where the line is drawn. That’s why there’s a debate. Do you know for sure because I’ll admit I don’t. I was speaking only about self defense during the commission of a crime. I’d say you stop defending yourself when you are fairly certain the perp is no longer a threat to you or others. That might vary from individual to individual in a heated moment. We can’t expect civilians to react like trained officers.
I understand that. Because of more recent info in other links I’ve conceded in the other thread. The scales have been tipped for me against Ersland.
Glad to see that it was a just a case of needing to have evidence pointed out that was somehow overlooked in your first perusal of the facts. I’ll offer a tentative “welcome back” to you.
BTW If someone has a gun at work because there’s crime in their neighborhood and they’ve been robbed before and they would like not to be robbed and or killed, when exactly are they supposed to find out how much self control they will have in a shootout?
I read the first links a couple of times and saw that the ME said Parker was alive but it didn’t specifically say the ME said he was unconscious. It said the prosecuter claimed that. The link emcee provided did say that but it wasn’t one of the early ones was it? Regardless, I concede the point.
I also promise to halt any hostilities toward you. We disagreed and it got a little carried away. No harm done?
Right, how’s that work when the gun in his hand, the one he shot Parker in the head with and the only gun visible in Ersland’s hand(s) during the “shoot-out”, was a REVOLVER???
Didn’t actually bother to watch the videos did ya?
Not if the harm happens before the criminal is wounded, as described in my alternative scenario.
Personally, I like that there’s a very low tolerance for bullshit in GD, and that instances of bullshit are met so ferociously. And I do think your anecdote has mutated sufficiently from its origins so as to be classified as bullshit. As with all the other posters to this thread, I am open to correction on that point, if you can provide evidence that I’m wrong.
Fair enough. Since my friend has declined to make any effort to prove his honesty to strangers I doubt that will happen.
I’ve seen a lot of GD threads get derailed by focusing on irrelevant details. I suppose I should have just asked the skeptics to consider it a hypothetical and respond to the point being made rather than the details of the story.
I still maintain the point that trying to apply the standard rules of reason and logic to extraordinary events like this is an affront to logic and that’s what set me off.
To clarify-if you present a story that is 90% absolute bullshit, pointing out the ten percent that isn’t doesn’t make it stink any less, especially when you can’t(and actually see no need to) varify any of it. The only reason you repeated this stinking pile of fertilizer without even questioning it is that it supported a position you already held. Just because you don’t have the cojones to call your buddy on his tall tales is no reason to believe we’d follow suit.
Not to mention that the story has dick to do with point being argued. Unless the Ho-Jo Commando was shot in the head and unconscious before he got back up and raped someone.
