# The proposed Jerome Ersland Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947 "2011-01-25T19:01:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/41 "2011-01-25T22:28:19Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > The average citizen doesn’t get to decide. The jury does. We’re not debating guilt here; we’re debating what the law _should_ say. I say the pharmacist did no wrong. So the law should reflect that. And in that sense, the average citizen _is_ deciding that burglary/robbery should carry a death sentence…via our elected representatives. > > And yes, I’m saying that in the instance of armed robbery, “he needed killin’” is a good thing. I think that not only should shooting a fleeing robber be OK, it should be encouraged. If I rob you with a weapon, and try to run with your purse/wallet, you are ethically obligated to try to kill me. > > Why? Because they get away. And then they do it again to someone else. And then they get away again. The cops have a poor record for catching these scum so a little vigilantism goes a long way. > > If you kill someone who’s trying to rob you, I’ll buy you a beer and slap you on the back. Good for you, man, good for you. > Try as I might, I just can’t find anything morally reprehensible about killing a rabid animal like the robber. Why would I want to punish that? Why would I want to stop such behavior? I don’t see how it hurts another human being. And where can I purchase those magic bullets you are firing at the would-be robber fleeing down the public street? The ones designed to harm “bad guys” only? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/42 "2011-01-25T22:28:40Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > They can only chase and try to apprehend him, unless he points the gun. Only then can they shoot. Unless he’s in his own home. In which case he doesn’t even need to have a gun, or be running away, or make any motion whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/43 "2011-01-25T22:31:26Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Well, good luck getting armed robbery bumped up to a capital crime, then. Maybe we can move murder up a notch to include torture before death, just to keep things in perspective. While we’re at it let’s get rid of this whole trial by jury thing. Come to think of it maybe for those who aren’t able to take care of these things themselves right away they could get some friends together to help them out. I can’t possibly see this leading to any [problems](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/44 "2011-01-25T22:33:41Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Exactly! > You weren’t there and simply cannot know. How does that follow? I wasn’t there and haven’t seen the surveillance footage, but I haven’t expressed an objection to shooting the guy the first time. As far as I know, _that_ was legal and that’s not what the proposed law is about. I have no trouble concluding that he did not return to the store and shoot Parker five more time in self-defense. Ersland’s defense against the murder charge is that Parker was already dead after the first shot, which does not bolster the self defense argument. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/45 "2011-01-25T22:34:00Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Exactly! > You weren’t there and simply cannot know. As is true in all criminal cases. That’s why we have juries and judges to help decide these things. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/46 "2011-01-25T22:34:41Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Gun laws vary quite a bit from state-to-state. This is really the only part you got right, without a lot of qualifiers. Castle doctrine can apply to place of business, vehicle, or any place a person has a right to be. As you said, it varies by state. I have no problem shooting someone in the back in a great number of cases. Nor would I have a problem shooting a person who has already sustained a gun shot wound, or reloading and continuing to shoot. Circumstances matter and as long as there is a threat it should be addressed. Someone’s back is not a shield nor does it signify only good intentions. > [@Lumpy](#): > > What do the police do when a suspect holding a gun refuses an order to drop the gun, and instead turns and runs away? The rules for police are vastly different than for non-police - so much so I can’t see how it’s relevant unless you’re suggesting that the law should be changed to give non-police the same power as police. In your specific scenario, I’d hazard a guess that just as often the police would shoot the bad guy as they wouldn’t. Leaning more on the shoot the bad guy side. And they get qualified immunity. What do you think happens or should happen? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/47 "2011-01-25T22:41:04Z")
Missed the edit window. @Czarcasm - Do you think the bad guy who turns his back could still be a threat to the owner? ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/48 "2011-01-25T22:41:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t know why this is, **Chessic Sense** , but somehow your repeated references to a dead, stupid 16-year-old as a “rabid animal” and your frontier justice approach are not convincing me that this law would be a good thing. And somehow your repeated notion that the world would be better if the kid were alive is not convincing me that the law would be a bad thing. Somehow I managed to get through my teen years without committing armed robbery, even once! It wasn’t magic. It was respect for the law, fear of punishment, and a moral code. This kid had none of that. It’s good that he’s dead. This is like if a lion tamer gets eaten, you decide “Yep, we should kill that lion.” No, that’s just nature. That’s just lions doing what lions do. Leave them alone and you’ll be fine. Don’t stick your head in its mouth and we won’t have this conversation. Don’t rob pharmacists and we won’t have to talk about charging him with murder. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And where can I purchase those magic bullets you are firing at the would-be robber fleeing down the public street? The ones designed to harm “bad guys” only? That’s a separate law and a separate argument. You want to charge me with discharging a firearm dangerously, or whatever, fine. Let the jury decide if that’s the case. All I’m saying is don’t charge me with murder. Let’s suppose a guy takes a hostage and we get into that cliche movie standoff. Should I take the shot? Of course not. I might hit the hostage. Better to holster my weapon until a better opportunity presents itself. But let’s say I _did_ take the shot and I _did_ hit the gunman and he _did_ die. Have I committed a crime? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s clearly not murder. Same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/49 "2011-01-25T22:59:50Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > And somehow your repeated notion that the world would be better if the kid were alive is not convincing me that the law would be a bad thing. I didn’t make that argument and don’t need it made for me. I don’t have a problem with Ersland using a gun to defend his store. I don’t know the specifics of the robbery but if I were being robbed, I would feel threatened, period. This “rabid dog” thing is a bunch of bullshit, and it fails to convince me that anyone needs a law to protect people like Ersland. Ersland shot Parker in the head, which probably killed him on the spot. He then chased after one of Parker’s accomplices, came back to the store where Parker was still lying on the floor and shot him five more times. If you look at the video, he doesn’t appear to feel threatened at all during that time. After that, he apparently lied to police and reporters and said the robbers shot at him. For some reason he seems to have felt his actions needed to be justified. Too bad he didn’t think of the rabid dog defense. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/50 "2011-01-25T23:01:11Z")
The fact that we have people who hold beliefs like **Chessic Sense** ’s is precisely why we need laws against this kind of thing in the first place. What if I were to decide that anyone so cruel as to want to shoot someone who isn’t a threat, just because they “needed killing”, is a net negative to society? Should I be allowed to shoot **Chessic Sense** , just because? ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/51 "2011-01-25T23:19:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is really the only part you got right, without a lot of qualifiers. Castle doctrine can apply to place of business, vehicle, or any place a person has a right to be. As you said, it varies by state. So you better list the qualifiers, unless you want to try explain how Castle Doctrine applies to you standing in the middle of Wal Mart. :rolleyes: I was trying to keep it simple. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/52 "2011-01-25T23:53:51Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > So you better list the qualifiers, unless you want to try explain how Castle Doctrine applies to you standing in the middle of Wal Mart. :rolleyes: > > I was trying to keep it simple. Good luck. Florida statute 776.013 (3): > [@](#): > > A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. That would apply in the middle of Wal-Mart ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/53 "2011-01-26T00:06:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That would apply in the middle of Wal-Mart And it’s not gonna fly. Now cut 'n paste a snippet to make your case that the alleged intruder unlawfully and/or forcibly entered Wal Mart. We’ll go down the list of qualifications at your leisure. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/54 "2011-01-26T00:13:33Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Let’s suppose a guy takes a hostage and we get into that cliche movie standoff. Should I take the shot? Of course not. I might hit the hostage. Better to holster my weapon until a better opportunity presents itself. But let’s say I _did_ take the shot and I _did_ hit the gunman and he _did_ die. Have I committed a crime? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s clearly not murder. In what way is a hostage situations at all comparable to an incapacitated robber lying on the ground and not posing a threat? If a guy has a gun to a hostages head, then shoot the hostage taker and job well done. But if the hostage taker has no hostage, is no longer armed, and is not posing a threat to anyone present, and you shoot him anyway then you’ve just committed murder. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/55 "2011-01-26T00:23:28Z")
This incident was in Oklahoma, but the relevant passage (from Title 21. Chapter 53. Section 1289.25) is similar. One is _presumed_ to have held reasonable fear if its one’s _home or occupied vehicle_ that is invaded (unless the intruder also turns out to be a legal occupant, or the children of same). In _other_ places (where one has a legal right to be), the law still requires a “reasonable belief” that deadly force is “necessary to…prevent death or great bodily harm…or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Seems to me it doesn’t matter if someone broke into Wal-Mart, or even the pharmacy. The standard in effect is the reasonable belief in the _necessity_ of deadly force to prevent death, etc. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/56 "2011-01-26T00:45:56Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Don’t want to get killed robbing a place? Don’t rob places. So you think the penalty for armed robbery should be summary execution? We don’t even execute serial rapists in this country, but hey, any home invaders whose targets can frame them for armed robbery–heck, trespassers, they can be killed without trial then? It’s too Draconian in effect, too open to abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/57 "2011-01-26T01:31:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This “rabid dog” thing is a bunch of bullshit It’s hyperbole. But the point is that Parker decided that he doesn’t want to play by society’s rules in a very blatant, very purposeful, and very evil way. So I find it very hard to have any sympathy for him whatsoever. > [@Chronos](#): > > The fact that we have people who hold beliefs like **Chessic Sense** ’s is precisely why we need laws against this kind of thing in the first place. What if I were to decide that anyone so cruel as to want to shoot someone who isn’t a threat, just because they “needed killing”, is a net negative to society? Should I be allowed to shoot **Chessic Sense** , just because? Then you should advocate for a law that makes it OK to kill people like me. You should support candidates that want to fight against people like me. If those people get elected and the law gets passed, then the will of the people is that people like me should be killed. Until that time, you are not allowed to legally shoot me. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/58 "2011-01-26T01:47:47Z")
> [@godix](#): > > In what way is a hostage situations at all comparable to an incapacitated robber lying on the ground and not posing a threat? > > If a guy has a gun to a hostages head, then shoot the hostage taker and job well done. But if the hostage taker has no hostage, is no longer armed, and is not posing a threat to anyone present, and you shoot him anyway then you’ve just committed murder. It’s comparable because the criminal deserves death. There’s no doubt as to whether Parker committed a violent crime. There’s no doubt whether the hostage taker has committed a violent crime. And I realize that if you shoot him anyway, it’s murder. That’s the problem that the law is trying to fix. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > So you think the penalty for armed robbery should be summary execution? We don’t even execute serial rapists in this country, but hey, any home invaders whose targets can frame them for armed robbery–heck, trespassers, they can be killed without trial then? First, I think we should execute a lot more serial rapists, provided the evidence is as strong as the Ersland case. Second, it’s not like I’m suggesting we just up and kill everyone that’s ever run a stop sign. But Parker and cases like that? Yeah, there’s no reason they need to be alive. Breaking into someone’s home or pharmacy with a gun and trying to rob them isn’t something you do accidentally. It’s not something that’s “just kinda bad”. It’s one of the worst things you can do to a person. It ranks right between murder and sex offenses. Second, it’s not like this is a new idea. We already have a castle doctrine. It’s already legal to shoot the guy the first time. You may call that “necessary to abate danger”, I call it “a service to society”. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > It’s too Draconian in effect, too open to abuse. Fine, reword the law. Tighten it up. Throw something in there about video or photographic evidence. Let juries sort out the gray areas. I’m not trying to defend this specific wording of this specific law. I’m trying to say that it’s morally and ethically permissible to kill violent intruders, and in some cases commendable. Ersland/Parker is a commendable case. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/59 "2011-01-26T01:51:23Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > And I realize that if you shoot him anyway, it’s murder. That’s the problem that the law is trying to fix. It’s not a problem to most people. Or to the Constitution. Do you really think that a state law allowing summary execution for ANY Castle Doctrine situation is going to pass Constitutional muster? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/60 "2011-01-26T04:30:48Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s comparable because the criminal deserves death. Based on what? No wait, I remember - “rabid dog.” > [@](#): > > And I realize that if you shoot him anyway, it’s murder. That’s the problem that the law is trying to fix. No, it isn’t. Shooting Parker was self defense and the prosecution has acknowledged that Ersland was defending himself and that he has a right to do that. What was not self defense was leaving the store to chase the accomplice, coming back to the store, getting a second gun out of a locked drawer, and shooting Parker five more times as he lay on the floor with a bullet in his skull (prosecution) or lay there dead (defense). He is being charged with murder for executing Parker after the holdup was over, not for shooting him during the commission of the robbery. The law is probably just grandstanding, but it’s intended to broaden the notion of self defense in these cases. I don’t know how it’s worded, but the OP makes it sound like if the law passes, the next time someone breaks into Ersland’s store, he can disarm them, tie them up, and then shoot them and claim it was legal. [http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13023675](http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13023675) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947.md?page=4)