# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/61 "2011-01-26T05:12:21Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I can see the rebuttals now. You’re going to say “But what if it’s just a drunk person that’s not robbing you?” or “But what if a stray bullet hits an innocent bystander?” Then it’s murder and has nothing to do with the Act at all. Leave that up to the jury to decide. “Your honor, the jury has decided the victim gets to shoot the defendant.” Any problems with that? ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/62 "2011-01-26T05:19:04Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > They can only chase and try to apprehend him, unless he points the gun. Only then can they shoot. Not necessarily. (cf. Landmark Supreme Court case: [Tennessee v. Garner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner)) ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/63 "2011-01-26T05:56:57Z")
I’d just like to get paid on my [BET](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11200616&postcount=350) in that thread with a now banned member. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/64 "2011-01-26T07:49:59Z")
**Chessic Sense** , you are only convincing me that you have no idea what you’re talking about, or what this proposed law is about. IMO, it should not be legal to kill an unarmed, incapacitated, unconscious person; that is what this proposed law seeks to legalize. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/65 "2011-01-26T13:33:35Z")
[Yoshihiro Hattori](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori)was shot and killed by a shit-for-brains redneck in Louisiana in 1992, then was acquitted by a jury made up of equally stupid rednecks, thanks to Louisiana’s “Kill the Burglar” statute. Apparently deciding that the statute didn’t go far enough, a few years later the state passed a “Kill the Carjacker” statute. From now on, every state should just have a ‘kill the pickpocket’ ‘kill the shoplifter’ ‘kill the jaywalker’ ‘kill the speeder’, and so on. In fact, every crime should be punished with death, and we don’t need juries to work it out - no, we’ll just let every Joe Blow Redneck with a gun handle it! If the guy is dead, clearly it’s because he was a threat, or was about to be a threat, or could have been a threat, or something - and the dead body’s my evidence. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/66 "2011-01-26T15:19:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Should I be allowed to shoot **Chessic Sense** , just because? What a dumb question. Yes, a million times, yes! ---
**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 26, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/67 "2011-01-26T16:11:09Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > 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. This doesn’t make sense. The FL statute doesn’t require forcible or unlawful entry under section 3 that I quoted. You said castle doctrine doesn’t apply to your place of business in the same post where you said gun laws vary state to state. That statement was incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/68 "2011-01-26T16:13:07Z")
> [@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? > [@Nadir](#): > > They can only chase and try to apprehend him, unless he points the gun. Only then can they shoot. > [@Doctor\_Who](#): > > Not necessarily. (cf. Landmark Supreme Court case: [Tennessee v. Garner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner)) I’m not sure I follow; the link says that the SC ruled that police _can’t_ use deadly force just to stop a suspect from fleeing. Interestingly, the link mentions that > [@Wikipedia](#): > > White examined the [common law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were [punishable by death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment), and the difference between felonies and [misdemeanors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor) was relatively large. I brought up something like this in a recent thread when I said > [@](#): > > The USA still retains much of the older standard that used to prevail in Europe- that people committing felonies are essentially in rebellion against law, the government and society at large, and that whatever leniency they are shown is an undeserved mercy. This is of course at odds with the more modern liberal standard that human life is all-but infinitely precious, and that no one deserves to be killed. As these threads show, there is quite a bit of contention between these two different philosophies. It sounds to me like **Chessic Sense** believes that the older standard should prevail: that any injury someone suffers in the course of committing a violent felony is their just desserts. ---
**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 26, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/69 "2011-01-26T16:23:29Z")
> [@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? I remembered this video I saw earlier which is quite apt: [http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/vmix\_cdf93fba-47ca-11df-9f5c-001cc4c002e0.html](http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/vmix_cdf93fba-47ca-11df-9f5c-001cc4c002e0.html) In the video, an officer during a traffic stop has the bad guy pull a gun on him. After a misfire on the badguy’s part, he attempts to drive away. The officer then proceeds to fire at the fleeing suspect eventually killing him. Bad guy was shot in the back. Jury acquitted the officer. ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/70 "2011-01-26T16:23:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This doesn’t make sense. The FL statute … //off topic mode on//What doesn’t make sense is a FL statute snippet shedding any light on the Castle Doctrine concept for the purpose of this discussion. I don’t know if you are a lawyer or not, but I challenge you to explain how even the FL statues would exonerate a customer shooting somebody in the middle of the day in Walmart under any circumstances, based on Castle Doctrine alone. It can’t be done.//off topic mode off// ---
**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, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/71 "2011-01-26T16:25:40Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The officer then proceeds to fire at the fleeing suspect eventually killing him. Bad guy was shot in the back. Jury acquitted the officer. As if cops getting away with killing people for no good reason is anything new? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/72 "2011-01-26T16:29:50Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I’m not sure I follow; the link says that the SC ruled that police _can’t_ use deadly force just to stop a suspect from fleeing. No, they ruled that the police in that case could not use deadly force under that particular set of facts. However, the outcome of the case is not the important part (which often happens in Supreme Court rulings). What’s important is that the SCOTUS developed a rule for when a police officer may constitutionally shoot a fleeing felon. If you look at the sidebar on the wiki page and read where it says “Holding,” you will see the following: > [@](#): > > Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/73 "2011-01-26T16:31:51Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > As is true in all criminal cases. That’s why we have juries and judges to help decide these things. Understood, however in this particular case you are wanting to try ‘the good guy’ for over-reaching his self defense actions. I’d say in order to do so, you would need much more to go on than mere video. If the guy actually comes out and testifies that nothing was said or he didn’t feel threatened then by all means he should be prosecuted. But until we know more detail, you(all) jumping to conclusions about him ‘shooting him 5 more times after already hitting him in the head’ is a reach. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/74 "2011-01-26T16:32:32Z")
I love tis part “probable cause to believe…” That’s what juries are for, and that’s why anybody can get away with anything if you can just convince the jury. Sometimes that’s easier to do than others. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/75 "2011-01-26T16:35:14Z")
For the people following the Tennessee v. Garner hijack, on to a hypothetical: A crazed gunman goes into a Mall, shoots a Congresswoman and a few other people. Police arrive and he throws down the gun and starts to run away. May the police shoot him in the back as he flees? Answer: Probably under Tennessee v. Garner. The police can see that he has shot several people in a public place. He can presumably re-arm himself. And, if he gets away, he poses a significant deadly threat to other people. The criteria set out by the SCOTUS seem to be met, meaning it would be okay for the police to shoot him in the back to prevent his escape. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/76 "2011-01-26T16:39:49Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > As if cops getting away with killing people for no good reason is anything new? :dubious: Look, I’m on board with the sentiment, but that wasn’t the case there. That cop was acquitted because he shot and killed a guy who was driving drunk, had shot at an officer, and then attempted to flee with 2 weapons (his truck and a still-loaded gun). The officer had several good reasons to shoot at the fleeing perp. BUT that case is in no way comparable to the proposed law or to what Mr. Ersland did. Mr. Ersland executed an unarmed, incapacitated, possibly unconscious person well after the robbery attempt was over. This proposed law would legitimize that conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/77 "2011-01-26T16:40:49Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > As if cops getting away with killing people for no good reason is anything new? :dubious: The guy fired out the cop… Did he then throw his gun out the window? Do you need for the cop to be shot to death before you will allow him to fire back? Kind of reminds of a joke my friend used to pull in middle school. He’d hit me and then promptly put on his glasses and say “you wouldn’t hit a guy with glasses now would you?” ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/78 "2011-01-26T16:42:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Look, I’m on board with the sentiment, but that wasn’t the case there. That cop was acquitted because he shot and killed a guy who was driving drunk, had shot at an officer, and then attempted to flee with 2 weapons (his truck and a still-loaded gun). The officer had several good reasons to shoot at the fleeing perp. > > BUT that case is in no way comparable to the proposed law or to what Mr. Ersland did. Mr. Ersland executed an unarmed, incapacitated, possibly unconscious person well after the robbery attempt was over. This proposed law would legitimize that conduct. I wonder how much if this is based upon a commonly held belief that when you shoot someone, you better kill them or they can come back to sue you. ---
**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 26, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/79 "2011-01-26T16:56:58Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Look, I’m on board with the sentiment, but that wasn’t the case there. That cop was acquitted because he shot and killed a guy who was driving drunk, had shot at an officer, and then attempted to flee with 2 weapons (his truck and a still-loaded gun). The officer had several good reasons to shoot at the fleeing perp. > > BUT that case is in no way comparable to the proposed law or to what Mr. Ersland did. Mr. Ersland executed an unarmed, incapacitated, possibly unconscious person well after the robbery attempt was over. This proposed law would legitimize that conduct. What Ersland did (if the reports are accurate) was criminal IMO. What the officer did, was justified. The law should seek to criminalize Ersland and it should be a defense to the officer. I think expanding the determination and actions considered self defense is a good thing if it could be crafted to do that. Do you agree? That video is basically the same hypothetical scenario I crafted above. In CA at least, I have no doubt in my mind that a non police officer behaving as the officer did would be convicted of murder or a lesser but still serious felony. That is why the comparisons to officer behavior and non-officer behavior are not on point. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/80 "2011-01-26T16:58:35Z")
Apropos of nothing: a friend of mine in high school wrote a parody of the old “Dragnet” show (“Drag-It”), in which detective Thursday would gun suspects down on sight, and then yell “Stop or I’ll shoot!”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947.md?page=5)