# 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:** 5
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/81 "2011-01-26T17:02:45Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > //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// If this doesn’t make sense I’ll leave this tangent alone. You said in post #32 referring to Castle Doctrine _“That’s Castle Doctrine, basically. Doesn’t apply to public places like a store owner on his premises, or the pharmacist in the example.”_ I contend that Castle doctrine does apply to public places and store owners on their premises. You challenged me to _"try explain how Castle Doctrine applies to you standing in the middle of Wal Mart. "_ To respond, I cited one state’s law regarding castle doctrine and standing your ground. Parts of that statute apply to your home and vehicle. [Other parts,](http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS08/CH0776/Section_0776.013.HTM) (3) that I quoted, apply to **any place** where the person has a right to be. That would include walmart. Your claim that castle doctrine doesn’t apply to public places is therefore rebutted. The correct statement would be that there are some places where castle doctrine doesn’t apply to public places (I believe NY and NJ for example), however in many states it does. ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/82 "2011-01-26T17:06:53Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 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. Precisely. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/83 "2011-01-26T17:10:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Just because the bad guys starts to run away, doesn’t mean he should be immune from response. Good grief - why not? A man attempting flight isn’t threatening your life. He’s attempting flight. You may well _prefer_ that he remain for the police, but the threat to your life is over. Using deadly force against a man with his back turned and running away is not cool. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/84 "2011-01-26T17:14:42Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Good grief - why not? See posts 69, 75, and 76. ---
**Author:** ![ajb867](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@ajb867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ajb867)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/85 "2011-01-26T17:21:54Z")
There needs to be a distinction here. The guy in the video tries to kill the officer by shooting him in the face before fleeing. That cop was doing his job by protecting the public from a criminal fleeing with two deadly weapons after committing attempted murder, should of never seen a jury job well done as the jury confirms. As for the Pharmacist if I was on the jury I would not find him guilty of murder but would find him guilty of manslaughter. The robber “victim” created the situation which got himself killed. Edit: “manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/86 "2011-01-26T17:21:56Z")
This has nothing to do with self-defense, it’s attempt legalize vigilante killing as _punishment_. This is about a millimeter away from an attempt to legalize lynching. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/87 "2011-01-26T17:47:56Z")
> [@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. 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. What happens when a pharmacist thinks he’s being robbed and shoots some guy holding a black cellphone who was coming up to ask if he should take his medicine with meals? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/88 "2011-01-26T17:55:29Z")
It depends on what color the guy with the cell phone is. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/89 "2011-01-26T19:15:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What happens when a pharmacist thinks he’s being robbed and shoots some guy holding a black cellphone who was coming up to ask if he should take his medicine with meals? Then he’s broken the law, obviously. Why is it that when debating whether a law should or should not exist, people like to make up scenarios that aren’t covered by the law and pretend that they apply? What did I say in the bottom of post #14? > [@me](#): > > 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. The point is that if my pharmacy is being robbed, then it’s fine if the robber dies. I knew one of you couldn’t resist doing it. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/90 "2011-01-26T19:19:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It depends on what color the guy with the cell phone is. Do you not realize that you’re the first person to even mention race in this thread, or do you just not care? ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/91 "2011-01-26T19:20:44Z")
> [@villa](#): > > What a dumb question. Yes, a million times, yes! Even as sarcasm, please don’t do this again. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/92 "2011-01-26T19:47:18Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Do you not realize that you’re the first person to even mention race in this thread, or do you just not care? I was answering a hypothetical. Race would matter. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/93 "2011-01-26T20:05:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Even as sarcasm, please don’t do this again. OK. What rule was it against out of interest? ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/94 "2011-01-26T20:07:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > OK. What rule was it against out of interest? I’m guessing “Do not wish violence or death on another poster.” ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/95 "2011-01-26T20:08:14Z")
> [@villa](#): > > OK. What rule was it against out of interest? There’s a rule against wishing death on other posters. I realize you were kidding but I’m guessing **Chessic Sense** didn’t think it was very funny. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/96 "2011-01-26T20:14:26Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I’m guessing “Do not wish violence or death on another poster.” I realized that. I didn’t do that, but I can live with a rule that says agreeing with allowing something is the same as wishing it to happen. Which is why I, apparently, wish everyone in the country over 18 was smoking marijuana, and all pregnancies resulted in abortions. 😉 ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/97 "2011-01-26T20:20:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your claim that castle doctrine doesn’t apply to public places is therefore rebutted. In the case of FL and… ? I bow to your excellent and successful effort at derailing the legal issues aspect to this discussion. The subsequent race and personal issues certainly were not all your fault. Unsubscribed… ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/98 "2011-01-26T20:43:56Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Good grief - why not? A man attempting flight isn’t threatening your life. He’s attempting flight. You may well _prefer_ that he remain for the police, but the threat to your life is over. Using deadly force against a man with his back turned and running away is not cool. Isn’t that exactly what happened in the linked video from post #69? By “not cool” do you mean anything more than that? Should it be criminal? Does the fact that the person involved was a police officer affect your response? I think the officer in the video should never have been charged and that his actions were commendable. If a store owner faced a similar situation where a bad guy tries to rob him, and the owner is able to draw his own weapon forcing the bad guy to flee, I say firing immediately after the fleeing begins should be permissible and immune from prosecution both criminal and civil if the owner injures the bad guy. If the proposed law was crafted to make that the law, I’d support it. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/99 "2011-01-27T02:27:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Isn’t that exactly what happened in the linked video from post #69? By “not cool” do you mean anything more than that? Should it be criminal? Does the fact that the person involved was a police officer affect your response? > > I think the officer in the video should never have been charged and that his actions were commendable. If a store owner faced a similar situation where a bad guy tries to rob him, and the owner is able to draw his own weapon forcing the bad guy to flee, I say firing immediately after the fleeing begins should be permissible and immune from prosecution both criminal and civil if the owner injures the bad guy. If the proposed law was crafted to make that the law, I’d support it. The thought expressed at the end of that second paragraph is disturbing in that you are speaking in favor of a law that would take the decision of guilt out of the hands of a jury and place it in the hands of a killer. And no, I’m not talking about the guilt of the dead guy, although that would be true as well. I’m talking about the survivor, who would presumably simply have to tell the police “I shot him because I was afraid he would hurt someone, at some time, in some way” and then, according to what you wrote, he would not even be allowed to be prosecuted. The matter of his guilt would solely be up to him to proclaim or declaim, as the only other person who might testify as to the circumstances surrounding the death would be dead and unable to speak. That isn’t justice, it isn’t an examination of facts, and it doesn’t allow society (in the form of a jury) to speak about the events and whether or not society wants to condone or condemn those actions. Do you need someone to explain why that would be a bad idea? ---
**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 27, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947/100 "2011-01-27T16:25:06Z")
Immune from prosecution was a poor choice of words on my part. Replace that with whatever term would be appropriate so that it would be a defense against conviction. Basically, make what the officer in the video did legal, and what Ersland did illegal. Or do I understand you wrong and you think what the officer did should be illegal? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-jerome-ersland-act/568947.md?page=6)