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?
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.
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.
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.
As is true in all criminal cases. That’s why we have juries and judges to help decide these things.
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.
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?
Missed the edit window.
@Czarcasm - Do you think the bad guy who turns his back could still be a threat to the owner?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?
Based on what? No wait, I remember - “rabid dog.”
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.