|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 16, 2011, 04:13 AM | #176 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 1,332
|
Quote:
Or do they? In the eyes of the law, no. But how do you really feel? Seems like there is a point where the pharmacists actions would have been justified. That's my argument, this isn't as black and white as people are making it out to be and if you're ok with bending the law sometimes then maybe the law isn't the end all, be all or what is right and wrong. It's just what happens to be legal in this society.
__________________
"When there’s lead in the air, there’s hope in the heart”- Hunter’s Proverb "Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy |
|
July 16, 2011, 04:19 AM | #177 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,971
|
Quote:
Quote:
Those who set aside the law can't reasonably call themselves law-abiding and it's hypocritical for them to deride other criminals as scumbags.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
July 16, 2011, 04:41 AM | #178 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 1,332
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I'm not saying the pharmacist's decision was the best decision. Assuming the perp was no longer a threat (and evidence suggests just that), the next 5 shots weren't necessary. I just think the end result was acceptable given the circumstances, and that this momentary lapse in judgement is not worthy of an otherwise law-abiding citizen rotting in prison for the rest of his life.
__________________
"When there’s lead in the air, there’s hope in the heart”- Hunter’s Proverb "Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy |
|||||
July 16, 2011, 05:02 AM | #179 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 1,332
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let me ask you all this: Somebody comes into your home and threatens your life, fight or flight kicks in (fancy name for adrenaline rush) and you stop the threat. I don't know about you but one of the very first emotions I'm gonna have is anger. Anger that this happened, that this guy had the nerve to try and hurt me. Anger is natural, and you aren't thinking real clearly. So you should go to jail if you make a rash decision in this circumstance, when the other prick is the guy who caused it all? That's what the law doesn't take into account, that's what the jury didn't take into account, and I absolutely don't agree with the sentence from the evidence I've seen. That guy died on someone else's property, threatening someone else's life, it was his decision. He forced the issue and paid the price. I'm not sentencing the pharmacist for the perp's actions. If the perp didn't like the reaction he got, then he can go kick rocks. Or in this case push daisies. He caused the reaction, why punish the guy who was forced to the decision against his will??????
__________________
"When there’s lead in the air, there’s hope in the heart”- Hunter’s Proverb "Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy |
||
July 16, 2011, 06:18 AM | #180 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Some very extreme thoughts here. But based on my view, do we want people who cant think clearly with wires crossed running around playing hero? With guns. Really? The excuse about adrenaline doesn't wash. His actions were calculated after he came back. If he kept his mouth shut. If there was no video. If I had a bajillion dollars. All the hypothetical things in the world don't change the FACTS. If you think it's ok to end someone's life when and if they are defenseless, let's hope you don't find yourself in hot water for emulating this character. The talk of soldiers in combat? We have rules of engagement as well that govern our actions. If we break those, then we find ourselves in violation of the Geneva convention and the UCMJ. Laws are there to protect us,and if we break them we shouldn't be surprised or outraged when we get punished to the extent of said laws. EVERY gun owner should be versed in the laws that govern us. As stated before, 17 round mag, you pop off 16. Adrenaline. Shooting one robber, chasing another (running by the way), WALKING back into the store, stepping over (for the sake of argument), a moving, wounded robber, turning your back on this "threat", retrieving second gun from a LOCKED drawer, walking back to the "threat", pumping 5 rounds into the chest of "crawling threat", MURDER in the FIRST. If he was so concerned about this perp being dangerous after he came back, why take your eyes off him? Without even telling my 16 yr old niece why, she was shown this video in it's entirety. Her first words were "He just murdered that guy on national TV!" If a 16 yr old understands plain as day, that seals it for me!
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
July 16, 2011, 06:26 AM | #181 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
If I was speeding and killed someone, jaywalked and knifed someone, littered by dropping a bowling ball on someone's head, yeah, I would be a criminal scumbag. You can't even begin to equate those misdemeanors you speak of, with murder or even justifiable homicide.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
July 16, 2011, 06:39 AM | #182 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It was the fact that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that Ersland was trying to kill the guy that made his act a felony. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But he did not stop there. Quote:
But that's not what happened at all. He was shot by someone who clearly intended to kill him while he posed an imminent threat to no one. Quote:
|
|||||||
July 16, 2011, 09:12 AM | #183 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,787
|
Quote:
An adrenaline rush, anger, or fear of some later event are not reasons to kill. If they were, thrill killings would be legal, as would be killing over any event that displeased a potential killer, as would be every base act of vigilantism. That is not a civilized society. Self defense is a reasonable act in a civil society; murder, for any excuse, is not. |
|
July 16, 2011, 10:13 AM | #184 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
July 16, 2011, 10:35 AM | #185 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
I have to wonder: If a police officer was assaulted by someone with a deadly weapon and managed to render that person unconscious, then sauntered over to his cruiser and got his shotgun, went back over to where the unconscious person was laying and put 5 buckshot rounds into him, all on video, would the people who are defending Ersland's action take the same position with the officer's actions? Or is this more a case of situational ethics because some of the posters here identify with Ersland as a person defending himself/his property/his business/others and don't think he could do any wrong in that situation?
|
July 16, 2011, 10:41 AM | #186 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
The fight was over, but Ersland didn't necessarily know that. I'll cut him some slack there. Here's my opinion of where he really went wrong:
When you take an "affirmative defense" (I did what would ordinarily be illegal but it was justified or permitted in this instance) you have to take the stand and testify to have any real hope. Ersland couldn't do that because he had lied repeatedly and been found out. He had no credibility left to testify. So the jury never heard his side of the story, and they wouldn't have believed it anyway. Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
July 16, 2011, 10:58 AM | #187 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
July 16, 2011, 11:02 AM | #188 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Beat me to it! It wasn't his lies that got him murder charges. It was his actions. I believe the weapon was a Judge.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
July 16, 2011, 11:08 AM | #189 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
I really do not like the Judge very much, myself. How about using one to shoot at the fleeing felon? If those were shot loads also, he had little chance of success. And while the lethal range was probably not vey long, it could still case serious injury to others. |
|
July 16, 2011, 11:09 AM | #190 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Of course the actions got him charged, but the lies got him convicted and a harsh sentence.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
July 16, 2011, 11:18 AM | #191 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
NO LAW allows killing. SOME laws allow the use of lethal force under limited circumstances, Lethal force is force that MAY result in death (not WILL result in death). It may seem a meaningless distinction to you, but in the law it matters. You are NOT trying to kill someone, you ARE trying to STOP THEIR ACTIONS. If that then results in their death you have NOT commuted a crime. Last edited by brickeyee; July 18, 2011 at 10:59 AM. |
|
July 16, 2011, 11:41 AM | #192 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Have any of the jurors commented on what got him convicted? Is there anyone else in the world who can know? |
|
July 16, 2011, 11:55 AM | #193 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Juror comments?
http://www.news9.com/story/15063505/...type=printable Only one has commented that I can find... Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
July 16, 2011, 12:15 PM | #194 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
He didn't receive a harsh sentence, he got a just sentence. His lies didn't convict.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
July 16, 2011, 12:20 PM | #195 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
I haven't read through anything but the last page of this thread. Obviously he went too far. I couldn't sit on a jury and convict him of 1st degree murder. In the heat of the moment he made a mistake, but he never intended to set out and kill anyone that morning. Manslaughter would have been a more appropriate sentence in my opinion from the little I know about the case, but 1st degree murder???
|
July 16, 2011, 01:10 PM | #196 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
|
I wonder...I have an old friend who practiced law for many years and according to him, a jury can do what they feel is right and don't necessarily have to strictly adhere to the judge's instructions. But the problem with that is, it sets new precedent, and causes problems with the law and future trials, and whatnot, so most judges no longer expain this part of their rights as jurors. Was this an accurate statement? And if so, what is the real reason that judges conceal that option for jurys?
On another note, I have had several LEOs tell me that if one is in a justified gun fight, that the CW carrier would be better off, making sure the assailant is dead. I'm not condoning this, simply pointing out fact from my experience. Is this common for them to say? And, how would it have affected the outcome of the situation in this thread, if so?
__________________
BILL @ Strongside Arms, Inc. - 1479 W. C-48 Bushnell, FL 33513 352-568-0017 -------------------------------------------------- “Why worry when you can pray? He [God] is the Whole, you are a part. Coordinate your abilities with the Whole.” ~Edgar Cayce~ |
July 16, 2011, 01:18 PM | #197 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
WHAT?? Everyone one says stuff off the cuff, but it's not them standing trial. Didn't work out so well for Ersland. And if I'm not mistaken, The jury is given instructions so they WON'T do what they want.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
July 16, 2011, 01:40 PM | #198 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
He planned a murder when he returned and retrieved another weapon. It is called self control. When you use lethal force the loss of control can have really bad consequences. |
|
July 16, 2011, 01:49 PM | #199 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
I believe shoot them dead attitude is a danger to CCW in general since that is the fear of the libs who oppose CCW in the first place. Shoot to stop is the correct approach and in such this man went beyond what was right.
However, I don't believe that he had malice of forethought. When I went through my Idaho CCW class, the instructor who is retired military and part time cop in our town spoke of a local shooting at a store in the town next door. It was almost an identical shooting in many respects to the one in question where the robber who was armed was shot by the clerk in the heart. After he fell on the floor in his last dying breaths, he went into a seizure from lack of blood to the brain. The clerk out of fear pumped several more bullets into an essentially dead man after seeing his involuntary movements which she interpreted as an attempt to act aggressively to her once again. In this case, the prosecution chose to not prosecute her for shooting a dead body. I believe that they should have cut this guy some slack since he probably just responded out of fear and adrenalin when he saw the creep moving on the floor and interpreted that as an attempt at aggressive actions once again. We all know that in this situation with the adrenalin rush that the brain shuts down, you have tunnel vision and react instinctively out of muscle memory and all reason and rational thought ceases. I didn't follow his trial at all, just brief news clips in the gun forums here and there, but the physiology of a shooting should have been his first defense. I would not have held him responsible to 1st degree murder and likely would not have even voted for any criminal culpability since it was the intruders that set off his adrenalin response, they themselves were responsible for what followed. Sadly, this is just one more example of having a lawyer that understands the physiology of shootings and an affirmative defense as well a s client that should NOT make any statements at all without express permission from his lawyer. With a good set of expert witnesses and a good lawyer and a smart client, should not this case have had a different outcome. I have experienced an adrenaline dump twice in my life, the first from a German Shepherd that charged me and in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light right into me. In both instances I became quite disoriented and distorted in my reasoning immediately after the event and if faced with a second adrenaline dump from a moving suspect, I could easily see how the pharmacist reacted by shooting him a second time. My goodness, if a jury can acquit that Anthony woman, why not see some room for compassion for this man. We no longer have any common sense in America and good luck finding justice from a jury of our peers in this country anymore. I believe his actions are completely understandable when you look at it through the eyes of the Adrenaline dump and the changes on physiology and psychology in such a situation. It is easy to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and criticize this man, but think of how you would react with not one, but two adrenalin dumps back to back and see how you would fare in such a situation. I believe he more than likely just shot a corpse out of fear like the lady in my example above. He is not a murderer, he was simply under the influence of the adrenaline dumps that these creeps instigated, they are to blame for their outcomes, not him. |
July 16, 2011, 01:57 PM | #200 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
You need to watch the WHOLE video. Tell me if you see ANY adrenaline dump.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|