Doing this could get you jail time. - Page 2

Colorado Redneck · September 16, 2012, 06:17 PM

If you are endangered, that is a different animal. IMO. If the danger is passed, shooting at a fleeing criminal is over the top.

jimpeel · September 17, 2012, 12:42 AM

Guys!!!

What I said was "I actually have no problem with shooting a fleeing violent armed perpetrator...."

I didn't say I would do so.

In the case DNS cited there were extenuating circumstances beyond what was necessary to stop the perpetrator. In that case, it seems the shooter stood over the perp and executed him. He wouldn't get a pass from me if I were on his jury.

What I mean is that I would not be personally against bringing down a perp who is fleeing if they had already shown violent armed criminal behavior.

Look at the case of Luke Woodham. He walked into the high school in Pearl, MS and killed a couple of people. When the vice principal, Joel Myrick, stopped him he was about to head up a road that dead ended into the middle school. Woodham surrendered.He had 36 rounds of .30-30 ammo left and had killed his mother with a knife prior to going to the school.

He was already in his car when the vice principal confronted him. If he had tried to drive away up that road to the middle school, even though he was fleeing and presented no further threat to Myrick, would anyone here have had any problem with Myrick putting one in the back of his head?

(Believe it or not, there were those who castigated Myrick for pointing a loaded firearm at one of his students.)

Double Naught Spy · September 17, 2012, 02:31 AM

Quote:

In the case DNS cited there were extenuating circumstances beyond what was necessary to stop the perpetrator. In that case, it seems the shooter stood over the perp and executed him. He wouldn't get a pass from me if I were on his jury.

You completely have misunderstood the case. The perp Ersland chased out the door and shot at while in pursuit was stated by the DA to be 100% legal. The perp Ersland killed didn't run anyway. He was downed when Ersland legally shot him in self defense during the initial robbery and then was murdered by Ersland after he chased the other robber. UNTIL pumping rounds into the unconscious robber on the floor of his pharmacy, Ersland had been within legal bounds to do what he did and to discharge the shots he discharged...according to the DA.

**OldMarksman** · September 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

The perp Ersland chased out the door and shot at while in pursuit was stated by the DA to be 100% legal.

That is true. But it does not mean that it was legal.

Patriot86 · September 20, 2012, 09:55 AM

Not smart to chase someone down like that; but even here in anti-gun Illinois they do not often charge people for it. A few years ago a Clerk up in Waukeegan IL (about an hour north of Chicago) chased a criminal outside and shot him while he tried to peddle away on a bike.

No charges filed

http://wauktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=63

Double Naught Spy · September 20, 2012, 10:32 AM

Quote:

But it does not mean that it was legal.

Sorry, I was defaulting to the local authority. A look at the law itself indicates that if Ersland believed anyone was endangered by the robber at the time, then he was legal. It falls under the guise of defense of others in self defense. It may not be smart in most cases, but whether or not something is smart isn't really part of the purview of the law.

The comment reminds me of those folks that think it is wrong to shoot somebody over property. They refuse to use lethal force against a guy with a knife robbing them of their wallet because to shoot the robber would be over protecting property. It isn't the property that is in question. It is the threat to life.

It was legal, as was the shooting of the original suspect that occurred during the commission of a felony attempted robbery.

**Frank Ettin** · September 20, 2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Quote:

But it does not mean that it was legal.

Sorry, I was defaulting to the local authority.

Sorry, but that doesn't quite work with the Ersland case.

It's true that Ersland was prosecuted (and convicted) for shooting the robbery on the ground, not shooting at the one running out the door. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecutor concluded that Ersland's chasing and shooting at the robber running out the door was justified.

It's entirely possible that the DA decided that the shooting of the incapacitated robber lying on the floor was by far the most obvious and strongest case. Therefore he might not have wanted to complicate the case by adding the other one. That's a kind of tactical decision that prosecutors make all the time.

MLeake · September 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

Frank, IIRC, the prosecutor in the Ersland case made a press statement saying that everything Ersland had done prior to retrieving the second pistol and shooting the downed robber had been justifiable.

**Frank Ettin** · September 20, 2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLeake

Frank, IIRC, the prosecutor in the Ersland case made a press statement saying that everything Ersland had done prior to retrieving the second pistol and shooting the downed robber had been justifiable.

I don't recall that, but if that is the case, I stand corrected.

war_elephant · September 20, 2012, 08:40 PM

The problem with the story change that the pharmacist drew his legally concealed firearm... is that there is NO possible way for the pharmacist to have a legally concealed firearm in NJ, unless he is a Law Enforcement Officer, or a Retired LEO. Look for the pharmacist to be charged very soon, NJ also has a duty to retreat law. When he ran to the back room to get his gun, under NJ law he had to stay there or go out back door. NJ laws require you to be a victim unless you are in your home.

Double Naught Spy · September 21, 2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Sorry, but that doesn't quite work with the Ersland case.

It's true that Ersland was prosecuted (and convicted) for shooting the robbery on the ground, not shooting at the one running out the door. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecutor concluded that Ersland's chasing and shooting at the robber running out the door was justified.

Sorry Frank, but the procecutor certainly doubted there being any sort of problem. He specifically stated this in the video concerning charging Ersland.
http://www.news9.com/Global/category...clipId=3804065

...not only giving chase and shooting, but even shooting the fleeing suspect in the back.

Looking at Oklahoma law, as noted by the prosecutor in the case and the events, Ersland's chasing of the robbery suspect and attempt to shoot him certainly can be legal. The prosecutor and the law are not divergent on this.

**Frank Ettin** · September 21, 2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

...Sorry Frank, but the procecutor certainly doubted there being any sort of problem. He specifically stated this in the video concerning charging Ersland.
http://www.news9.com/Global/category...clipId=3804065...

And I already addressed that in post 34.

September 16, 2012, 06:17 PM	#26
Colorado Redneck Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2008 Location: Northeast Colorado Posts: 1,993	Better make clear what I meant If you are endangered, that is a different animal. IMO. If the danger is passed, shooting at a fleeing criminal is over the top.

September 17, 2012, 12:42 AM	#27
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	Guys!!! What I said was "I actually have no problem with shooting a fleeing violent armed perpetrator...." I didn't say I would do so. In the case DNS cited there were extenuating circumstances beyond what was necessary to stop the perpetrator. In that case, it seems the shooter stood over the perp and executed him. He wouldn't get a pass from me if I were on his jury. What I mean is that I would not be personally against bringing down a perp who is fleeing if they had already shown violent armed criminal behavior. Look at the case of Luke Woodham. He walked into the high school in Pearl, MS and killed a couple of people. When the vice principal, Joel Myrick, stopped him he was about to head up a road that dead ended into the middle school. Woodham surrendered.He had 36 rounds of .30-30 ammo left and had killed his mother with a knife prior to going to the school. He was already in his car when the vice principal confronted him. If he had tried to drive away up that road to the middle school, even though he was fleeing and presented no further threat to Myrick, would anyone here have had any problem with Myrick putting one in the back of his head? (Believe it or not, there were those who castigated Myrick for pointing a loaded firearm at one of his students.) __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

September 20, 2012, 08:40 PM	#35
war_elephant Member Join Date: June 29, 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 70	The problem with the story change that the pharmacist drew his legally concealed firearm... is that there is NO possible way for the pharmacist to have a legally concealed firearm in NJ, unless he is a Law Enforcement Officer, or a Retired LEO. Look for the pharmacist to be charged very soon, NJ also has a duty to retreat law. When he ran to the back room to get his gun, under NJ law he had to stay there or go out back door. NJ laws require you to be a victim unless you are in your home. __________________ Marine, Retired LEO, Firearms Instructor, Life Member NRA Tea Party Member, and general all around trouble maker.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 20, 2012, 09:55 AM	#30
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	Not smart to chase someone down like that; but even here in anti-gun Illinois they do not often charge people for it. A few years ago a Clerk up in Waukeegan IL (about an hour north of Chicago) chased a criminal outside and shot him while he tried to peddle away on a bike. No charges filed http://wauktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=63

September 20, 2012, 11:36 AM	#33
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Frank, IIRC, the prosecutor in the Ersland case made a press statement saying that everything Ersland had done prior to retrieving the second pistol and shooting the downed robber had been justifiable.