The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 15, 2011, 09:54 AM   #151
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by geetarman: The pharmacist, IMO, was wrong to shoot the perp on the ground after he was down and posed no immediate threat, but I cannot see first degree murder.
Twelve Oklahoma jurors who heard the testimony and who saw and considered the evidence, and who were instructed about what constitutes first degree murder in the state of Oklahoma, did not take very long to decide unanimously that the crime was first degree murder.

My first reaction in learning that Ersland was to be charged with first degree murder was one of surprise, but after reviewing the law, the jury instructions, and the circumstances of the case, the reasons became crystal clear to me.

Ersland purposely fired multiple shots into the person on the floor. One can only conclude that he did so with the intent to take the man's life unlawfully.

And that's that.

Quote:
I think he will spend some time in prison...
No doubt about it.

Quote:
...and will walk after an appeal and retrial.
Can you come up with any conceivable reason for an appeals court to require a retrial?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 09:58 AM   #152
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
chadstrickland, wasn't insulted by earlier posts but thanks. I do understand why people are sympathetic in the case. Hell, part of me is too. To a point though. I also agree with the principle of assisted suicides. But the fact is, it's against the law. No, the law isn't perfect but it's what we have. If we don't abide by it,and take it upon ourselves to mete out what we deem as justice, then our society has the potential to implode. The old west is gone, as much as we think that there was honor in that lifestyle. Posses, lynchings, gunfights, how many of these were done in the name of that honor? Were all the right people the subjects of these? If we allow things like these to perpetuate, then are we any better as a society than those we condemn for stonings, honor killings,and the like? Mahatma Ghandi I think said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Might have been said before that, but that's who I was taught said it. I don't know if any have said it better.
__________________
"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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 09:59 AM   #153
micromontenegro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 508
Quote:
It was done with forethought.
The fact is we can suppose, but we cannot know if there was forethought. The jury thought so, and they had access to the info we don't, so I tend to think you're right.

But I also think he could be still panic-stricken and not show it. See, I've seen people walk exactly as calmly as he did, and pick up the last pencil on their desks when a bombing was well underway. The mind is not a simple device.

I agree that maybe- just maybe- he would have walked free if it wasn't for his lying.
micromontenegro is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:06 AM   #154
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
It did take forethought to unlock the drawer to retrieve the second gun. Reaction would have been having a pistol holding 17 rounds and firing 16. Not sure about him walking after the first viewing of video though.
__________________
"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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:14 AM   #155
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by micromontenegro: The fact is we can suppose, but we cannot know if there was forethought. No one can know, but one can decide whether there is reasonable doubt.
The qustion to be answered is whether or not deliberate intent existed in the mind of the defendant to take a human life.

Retrieving a second handgun and firing five shots into someone who is lying on the floor should pretty much answer the question of reasonable doubt.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:18 AM   #156
chadstrickland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
That is true icedog...now i have to ask you a question..have you ever been in a situation like I was in...where you where completely without a doubt innocent..and yet everyone said you where guilty..and only by the grace of god did my brother survive and tell them the truth...you say its what we have and we must abide by it or our society will implode....I say when law becomes injustice rebellion is duty...thomas jefferson also said that
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..
chadstrickland is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:24 AM   #157
micromontenegro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 508
Quote:
Retrieving a second handgun and firing five shots into someone who is lying on the floor should pretty much answer the question of reasonable doubt.
Again, I agree. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This whole case is a disgrace.
micromontenegro is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:27 AM   #158
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
chadstrickland, I too believe that if it becomes injustice rebellion is necessary. AFTER all other means to change the law have been exhausted. And yes I have. Was looking at eight years in jail for having a legal firearm in Mass. D.A said it was illegal even though the law stated I had 60 days to register it. One year for every round and one year for the gun. Was legal because I had just moved back to Mass from VA. Jury found me not guilty after 1 1/2 hrs of deliberation. This trial went on for 2 years and cost me $17,000.
__________________
"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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:43 AM   #159
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,577
Okay, for those of you who don't agree with the first degree murder conviction, why do feel that the conviction does not meet the criteria for Oklahoma law?

Note that this is a law query, not one about how your kid was getting beat up or how you have a fear of criminals, what your dealings have been in some other court, or any other non-relevant (to this discussion) and/or emotion-based justification.
__________________
"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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 11:19 AM   #160
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
This whole case is a disgrace.
He crossed the line form legitimate self defense to vigilante.
brickeyee is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 11:25 AM   #161
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,794
I know how the game is played. It isn't over till it is over.

Like it or not, many youth of today do not accept that others have a right to resist someone forcibly taking something from you.

That you have the gall to "disrespect" carries the obligation to retaliate.

I have seen it and been the victim of it.

I don't think the pharmacist should walk free. I AM saying a smart lawyer is going to appeal and my guess is the pharmacist is going to walk.

Geetarman
geetarman is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 11:35 AM   #162
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by geetarman
I don't think the pharmacist should walk free. I AM saying a smart lawyer is going to appeal and my guess is the pharmacist is going to walk.
geetarman,

That was my take on the news reports fairly early on. I believed he'd broken the law, but I just didn't believe a jury in OK would convict him for it. And if they did convict, I was almost positive it would be some lesser offense, like manslaughter, rather than first-degree murder.

I was wrong.

Of course there will be an appeal or six, since there's no such thing as a "perfect trial" and a determined lawyer can always find grounds for an appeal -- at least as long as the client's money holds out. There might even be a retrial.

But even if there is a retrial, unless there's evidence of dramatic malfeasance getting this initial conviction, I doubt he'll walk. It's a very solid case with a lot of very public evidence.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 11:54 AM   #163
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,794
We won't know until it all plays out. Time marches on and some memories fade.

I do believe a sharp lawyer will appeal and he will walk. We had a case in Arizona where a man shot and killed another while hiking. The man shot was walking some dogs off leash and the dogs purportedly came after the shooter who shot in front of the dogs to back them off and was set upon by the person walking the dogs, who was shot and killed.

Everyone thought the shooter would get off because of the circumstances. It did not happen and the shooter was sentenced to prison.

If memory serves, he was there about 5 years.

There was a retrial and the shooter is out.

There is not a good outcome for either one in this case at this point and certainly no good outcome for the guy killed in the drug store.

I am sure the jury heard a lot more than most of us and based their verdict on the information they had.

Much like the uproar over the Casey Anthony trial. The verdict, many thought would be a slam dunk for the prosecution. It wasn't.

The American system of justice is far from perfect, but is pretty good when compared to others.

I can accept the verdict returned by the jury.

I still believe a smart lawyer is going to find some wiggle room and justify a retrial.

I am betting some time and a change of venue will return a different result.

OTOH. . .I have been wrong before!

Geetarman
geetarman is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 11:56 AM   #164
chadstrickland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
You was looking at 8 years for a illegal weapon that was legal..you had evidence and laws to prove you where right...I was looking at being charged for murder when the evidence and all the evidence said it was me...and was only saved by my brother surviving..had he not..then we wouldn't be having this conversation...and this is what they gave me as a slap on the back and to make me happy I suppose...made me out to be some kind of big hero...but I wont forget what they where trying there hardest to do...that's the lesson I learned about our law and I am a quick learner...nothing anyone can say to me will change what I got to witness for myself...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2011-07-14_06-39-24_886.jpg (244.5 KB, 31 views)
File Type: jpg 2011-07-14_06-39-44_465.jpg (241.4 KB, 18 views)
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..
chadstrickland is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 12:21 PM   #165
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
I do commend you for saving his life. It was unfortunate that you found yourself in that pos to begin with. However, this is a very different case and not to sound condescending, but you are still quite young and a few bad experiences in that time does not mean that's the way it always is. We get to hear the worst cases but far too many to list work the right way. Kinda like at work if you do one bad thing, that's what the boss remembers
__________________
"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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 12:49 PM   #166
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by geetarman: I do believe a sharp lawyer will appeal and he will walk.
There will undoubtedly be an appeal. Whether it will result in anything other than a finding that the trial court procedure was proper remains to be seen; personally, I doubt it.

However, should a higher court throw out the verdict of the trial court, Ersland would not "walk" unless (1) the state declines to pursue a retrial, or (2) he is acquitted in a second trial. I think that either one would be a far fetched assumption.

Quote:
We had a case in Arizona where a man shot and killed another while hiking. The man shot was walking some dogs off leash and the dogs purportedly came after the shooter who shot in front of the dogs to back them off and was set upon by the person walking the dogs, who was shot and killed.
You are referring to the Harold Fish case.

Quote:
There was a retrial and the shooter is out.
He is out, but not because of a retrial.

Fish's attorneys appealed the conviction on a wide range of issues, mostly related to suppression of evidence and decisions to not allow the testimony of certain expert witnesses. The appellate court rejected most of Fish's arguments, but it did agree with two of Fish's contentions: (1) that the trial court jury had not been instructed properly as to what constitutes "unlawful physical force"; and (2) that the jury should have heard evidence that the decedent had been known to act violently when confronted about dogs in his care. Fortunately for Fish, his attorneys had positioned him to be able to prevail on those grounds.

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a retrial.

The state decided to not pursue a second trial after Fish's conviction was overturned.

I have my doubts about whether any appeal by Ersland will benefit him. One possible ground--improper jury instruction--is probably not likely, because (1) Oklahoma uses a uniform set of very simple jury instructions and (2) the jury was given the option of convicting Ersland either for murder in the first degree or for a lesser charge, or of acquitting him. There really did not seem to be much contention about the admission of any evidence or testimony.

But even if he were to get a second trial, there is no reason that I can think of to expect that he would "walk".

But then, time will tell.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 12:54 PM   #167
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Kinda like at work if you do one bad thing, that's what the boss remembers
So true. I have always put it as, "One ahsh*t cancels 10 attaboys'.

I certainly understand chadstrickland though. I've experienced the court and officers of the court totally believing in the illusion and punishing me until such time as the facts become available. more than once this has happened. People seem to like to hold dearly to negative beliefs. The negative has so much power. I suspect that is what got Ersland into his situation to begin with.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

Last edited by Hook686; July 15, 2011 at 08:33 PM.
Hook686 is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 12:54 PM   #168
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Memories may fade, but that video tape will not.

There's no way Ersland wins on any appeal, unless his attorneys find some way to get the tape disqualified, and I don't see how they'd do that.

I also don't feel justice would be served if they did find a way.

He's where he deserves to be. Plain and simple.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 01:29 PM   #169
chadstrickland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
Me and you share the same kinda boss icedog ...and it is true I may fall hit my head and have a whole new aspect on life ( not saying y'all are wrong in believing what you do )..but as the old saying goes..fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me...I have already been told by numerous people that I have trust issues..but that has served me well..after all you have to trust someone to be betrayed and I really only trust 1 of my 4 friends..much less a bunch of people that I don't know and im supposed to trust them with my life..I worry about doing that with doctors enough ......im just in a lose lose situation..oh well its life
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..
chadstrickland is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 01:40 PM   #170
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
Like it or not, many youth of today do not accept that others have a right to resist someone forcibly taking something from you.
But you still do not have the right to execute them once they are no longer a threat.
brickeyee is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 10:21 PM   #171
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,570
Quote:
what would you do if the same thing happened except he wasn't fully unconscious his gun laying safely at your feet and he looks up and says the cops can arrest me now but ill get out in a couple years pleading insanity and when I do ill come back and kill your wife and kids while you are at work one day.....are you going to roll the dice and see if the system works..or commit cold blooded murder and shoot him..because you and I both know it would be a shaken house owner found robber laying on floor and executed him.....in my opinion ersland pretty much did the latter...if that guy with the head wound ever recovered he would have probably wanted revenge for being so messed up and stuff...so no I say it was his call to make and he did...you can say this is all some wild theory but nobody knows what was going on through his head that night...was ersland scared of retaliation or not..idk but I say it was his call
1. I have made a decision to live my life within the law. That means I am not a criminal and that means I would not murder someone regardless of the circumstances.

2. I am not a moron, so even if I had made different life choices and actually were a criminal, I wouldn't be stupid enough to admit publicly that I would murder someone if the circumstances made it "desirable" and I thought I could get away with it.

3. Ersland did nothing of the kind. There was no threat made by the juvenile robber because he was unconscious and he was unarmed. Whatever Ersland did, he did because he wanted to, not because of anything the unconscious robber did or said or threatened.

4. People are very good at rationalizing to come up with "reasons" to do what they already want to do anyway or what they were already going to do or what they've already done. Maybe Ersland was able to rationalize killing an unconscious person who posed no threat the same way you rationalized a scenario where you would feel it would be reasonable to murder someone. That doesn't indicate that Ersland was justified any more than it indicates you would be justified if you murdered someone in the scenario you describe.
Quote:
the only time I ever seen the system working first hand I was about to be getting screwed by it...and only saved not from the system but because my brother woke up and was able to tell them...
I've seen the system work both ways. This case is a case where it worked the way it should have, but that doesn't make it perfect.

More to the point, the fact that it's not perfect doesn't give people the right to murder people if they feel like they can rationalize the act of murder to themselves.
Quote:
that's the lesson I learned about our law and I am a quick learner...nothing anyone can say to me will change what I got to witness for myself...
Whatever happened, if the lesson you learned was that it's OK to murder someone if you can justify it to yourself, then you really came away with a mistaken impression. An imperfect legal system doesn't come anywhere near to justifying murder.
Quote:
In some sense I feel like a citizen who protects himself or herself - is acting like my agent to deter potential crime in the future.
I feel somewhat the same. But when a fellow gun owner murders a fellow human being like Ersland did, besides feeling bad like I do any time I hear about a murder, I also feel like it hurts all gun owners.

AND, it's important to remember that while deadly force self-defense may deter potential crime in the future, that is NOT a legal justification for shooting someone. The legal use of deadly force is to stop or prevent certain very serious crimes that are immediately about to begin or that are currently in progress. We can think of the possibility that deadly force self-defense may deter potential crime as a happy side effect, but we can NOT use that side effect as a justification in and of itself if the immediate justification for the use of deadly force doesn't already exist.
Quote:
And I am left with my anger over the fact that we have laws and policies in place in this country that seem to perpetuate and protect – even nurture criminality in this country while hindering and hampering citizens from protecting themselves.
Except that Ersland WAS able to protect himself. Quite effectively, in fact. And the prosecutor has made it plain that he did nothing wrong by protecting himself.
Quote:
And just because someone logically comes down on the side of the verdict in this case – I have to tell myself – they’re not giving validity to all the wrong-headed thinking that we have going on in society the thought that it’s somehow morally better to be a victim than to use a firearm to protect one’s self…
Sorry, this is a major load of crap. NO one is suggesting that Ersland did anything wrong by using a firearm to protect himself. No one here on this forum, not the prosecutor, not the laws of OK. What he did wrong was that AFTER he successfully and legally defended himself he returned to his shop and executed a helpless human being lying unconscious on his floor. That's got NOTHING to do with "protecting one's self".
Quote:
But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This whole case is a disgrace.
Mine too. Instead of another successful case where a CCW holder protected himself and others and turned out to be a hero, we have good incident turned bad by the CCW holder's decision to commit murder after the incident.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 02:04 AM   #172
huntinaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Is murdering someone always absolutely wrong? Yes is the easy answer. But, as with most things the details matter, a lot. And the degrees of wrongness vary.

If your answer is, "YES!" Consider the murder of Bin Laden and his family and friends. Was that murder? Absolutely! Was it wrong? Hell No!

If your answer is, "YES!" Consider the mother that smuggled a gun into a courtroom and shot the man who molested her son. Was that 1st degree murder? Absolutely! Was it wrong? Maybe, somewhat. Clearly she could have been found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. But, if I remember correctly she got a slap on the wrist. As she should have.

Did the pharmacist murder the robber? Yes. But this doesn't rise to life in prison. Imagine the rage and helplessness he felt during previous robberies. I would imagine that he decided to himself something like, "I will not cower and beg for my life and the lives of my employees again!"

When it happened, he was ready and in the end he exacted revenge on the robber on the floor. Shooting a defenseless robber isn't as wrong as kicking in someone's door and killing and robbing someone.

I completely agree that he has to be punished, but life in prison is absurd.

I also understand that this is about the worst press imaginable for the law abiding gun comunity. But that doesn't change that it is wrong to treat a business owner who took fighting off a robbery way too far, like a serial killer.

Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.
I like it, Catfishman. My thoughts are similar.

I'm not arguing that what the pharmacist did was illegal in the "eyes" of the law. But stop and think about what happened. The perp and friend came in waving a pistol in the pharmacist's face, which is a challenge to the death. They absolutely did start the fight, and started it with deadly force. The pharmacist ended it with deadly force. Just because he had to reload doesn't change the fact that a pistol was pointed in his face 45 seconds prior to that.

Had he ended it with the first shot alone, and he very likely did, all would be fine. Think about that. The perp would be just as dead. I see all this "it's the law" talk... this is less black and white than I think you all realize. Just because he seemed calm on the crappy surveillance video doesn't mean his body wasn't raging with adrenaline. I can guarantee you it was, there is no way around it. Your body does that in fight or flight situations. You cannot control it. A momentary lapse in judgement, due very likely to adrenaline, does not constitute first degree murder in my opinion and certainly does not deserve life in prison in my opinion. I can see most of you disagree.


Quote:
Ersland did not finish a fight by emptying his firarm into the man on the floor.

The "fight" was over when the armed robber fled.
We know that because we can replay the video. You think the pharmacist knew that? He saw a pistol, and he took an available shot. Why put parentheses around fight? What else would you call what you saw on the video?

Quote:
He would shoot to kill
What the hell other reason is there to shoot somebody? We all know what bullets will do when they rip thru somebody's body. If you are shooting somebody, you are intentionally trying to kill them. There is no arguing this.

Quote:
As for drugs: he's a pharmacist, and addiction is a common occupational hazard in that profession. I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that, but I do tend to turn a skeptical eye toward those who act irrationally & tell inconsistent stories about their lives.
Do you know how hard it is to steal drugs from the pharmacy you work in and get away with it? Of course you don't, you don't work in a pharmacy. Pharmacies inventory their controlled substances at least once a year, and if some are missing they are accounted for or somebody is held responsible. This is enforced by the DEA. If you wouldn't jump to conclusions, then why go to the trouble to point that out?

And finally, I can't find the exact post but one person said something to the effect of
Quote:
the pharmacist will be fine, he'll end up working behind the pharmacy counter in prison
The pharmacist will be a prisoner, in prison. In order to work in any pharmacy, you have to be licensed by the state. In order to be licensed by the state, you have to not be a felon in prison. There is no flippin' way that pharmacist will be behind the pharmacy counter while he's in prison.

The problem about the case, and internet forums, is that there is the tendency to have knee-jerk reactions to what you see and argue vehemently on the subject. "It is illegal" is the clarion cry, but if you look at what happened, two guys (one armed) started a fight against a pharmacist they thought was unarmed and the pharmacist intentionally killed one of them. I understand the pharmacist intentionally killed that guy. And I wouldn't give him life in prison, given the circumstances. You can call me a barbarian all day long if you want. But if you slam some scumbag that comes into your place of business or home un-announced, waving a pistol in your face, and you end the fight...you'll be glad I'm on the jury.
__________________
"Once you quit hearing sir and ma'am, the rest is soon to follow." - Cormack McCarthy
"Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy
huntinaz is online now  
Old July 16, 2011, 02:45 AM   #173
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
huntinaz and chadstrickland, Ersland ended the fight when he rendered the first robber unconscious. Nobody has a problem with that portion of it.

You can keep making up all the hypothetical stories you want; you can paint as ugly a future for the decedent, had he lived, as you like; you can argue your point until you're blue in the face.

You may believe in An Eye for an Eye. If you really think society would be improved by returning to the days of Hammurabi's Code, you need to review your ancient history a bit more closely. We haven't had Eye for an Eye since the days of English Common Law or the Napoleonic Code, neither of which recognize the concept; and most of us think that's an improvement.

The fact of the matter is, Ersland had ended the fight. Period. The dead kid was not dead yet, but unconscious and helpless. Ersland chose to retrieve a second firearm, and pump five bullets into him as he lay there on the floor. For an attempted armed robbery, and a botched one, at that.

If the guy had killed Ersland's pharmacy tech, I might see a lesser charge; if Ersland had been seriously injured, I might see a lesser charge. There still should have been a charge, but I'd have been more able to accept his actions as having been caused by fear, or rage, and beyond his ability to control.

But that wasn't the case, and what Ersland did was first degree murder. (Instead of second degree murder or manslaughter, which I'd have seen as reasonable in the other hypotheticals.)

You don't retrieve a gun, walk over, and shoot an unconscious person on the ground. A US soldier might be able to make the case that he thought the guy was playing dead, and lying on a live grenade, but even then that soldier would be under scrutiny - and that's in a combat zone.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 02:53 AM   #174
cracked91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 385
Im with COuntzero 100% on this one. I can see very clearly where the line was crossed. I can see very clearly why he was convicted of the crime he was charged with.

But I can't help but empathize Ersland in some ways. And I especially can't help feeling bad when watching the interviews, as I believe it was also COuntzero who pointed out, you could tell that a few of the wires in his brain had been disconnected. Like he actually believed what he was saying, or he was describing a dream.

But I won't be joining the crowd who calls him evil. Misguided, definitely. But subtract the security tape and give Mr Ersland a few of his marbles back so he can keep a story together, and he probably would have been cleared. And then losers like us who have nothing better to do than cluck around in our internet henhouse would have called him a hero.

Legally, I know that Mr Ersland committed 1st degree murder. Ideologically, I don't quite see it this way. I feel that the most severe murder punishments should be reserved for the serial-killer type criminals. Call him a cold blooded killer, but there is a difference between this man and a man who sneaks into a house a 2am and slits a 10 year old girls throat.

His actions were very wrong. But I would need to have access or extremely clear evidence to something nobody here does - his mindset and true motive behing shooting the robber on the ground. Because while his actions very well may have been revenged based, its not something that anyone but Mr Ersland actually knows.

I cant shoot a rabbit and let it kick around on the ground for 5 seconds without shooting it till it stops moving. l can't stand to watch things suffer. Now a human is not an animal. But in some ways this could have made it even harder in that aspect, watching a kid in a pool of blood who had been shot in the head squirm around dying slowly.

Now please people. Im not saying that was the thought process. Again, noone here knows it. I am just exploring possibilites. I also realize that that is inconsisent with anything Ersland said. But, I would be surprised if Ersland didn't know that he had done something wrong during or after the incident, and he may have been trying to think fast.

Again, and I emphazie this, I know what happened. And I agree with the verdict. There are multiple valid points on this thread by multiple members from multiple views. The case itself just makes me sick.
cracked91 is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 04:10 AM   #175
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,570
Quote:
What the hell other reason is there to shoot somebody? We all know what bullets will do when they rip thru somebody's body. If you are shooting somebody, you are intentionally trying to kill them. There is no arguing this.
Somewhere around 90% of the time a person uses a gun in self-defense no one is shot at all. Somewhere around 80% of the time a person is shot with a handgun they survive.

It may help your argument to make it sound like using a gun in self-defense, or even actually shooting someone in self-defense, is a death sentence but nothing could be farther from the truth.

People shoot attackers in self-defense to make them stop attacking. Who cares if the attacker dies if he kills you or one of your loved ones first? Who cares if he lives if you and those you care about survive uninjured.

The prognosis of the attacker is irrelevant to a person who is LEGALLY using deadly force in self-defense. As long as the attack is stopped it shouldn't matter what the long-term outcome is. And once the attack is stopped the justification for deadly force ends.

People who are overly concerned with whether the attacker lives or dies aren't concerned primarily with self-defense as they should be. They are using deadly force to enforce their personal brand of justice, to take retribution on those who have wronged them, to try to right the wrongs of society by killing those they think aren't worthy to survive. That is totally unacceptable in an organized & civilized society.

That is why the pharmacist went to prison and that's why the charge was so severe.
Quote:
But I won't be joining the crowd who calls him evil. Misguided, definitely. But subtract the security tape and give Mr Ersland a few of his marbles back so he can keep a story together, and he probably would have been cleared.
Getting rid of evidence doesn't make him any less evil. His evilness is NOT dependent on being held accountable nor is it dependent on whether the state had the evidence to prove their case. What made him evil is the evil thing he did, not the fact that evidence existed to prove it. Personally, I'm very glad that he was caught. I can think of few things worse than an evil person being hailed as a hero because nobody knows the evil that he did.
Quote:
Consider the murder of Bin Laden and his family and friends.
When you declare war as Bin Laden did, and seek to kill your enemies whenever and in whatever manner you can then you give up your right to live peacefully and unmolested. Your enemies now have the right to kill you without being considered murderers.

While it is certainly true that murders do sometimes happen during wars (formal or informal wars) it is absolutely not true that all killing in war is murder. Trying to redefine well-accepted terms (like murder) to support one's argument is not a reasonable debate tactic.
Quote:
But in some ways this could have made it even harder in that aspect, watching a kid in a pool of blood who had been shot in the head squirm around dying slowly.
This is getting ridiculous. I understand that some of you don't agree with the way this case came out, but fabricating "evidence" to rationalize your views is unreasonable. The testimony, certainly supportable by blood evidence is that the kid did not move after he was shot the first time in the head and fell to the ground.

And the idea that Ersland was moved to shoot him out of pity is laughable. If he truly had pity on him he could have immediately called for medical attention after repelling the attack. Instead he chased one robber out of his store and down the street emptying his gun at him and then returned to the store, checked the robber on the floor, retrieved a second gun and walked over to shoot him. His motives are clear from his actions--there's no need to try to make up implausible motives for what he did. He wanted them both dead. He couldn't catch the one but he was able to come back and kill the first one.
Quote:
I am just exploring possibilites. I also realize that that is inconsisent with anything Ersland said.
Why explore "possibilities" that you admit are inconsistent with the evidence?

What is it that makes you so desperate to understand and explain this murderer so what he did doesn't sound as bad as it obviously was?
Quote:
The pharmacist ended it with deadly force.
He DID end the fight with deadly force. Legally.

When he came back and murdered the man on the floor the fight was already over and had been for some time.
Quote:
The perp would be just as dead.
That's pure speculation. As we know from the Gabby Giffords case, and others, being shot in the head with a handgun is not a death sentence.

Besides, it doesn't really matter. Had he stopped when he should have and the robber expired it would have been legal self-defense. As it was he clearly committed murder.
Quote:
A momentary lapse in judgement, due very likely to adrenaline, does not constitute first degree murder in my opinion and certainly does not deserve life in prison in my opinion. I can see most of you disagree.
A momentary lapse in judgement is one thing. Walking back to the store, checking the robber, going to retrieve a second gun, and walking back over to shoot an unconscious man repeatedly is NOT a momentary lapse in judgement. That's called carrying out a plan.
Quote:
the pharmacist intentionally killed one of them
And that's exactly the problem. Instead of just trying to stop the attack he was set on killing them. Self-defense isn't about killing, it's about preserving the life and well-being of the defenders and defended. If the attacker dies in the process, that's acceptable to the law. But the law does NOT give anyone the right to TRY to kill someone in self-defense. It might be the outcome but it is not the goal from a legal standpoint and therefore should never be the goal of a law-abiding citizen.

This is not complicated stuff, folks. Just look at the term "self-defense" and it can hardly be plainer. It's clear that the focus is on "defense", not killing and on defense of "self", not offense against the attacker.
Quote:
And I wouldn't give him life in prison, given the circumstances. You can call me a barbarian all day long if you want. But if you slam some scumbag that comes into your place of business or home un-announced, waving a pistol in your face, and you end the fight...you'll be glad I'm on the jury.
First of all, there is no need for biased jury members in a legal self-defense case. It's certainly possible to use deadly force in self-defense and still be exonerated without having someone who won't convict a murderer sitting on the jury.

Second, and I've already made this point once, but it seems to be lost on some here. If you kill someone when society via the law says that it's illegal you are just as much of a scumbag as the guy who "comes into someone's place of business or home unannounced and waving a pistol in his face".

It is our ACTIONS and DECISIONS who make us either law-abiding or criminal scumbags. There is NOT some magical quality that humans are born with that makes one person a criminal and another law-abiding. If a person decides to commit murder and then carries it out, he is a criminal. A scumbag who deserves to go to prison.

The idea that some have that that some of us are somehow automatically good guys by virtue of some intrinsic trait is EXTREMELY disturbing, especially when it's used to rationalize actually MURDERING someone. This type of thinking is what leads to genocide, cleansings and holocausts. One group convinces itself that it's intrinsically better than another group (or other groups) and then they're off the hook for their actions and decisions because in their minds it's not actions and decisions that are important.

Law-abiding citizens aren't born with some intrinsic "betterness" than criminals, they create themselves by making correct decisions and by living within the law.

Criminals aren't born scumbags, they create themselves by making bad decisions and by performing criminal acts. ANYONE can make himself into a criminal scumbag by making one or two bad decisions and by performing just one criminal act. The pharmacist did just that.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.19017 seconds with 8 queries