|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 17, 2011, 08:48 AM | #251 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
The lying by Ersland is the point that lots of folks are missing. Folks are also missing the fact that Ersland went on TV, with and without his sorry lawyer. Ersland injured his arm and claimed that two pieces of a .22 bullet hit him in the arm: Fired by a gun in the hands of the late perp. Ersland claimed to find .22 casing/s near where the body of the late perp lay. Ersland even lied about his military record. The Ersland and his lawyer got the first judge relieved from the case. Then Ersland and his lawyer claimed that the second judge assigned to the case made a racist comment in court. This second judge is the one who tried Ersland. Let's see what we have here: 1. Ersland initially had the police on his side until he told a plethora of lies. 2. Then Ersland went on TV and told more lies. 3. Ersland and his sorry lawyer badmouthed the judge assigned to hear his case. 4. Finally the DA had seen enough and charged Ersland with murder. i don't know how this kind of stuff plays out in other states, but: 1. Here in OK if you lie to the cops they get p'od. There is a good chance they will give the prosecutor a bad report. 2. If the prosecutor gets a bad report from the cops and then sees you on TV telling lies about a shooting you committed he gets p'od fast. 3. If you try to get the judge off your shooting case based on trumped up trash he may get p'od. P'od judges can do subtle little things that can have a grave impact on the defendant in a murder trial. i'm not saying this judge did that....just saying. |
|
July 17, 2011, 10:29 AM | #252 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in! Even if he didn't say anything, I'm pretty sure the forensic evidence spoke for itself.
__________________
"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 17, 2011, 10:31 AM | #253 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
And the jury convicted on the evidence, not the 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 17, 2011, 11:03 AM | #254 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
In a word...Yes.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
July 17, 2011, 11:08 AM | #255 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
July 17, 2011, 11:15 AM | #256 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
It's a shame no one gets in schoolyard fights anymore. Back in the day, every young man was expected to develop enough self control to NOT kick the other guy when he was down. You might be mad enough to beat him to a bloody pulp, but no matter how mad you were or how badly you wanted to mash his nose into jelly, you wouldn't kick him in the head when he was on the ground and couldn't fight back.
Darn this modern life that's allowed so many men to reach adulthood without knowing they could control their murderous impulses like that. pax |
July 17, 2011, 11:37 AM | #257 | |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Quote:
Having been the "butt kicker" and "butt kickee" plenty and I can say I have a respect for those that beat me fair and square! Brent |
|
July 17, 2011, 11:52 AM | #258 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,118
|
+1 Pax!
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. |
July 17, 2011, 11:59 AM | #259 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
Quote:
Creating a criminal mindset in advance leads to criminal choices under stress. Creating a good mindset in advance leads to good choices under stress. Thanks for bringing that up. It was a good point even though I took it in a direction you almost certainly didn't intend. pax |
||
July 17, 2011, 12:15 PM | #260 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,118
|
Excellent post Pax!
Gives me a moment's pause to think a few things over. I'm sure your words had the same effect on others as well. Thank you.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. |
July 17, 2011, 12:18 PM | #261 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
|
Quote:
Thank you Pax.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat |
|
July 17, 2011, 01:39 PM | #262 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Ersland was born back in the day, however. However, back in the day, the same thing likely would have happened in such a robbery.
__________________
"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 Last edited by Double Naught Spy; July 17, 2011 at 05:44 PM. Reason: don't text very well with cell phone, LOL |
July 17, 2011, 02:48 PM | #263 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,974
|
Quote:
The justification for deadly force VANISHES once the threat is over. If you kill someone when there is no justification for the use of deadly force you're committing murder. If your actions make it plain that you killed them deliberately and with intent then you're committing murder 1. Quote:
1. Ersland doesn't give any evidence of being a man "in the heat of passion". He goes about his task methodically. 2. Too much time elapsed between the initial incident and the murder. But here's an even better answer: The jury examined all the evidence and felt that it didn't apply because his actions and the evidence warranted a conviction for murder 1 rather than a lesser charge. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, it doesn't matter. It is legally acceptable to kill someone in self-defense. The key is the phrase "in self-defense". That means that the killing takes place during the course of self-defense. It means that the goal is self-defense, NOT killing. As I said earlier, what's the point of killing the attacker if you or your loved ones die soon after? What does it matter if you and your loved ones are kept safe but the attacker survives? Neither one matters if the goal is self-defense and that's the way it should be. If you train yourself either intentionally or unintentionally to seek the death of your attacker you've done yourself a disservice. 1. You may let your true goal slip at an inopportune moment and severely complicate what might otherwise be a very simple case of self-defense. 2. Your mindset may drive you to make unwise decisions or take unwise actions during a self-defense encounter which could put you in the same jam Ersland is in. 3. Your mindset may cause your tactics to suffer. While in some ways using deadly force to kill is very similar to using deadly force in self-defense, it is different in other ways. Losing track of what your true goal is may expose you, your loved ones, or innocent bystanders to unnecessary danger. You don't want to take an ill-advised shot in an effort to kill when it really isn't necessary to stop the encounter. That shot is one more shot that requires you to expose yourself to return fire. It's one more shot that could miss or pass through or ricochet and hit an innocent bystander. It's one less shot that you will have available if a threat that you haven't identified yet presents itself. It's a shot that you may not be able to explain when questioned later. And so on... In Ersland's case he clearly went to an extreme to try to kill one robber by chasing him down the street firing at him. That exposed him to needless danger of return fire, it exposed others to danger from his shots and possible return fire from the robber and it was almost certainly a contributing factor in helping the jury determine what his true goals were. And although he verbally expresses concern about his "people" in the 911 recording, if he were really concerned about them, his time would have been far better spent insuring they were safe or summoning help if necessary instead of running down the street firing at a fleeing robber. (By the way, this is another piece of evidence that Ersland either didn't consider the robber on the floor to be a danger to anyone or didn't really care about his "people". If he really thought that the robber on the floor was a threat and cared about his employees he would have had no choice but to stay behind and insure that the robber didn't cause any injury to his employees.) In Reston's case it made sense to go for a CNS shot because he was desperately trying to survive and realized that his time had run out. Had he simply decided to kill the guy, had he decided that he was going to die anyway so he might as well take his attacker with him, a higher percentage approach to that end would have been to riddle the attacker's chest with bullets. Hunters understand that shooting an animal through the chest offers the best chance for killing it even though it may not result in an instant kill. That's because bullets to the chest have a better chance of scoring a hit, a better chance of hitting something vital and a smaller chance of being deflected by protective structures. The lower power of a pistol round makes avoiding bullet deflection even more critical.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||
July 17, 2011, 03:51 PM | #264 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,974
|
Quote:
This thread caused me a great deal of concern and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and the implications of many of the responses on it. Last night I actually began to consider if perhaps I should re-evaluate my views on gun control. If there is really this much confusion in the gun community about what constitutes murder and how it differs from self-defense then maybe private gun ownership isn't really as good an idea as I've always thought. But today I realized that the problem with this thread is that the focus has been wrong. Why should we debate whether Ersland was right or wrong or about how wrong or how right he was? Given that he's been convicted of murder 1 and is now serving life in prison, he clearly did something wrong--no matter how you break things down, ending up with a life sentence in OK for shooting an armed robber is a pretty good indication that the wheels definitely came off somewhere along the line. Therefore, our focus should be on how we can avoid similar mistakes. So with that in mind... How not to screw up like Ersland did. Prepare Physically
Prepare Mentally
Do the right thing.
Don't do the wrong thing.
** I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not providing these comments as a primer on how to get away with the crime Ersland committed, I'm making these comments to point out things that Ersland did that we should avoid so that our actions won't falsely give the same appearance that his did.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
July 17, 2011, 04:05 PM | #265 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
Great post, great discussion. I am still torn on the murder 1 vs manslaughter issue. What he did was wrong indeed. He is not a hero as some wrongly assert and he has done great disservice to CCW holders nationwide. If the definition of murder 1 is that he intended to kill and not just stop, then so be it, perhaps the jury got it right.
God bless, Alaska |
July 17, 2011, 04:56 PM | #266 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
We see the same mindset challenge on home defense threads all the time, too. A lot of us really want to defend our 'stuff' and punish the bad guy for coming into our homes in the first place. That's why we get so agitated when someone tells us the best tactics are to hide and call the cops. The safest thing to do -- the thing that gives you the best chance of surviving unscathed -- is to hole up behind a locked bedroom door, determined and prepared to fire if the intruder enters your safe haven, while you wait for the cops to arrive and deal with the situation. When our true goal is to stay safe, that advice isn't a problem for us. But if our goal is actually something other than staying safe (protecting our 'stuff,' punishing the criminal, deterring other would-be robbers, looking like a hero to the spouse and kids), then advice to stay in a safe room and avoid confronting the criminal is very hard to take. The goal dictates the tactics. If the goal really is self defense, the tactics you naturally use in support of that goal will keep you and your family much safer than tactics designed to reach any other goal. pax |
|
July 17, 2011, 09:38 PM | #267 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 727
|
Quote:
I agree that it is time to refocus on learning from the shooting. Nobody is going to change their minds anyway. My first thought is: What kind of gun did the pharmacist have in the beginning? IMO, anything other than a full sized, high capacity pistol unnecesarily handicaps a shooter. I see small .38 specials behind C-Store counters all the time. I would never limit myself unless I was CC the gun. |
|
July 17, 2011, 10:21 PM | #268 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 727
|
Quote:
Basically, if I were away from home I'm working out the odds of what is the most like action, or lack there of, to get me back home safely. If I'm at home I'm not going to hide in a room and call the cops every time I hear an unexplained "bump in the night". If there is a threat, I'm going after it. Why? I will not live in fear and I'm not going to have something bad happen to my family that I might have prevented. I'm not macho, I'm not trying to punish anyone, I don't care about "stuff" and I'm not trying to impress anyone. I feel this is a very logical way of looking at things. This isn't saying that I'm going to kill any bad guy that enters my house. I'm just saying he had better shoot quickly, run quickly or surrender quickly. |
|
July 17, 2011, 10:43 PM | #269 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
Don't know how many times he'd been a crime victim. Don't know how many times he called the police in vain. Some citizens get damned well tired of low life punks. The druggist crossed the line and didn't control himself in the heat of battle. Personally, I'd rather have seen a manslaughter verdict. The other punks who victimized him will be out victimizing other good decent people while the pharmacist is incarcerated for life--if they even serve any time at all. |
|
July 17, 2011, 10:47 PM | #270 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Perhaps you have not considered just how unsafe "going after" a threat can be. Study these: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...11&postcount=8 http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...13&postcount=9 If those do not convince you, then heed John's advice: And if it is the right kind of training, you will understand fully that the best strategy is always to let the threat come to you, once you have gotten your family together.. Quote:
|
||||
July 17, 2011, 10:51 PM | #271 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
I agree, I am torn over the 1st degree aspect of it. Technically, it does appear he meant not to stop but to kill. He must have had a terrible lawyer to not get a lesser charge out of the jury, but in reality, he has no one to blame but his own incoherent and contradictory statements over and over. He had no credibility whatsoever if you listen to his public comments available.
The first 36 seconds of his actions could have been interpreted as heroic, if not for the last 10 seconds of shooting a man down on the floor. What was going through his mind? Was this his Walter Mitty moment? It sounds like it, and in that sense, perhaps it was 1st degree. But in general, I am still conflicted over a manslaughter charge. So be it, what he did was really dumb and his post shooting actions were even dumber in some ways. God have mercy on all their souls including the dead kid. I am glad I am not judged by my actions as a 16 yo punk kid. |
July 17, 2011, 11:13 PM | #272 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,974
|
Quote:
Quote:
The bigger lesson is that those who act on the mistaken assumption that it is will find themselves in the same boat as the low life punks they seek to eliminate. Just as Ersland has. Quote:
Quote:
The irony (and the lesson for us all) is that in the eyes of the law, the pharmacist is now more or less equivalent to the armed robbers who attacked him. It will be the same for us if we fall into the trap(s) he did. Quote:
Speaking of evidence... Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||||
July 18, 2011, 10:42 AM | #273 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
Catfishman, I added the bolding above so you could maybe see exactly what I'm talking about. From where I sit, your post adds up to, "Yes, but I have a different goal than protecting myself and my family during the event. My true goal is to deter a second invasion." That's fine. But it's not the same thing as having the true goal of keeping yourself and your family safe during the encounter. And that is the sort of mindset challenge that could easily add up to trouble during an actual encounter, if not ruthlessly dealt with ahead of time. pax |
|
July 18, 2011, 11:23 AM | #274 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 449
|
Interesting thread. I'm still not conviced of 1st degree murder though. He overreacted in the heat of passion, adreneline, etc. 2nd degree murder is probably what he is actually guilty of (murder in the heat of passion). Not that I'm defending his actions after the robbery was over, of course. I'd never shoot someone who's already wounded and on the ground unless he was still armed and conscious and won't disarm himself on command.
__________________
I have rounds yet to fire before I sleep ... |
July 18, 2011, 11:34 AM | #275 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
He returned from a foot chase, retrieved a second gun, and then proceeded to shoot a person who was no longer a threat. He came back, thought about it, then executed someone. The law provides limits about the use of lethal force, and he blew right past them. He did not appear to be "heat of passion" or anything but calm and in control. He then went on to lie repeatedly about the sequence of events. NOT minor errors, huge differences from the recovered video. |
|
|
|