I was wrong, cassandrasdaddy was right, I lost the bet. (OKC Pharm robbery)

[gunsmith]

 

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacists-supporters-seek-pardon-attorneys-begin-appeal/article/3572201

I had bet CSD that Ersland would be found not guilty, I had been planning on giving CSD
a hard time for yrs over this because I was right ( & CSD was wrong ) about the Joe Horn TX case back in the old thr days.

Fortunately I believe I only owe him a nickel.

[roo_ster]

Yes, but how do you denominate pride?

[Doggy Daddy]

Yes, but how do you denominate pride?

Winnah!

[gunsmith]

Ooops I didn't mean I was gonna lord it over him about being right, I meant that this case against Ersland had dragged on for yrs ... I still think he should had been let go

[De Selby]

He clearly broke the law.  The lesson for other shop keepers is simple - don't execute robbers who are lying on the floor injured from your first shot.

[Jamisjockey]

Yep. Execution is not the moral right of self defense. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

he still could have beat the rap if he hadn't been a serial liar   and a bad one at that. while i do think hes guilty i think his punishment should incluse minimal jail time if any.  i don't see him as a high risk to society

[RoadKingLarry]

He clearly broke the law.  The lesson for other shop keepers is simple - don't execute robbers who are lying on the floor injured from your first shot.

If the little darling had expired from the first shot Ersland would have never been indicted for murder or anything else.
My personal position is that while legally in the wrong morally and ethically he was in the right.

[red headed stranger]

My personal position is that while legally in the wrong morally and ethically he was in the right.

Agreed.

The law has set ROE in the use of deadly force. He pretty clearly broke them.   

[gunsmith]

you'll never convince me, I've been the victim of armed robbery and also been stabbed in another.

The dead thug entered the store with a armed companion, you have no way of knowing if the injured thug has a gun & you shouldn't search him unless you're a cop with backup.

dead thug participated in armed robbery, I went to the myspace pages of those thugs
( shows how long ago the crime happened ) and they were bragging about robberies/rapes/mayhem online.

I'm glad he removed thug from gene pool. If Hitler was on the floor wounded I would fill him full of lead too.

the thugs are just getting what they dished out, if you go around shooting at people for fun and profit don't expect sympathy from me

[MechAg94]

So if you saw a decorated war vet and failed artist on the floor, you would have shot him?  (I get tired of Hitler references; as if anyone really knew what he would do before he had bodyguards)

I saw the Joe Horn reference above.  I don't think this incident really has much in common with the Joe Horn incident.  Joe stopped shooting after the initial gunfire.

[De Selby]

Wow - executing a wounded and incapacitated man because he had previously threatened you is morally right!?  Why not have the death penalty for all threats of death?  That's basically what some have called for here.

[Matthew Carberry]

If the guy on the floor was a potential threat walking back into range to anchor him was stupid.

All the shopkeeper had to do was cover him from cover and let the cops handle it.  If the guy reaggressed -then- you shoot him more (assuming you don't take the wiser course and just leave).

[roo_ster]

This thread needs a fluffy kitty playing a mournful dirge for the burglar/oxygen thief who expired in the pharmacy:



Were I on that jury, I would have assumed the pharmacist saw some movement that caused him to fear for his life, again.

[De Selby]

I'm not shedding any tears for the victim either - a great many murder victims are people whose departure makes the world a better place.

For obvious reasons, the law of murder has never taken that into account.  You can't go around executing people because, on your own judgment, they're wastes of air.  The problem with allowing people to do that by jury nullification or otherwise needs no illustration.

[MechAg94]

I'm not shedding any tears for the victim either - a great many murder victims are people whose departure makes the world a better place.

For obvious reasons, the law of murder has never taken that into account.  You can't go around executing people because, on your own judgment, they're wastes of air.  The problem with allowing people to do that by jury nullification or otherwise needs no illustration.

The other problem is asking people a stressful situation to switch from "self defense - blow them away" to "danger over - play nice now" all in the matter of seconds.  Some allowance needs to be made for this. 

If this guy hadn't been caught on camera, I wonder if a fuss would have been made over it by anyone.

[RevDisk]

Wow - executing a wounded and incapacitated man because he had previously threatened you is morally right!?  Why not have the death penalty for all threats of death?  That's basically what some have called for here.

SS is right.   Shooting someone that is incapacitated is not self defense, ipso facto.   Now, I mean incapacitated.   If he was, or reasonably thought to be, going for a weapon, it is still self defense.

As for the death penalty, historically the government has proven to be incompetent to perform it correctly.   How many folks got off death row on DNA evidence?  Fine.   What about citizens?  Citizens are generally competent.  As a society, we have collectively agreed to certain rules.   One doing murder is wrong.   Killing someone that is not a threat is murder.  Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe not.   Deserving ain't got nothing to do with it.

The other problem is asking people a stressful situation to switch from "self defense - blow them away" to "danger over - play nice now" all in the matter of seconds.  Some allowance needs to be made for this.  

If this guy hadn't been caught on camera, I wonder if a fuss would have been made over it by anyone.

It is part of the responsibility of owning a firearm.   Legally and morally, basically everyone has a right to own one.   But one should be competent, or not exercise that right.  If one is incapable of shooting someone correctly, whether emotionally or procedurally, they should know their limits and act accordingly.   I know people that own firearms but only carry a taser.  I do not give them grief.   They are acting responsibly with regards to their perceived limitations.

I'm not shedding any tears for the victim either - a great many murder victims are people whose departure makes the world a better place.

For obvious reasons, the law of murder has never taken that into account.  You can't go around executing people because, on your own judgment, they're wastes of air.  The problem with allowing people to do that by jury nullification or otherwise needs no illustration.

This is a deficiency of the law.   Not a positive feature.  It has caused more grief and harm than it has provided benefits.   

Also, while I am not a nullification advocate, the legal profession should quietly accept that the general population will only accept so much gratuitously obscene laws and behavior.   They should mind this as potential feedback.   Else wise the only alternative is even less pleasant.

[T.O.M.]

the problem I've had with this case from the first time I saw the tape was those final shots.  If Ersland was able to chase one bad guy outside, walk back in, find a second weapon, stand over the downed bad guy, and then fire shots, I hvae trouble believing he was reasonably in fear for his life when he fired those shots.

Like it or not, we armed citizens live under a microscope. every time an armed citizen fires shots, the whole world sits in judgement.  A rightous shoot gets ignored.  but every time one of us does something even remotely questionable, the media screams foul, the anti's jump up and down pointing to it as an example of why RBKA is wrong, and our rights are put in further jeopardy.  Saying things like "It's ethically and morally right to stand over a man and shoot him several times" doesn't help our cause in the least.  It makes us all seem like rambo wanna-bes who are only out looking for a reason to carve a notch on the grip of our revolver.

Were the original shots justified?  No doubt.  Was the murder conviction justified?  IMHO, yep.

As an aside, I see two lessons, aside from the obvious one of not standing over a bad guy and shooting him on the ground...

1.  Don't lie to investigators.  Ever.  It makes them look at things all the harder.  If all esle fails...shut up, lawyer up, and do nothing else.

2.  Juries like to hear from the accused in cases like this.  They want to hear the explanation as to why it was necessary to shoot.  Ersland's lies to the investigators made that impossible.  Something to keep in mind.

[gunsmith]

So if you saw a decorated war vet and failed artist on the floor, you would have shot him?  (I get tired of Hitler references; as if anyone really knew what he would do before he had bodyguards)

I saw the Joe Horn reference above.  I don't think this incident really has much in common with the Joe Horn incident.  Joe stopped shooting after the initial gunfire.

I had disagreed with CS Daddy during the Joe Horn case, I knew he would be found not guilty CS Daddy thought otherwise, that's the only common denominator. The OP was about me admitting that I was wrong, the jury found the guy guilty. Personally I disagree with the jury.

& yup, if a half wit artist & decorated vet took part in an armed robbery in a store I owned and was downed in the fight & I saw he was still moving? I would assume he was still armed and was attempting to retrieve a weapon. If I had sufficient cover maybe I wouldn't shoot him. ( maybe I would, I wouldn't convict the person that does )

Would I handle the situation better than Ersland? I know I would because I've already had a person pointing a gun at me that I could have legally shot, I gave them a chance because I knew they had a single action and the hammer wasn't pulled back. I chose life in that particular instance. 

Mr dead thug reaped the whirlwind.

Things speed up/slow down/ & you may not be thinking clearly in the seconds/minutes after an armed robbery attempt that you shot at someone pointing a gun at you. 

IMO Ersland was suffering from some form of ptsd & had never really thought about legal/moral issues of gunfighting.

When I was a taxi driver I spent a lot of time going over the what if's & what should I do as well as being interested in the subject, all of which served me very well the times the shtf.  Ersland didn't but I know that he should have been acquitted the dead thug initiated a gun fight & lost.

[gunsmith]

Wow - executing a wounded and incapacitated man because he had previously threatened you is morally right!?  Why not have the death penalty for all threats of death?  That's basically what some have called for here.

You're simply impossible to have a frank discussion with,  addressing your concerns is pointless.

In one thread you declare that the first amendment means we have to endure Dbags like the westboro cult, in another thread you say its ok to circumcise babies without anesthesia.  In this thread you simply repeat your argument over using different words.  I guess DeSelbyville is a fun place but I'm not going to visit. I already lived in both San Francisco & New York City, thanks anyway.

[De Selby]

Gunsmith, a correction there - the supreme court declared that the westboro mob has a first amendment right there, not me.  I correctly predicted the outcome of their consideration because the first amendment law is pretty obvious - like I said, that poor father should be demanding a refund from his lawyers.  They baited him into running a guaranteed loser of a case.

I'm not sure how it's bizzaro world to contend that people shouldn't be executed without trial.  Thats the sort of behaviour drugged up thieves engage in, and that's why there are harsh penalties for it.  It's also why we make the death penalty available in that case - executing people is an abhorrent crime.

Having a policy of looking the other way because you don't like the victims is insane.  Just ask yourself "how could a general principle of allowing people who 'deserve it' to be shot dead go wrong?"

Any honest answer to that question reveals why the jury was right to jail the murderer in this case.  They would also be right to jail the robber.  There's no need for a sympathetic victim in order to recognize a crime.

Edit: why does my iPhone predictive text suck so much?

[gunsmith]

De Selby April 22, 2011

So wait a second here, you don't think the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular speech from official censorship???

It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like.  Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.

I'm not sure how it's bizzaro world to contend that people shouldn't be executed without trial. 

Argue with your self all you like, no one is saying execute ppl without a trial.
What I'm saying is dead thug initiated a gunfight during a robbery, don't imprison the store owner for surviving and reacting abnormally in an abnormal situation. The Store owner DIDN'T GO OUT LOOKING TO EXECUTE ANY ONE, THEY CAME TO HIM AND SHOT AT HIM!!!  Ersland acted in a strange and unusual manner due to the strange and unusual circumstances the dead thug forced him into. You & ppl like you have great 20/20 hindsight ... I'm sure you'll be calm & rational minutes after  YOU'RE IN A GUNFIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE AGAINST MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS TRYING TO KILL YOU.

[De Selby]

We expect people not to execute the wounded and incapacitated every day - many, many people manage to defend themselves without an execution.  That's part of owning a firearm, as has been said on this thread.  Anyone who doesn't think that is a reasonable undertaking ought to sell his guns.

[Tallpine]

We expect people not to execute the wounded and incapacitated every day - many, many people manage to defend themselves without an execution.  That's part of owning a firearm, as has been said on this thread.  Anyone who doesn't think that is a reasonable undertaking ought to sell his guns.

Yeah, he should have just handcuffed the wounded robber and then kept the EMTs from attending to him until he bled out and died 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

THEY CAME TO HIM AND SHOT AT HIM!!!

they never fired a shot at him.  his fables about a gunfight and faking his wound notwithstanding