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.