Double Agent Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 but only shoot once. Pharmacist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 take one of these and call me in the morning.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The guy should be brought up on charges. If he had incompasitated the thief, there was no reason for the additional shots being fired. I can understand if he shot him several times before he hit the ground, but based on the article, the thief was already on the ground and unconscious when the pharmacist went and got another gun and continued to shoot him. To me that is murder, and you aren't likely to find someone more pro-gun than I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The guy should be brought up on charges. If he had incompasitated the thief, there was no reason for the additional shots being fired. I can understand if he shot him several times before he hit the ground, but based on the article, the thief was already on the ground and unconscious when the pharmacist went and got another gun and continued to shoot him. To me that is murder, and you aren't likely to find someone more pro-gun than I am. i agree the guy was wrong, but he didnt commit murder. you just get attacked by some animal and tell me if youre thinking straight. look at our supposed professional police officers. they almost get killed and beat the fruk out of people. guy wasnt thinking straight, scared poopytless, and did something wrong. manslaughter not murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 i agree the guy was wrong, but he didnt commit murder. you just get attacked by some animal and tell me if youre thinking straight. look at our supposed professional police officers. they almost get killed and beat the fruk out of people. guy wasnt thinking straight, scared poopytless, and did something wrong. manslaughter not murder. I'll go along with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I've alway been told if you draw a gun, be prepared to use it and if you shoot you shoot to kill. There's no need to risk losing the gun and having it used on you. This seems way over the top though, especially considering the guy seems to be lying and there is no proof the kid had a gun. I don't know if its murder though. Manslaughter, I'd accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 "Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer." Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said. He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries. ya know, I kinda see the DA's point there. I'd want to see all the evidence, of course, but it seems like when he went back the second time, he wasn't trying to protect anyone from anything. that said, if I'm a juror I still have a very hard time convicting a guy in that situation of murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I've alway been told if you draw a gun, be prepared to use it and if you shoot you shoot to kill. There's no need to risk losing the gun and having it used on you. This seems way over the top though, especially considering the guy seems to be lying and there is no proof the kid had a gun. I don't know if its murder though. Manslaughter, I'd accept. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controller Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 If I'm on the jury, he gets something less than manslaughter or it's a hung jury In today's lesson, we learn that you don't go robbing stores if you want to live long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 ya know, I kinda see the DA's point there. I'd want to see all the evidence, of course, but it seems like when he went back the second time, he wasn't trying to protect anyone from anything. that said, if I'm a juror I still have a very hard time convicting a guy in that situation of murder. I agree with this, except for the last part. If it's shown that he shot the guy in the head, incapacitating him, and then walked up to him and put five slugs in his stomach, then that's a little beyond the scope of acceptable use of force. I am not sure what the charge is specifically, but murder 2 would not be out of the realm of possibility, and manslaughter is definitely worth discussing. The scumbag is a scumbag, but is he's already shot in the head, incapacitated and unarmed to boot then the five shots in the stomach are only meant for one thing, and that's killing. There is a very important line between using a firearm to defend yourself from danger and pumping someone full of lead once the thread is ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 In today's lesson, we learn that you don't go robbing stores if you want to live long. and that's probably what the guy was thinking, which kind of makes him a vigilante of sorts. my hunch would be he probably had a reasonably clear head, and he probably thought along the lines, you put me in danger in my own store, you die, punk. I think his best defense would be to say he kind of lost it, so much adrenaline pumping, fight-or-flight instinct kicking in, etc. he'd probably be sort of lying, but I think it would create reasonable doubt. his lawyer should just flat-out ditch the "I was trying to protect myself and the two ladies" defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 If I'm on the jury, he gets something less than manslaughter or it's a hung jury In today's lesson, we learn that you don't go robbing stores if you want to live long. Me too. No way I'd convict this guy of murder...especially 1st degree. The prosecutor will lose this case before it even starts if he continues down that path. I'd be ok with manslaughter so long as he didn't serve time. I think he can be punished enough without sending him to prison. And the only difference between this guy and me is I would have unloaded on the guy as he was falling. I'm not going to shoot once and then check for a pulse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I agree with this, except for the last part. If it's shown that he shot the guy in the head, incapacitating him, and then walked up to him and put five slugs in his stomach, then that's a little beyond the scope of acceptable use of force. I am not sure what the charge is specifically, but murder 2 would not be out of the realm of possibility, and manslaughter is definitely worth discussing. Interesting, that the two of us are gun nuts and say the guy should be prosecuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Interesting, that the two of us are gun nuts and say the guy should be prosecuted. I am sure you are right with me when I say that I take the circumstances of how someone would use a firearm in self defense very seriously. If he fired the one shot, I would not feel this way. If he fired multiple shots to stop the attacker, no problem. It's the "Now I make sure you won't get up" shots fired after the guy was already down that concern me. You fire your weapon to stop the threat. That's how I have always been taught. Edited May 28, 2009 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I am sure you are right with me when I say that I take the circumstances of how someone would use a firearm in self defense very seriously. If he fired the one shot, I would not feel this way. It's the "Now I make sure you won't get up" shots that concern me. You fire your weapon to stop the threat. That's how I have always been taught. Yep, though aiming for center mass I'm probably not going to need a second shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Interesting, that the two of us are gun nuts and say the guy should be prosecuted. Not so weird. Legitimate gun rights people should be concerned over this incident as it provides plenty of ammo for the gun control lobby. As Nick says, few would have an issue with the first shot but coming back, changing guns and firing five more (and those were the fatal ones) is so far beyond self-defense or reasonable force it's laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yep, though aiming for center mass I'm probably not going to need a second shot. Actually my "first shot" would be a double-tap to center-mass. If the guy's still standing then you put one in his head. Other than that I generally agree with something along the lines of manslaughter. The would-be robber did initiate this, and I don't see much time for premeditation which is the standard for murder, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controller Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 and that's probably what the guy was thinking, which kind of makes him a vigilante of sorts. my hunch would be he probably had a reasonably clear head, and he probably thought along the lines, you put me in danger in my own store, you die, punk. I think his best defense would be to say he kind of lost it, so much adrenaline pumping, fight-or-flight instinct kicking in, etc. he'd probably be sort of lying, but I think it would create reasonable doubt. his lawyer should just flat-out ditch the "I was trying to protect myself and the two ladies" defense. Exactly. Think about it - the robbers woke up that morning thinking "We're going to go point a gun at some innocent people's heads and steal a bunch of money" The store owner woke up that morning thinking "I'm going to work today and hopefully make a little money to support my family." Then the robbers show up, the owner is understandably shaken up and he somehow gets the upper hand and shoots one of the bad guys while the other one gets away. At this point, as Az says, he loses it and goes vigilante. If his attorney says "yeah, he kind of lost it, but who wouldh't?" I think most of us would want to go easy on the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Actually my "first shot" would be a double-tap to center-mass. If the guy's still standing then you put one in his head. Other than that I generally agree with something along the lines of manslaughter. The would-be robber did initiate this, and I don't see much time for premeditation which is the standard for murder, right? Premeditation is the standard for murder one, I think. Manslaughter is for accidental death, IIRC. This ain't manslaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) I thought this thread would be about somebody showing up at Perch's to borrow a cup of sugar. Edited May 29, 2009 by Swampnuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) Premeditation is the standard for murder one, I think. Manslaughter is for accidental death, IIRC. This ain't manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances or state of mind.Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder. The following defenses may be raised to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter: 1. A killing occurred after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose control. 2. A situation caused the defendant to act in the heat of the moment, without reflection. This falls under the provocation heading. 3. Imperfect self-defense is allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the U.S. Self-defense is generally a complete defense to murder. However, if a person acted in an honest but unreasonable belief that he can justifiably resort to a deadly force to defend himself, he may still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation. 4. Diminished capacity or a mental breakdown can be a defense to negate the mental state of "malice". If a jurisdiction recognizes that a person can kill with justification, but also without any evil intent, that jurisdiction is free to define the crime as something less than murder. Not all US states do this; in many, a mental defect, or even mental illness, won't reduce the seriousness of the offense whatsoever. However, if a US state legislature chooses, a diminished mental state may justify the finding of a lesser crime. im no law expert but i think any 4 of these defenses could and will be used. Edited May 29, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 im no law expert but i think any 4 of these defenses could and will be used. Likely 1 or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) im no law expert but i think any 4 of these defenses could and will be used. Apparently with good reason. The shooter left the room, effectively reloaded, then came back for more. That's not "losing control," that's a deliberate decision that evidenced reflection. As far as diminished capacity goes, you generally need to show you didn't understand the consequences of your actions, and that guy knew exactly what he was doing. He said as much: he was defending himself and 2 others. The only defense I'd buy into is #3: imperfect self defense. Maybe. His actions were clearly unreasonable (not the initial self-defense - the going back for more part), but if I were convinced he acted with an honest belief that he was still protecting himself or others from immediate harm then I might buy it. Bottom line: the shooter executed a scum bag that had it coming. Unfortunately, that isn't the legal standard to avoid a murder charge, regardless of whether it ought to be. Edited May 29, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 The entire surveillance video is here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 The entire surveillance video is here Pretty hard to call the 2nd volley self defense. That guy meant to do exactly what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.