[fifeboy]

Thanos Thanos:

No one said that you can't defend yourself, only that self-defense no longer applies if person who just shot a robber in the head chooses to pump five more bullets into someone who was clearly incapacitated and no longer capable of threatening anyone else.

The video evidence was clear enough to convince an Oklahoma jury which, in case no one's noted it yet, isn't exactly a place teeming with hardcore liberals just waiting for an opportunity to get on a jury so they can stick it to whitey. Those two factors alone should be enough in and of themselves to convince the rest of us that appropriate justice has been served.

Quite true. (And funny to boot!)Buy ya a pint Thanos.

[fifeboy]

Brenda Brenda:

Don't worry, I don't carry a gun so I won't shoot anyone out of rage.

Brenda, you can't even imagine how much this statement relieves me!

[Freakinoldguy]

Brenda Brenda:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Brenda Brenda:

The man is not hurt nor wounded, so it was not self defense. When you shoot first (or hit someone first, or stab someone first) YOU are the attacker, not the defender. He has no injuries to prove it was self defense. The fact those 2 kids TRIED to rob his place does not mean the man can just shoot him.

Pardon?

So you're telling me that in the States, if confronted by a gun carrying robber, who bursts into you're store with the weapon visible, you have to wait till he shoots before you can defend yourself?

Sorry Brenda but if that was the case there wouldn't be a conveniece store clerk left alive in America.

All I have read is that they were UN-armed and TRIED to rob the place. They didn't get away with it, one was dead first.
Did you read that the other one has plead guilty to murder because his partner in crime got killed? And that is FAIR to you? 2 17 year old punks, looking for some bucks (sure, wrong way, totally) and a store owner going away for life because he, as a trained military man, could not control his anger? That is OK with you?

Sorry, but it outrages me.

Don't worry, I don't carry a gun so I won't shoot anyone out of rage.

Paragraph 14 Line 1 of the article:

$1:

A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed.

And I'll stand by what I said. If you burst into a store with you're buddy who happens to be brandishing a weapon and you get shot in the head, tough fucking luck.

As for him shooting him five times when he was down, well, Ersland got what he deserved for his uncontrolled rage and had he not done that we wouldn't be talking about this at all, since it would have been just another robbery gone bad.

[Thanos]

Pretty much. Sometimes there isn't even a victim in these cases. Instead, like in this one, there merely appears to be at least two assholes.

[PostFactum]

Thanos Thanos:

Pretty much. Sometimes there isn't even a victim in these cases. Instead, like in this one, there merely appears to be at least two assholes.

Your money is victim.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

$1:

A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed.

And I'll stand by what I said. If you burst into a store with you're buddy who happens to be brandishing a weapon and you get shot in the head, tough fucking luck.

As for him shooting him five times when he was down, well, Ersland got what he deserved for his uncontrolled rage and had he not done that we wouldn't be talking about this at all, since it would have been just another robbery gone bad.

Nobody is arguing he can't defend himself. Especially in Oklahoma with it's make my day laws. You just can't execute people once there is no threat. Thank God that even there they at least recognize that.

I don't quite understand why he didn't shoot the guy with the gun first. Thats what I would have done. Only makes sense from a self-defense pov, (what if the guy with the gun had fired back instead of run?) and makes it easier to prove self-defense afterward.

[Lemmy]

andyandy andyandy:

I don't quite understand why he didn't shoot the guy with the gun first. Thats what I would have done. Only makes sense from a self-defense pov, (what if the guy with the gun had fired back instead of run?) and makes it easier to prove self-defense afterward.

That's the whole problem with gun fights. They're high-stress, high-intensity, high anxiety events. Everything happens so fast that no one has a chance to consider what to do. There's no strategizing. That's why the "if I'm armed I can protect myself" argument is bullshit. If you're drawn down on, you'll most likely never get a chance to pull your weapon and if you do, you're more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else. Gun nuts tried to argue the Virginia Tech massacre could have been prevented if everyone on campus was packing:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7312540

[Yogi]

...Ersland hit Parker with one shot, knocking him to the ground, and chased the other suspect out the door. After returning to the pharmacy, he retrieved a second gun and shot Parker five more times 46 seconds after firing the first shot....

I'm going with the jury on this one, in principle. Not sure about 1st degree though as at the time Ersland pumped the 5 shots into the low-life-has it been proven that he was still alive? Can't be convicted of murder or manslaughter for shooting a corpse!

[fifeboy]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Paragraph 14 Line 1 of the article:

$1:

A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed.

I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada a very important question that has to be asked is armed with what? In Canada the response must be appropriate. Shooting someone who threatens to give you a wet willy is not appropriate. I don't know what he was armed with. DO YOU?

[Freakinoldguy]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Paragraph 14 Line 1 of the article:

$1:

A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed.

I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada a very important question that has to be asked is armed with what? In Canada the response must be appropriate. Shooting someone who threatens to give you a wet willy is not appropriate. I don't know what he was armed with. DO YOU?

$1:

Box had said Ersland was protected by provisions of Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law," named after a Clint Eastwood line in "Dirty Harry." Legislators in the 1980s initially gave residents the right to use deadly force when they feel threatened inside their homes, then in 2006 extended that to their automobiles or workplaces.

Prater said Ersland had the legal right to defend himself and his co-workers during the attempted robbery — and did when he fired the first shot that struck Parker in the head, knocking him unconscious. But the district attorney said deadly force must be used responsibly.

I guess it doesn't matter what those two kids were brandishing when they burst into the pharmacy, does it? Ersland felt threatened and acted appropriately and legally, whether you like it or not.

He only got into trouble after getting a second gun and finishing off Parker, which is where he got into trouble with the deadly force must be used responsibly part.

[Brenda]

Oh that's nice. So I only would have to claim I felt threatened to be able to kill someone. That's awesome.

[Freakinoldguy]

Brenda Brenda:

Oh that's nice. So I only would have to claim I felt threatened to be able to kill someone. That's awesome.

Here's the link all you bleeding hearts didn't want to see.




It clearly shows the fist kid in the door brandishing ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh wait for it wait for it wait for it ...............................a gun.

[Freakinoldguy]

Just click on the watch on youtube link and it'll bring it up.

[Brenda]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Brenda Brenda:

Oh that's nice. So I only would have to claim I felt threatened to be able to kill someone. That's awesome.

Here's the link all you bleeding hearts didn't want to see.




It clearly shows the fist kid in the door brandishing ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh wait for it wait for it wait for it ...............................a gun.

The kid wasn't dead yet. He should have called 911 when he got back in, not get another gun and shoot the kid dead.

I can see why he fired in the first place, but that was more than enough.

[Freakinoldguy]

Brenda Brenda:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Brenda Brenda:

Oh that's nice. So I only would have to claim I felt threatened to be able to kill someone. That's awesome.

Here's the link all you bleeding hearts didn't want to see.




It clearly shows the fist kid in the door brandishing ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh wait for it wait for it wait for it ...............................a gun.

The kid wasn't dead yet. He should have called 911 when he got back in, not get another gun and shoot the kid dead.

I can see why he fired in the first place, but that was more than enough.

Agreed. The kid was down and he shouldn't have come back to finish him off.

But people kept insuating that since they didn't say gun, these kids weren't armed with one. But the video says otherwise and the fact remains that in the states when someone says armed they generally mean, with a gun and then, if it isn't a gun they clarify.