Really america... Really?

You are right ... it is sick ...

I am just going to take a stab here but I would say the Prosecutors or the jury has never had a gun pointed at them ... it does change the way you look at things, when that happens ...

I had that happen once ... some crap job late at night ... but I thought I was safe being right across from the police dept. NOPE!!!

My gun was in my truck (stupid company rule)... and some drug filled a$$ came in with a gun and wanted all the money ...

I gave it to him as he pulled the gun higher ... but to make a long story short. Three guys walked in the store as I was handing the money over. They yelled, I dove for the the counter and he ran ... never to be caught. I still think to this day ... he would have shot me and never gave it a second thought ...

I gave my notice that night ... a whole hour ... as the report was being filed.

After that I would not take a job that a "No carry rule".

And yea ... IF I had my gun on me ... there would not have been a bullet left.

 

In the story it says this

I have to wonder if this person who is not innocent by any means was a danger, would he still be lying there after the time it took Ersland to follow the other perp? I would think if he was, he would not be lying on the floor waiting to be shot and he have either left or changed to be hiding for if and when someone came back. Based on that, I think the guy went overboard in shooting him again 5 times with a different weapon.

Andi, I can see your viewpoint, but to take the time to walk away looking for the other guy and then come back and still choose to shoot this guy makes me feel this guy was a little short in the head. In that time, I would hope he would have cooled off enough to wait for the cops, not go looking for another gun fight.

 

I thought it was sickening until I read:

"The man WITH Parker then allegedly pointed HIS gun at Ersland (the pharmacist). The pharmacist drew his own weapon, a small semiautomatic handgun he had in his pocket, and fired at Parker, who was unarmed, striking the youth in the head"

SoOoOo...Parker is the UNARMED robber. The fool near him, an accomplice, HAS A GUN and points it at the pharmacist. Why did the pharmacist shoot the unarmed teenager multiple times and not his gun-pointing partner? Doesn't make sense at all. Plus, if you watch the video, he walked out of the store and walked back in, grabbed a gun again, and finished Parker off (whom was already lying incapacitated on the floor)....

If it were me, I'm crazy, I'd shoot them both but I'd have to pay the price. Just like this pharmacist is doing for shooting and killing an unarmed person.

I however think he did the world a favor and got rid of the scumbag. They could have easily killed anybody in the place.
However, I can definitely see the prosecutions point.

And yes, I've had a gun pointed at me, recently. 3 cops mistaking me for a runaway prison lawn crew (remember my post? http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f26/i-had-sh-t-your-pants-moment-today-6234/)...if I were to shoot back at the cops, I'd be, well dead, but if I survived, I'd be in jail for LIFE.

 

The guy would have probably got off if he had not went back in and finished the kid off. If he had fired several shots into him to begin with it would have been totally different. That would have been the heat of the moment. I hate to say it, but the guy has to have something wrong with him to do what he did. Too bad he didn't kill both of them.

 

Moral of the story...kill 'em.

 

I dont really want to comment on this, but...

IF... he comes back to shoot an unarmed man, who has already shot once, and is presumably lying on the ground bleeding, 5 more times, then he is no longer shooting in self defense.
That said, it seems strange to me that you can assign someone 'malice aforethought' to someone who he has just had his first interaction with 5 minutes ago, and in the midst of a robbery.

 

We have read the huffington posts side of the story ... but have we check into the other side ...

The boys mother, Jenning said that while her son did go into the pharmacy with a gun, she believes other people put him up to it - She was right and they are also in jail.

The other boy, Ingram (now 15 :gaah has pleaded guilty to first degree murder.

Now from a friend of Lt. Col. Jerome Ersland ...

Lt. Col. Jerome Ersland | A Hero Under Siege

 

The sadder moral:
When we as a nation are finally fed up with the do gooding crybabies that are wrecking,have wrecked our nation,the body count Hitler amassed during WW2 will seem like a weekend drive by shooting.human nature will see to it,so will nature itself.it is human nature to desire self sufficiency,and when some force denies this instinct,or as observed,tries to breed it out of a creature that is solitary,self reliant and violent by nature bad things happen.

You simply can not house break a lion into a sheep,no matter how much you want it to be a sheep,the lion will re emerge,probably when it needs to least!

 

I was all kinds of pissed when I started reading. But hey, the guy got mad and over did it. Makes gun owners look like moronic killers. Just what we need. THAT, sickens me.:gaah:

 

You need to actually watch the video. Firstly, he shot the unarmed assailant, not the armed one. That's a mistake anyone could make, fine. When in the heat of the moment, bad things can happen. I doubt he was trying to intentionally shoot the unarmed one. He saw a gun and fired at the attackers. At exactly this point, the burglar turned tail and ran, and none of his following actions are even remotely related to self-defense. He CHASED THE OTHER ONE OUT THE DOOR. That's not self defense. That's not the actions of a hero. In fact, that's the actions of someone who is irresponsible and bloodthirsty. Then he comes back, gets another gun entirely, and shoots the other robber 5 times in the stomach. According to the coroner's report, that person (who, again, did not have a gun) was lying flat on his back when he was shot. The cause of death wasn't even the head wound, it was the abdominal ones.

These are not the actions of a hero, at all. These are the actions of someone who felt "Oh these scum need to PAY for trying to steal material goods from an insured store!" He did not let the other robber retreat, the lunatic actually chased him. And he killed someone who was not fighting.

This nutcase should be roundly condemned for his actions. He actually pursued someone with intent to murder, and murdered someone who was not a threat anymore, and never actually was. This is what I'm talking about with the kind of talk I hear from a lot of people. Silly things like "hide your gun behind a newspaper". You're not interested in self defense at all, you see yourself as a vigilante. You are salivating at the chance to kill a "scumbag". When people make statements like these they make all gun owners look like insane persons, and I see others here, people I otherwise respect, actually cheering that behavior on.

This is what you get when you cheer that behavior. This was not self defense past the first shot, at all. This was cold blooded murder. People need to pay more attention to Massad Ayoob and less attention to Mixed Martial Arts instructors calling their insane ramblings "self defense training".

 

I have watched the video and I still see it the same way. (and not one of them show what the 'would be robber' is doing.)

I guess now if you are a store owner with a gun in that store, you can be charged with premeditated murder. I mean ... you do have a gun and we know what it does.

Material goods and insured store ... Wow ... I'm not even going to go there...

 

You're okay with someone pursuing a retreating criminal, and then coming back afterwards, going to the back, getting another gun, shooting a helpless person 5 times in the stomach and then calling the police?

You're absolutely sure that you want to go on record as saying it's completely okay to execute someone who isn't a threat? The robber he shot didn't have a gun. Every news source makes it extremely clear that this person had no gun. This person is not a threat. Even if he's moving around he's not a threat. He was shot in the head, and again he did not have a gun.

You're totally okay with someone executing another person solely because his friend pointed a gun at someone else and demanded drugs from an insured store? You have no problem with shooting someone who's down 5 times in the stomach just because they're moving around? Not because they're an "imminent threat" but because if the moon and the sun align just he might he might be able to stand up, stagger his way over to the pens on display, grab one and threaten you with it before he bleeds out? And this is not just some example of the courts/liberal media protecting the criminals, either. The police found the gunman, and he's rotting in jail on a murder one charge because he's as liable for what happened as the would-be Punisher is.

 

Hindsight is 20 20 ...

townparkradio - You say execute and I say fight of flight response (yes, he went with fight)... You say the boy he shot was the unarmed assailant. I say the boy along with a friend went into the store "with a gun". That gave the store owner how long to think about that. He saw a gun and he acted to it. (Or was he to stop and ask, "Hey, do you have a gun ... are you going to use it?")

You and a many more say the would be robber was not a threat ... I can not see what he was doing, so I will take the word of the people there ... till something, don't sound right. But many feel Jerome Ersland was supposed to have automatically assumed that.

You keep bring up material goods from an insured store ... Does that make it alright for a bad guy (no matter how you spin it, he was a bad guy) to come into a store (with a gun) and demand drugs and money ... Hell, why lock the doors ... just hand it over ... It is just material goods and we are insured.

My house is full of material goods and yes, it is insured ... but am I going to stand by while some punk helps himself ... NO! Am I going to stop and ask them questions? NO!

But you can if you want!

 

The testamony apparently swayed the jury, but the tape sure shouldn't have.

The store owner's adrenaline level had to be sky high as he returns to the downed scumball. Notice on the tape the the store owner appears to be hugging close to a display rack -- it appears as though he was concerned for his safety.

Did the bad guy roll over and move his hand in a manner that could appear threatening with a hidden weapon? Should a civilian's ROE require he be shot at before he can return fire? I don't think so.

My guess is the good guy had a bad attorney and the prosecutor was interested only in getting a conviction.

 

I agree with Immolatus. I also agree with Lexsurvivor's post "I cant say I wouldent have done the same thing. The only thing scarier then someone attacking you now is someone who will attack with a vengence with more people and when you least expect it."

My hubby knows a pharmacist & attempted robberies, break-ins, etc. are a fact of life for him. I have to say if 2 guys show up & only one has a gun, given the opportunity I'm shooting both. Patiently waiting for the other to show me his gun seems like a senario with a likelihood of turning out bad for me.

 

I saw the survealence video

You only get to shoot until the threat is eleminated.
If he had stopped after he persued the second perp out of the store , he would have been ok but he comes back in and retrieves a second gun and delivers several more shots into a perp who was laying helpless on the floor, killing him.
That is murder not self defence.

 

If I would have been on the jury the man would be considered a hero.
He was making an honest buck. He was working at an honest job.
We have become a poor place to live when an armed robber is valued over an honest working man.