I just re-read the affidavit, and to add to the discussion, there's no evidence that the armed suspect fired any shots. (Not that it matters that much, dude had a gun and was waving it around!)
I just re-read the affidavit, and to add to the discussion, there's no evidence that the armed suspect fired any shots. (Not that it matters that much, dude had a gun and was waving it around!)
please don't use your ignorance of how the disability percentage of veterans is determined. %100 doesn't = incapacitated. There's plenty of literature online. Trying to belittle the man because he's able to walk/run is pretty sad.
None of the 3 camera angles shows the direction the other kid and Mr. Ersland were running. Since this is the direction from which both the thugs arrived at the pharmacy, it would make perfect sense that a driver, or back-up was waiting in that direction.
And you're right, a crime was committed, and at least one of them committing it got what he deserved.
He was released on a 100,000 bond. With stipulations that he not be allowed to be around guns.
The judge had to YELL at D.A. Prater when he disagreed with her stipulation, stating that he had a right to defend himself and the pharmacy. Hmm.... this is getting weird. Hat's off to Prater for taking a yelling from the judge in defense of his right to protect himself.
Something ain't right here tho....
I have to wonder...
For all you people who say the kid "got what he had coming to him" or what he "deserved," are you okay with the death penalty, as well?
Since when do we as individuals get to decide another man's fate? This kid "deserved" a trial in front of his peers; instead, a vet decided to unload a clip in his chest. Why did the pharmacist get to decide?
Still corrupting young minds
Lots of this on here all of the sudden:
![]()
From theonion.com:
I…I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!
Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!
Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!
All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!
Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon…c'mon…yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!
Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait…what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!
The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!
Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.
What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard!
No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.
For Richard's sake.
What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!
We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now…careful…if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!
Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!
All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.
Unless…wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working!
We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!
Ironic, really, isn't it?
It looked to me the kid who was killed was still putting on his mask when he got shot...Hate to say it but even though you can't see the kid on the ground he slowly walked over and crouched down to fire off the 5 shots...Doesn't seem like an action done by a man reacting to a move if he crouches down to get a closer shot
My take is the dude swore he would make someone pay if they were robbed again and unfortunately he did just that...Tough call on this one
I don't know many people that could get up after being shot in the head and continue attacking someone...except for Michael from Halloween.
Still corrupting young minds
Are we really saying the death penalty is justified for every 16 year old kid who takes part in a robbery?
"We" have said nothing to that effect.
Here's a question for you - was there a phone in the back room with the women? I wonder if there are some 911 calls from them that we haven't heard, yet.
Just the fact that I've never been robbed at gunpoint...Easy to sit back and digest this all of 30 second beyond stressful situation logically but since I haven't been in that situation I find it a little difficult to judge him too harshly
I do agree it looks bad but I can imagine the amount of adrenaline involved as well
That could be enough to mitigate to manslaughter, but that's about it. That's a tough sell for me though because for voluntary manslaughter to work, there has to be adequate provocation to arise intense passion (check) and not enough time to "cool off."
The video is hardly a window to Ersland's soul, but he looks cool as a cucumber as he strolls in, walks over to the drawer (with has back turned to the robber), returns, walks up nice and close and continues to shoot.
At this point, we're not talking about the difference between a justifiable homicide and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and manslaughter.
The charge is dead on. Assuming this goes to trial (doubtful, IMHO), the judge will give the jury an instruction allowing them to convict for manslaughter if they believe that the evidence shows that Ersland had adequate provocation and insufficient time to cool off.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks