Self defense - Racist style

[nighttrain12]

Maybe I missed it, but I have never heard why Jerome came back and switched guns. That one remains a puzzle to me.

He said he saw the guy try to get back up. Why he switched guns, I don't think he has said. Maybe he had only the one bullet in his first gun.

[Curt]

I don't think the kids deserved to die.... but I don't think the Pharmacist deserved it either.

In this case, from what we know, it was self defense.

No Karrie they did deserve to die...they knew what they were doing this is another example of the only way things will ever change is for extreme actions to be taken against the bad guy...

They would have killed innocent people and not felt any remorse so why should anyone feel remorse for them...

I'd of killed them all...

[Thunder]

no karrie they did deserve to die...they knew what they were doing this is another example of the only way things will ever change is for extreme actions to be taken against the bad guy...

They would have killed innocent people and not felt any remorse so why should anyone feel remorse for them...

I'd of killed them all...

Bravo!!!!

[Bostonfan]

No Karrie they did deserve to die...they knew what they were doing this is another example of the only way things will ever change is for extreme actions to be taken against the bad guy...

They would have killed innocent people and not felt any remorse so why should anyone feel remorse for them...

I'd of killed them all...

and you too would be charged with murder....

[Midtowner]

I'd of killed them all...

Nice... internet tough guy.

Would you have killed them all with a roundhouse kick you learned from Chuck Norris? Since the [we'll call them defendants because that's what they are now] defendants were in the process of fleeing and no longer posed any sort of threat, and indeed, you would have probably had to shoot them in the back as they were fleeing, you'd be charged with murder for each of them as well as kevinpate said.

If you're going to exhibit that kind of irresponsibility with your firearms (even when you're fantasizing about killing people), you really have no business owning them. You apparently don't understand when it is and isn't ok to use deadly force.

[PennyQuilts]

Mid, you are studying for your bar exams and that twists your emotional, human response. It will take you about three years to get back to human feelings.

Curt is not expressing an academic reaction - it is pure, honest, human emotion. Trust me on this. You don't have to agree with his emotional reaction - plenty of us don't - but harping on the law isn't going to touch most of us, even the lawyers. The law didn't protect that man from being robbed. At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy. Was it "right" to shoot that kid? I personally don't think so, based on what I saw in the video. But the question that man asked himself, if he asked himself anything at all, was not whether it was legal to shoot that kid, but whether the kid had it coming. You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing.

[Midtowner]

The law didn't protect that man from being robbed.

Sure it did. It allowed him to use deadly force in self-defense to fire shot number one only. The law doesn't allow that everywhere.

At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy. Was it "right" to shoot that kid? I personally don't think so, based on what I saw in the video. But the question that man asked himself, if he asked himself anything at all, was not whether it was legal to shoot that kid, but whether the kid had it coming. You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing.

As far as anything I've read, the only one doing the shooting was Ersland (except for Ersland's first story which turned out to be a lie).

The kid had shot number one coming. That is all. No one deserves to be executed in cold blood for a run of the mill robbery, no matter how frustrated the shopkeeper is.

[drumsncode]

Sure it did. It allowed him to use deadly force in self-defense to fire shot number one only. The law doesn't allow that everywhere.

As far as anything I've read, the only one doing the shooting was Ersland (except for Ersland's first story which turned out to be a lie).

The kid had shot number one coming. That is all. No one deserves to be executed in cold blood for a run of the mill robbery, no matter how frustrated the shopkeeper is.

Please explain how the cops are allowed to empty a clip into a guy, without even knowing for sure that he has a gun. I've seen this countless times and to my knowledge, they always get off with no charges.

Suppose Ersland had not stopped to run out of the building, but rather kept firing the same gun into the suspect until he ran out of bullets (cop style). Would there be charges then?

My reasoning is, if the cops are allowed to keep firing without checking the target's health, a citizen should be allowed to do the same in an armed robbery. My only criticism of Ersland is that he gets very low points on "style".

[kevinpate]

The pharmacist/defendant could have put more bullets into the lad at the outset, and most likely with no foul being found.

That however is not what transpired. Whether one agrees or not, it does make a difference how he exercised his use of his firearms.

For anyone in the 'punk had it coming' camp, (no show of hands needed, most of you already bought the t shirt anyhows), do your loved ones a HUGE favor.

If you ever find yourself on the wrong end of someone else's firearm, and you come out alive, take a clue from this and KEEP YOUR LIPS PRESSED TIGHTLY TOGETHER LIKE YOU JUST SUCKED DRY A TUBE OF SUPER GLUE.

Most folks can not lie well when they are in an emotional state. Also most folks can't remain unemotional when they are shot at, or shoot at someone, or have other sudden pressures applied. That combination can rapidly boil up a big old pot of murky hurt.

Almost everyone has the right to remain silent. Too few exercise it, even when it might just keep their bacon off the fire.

[PennyQuilts]

Listen to Kevin.

[Bostonfan]

So are some of you advocating that we not abide by the law? Are some of you saying we just ignore the law when it benefits certain people?

The guy shot him once in self defense. Left, came back, and pumped 5 more rounds in the kid's stomach. The law gives you every right to protect. It doesn't give you the right to kill because someone pisses you off.

[Midtowner]

Please explain how the cops are allowed to empty a clip into a guy, without even knowing for sure that he has a gun. I've seen this countless times and to my knowledge, they always get off with no charges.

First, if someone is armed with a gun, the police may use deadly force to abate the situation if there's a reasonable belief that the individual will use the gun. Second, if the suspect is unarmed, the police may still use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect if they have probable cause to believe that the fleeing suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm or death to others.

Ersland's privilege was the same here. If he'd have just emptied his clip in to the kid, game over, self defense, game, set, match. That's not what happened though.

There's actually a transit cop in California being held right now because he shot a handcuffed suspect to death (he shot the suspect in the back while the suspect was on the ground mouthing off), so no, police don't have this unlimited authority to kill.

[dismayed]

My reasoning is, if the cops are allowed to keep firing without checking the target's health, a citizen should be allowed to do the same in an armed robbery. My only criticism of Ersland is that he gets very low points on "style".

Not a very good argument. Cops are allowed to do a lot of things that you and I are not allowed to. If I suspected you were committing a crime and decided to "arrest" you until the police arrived, I would be completely liable if it turned out you did not commit any crime. Depending on how I did it I could be charged with false imprisonment, maybe even kidnapping.... The police are given authority under the law to enforce it, and are therefore protected from personal legal retaliation to a certain extent. You and I are not.

But, that aside, even the police must abide by the law. A cop can't open fire on a guy, run after another suspect, then return to the original suspect who is on the ground and disabled and "finish him off." In fact he's required to give him aide and call in the EMTs. He'd be in just as big of trouble if he did what Ersland did.

[PennyQuilts]

So are some of you advocating that we not abide by the law? Are some of you saying we just ignore the law when it benefits certain people?

No Boston. No one is saying that. Use your head. And "certain people?" You just keep hoping, don't you?

[nighttrain12]

http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-p...ad_story_title

Here's a rather lengthy article about the life of (former) Lt. Col. Jerome Ersland (the pharmacist). Among the tidbits, in his second divorce, he insisted on keeping all his Clint Eastwood movies. I like this guy more every day. LOL

[Bostonfan]

No Boston. No one is saying that. Use your head. And "certain people?" You just keep hoping, don't you?

Use my head? How cute.... What exactly are you saying then? You think he should get off without doing jail time? Do you think he murdered the kid? Or do you think it was self defense? What is it?

And wth am I hoping for? That made no sense.

[PennyQuilts]

Use my head? How cute.... What exactly are you saying then? You think he should get off without doing jail time? Do you think he murdered the kid? Or do you think it was self defense? What is it?

And wth am I hoping for? That made no sense.

Boston, go back and read my posts. I am not going to hand feed you. Sheesh. Public education...

[Bostonfan]

Boston, go back and read my posts. I am not going to hand feed you. Sheesh. Public education...

Ok, let me go back on your post. You first say "The law didn't protect that man from being robbed." WRONG The law did. Because of the Make My Day law, he protected himself, property, and others. Nothing was taken. He was not robbed.

You then say, "At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy." WRONG. It most certainly existed. If it hadn't, he would've been robbed at the very least.

Then you say, "You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing." WRONG again. The law was alive and well. The law that states you have the right to unload on a kid that is no threat to you didn't die......it never existed.

So, back to my original question. Are you advocating not abiding by the law? I know you said no earlier, but from your earlier post, it looks like you are...

[nighttrain12]

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-phar...adlines_widget

Why the hell were those two adult scumbags not in jail!?! They are obviously career criminals. None of this would have happened if they were still locked up.

Just lock those two up for the rest of their life, keep the 14 year old robber in juvenile detention for 4 more years until he turns 18 and sentence Jerome 'Dirty Harry' Ersland to home confinement and force him to watch 'Every Which Way But Loose', 'Any Which Way You Can', and 'Bronco Billy', back-to-back-to-back every day for 2 straight years.

[PennyQuilts]

Ok, let me go back on your post. You first say "The law didn't protect that man from being robbed." WRONG The law did. Because of the Make My Day law, he protected himself, property, and others. Nothing was taken. He was not robbed.

You then say, "At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy." WRONG. It most certainly existed. If it hadn't, he would've been robbed at the very least.

Then you say, "You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing." WRONG again. The law was alive and well. The law that states you have the right to unload on a kid that is no threat to you didn't die......it never existed.

So, back to my original question. Are you advocating not abiding by the law? I know you said no earlier, but from your earlier post, it looks like you are...

Sigh. I'll bite on the off chance that this isn't just trolling and deliberate misrepresentation, but actually just thickheadedness.

You really need to read the entire post to understand the context and figure out which are the material phrases rather than simply skipping them. Here is the original post - It doesn't say what you are trying to make it say:

Mid, you are studying for your bar exams and that twists your emotional, human response. It will take you about three years to get back to human feelings.

Curt is not expressing an academic reaction - it is pure, honest, human emotion. Trust me on this. You don't have to agree with his emotional reaction - plenty of us don't - but harping on the law isn't going to touch most of us, even the lawyers. The law didn't protect that man from being robbed. At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy. Was it "right" to shoot that kid? I personally don't think so, based on what I saw in the video. But the question that man asked himself, if he asked himself anything at all, was not whether it was legal to shoot that kid, but whether the kid had it coming. You can disagree with his conclusion if you like but IMO, the law died when the kids came in with guns ablazing or with the threat that the guns would be blazing. emphasis added.

I suspect you are just trolling and should just ignore it but on the off chance that you simply don't comprehend the concept, I'll go out on a limb and remind you that the post was directly responding to Mid's post about the need to understand what the law technically requires. I even alluded to it in the post in question although for some reason, you didn't seem to think that was important (or just left if off because it allowed you to try to twist my meaning). My point was - and I will try again - is that in the heat of the moment, the man and the robbers weren't thinking about the technical legalities. They were making decisions based on more primitive levels. That was no bar exam under sterile conditions. The robbers were motivated by greed, the pharmacist was motivated by - who knows - rage? fear? panic? The letter of the LAW wasn't in charge of their decision making there at that moment.

The law will mop it up but it wasn't in control at that point in time. To try to turn that into some sort of gotcha (which you do constantly, notwithstanding a complete lack of talent in that regard) is just hamfisted. No offense. I could have written it in crayons for the more concrete thinkers but most of us have more than a sixth grade reading comprehension. Reducing it to that level would would probably be insulting. I'm sorry you didn't understand the post but honestly don't know how I can dumb it down without insulting everyone else.

One thing that helps me is to ask the question - does that make sense the way I am reading it? If it doesn't , you might want to go back and read the whole post, in context, a couple of times. It really helps. That is assuming that you really want to understand what is being written, of course. If you are just trolling, that is a waste of time.

[PennyQuilts]

Ok, let me go back on your post. You first say "The law didn't protect that man from being robbed." WRONG The law did. Because of the Make My Day law, he protected himself, property, and others. Nothing was taken. He was not robbed.

You then say, "At the end of the day, during that time and during that instant, the law didn't exist in that pharmacy." WRONG. It most certainly existed. If it hadn't, he would've been robbed at the very least. ...

And although it is really too easy to be quite respectable, let me point out that the law didn't keep the man from being robbed. I believe the man with the gun took care of that.

[Bostonfan]

[QUOTE=East Coast Okie;230856]Sigh. I'll bite on the off chance that this isn't just trolling and deliberate misrepresentation, but actually just thickheadedness.





I read the first sentence and decided not to waste my time reading the rest of the bull****. Hope you had fun typing that bs that didn't get read..... I'm sure it was riveting.....

[PennyQuilts]

[QUOTE=Bostonfan;230861]

Sigh. I'll bite on the off chance that this isn't just trolling and deliberate misrepresentation, but actually just thickheadedness.





I read the first sentence and decided not to waste my time reading the rest of the bull****. Hope you had fun typing that bs that didn't get read..... I'm sure it was riveting.....

Honey, you never really read them, anyway - which was the main point of the post you didn't read, btw. What a hoot. My suggestion is that if you are going to respond to a post, read it first.

[Martin]

i read the first sentence and decided not to waste my time reading the rest of the bull****. hope you had fun typing that bs that didn't get read..... i'm sure it was riveting...

go be a troll someplace else. if you can't discuss issues like a mature adult, then don't post. -M

[DaveSkater]

go be a troll someplace else. if you can't discuss issues like a mature adult, then don't post. -M

THANK YOU!