# When Self Defense Becomes Murder



## tellner (May 28, 2009)

One of the things good self defense and firearms instructors stress is that you can't keep using force once the threat is gone. This story illustrates the point nicely. 



> Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said Wednesday that 57-year-old Jerome Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater says Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.


----------



## shesulsa (May 28, 2009)

Such a slippery eel, that.

Some go into the red zone upon attack and are truly not aware of what they are doing in the moment until it's all over.  Nice survival trick to have, but you can definitely overdo it while in that zone ... something about the need for the guaranteed removal of threat?

Man, I've got to take a reading vacation and go refresh my facts.

Anyway ... for martial artists, it's pretty clear that we need to train for the panic response, the adrenaline dump for this reason (amongst others of course).


----------



## tellner (May 28, 2009)

I didn't want to quote the whole article. This should clear up any ambiguity:



> Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one being shot. Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.


----------



## shesulsa (May 28, 2009)

Yeah, that would likely be going too far.


----------



## celtic_crippler (May 28, 2009)

I'd say so!


----------



## BLACK LION (May 28, 2009)

definately overkill.


----------



## zDom (May 28, 2009)

Unconcious = stopped attacked.

He should have been dialing authorities at that point.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

Reminds me of Bernhard Goetz.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 28, 2009)

Maybe I am the odd one out, but I just do not have it in me to feel any pitty for the robber.  He would likely have been out again doing the same thing (if he was not indeed already) in a few short years, hardened and meaner and with extra street cred thanks to prison time.  

Yes, it was technically wrong of the pharmacist.  But not so wrong as the kid trying to rob the store.  When you go waving guns at people and demanding that they hand over their cash, you deserve to get what that you get.  That kid got what he had coming to him.

Would I do that or recommend it?  No.  As others have observed, once the threat is gone, there is no further need to shoot.

Daniel


----------



## just2kicku (May 28, 2009)

It becomes murder when someone or something (ie video tape) does not corroberate your story.


----------



## JKD143 (May 28, 2009)

I can certainly understand why legally this is considered a no-no. Morally/ethically? I agree with Daniel. 

I have an uncle who has studied martial arts since I was born. He had an impact on my choice to do so for sure. A man attempted to rob him at knife point when I was about 11 years old. An altercation ensued an my uncle sustained some cuts on the forearms, but the attacker went to the hospital in serious condition. Attacker lived and sued on the premise of "overkill". He lost in (civil) court. All is well with SD in America. 36 months later, he stabbed my uncle outside of his home and split. Uncle survived but with many complications. I always reflect on that memory when these discussions come up. How many repeat offenders of violent crime do we have in America? Does anyone know the stats? I don't want to be stabbed or shot 2 or 3 years after defending myself when someone gets out on parole. 

I know this isn't all that common, and I know the thought process can be taken to ridiculous lengths, ala the mafioso revenge movies where the cycle of violence never ends. I do however, believe there is something to be said for leaving the job half finished.


----------



## searcher (May 28, 2009)

If the threat was stopped and you procede to continue firing, it is murder.   But if they still pose a threat, it can be a different story.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

When a victim decides what a perpetrator deserves, and meets it out to them, they are taking the role of judge and jury.  Our nation (USA) is a nation of laws, and we do not permit that, however we might empathize with the victim.

You may be the victim of the crime, but the crime itself was against the people, and that is how it is prosecuted in a criminal court - The People of the State of X versus Joe Badguy.  You as victim may not usurp the role of the people, or you are committing a crime against the people yourself.


----------



## JKD143 (May 28, 2009)

searcher said:


> If the threat was stopped and you procede to continue firing, it is murder.   But if they still pose a threat, it can be a different story.



I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?

As a martial artist, I understand as do all of you, that reaction is always slower than reaction. Many of us study and train to have a higher threat awareness and perceive attacks before they happen. Certain careers may have given us an increased ability to do the same. And yet, I can't defend myself until the gun or knife is already brought into play? Always found that interesting.


----------



## shihansmurf (May 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When a victim decides what a perpetrator deserves, and meets it out to them, they are taking the role of judge and jury. Our nation (USA) is a nation of laws, and we do not permit that, however we might empathize with the victim.


 
Exactly.

It isn't like the pharmacist killed that robber in the initial exchange if gunfire. Hell, he didn't even shoot him on the way by which would have at least been explainable, as in "I was afraid he was going to shoot me from behind while I engaged the other robber", if not legal ( I don't know the civilian laws that govern such things, but in the military we could get away with a "double tap" on the initial assault through).  The moment that he went back and grabbed another gun he decided, in a premeditated fashion, to decide to punish the robber for his action. He denied the criminal due process, and wasn't acting in self defense. 

I hate and despise criminals as much as anyone, but I don't think that private citezens performing executions on unconsious crininals is the right answer.

Mark


----------



## celtic_crippler (May 28, 2009)

I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility, but this guy clearly crossed the line. 

Yeah, the robber got what he deserved when he was shot but the cashier was out of line by coming back and repeatedly shootihg him after he was down and no longer a threat. 

That action was uncalled for and unprovoked. Self Defence involves doing the minimum necessary to ensure one's safety or the safety of a loved one. The clerk's safety was clearly no longer in jeopardy at the point in which he returned and shot the robber again. That was malicious.

While I understand his anger, he had no right to shoot him again. The robber was already disabled and no longer a threat.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 28, 2009)

JKD143 said:


> How many repeat offenders of violent crime do we have in America? Does anyone know the stats? I don't want to be stabbed or shot 2 or 3 years after defending myself when someone gets out on parole.


I do not know the stats.  I only know that I see way too many repeat offenders on the news for having killed or violently attacked someone after having been through the system more than once.

Parole should be grouped in with other words that are not considered socially acceptable.  The practice should be banned.  The criminal is sentenced to a specific time to fit the crime.  Parole short circuits that.

Needless to say, Bernard Geotz did not particularly bother me.  Nor does this pharmacist.  Perhaps he should have turned off the video on the way back to get that gun.

Certainly hope he can get parole.  God knows the real criminals do.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 28, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> That action was uncalled for


Yes, it was.



celtic_crippler said:


> and unprovoked.


No, it was not. Once you try to rob someone, you have provoked them. Getting shot does not instantly unprovoke your intended victim.



celtic_crippler said:


> Self Defence involves doing the minimum necessary to ensure one's safety or the safety of a loved one. The clerk's safety was clearly no longer in jeopardy at the point in which he returned and shot the robber again. That was malicious.


Why the minimum? The criminal will do the maximum harm to you and will strike at you the moment he can at a later date, probably bringing friends with him. Best bet is to do it right the first time. 

As for the rest, one thing we do not know is how many times this guy had been held up before by punks like this kid. While this does not justify the clerk, if you are held up multiple times, you do kind of lose patience with the legal system.



celtic_crippler said:


> While I understand his anger, he had no right to shoot him again. The robber was already disabled and no longer a threat.


Agree 100%.

Daniel


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2009)

Provoked? Yes. Reasonable? No.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (May 29, 2009)

The modern legalist in me knows this was wrong a case of vigilantism. Someone obviously taking the law in their own hand. The cave man in me though strongly sympathizes with the shooter. Call it karma or suicide by bank robbery, but the robber earnt his death.


----------



## tellner (May 29, 2009)

JKD143 said:


> I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?quote]
> 
> It doesn't matter. You can't hang a man for something he hasn't done or might do. At least not until the last few years, but that's a whole different issue. You can't hang him for something he might have done but was never proved. You can't hang him because you don't like his type.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 29, 2009)

tellner said:


> JKD143 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?
> ...


Unfortunately, the legal system does not always carry out _our_ will. _Our_ will is that a violent offender serves a specific prison sentence. Yet judges and defense lawyers let violent offenders out early on parole. 

Is parole the will of the people? Not the will of anyone that I personally know. 

Funny thing is that some of the most liberal people that I know despise parole. They hate the death penalty, but would really like that vermin to serve his or her full sentence. A position, by the way, that I am perfectly fine with.

Also, when it is the will of the people that the criminal be executed, that sentence is often blocked by lawyers who are just as self serving as the vigilante, insisting that the vermin who raped and killed a seven year old not receive his just sentence.

While I do agree with you, I also am fairly convinced that they legal system is very seriously broken. Not in the sense that i feel that vigilantes should be trolling the streets, but in the sense that as a nation, we need to put serious pressure on our law makers to stop cow towing to defense lawyers and activists and to start taking crime and punishment seriously, because honestly, the really do not.

Daniel


----------



## searcher (May 29, 2009)

tellner said:


> It doesn't matter. You can't hang a man for something he hasn't done or might do. At least not until the last few years, but that's a whole different issue. You can't hang him for something he might have done but was never proved. You can't hang him because you don't like his type.


 


Todd is spot on right here.    Take a long hard look at the movie_ Minority Report._    I think it described this area very well and it showed its shortcomings.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 29, 2009)

I agree with your perspective Daniel.  I said overkill becuase of how he went about it. 
Even thought the first shot landed in the head he should have followed up with a double tap to the torso in the same assault... not ran off to do something else and then come back to finish.  It just looks bad.  At least come back and pop him in the head 1 more time but 5x in the torso...  he was obviously untrained and under a ton of stress...    very messy... 
He will learn from this one though and if there is a next time he wont be so sloppy...    
I could care less about the morality or legality... those guys were intent on getting what they want and they could have very well executed the pharmacist and his family or patrons...    Good for him for doing what it takes to survive... he was just very sloppy about it which is understandable...   someoone get that man a frontsight family membership as a reward for his decisiveness...


----------



## tellner (May 29, 2009)

BL, I sincerely hope you do not have students. Your complete lack of regard for the law will put one of them in jail if they're foolish enough to take your advice. And if you are ever in a self defense situation I earnestly pray that the prosecutor has the smarts to look through martialtalk's archives. You have just sunk your future claim to self defense by bragging about how you'd go out of your way to kill someone even when you didn't need to.


----------



## JKD143 (May 29, 2009)

tellner said:


> JKD143 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?quote]
> ...


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 29, 2009)

There is more to this than meets the eye!

Primary camera footage:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-surveillance-angle1-video,0,5435393.worldnowvideo

camera 2 is outside:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-surveillance-angle2-video,0,5894146.worldnowvideo

camera 3 is over Erslands shoulder during initial shooting:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-surveillance-angle3-video,0,6352899.worldnowvideo

Now the pharmacist, Ersland, was discharged from the Army after he suffered life-threatening injuries - injuries he is still dealing with today.

I suspect his lawyer will claim the injuries he received, and the medication, had a part in this and will explain why he did what he did.

We will see how this all plays out in court.

BTW, the DA wanted Ersland to keep his CCW and carry a gun while out on bond. The judge said no. Now if the DA is of this opinion, then he knows more about this than he lets on (or others know.)

But I can say in virtualy all states, once the attacker cannot harm you, you must stop.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> One of the things good self defense and firearms instructors stress is that you can't keep using force once the threat is gone. This story illustrates the point nicely.



Yes, but did the head shot kill him?  

If the initial wound were lethal, all subsequent wounds, while 'overkill'......would ALSO be....IRRELEVANT!  

I guess you could charge him with desecrating a corpse........because when the prosecutor uses the euphemism 'unconscious'........he likely means 'already deceased'.......and since it was the first shot that killed this guy, THAT is the one that is in question, and if THAT was justified, the first degree murder charge is asinine and futile.

It's very simple.......

1) What killed him?
2) Was that mechanism intentionally put in to play?
3) Was the actor initiating that mechanism legally justified, based on the law and his perception at the time, in doing so?

Subsequent actions do not retroactively negate an argument of self-defense.....they can color perception about that argument......but it's obvious that this event BEGAN as a completely legitimate act of self-defense.......it's also pretty clear that the initial lethal action was legitimate.......IF that action was a lethal event, in and of itself, the prosecutor is making a pretty silly argument to argue that this guy was killed TWICE.........once LEGALLY........and then AFTER he was dead, was then MURDERED!

At any rate, this won't go anywhere with an Oklahoma jury.........that's why we have a jury system......they can completely disregard all legal arguments, and apply local moral standards......and they will!  Regardless of the technical facts of the case, i.e. that he legally went too far.......the jury will, in all likelihood, decide that convicting this man would send the WRONG MESSAGE!  While acquitting him will send the message they would prefer to send to the robbers and rapists.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

The argument will be something along the lines of this.....



> Defense Attorney: 'Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, you've just heard the medical examiner and the coroner and several expert medical witnesses testify to the fact that the primary shot to the head was lethal.  They were clear on that point.
> 
> You've also heard the Prosecutor ADMIT that my client was justified in firing that fatal shot.
> 
> Now the prosecutor wants to argue that my client was justified in fatally shooting this armed robber, who was threatening not only him but two innocent unarmed women, my client was JUSTIFIED in shooting him fatally...........but apparently the prosecutor NOW wants you to believe that after being shot fatally, the robber MAGICALLY came back to life, in some bizarre legal sense, in order to make the bizarre and illogical argument that my client then MURDERED this man AFTER he KILLED him IN LEGAL SELF-DEFENSE!'



No, the Prosecutor needs to pursue this to appease certain community interests.......but it's going NOWHERE in the sense that he's going to be convicted of anything.


Now, there is a lesson for those interested in self-defense........going through this process would be ZERO FUN, even if you're acquitted.........avoid this guy's pitfall.  BUT he's not going to get convicted of anything (except corpse desecration), unless he loses his nerve and takes a BS plea deal......DEFINITELY not in Oklahoma...........ESPECIALLY when he argues that a change of venue is necessary as a result of the publicity, and gets his trial setting in rural Oklahoma.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

On a side note, was I the only one who found it morbidly amusing that moron robber caught that bullet in the head because he couldn't adjust his mask right and was still messing with it?  His buddy had long since perceived the threat and was rapidly retreating......apparently he didn't warn his buddy about the armed citizen, as it never seemed to register until he went down that his would-be victim was armed........SITUATIONAL AWARENESS!  It's important even for robbers. 

'Oh crap, my mask is sideways........hey, my mask is sideways, I can't see.......My mas<BOOM><Thump>'


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 30, 2009)

As to the question about murder versus shooting a corpse...

If the initial head shot had killed the robber, subsequent shots to the abdomen would not be murder, technically (perhaps corpse desecration).  However, without a doctor on the scene to make a pronouncement of death, we do not know that the robber was in fact deceased.  The shots were close enough together in time that I do not know if a forensic pathologist could determine the time of death that closely post mortem.  I am not psychic, but I suspect that the DA would not have brought charges unless they had some evidence that the robber was not yet dead when the other shots were fired.  It is quite possible for the body to continue to live for a period of time after a head shot, even one that would otherwise prove fatal in a short time.

Lots of talk about what the guy deserved and how rotten our judicial system is, etc.  Yes, the guy got what he deserved, and yes, our judicial system has problems.

The fact still remains that when the threat ends, the right to self-defense ends, and people who dispense justice themselves may well find themselves on the wrong side of the law, as this man did.

I am still rather taken aback by the number of people who not only think the man did nothing wrong, but applaud him for his actions and swear they'd do the same.  I get similar responses from people I talk to, who firmly believe they'd just tell the police and the DA what's what and where to get off, and that would be the end of it.  Well, hey, whatever.  Good luck in prison, sez I.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As to the question about murder versus shooting a corpse...
> 
> If the initial head shot had killed the robber, subsequent shots to the abdomen would not be murder, technically (perhaps corpse desecration).  However, without a doctor on the scene to make a pronouncement of death, we do not know that the robber was in fact deceased.  The shots were close enough together in time that I do not know if a forensic pathologist could determine the time of death that closely post mortem.  I am not psychic, but I suspect that the DA would not have brought charges unless they had some evidence that the robber was not yet dead when the other shots were fired.  It is quite possible for the body to continue to live for a period of time after a head shot, even one that would otherwise prove fatal in a short time.
> 
> ...



A forensic pathologist can determine cause of death and WILL testify in court to same.........otherwise he could have died of a pre-existing condition, right?  Doesn't work that way.  I've been to many jury trials.  The BURDEN of PROOF is on the STATE!

I'll bet cash money this guy doesn't go to prison..........heck, a couple years back we had a guy shoot an UNARMED robber (before our enhanced castle doctrine law) IN THE BACK in his FRONT YARD as he was running away!  

Jury decision: ACQUITTAL! 

As to whether this guy did anything wrong.........quite frankly i don't care that he went overboard.   In a legal sense he may have went over the line (I say MAY because we don't even have all the facts!), and I certainly WOULD NOT do what he is alleged to have done.......but I wouldn't send him to prison for it. 

The message is FAR better sent to would-be robbers of the world........I don't plan on ROBBING pharmacies, so i'm not concerned about the risk that another robber might be harmed if the state fails to send the message that they need to be protected from this kind of behavior.

I can LIVE in a world where we give the benefit of the doubt to citizens using force against armed criminals......I can live with that, if that clarifies your confusion as to why folks aren't forming up a lynch mob for this guy.........but that's not the same as saying I'd do the same thing.........I hold myself to a HIGHER standard of behavior.  I give others the benefit of the doubt.  I know that's backwards of what most people do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> A forensic pathologist can determine cause of death and WILL testify in court to same.........otherwise he could have died of a pre-existing condition, right?  Doesn't work that way.  I've been to many jury trials.



Cause of death, sure.  Time of death, I'm not so sure, and I suspect it matters in this case.  If the man had already expired when shot again, then it can't be murder.  If he had not, then it could be murder.



> I'll bet cash money this guy doesn't go to prison.



I'm not sure I really see that as the point.  OJ got off too.  We live in a nation of laws, and some here seem to want to advocate breaking those laws for the sake of stopping those who break our laws.  Lunacy.



> As to whether this guy did anything wrong.........quite frankly i don't care that he went overboard.  In a legal sense he may have went over the line, and I certainly WOULD NOT do what he did.......but I wouldn't send him to prison for it.  The message is FAR better sent to would-be robbers of the world.



I do not think we are in the business of 'sending messages' to robbers.  If we were, we might as well return to the days of putting heads on pikes outside the local castle.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Cause of death, sure.  Time of death, I'm not so sure, and I suspect it matters in this case.  If the man had already expired when shot again, then it can't be murder.  If he had not, then it could be murder.


 Time of death is irrelevant.......if the FIRST wound was lethal, you CANNOT kill the man TWICE!  The argument that killing him ONCE was legitimate, but killing him AGAIN was murder doesn't pass the sniff test. 

Moreover, as the BURDEN OF PROOF falls on the STATE, the state has to PROVE that the subsequent shots contributed to his death......which they have FAILED to do if it is shown that the FIRST shot was lethal.

Remember.....GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!





Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure I really see that as the point.  OJ got off too.  We live in a nation of laws, and some here seem to want to advocate breaking those laws for the sake of stopping those who break our laws.  Lunacy.


 If we lived purely in a legalistic society JUDGES and LAWYERS would decide guilt........the ideal is JUSTICE, not pure legalism.....that's why we use JURIES! 

And since you're arguing with ME, point out where I suggested anyone violate the law......hint: you can't!  What I advocate, however, is that OFTEN the law is about SPLITTING HAIRS!  And we should give the benefit of the doubt in many situations.

A jury can decide that, YES, you are 'technically' guilty........and return a verdict of NOT GUILTY because you aren't guilty to their standards.

OJ Simpson is a prime example of that........OJ's jury applied COMMUNITY STANDARDS to dealing with OJ......OJ's defense attorney's put the system on trial, and made the issue RACISM.........and OJ's jury came back with a verdict against what it perceived as a racist system......COMMUNITY STANDARDS rule the day.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not think we are in the business of 'sending messages' to robbers.  If we were, we might as well return to the days of putting heads on pikes outside the local castle.


 What do you think the point of the LAW is but to send a message to criminals?  Do you think we just make laws to pass the time of day? 


You're not a dumb guy, Bill, but I think you sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.........it's ALL about the big picture.

And the reason we don't put robbers heads on pikes is because our Constitution protects them from the government doing so.......but we DO enhance sentences, we DO add sentences for repeat offenders.......our system is ENTIRELY about sending messages........but that message is bogged down by the systems overall sluggish and inaccurate nature.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Time of death is irrelevant.......if the FIRST wound was lethal, you CANNOT kill the man TWICE!  The argument that killing him ONCE was legitimate, but killing him AGAIN was murder doesn't pass the sniff test.



That's not correct.  If a man is dying and I shoot him, I've committed murder.  If he is dead and I shoot him, I've desecrated a corpse.  Big difference.  It does not matter that he was dying of his wounds, it matters if he was alive or dead at the time of the second shooting.  Fact.



> Moreover, as the BURDEN OF PROOF falls on the STATE, the state has to PROVE that the subsequent shots contributed to his death......which they have FAILED to do if it is shown that the FIRST shot was lethal.



Not entirely true, see above.  Your basic premise is flawed.



> Remember.....GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!



True.  And I suspect there may be difficulty in gaining a conviction based on that very thing.  Bear also in mind that the man was a business owner, probably has insurance, etc - he'll no doubt sued for wrongful death by the family of the dead robber, and the burden of proof for that is 'preponderance of evidence'.  Our hero may soon find that even if he is found 'not guilty' in a criminal case, he can be found 'guilty' in a civil suit, and he'll lose everything he has.



> If we lived purely in a legalistic society JUDGES and LAWYERS would decide guilt........the ideal is JUSTICE, not pure legalism.....that's why we use JURIES!



No, the idea is not justice.  Our courts are courts of law and not courts of justice.  We believe and hope that our system of laws brings about justice for all, but we do not modify the laws on the fly to make 'just' verdicts instead of lawful verdicts.

You have an unusual understanding of US jurisprudence.



> And since you're arguing with ME, point out where I suggested anyone violate the law......hint: you can't!  What I advocate, however, is that OFTEN the law is about SPLITTING HAIRS!  And we should give the benefit of the doubt in many situations.



You did not advocate any illegal actions - you said not to do it and then cheered it on.  Talk about splitting hairs!



> A jury can decide that, YES, you are 'technically' guilty........and return a verdict of NOT GUILTY because you aren't guilty to their standards.



In some places, at some times.  This concept is known as 'jury nullification'.  It has also resulted in a judge throwing out the jury's result and declaring a mistrial.  Juries are not free to do whatever they like.



> OJ Simpson is a prime example of that........OJ's jury applied COMMUNITY STANDARDS to dealing with OJ......OJ's defense attorney's put the system on trial, and made the issue RACISM.........and OJ's jury came back with a verdict against what it perceived as a racist system......COMMUNITY STANDARDS rule the day.



Did you actually read the verdict?



> What do you think the point of the LAW is but to send a message to criminals?  Do you think we just make laws to pass the time of day?



The point of the law is to ensure a safe and equitable society. We don't have stop signs to send messages to scofflaws, we have them so that people will stop.



> You're not a dumb guy, Bill, but I think you sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.........it's ALL about the big picture.



It's all about the law.  If it isn't legal, it isn't legal.  There is no big picture as far as that goes.



> And the reason we don't put robbers heads on pikes is because our Constitution protects them from the government doing so.......but we DO enhance sentences, we DO add sentences for repeat offenders.......our system is ENTIRELY about sending messages........but that message is bogged down by the systems overall sluggish and inaccurate nature.



The prison system is designed to punish offenders and protect society.  Not about sending messages, but about isolating offenders from society for the safety of that society.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's not correct.  If a man is dying and I shoot him, I've committed murder.  If he is dead and I shoot him, I've desecrated a corpse.  Big difference.  It does not matter that he was dying of his wounds, it matters if he was alive or dead at the time of the second shooting.  Fact.


 IF I shoot you in the head, and you DIE!  I shoot you again.....I didn't kill you twice.....FACT! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Not entirely true, see above.  Your basic premise is flawed.


 No, YOUR basic premise if flawed!  And what's more, the Jury will see that it's flawed and ACQUIT!  FACT!  You cannot have it both ways......though you think you can.  Won't fly in front of a jury.  How many juries have you been in front of?  REAL honest to god jury trials?  






Bill Mattocks said:


> True.  And I suspect there may be difficulty in gaining a conviction based on that very thing.  Bear also in mind that the man was a business owner, probably has insurance, etc - he'll no doubt sued for wrongful death by the family of the dead robber, and the burden of proof for that is 'preponderance of evidence'.  Our hero may soon find that even if he is found 'not guilty' in a criminal case, he can be found 'guilty' in a civil suit, and he'll lose everything he has.


 No he won't.......Oklahoma has a Castle Doctrine that protects him from civil liability if he avoids criminal liability.....now ain't THAT a *****! 






Bill Mattocks said:


> No, the idea is not justice.  Our courts are courts of law and not courts of justice.  We believe and hope that our system of laws brings about justice for all, but we do not modify the laws on the fly to make 'just' verdicts instead of lawful verdicts.





> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."






Bill Mattocks said:


> You have an unusual understanding of US jurisprudence.


 I have an ACCURATE understanding of US jurisprudence.......you have a conventional one that is far less accurate.






Bill Mattocks said:


> You did not advocate any illegal actions - you said not to do it and then cheered it on.  Talk about splitting hairs!


 I said not to do it and then CHEERED ON acquitting the guy that did it.......that's perfectly consistent......I can BOTH say a thing is a bad idea and STILL advocate that it's IDIOCY to charge someone who did do it with FIRST DEGREE MURDER!  Anyone who doesn't understand that position needs to evaluate their own logic.






Bill Mattocks said:


> In some places, at some times.  This concept is known as 'jury nullification'.  It has also resulted in a judge throwing out the jury's result and declaring a mistrial.  Juries are not free to do whatever they like.


 Not only are juries FREE to do so, if you did your RESEARCH you'd find that a PATTERN of Jury Nullification has set precedent of INVALIDATING STATUTES!  It would seem your understanding of the situation is limited. 



> "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -Thomas Jefferson





> "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay





> "Jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust." Clay S. Conrad





> "But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to  judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done  so, that too would have been the end of the matter." - US Supreme Court (Morissette v United States)





> "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its  prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." -US Supreme Court (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139)



The concept is so IMPORTANT than Maryland even included it in it's bill of rights!



> "In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the judge of Law, as  well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the  evidence to sustain a conviction." -Maryland Bill of Rights




Oh, and your contention that Jury Nullification can result in a declaration of a MISTRIAL is a clear violation of the DOUBLE JEOPARDY clause of the US CONSTITUTION!  Sorry. 



> "The law attaches particular significance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that 'even though innocent he may be found guilty." US Supreme Court (United States v. Scott)


  Because ACQUITTAL is, as the court said....



> &#8220;the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.&#8221; - US Supreme Court (United States v. Martin Linen)





Bill Mattocks said:


> Did you actually read the verdict?


 Oh I read the verdict..........do you actually believe everything you read?  It's called PRETEXT!  That jury made it's decision based on the fact that OJ's attorneys' made the trial about the LAPD!  





Bill Mattocks said:


> The point of the law is to ensure a safe and equitable society. We don't have stop signs to send messages to scofflaws, we have them so that people will stop.


 And we PROSECUTE individuals to send messages to scofflaws.......THANK YOU for MAKING MY POINT! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> It's all about the law.  If it isn't legal, it isn't legal.  There is no big picture as far as that goes.


 No it's not.....the LAW without justice is despotism.  We are a nation founded on the idea of JUSTICE not just legalism.  Surely you know that!





Bill Mattocks said:


> The prison system is designed to punish offenders and protect society.  Not about sending messages, but about isolating offenders from society for the safety of that society.


 Punishment is about sending a message......deterrence......come on, I don't have to educate you on this stuff do I?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure I really see that as the point. OJ got off too. We live in a nation of laws, and some here seem to want to advocate breaking those laws for the sake of stopping those who break our laws. Lunacy.


No.  Lunacy is a failed court system letting a man go free who murdered a couple because he was jealous.  It is not that "*some here*" advocate breaking laws for the sake of stopping law breakers.  Some here wish to see violent threats dealt with.  Big difference.  

Lawyers and lawmakers really like to overcomplicate things and then pat themselves on the back for being so smart.  But the results speak for themselves: a broken justice system, frivilous lawsuits, gangs of repeat offenders roaming the streets, and a prison system that cannot decide if it wants to rehabilitate or punish.  

I think that we can all agree that the prison system is an abject failure in terms of rehabilitation.  Not surprising, given that it was never intended to be a rehab center.  Unfortunately, when those who administer the punishment (the courts) cut that punishment short via the idiotic invention of parole, unrehabilitated violent offenders are allowed to return to a society of highly restricted victims.

Meaning no disrespect to you, Bill, but it is very easy for you to say how "some people" advocate lunacy when you have the weight of the law behind you in your carrying and usage of a firearm and can call for backup.  The rest of us do not have that luxury. 

And before anyone gets the wrong impression, I am aware just how at risk our police are, so in no way do I begrudge them.  It is more a matter of perspective.  Things that seem perfectly reasonable to me as a saleman seem very unreasonable to a customer on the other side of the counter.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not think we are in the business of 'sending messages' to robbers. If we were, we might as well return to the days of putting heads on pikes outside the local castle.


You may want to send this memo to the various DA's and lawmakers who routinely speak of "sending a message" to criminals.  

And what is wrong with sending messages?  Why do you immediately equate that with heads on pikes?  In essence, you are saying that if one does not agree with you on this that they are medieval barbarians of some sort.

Hate to say it, but you very much are in the business of sending messages if you are in law enforcement, the courts, or the justice system period.  You may be unconscious of this fact, but it is a fact.  Every time an OJ gets off on a technicality, it sends a message.  Every time a violent offender gets out of jail without serving his or her full sentence, it sends a message.  It may be the wrong message, but it is a message nontheless.

Conversely, every time you aprehend a criminal and safeguard the public, it sends a message: a positive message.  Everytime a squad car patrols a neighborhood, it sends a message.  If it did not, you would not do it.  

I do not, as stated previously, advocate vigilante justice.  But there is a great frustration amongst many with regards to crime and the safety of our families.  When those in law enforcement and the courts brush that off with comments like this one:



Bill Mattocks said:


> No, the idea is not justice. Our courts are courts of law and not courts of justice. We believe and hope that our system of laws brings about justice for all, but we do not modify the laws on the fly to make 'just' verdicts instead of lawful verdicts.


 
They lose the respect and confidence of the people most affected by crime.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And we PROSECUTE individuals to send messages to scofflaws.......THANK YOU for MAKING MY POINT!
> 
> No it's not.....*the LAW without justice is despotism. We are a nation founded on the idea of JUSTICE not just legalism. *Surely you know that!
> 
> Punishment is about sending a message......deterrence......come on, I don't have to educate you on this stuff do I?


Quoted for truth.  

The bolded sentence especially!

Daniel


----------



## zDom (May 30, 2009)

a) Not ALL head shots are lethal. He may have survived that head shot even it it did render him unconcious.

b) The shooter made some bad choices:

1) Aiming for the head. Center of the body mass is less likely to miss and demonstrates intention to stop attack vs. kill the attacker.

2) Having stopped the aggressor with the first shot, he should have saved the other five shots for the possibility that the second robber might return &#8212; he coulda been running out to the car to grab a shotgun, for example, or more badguys.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

zDom said:


> a) Not ALL head shots are lethal. He may have survived that head shot even it it did render him unconcious.



It ultimately may not make a difference......if the state is maintaining that he committed FIRST DEGREE MURDER.......it must PROVE that his lethal actions were unlawful.....IF the lethal action were legal, the state FAILS to prove that point beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of proving subsequent actions...........when a charge of First Degree Murder comes down to a convoluted legal argument, Juries eyes glaze over and they ACQUIT!


Point 1: The robber IMMEDIATELY went down after the head shot.....and stayed down not moving any further........if that is the case, it indicates instant incapacitation.  It is HIGHLY likely that instant incapacitation was the result of a lethal hit.

IF the medical examiners finds that the head shot was a lethal wound.......the case is moot.......it may go to trial, but it won't result in conviction.

Even IF the head shot wasn't lethal, however........the likelihood of a conviction is VERY SMALL!  Anyone who thinks otherwise is NOT familiar with jury trials, ESPECIALLY in the mid-west.



I'm this guys attorney, here's what i'm going to do (and he IS going to get a great attorney, have no doubt about that.....an EXPERT on self-defense cases), i'm FIRST going to get a change of venue OUT of Oklahoma City, to a more rural area (because of the publicity my client can't get a fair trial in OKC).

Once I get my client to a rural area, i'm going to CAREFULLY select my jury.......i'm going to stick to only approving rural men, preferably military veterans who saw combat.....I get a couple older combat veteran farmers on the jury and this case is WON!





> b) The shooter made some bad choices:
> 
> 1) Aiming for the head. Center of the body mass is less likely to miss and demonstrates intention to stop attack vs. kill the attacker.


 True to an extent......but you don't know what he was aiming at......you just know what he hit!  REAL gunfights aren't like play practice at the range.  Bullets go where they go......



> 2) Having stopped the aggressor with the first shot, he should have saved the other five shots for the possibility that the second robber might return &#8212; he coulda been running out to the car to grab a shotgun, for example, or more badguys.


 I'll agree with you there........he should have stayed in the store.  However, high-adrenaline life or death situations do funny things to people.......especially when those events develop spontaneously on some idle Tuesday.  I think our judgments of this guy, being made from the safety of our computers, is a bit skewed by our current safety and detachment.





Ultimately it would have been best had this guy NOT fired the followup shots........without a doubt, no equivocation whatsoever........that having been said it's still to early to even determine if perhaps he saw or thought he saw something that justified the followup shots.  I have only seen a couple of camera angles, and I see him shooting.......but I don't see the robber on the floor.  It's too early to tell and there are too many variables..........but I hope nobody confuses my defense of this guy from a charge of First Degree Murder for an endorsement of his actions.......I agree he'd have been better off stopping at the first shot.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

The Prosecutor did Jerome Ersland a favor by charging him with First Degree Murder.......there's no jury in Oklahoma that's going to convict him on such a draconian charge.  If he had reduced it to felonious assault he'd have a better chance of a conviction......but then would face the wrath of certain special interest groups who want to see the charge as First Degree Murder.

I suspect the Prosecutor probably knows that, too, but if he pushes the First Degree murder charge, he can always blame the jury for the acquittal......he's hoping for a PLEA agreement, but he won't get one........Jerome Ersland is NOT going to run out of money defending himself, as he already has a sizable donation list.........an anonymous donar spotted him the $100,000 for bail!  There are folks very interested in the outcome of this case. 

As I pointed out this whole issue is going to hinge on a convoluted argument about which one was the fatal shot......the Prosecutor's medical examiner is going to say it was one of the five shots to the abdomen..........will he hold up to cross-examination?  The Defense medical experts are going to call the head wound fatal.  The prosecutors HOPE is to PROVE to a jury BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that a head wound WAS NOT fatal, but one of five abdominal wounds WAS, with dueling medical experts arguing just the opposite......


The Prosecutor said as much himself......"If that first shot had been fatal, we wouldn't be here," Prosecutor David Prater


The problem is that a jury is going to see this dog and pony show over which shot was fatal, and the PROSECUTORS desire to hang a man's LIFE on that kind of hair splitting, as BS and simply ACQUIT!


----------



## tellner (May 30, 2009)

sgt mac, it's probably impossible at this point to tell which killed him although the article mentioned that the second through sixth shots were fired while the deceased was "lying unconscious" on the floor.

It doesn't really affect the important point: Your right to self defense ends when you are no longer defending against an immediate threat. Any shots after that are crimes.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> sgt mac, it's probably impossible at this point to tell which killed him although the article mentioned that the second through sixth shots were fired while the deceased was "lying unconscious" on the floor.
> 
> It doesn't really affect the important point: Your right to self defense ends when you are no longer defending against an immediate threat. Any shots after that are crimes.



There is no real 'right' to self-defense outside of what society will accept......just to make the point perfectly clear.

How do we know what society will accept?  The jury will tell us in this case.......the JURY will determine if it was a 'crime'......we won't on this forum, argue though we might.  But I can make a reasonable prediction based on my experience with juries and knowledge of such cases that in rural Oklahoma the jury won't find this to be a 'crime' at all.

As to the advisability of doing the same......it is clear that it is not advisable.  The process through which this gentleman will have to go is not an enviable one......even though it will most likely end in his acquittal......it is nothing fun!


Not to belabor the issue of whether it's possible to tell which shot killed him......if it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to tell, then the Prosecution by proxy FAILS at it's task of PROVING it's case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, as the burden falls on to THEM!  And even the prosecutor admits that if the first shot were fatal, there would be no case........if it becomes impossible to tell, then the state doesn't meet it's burden.



It's a wonderful system that we have that no matter how clever the states argument against us as individuals......a jury made up of our peers can STILL find us Not Guilty using whatever logic they see fit....WHAT A COUNTRY!


----------



## tellner (May 30, 2009)

"what society will accept" is embodied in the law as written in statute and applied in court decisions.

The law concerning self defense is very well established. There have been modifications in a number of jurisdictions. Oregon, for instance, used to have a duty to retreat. That was changed by the Legislature.

I'm betting that this guy will be convicted. There are many, many precedents. There's an established body of case law and statute. There are plenty of cases where a self-defense shooting turned into a murder or manslaughter conviction when the guy with the gun was not in immediate danger and kept shooting. This guy did exactly that. 

No matter what you want or what you believe about "taking out the trash" or how much you'd like society to come around to your point of view that isn't where we are now. There have been plenty of cases like this. While a good lawyer might find a way out and nobody can tell what a jury will do the odds are very much against the alleged perp on this one.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> "what society will accept" is embodied in the law as written in statute and applied in court decisions.


 You're half right........statutes are made as general written rules by which we are to follow, rules in a free society made by representatives of the governed..........and when we are accused of VIOLATING those laws, we are judged NOT by ministers of the state, but representatives of the community in which we reside, a Jury of our peers who ALSO apply their community standards to their interpretation of the law and your actions. 



tellner said:


> The law concerning self defense is very well established. There have been modifications in a number of jurisdictions. Oregon, for instance, used to have a duty to retreat. That was changed by the Legislature.


 The laws and your alleged violation of the same are interpreted by a jury of your peers........and you won't find 12 people in Oklahoma who will convict this guy......end of story.



tellner said:


> I'm betting that this guy will be convicted. There are many, many precedents. There's an established body of case law and statute. There are plenty of cases where a self-defense shooting turned into a murder or manslaughter conviction when the guy with the gun was not in immediate danger and kept shooting. This guy did exactly that.


 I'll take that bet.........name your price!  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008210107_snack28.html 



tellner said:


> No matter what you want or what you believe about "taking out the trash" or how much you'd like society to come around to your point of view that isn't where we are now. There have been plenty of cases like this. While a good lawyer might find a way out and nobody can tell what a jury will do the odds are very much against the alleged perp on this one.


 Bet you.........name your price!  Not a snowball's chance in hell he gets convicted of First Degree Murder in Oklahoma!

There have been PLENTY of cases like this......and almost ALL OF THEM END IN ACQUITAL in the south and the mid-west!

Wishful thinking is on on your end.......though why you wish for those who find themselves, of no choice of their own, thrust in to a violent situation tried for First Degree Murder is beyond me.......but people think and do weird things........but you won't get your wish in this case. 


I've had this argument, time and time again, with folks like yourselves who PROGNOSTICATE a CONVICTION by an imaginary jury who would agree with them......in the Joe Horn case ('slam dunk conviction' as far as folks like yourself predicted) ACQUITTED!  

in the Jose Luis Gonzalez case ('NO BRAINER!'  'He EXECUTED THAT BOY' 'NO WAY THIS GUY GETS ACQUITTED' according to arguments along the line of yours) Verdict? ACQUITTED!  

Numerous cases exist where the jury did NOTHING like folks like yourself predicted.  I've been in front of juries, i've been in jury trials.  They apply community standards in cases like this.......and IF you're in NEW YORK CITY or Los Angeles this guy might be in trouble.........HIS JURY POOL, however, will be made up of rural Oklahomans!

In my home town a few years back we had a college kid who shot a high school kid over stealing a keg......shot him in the BACK.......AFTER he left the house and was fleeing.........Prosecutor charged the guy with first degree murder.......Jury Verdict........ACQUITTED!


In all three of the examples I provided, they were ALL examples where folks had gone too far......and in the Gonzalez case WAY, WAY too far.........but the Jury in EVERY SINGLE CASE erred on the side of otherwise law abiding citizens in the face of criminals........take a poll of Oklahomans and you'll find, even with the media version of this being predominant, not even the defense's arguments.......that most folks side with this guy.......yet you think you're going to find 12 people to convict him of First Degree Murder in that state? :rofl:



They'll get a change of venue from OKC (no brainer because of the local publicity) they'll move it a rural area, pick a rural jury.......and the defense will use it's selection power to get sympathetic jurors.......in this case older male combat veterans who live in a rural setting.......doesn't have to be the entire jury either........it takes 12 jurors to convict!  11 to 1 is a mistrial.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> BL, I sincerely hope you do not have students. Your complete lack of regard for the law will put one of them in jail if they're foolish enough to take your advice. And if you are ever in a self defense situation I earnestly pray that the prosecutor has the smarts to look through martialtalk's archives. You have just sunk your future claim to self defense by bragging about how you'd go out of your way to kill someone even when you didn't need to.


 
You obviously dont understand my point and I dont think you read my posts well at all. Instead of asking for a more cordial exlpaination you flog my integrity and or character.  You should be more respectful and professional.  My opinion on here or any other form of conversation does not constitute moral or legal advice nor does it advocate such behavior as you may concieve.    If I am in a situation in which my life or anyone elses is in danger then it is my job to be a professional.  Any one I train with and anyone who knows me understands that.  I am a saved and convicted man who who follows the LORDS laws above all else. Any action on my part if ever any must always be JUST and RIGHT.  


He crossed the line and made a mess which was not very professional in my opinion but he did act in a situation where most wouldnt budge and I commend him for that.   

None of us were there with them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> You obviously dont understand my point and I dont think you read my posts well at all. Instead of asking for a more cordial exlpaination you flog my integrity and or character.  You should be more respectful and professional.  My opinion on here or any other form of conversation does not constitute moral or legal advice nor does it advocate such behavior as you may concieve.    If I am in a situation in which my life or anyone elses is in danger then it is my job to be a professional.  Any one I train with and anyone who knows me understands that.  I am a saved and convicted man who who follows the LORDS laws above all else. Any action on my part if ever any must always be JUST and RIGHT.
> 
> 
> He crossed the line and made a mess which was not very professional in my opinion but he did act in a situation where most wouldnt budge and I commend him for that.
> ...


 Quite right!  And it bears repeating that he did not CREATE the crisis situation he found himself thrust in to.  I believe that the standard being applied to him by the Prosecutor (for political reasons) and some here is inherently unfair......AND I have zero doubt that a jury of his peers will see it that way as well and acquit him of the charges against him and end this nightmare.

Anyone who would seek to convert that statement or yours as condoning his behavior are doing so fallaciously and with malicious intent to distort that meaning........so i'll make it simple........His actions were ill advised......but DO NOT rise to the level of First Degree Murder!  He responded to a situation thrust upon him by the robbers.


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> One of the things good self defense and firearms instructors stress is that you can't keep using force once the threat is gone. This story illustrates the point nicely.


 
Yes, its certainly tempting to get in a few more licks when the threat is over, but I'm thinking that is probably not the best thing to do.  I can just hear the lawyers now....

"So, Mr. -----, my client was no longer a threat to you, yet you repeatedly kicked him in the head 10 more times, causing a permanent brain injury."

Temporarily snapping, after this guy just tried to rape your wife....yup, I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't snap too, but I think that we should always assess whats going on, so as to not jam ourselves up later on.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

MJS said:


> Yes, its certainly tempting to get in a few more licks when the threat is over, but I'm thinking that is probably not the best thing to do.  I can just hear the lawyers now....
> 
> "So, Mr. -----, my client was no longer a threat to you, yet you repeatedly kicked him in the head 10 more times, causing a permanent brain injury."
> 
> Temporarily snapping, after this guy just tried to rape your wife....yup, I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't snap too, but I think that we should always assess whats going on, so as to not jam ourselves up later on.





While YES it is good advice not to exceed what you reasonably think to be necessary to defend yourself or others..........one should be careful about simply accepting the standard argued by trial lawyers trying to cash in with a client as in the above scenario the attorney in question would consider ANY use of force against his client 'Unreasonable' regardless of his clients actions.........he is an advocate seeking monetary gain.......therefore, it is unwise to accept their premise in the first place.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 31, 2009)

I need to make it clear one more time that I don't recommend to anyone that they fire extra rounds in to the unconscious robber.....ESPECIALLY on camera.

That having been said, I vigorously support this gentleman and believe he should be acquitted.......those positions aren't contradictory........in fact, they are rational positions for anyone interested in self-defense.

Here's why......jury decisions to acquit, like we've seen, set the bar at a rational and safe level........you fire extra rounds, and you may end up in court, but juries have time after time ACQUITTED folks who have done so......and THAT is WONDERFUL!  Prosecutors eventually get the message that juries aren't going to convict on these cases, and stop wasting VALUABLE and LIMITED prosecutorial resources on them!

'But I wouldn't go that far, so I wouldn't have anything to worry about.....' Yes, that's true......which is EXACTLY why many of you should be hoping for an acquittal..........

Because THIS sets the bar well ABOVE the reasonable level........you don't want the bar for prosecuting a case like this changed from 'You fired at an unconscious robber who was no longer a threat'.

Because the next step is.....'You fired at a man who wasn't actually pointing his gun at you' or 'How did you actually KNOW his gun was loaded?' or 'It's obvious from the video that his gun began dropping a microsecond and a half BEFORE you began firing......so you MURDERED MY CLIENT!'

If juries declare shooting an unconscious robber ACCEPTABLE, even if Prosecutors do not.........THAT MEANS you have ZERO TO FEAR from reasonable self-defense measures.........You don't have to worry about Prosecutors going on fishing expeditions to appease some community groups using the above scenarios, as they know if Prosecuting the guy who shot an UNCONSCIOUS robber was an exercise in futility, he's not going to waste time arguing that you didn't know 'For Sure' that the robbers gun was loaded, or even real!

THIS IS PROACTIVE SELF-DEFENSE in a LEGAL SENSE on a Larger Scale!  I can live with a couple dead robbers under somewhat questionable circumstances FAR MORE than I can live with runaway prosecutors appeasing 'Community Activists' by Prosecuting law abiding citizens confronted by violent criminals who happen to apparently have a labor union!


----------



## Guardian (May 31, 2009)

We can debate this all day, that's for sure.  I agree, he walked past the dude on the floor, he obviously wasn't concerned with him.  He went to make sure the other guy was gone, he was stable at that point, he walked by this dude lying there again not worried, retrieved a 2nd gun and pumped 5? more into him.

He was wrong pure and simple.  Will he do time, I agree with SgtMac, I don't think so, not in OK or down here.  That doesn't make him right, but it isn't a question of right or wrong now, it's a question of will the jury send him away now, I don't think so.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 1, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Quite right! And it bears repeating that he did not CREATE the crisis situation he found himself thrust in to. I believe that the standard being applied to him by the Prosecutor (for political reasons) and some here is inherently unfair......AND I have zero doubt that a jury of his peers will see it that way as well and acquit him of the charges against him and end this nightmare.
> 
> Anyone who would seek to convert that statement or yours as condoning his behavior are doing so fallaciously and with malicious intent to distort that meaning........so i'll make it simple........His actions were ill advised......but DO NOT rise to the level of First Degree Murder! He responded to a situation thrust upon him by the robbers.


 


  Well said!!!


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 1, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I need to make it clear one more time that I don't recommend to anyone that they fire extra rounds in to the unconscious robber.....ESPECIALLY on camera.
> 
> That having been said, I vigorously support this gentleman and believe he should be acquitted.......those positions aren't contradictory........in fact, they are rational positions for anyone interested in self-defense.
> 
> ...


 
SGT.
I couldnt agree more. Well said again! You have actually made some very profound points regarding this topic and I appreciate your position displayed here. You afforded me the opportunity to see it from a couple different angles that I did not perceive before. 
Very good post. 
Thank you


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I couldnt agree more.  Well said again!



I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too.  Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here.  After all,  the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right?  It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice.  Or are they somehow different?


----------



## tellner (Jun 1, 2009)

Bill, here's the difference:

People like ME (it doesn't matter who "ME" is) deserve understanding and mercy even if the blind stupid law doesn't agree.

People like THEM (it doesn't matter who "THEM" is) deserve the harshest possible treatment even if the blind stupid law doesn't allow it.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 1, 2009)

I think the case is going to boil down to if the robber was alive or dead after the initial (and justified) head shot....

If he does manage to get convicted, I highly doubt it will be for 1st degree murder....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too. Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here. After all, the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right? It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice. Or are they somehow different?


This is a bad analogy and inapplicable here. 

We are talking about self defense, not murdering someone we find distasteful. Whether or not you or I may like it, abortion is legal. Robbery is not. The main reason that people support the pharmacist is because he was robbed at gunpoint. 

And _following_ the law is not about justice anyway. 

There is no issue of justice until a person is wronged or a law is broken. The pharmacist was wronged and rightly defended himself. Then he wronged the unconcious man on the ground, either by finishing him off or desacrating his corpse. 

And yes, he has legal consequences to face for it. He must appear in court and defend his position. If he is acquitted, as some are rooting for, then you will have to be satisfied with the verdict. If he is not, then those rooting for his acquittal will have to be satisfied with the verdict. 

I am *not* rooting for acquittal. The pharmacist should have been dialing 911 at that point. And if he _truly_ believed the man to be alive and capable of waking up and presenting a threat, he should have disarmed him and restrained him; I am sure that he had duct tape on hand. Going back to get another gun and shoot the man was uncalled for.

I *am *rooting for him to get out early on parole, just like the armed robbers and other thugs do.  Main difference is that he will likely go back to being a pharmacist and will not go out and prey upon others, while thugs will try to make up for lost time. 

At the same time, I feel not one bit of sympathy for the robber: he provoked an unknown opponent (the pharmacist) and paid the price. People do stupid things, and sometimes, bad things happen to them as a result. The robber did a stupid thing (robbery) and a bad thing happened to him (the pharmacist went nuts). 

This in no way justifies the pharmacist's actions.

Daniel


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 1, 2009)

He was on Bill O'Rilley today. His story the women in the back screamed and, it turns out, the kid on the floor was talking (or mumbling) and he though the kid had hurt or killed the ladies in the back room.

It sounds believable.

His big mistake was talking to the police right after the incident. Being in shock you can easily get the timeline of the event in wrong order, or not remember everything. And thus the cops will go by that story and if later you see you were mistaken, well they will say you changed your story (and thus lied.)

This will all be played out in court.

Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> This is a bad analogy and inapplicable here.



I think it is a good analogy.

Both describe a person '_getting what they have coming to them_' according to the beliefs of someone else, and ignoring what the law says.

When we decide to exact our own brand of justice on a person we consider a 'bad guy', there is no real difference between a robber whom we dispatch rather than let the law deal with them, and a late-term abortionist whom we dispatch rather than let God deal with him.  It's all about dealing him the justice we feel he ought to be getting.

Same thing, pretty much.


----------



## MJS (Jun 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too. Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here. After all, the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right? It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice. Or are they somehow different?


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is a good analogy.
> 
> Both describe a person '_getting what they have coming to them_' according to the beliefs of someone else, and ignoring what the law says.
> 
> ...


 
The pharmacy robber was committing a crime. The guy who shot him was justified in the one shot, however, where it went south was when he shot him a few more times. BG shouldn't have done the crime. The 'justice' that was handed out, most likely a mistake on the shooters part, was not necessary. 

I havent been following the other case, so I'm not sure of the crime he was committing. *I did read that he was doing abortions later than the norm. so perhaps that was the 'crime' that the shooter felt was worthy of taking a life. IMO, nothing wrong with abortion, as long as its in a legal establishment and done within the proper timeframe. The shooter in that case, IMO, premeditated the docs assassination. I get the impression that the shooter in this case is totally against abortion, and probably feels all docs that perform them, should be blown away.

I would most likely chalk the first case up to snapping.



> *The Kansas doctor had been a lightning rod for abortion opponents for decades. The women's clinic he ran is one of three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy, when the fetus is considered viable. It had been the site of repeated protests and was bombed in 1985.


 
Source


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is a good analogy.
> 
> Both describe a person '_getting what they have coming to them_' according to the beliefs of someone else, and ignoring what the law says.
> 
> ...


Um... no.  Not the same thing.  I am honestly surprised that you would even purport such a notion, as you seem to be an intelligent man.  

The reason that it is a bad analogy is that the man in the pharmacy was attacked and held at gunpoint and was able to respond with force and in the heat of the moment, did something very foolish.  This was not a premeditated action and in the phamacist's mind, the downed thug still represented a potential threat to his person.  The pharmacist did not have years, perhaps over a decade, to reason out his crime.  

The person who shot the clinician, on the other hand, premeditated the crime, planned it out, and executed it without direct provocation and without any threat of harm to himself by the clinician.   

Thus the pharmacist is guilty of taking defense of himself and his property beyond a reasonable limit while the other is guilty of premeditated murder.  There is a huge difference.

Personally, I place the _actual _(not legal) responsibility for this one entirely on the robber.  Once you decide that you are going to use force or the threat of force against another person, you run the risk of that person being crazier and better armed than yourself.  You accept that risk the moment that you perpetrate the act.  Once they drew their guns and threatened the pharmacist, they accepted that risk.  Turned out that the pharmacist was equally well armed and able to use his weapon to greater effect than the robbers.  

Kind of like playing chicken with your hot rods.  You run the risk that neither of you will blink and end up in a head on collision.  Both drivers 'get what they deserve' because they perpetrated the crime of stupidity.  This is not justice, simply cause and effect.  Same with the dead robber.  Cause and effect.

Justice is left for the court to decide.

Daniel


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Um... no.  Not the same thing.  I am honestly surprised that you would even purport such a notion, as you seem to be an intelligent man.
> 
> The reason that it is a bad analogy is that the man in the pharmacy was attacked and held at gunpoint and was able to respond with force and in the heat of the moment, did something very foolish.  This was not a premeditated action and in the phamacist's mind, the downed thug still represented a potential threat to his person.  The pharmacist did not have years, perhaps over a decade, to reason out his crime.
> 
> The person who shot the clinician, on the other hand, premeditated the crime, planned it out, and executed it without direct provocation and without any threat of harm to himself by the clinician.



I am not comparing the crimes.  I agree they are very different.

My comparison is a little more abstract.  I am referring to the notion that one can justify (even while agreeing it was wrong) a crime on the basis that the deceased *'had it coming'*.  Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has declared that the doctor 'had it coming' and there are those in this thread who have made similar statements about the dead robber.

While I agree that the world is full of bad people who probably do 'have it coming', I have never felt it was my job to give them what they deserve.

And my point is that when you justify a crime on the basis that a person 'had it coming', you might want to consider that anyone can use that logic to justify killing anyone.  I'm sure Boothe thought that Lincoln 'had it coming'.  If we all acted on that internal and non-objective justification, we'd have a pretty sad world.

As Clint Eastwood's character said in the movie _"Unforgiven,"_ *"We've all got it coming, kid."*


----------



## searcher (Jun 2, 2009)

I am not sure if this is in this thread or not, but I have the video of the shooting.

Warning: this video contains an individuals murder.   It does not show the kid getting shot, but you will see the shooter.   The video is about half way down.

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-si...natius-piazza-how-to-get-charged-with-murder/


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not comparing the crimes. I agree they are very different.
> 
> My comparison is a little more abstract. I am referring to the notion that one can justify (even while agreeing it was wrong) a crime on the basis that the deceased *'had it coming'*. Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has declared that the doctor 'had it coming' and there are those in this thread who have made similar statements about the dead robber.
> 
> ...


 
I got that, but I do not believe that that is what is happening here. 

There are three factors going on in people's responses:

*1. Kneejerk reactions.*
The instant kneejerk reaction of most of the respondants is one of instant defense of the pharmacist because we are all aware of how defending ourselves can go against us legally. The kneejerk reaction is to not back away an inch on justifying it because legal precedent in favor of the pharmacist in this more extreme case could mean more reasonable response for us should we find ourselves in court making a case for our own self defense.

*2. Zero sympathy for the robbers.*
The he had it coming also reflects a total lack of sympathy for this clown, but it is also more of a cause/effect than a justification of the pharmacist. Like the two guys playing chicken with their hot rods: it is hard to have any sympathy for them when they have a head on collision. They gambled and lost. So did the robber. This is not the same thing as justice. This is a matter of suffering the consequences for doing somethng stupid.

Perhaps a better analogy would be those punks that antagonized the tiger. They gambled that the tiger would not be able to harm them. It was against the rules (perhaps against the law, but I do not know) for them to do this. Their gamble, though stupid, was less risky; the zoo was built specifically to contain the animal. Lower risk factor, and they mainly risked being tossed out of the zoo if caught. But the other risk was that the animal would somehow escape. They played the odds and lost; the tiger jumped the wall and mauled them, eating one if I remember correctly. 

*3. Sympathy for the pharmacist.*
Nobody wants to be robbed. The man was minding his own business and two thugs come in and hold him at gunpoint. The pharmacist responds and one of them winds up dead.

Keep in mind that unlike yourself (you are LEO if I recall) the pharmacist is not specifically trained for this. He feared for his life and probably was also very pissed off; a bad combination. *If* the robber was lying unconcious on the floor, then the pharmacist went too far. If the man was moving and still had his gun, then I feel that the pharmacist was justified in eliminating a potential threat. 

Keep in mind that we have not heard the pharmacist's full story, but from what Deaf indicates about the Bill O'Reilly show, it is possible that there is more to it than what is initially reported.

Either way, I do not think that anyone here is advocating vigilante justice or taking the law into their own hands, which is what you seem to feel is happening. We just have zero sympathy for the robber.

Daniel


----------



## CanFightIt (Jun 2, 2009)

Self defense laws vary between states. While in your house, many states have "Castle Law" that allow you to defend yourself. Some states have "stand your ground" laws, while others have a duty to retreat. All self defense laws do have some things in common, however:

You can only use force equal to that encountered. For justifiable homicide, that person must be an imminent threat to your life, and they must have the means to carry out that threat.

Once the threat stops, your right to self defense stops. You can not continue to attack someone after they retreat.

Self defense is an "affirmative defense". This means it is your obligation to prove you had the right to use it.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too. Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here. After all, the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right? It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice. Or are they somehow different?


 
You sure pulled that from a dark moist place. What is it with people assuming things??? Are we not respectable professional adults here???
If you are unsure then please request an explaination, dont just jump to an off the wall conclusion of your own. 
I dont mean to sound harsh or be rude but is this so much to ask. 
You dont see me doing it so please return the courtesy.
We all seem to be very intelligent folks so lets not throw junk around the forum just becuase of a misunderstanding in articulation.  


This was ARMED ROBBERY... and those that chose to walk that path behind the gun met an inherent fate. Most often its the victim being robbed that fate meets but this time things were different.  This could have been the perps first job or 20th job... they could have already been known as "killers" amongst thier peers or in thier neighborhood.   This was the pharmacists first "gunfight". He didnt live behind the gun as the ones who attacked him did.  He got the upper hand with the headshot and seemingly went overboard when he dumped the second gun into the torso....  but thats our perception...  we werent there...  Regardless of "justification" , the pharmacists life as he and his family knows it is ruined...  his business and/or reputation may never be the same... not to mention the threat of retaliation.   His pharmacy is closed and he is up to his waist in litigation...  not to mention him having to relive those moments over and over again...  
The suspects on the other hand had nothing to lose and if nothing happened to them they would be back at it the next evening..regardless of who they hurt, injure or ruin....  even if they did a bid in prison, they would most likely be back to it once out on parole...   
A similar armed robbery occured down the street here not long ago in which two armed suspects attempted to rob a coin shop.  A gunfight ensued and both of the suspects were hit...one while running out of the store...   one escaped and one died on the sidewalk outside...   
That man had been in business for over a decade and now his life is ruined...the store has been barred up and closed since that day.  The family and friends of the suspect  hold vigils outside the shop while demanding justice...   justice for what...  someone who put a gun in someones face to rob them and possibly kill them but they got killed instead... even if they were over killed what do you expect.     There is a big difference between someone who lives behind the gun and someone caught in the moment who has access to a gun...  


The Lord works in mysterious ways.  Now its up to the legal system to hash out and either way...someone going to be dissapointed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Either way, I do not think that anyone here is advocating vigilante justice or taking the law into their own hands, which is what you seem to feel is happening. We just have zero sympathy for the robber.



I think it is a fine line, and in a couple of cases, that line exists only in theory.

I read statements which in effect say:


I do not advocate murder, but the robber got what he deserved.
I hope and believe the pharmacist will get off.
This sends a message to all those who would rob a pharmacy.
All of these statements can be easily applied by fans of the abortion doctor shooter as well.  All of them have to do with notions of rough justice that citizens can apply if they see a reason to do so.

I'm sorry, but "_I don't agree with what he did but I'm glad he did it, and I hope he gets away with it_" don't fill me with visions of law-abiding citizens who believe in the rule of law.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is a fine line, and in a couple of cases, that line exists only in theory.
> 
> I read statements which in effect say:
> 
> ...


They can also be easily applied by those who feel that the police and the courts are remiss in their duty, so be careful where you go with this one.

We are regaled daily in the news with stories of violent repeat offenders who go out and commit (gasp!) the same crime. The justice system has serious problems, a fact that has been mentioned to you several times, and which you simply brush off. Keep in mind that we, the citizens suffer for the shortcomings of the penal system and law enforcement.  Remember all those comment I had made earlier about parole?

That does not, as I said earlier, justify crossing the line, but perhaps you may wish to put yourself on the other side of that badge and consider how those who are frustrated with the crime rate feel. When your son has been murdered or your daughter raped by some repeat offender, you will feel very differently. I know that I would! Thankfully, I have not been put into a position where I can have that perspective first hand, and I hope that you never are either.

I spent a lot of time in sales and customer service (still do the customer service part), and one of the things that we had to do was to remember that a customer does not see things from our perspective. When we quote company policies to them, they just become more inflamed because they feel that we are not addressing their issue. When police or the courts respond with legaleze, you do not reassure people; you deepen the divide between law enforcement and civilians.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry, but "_I don't agree with what he did but I'm glad he did it, and I hope he gets away with it_" don't fill me with visions of law-abiding citizens who believe in the rule of law.


You can see what you wish, but last I checked, it is perfectly legal to hold such opinions and still be law abiding. I can think and feel whatever I like, but if a robber breaks into my home and I render him harmless, so long as I go no further, I am still abiding by the law.

You are judging people as law abiding or not based upon their _opinions_. *Being law abiding is entirely restricted to our actions*. Plenty of crimes are commited by people who never express such sentiments, such as the Craigslist killer, Jeff Dahmer, or Ted Bundy.

Daniel


----------



## tellner (Jun 2, 2009)

Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it. 

That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 2, 2009)

tellner said:


> Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.
> 
> That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.


 
I disagree... Its seems this is what you want see and not what people are articulating.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 2, 2009)

tellner said:


> Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.


Tellner, I just reread all seven pages of this thread and there is nowhere that I could find where anyone advocates murder and vigilante justice, either repeatedly or loudly.

I am not sure which posts that you are referring to, but I sure could not find them. There are a number that express hope and even predict that the pharmacist will get off, which he may. But each poster that sympathized with the pharmacist also said specifically that they do not advocate what he did. There are a few posts that straddle the line fairly closely, but none that outright advocate this.



tellner said:


> That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars *when* they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.


 
That is an awfully big assumption. You assume that they *will* be attacked and *will* stop the threat and *will* go overboard and commit murder after the fact. That is a lot of variables. If they go through life and are never attacked, then none of the rest will even come into play. It has been a very long time since I have had to defend myself using physical force. Hopefully, I will never have to.

You also assume that they *desire* to commit murder. That is a fairly big leap. To be willing to and advocate using maximum force with the possibility of killing in defense of one's self is not the same thing as a desire to commit murder. Desire implies that they will seek out the opportunity.

Daniel


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too.  Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here.  After all,  the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right?  It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice.  Or are they somehow different?



So robbers are now legal abortion providers.......when you have to resort to the reductio ad absurdum you've lost the initiative. 

By the way, reread my posts again until you actually understand them.......then get back with me......but spare me more of the same 'The sky is falling/The legal system is going to collapse' non-sense.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

tellner said:


> Bill, here's the difference:
> 
> People like ME (it doesn't matter who "ME" is) deserve understanding and mercy even if the blind stupid law doesn't agree.
> 
> People like THEM (it doesn't matter who "THEM" is) deserve the harshest possible treatment even if the blind stupid law doesn't allow it.



Actually we KNOW who 'Them' is, so you and Bill playing as if you don't is a bit of silliness......'THEM' are those who pick up a gun or knife with the intent to victimize, maim or kill others.......SOCIETY obviously knows who they are, even if you and Bill are blind to that.

Oh, and by the way.....he WILL be judged by the 'Blind Law' and acquitted.......apparently it's YOU who has a problem with 'The Law' and our system of Jury trials.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is a good analogy.
> 
> Both describe a person '_getting what they have coming to them_' according to the beliefs of someone else, and ignoring what the law says.
> 
> ...


 It's not only a bad analogy, it's a bit disingenuous.........comparing a self-defense situation, where another man comes at you with a gun, with a terrorist act is asinine.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Um... no.  Not the same thing.  I am honestly surprised that you would even purport such a notion, as you seem to be an intelligent man.


 He is an intelligent man......but he's been confronted with some arguments he can't deal with.......so in those situations folks revert to logical fallacies to attempt to regain the point.

Here's the problem he has........NOBODY is arguing that he did the right thing (which is the argument Bill and Tellner WANT to argue against!)......everyone is arguing that he did the WRONG thing, but that he doesn't deserve to go to prison for it.......and, in fact, it's the interest of anyone interested in self-defense that he GET convicted (now if you're interested in Robbery it's a different story) because that sets the bar for prosecution well above REASONABLE self-defense........so that someone engaging in reasonable self-defense need not remotely fear such prosecution.

Now, Bill and Tellner can continue to argue with the strawmen who are advocating doing what this guy did.......strawmen since noone in this conversation is actually making that argument.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I disagree... Its seems this is what you want see and not what people are articulating.


Strawmen......http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Exampe:



> Bob: I think he did the wrong thing shooting that robber more times than he needed to, and should go to prison
> 
> John: I think he did the wrong thing, too......but I don't think he should go to prison for it......it was a tough situation to be in, and 1st Degree Murder seems pretty excessive.
> 
> Bob: So you support executing abortionists too, huh?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is a fine line, and in a couple of cases, that line exists only in theory.
> 
> I read statements which in effect say:
> 
> ...



Strawmen are comfortable, aren't they? 

It's a lot easier creating strawmen of my arguments than actually assailing my arguments, i'll give you that......I wouldn't want the task either.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

tellner said:


> Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.
> 
> That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.



What we have here is a man who feigns empathy for a robber......while strongly desiring that those he disagrees with end up behind bars......I think we have scratched the surface and witnessed something ugly.

The truth is that you and Bill have gotten yourself in to a losing argument......but ego prevails and now you and he have to come up with ABSURD points in order to regain some semblance of victory......specifically creating the strawman that EVERYONE here who disagrees with you is advocating murdering abortion providers and executing criminals, when nobody is making that argument but you and Bill.......get over it!


By the way, Tullner, in OUR society YOU don't get to decide who ends up behind bars.....YOU are not JUDGE, JURY and EXECUTIONER........a Jury of 12 people will decide this man's fate......and Acquit him........and I find it ironic that YOU will then declare that our system has failed......


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

I'm through responding to silly strawman arguments driven by ego.......back to the original point, to hammer it home......

Jerome Ersland was confronted by armed robbers and allegedly exceeded his lawful authority to defend himself by firing more shots than he should have against one of the robbers.

If these allegations are true (sorry for a couple of you, we have to wait for a jury to decide ).....if these allegations are true

1) He was wrong to do so.
2) The Prosecutor is WRONG to charge him with 1st Degree murder

Two wrongs don't make a right in this case.

3) The jury should and WILL vote to acquit.

The justice system works.

Where in this equation is the advocacy for vigilante justice?  First of all, Ersland is NOT a Vigilante.......he in no way, shape or form SOUGHT these robbers out.......they chose HIM!  Unless someone has evidence he somehow baited these two clowns in.

By definition Ersland was a victim who was forced to defend himself, and allegedly in a matter of moments went beyond his legal authority to do so.

I always find it interesting when topics like this arise to see those who proclaim that the SKY WILL FALL and our justice system will fall apart IF someone like Ersland IS NOT convicted.......something they wouldn't make the same claim about for a common robber or murderer.....weird.

Bottom line.......our system is built around JURIES, and the Jury will acquit Ersland.........right, wrong or indifferent.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The truth is that you and Bill have gotten yourself in to a losing argument......but ego prevails and now you and he have to come up with ABSURD points in order to regain some semblance of victory......specifically creating the strawman that EVERYONE here who disagrees with you is advocating murdering abortion providers and executing criminals, when nobody is making that argument but you and Bill.......get over it!



I am not arguing that everyone who disagrees with me in this thread is advocating murdering abortion providers.

I compared the rationalization process that were used in both threads - that the person killed '_deserved it_'.  I did this as a point of reference to show that when we as citizens begin to decide what should be done to a criminal because '_they deserve it_', we find ourselves in the same league with all those who make similar rationalizations.

It is pretty clear you're not comfortable with abstract concepts, so I'll drop this now.  Hopefully a few people will understand my point.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 3, 2009)

I believe in personal responsibility; therefore, I believe the robber accepted the possible consequences of his actions when he chose to rob the pharmacy including the possibility that he could die in the process. 

That also applies to the pharmacist. When he chose to come back into the store, get another gun, and pump five more bullets into the unconcious robber he accepted the possible repercussions. 

However, I've been listening and reading several points of view on this case and am beginning to think it may not be as "black & white" as it appears on the surface. 

We are all controlled by our emotions and other factors at times that over ride rational thought, especially in extremely stressful situations. Being calm and rational while viewing this footage most of us naturally feel the pharmacist went too far (including me at first) but after hearing more on it I'm not 100% sure any more. 

At any rate, the pharmacist is charged with 1st degree murder and that will never stick because I don't think they can prove premeditation. Also, traditionally juries have gone easy when the defendant is portrayed as a victim and since the pharmacist was being robbed...well. 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all comes out in the end.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not arguing that everyone who disagrees with me in this thread is advocating murdering abortion providers.
> 
> I compared the rationalization process that were used in both threads - that the person killed '_deserved it_'.  I did this as a point of reference to show that when we as citizens begin to decide what should be done to a criminal because '_they deserve it_', we find ourselves in the same league with all those who make similar rationalizations.
> 
> It is pretty clear you're not comfortable with abstract concepts, so I'll drop this now.  Hopefully a few people will understand my point.



I'm quite comfortable with abstract concepts....to the point that I RECOGNIZE INSTANTLY when someone is disingenuously trying to build themselves a nice neat little strawman. 

Even your 'deserve' comment is a strawman, as my argument isn't REMOTELY built on the robber 'deserving' it.........as close as you'll get to that is my argument that HE created the situation, but even that is not the same.

Again, strawmen are not an argument, they are an argument substitute.



Again, an idea permeates Tellner and your posts of an absolutist legalism......the notion that IF you committed the crime, you should absolutely be convicted.  Unfortunately our system is not built on that notion, otherwise it would be PURELY a fact finding endeavor, and we would be judged by professional judges of fact, NOT by a jury of peers.  

In our system, the juries take account of the TOTALITY of the circumstances when rendering a verdict.......that is why jury verdicts to acquit are UNASSAILABLE........and IF Mr. Ersland is acquitted justice WILL be done as best as our system can accomplish.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I believe in personal responsibility; therefore, I believe the robber accepted the possible consequences of his actions when he chose to rob the pharmacy including the possibility that he could die in the process.
> 
> That also applies to the pharmacist. When he chose to come back into the store, get another gun, and pump five more bullets into the unconcious robber he accepted the possible repercussions.
> 
> ...



A very rational perspective.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 3, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Here's the problem he has........NOBODY is arguing that he did the right thing (which is the argument Bill and Tellner WANT to argue against!)......everyone is arguing that he did the WRONG thing,


That was my observation after rereading all seven pages to try to find these advocates.



sgtmac_46 said:


> but that he doesn't deserve to go to prison for it.....


I think that we may be more divided on that. I think that we can all agree that he does not deserve murder 1. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> ...and, in fact, it's the interest of anyone interested in self-defense that he GET convicted (now if you're interested in Robbery it's a different story) because that sets the bar for prosecution well above REASONABLE self-defense........so that someone engaging in reasonable self-defense need not remotely fear such prosecution.


I will have to think on that one. In theory, I believe that you are correct, but in practice, I am not so sure. I see a lot of one-upsmanship in the court system; _this guy got that guy off for murder 2 with tons of evidence suggesting guilt, so I will get my client off for murder 1 when there is even more evidence suggesting guilt_, or _he got that pharmacist convicted for murder 2, so I will get this other guy who did the same thing for murder 1_.  Every lawyer wants to set legal precedent.  Just like every athlete wants to break records.  Set the bar and someone will seek to raise it by setting a new legal precedent just so that they can say that they did so.

Our courts (in my opinion) have become more about lawyers trying to see what _can_ be done with little to no concern about what *should* be done. I guess they have to do something to justify those outrageous salaries.

Daniel


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 4, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That was my observation after rereading all seven pages to try to find these advocates.


 Agreed.....




Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that we may be more divided on that. I think that we can all agree that he does not deserve murder 1.


 That's a fair perspective.




Daniel Sullivan said:


> I will have to think on that one. In theory, I believe that you are correct, but in practice, I am not so sure. I see a lot of one-upsmanship in the court system; _this guy got that guy off for murder 2 with tons of evidence suggesting guilt, so I will get my client off for murder 1 when there is even more evidence suggesting guilt_, or _he got that pharmacist convicted for murder 2, so I will get this other guy who did the same thing for murder 1_.  Every lawyer wants to set legal precedent.  Just like every athlete wants to break records.  Set the bar and someone will seek to raise it by setting a new legal precedent just so that they can say that they did so.


 I have experience with Prosecutors......what PROSECUTOR'S want is convictions of some sort.......they run for re-election on their Conviction rates.  Refusing to try a case is not considered a loss.......but trying a case and losing IS considered a loss.  Prosecutor's get bitten hard, and they shy away from similar cases because it hurts their convictions rates......AND they DO NOT like losing high profile cases.......they get less publicity by avoiding them.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Our courts (in my opinion) have become more about lawyers trying to see what _can_ be done with little to no concern about what *should* be done. I guess they have to do something to justify those outrageous salaries.
> 
> Daniel


 Again, you're thinking of civil trial lawyers on fishing expeditions (a thing limited by Enhanced Castle Doctrine laws, by the way.).......in Criminal court Prosecutors have HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of cases a year on their dockets, and can't afford to take EVERY ONE to jury trial, or even most......so they live off plea bargains and only take cases to trial they believe they have a chance of winning.

Again, you have to remember that in a county like Oklahoma County, where OKC exists, you have a county District Attorney, in this case David Prater........and he probably has a dozen assistant DA's underneath him.

Now, OKC and the surrounding counties, probably generates........lets say 10,000 felony cases a year (probably a low estimate)........probably 2,000 serious felonies such as murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc, etc, etc, (again, probably a low estimate)...........a Jury Trial usually takes about a week for a basic trial (more for a complicated one) and takes far longer than a week to prepare for........do the mouth and figure out how many Jury Trials the Oklahoma Prosecutor's office could do!  Heck, lets give Prater a hundred Assistant DA's, how many Jury trials?

Now, finally, add to the fact public consensus.........what does public consensus have to do with cases like this you might add?  District Attorney's like Mr. Prater are ELECTED!


----------



## chinto (Jun 15, 2009)

old rule for a fire arm.. it points it goes off and should continue to go off till empty or you are sure that the attacker is down and NOT ABLE to do you any harm at all!! .. till then keep shooting till empty, if still a threat reload and repeat.


----------



## Obi Wan Shinobi (Jun 22, 2009)

First of all I what I don't get from society is when someone who stands up for themselves and refuse to be a victim they are labeled as vigilantes and such. This pharmacists was forced into this situation...and when he took the fight to the perp now its overkill....I beg to differ, I'd say thats survival...I read how some people say that when the perp was unconscious Ersland went back and got another gun and continue to shoot the perp 5 more times. How do you know if he was unconscious? I mean he may be a pharmacist but he's no doctor and plus IF he was already dead and he shot him 5 more times then who cares? He already was dead. Its things like this that make people second guess themselves as to whether or not they want to defend themselves if they fear malicious prosecution for defending themselves. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 as the old saying goes. If you're a sheep then you're destined to be victimized by the wolf. But if you're the Sheepdog then you defend yourself and your flock by violence of action.....If more people did what Ersland did then maybe the criminal element would think twice before committing violent crimes against people......


----------

