Holy smokes
This has been hashed, rehashed, and more over 11 pages and i probably won't come up with anything new. When i first heard this story, I thought the guy was right on! A wounded vet, defending 3 women in the store, shoots and kills a robber with a single headshot. DRT. I'd like to think i'd respond under similar circumstances with that same valour and courage. But then the sordid details began to come out.
Hardly anything Ersland said happened is supported by what i think i'm seeing in the video. I really wonder if he believes he is telling the truth, and that his truth is distorted from what we've all now seen on video by the adrenaline surge, and his fear, anger, and elation (at not being killed)?
Anyway, shooting a gun at anyone is using lethal force, whether you miss, wound or kill. It doesn't matter one bit if the guy was already fatally wounded (mutilation of a corpse is also a crime, fyi), or that Ersland got another gun and stood over the BG; his crime was committed by pulling the trigger again. That particular perp had no ability, no opportunity, and no intent to harm Mr. Ersland AT THAT MOMENT. The first round he fired, from the Judge over the counter, was totally justified and the D.A. said as much.
That BG dude dropped like a rock from the headshot. He just simply folded. Whether he would have recovered or not eventually is a guess, but he was unconscious from impact, well before he hit the floor. Ersland actually turned his back to him twice, on the way out the door, then again on the way to get the .380. Certainly suggests he thought the threat was gone. Now here's the point - why did he go back and shoot some more? Surely he could have called police with his right hand, and held the gun on the BG with his off hand. He could have asked his wife to call the police.
The lesson here is remembering where the line is, the line that separates us erstwhile defenders of life and family from the BG. Ersland needed to be responding to an imminent threat, where the BG possessed those three factors - ability, intent, and opportunity. He did it very, very well up to the point he went out that door. There is an excellent explanation of the necessary factors on The Cornered Cat website, complete with concrete examples. Basically, an unconscious guy, laying on your floor bleeding from the headshot you gave him, with no weapon visible, doesn't meet any of the three. That is why Ersland is now charged with murder. If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.
I am not saying he is guilty of murder. There are certainly facts that have not been made public yet, as always. The trial won't even be about his guilt or his innocence. It will be about what the DA can prove, what doubts the defense can raise, and eventually it will be about the personal beliefs and biases of the members of the jury and their perception of the truth, and of justice.
I am sorry that young man lost his life, and am sorry Ersland may have thrown his away. It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.
Oh yeah, there's one more lesson here: Never talk to the cops. Or especially the press. Even most LEOs will tell you (if they are being candid) the same thing.