You're lying to yourself if you think shooting someone is not trying to kill them.
1. Saying a thing, even repeatedly does not make it so. I provided the evidence to show that using a gun in self-defense, even shooting someone in self-defense is not anywhere near an automatic death sentence for the attacker.
2. Judging others by what goes on in your own head is likely to result in false conclusions. You have no idea what I believe or what I think.
...under the influence of a massive amount of adrenaline that your body in not used to. How long is a "moment?" It varies between who you talk to. If you think the adrenaline wore of in the 30 seconds it took him to fetch the other pistol you are dead wrong.
Questions like "How long is a "moment"? brings to mind a quote by a former president--"It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." We all know what a "moment" is even though it's a subjective term. And while a person might have a momentary lapse while under extreme stress, it's really stretching things to say that "momentary" amounts to a walk in the sunshine, fetching another gun and shooting an unconscious man multiple times. A jury of his peers didn't buy the idea that it was merely a "momentary lapse" and they clearly made the right decision based on the video evidence.
I'm saying IF he would have died with the first shot or the sixth, he'd be just as dead.
I see you emphasized the word "if". Which is correct since that makes your comment pure speculation as I stated it was. The point is that no one knows what the outcome would have been had the pharmacist not murdered the man on the floor and therefore any comments trying to justify the pharmacist's actions based on what might have happened are pure speculation.
You are not thinking clearly.
I think a lot of people, you included, are completely missing the point of this thread.
NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO THINK CLEARLY.
NOW is the time for you to make decisions about what you will and won't do in a deadly force encounter. You can choose NOW to do the right thing or you can persist in the idea that it's simply out of your hands once the adrenaline starts coursing through your system. Or worse you can decide right now that you're going to kill your attacker whether you have to break the law to do it or not.
As pax noted in an earlier post, it seems quite plain that Ersland was set on killing his attackers, not just on ending the encounter. That's why he pursued one down the street shooting at him even after the attacker had clearly broken off the attack and left the shop and that's why he came back and murdered the one on the floor.
Incidents like this are exactly why this subforum of TFL exists. It's here so we can discuss and decide the legal and proper course of action and so that we can learn from the mistakes and bad decisions of others. As well as from what's done right and from the right decisions made by others.
Speeding is illegal. Jaywalking is illegal. Littering is illegal. I bet you have been guilty of these things from time to time, and I also bet you are not what most would call a "criminal scumbag."
The law and the courts and society draw a clear line between misdemeanors and felonies for a VERY good reason. Trying to pretend that line doesn't exist is disengenuous and basing an argument on that pretense is silly. It's ridiculous to pretend that speeding and murder are equivalent in any reasonable sense.
First of all, there's no such thing as a non-biased human being.
This is what's called a non sequitur. It doesn't refute anything I claimed nor does it support anything you've claimed.
Of course humans are biased. What I said was that it's not necessary to have biased jurors to be exonerated. You implied that I would be happy to have you sitting on a jury in my self-defense case. I don't need that kind of support from a juror nor do I want anyone else to benefit from having a juror who won't convict for murder even when the evidence warrants it. I'll be more than satisfied to have one that decides the case on its own merits.
That guy died on someone else's property, threatening someone else's life, it was his decision.
No, this is absolutely false.
He died on someone else's property
while lying helpless on the floor, it was
Ersland's decision to murder him.
The fight was over, but Ersland didn't necessarily know that.
Ersland CLEARLY knew it. That's why he lied about what he did and that's why he showed absolutely no signs in the video that he was concerned about any threat from the man on the floor.
In a case I recall reading on this board, a cop got into a gunfight with a BG. After said BG fell in front of him, Officer Jared Reston pulled him in close put his pistol to his head and shot him 3 times.
This is a VERY badly flawed description of what happened. The officer had been severely wounded to the point that he could not stand and the two were grappling when the shots were fired. The fight was still VERY much in progress at that point.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_4_34/ai_n56222291/
This all happened in just a very few seconds. Reston is pinned in place by his injured body; his ambusher moving swiftly to his right, both men shooting at each other the whole time. The attacker reaches a point directly above the cop when Reston fires another aimed shot and suddenly the assailant pitches forward and falls, landing hard with full body weight on top of Reston.
...
Grabbing the attacker with his right hand to hold him in place, Reston brings his pistol up with his left hand, presses it firmly against the man's head, and pulls the trigger three times as fast as he can: POW! POW! POW! He feels the man's body go limp.
Malice Afterthought is the intention to kill, or assassinate or otherwise inflict sever bodily harm to some person with full consciousness and presence of mind, while doing a wrongful act .Eg. Carrying a loaded gun to stop resistance by killing the opponents while looting a palace.