Wildalaska
Moderator
where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted
Killing someone for the "right" reasons leads to genocide
WildwhatsrightaintalwaysrightAlaska ™©2002-2011
where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted
where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted
Come back in 5 years and I'd probably sign it.This afternoon a person came to our door soliciting signatures on a petition asking OK governor Fallon to pardon Ersland. i was not at home: My wife politely declined to sign that petition.
Paramedics would not respond because there were reports that a third shooter was at large. Standard procedure, no conspiracy to let the wounded robber die.us think back to the north hollywood bank robbers and how the cops swat team guys and every one eles turned a blind eye to the wounded guy laying on the ground and let him bleed out...
What you're not getting is that the disagreement is more fundamental than where you were raised and whether or not killing someone for the right reasons is accepted.a very harsh and backwooded area...where killing someone for the right reasons was still accepted...
The guy was tried by a jury of his peers, and we ain't talking about Chicago, IL or NYC. This happened in Oklahoma TX, the state that performed the first execution in 2011. Whether it's "as wrong" or not, it's wrong enough.Shooting a defenseless robber isn't as wrong as kicking in someone's door and killing and robbing someone.
What he did is beyond "too far". It's cold-blooded murder.Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.
Anyone who has ever experienced having a gun pointed at people they care about would be a little more sympathetic to a guy who turns the tables but then goes too far.
Had he not been murdered, and had he not expired as a result of the first and only justified shot, his fate would have been determined by a jury and a judge.Posted by chadstrickland: ...that robber deserved his fate...
No, no, NO!...and now a man is going to prison for the rest of his life for finishing a fight hed did not start ...
So do I....i believe in the idea of law and what it stands for.
Nor was he charged for firing at the armed robber as he fled, though he could have been.
Really? I thought that hitting our target was usually our goal and the fleeing robber would have been Ersland's target.He is extremely fortunate that he did not hit anyone.
Well I guess you have to examine Article 10 and Article 35 of the NYS penal Code.
What many people on this thread don't seem to understand is that what separates "us" from "them" is that we respect the law and demonstrate our respect for the law with our actions and they don't. It's not like criminals are born criminals and we're somehow better than they are from the start. Our decisions and our actions make us what we are in EXACTLY the same way that a criminal's actions and decisions make him what he is.
If we demonstrate by our actions that we have no respect for the law then we destroy the barrier that separates "us" from "them". If a person's decisions and actions demonstrate that he has the same disrespect for the law that a criminal does then guess what that makes him.
Oh yes he could, though he might well have been found innocent.Posted by Double Naught Spy: No, he could not [(have been charged for firing at the armed robber as he fled)].
One has to ask how many DAs would believe that. One could present an opinion justifying shooting at the fleeing felon, or one could decide to prosecute. It's a judgment call.The DA even noted that Ersland was well within his rights to give chase and fire on the fleeing suspect who posed a threat to society.
Yep. Why, one wonders.The DA even praised Ersland for his actions up until the time he emptied the gun into the downed robber.
Had he hit the target, the DA's considered opinion would have been at least tested; there's no way to know whether Ersland would have been prosecuted, though it may have been unlikely.Really [(referring to "He is extremely fortunate that he did not hit anyone")]? I thought that hitting our target was usually our goal and the fleeing robber would have been Ersland's target.