Folk Hero or Murderer?

[Richard Nixon]

Folk Hero or Killer: Druggist Who Killed Robber


Oklahoma drugstore shooting stirs debate over self-defense, turns a pharmacist into folk hero


By TIM TALLEY Associated Press Writer
OKLAHOMA CITY May 30, 2009 (AP)
The Associated Press
225 comments (http://abcnews.go.com/US/comments?type=story&id=7713776)

Font Size http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/font-sm_off.gif (javascript:void(0);) http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/font-md_on.gif (javascript:void(0);) http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/font-lg_off.gif (javascript:void(0);)
Print (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7713776)
RSS (http://my.abcnews.go.com/rsspublic/us_rss20.xml)
E-mail (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php)

Share this story with friends

Facebook
(http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fwi reStory%3Fid%3D7713776&t=Folk%20Hero%20or%20Killer%3A%20Druggist%20Who%20 Killed%20Robber%20-%20ABC%20News)Reddit
(http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fwire Story%3Fid%3D7713776&headline=Folk%20Hero%20or%20Killer%3A%20Druggist%2 0Who%20Killed%20Robber%20-%20ABC%20News)Twitter
(http://twitter.com/home?status=Currently%20reading%20http%3A%2F%2Fabc news.go.com%2FUS%2FwireStory%3Fid%3D7713776&title=Folk%20Hero%20or%20Killer%3A%20Druggist%20Wh o%20Killed%20Robber%20-%20ABC%20News)StumbleUpon
(http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fwire Story%3Fid%3D7713776&title=Folk%20Hero%20or%20Killer%3A%20Druggist%20Wh o%20Killed%20Robber%20-%20ABC%20News)More
(http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS% 2FwireStory%3Fid%3D7713776&v=250&title=)


http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_ersland_090530_mn.jpgJerome Ersland is escorted out of a courtroom by Oklahoma County sheriff deputies after a bond... http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/icons/icon-arrow-down.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7713776#)
Jerome Ersland is escorted out of a courtroom by Oklahoma County sheriff deputies after a bond hearing at the Oklahoma County Courthouse in Oklahoma City Thursday, May 28, 2009. Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor. Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero. http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/icons/icon-arrow-up.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7713776#)
( Paul B. Southerland/The Oklahoman/AP Photo)

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.
Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.
Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.
"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."


Killing thugs who attacked your and attempted to rob your property is not murder.

[StalinFanboy]

Ok

[Richard Nixon]

Don't wish to troll but I will laugh if anyone who has defended Leonard Peltier or one of the Black Panthers condemn this guy.

[Il Medico]

Anymore details? Like did the "hold up men" (from the article sounds like teenage boys to me) have a gun? A knife? Anything? Were they black, white, Latino? Could race or some other prejudice be involved in this man's action? If they just ran in and yelled give me the money, why shoot them? And even if they had a knife, once you pull the gun they are effectively neutralized. Why shoot? Why kill? And if it was self defense why did he feel the need to pump five more bullets into the kid. He certainly wasn't a threat then, bleeding on the floor. This man is a murderer plain and simple.

[Radical]

Killing thugs who attacked your and attempted to rob your property is not murder.

However, its murder to go behind a desk, get a gun and shoot somebody thats already been decommissioned. This man obviously has a thrill for killing because any ordinary "christian" would try to keep the TEENAGER alive.

I would rather of had those "thugs" be alive and get away with some money rather than be dead because of some "I-Dont-Give-a-fuck" Conservative. My guess is, they've come out of poverty and never had the same opptunity as any ordinary kid, so they decide to rob a shop - Capitalism. There will always be crime wherever theres an oppressed people

[9]

And if it was self defense why did he feel the need to pump five more bullets into the kid. He certainly wasn't a threat then, bleeding on the floor. This man is a murderer plain and simple.

This.

I think most people with a conscience would, after shooting a young kid who was trying to rob them, proceed without hesitation to call the police or an ambulance or something of the sort. I mean, the kid was robbing this guy's pharmacy, not murdering his wife and kids, so the fact that this guy is at all compelled to go fire five shots into the kid after-the-fact to make damn sure he's dead ought to send up serious, serious alarm bells.
Either way, he's no hero.

[#FF0000]

1) Were the holdup men armed? Was it apparent that the men would or had the capacity to commit violence?
2) Was the one man who was shot in the head dead already?

I'm sort of assuming the former is true. And if the guy was in fact already dead then the 5 extra shots are just unnecessary, but doesn't make him a murderer.

BUT if the teenager was still alive and bleeding out on the floor, then, yeah, it's murder. That isn't even a leftist's perspective. That's actually the law.



Killing thugs who attacked your and attempted to rob your property is not murder.

This reminds me of a time not too long ago where a man in Texas straight u executed a 13 year old boy by forcing him to his knees and shooting him in the back of the head for breaking into his trailer and stealing a box of Twinkies.


Don't wish to troll but I will laugh if anyone who has defended Leonard Peltier or one of the Black Panthers condemn this guy.

Yeah I don't particularly care in the case of Federal agents though. The ethics of killing thieves depends on the situation. Killing federal agents execution-style is always okay, though.:thumbup1:

[New Tet]

Oklahoma drugstore shooting stirs debate over self-defense, turns a pharmacist into folk hero

Folk hero? Folk, in this case, sounds too much like Volk. Here I smell, at the very least, incipient Fascism.

I doubt the druggist shooter is a fascist, and I'm even willing to believe that he acted in self defense in the midst of a real holdup, but the people who wrote this story (or rephrased it's title, at the very least!) are promoting [it] as a poisoned tool of debate and may not be so on the up and up, comrades.

Just take[, for example,] the fantasy of a shooting druggist suddenly turning into a folk hero:

What is a folk hero?

Woody Guthrie was folk hero.

Anyone who listened to music, went to church or ever went into a honky-tonk in the South knew who Woody Guthrie was. He was generally known among the poor black & white folk (real folk!) of the American West and South before he ever achieved any degree of greatness among the general American public, present or posthumous. He was a legend before he was famous.

Of what was Guthrie's legend wrought?

Woody sang everywhere. In church services, in bars, pubs, demonstrations; at miners' strikes, in canneries and outside them, in freezing rain, while workers stood hopeful vigils outside their locked factories, holding plackards declaring, 'STRIKE!' or 'We Shall Ovecome!'.

Woody Guthrie was a REAL folk hero. And, as far as I know, he never shot no one.

Now this pharmacist, this shooting druggist if you will, was held up at gun point by two would-be robbers. He got the upper hand on them, shot one guy in the face and chased the other one away, came back and, not content with his victory over evil, pumped five more motherfucking bullets into the mortally wounded thief.

And he's a folk hero?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Don't wish to troll but I will laugh if anyone who has defended Leonard Peltier or one of the Black Panthers condemn this guy.

I don't think he should get the death penalty or that he or anyone else should be locked up, but he's hardly the equivalent of the black panthers. The Panthers saw themselves as defending themselves and intimidating the police that had been harassing and intimidating their communities with impunity - still are, just the unarmed kid that was shot in the back 2 weeks ago by cops about a mile from my house... oh, you can't, he's dead.

The panthers armed themselves to defend themselves at a time when cops were seen regularly on tv beating people and riots happened in most major cities. A few years ealier in the south, black churches were being bombed to remind all black people of "their place" in society. You'd have to be an idiot to be young and black and not at least want to arm yourself in this kind of atmosphere. But this was just a small part of what the panthers were about... sure scared all the NRA-types though. Nothing gets a republican like then Gov. Ronald Regan to support gun control legislation like young organized black folk with guns!

As far as this case goes: people shoot people breaking into their stores and houses, I don't know the details of this case, so who am I to know if he was legitimately defending himself or not? So the real question is why do right-wingers want to promote this case? One reason could be that it feeds into the NRA promoted myths about gun ownership stopping crime or being useful for home defense. A more disturbing option is that it appealing to vigillante wet-dreams of quasi-fascist Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) types.

So why is it that right-wingers are so selective about what they consider self-defense? It's ok if it's property, but bad if it's your community? It's ok to arm yourself if thugs try and take $800 from your cash register but bad to arm yourself if the US military is trying to take your country?

[RHIZOMES]

Don't wish to troll but I will laugh if anyone who has defended Leonard Peltier or one of the Black Panthers condemn this guy.

Coming from the guy whose username is fucking "Richard Nixon" and has upheld James Polk as one of the "greatest presidents".

[RedAnarchist]

Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor. Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

That isn't being a hero, that's being damn inhuman. What a vile animal that guy is.

[mikelepore]

IMO, the part about "pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor" is the unacceptable part.

But the law is hypocritical in that the police do this all the time. Amadou Diallo - the cops said they thought his wallet was a gun - shot 41 times. Asked at the trial why they shot him so many times, the cops explained that New York City police regulations required it - according to the handbook, once cops decide that that it's necessary to shoot at someone at all, they are required to continue shooting the person until all of their weapons have been emptied into the person. But what's thought of as self-defense for cops doesn't apply to anyone else. I guess the cops are gods.

[RedAnarchist]

1) Were the holdup men armed? Was it apparent that the men would or had the capacity to commit violence?
2) Was the one man who was shot in the head dead already?

I'm sort of assuming the former is true. And if the guy was in fact already dead then the 5 extra shots are just unnecessary, but doesn't make him a murderer.

BUT if the teenager was still alive and bleeding out on the floor, then, yeah, it's murder. That isn't even a leftist's perspective. That's actually the law.

I've read that the kid was unconciousness. So he had no chance of survival from that madman.


This reminds me of a time not too long ago where a man in Texas straight u executed a 13 year old boy by forcing him to his knees and shooting him in the back of the head for breaking into his trailer and stealing a box of Twinkies.

I've looked that up on Google and wow, just wow. Losing your life just for a couple of snacks, just because some inbred was angry at you for stealing them? No wonder Texans are stereotyped as backwards and stupid when acts like this happen.

[RedAnarchist]

IMO, the part about "pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor" is the unacceptable part.

But the law is hypocritical in that the police do this all the time. Amadou Diallo - the cops said they thought his wallet was a gun - shot 41 times. Asked at the trial why they shot him so many times, the cops explained that New York City police regulations required it - according to the handbook, once cops decide that that it's necessary to shoot at someone at all, they are required to continue shooting the person until all of their weapons have been emptied into the person. But what's thought of as self-defense for cops doesn't apply to anyone else. I guess the cops are gods.

If the cops were truly there to protect and serve people, they wouldn't shoot to kill, but shoot to disarm. There should be an unofficial requirement for cop-killers to keep shooting the cop until they run out of bullets if thats what the cop would do if the situation was reversed.

[Il Medico]

I'm sort of assuming the former is true. And if the guy was in fact already dead then the 5 extra shots are just unnecessary, but doesn't make him a murderer.
He was still alive:

Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.The man is a murderer.

[Jazzratt]

He started off by doing what was necessary when threatened and I defy anyone to challenge his action in firing the first shot, thus averting the armed robbery. It's a bit iffy that he shot the other guy in the head, but that may be excusable as simply the vagaries of actual combat. Chasing the other bloke out of the shop is absolutely beyond reproach. The point where he went from a fairly mundane bloke going through pretty much a textbook robbery aversion is when he went back to the shop. There is no way in hell that someone who is unarmed and suffering a head wound requires 5 rounds to neutralise. Those were not the actions of a hero but of a calculating murderer.

Also I don't think anyone who looks like this:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_ersland_090530_mn.jpg
could possibly be my hero. He's horrificly repulsive.

[Demogorgon]

Shooting someone who is merely committing robbery is likely excessive force anyway. I would need to have more details to say for sure. If they were threatening him with guns it may have been justified, but if they weren't, it was not.

There is no conceivable way to justify going to get another gun and then shooting an already seriously injured man five times. That is calculated murder carried out either as an act of revenge or merely for the thrill of killing.

[Pogue]

twat

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally if he has been released on bail. I wonder if he hadn't shot these robbers and they were subsequently arrested for robbery if they would have gotten bail for what must be considered the lesser offence of robbery.

I doubt it somehow.

[RainbowLeftist]

What kind of gun was he using?

Shooting someone in the head with a .22, and shooting someone with a .45 is a huge difference.

If the teen wasn't out, and still had a weapon on him, I'd definately consider him a threat still.

[RedAnarchist]

What kind of gun was he using?

Shooting someone in the head with a .22, and shooting someone with a .45 is a huge difference.

If the teen wasn't out, and still had a weapon on him, I'd definately consider him a threat still.

He was unconcious due to the head injury and therefore totally defenceless.

[Jazzratt]

What kind of gun was he using?

Shooting someone in the head with a .22, and shooting someone with a .45 is a huge difference.

If the teen wasn't out, and still had a weapon on him, I'd definately consider him a threat still.

You can survive a .22 headshot fairly easily, that is true but you're still going to be disorientated, stunned and in a hell of a lot of pain. If this guy had wanted he could easily have disarmed the other person rather than chasing down the accomplice. I imagine he couldn't see beyond his own unreasoning bloodlust at that point.

[Demogorgon]

Here, I think we have the clear answer as to whether he was defending himself or felt at risk:
"The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire."

He knew he wasn't at any risk, he was going to fetch the execution equipment.

Also:
"Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office."

YeeeeHaw! What is this, the nineteenth century Midwest?

[Demogorgon]

Oh and here is a cracker:
"Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death."

The dead boy's accomplices are going to be charged with murder because if they hadn't committed a crime their friend would be alive. First degree murder at that. A pretty clear cut case of how fucked up Felony-Murder laws are.

[danyboy27]

well, seriously, we might never know if the guy did it on purpose or was just too nervous.

i mean, you put me in the same situation and i might shoot the guy over and over by fear of having him wake up a moment and killing me.

maybe he was a complete bigot, or maybe he was just a dude who freaked out.

[Il Medico]

For the people who feel the need to defend this man's actions I ask you this. What is more important, a few hundred dollars in a cash register or the life of a young man?

[RainbowLeftist]

Alright, thanks for clearing it up. Killing someone after their already out is pretty fucked up.

Demogorgon: Here, if your going to shoot someone in your yard or thats breaking in, some cops will tell you to drag them into your house so that the murder was justified. Thats what they told my great grandpa when he shot some guy with his .45 that was dicking around in his yard.

[Jazzratt]

well, seriously, we might never know if the guy did it on purpose or was just too nervous.

Yes we will. It was clearly on purpose, I've yet to see any reasoning otherwise.


i mean, you put me in the same situation and i might shoot the guy over and over by fear of having him wake up a moment and killing me.

You are scared someone will wake up and try to kill you. You have the following options:
a) Try to ignore your fear (unlikely)
b) Take his weapon(s), keep your distance. Threaten him if he wakes up.
c) As above but try to improvise some restraints.
d) Ape out and shoot him 5 times.

If the answer is d) you are a compelling argument for retroactive abortion.

[Demogorgon]

Yes we will. It was clearly on purpose, I've yet to see any reasoning otherwise.

Well I suppose that the defence could try a defence on grounds of temporary insanity or similar, saying that he was overcome by fear or whatever and that led him to react in an irrational manner. I don't buy that for a second, not least because there are plenty of people saying they would do the same who are not in that situation. But you have to worry that an Oklahoma jury might be looking for any excuse whatsoever to acquit him.

My fear is they will let him off and convict the dead kids friends of felony murder. Such an eventuality would be impossible anywhere else in the Western world and in much of America too, but the justice system there is so broken that it wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

[danyboy27]

Yes we will. It was clearly on purpose, I've yet to see any reasoning otherwise.



You are scared someone will wake up and try to kill you. You have the following options:
a) Try to ignore your fear (unlikely)
b) Take his weapon(s), keep your distance. Threaten him if he wakes up.
c) As above but try to improvise some restraints.
d) Ape out and shoot him 5 times.

If the answer is d) you are a compelling argument for retroactive abortion.

good argument, i might go for d but i cant really tell, never been threatened by a gun before.

[Misanthrope]

Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor

It ceased being an act of self defense, he murdered the teenagers out of anger and power not fear or defense.

[danyboy27]

anyway i really wonder if you can call someone who defend his own store/home against burglar a hero.

there is nothing heoric in that, i mean, saving a woman or a kid from a certain death or i dont know, cure cancer, that heoric.

nixon! why did you started a topic if we cant give you an answer! this dosnt make sense!
the real title of the topic should have been: killer or not!
anyway just trying to help you here

[Trystan]

He's not a folk hero, he's a scumbag. Shooting him five times when he had already been disabled? And he was only a young kid. That's not self-defence, that's murder.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It's probably legitimate for him to use the original shot, although I'm not sure that's being debated here. There are various possibilities involved:

1. He could have irrationally considered the man a threat.
2. He is a military man. His training could have impaired his judgment.
3. He may be bloodthirsty.
4. Adrenaline may have been a factor.

Honestly, I have quite a temper when provoked, so I'm somewhat sympathetic. If someone threatened me with a gun, I wouldn't be very happy about it. I'd like to think I'd have enough sense not to kill an unconscious teenager, though.

You should be able to neutralize someone "by any means necessary" if they are threatening you, I would think. If they are threatening your "property," it becomes a different issue altogether. However, it's tough. I don't think (if I owned a gun) I'd just let some strong man rob from me. I'd probably let him know I had a gun, but if he moved for, I'd shoot him.

That would be an interesting case at trial. Unfortunately, I think it would be very easy to get that guy off based on legal maneuvering. Also, that's just the kind of extreme defense of property rights the capitalists want to be encouraged. They want to be able to murder a bunch of revolutionaries, disadvantaged thieves, or otherwise, who are simply trying to steal small merchandise to get buy. It affects their profit margins, after all. What are a few lives worth to them?

But five times. You have to be either a psychopath or a totally scared wuss to do that. That's like the stereotypical women in the movies (weak and helpless) who finally fends off their attacker but can't stop shooting until the big strong "man" helps them take the gun out of their hand (movies don't like strong women characters who can fire a gun normally).

Given that he was an army man, so I heard, he is probably nuts and/or has a warped sense of reality due to military training.

[Demogorgon]

2. He is a military man. His training could have impaired his judgment.

I had forgotten about that fact and it just makes things worse. Despite what the the military is, it does, in theory anyway, teach people to compensate for adrenaline and not shoot when unnecessary. To the idiots celebrating what he did, having been in the army simply takes him one step closer to sainthood, but for any rational person, it shows that it is unlikely he was just overcome in the moment or whatever.

[danyboy27]

i just read the article again.. woha wtf, he went after the dude who was running away?

maybe he was scared that the other dude might comback to avenge his other friend.

[Richard Nixon]

Collective answer to various points raised:

1. The killing of the robber was excessive How do you know he didn't have a weapon on him. Also if someone robbing your house you can lose some of your judgement and be inclined to excessive force.

2. It is more moral to lose several hundred dollars then to take the life of the robber Theoretically true but the store owner could be not in the best of financial circumstances and need every cent. Also once you break a law you ought to be prepared to forfeit your life:if you rob be prepared to be killed.

3. The robber was poor man who desperately needed money How do you know? The robber could have been one of those rich snobby types who rob for the thrill of it. While I have some sympathy for poor people who rob for necessity I don't have at all for the latter type.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I sympathize with him a little bit too, since I have a bit of a temper. If some motherfucker pointed a gun at me, and I had a piece too, you can bet that I would pump that motherfucker full of lead. No doubt, shooting that kid was wrong, but he was probably caught up in the heat of the moment and had adrenaline pumping through him and shit. It wasn't right, but I don't think he should have to go to jail for the rest of his life.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Can't say, I wasn't there.

Don't believe it was first degree murder, though I'd have to see some video tape. I could see myself being in his position and keep shooting until the robber was no longer moving, but probably not after I had already chased somebody away and broken the original stream of lead.


i just read the article again.. woha wtf, he went after the dude who was running away?

maybe he was scared that the other dude might comback to avenge his other friend.

My guess is he got a gun pointed at him (who robs a store without a gun, honestly) and got fucking pissed. Probably wasn't even thinking 5 minutes ahead, just the thought that 'that punkass motherfucker just pulled a gun on me and now I'm gonna go blow his brains out.' Which I have empathy for.

Now, coming back and firing off 5 rounds into an unconscious person should be 2nd degree in my opinion because it was probably based on nothing but emotion. He didn't plan on these people coming into his store and begining a conflict, and obviously these two geniuses who tried to rob him made a poor choice of convenient store.


"Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death."

The dead boy's accomplices are going to be charged with murder because if they hadn't committed a crime their friend would be alive. First degree murder at that. A pretty clear cut case of how fucked up Felony-Murder laws are.


The court system is fucked up and he shouldn't get 1st degree (it'll probably get dropped down), but that kid should a lot of the responsibility for what happened, if not the death then at least the whole getting shot in the head deal. Just because he ran away doesn't change the fact that he pulled a gun on someone, which caused a stream of bullets to go flying. That's what one should expect every time you pull a gun on someone, for them to respond in kind.

Incompetency or naivete, or both, doesn't change the fact that he, and his friend, initiated the encounter.

[Jazzratt]

1. The killing of the robber was excessive How do you know he didn't have a weapon on him. Also if someone robbing your house you can lose some of your judgement and be inclined to excessive force.

The robber was unconscious, even if he had a weapon he was easily disarmably so we can disregard your first argument. A loss of judgement, though, is (or shouldn't be) an argument against murder, perhaps it should mean the defendant isn't prosectuted in the first degree (in this case he should be) but it should never be a total exxoneragtion.


2. It is more moral to lose several hundred dollars then to take the life of the robber Theoretically true but the store owner could be not in the best of financial circumstances and need every cent. Also once you break a law you ought to be prepared to forfeit your life:if you rob be prepared to be killed.

The punishment should always fit the crime, no matter how it is meted out. At the very most, and arguing by the standards of those who agree with property rights, a robber should only forfiet the sovrieghnty of their property. Personally I think that minimal force is still achieveable even by those who are currently having criminal acts commited against them.


3. The robber was poor man who desperately needed money How do you know? The robber could have been one of those rich snobby types who rob for the thrill of it. While I have some sympathy for poor people who rob for necessity I don't have at all for the latter type.

I agree this is a stupid argument. From the point of view of the person being robbed it is just someone with a gun demandding you hand over money - fuck knows I've known people it's happened to. But I doubt this is the only argument people have to bear.

[Il Medico]

2. It is more moral to lose several hundred dollars then to take the life of the robber Theoretically true but the store owner could be not in the best of financial circumstances and need every cent. Also once you break a law you ought to be prepared to forfeit your life:if you rob be prepared to be killed. Pointless pieces of paper or the life of a fellow human being. Your argument: Go for the Paper! I think I can leave it at that.:closedeyes:

[9]

Don't believe it was first degree murder, though I'd have to see some video tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ

at around the 45 second mark is where he unloads the additional four or five shots into the kid, who is already unconscious.

[RainbowLeftist]

Pointless pieces of paper or the life of a fellow human being. Your argument: Go for the Paper! I think I can leave it at that.:closedeyes:

In my opinion, the money in an Armed Robbery, for me atleast, becomes a non-existent factor. Too often we hear of people shooting the Cashier/Clerk etc. and then taking the money.

If a person walks in with a gun and I have a chance, Im going to put all my bullets except for one in their chest.


I still don't agree with him shooting the kid while he's out though.

[n0thing]

Texans regularly turn these sorts into folk hero's. When that inbred idiot executed those children for stealing chocolate from his trailer, he received such an enormous amount of public support; the court was basically forced to let him go. And to think we call Saudi Arabians savage and backwards for mutilating the hands of thieves. Texas is a class all of its own.

It's really no wonder that Ron Paul manages to get elected so easily in Texas.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think the Texan approach is very libertarian, honestly. It's just egoist rather than cooperative libertarianism. It basically says society should never force a person to put themselves at a disadvantage for the benefit of other people.

Shooting someone who robs you sends a message, arguably, that simply maiming them does not. If I cared "nothing" for anyone else, I'd probably kill everyone who tries to rob me. Clearly, this kind of attitude isn't ethical, and it's certainly strange given the Christian values associated with Texas.

Really though, libertarians supporting this kind of thing doesn't support me. There are what I'd call two strands of libertarianism. One is motivated by the belief that we simply shouldn't or need not give a shit about anyone else - Randianism. The other is the group of people who believe libertarianism is the most effective system for securing the interests of people. Believe it or not, many libertarians were motivated by ethical considerations the same as communists were.

Libertarianism has very much lost its philosophical roots. It's become a philosophy that rich people use to justify inequality because the rest of us are simply "ignorant of economics."

[New Tet]

[...]Shooting someone who robs you sends a message, arguably, that simply maiming them does not. If I cared "nothing" for anyone else, I'd probably kill everyone who tries to rob me. Clearly, this kind of attitude isn't ethical, and it's certainly strange given the Christian values associated with Texas.

Texas is no more associated with Christian values than you are to the Dalai Lama.

Killing everyone who robs you is a bad idea. Ask any capitalist.
They (the capitalists) have been robbing workers and society for at least 300 years. That's a lot of robbing.

I think the "message" that shooting someone sends is not to be heard in the bang of the gun but in circumstance that brought robber and druggist together: One's dead, the other a killer.

Sensible people will agree that killing is the least productive way to resolve disputes of any kind.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Texas is no more associated with Christian values than you are to the Dalai Lama.

Killing everyone who robs you is a bad idea. Ask any capitalist.
They (the capitalists) have been robbing workers and society for at least 300 years. That's a lot of robbing.

I think the "message" that shooting someone sends is not to be heard in the bang of the gun but in circumstance that brought robber and druggist together: One's dead, the other a killer.

Sensible people will agree that killing is the least productive way to resolve disputes of any kind.

I don't know. I think if you polled people asking "what state is the most Christian," you'd get a considerable amount of people respond Texas. What a definition means is determined the majority. Of course, there is an academic monopoly on definitions. A "true," whatever that is, Christian probably isn't the stereotypical Christian.

Killing everyone who robs you is a bad idea, but technically the capitalists aren't robbing anyone. Obviously, this is false when you change the definition of "rob."

Really, language is so dependent on definitions, when different ideologies change their definitions things become ridiculous. Exploitation for a communist and a capitalist mean entirely different things. You have to explain things with respect to how the terms are used rather than what the actual terms mean.

You tell a capitalist killing someone in that situation is wrong, they probably wouldn't associate "wrong" with that situation. You have to explain what "wrong" means to you and how that person did something inappropriate.

You always have to explain something with respect to what the person already takes for granted, as I see it. When we just call people supporting this guy stupid (which they probably are), we aren't necessarily trying to convince them in the right way.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=154_1248394681

I think this kid should be a folk hero instead. So badass, I hope he didn't get killed in retaliation.

[RainbowLeftist]

I think this kid should be a folk hero instead. So badass, I hope he didn't get killed in retaliation.

The fact that they didn't kill the gunman, shows that they are better folks than I am.

Would've held him down so my friends could've smashed his face in using the trucks on their skateboards.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

By the sounds of it it's clearly murder.

[ThorsMitersaw]

However, its murder to go behind a desk, get a gun and shoot somebody thats already been decommissioned. This man obviously has a thrill for killing because any ordinary "christian" would try to keep the TEENAGER alive.

I agree with this first part but I think you should ditch the emotional appeals to the age of the human robbing him.

[ThorsMitersaw]

The fact that they didn't kill the gunman, shows that they are better folks than I am.

Would've held him down so my friends could've smashed his face in using the trucks on their skateboards.

I think it was tactically very stupid of him to strike the guy holding a gun. If he knew how to disarm, which he clearly did not he just got lucky, then I would have advised that should he want to take that chance. I do not know about you but I also lost track of the firearm in the video. VERY dangerous.

It is too bad one of the skaters friends were not carrying a firearm as well. This could have been solved with a .45 instead of a dangerous rolling around on the ground with an armed man.

[synthesis]

Texans regularly turn these sorts into folk hero's. When that inbred idiot executed those children for stealing chocolate from his trailer, he received such an enormous amount of public support; the court was basically forced to let him go. And to think we call Saudi Arabians savage and backwards for mutilating the hands of thieves. Texas is a class all of its own.

It's really no wonder that Ron Paul manages to get elected so easily in Texas.

Honestly, I don't think it's all that unique. What we have here is basically the conservative white guy's "gangsta." One of the most hilariously depressing things I've read on this thread is that "Make My Day Law," because that's exactly the narrative these people are buying into here. That Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry shit.

It's kind of like how someone on the other side of the fence might be fascinated with the story of Tupac shooting those off-duty cops.

To those on either side who create a "folk hero" out of them, the shooter is just an ordinary guy standing up to bullies and the system that created them, while to the other side, they're violent psychopaths looking for an excuse to kill people who aren't like them.

It's funny how narratives work, isn't it?


Folk hero? Folk, in this case, sounds too much like Volk. Here I smell, at the very least, incipient Fascism.Huh. Given the title, I actually thought this was going to be another dumb Guevara thread. There used to be a lot of those here.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Pointless pieces of paper or the life of a fellow human being. Your argument: Go for the Paper! I think I can leave it at that.:closedeyes:

All too often robbers are indifferent to cooperation and kill the victims anyway. Some kill to eliminate witnesses. Others do so because they despise the "weak". Two of my friends' mom (they were twins) was executed along with all her coworkers after cooperating with an armed robber.

I won't draw until I actually feel my life is at stake. Four years ago, I was robbed by two crank heads at an drive-up ATM. I was carrying a loaded pistol in my console that day but simply drove off instead and phoned the police. They made no attempt to pursue me. My jaw was fractured in two places and I felt humiliated. But, I was the better man by simply leaving instead of escalating the conflict in spite of the fact that I was unquestionably justified to use deadly force to halt their robbery attempt. Lethal force is best used prudently.

[Solzhenitsyn]

One of the most hilariously depressing things I've read on this thread is that "Make My Day Law," because that's exactly the narrative these people are buying into here. That Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry shit.


The "Make My Day Law" name is was invented by the media and it's use is restricted to the same. It's official short name is the "Castle Doctrine Statute".

[Salyut]

And if it was self defense why did he feel the need to pump five more bullets into the kid. He certainly wasn't a threat then, bleeding on the floor. This man is a murderer plain and simple.Self defense laws don't protect you in this case - so folk hero my ass; this was outright murder. I'd elaborate a little more but its one in the morning so yeah...

[Conquer or Die]

Does the pharmacist sell anything from Pfizer?

[RGacky3]

If this man is a Hero, a folk hero, then I would say someone killing a cop in many circumstances is a hero.

I'm not saying that, I think both are deplorable, but if YOU believe that, then someone killing a cop in some circumstances should be just as much as a hero.

Mujehadin in Iraq are heros too I suppose, what they are fighting for is worth their country, not some money.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Self defense laws don't protect you in this case -

Yeah but the "because he needed killing" defense works very well in Oklahoma. No jury is going to convict this man and even worse this DA and judge will probably lose their next elections if they don't watch it. There are already recall petitions circulating in OKC.