Murder or Self-Defense

[ogibillm]

i don't support the death penalty, but if it ever is warranted it's in the case of a cold blooded execution like this.

 

[Missourian]

Reasonable doubt has to be such-reasonable. It's not reasonable to suggest that somebody on the ground, without having a weapon on them, and was just shot in the head was a threat.

Now the guy clearly went to the back, to reload, and to go back and kill the guy. There's no denying this. But like I said if he was genuinely afraid for his life (or those of his employees)-why did he turn his back on the person, while walking towards the back of the pharmacy? Why wouldn't he just stay in the back room, and wait for law enforcement?

What reasonable doubt do you have that a person on the ground, just shot in the head, can't get up, and is unarmed can pose to a person who is at the back of the pharmacy-and (literally) out of sight of the person, could pose a danger to the person?

Reasonable =/- possible.

And we can't go based on what people thought-we have to go based upon their actions. It's also not a fact that the person on the ground started to move-we don't know that. And even if he did-it would have to be enough so he would become a threat to the other people (which being shot in the head, lying on the ground, with no weapon makes this very hard to be reasonable).

Once again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. Ersland doesn't know whether or not Parker is armed, how badly he is injured...he was wearing a mask that covered his head, whether he has the ability to attack again.

If I heard movement from the front of the store, I would certainly investigate it, and if Parker's movement even suggested he was reaching for a weapon after all Ersland had just been through, I would have shot Parker too.

No one knows what Parker was doing off camera but Ersland. No one knows whether he was conscious or unconscious, moving or not moving, trying to get up, looking like he was reaching for a weapon...except Ersland.

You are aware that you too are Monday morning quarterbacking aren't you? You make many assumptions to justify your opinion while not having heard or seen the evidence that the jury did. So what that Parker was wearing a mask. He is lying in a pool of blood flowing from a head shot and his hands are empty. There is no indication in the video that Ersland went to the back and was going to stay there, heard a noise and then came back to find a mobile Parker and shot him again in self defense. There is clear indication that he walked past Parker and proceeded behind the counter with his back to him, grabbed his second gun and returned to stand over him on the floor and shoot him point blank several more times in an unbroken chain of events. You can slice and dice it to your hearts content to justify his actions, but it is all Monday morning quarterbacking that does not agree with trial evidence and expert testimony.

I'm not making assumption, I am saying that there isn't enough to prove that Ersland wasn't justified in his belief that he was still in danger, based on the video.

I can see in the video that Ersland walks back to retrieve his backup weapon, then does his fast shuffle back to the front, just like he did when he chased suspect 2 out of the store.

That is enough evidence to prove it is possible that Ersland still felt threatened. There is no proof that Parker ISN'T moving in such a way that Ersland could have construed as reaching for a weapon.

That's enough to acquit.

 

[manifold]

I'd say the killing itself was neither self-defense nor 1st degree murder. Pity if that was all the jury was allowed to choose from.

 

[kwc57]

Once again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. Ersland doesn't know whether or not Parker is armed, how badly he is injured...he was wearing a mask that covered his head, whether he has the ability to attack again.

If I heard movement from the front of the store, I would certainly investigate it, and if Parker's movement even suggested he was reaching for a weapon after all Ersland had just been through, I would have shot Parker too.

No one knows what Parker was doing off camera but Ersland. No one knows whether he was conscious or unconscious, moving or not moving, trying to get up, looking like he was reaching for a weapon...except Ersland.

You are aware that you too are Monday morning quarterbacking aren't you? You make many assumptions to justify your opinion while not having heard or seen the evidence that the jury did. So what that Parker was wearing a mask. He is lying in a pool of blood flowing from a head shot and his hands are empty. There is no indication in the video that Ersland went to the back and was going to stay there, heard a noise and then came back to find a mobile Parker and shot him again in self defense. There is clear indication that he walked past Parker and proceeded behind the counter with his back to him, grabbed his second gun and returned to stand over him on the floor and shoot him point blank several more times in an unbroken chain of events. You can slice and dice it to your hearts content to justify his actions, but it is all Monday morning quarterbacking that does not agree with trial evidence and expert testimony.

I'm not making assumption, I am saying that there isn't enough to prove that Ersland wasn't justified in his belief that he was still in danger, based on the video.

I can see in the video that Ersland walks back to retrieve his backup weapon, then does his fast shuffle back to the front, just like he did when he chased suspect 2 out of the store.

That is enough evidence to prove it is possible that Ersland still felt threatened. There is no proof that Parker ISN'T moving in such a way that Ersland could have construed as reaching for a weapon.

That's enough to acquit.

In your mind, without the facts. The jury had the facts and following the law determined differently. Case closed. We can sit in our armchairs and conjecture until the cows come home.

 

[Missourian]

No, I wouldn't have convicted him solely on that videotape evidence.

I have no idea what that robber is doing off frame or how badly he was injured by the first shot. If he even looked like he was reaching for a weapon, I would have done exactly what Erskand did.

In fact, Ersland walks passed the injured robber calmly but hurries back, which leads me to believe the robber was doing something to cause Ersland to be fearful.

Now, I have no access to the testimony, just the video...and based on what I could see, I would have acquitted Ersland.

Yep...I said that from the beginning ^^^^^^ This was my first post in this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/169815-murder-or-self-defense.html#post3710164​