Right to defend


Mr Glock

New member
We need to get the courts on the side of law abiding folks that carry to defend themselves. The pharmacey owner that shot and killed the little jerk that was robbing him had every right to shoot back. Our socity has gotten to soft and to afried to stand up and do the right thing.
 

kelcarry

New member
If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the pharmacist who is now in jail for the rest of his life for committing, at a minimum, manslaughter. I do not believe life in jail for, I guess, first degree murder, was appropriate and should be appealed, if that was the charge, but he did commit manslaughter and deserves his 30 years.
 

Bighouse Doc

New member
Ersland had already won the fight. He decided to play mall-ninja and chase the second suspect, spraying the neighborhood with buckshot. He then came back, got a new gun, and then calmly shot the unmoving first perp five more times.

He then proceeded to make up, and tell the cops and news-media a wild tale of "Shots flying' all around him.

To make things worse, after the video surfaced and told a different story, he stuck metal fragments under his skin and planted a bullet at the pharmacy, to bolster his imaginary claim of a gunfight.

If he had just stayed behind the counter and kept the downed perp covered until the cops arrived, he would have been a hero.

-Doc
 

SeaRider

New member
Once the threat has been stopped, you lose the right to keep shooting. He committed murder, plain and simple. They call it manslaughter due to the "heat of battle" so to speak. I don't know all the facts of this case, but the video was not in his favor.
 

nymoose

New member
It's people like this pharmacist that makes legitimate gun owners look bad. You can be sure that some anti-gun folk will try to use this case against us.
 

G50AE

Well-known member
Once the threat has been stopped, you lose the right to keep shooting. He committed murder, plain and simple. They call it manslaughter due to the "heat of battle" so to speak. I don't know all the facts of this case, but the video was not in his favor.

Yeah, but the heat was over. Also faking evidence and lieing to the cops will always sink you in court.
 

Nightmare45

NRA LIFE MEMBER
He has a absolute right to defend himself, once the BG is no longer a threat then the game is over, since the camera failed to show the BG ( could have still been a threat ) failure of attorney, he commited manslaughter.
 

father-of-three

New member
Not having read about it, it sounds like the pharmacist went way too far here. The "Straight and narrow" can be pretty narrow sometimes.
 

Grognard Gunny

New member
The difference between the BGs and the GGs are often only in the adherence to the "Rules of enguagement". That these "rules" are not always fair or equitable to the would be victim goes without saying. (Ask the US military vets of the last 50 plus years how it goes!)

BGs typically break all the rules. That is why they are BGs. The GGs, to remain in that category, must obey the rules. Simple as that.

GG
 

BC1

,
If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the pharmacist who is now in jail for the rest of his life for committing, at a minimum, manslaughter. I do not believe life in jail for, I guess, first degree murder, was appropriate and should be appealed, if that was the charge, but he did commit manslaughter and deserves his 30 years.
Agree. I mean, c'mon. He reloaded and came back?
 

G50AE

Well-known member
If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the pharmacist who is now in jail for the rest of his life for committing, at a minimum, manslaughter. I do not believe life in jail for, I guess, first degree murder, was appropriate and should be appealed, if that was the charge, but he did commit manslaughter and deserves his 30 years.

Kelcarry have you noticed that as of late we have a lot of "first posters" making chest thumping and CCW Badge brandishing posts on these forums?
 

Iteach4U

New member
Once the threat has been stopped, you lose the right to keep shooting. He committed murder, plain and simple. They call it manslaughter due to the "heat of battle" so to speak. I don't know all the facts of this case, but the video was not in his favor.

As it should be. My intent is to stop the threat as a self-defense shooter, not to "kill" another human. I have one major rule with this too, make the attempt to disengage and verbally communicate your intent to do so whenever possible before taking self-defense measures. If you do and the threat continues you'll have yet another tool to give LEOs to illustrate you were justified. Years ago I would have thought that I would even give first aid to someone I've downed, that is no longer an option...that's the 1st Responder's job, my responsibility lies in getting those folks on-scene as quickly as possible at that point.

By the way folks, don't ever use the K word. It will get you in a huge mess during an investigation and in court. Look at it this way and imagine it being an evidenciary statement... If you are willing to "kill" another human then you're obviously a violent person; a violent person with guns. Just imagine the line of questioning that opens up for a prosecutor and how it would influence a jury, a jury NOT made up of your peers and very dissimilar to you.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,688
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top