|
|
Post by Perturabo on Jul 13, 2011 16:34:58 GMT -5
If a person has a total disregard for their own lives and wishes to engage in reckless behavior Like shooting an already-incapacitated man five more times Like, in this case, life imprisonment. This is not something in which you should receive life for. I agree. Ersland is a vigilante. And the only good vigilante is a dead vigilante. But unfortunately, he didn't receive the death penalty, and torture is "cruel and unusual punishment." |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 13, 2011 16:38:13 GMT -5
He's...down. As in out of it. There's no reason to put 5 more in him just to make sure.
Ironbite-it's murder man...how can you be on this psycho's side?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 13, 2011 16:40:43 GMT -5
Amazing.
I can't believe you're actually trying to justify killing an unarmed AND subdued/unconscious person.
The amount of dehumanization you're doing is something I would expect to see from the Republican gun nuts, not a liberal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jul 13, 2011 16:42:26 GMT -5
Maybe it's just because I'm a flamin' liberal Australian with his weird socialistic ideas but... ...putting five bullets into the now prone robber seems a tad excessive! Really comes down to the difference between justifiable homicide and first degree murder. Justifiable homicide as I understand it can be justified on the grounds of self defense, first degree murder involves intentional killing without self defense but then that's Commonwealth/Australian law-might work differently over there. It's not just your "liberal Australian ideas". I live in Wyoming, one of the more 2nd Amendment-friendly states in the USA (to the point that anyone who is openly anti-gun would have trouble even being elected as a local dog catcher). I agree completely with you, in that this shooting was quite excessive. It was right to convict this man of murder, though if I were the judge, I'd have given him "only" 20 years. |
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Jul 13, 2011 16:47:05 GMT -5
Amazing. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify killing an unarmed AND subdued/unconscious person. The amount of dehumanization you're doing is something I would expect to see from the Republican gun nuts, not a liberal. Indeed, sorry for bringing up a different opinion then what the majority of the forum has. Won't happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 13, 2011 16:49:42 GMT -5
Amazing. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify killing an unarmed AND subdued/unconscious person. The amount of dehumanization you're doing is something I would expect to see from the Republican gun nuts, not a liberal. Indeed, sorry for bringing up a different opinion then what the majority of the forum has. Won't happen again. It's not that it's a different opinion. It's that you're openly justifying the murder of an unarmed, unconscious person. It's no different than walking up to someone and killing them in their sleep. |
|
Alyra
Full Member
ex-fundie
Posts: 143
|
Post by Alyra on Jul 13, 2011 16:50:38 GMT -5
It's not the different opinion I have a problem with. It's what the opinion is. I don't care what the kid did, shooting him five times after he was already unconscious is fucking excessive. That sounds way more like sociopath than self-defense to me. There's a reason we have a justice system- to punish criminals with appropriate sentences. Being shot to death is not an appropriate sentence for a robbery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 13, 2011 16:51:13 GMT -5
ironbite and Awesome Zachski: I assume you're talking about me. I am not defending Ersland, the pharmacist and shooter. I am saying that Ersland's actions showed a disregard for his own life and were reckless. I am saying that Ersland deserves doesn't deserve life imprisonment because he deserves far worse. It's not you, it's vee. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 13, 2011 16:52:08 GMT -5
I was talking to Vee, the OP of this topic.
Ironbite-might wanna figure that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jul 13, 2011 16:57:47 GMT -5
Regardless of the reasoning, Ersland shot an unarmed man five times, after shooting him in the head once already. Ipso factoid? The rule of thumb for a headshot is only about 5% of cases survive, and rarely without severe, lasting disability. Chances are, that sixteen year old he shot would have died anyways, without Ersland's choice to fire five more shots into him.
Ersland did not permit prompt medical attention after one initial shot that was likely lethal by itself (Eventually or immediately). He walked away, retrieved another firearm and fired five more times into a prone, unarmed man. Life is appropriate here; He consciously chose to fire on the unarmed member of the would-be robber pair, then shot that same unarmed man five more times, after having run outside to fire two shots at the other fleeing suspect, potentially hitting bystanders or property, after he had already chased him off.
He had time to consider his actions, he had options, and he consciously chose to kill. In my opinion, he has lost his right to any claim of self defense, and his actions were murder. He had time to consider what he had initially done, he recklessly fired in an uncontrolled space at a fleeing man, and returned to pick up another gun, then finish what he had started. It might not qualify as cold premeditation, but he understood fully what he was doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by eldalar on Jul 13, 2011 16:57:56 GMT -5
If a person has a total disregard for their own lives and wishes to engage in reckless behavior then they should obviously face the consequences of their actions. Mhm, yes the consequences that law has set for their crime not by a lynch mob, because well ... lynch mobs aren't known to be the best people to decide on a punishment. For the same reasons a judge wouldn't be allowed to work on a case involving the murdering of his wife, because when people are allowed to decide on punishments for crimes they are involved in ... lets just say, that we would probably run out of graveyards preeeetty quickly. And yes by saying that a person can be shot even after he was subdued would effectively allow the people to punish them however they see fit, perhaps only for a small part of the crimes but it would still allow them to punish the criminals. Also out of curiosity, would it also have been okay if he had mutilated him? Or perhaps broke his back? |
|
|
|
Post by Perturabo on Jul 13, 2011 17:00:06 GMT -5
ironbite and Awesome Zachski: I assume you're talking about me. I am not defending Ersland, the pharmacist and shooter. I am saying that Ersland's actions showed a disregard for his own life and were reckless. I am saying that Ersland deserves doesn't deserve life imprisonment because he deserves far worse. It's not you, it's vee. I apologize. On a few other boards, it's required to use a "@" mark to tell others who you're talking to. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 13, 2011 17:08:30 GMT -5
We're not like other boards.
Ironbite-we're better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perturabo on Jul 13, 2011 17:25:22 GMT -5
We're not like other boards. Ironbite-we're better. Indeed we are. But the overconfidence of a garrison can cause the downfall of even the mightiest of fortresses. Before this thread gets derailed, did anyone notice that Ersland's supporters have petitioned the governor to get him pardoned (or, at least, his sentence reduced)? |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 13, 2011 17:43:54 GMT -5
*nervous laugh* I...heh...oh god what the fuck is this shit. HOW do you justify shooting a defenseless person? I...I don't...it doesn't fucking MATTER what that person is or was trying to do; once zie's down, disarm zir, tie zir up, whatever. YOU DON'T FUCKING DO THIS.
|
|
