Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 One situation involved a man that was shot (Yes, Nitro, SHOT), and got up and attacked the store clerk with a weapon. Was the man shot in the head? And then was he laying on the ground as the store clerk ran someone out of the store, walked past him, reloaded his gun before unloading another 5 shots? I just think it's dumb that this guy would never have been tried if those punks never tried to rob the store. While true, that can be applied to most situations involving criminal activity...usually there is some understandable reasoning for commiting a crime, with those people feeling their backs are against the wall. Many drug dealers wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for bad parenting, bad school systems and their neighborhoods environmental pressures to pursue that kind of lifestyle. Most psychopaths wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for [expletive]ed up genetics. I could go on and on. Basically, what I'm trying to get across is you have to be judged based upon the law, not by your subjective views of what is right and wrong. To me, it seems like your basing your opinion strongly off of how that kind of situation should be judged rather than how it is supposed to be judged based on current laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenneral Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 While true, that can be applied to most situations involving criminal activity...usually there is some understandable reasoning for commiting a crime, with those people feeling their backs are against the wall. Many drug dealers wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for bad parenting, bad school systems and their neighborhoods environmental pressures to pursue that kind of lifestyle. Most psychopaths wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for [expletive]ed up genetics. I could go on and on. Basically, what I'm trying to get across is you have to be judged based upon the law, not by your subjective views of what is right and wrong. To me, it seems like your basing your opinion strongly off of how that kind of situation should be judged rather than how it is supposed to be judged based on current laws.You're kidding, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 What'd his police report say?He told them that the robbers shot first, that one of the bullets hit his wrist and broke his watch, and that he fired a clip into the kid on the ground because he was getting up. All proved false. He also (supposedly) planted a shell casing under a bookcase in the store to 'prove' they shot at him first. Told police that both robbers were armed, shooting "cheap, black, imported revolvers" at him. The video also contradicts Ersland’s claim to police and to a KFOR-4 television reporter that he had a gun in each hand as he fired at the robbers. In May, Ersland told KFOR-4, "They were shooting at me from both sides so I shot at them from both sides as well. I don’t see any problem with telling the truth." The video shows Ersland never held the two guns at the same time. Basically, he had one story before the video surfaced, another after the video surfaced, and yet another after the crime scene evidence rolled through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 You're kidding, right? Nope. Those analogies weren't the best, but the point I'm getting across is that you can't let things like. "It pisses me off that the man wouldn't have been tried if the kids didn't try to rob the store" cloud your judgement. What is being argued is if the pharmacist went beyond the limits of self-defense, and even though it is a scary situation and he took down a criminal, it is very clear he was far too excessive in simply protecting himself. So, even though first-degree murder is a very steep price for what he did, it is perfectly reasonable that he was still convicted. This is not a conservative vs. liberal debate like ECN is trying to make it, it's a matter of trying someone based on the current law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 While true, that can be applied to most situations involving criminal activity...usually there is some understandable reasoning for commiting a crime, with those people feeling their backs are against the wall. Many drug dealers wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for bad parenting, bad school systems and their neighborhoods environmental pressures to pursue that kind of lifestyle. Most psychopaths wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for [expletive]ed up genetics. I could go on and on. Basically, what I'm trying to get across is you have to be judged based upon the law, not by your subjective views of what is right and wrong. To me, it seems like your basing your opinion strongly off of how that kind of situation should be judged rather than how it is supposed to be judged based on current laws. I realize that it's no excuse that he was in that situation because the kids were robbing his store, but I still don't know if he used excessive force. I am not going to automatically assume that he did because nobody knows if that kid could have gotten up. And, yes, I know what you are saying with judging it off of the kind of situation and not the law, but I disagree with that because I still contend that the pharmacist could have been in danger. HOWEVER, if he were to be charged with falsifying information, impeding a police investigation, and any other types of charges like those, I would completely understand them because his story....or stories I should say, were completely false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 my favorite part of this thread is that ecn thinks a guy is gonna pop back up and continue an attempt to rob a store after getting shot in the [expletive]ing head 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Nope. Those analogies weren't the best, but the point I'm getting across is that you can't let things like. "It pisses me off that the man wouldn't have been tried if the kids didn't try to rob the store" cloud your judgement. What is being argued is if the pharmacist went beyond the limits of self-defense, and even though it is a scary situation and he took down a criminal, it is very clear he was far too excessive in simply protecting himself. So, even though first-degree murder is a very steep price for what he did, it is perfectly reasonable that he was still convicted. This is not a conservative vs. liberal debate like ECN is trying to make it, it's a matter of trying someone based on the current law. This has nothing to do with a liberal or conservative debate, at all. It comes down to this. You firmly believe that the threat was neutralized because the pharmacist shot the kid in the head, in your opinion had a clear state of mind to chase the other kid out of the store and fire two shots at him, had a clear state of mind because he grabbed another gun, and had a clear state of mind while shooting the kid who was originally shot in the head with six more bullets, as you believe that kid posed no threat whatsoever. Do I understand that argument? Yes, I completely understand it, but I am disagreeing with the pharmacist having a clear state of mind and completely knowing what he was doing. I contend that he may have had many thoughts racing through his mind, and may have acted "excessively" (although I don't really agree that he did), but his excessive actions may have been a result of being in a situation that very few people have been in and may not know how to react. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 my favorite part of this thread is that ecn thinks a guy is gonna pop back up and continue an attempt to rob a store after getting shot in the [expletive]ing head It's funny that you have no clue what you are talking about, and not once did I say he was going to continue to rob the store. . You also don't know that he couldn't have gotten up and attacked the pharmacist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) my favorite part of this thread is that ecn thinks a guy is gonna pop back up and continue an attempt to rob a store after getting shot in the [expletive]ing head Shoot you never know these days, it was a lady back in my home town who got shot in the head and then made tea for the cops when her husband went crazy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30268741/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/miss-woman-gets-shot-head-makes-tea/ thats the link to that story righ there. Shit you dont know what can happen.. Edited May 30, 2011 by deestillballin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 This has nothing to do with a liberal or conservative debate, at all. It comes down to this. You firmly believe that the threat was neutralized because the pharmacist shot the kid in the head, in your opinion had a clear state of mind to chase the other kid out of the store and fire two shots at him, had a clear state of mind because he grabbed another gun, and had a clear state of mind while shooting the kid who was originally shot in the head with six more bullets, as you believe that kid posed no threat whatsoever. Do I understand that argument? Yes, I completely understand it, but I am disagreeing with the pharmacist having a clear state of mind and completely knowing what he was doing. I contend that he may have had many thoughts racing through his mind, and may have acted "excessively" (although I don't really agree that he did), but his excessive actions may have been a result of being in a situation that very few people have been in and may not know how to react. It's understandable, but not an excuse for breaking the law as blatantly as he did. The kid being shot in the head is not the only evidence showing he was neutralized, but also the fact that he couldn't get back up even after the pharmacist chased the other guy out of the store, walked past him and grabbed another gun. The robber clearly posed no additional threat, and the pharmacist could have simply walked out of the store and called the cops instead of walking back in and unloading while the robber was down with a bullet in his brain. Adrenaline should not be an excuse for something so blatantly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Shoot you never know these days, it was a lady back in my home town who got shot in the head and then made tea for the cops when her husband went crazy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30268741/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/miss-woman-gets-shot-head-makes-tea/ thats the link to that story righ there. Shit you dont know what can happen..i think this proves she suffered brain damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 i think this proves she suffered brain damage Not at all, it proves that it doesn't matter where you get shot, you can still get up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Glad the kid is dead, now we don't have to waste tax-money on him going in and out of jail for the majority of his life. The Pharmacist doesn't deserve anything, the kid came and tried to rob the store and the Pharmacist was basically trying to protect the property. Simple 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Glad the kid is dead, now we don't have to waste tax-money on him going in and out of jail for the majority of his life. The Pharmacist doesn't deserve anything, the kid came and tried to rob the store and the Pharmacist was basically trying to protect the property. Simple Not so glad that he is dead, but there is consequences to every action, and that was his consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not so glad that he is dead, but there is consequences to every action, and that was his consequence. Just like a first degree murder charge is the consequence of pumping 5 more shots on top of a head shot into a guy who was clearly incompacitated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not at all, it proves that it doesn't matter where you get shot, you can still get upAnd a man with a gun can stand over him and take further action if there is an attempt made to get up/attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Glad the kid is dead, now we don't have to waste tax-money on him going in and out of jail for the majority of his life. The Pharmacist doesn't deserve anything, the kid came and tried to rob the store and the Pharmacist was basically trying to protect the property. SimpleHow do you deserve this stance? Don't you deal drugs? Maybe someone you sell to should shoot you in the face for breaking the law. EDIT: Forgot to add the 5 slugs while you're unconscious on the ground, barely alive. Edited May 30, 2011 by IllWill21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 So the consequence for trying to rob a store is death is that a joke? smh since when has anyone gotten death penalty for a robbery? In normal robberies, isn't it smart for the employees just to give the money away to ensure nobody is injured? -_- smh at this whole thread and some of the rotten views of individuals in it... But I died laughing at lkr's post... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 So the consequence for trying to rob a store is death is that a joke? smh since when has anyone gotten death penalty for a robbery? In normal robberies, isn't it smart for the employees just to give the money away to ensure nobody is injured? -_- smh at this whole thread and some of the rotten views of individuals in it... But I died laughing at lkr's post...I read a story about a best buy employee being fired for trying to stop a robbery. it is best to let it play out to ensure everyone's safety because most stores have a system in place to auto-notify the police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 I read a story about a best buy employee being fired for trying to stop a robbery. it is best to let it play out to ensure everyone's safety because most stores have a system in place to auto-notify the police Good thing this pharmacy didn't have a policy like Best Buy does where an employee is not allowed to get involved with a crime in progress. Good try though, and maybe you should actually read the story next time. I know exactly what story you are talking about, and Best Buy has policies regarding robberies. It's just one more fail to add you in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 So the consequence for trying to rob a store is death is that a joke? smh since when has anyone gotten death penalty for a robbery? In normal robberies, isn't it smart for the employees just to give the money away to ensure nobody is injured? -_- smh at this whole thread and some of the rotten views of individuals in it... But I died laughing at lkr's post... You better believe that if you come into a store wielding a gun, that you are going to get shot at if any of the employees have a gun. Would you have a problem with the kid being dead if he died from the first shot? The end result would be the same for the kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Kids fault for robbing the store. Nothing else to say honestly. He brought it on himself. There's no excuse for shoplifting, much less holding up someone at gunpoint. I don't care where you're from or what you background is, its just flat out inexcusable. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 You guys are still arguing about this? Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Kids fault for robbing the store. Nothing else to say honestly. He brought it on himself. There's no excuse for shoplifting, much less holding up someone at gunpoint. I don't care where you're from or what you background is, its just flat out inexcusable. Just as it's flat-out inexcusable to shoot a man 5x after seeing he was incompacitated from a bullet already lodged in his skull. That goes beyond self-defense, which is against the law. Simple. Edited May 31, 2011 by Nitro 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Good thing this pharmacy didn't have a policy like Best Buy does where an employee is not allowed to get involved with a crime in progress. Good try though, and maybe you should actually read the story next time. I know exactly what story you are talking about, and Best Buy has policies regarding robberies. It's just one more fail to add you in this thread.lol what are you even [expletive]ing talking about? like always, you make no sense. if you don't do shit and go along with the robbery, it is less likely that anyone will be harmed. that is why most stores have that policy. they don't want employees or customers being harmed. the biggest fail in this whole thread is that you are justifying the guy reloading and dropping 6 bullets into a downed robber. the robber deserves to be punished, but the pharmacist MURDERED him. if he had stopped after his initial shot in self defense, this wouldn't be an issue. but when you are pretty much emptying a clip into a downed man, it is murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.