A quick update to the previous rant
Regarding the previous post:
Mr. Ersland’s first name is Jerome. He has a spinal problem that is painfully obvious, as he is always seen in a cumbersome back brace.
The robbers in his pharmacy were 14 and 16 years of age, approximately that of the dynamic duo who killed my friend Leprechaun on a dark Atlanta street. One of Mr. Ersland’s assailants was definitely armed—it looks like a Glock—and fired a shot at him.
Ersland has made an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, and explained his actions. His co-workers in the store that evening were a mother and her daughter. They fled to a “safe room” in the rear of the store, but after dropping one thug and pursuing the other, Mr. Ersland returned to the store, and heard the younger woman screaming in the back. He feared she had been hit by the robber’s bullet that took the watch off his wrist in passing. The downed robber was conscious and moving. Ersland had no way of knowing if the thug was armed; it turns out he wasn’t, but one firearm per stick-up is usually enough.
Thankfully, except for the bullet that grazed Mr. Ersland’s wrist, none of the victims were injured in the hold-up. It wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the robbers.
A lawyer/commentator suggested that charging Mr. Ersland with first-degree murder is a “back-door” way of acquitting him of any serious malfeasance. Normal people—armed or not—don’t show up at work wondering “how many people can I shoot tonight?” This incident was not pre-meditated on Ersland’s part. If you’ve never had a gun thrust into your face, I can assure you that the adrenalin level is off the charts, and the primal fight-or-flight reaction overrides any nonsensical consideration like “what will a jury make of this later?”
Hopefully, a jury will enforce the wisdom behind the old saying that “you pay your money and you take your chance.” In this case, the bad guys lost. It’s not quite as surreal as the coroner’s jury I sat on about that convenience store shooting, but the lesson is universal.
By the way, it was the younger of the two robbers who brandished and fired the handgun. Would you trust the judgment of a 14-year-old threat-screaming child behind the trigger of a 9mm weapon if said weapon was in your face?
The jury is yet to be chosen, and eventually someone will attempt to portray these two kids as victims of some sort. We live in interesting times.
Mr. Ersland’s first name is Jerome. He has a spinal problem that is painfully obvious, as he is always seen in a cumbersome back brace.
The robbers in his pharmacy were 14 and 16 years of age, approximately that of the dynamic duo who killed my friend Leprechaun on a dark Atlanta street. One of Mr. Ersland’s assailants was definitely armed—it looks like a Glock—and fired a shot at him.
Ersland has made an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, and explained his actions. His co-workers in the store that evening were a mother and her daughter. They fled to a “safe room” in the rear of the store, but after dropping one thug and pursuing the other, Mr. Ersland returned to the store, and heard the younger woman screaming in the back. He feared she had been hit by the robber’s bullet that took the watch off his wrist in passing. The downed robber was conscious and moving. Ersland had no way of knowing if the thug was armed; it turns out he wasn’t, but one firearm per stick-up is usually enough.
Thankfully, except for the bullet that grazed Mr. Ersland’s wrist, none of the victims were injured in the hold-up. It wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the robbers.
A lawyer/commentator suggested that charging Mr. Ersland with first-degree murder is a “back-door” way of acquitting him of any serious malfeasance. Normal people—armed or not—don’t show up at work wondering “how many people can I shoot tonight?” This incident was not pre-meditated on Ersland’s part. If you’ve never had a gun thrust into your face, I can assure you that the adrenalin level is off the charts, and the primal fight-or-flight reaction overrides any nonsensical consideration like “what will a jury make of this later?”
Hopefully, a jury will enforce the wisdom behind the old saying that “you pay your money and you take your chance.” In this case, the bad guys lost. It’s not quite as surreal as the coroner’s jury I sat on about that convenience store shooting, but the lesson is universal.
By the way, it was the younger of the two robbers who brandished and fired the handgun. Would you trust the judgment of a 14-year-old threat-screaming child behind the trigger of a 9mm weapon if said weapon was in your face?
The jury is yet to be chosen, and eventually someone will attempt to portray these two kids as victims of some sort. We live in interesting times.
posted by Robert at 4:38 PM
1 Comments:
"We live in interesting times."
Ah yes..the ancient Chinese curse.
Post a Comment
<< Home