The End of the Affair...
...and a few last words.
Van Hammersly has provided the longest and most thought-provoking comments in the history of this blog. What follows are, I assume, his last words on the affair. They are personal, and contain a bit of R-rated language, but are very cogent. I agree with a lot of what he says. I appreciate the participation and debate, and hope Van Hammersly will remain a Constant Reader.
My own last words on the Jerome Ersland case appear at the end of this post:
VanHammersly has left a new comment on your post "When I'm wrong...":
I am not an ACLU attorney, nor an attorney of any type - although, I've always held a fairly strong, personal interest in law. And, at one point in my life, did seriously consider pursuing a career in law. I never did, however - other interests won out. And, although my current knowledge of law and the legal system does not approach that of a professional level, I do feel confident in saying that it very likely surpasses, by a significant stretch, that of the average person. I'm not, nor have I ever been, involved in law enforcement in any capacity. I'm also not a "gun-grabber" - although, I do identify as being, in general terms, quite "leftist" in my political and social views. However, that being said, I do hold a number of opinions that a good many people who would also self-identify as "leftists" would consider to be fairly right-wing in nature. One of those views, I suppose, would be my opposition to any sort of prohibition of firearms that would keep guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. I am entirely for responsible gun ownership. In fact, at least a small part of my interest in the Ersland case stems from that fact - that those who would attempt to force prohibition could use the case to bolster their argument. And that only by denouncing such cases of irresponsible gun use can one reasonably, and effectively, counter such positions. Lifting Ersland up as some sort of hero for his irresponsible actions only gives weight to the arguments of the "gun-grabbers" - as they may point to the case as a real world, concrete example of what will become common if the other side gets their way. To me, the Ersland case is a clear cut example of someone who went way too far - someone who clearly stepped outside of their legal and moral rights, and it should be those who champion responsible gun ownership who call loudest for the legal system to make clear that such transgressions should not, and will not, be tolerated. In fact, regrettably, I must admit that seeing the disturbing frequency of reactions along the lines of: "Fuck the LIEberal pussies who want to take way[sic] guns. If it were me I wouldn't have been as kind to that punk as Ersland was. I'd have put a couple in his kneecaps and let him think about the choice he made to fuck with me until the cops arrived." (an actual comment I once saw) makes it ever more difficult for me to not re-evaluate my position and side completely with the "LIEberal pussies" on this issue.
However, with that one point aside, my interest in the Ersland case is nothing more than a personal one as an unrelated observer - and, I suppose, has more to do with the reactions of people to the case than with the case itself. I first became aware of the case a day or two after the robbery had occurred. From almost the outset - from seeing the security video, and hearing Ersland's own interviews with local news - it seemed apparent to me that Ersland was at least somewhat in the wrong - he went too far. In the very early goings I wasn't convinced that his actions were particularly egregious, and had it been up to me to decide Ersland's fate based on nothing more than what I knew of the incident at the time, I probably would have decided on some form of fairly light punishment - enough to make it clear that he did overstep his rights, and would have to pay something of a price for doing so, but that he had committed no great, unpardonable affront to civilized society. What shocked me, however, was the commonality of reactions to the case that I saw in those early days. I encountered a ridiculous number of people who seemed to feel that no matter what actions Ersland took, he would have been entirely justified. Often, they knew very little about the case, and felt they didn't need to know anything - to them, it was enough that he killed a bad guy, and, no matter what, that fact alone made him the good guy by any and all measures. I've always held a strong, visceral dislike for that sort of myopic, small-minded, simplistic, it's-either-black-or-it's-white-end-of-story thinking. I consider it wholly dangerous - the commonality of it being one of the base causes for most of the problems we face as a society. And, the Ersland case seemed to cast a lot of light on just how common such thinking is. So, I followed the case right up until present day. As time went on, and more facts came to light, Ersland's guilt, and the extent of his wrong-doing, in my opinion, became more and more clear - Ersland's innocence became more and more indefensible. Yet, I saw no change in the numbers, nor opinions of those supporting him. They weren't interested in facts. They were interested in story-books - in super-hero comics - a guy in a black hat was killed, so the one who did the killing must have been wearing a white hat - and that was that! End of story! Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works. I, from time to time, engaged the most vocal of these types in debate. And, in doing so, was forced to research heavily into the case so I could have the facts in hand. Again and again I ran into the same types of people - always being Ersland supporters (That's not to say that all Ersland supporters were like this - the owner of this blog being proof of that - but that all such types seemed to be Ersland supporters.) - their attitude was always the same: "I don't give a damn about facts! My mind is made-up, and no manner or quantity of facts that runs contrary to my opinion will ever change my opinion." I hate that attitude. It is the hallmark of stupidity - and I hate stupidity. Thus, my interest in the case was fueled.
I am not, nor ever have been, a lawyer of any type. I'm not a police officer, nor have I ever been involved in any type of law enforcement. I was not a juror in the trial. I'm not related, by blood nor acquaintance, to anyone involved in the case. I've never even been to Oklahoma. I did, at one time in my life, many, many, years ago, while I was in my late teens, have a loaded gun pointed at me by someone who had a very long, and quite violent criminal history. He was looking for information regarding someone else who had an equally long and equally violent criminal history, and he had reason to suspect I had the information he was looking for. I was unarmed at the time, and my reaction was to put my hands in the air and nervously squeak out the answers to his questions as I tried very hard not to release my bladder. Fortunately, I was successful regarding my bladder, and in answering his questions to his satisfaction, and he left without further incident. I'm not sure how I might have reacted had I been armed, but I strongly suspect it wouldn't have been any different. If it had been - if I had perhaps shot him in the head, I hope I would not have left the room and returned almost a minute later to find him squirming on the floor in a pool of his own blood, only to go and retrieve another gun, come back, and shoot him five more times. If I would have done that, I fear I'd be just as guilty of murder as Ersland is.
It is a mistake to think that my opinions regarding Ersland stems from any sort of sympathy for the person Ersland killed - for him, I have very little. He cast his die, and it didn't come up in his favor. Ultimately, it was his own willful actions that led to his death. And, well, "Those who live by the sword..." That does not, however, in my eyes, automatically grant impunity to anyone else who may have unlawfully played a part - and that, of course, includes Ersland.
It is also a mistake to think that I do not feel a citizen has a right to meet a potential deadly threat with deadly force. If Ersland had stopped after the first shot, or even if he'd have fired all six shots into the boy in succession, I'd very likely be among those calling him a hero today. He was within his rights to use deadly force to avert the potential threat to his life and his co-workers. He did that with the first shot. Then, he came back. and, after having ample time to take account of his situation, executed someone when a reasonable threat was no longer present. He did not have, nor should not have had, the right to act as judge, jury and executioner - but it's clear to me that's exactly how he acted. And, like the dead robber, these were his willful actions. He cast his die. And, now, he's suffering the consequences. As he should.
My final words on this matter:
I carry. I fully understand the doctrine of lethal force and its application. (Sometimes referred to as the Rules of Engagement.) I'll do what I have to do, and know how to do it. God help me, I've done it before, and have no illusions or "heroic" fantasies about doing it again. No one should have to go to that place. To want to go there is unthinkable.
'Nuff said...
Van Hammersly has provided the longest and most thought-provoking comments in the history of this blog. What follows are, I assume, his last words on the affair. They are personal, and contain a bit of R-rated language, but are very cogent. I agree with a lot of what he says. I appreciate the participation and debate, and hope Van Hammersly will remain a Constant Reader.
My own last words on the Jerome Ersland case appear at the end of this post:
VanHammersly has left a new comment on your post "When I'm wrong...":
I am not an ACLU attorney, nor an attorney of any type - although, I've always held a fairly strong, personal interest in law. And, at one point in my life, did seriously consider pursuing a career in law. I never did, however - other interests won out. And, although my current knowledge of law and the legal system does not approach that of a professional level, I do feel confident in saying that it very likely surpasses, by a significant stretch, that of the average person. I'm not, nor have I ever been, involved in law enforcement in any capacity. I'm also not a "gun-grabber" - although, I do identify as being, in general terms, quite "leftist" in my political and social views. However, that being said, I do hold a number of opinions that a good many people who would also self-identify as "leftists" would consider to be fairly right-wing in nature. One of those views, I suppose, would be my opposition to any sort of prohibition of firearms that would keep guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. I am entirely for responsible gun ownership. In fact, at least a small part of my interest in the Ersland case stems from that fact - that those who would attempt to force prohibition could use the case to bolster their argument. And that only by denouncing such cases of irresponsible gun use can one reasonably, and effectively, counter such positions. Lifting Ersland up as some sort of hero for his irresponsible actions only gives weight to the arguments of the "gun-grabbers" - as they may point to the case as a real world, concrete example of what will become common if the other side gets their way. To me, the Ersland case is a clear cut example of someone who went way too far - someone who clearly stepped outside of their legal and moral rights, and it should be those who champion responsible gun ownership who call loudest for the legal system to make clear that such transgressions should not, and will not, be tolerated. In fact, regrettably, I must admit that seeing the disturbing frequency of reactions along the lines of: "Fuck the LIEberal pussies who want to take way[sic] guns. If it were me I wouldn't have been as kind to that punk as Ersland was. I'd have put a couple in his kneecaps and let him think about the choice he made to fuck with me until the cops arrived." (an actual comment I once saw) makes it ever more difficult for me to not re-evaluate my position and side completely with the "LIEberal pussies" on this issue.
However, with that one point aside, my interest in the Ersland case is nothing more than a personal one as an unrelated observer - and, I suppose, has more to do with the reactions of people to the case than with the case itself. I first became aware of the case a day or two after the robbery had occurred. From almost the outset - from seeing the security video, and hearing Ersland's own interviews with local news - it seemed apparent to me that Ersland was at least somewhat in the wrong - he went too far. In the very early goings I wasn't convinced that his actions were particularly egregious, and had it been up to me to decide Ersland's fate based on nothing more than what I knew of the incident at the time, I probably would have decided on some form of fairly light punishment - enough to make it clear that he did overstep his rights, and would have to pay something of a price for doing so, but that he had committed no great, unpardonable affront to civilized society. What shocked me, however, was the commonality of reactions to the case that I saw in those early days. I encountered a ridiculous number of people who seemed to feel that no matter what actions Ersland took, he would have been entirely justified. Often, they knew very little about the case, and felt they didn't need to know anything - to them, it was enough that he killed a bad guy, and, no matter what, that fact alone made him the good guy by any and all measures. I've always held a strong, visceral dislike for that sort of myopic, small-minded, simplistic, it's-either-black-or-it's-white-end-of-story thinking. I consider it wholly dangerous - the commonality of it being one of the base causes for most of the problems we face as a society. And, the Ersland case seemed to cast a lot of light on just how common such thinking is. So, I followed the case right up until present day. As time went on, and more facts came to light, Ersland's guilt, and the extent of his wrong-doing, in my opinion, became more and more clear - Ersland's innocence became more and more indefensible. Yet, I saw no change in the numbers, nor opinions of those supporting him. They weren't interested in facts. They were interested in story-books - in super-hero comics - a guy in a black hat was killed, so the one who did the killing must have been wearing a white hat - and that was that! End of story! Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works. I, from time to time, engaged the most vocal of these types in debate. And, in doing so, was forced to research heavily into the case so I could have the facts in hand. Again and again I ran into the same types of people - always being Ersland supporters (That's not to say that all Ersland supporters were like this - the owner of this blog being proof of that - but that all such types seemed to be Ersland supporters.) - their attitude was always the same: "I don't give a damn about facts! My mind is made-up, and no manner or quantity of facts that runs contrary to my opinion will ever change my opinion." I hate that attitude. It is the hallmark of stupidity - and I hate stupidity. Thus, my interest in the case was fueled.
I am not, nor ever have been, a lawyer of any type. I'm not a police officer, nor have I ever been involved in any type of law enforcement. I was not a juror in the trial. I'm not related, by blood nor acquaintance, to anyone involved in the case. I've never even been to Oklahoma. I did, at one time in my life, many, many, years ago, while I was in my late teens, have a loaded gun pointed at me by someone who had a very long, and quite violent criminal history. He was looking for information regarding someone else who had an equally long and equally violent criminal history, and he had reason to suspect I had the information he was looking for. I was unarmed at the time, and my reaction was to put my hands in the air and nervously squeak out the answers to his questions as I tried very hard not to release my bladder. Fortunately, I was successful regarding my bladder, and in answering his questions to his satisfaction, and he left without further incident. I'm not sure how I might have reacted had I been armed, but I strongly suspect it wouldn't have been any different. If it had been - if I had perhaps shot him in the head, I hope I would not have left the room and returned almost a minute later to find him squirming on the floor in a pool of his own blood, only to go and retrieve another gun, come back, and shoot him five more times. If I would have done that, I fear I'd be just as guilty of murder as Ersland is.
It is a mistake to think that my opinions regarding Ersland stems from any sort of sympathy for the person Ersland killed - for him, I have very little. He cast his die, and it didn't come up in his favor. Ultimately, it was his own willful actions that led to his death. And, well, "Those who live by the sword..." That does not, however, in my eyes, automatically grant impunity to anyone else who may have unlawfully played a part - and that, of course, includes Ersland.
It is also a mistake to think that I do not feel a citizen has a right to meet a potential deadly threat with deadly force. If Ersland had stopped after the first shot, or even if he'd have fired all six shots into the boy in succession, I'd very likely be among those calling him a hero today. He was within his rights to use deadly force to avert the potential threat to his life and his co-workers. He did that with the first shot. Then, he came back. and, after having ample time to take account of his situation, executed someone when a reasonable threat was no longer present. He did not have, nor should not have had, the right to act as judge, jury and executioner - but it's clear to me that's exactly how he acted. And, like the dead robber, these were his willful actions. He cast his die. And, now, he's suffering the consequences. As he should.
My final words on this matter:
I carry. I fully understand the doctrine of lethal force and its application. (Sometimes referred to as the Rules of Engagement.) I'll do what I have to do, and know how to do it. God help me, I've done it before, and have no illusions or "heroic" fantasies about doing it again. No one should have to go to that place. To want to go there is unthinkable.
'Nuff said...
posted by Robert at 2:04 PM
2 Comments:
Nuff said...
I've already said what I had to say on this matter...twice. I shan't reiterate...
Well Possum, You've generated some interesting commentary this time...
"Now that was fun, wasn't it?"
(:D) Best regards...
Post a Comment
<< Home