When I'm wrong...
…I’m wrong.
What follows are more comments from a first-time reader who got involved in the Jerome Ersland case and took issue with me on my somewhat fervent defense of that individual.
It took longer than I first thought, but I reviewed the links and find compelling arguments and facts. Feel free to copy and paste them into your browser, as I did, and make a personal decision.
As earlier asserted, if I think I’m mistaken, I’ll admit it. Short of actually being on Ersland’s jury, hearing every last forensic detail, and reviewing the surveillance tape frame-by-frame to see if the robber’s Glock actually fires and cycles, I am inclined to recant and retract my earlier indignant defense of Ersland as a clear-eyed, clear-headed hero.
Too often in this era of politically-correct gun-grabbers, anyone who legally and successfully defends themselves with a firearm is subject to approbation and persecution under the color of the law. My initial reaction to Mr. Ersland’s prosecution was, in that regard, a knee-jerk response of the worst sort. Being too lazy to do my own research, and too dependent on general reportage, which also portrayed him as a righteous vigilante, I assumed the liberal surrender-monkeys who would sacrifice innocent lives on the altar of appeasement and submission to evil were at it again, coming after one of those increasingly rare Americans with the guts to make a stand against predation.
I may be wrong here.
“I may be” is equivocal, but I am going to leave it up to the courts to make a final disposition on the balance of Mr. Ersland’s life. I rushed to judgment, reaching my own verdict based on personal empiricism without sufficient factual input, and subjective conclusions and speculation.
Jerome Ersland may, in fact, be a disturbed individual who was waiting for a quasi-legal opportunity to kill someone. Van Hammersly’s recounting of remarks by a detective friend are especially resonant. I, too, have known people with that mind-set the detective describes. I didn’t take this into consideration…another mistake on my part.
The remark the detective makes about people scripting little movies in their head is especially powerful. I, too, re-play little movies in my head, but unfortunately they are re-runs of unscripted events. I’m quite fanatical about movies being a wonderful medium for shared experiences and moments in time that we can live through vicariously, but they seldom capture the intensity, banality, and sheer horror of moments like those caught on tape in that Oklahoma City pharmacy.
I have what is regarded in court as “a reasonable doubt.” In Jerome Ersland’s case, it was initially a doubt of guilt, but now it is a doubt of innocence. I’m glad I wasn’t on his jury.
I stand by my personal remarks that if anyone threatens or makes a run at me, my family, or any innocent bystander in my immediate vicinity, I’ll blow the offender up like a party balloon if they present lethal force. I don’t share Mr. Ersland’s “Clint Eastwood fantasies”, but I have zero tolerance for murderers, thugs and robbers. I’m not Bruce Willis with those two-fisted .45s in “Last Man Standing,” but I have enough real-world competence that if it’s within my power, no one around me dies.
Please read on, and chase the links. This is powerful stuff, and creates a reasonable doubt as to Jerome Ersland’s guilt or innocence. In good conscience, I can no longer defend him.
VanHammersly has left a new comment on your post "Best comment ever!":
Well, I'm glad you like long comments, 'cause here comes a longer one:
Ersland lied about back injury for years:
http://www.newsok.com/jerome-ersland-medical-exam-finds-his-back-is-not-broken/article/3584416?custom_click=lead_story_title
Here's Ersland, himself, on video, telling police that he received his back injury during combat in the Gulf war, and he suffers from PTSD because he "killed a lot of people there."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljctb4KTJss&feature=relmfu
Problem? His subpoenaed military records show that he was stationed as a military pharmacist at a base in Oklahoma throughout the entirety of the war. He never saw a minute of combat in his life:
http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggist-jerome-erslands-record-in-doubt/article/3388041?custom_click=headlines_widget
Ersland's 911 call - and interview with local news - claiming that both robbers were armed and "came in shooting." News story confirms Police say no shots were fired by robbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXVluaw5bnQ&feature=relmfu
Ersland fabricated evidence:
http://chickashanews.com/local/x1697313489/Ersland-hopes-to-receive-pardon-from-Fallin
Ersland plants a spent .22 shell casing:
http://newsok.com/jerome-ersland-case-has-new-twist/article/3441112
1:40 of video: Ersland lies to police before security video comes to light - says he grabbed both guns at the same time. He also says he shot the last five shots into the injured robber BEFORE chasing the other robber out of the store, because (with a bullet already lodged in his skull) "he was going to hit [Ersland] as he went by". Ersland changed his story after the security video was released showing his story to be completely false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNjzOBXzlm4&feature=relmfu
0:14 of video: Ersland says it's "unfortunate" that he wasn't able to shoot the fleeing robber "in the back" because of the type of round he had loaded - Evidence he was just looking to kill someone and "self-defense" had nothing to do with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGJsi9FRrU&feature=related
0:50 of video: Ersland admits to firing in public at fleeing robber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtfqzTHV8A&feature=related
Ersland discharged weapon in the street, putting citizen's lives in danger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzt0gBaNJg4&feature=channel_video_title
2:28: Ersland admits that he shot the injured robber five more times because "he kept stayin' up" - proving that (a) the first shot was not fatal, (some have argued that the first shot killed the robber, so Ersland couldn't be guilty of murder as the first shot was justified, and its not murder to shoot a dead body) and (b) his firing of the five rounds was with "deliberate intent"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLUtASerBok&feature=related
2:42: Ersland says both other people in the store had gone to the "the very back...in the back room" at the time of the shooting. Proving Ersland was the only witness to the shooting. The 911 call (linked above) corroborates this, as you can hear the five shots on the recording while one of the coworkers talks to the 911 operator. She says there's gun shots and says it "might" be the "pharmacist" shooting as he also has a gun - obviously she can't see what's going on. (in answer to you earlier "all of the witnesses" comment - Ersland was the ONLY witness.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLUtASerBok&feature=related
So, Ersland chased the other robber down the street, shooting at him while he was fleeing. Did Ersland also believe that the fleeing robber posed an immediate threat to his safety that could only be thwarted with deadly force? If so, why did he pursue the threat? Is it common for someone to pursue a person who they fear is going to kill them? This action shows that Ersland was simply looking to kill, regardless of any threat. If he was in fear for his life from the fleeing robber, he wouldn't have chased him. If he wasn't in fear, then he was clearly willing to kill someone by whom he did not feel threatened.
He spent his ammo firing at the fleeing robber, returned to the store, stepped over the injured kid, and with his back to him the whole time (watch the security video) retrieved another weapon from a locked drawer, walked back to the incapacitated kid, and, standing over him, at close range, fired five more shots into him. That's not self-defence. That's a cold, calculated execution.
Ersland claimed that he shot the five extra rounds because the injured robber kept moving. That's how he justified the shooting - the kid wouldn't have been much of a threat had he been laying there unconscious. But, Ersland's claim is also an admission of "deliberate intent". I.e. - he deliberately intended to shoot the robber. He was moving, so Ersland made a conscious decision to shoot him five more times. The act was deliberate and intentional - deliberate intent.
Deliberate intent is one of the criteria needed to be fulfilled for 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law. Ersland admitted to it. So, that part, at least, is not up for debate. The other criteria that needs to be fulfilled is whether or not the killing was justified. That's what was in question in the Ersland case. The killing could only be be a justified killing if Ersland was thwarting an immediate threat of serious injury or death. But, none of his actions, or the available facts of the case, are consistent with that. He pursued a supposed threat down the street, firing at him - a person does not pursue another that he feels is an immediate threat to his life. Would a reasonable person not have felt the robber he was chasing to be more of a threat than the one he murdered? The one he was chasing didn't have bullet in his head, and was armed. He expressed disappointment that he was unable to shoot the fleeing robber - showing that he wasn't interested in negating a threat so much as he was in dealing out a little street justice. And, he showed no caution toward the injured robber - stepping over him, keeping his back to him, leaving him alone with his female co-workers. Think about it - chew it over in your head for a minute - he chased the other robber down the street, was disappointed he wasn't able to shoot him, then, right after that, returned to the store and shot the injured robber. That fulfills, beyond a reasonable doubt, the second criteria - the shooting was not in self-defense, and therefore, unlawful. The killing was unlawful and deliberate.
In Oklahoma (I quoted the statute in my previous comment - from that, you should have all of the information necessary to find the actual law easily yourself online) If you have deliberate intent AND the killing is unlawful, it's 1st degree murder. It doesn't matter one iota how I, nor you, nor anyone else may or may not react if we were in the same situation. If I reacted the same way, I'd be just as guilty as he. The law is the law. If you take a life unlawfully, you're a murderer. If you do it with deliberate intent, it's in the 1st degree.
Ersland committed first degree murder, and he was charged, convicted and sentenced accordingly. The Justice system worked in this case. There were three scumbags in the store that day - only two of them were robbers. All three of them got life sentences (Ersland's being the least harsh of the three.) The system worked.
If you ask me, Ersland is unhinged and a menace. He thinks he's living in a Clint Eastwood movie. My suspicion is that he really thought he'd be lauded as a hero for what he did - he killed the bad guy, just like in the movies. Listen to his testimony, how he explains the double-fisted shooting of the robbers - firing with a gun in each hand from behind the counter, (which didn't happen, of course, he made it up - it's his fantasy he's describing - his own movie, of which he's the star) chasing the other robber down the street, trying to get him and the driver of the getaway car as it speeds away. It was a fantasy to him. He wasn't afraid for his life, he was loving every minute of it.
A good friend of mine is a retired Police Detective. He spent 38 years on the force. I remember him saying to me one time that there are criminals out there who have these stories in their heads that they replay, over and over - what they'll do if a Cop tries to take them down. How they'll go out in a blaze of glory and "give it to the pigs". They visualize the whole thing - like a movie, its like a fantasy for them. They play it over and over in their heads. And, as a Cop, when you run into these types, you've got to be careful that you don't do anything that makes it seem to them as though the first part of their story is coming true, because if you do, they will make damn sure the last part of their story comes true for you. I think that's likely what went on with Ersland - he had this story in his head - what he'd do if any punks came in and tried to threaten him. He had the whole thing visualized. He'd take out the scum, and then enjoy his rewards as a hero for saving the day. He knew, long before anyone came in the store that day, that if someone tired to rob him, some bastard was going to die. In the movies those types of people are sometimes seen as heroes. In real life, they're always just irresponsible, dangerous threats to anything approaching a civilized and lawful society.
P.S. - I'm glad you're pleased with my earlier comment. :) I was involved in another discussion regarding the Ersland case and was searching Google for a reference I'd lost, and in doing so, came across your blog-post in the search results. I've got to say, unapologetically, that I've been running into a lot of Ersland supporters that seem to be genuinely unthinking, reactionary, myopic, hysterical clods, fueled purely by blind emotion and fear. I thought you might be another one of them, and was still a little heated from a recent encounter with such an individual. So, I felt the need to offer some commentary - it's sort of a fault of character that I suffer from - a frustration with such types that I feel I need to alleviate by engaging with them. I see now, however, that I was in error in my initial estimation, as you appear to be an intelligent, reasoned person with whom I may just share a difference of opinion. And, I do enjoy, and welcome, exchanges with such people.
Posted by VanHammersly to United Possums International at July 15, 2011 4:02 AM
What follows are more comments from a first-time reader who got involved in the Jerome Ersland case and took issue with me on my somewhat fervent defense of that individual.
It took longer than I first thought, but I reviewed the links and find compelling arguments and facts. Feel free to copy and paste them into your browser, as I did, and make a personal decision.
As earlier asserted, if I think I’m mistaken, I’ll admit it. Short of actually being on Ersland’s jury, hearing every last forensic detail, and reviewing the surveillance tape frame-by-frame to see if the robber’s Glock actually fires and cycles, I am inclined to recant and retract my earlier indignant defense of Ersland as a clear-eyed, clear-headed hero.
Too often in this era of politically-correct gun-grabbers, anyone who legally and successfully defends themselves with a firearm is subject to approbation and persecution under the color of the law. My initial reaction to Mr. Ersland’s prosecution was, in that regard, a knee-jerk response of the worst sort. Being too lazy to do my own research, and too dependent on general reportage, which also portrayed him as a righteous vigilante, I assumed the liberal surrender-monkeys who would sacrifice innocent lives on the altar of appeasement and submission to evil were at it again, coming after one of those increasingly rare Americans with the guts to make a stand against predation.
I may be wrong here.
“I may be” is equivocal, but I am going to leave it up to the courts to make a final disposition on the balance of Mr. Ersland’s life. I rushed to judgment, reaching my own verdict based on personal empiricism without sufficient factual input, and subjective conclusions and speculation.
Jerome Ersland may, in fact, be a disturbed individual who was waiting for a quasi-legal opportunity to kill someone. Van Hammersly’s recounting of remarks by a detective friend are especially resonant. I, too, have known people with that mind-set the detective describes. I didn’t take this into consideration…another mistake on my part.
The remark the detective makes about people scripting little movies in their head is especially powerful. I, too, re-play little movies in my head, but unfortunately they are re-runs of unscripted events. I’m quite fanatical about movies being a wonderful medium for shared experiences and moments in time that we can live through vicariously, but they seldom capture the intensity, banality, and sheer horror of moments like those caught on tape in that Oklahoma City pharmacy.
I have what is regarded in court as “a reasonable doubt.” In Jerome Ersland’s case, it was initially a doubt of guilt, but now it is a doubt of innocence. I’m glad I wasn’t on his jury.
I stand by my personal remarks that if anyone threatens or makes a run at me, my family, or any innocent bystander in my immediate vicinity, I’ll blow the offender up like a party balloon if they present lethal force. I don’t share Mr. Ersland’s “Clint Eastwood fantasies”, but I have zero tolerance for murderers, thugs and robbers. I’m not Bruce Willis with those two-fisted .45s in “Last Man Standing,” but I have enough real-world competence that if it’s within my power, no one around me dies.
Please read on, and chase the links. This is powerful stuff, and creates a reasonable doubt as to Jerome Ersland’s guilt or innocence. In good conscience, I can no longer defend him.
VanHammersly has left a new comment on your post "Best comment ever!":
Well, I'm glad you like long comments, 'cause here comes a longer one:
Ersland lied about back injury for years:
http://www.newsok.com/jerome-ersland-medical-exam-finds-his-back-is-not-broken/article/3584416?custom_click=lead_story_title
Here's Ersland, himself, on video, telling police that he received his back injury during combat in the Gulf war, and he suffers from PTSD because he "killed a lot of people there."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljctb4KTJss&feature=relmfu
Problem? His subpoenaed military records show that he was stationed as a military pharmacist at a base in Oklahoma throughout the entirety of the war. He never saw a minute of combat in his life:
http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggist-jerome-erslands-record-in-doubt/article/3388041?custom_click=headlines_widget
Ersland's 911 call - and interview with local news - claiming that both robbers were armed and "came in shooting." News story confirms Police say no shots were fired by robbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXVluaw5bnQ&feature=relmfu
Ersland fabricated evidence:
http://chickashanews.com/local/x1697313489/Ersland-hopes-to-receive-pardon-from-Fallin
Ersland plants a spent .22 shell casing:
http://newsok.com/jerome-ersland-case-has-new-twist/article/3441112
1:40 of video: Ersland lies to police before security video comes to light - says he grabbed both guns at the same time. He also says he shot the last five shots into the injured robber BEFORE chasing the other robber out of the store, because (with a bullet already lodged in his skull) "he was going to hit [Ersland] as he went by". Ersland changed his story after the security video was released showing his story to be completely false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNjzOBXzlm4&feature=relmfu
0:14 of video: Ersland says it's "unfortunate" that he wasn't able to shoot the fleeing robber "in the back" because of the type of round he had loaded - Evidence he was just looking to kill someone and "self-defense" had nothing to do with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGJsi9FRrU&feature=related
0:50 of video: Ersland admits to firing in public at fleeing robber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtfqzTHV8A&feature=related
Ersland discharged weapon in the street, putting citizen's lives in danger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzt0gBaNJg4&feature=channel_video_title
2:28: Ersland admits that he shot the injured robber five more times because "he kept stayin' up" - proving that (a) the first shot was not fatal, (some have argued that the first shot killed the robber, so Ersland couldn't be guilty of murder as the first shot was justified, and its not murder to shoot a dead body) and (b) his firing of the five rounds was with "deliberate intent"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLUtASerBok&feature=related
2:42: Ersland says both other people in the store had gone to the "the very back...in the back room" at the time of the shooting. Proving Ersland was the only witness to the shooting. The 911 call (linked above) corroborates this, as you can hear the five shots on the recording while one of the coworkers talks to the 911 operator. She says there's gun shots and says it "might" be the "pharmacist" shooting as he also has a gun - obviously she can't see what's going on. (in answer to you earlier "all of the witnesses" comment - Ersland was the ONLY witness.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLUtASerBok&feature=related
So, Ersland chased the other robber down the street, shooting at him while he was fleeing. Did Ersland also believe that the fleeing robber posed an immediate threat to his safety that could only be thwarted with deadly force? If so, why did he pursue the threat? Is it common for someone to pursue a person who they fear is going to kill them? This action shows that Ersland was simply looking to kill, regardless of any threat. If he was in fear for his life from the fleeing robber, he wouldn't have chased him. If he wasn't in fear, then he was clearly willing to kill someone by whom he did not feel threatened.
He spent his ammo firing at the fleeing robber, returned to the store, stepped over the injured kid, and with his back to him the whole time (watch the security video) retrieved another weapon from a locked drawer, walked back to the incapacitated kid, and, standing over him, at close range, fired five more shots into him. That's not self-defence. That's a cold, calculated execution.
Ersland claimed that he shot the five extra rounds because the injured robber kept moving. That's how he justified the shooting - the kid wouldn't have been much of a threat had he been laying there unconscious. But, Ersland's claim is also an admission of "deliberate intent". I.e. - he deliberately intended to shoot the robber. He was moving, so Ersland made a conscious decision to shoot him five more times. The act was deliberate and intentional - deliberate intent.
Deliberate intent is one of the criteria needed to be fulfilled for 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law. Ersland admitted to it. So, that part, at least, is not up for debate. The other criteria that needs to be fulfilled is whether or not the killing was justified. That's what was in question in the Ersland case. The killing could only be be a justified killing if Ersland was thwarting an immediate threat of serious injury or death. But, none of his actions, or the available facts of the case, are consistent with that. He pursued a supposed threat down the street, firing at him - a person does not pursue another that he feels is an immediate threat to his life. Would a reasonable person not have felt the robber he was chasing to be more of a threat than the one he murdered? The one he was chasing didn't have bullet in his head, and was armed. He expressed disappointment that he was unable to shoot the fleeing robber - showing that he wasn't interested in negating a threat so much as he was in dealing out a little street justice. And, he showed no caution toward the injured robber - stepping over him, keeping his back to him, leaving him alone with his female co-workers. Think about it - chew it over in your head for a minute - he chased the other robber down the street, was disappointed he wasn't able to shoot him, then, right after that, returned to the store and shot the injured robber. That fulfills, beyond a reasonable doubt, the second criteria - the shooting was not in self-defense, and therefore, unlawful. The killing was unlawful and deliberate.
In Oklahoma (I quoted the statute in my previous comment - from that, you should have all of the information necessary to find the actual law easily yourself online) If you have deliberate intent AND the killing is unlawful, it's 1st degree murder. It doesn't matter one iota how I, nor you, nor anyone else may or may not react if we were in the same situation. If I reacted the same way, I'd be just as guilty as he. The law is the law. If you take a life unlawfully, you're a murderer. If you do it with deliberate intent, it's in the 1st degree.
Ersland committed first degree murder, and he was charged, convicted and sentenced accordingly. The Justice system worked in this case. There were three scumbags in the store that day - only two of them were robbers. All three of them got life sentences (Ersland's being the least harsh of the three.) The system worked.
If you ask me, Ersland is unhinged and a menace. He thinks he's living in a Clint Eastwood movie. My suspicion is that he really thought he'd be lauded as a hero for what he did - he killed the bad guy, just like in the movies. Listen to his testimony, how he explains the double-fisted shooting of the robbers - firing with a gun in each hand from behind the counter, (which didn't happen, of course, he made it up - it's his fantasy he's describing - his own movie, of which he's the star) chasing the other robber down the street, trying to get him and the driver of the getaway car as it speeds away. It was a fantasy to him. He wasn't afraid for his life, he was loving every minute of it.
A good friend of mine is a retired Police Detective. He spent 38 years on the force. I remember him saying to me one time that there are criminals out there who have these stories in their heads that they replay, over and over - what they'll do if a Cop tries to take them down. How they'll go out in a blaze of glory and "give it to the pigs". They visualize the whole thing - like a movie, its like a fantasy for them. They play it over and over in their heads. And, as a Cop, when you run into these types, you've got to be careful that you don't do anything that makes it seem to them as though the first part of their story is coming true, because if you do, they will make damn sure the last part of their story comes true for you. I think that's likely what went on with Ersland - he had this story in his head - what he'd do if any punks came in and tried to threaten him. He had the whole thing visualized. He'd take out the scum, and then enjoy his rewards as a hero for saving the day. He knew, long before anyone came in the store that day, that if someone tired to rob him, some bastard was going to die. In the movies those types of people are sometimes seen as heroes. In real life, they're always just irresponsible, dangerous threats to anything approaching a civilized and lawful society.
P.S. - I'm glad you're pleased with my earlier comment. :) I was involved in another discussion regarding the Ersland case and was searching Google for a reference I'd lost, and in doing so, came across your blog-post in the search results. I've got to say, unapologetically, that I've been running into a lot of Ersland supporters that seem to be genuinely unthinking, reactionary, myopic, hysterical clods, fueled purely by blind emotion and fear. I thought you might be another one of them, and was still a little heated from a recent encounter with such an individual. So, I felt the need to offer some commentary - it's sort of a fault of character that I suffer from - a frustration with such types that I feel I need to alleviate by engaging with them. I see now, however, that I was in error in my initial estimation, as you appear to be an intelligent, reasoned person with whom I may just share a difference of opinion. And, I do enjoy, and welcome, exchanges with such people.
Posted by VanHammersly to United Possums International at July 15, 2011 4:02 AM
posted by Robert at 9:26 PM
9 Comments:
If Van Hammersly--or anyone else--cares to send me a personal e-mail address, I will send copies of already-written descriptions of incidents that colored my thinking on the Ersland affair. Jury duty, an NVA with a K-bar knife and a grenade, and a devil-worshiping arsonist are part of the mix.
The link is in the blog profile off of the home page.
I'll say it again: people intent on committing a crime are asking for trouble; sometimes it finds them.
Regardless of whether or not Mr. Ersland was "waiting for a quasi-legal opportunity to kill someone", he did the world a favor by taking out some garbage. No tears will be shed on this end for a deceased perp...
sounds like good was bad and bad was real bad. We always hope the person defending (?) themselves will be a good mirror for the community. Not so here
shelly
Well, I haven't chased down all the links as you suggested, but based on the self-confidence of this VanHammersly dude, and your acquiescence to his evidence, I will assume that there is indeed some reason to doubt Ersland's "heroism".
Nevertheless, I have two points to submit for your consideration: 1) I still want to know who this VanHammersly dude is, and what his relationship is to the Ersland case, and 2) Ersland's actions go a long way towards providing a deterrent to crime.
Regarding point #1, I want to know why Mr. VH is so knowledgeable about this particular case and what his motivations are. My first reaction is that VH is an ACLU lawyer or an anti-gun lobbyist. My experience has been that people who are as knowledgeable about a particular case as Mr. VH appears to be, also have a hidden agenda. They either cherry-pick news articles about the case to bolster their position, or use such cases to make totally unrelated claims like "guns are bad". Mr. Ersland had a gun and was playing out "movies in his head", therefore all guns should be banned to protect us from other "movie goers".
As to point #2, what kind of effect would there be on the crime rate if all criminals knew that robbing a drugstore might end up getting you 5 shots to the head? Regardless of whether or not Mr. Ersland is "technically" guilty of murder, isn't he still a deterrent to crime? I mean, think abut it... What if more shop owners went "berserk" and started shooting all the thugs who tried to hold up their establishments? Don't you think the thugs would take a hint and say: "Hey, maybe this ain't such a great profession"?
Probably won't happen, but an interesting mind exercise nonetheless, eh?
(:D) Best regards...
Camo:
I think I covered my feelings--or lack thereof--for the "victim" somewhere along in the way, with my reference to the doctrine of equal culpability. He bought the ticket, and took the ride. I don't care if he was mugging Charlie Manson's "family"; he learned in those last seconds what Forrest Gump told us: stupid is as stupid does. It's unfortunate--for him, anyhow--that he and his homey tried to rob a deranged vigilante, but wouldn't they have been better off in the first place if they'd stayed home and played "Grand Theft Auto" or something?
Hawkeye:
I haven't seen any of the motives or hidden agenda in anything Van Hammersly has posted, although I have yet to see those bona fides I requested. I don't have VH pegged as a gun-grabber, but I'm still curious about the amount of research that went into this affair. For all I know, VH is a law student, a deputy prosecutor, or a juror defending his decision. I'd like clarification, though. This little-read blog isn't exactly a national forum, so I suspect a more personal interest in the case.
VH:
If you're still checking in here for comments and reactions, would you care to elaborate?
Well done, Possum!
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.
(continued...)
(...continued)
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.
(continued again...)
(...continued again)
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home