Jerome Ersland conviction

[Venom]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347891729253696.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Surprised nothing on here about this yet, how does everyone feel about it?

 

[Ser Gregor]

He deserves it; shooting the kid five times after he was down and unconscious isn't self-defense in the least.

 

[Demiurge]

That was excesse force by all means, but the kid was shot in the head. I don't really think the additional shots had any real effect aside from sheer brutality.

 

[D.C.]

How can this guy live with himself? Shooting five times at an unconscious kid?

 

[Demiurge]

How can this guy live with himself? Shooting five times at an unconscious kid?

A most likely dead kid after the initial shot, that came into his store with a gun intent on robbing or harming him or someone else in the store.

Note, I am not taking this guys side at all, this act on his part was very, very wrong by all accounts, but I don't defend the kid either.

 

[Viggy]

The article says that the would-be robber wasn't visible on the surveillance tape when Mr. Ersland shot him some more. For all we know, he was still conscious and going for the gun he had come into the store with. If he was indeed unconscious and/or disarmed, however, then the court made the right choice.

 

[Malz]

Someone puts a gun to your face, defend yourself. Shoot him in the arms, or if you simply cannot, shoot where you can, even if it hits a vital point. Once the person is incapacitated though, that's when self-defense ends. To shoot him multiple times after he was unconscious was cruel and cowardly.