Like I had commented when the story and video first hit the news, I had a firearms instructor once, who did a great job of explaining "shoot to stop" versus "shoot to kill":
"Shoot center mass to stop the threat. The moment the threat is over, stop shooting. How many times should you shoot? As many as it takes to stop the threat. How many shots is 'too much'? Well, when the entrance wound, exit wound, and the hole in the floor all line up, that's one too many."
That last part was what got Mr. Ersland.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the verdict. These criminals would be back to do more harm to someone else. If someone can explain what taking out the criminal permanently is a bad thing, I'm all ears.
I just watched the live verdict, they found Jerome Ersland guilty of first degree murder with the jury asking for life sentence... I'm not sure what to think at the moment...
I wholeheartedly disagree with the verdict. These criminals would be back to do more harm to someone else. If someone can explain what taking out the criminal permanently is a bad thing, I'm all ears.
Coming back in and shooting the guy again probably wasn't a good idea, but.... Do we really want to split hairs in cases like this? I believe that once that kid walked in with pointing a deadly weapon whatever the victim does to defend theirselves is okay. Whenever trained law inforcement officers make mistakes it is nothing but excuses like, "They were in a high stress situation", etc..... Which is okay to an extent. But why wouldn't we make the same courtesy for the average joe who is thrust into a life threatening situation? Most of us aren't self defense experts and it shouldn't be expected. This case starts out as obvious self defense; allowing prosecuters to pick it apart after that is a slippery slope. To the he is guilty crowd: What if this happens to you? Are youre actions going to be perfect? Are you sure? Will.you handle the adrenalin burst of a near death experience okay? Probably not. Think about it. Were are these juries coming from? A bunch of easily swayed pansies. All the reasonable people had jobs and got excuses to get out of jury duty. I say not guilty. My apologies for the spelling errors I typed this out on my phone. It is too much trouble to go back and correct.
Why should we stand behind our own when they outright murder someone? Just because "LEO make mistakes"? No, the LEO are wrong when they take it too far and so are the citizens. If a person threatens you, you shoot. Shoot to kill, shoot to stop, shoot to scare. I don't care, when there's a direct threat. Any way you feel is good to eliminate that threat. BUT, once that threat has been eliminated, you need to stop. Think of it this way,
BG comes in with a gun and points it at you.
*BG is the threat.
You draw your gun and shoot the BG and he falls and is no longer armed
*BG is no longer a threat
You walk to the BG and point your gun at him
*YOU are now the threat
You are no better at this point than the BG who initially started the confrontation. You have gone from a situation in which there is no threat and you yourself have become the new threat, the aggressor, the BADGUY.