American Justice.

[patric]

What happened here is that the guy shot this guy in the head, went to chase the other guys, came back in and decide to unload 4 or 5 more in him while he was incapacitated.  HUGE difference.

Had the shooter been a LEO and saw the guy still moving (and still a potential threat), wouldnt he have done the same thing?  The application of the law here seems inconsistent.

[custosnox]

Had the shooter been a LEO and saw the guy still moving (and still a potential threat), wouldnt he have done the same thing?  The application of the law here seems inconsistent.

and the LEO should be held accountable as well, if not more so

[cynical]

No, LEOs are not trained to to shoot anything that moves. For a host of reasons mostly related to potential liability under 42 USC Sec. 1983, law enforcement officers are extensively and carefully trained about the rules governing the use of deadly force. Some overstep the limits, but most don't. The law applicable to the use of deadly force is completely consistent. The police don't have a license to kill at will. The outcome of individual cases isn't, but that is mainly because juries get involved and let rogue cops off.

Had the shooter been a LEO and saw the guy still moving (and still a potential threat), wouldnt he have done the same thing?  The application of the law here seems inconsistent.

[Conan71]

No, LEOs are not trained to to shoot anything that moves. For a host of reasons mostly related to potential liability under 42 USC Sec. 1983, law enforcement officers are extensively and carefully trained about the rules governing the use of deadly force. Some overstep the limits, but most don't. The law applicable to the use of deadly force is completely consistent. The police don't have a license to kill at will. The outcome of individual cases isn't, but that is mainly because juries get involved and let rogue cops off.

Patric seems to have a general distrust of cops.

[patric]

Or, maybe just higher expectations of accountability.

[guido911]

Or, maybe just higher expectations of accountability.

I agree with Conan's take on this one Patric (not that there is anything wrong with wanting accountability). I have the same feeling about teachers and government leaders. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

cynical,
Murder 1 was the motivation for my original post.  The manslaughter is a much more reasonable charge for the circumstances, I think maybe.  Still don't know how much "movement" was going on.  I suspect from Erslund's original mouthings back when this started, that he kind of brought some of this on himself.  Not sure stupid mouth warrants murder 1 as "payment".


Still, I gotta wonder how if the guy was already dead from the first shot (obviously very much self defense), how could the follow on shots be anything under the law??  He was already dead.  If the ME WAS actually correct for once, then Erslund was shooting an already inanimate object.  No difference from shooting into the bottles on the shampoo aisle.

[cynical]

Hieronymous, the ME actually testified that the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, who had been fired by the Board of Medicolegal Investigations in the interim, ruled that the gunshot to the head didn't kill him, that the later shots to the abdomen were the cause of death. Under that set of facts, By that time he was incapacitated and Ersland's need to use deadly force had expired. The witness also testified that her review of the chart led her to believe that the head wound was "potentially but not immediately" the cause of death. She ruled the cause of death to be "multiple gunshot wounds."  Even with her much more favorable testimony, the head wound, being a single shot, was not even arguably the cause of death though it probably contributed to it. He clearly wasn't dead when Ersland emptied the remaining rounds into him. The jury had both opinions and were free to reject one or both. They obviously accepted the first opinion or a carefully considered view of the second opinion along the lines of what I wrote above.

cynical,
Murder 1 was the motivation for my original post.  The manslaughter is a much more reasonable charge for the circumstances, I think maybe.  Still don't know how much "movement" was going on.  I suspect from Erslund's original mouthings back when this started, that he kind of brought some of this on himself.  Not sure stupid mouth warrants murder 1 as "payment".


Still, I gotta wonder how if the guy was already dead from the first shot (obviously very much self defense), how could the follow on shots be anything under the law??  He was already dead.  If the ME WAS actually correct for once, then Erslund was shooting an already inanimate object.  No difference from shooting into the bottles on the shampoo aisle.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That leads to the questions we discuss at work about this thing; did the head wound leave him dying, but incapacitated to be no longer a threat?  Sounds like it must have been that way to the jury.  If so, then he definitely went way too far.  Usually a head wound is about the only thing that will completely stop movement quickly - it would seem to be reasonable to think the guy was no further threat at that point.  (The only question that I haven't really heard much about is whether the guy was moving at all.)

And then we are back to the incompetence of the ME office.  The lies they have delivered for years doesn't give a warm fuzzy about that testimony.

Potentially but not immediately... wonder what that means?  Are we talking Giffords type wound or John Kennedy type?  I do know that if I were on the jury, I would have been very skeptical.  Don't think I could have gone with murder 1 based on what is in the news.

[Red Arrow]

Most of you are forgetting that armed robbers have rights above and beyond their intended victims.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Personal opinion moment; there never would have been a conviction for murder 1 with me on the jury.  Manslaughter?  Don't know enough.

[patric]

No, LEOs are not trained to to shoot anything that moves.

I didnt see anyone make that claim, but I do understand LEOs are trained to kill what they shoot.
It just seems that when a civilian does the same thing in defense of their home or self it's treated differently.

[Conan71]

Here's the video.  It's been nearly two years since I had seen it.  Erslund certainly didn't seem terribly concerned for his life when he came back into the store.  I think I'd also heard at one point Parker was still moving, but was essentially unconscious and he died after being transported to the hospital, in other words, the headshot apparently wasn't fatal...at that point.  As well, Parker was apparently not armed at any point in the robbery, so it's not like there was a weapon he was apparently reaching for even if he was still moving.

I know as a conceal carry permit holder that once the threat of bodily injury to me is removed, I am not justified in firing my weapon.  As far as what I would do with all that adrenaline running through my veins, I can't say for certain.

I asked FMC's dad about the case over dinner Saturday night.  He's a former LEO and very involved in the Oklahoma Rifle Association, our state affiliate with the NRA.  He thought, as most all of us do, the conviction was justified, but it was the wrong charge.  There simply was no mitigating circumstance (premeditation or in commission of a felony when he caused the death of someone else) for a first degree murder conviction.  He also said Irven Box is the last guy he'd want representing him.  I know nothing of Mr. Box's other cases, so I can't comment on his competency as an attorney.  

He also said Erslund made the mistake of talking to officers after the shooting without an attorney present.  Of course, right after the robbery, he never would have dreamed in a million years he was now a murder suspect rather than a victim of armed robbery and attempted murder.  I have no idea if Erslund voluntarily turned over the video to LEO's or it was subpoenaed.  I think I would have said the system was down that day, had it been me.  He may have simply volunteered too much information thinking it would justify his actions when instead it landed him in serious trouble.

[dbacks fan]

1st Degree Murder? I don't think so. Voluntary Manslaughter or 2nd Degree yes. As I understand, in the case of traumatic head injury, the body shuts down. Also he walked casually past the victim to get his other gun, and casually  walked back up to shoot again and did not appear to act in a defensive manor.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And the rumors have it that this was the same gang the had robbed him before.  I am pretty sure that I would react more strongly the second time something like this had happened to me, especially if I recognized one or more of the participants.

So much info unavailable.