![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
jerseycajun.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI'm big on self-defense, and on the right to gun ownership. However, I also would not defend a private individual for an act I wouldn't also expect an authority figure to be held accountable for.
Here's the story.
I've argued in the past that a key objection I have to the idea of using authority to torture a captive in the name of security and safety is that the nature of the situation is categorically insufficient to justify its use. The reason being is that the target is already in a subjugated state or prone, if you will.
Enter Jerome Jay Ersland who in the process of defending his store from being robbed, shot one of the assailants in the head, chased the other assailant outside, returned and proceeded to fetch another weapon and shoot the first attacker 5 more times, who it turned out was not carrying a weapon (the gun toting assailant was the one who was chased outside).
Now there was no telling whether Antwun Parker (the assailant killed) was still alive after the first shot, but it seems hard to believe he represented an active threat warranting 5 additional shots to subdue him. There is no sign of struggle at that point. Ersland might have just been shooting an already dead body, (That's about the only way I could see a case being made in his defense), but even so, would not the proper response to a downed assailant be to call the police and the paramedics?
The overall point here is that use of lethal force can only be justified as long as an active lethal threat remains. And that even when such a threat is active, taking a life in defense is less about intending to violate someone else's bodily integrity and dignity than protecting your own (specifically your own). When conditions become passive again, the dignity and the integrity of the individual once again become the overriding necessity.
Do I think the verdict is correct? Yes, most likely (with the only reasonable doubt being whether or not Parker was still alive at the time the additional shots were fired) but situations like this cannot be glossed over or condoned whether the person is acting as a private individual or an authority figure.
Here's the story.
I've argued in the past that a key objection I have to the idea of using authority to torture a captive in the name of security and safety is that the nature of the situation is categorically insufficient to justify its use. The reason being is that the target is already in a subjugated state or prone, if you will.
Enter Jerome Jay Ersland who in the process of defending his store from being robbed, shot one of the assailants in the head, chased the other assailant outside, returned and proceeded to fetch another weapon and shoot the first attacker 5 more times, who it turned out was not carrying a weapon (the gun toting assailant was the one who was chased outside).
Now there was no telling whether Antwun Parker (the assailant killed) was still alive after the first shot, but it seems hard to believe he represented an active threat warranting 5 additional shots to subdue him. There is no sign of struggle at that point. Ersland might have just been shooting an already dead body, (That's about the only way I could see a case being made in his defense), but even so, would not the proper response to a downed assailant be to call the police and the paramedics?
The overall point here is that use of lethal force can only be justified as long as an active lethal threat remains. And that even when such a threat is active, taking a life in defense is less about intending to violate someone else's bodily integrity and dignity than protecting your own (specifically your own). When conditions become passive again, the dignity and the integrity of the individual once again become the overriding necessity.
Do I think the verdict is correct? Yes, most likely (with the only reasonable doubt being whether or not Parker was still alive at the time the additional shots were fired) but situations like this cannot be glossed over or condoned whether the person is acting as a private individual or an authority figure.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 19:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 19:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 19:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 19:20 (UTC)Your assessment of the situation is correct, no active threat remained for him to defend himself against meaning those last 5 shots fired were NOT in self defense and he should be tried for murder on that basis.
Lethal force is only justified in the face of an active or likely imminent threat, once that threat is removed it is no longer justified.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 19:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 22:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 19:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 20:08 (UTC)I think this is the main point, and if he believed the robber still presented a threat, he should have pushed that point more in trial. If he didn't think the robber still presented a threat, he probably should have lied and said he believed he did anyway - who wouldn't believe him?
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 20:40 (UTC)The presence of a video surveillance system in the store made the timeline impossible to question.
He shot the first kid, chased after the second one shooting, came back in the store, turned his back on the first kid while he went and got a 2nd gun and then proceeded to shoot him 5 more times.
A full 45 seconds had elapsed between the time the dead robber was shot the first time and the second time, during that time he had not moved at all.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 20:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/11 23:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/6/11 07:12 (UTC)Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 31/5/11 21:39 (UTC)Re: Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 31/5/11 22:29 (UTC)Where there is inconsistency, the solution is to right it in favor of principle, not against it. Citing where it is used improperly to justify improper use elsewhere is both futile and fruitless.
This case should be held up as an example against police corruption.
Re: Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 31/5/11 22:50 (UTC)Re: Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 31/5/11 23:11 (UTC)Re: Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 1/6/11 01:12 (UTC)Can anyone here imagine the emotional state you would be in 45 seconds after having a gun pointed at you and having shot someone in the head. There is no way you would have calmed down by then and could easily be a state where you would act upon emotional impulse (hell, the fact he went back and shot him 5 times alone suggests that) instead of consciously formed intent.
He is certainly guilty of murder, but it doesn't seem to be premeditated. It seems far more likely to be a crime of passion precipitated by the emotional state of experiencing an attempted robbery at gun point and the initial shooting.
Re: Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 1/6/11 01:50 (UTC)1st degree seems excessive. Premeditation IMO can't properly be arrived at in such a short time from the shooting.
Re: Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?
Date: 1/6/11 02:58 (UTC)Although I missed the part where he went and fetched a 2nd gun to use the first time I read the article. That seems a bit off, but I think I still think it should be 2nd degree.
regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 31/5/11 23:56 (UTC)Lets be clear; OSB was an global threat to internation peace and security, but sounds like bin Laden wasn't an active threat... at least not to the SEALS who raided AlQaida's complex he wasn't. We are told he was unarmed, in his underwear when the kill order was carried out.
So how is this case any different? In both cases it was trial by executioner... one by a man who had been personally threated and was still in heat of rage... and the other by a President who in spirit of revenge gave the "kill not capture" order
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 00:35 (UTC)Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 00:57 (UTC)At what point did this warrant his execution? At the USSCole bombing? Madrid? WTC? Bali? And if this was justified, like you suggest it was, why not execute any and all terrorists on the spot? Furthermore, why not let the guy in the OP go, for surely he just executed a type of terrorist, you know, who reaped terror? The hypocrisy of it all...
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 03:46 (UTC)Now to draw a parallel, this is what we didn't do with Saddam Hussein - send in assassins. Instead, we destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, along with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Which was the better option?
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 07:50 (UTC)To draw a parallel, Saddam Hussein was tried, convicted and punished. After all this is the way justice should be served in a civilized society.
No doubt Osama bin Laden is guilty. He's admitted it. That doesn't excuse the actions of the Whitehouse. It only compounds the guilt.
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 00:52 (UTC)Besides which, IMO Bin Laden was killed as an act of war, not within a national legal framework.
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 00:59 (UTC)Hmmm, wasn't there a war on obesity declared?
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 01:08 (UTC)Bin Laden should have been captured if it was practical and didn't risk anyone's lives. If they had had him within their power and put him on his knees and executed him, that would be something different altogether from what reportedly occurred.
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 01:23 (UTC)Regardless I see parallels between these two incidents that tightrope the line between right and wrong, er, legal and illegal. I see hypocrisy at least. This guy comes back and goes all Charles Broson on his would-be assailants ass, five times no less. On the other hand Saddam Hussain, Slobodan Milošević, and several high ranking Nazis all saw trials for their war crimes.
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 01:21 (UTC)The official policy was that unless he was found naked he was to be considered armed, conceivably with a suicide vest or a detonator for explosives laid throughout the house.
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 01:29 (UTC)Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 03:57 (UTC)Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 07:35 (UTC)And Reuters reports that it was indeed a "Kill Order" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502)
And this is a more telling detailed report on the assassination. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE74B6H820110513)I quote, "The mission to destroy bin Laden, and his network, sparked the creation of a chillingly bureaucratic process for deciding who would be on "kill lists," authorized for death at the hands of the CIA."
The CIA is used for cover of plausible deniability should anything go wrong. For such assassinations are in violation of American signed international charters and agreements (such as the Geneva Convention). I would think that in carrying out these orders it violates the USA constitution, therefore it's understandable the admission of these details came not directly from the Whitehouse, but instead were blatently leaked from the Whitehouse without the Whitehouse's denial or embarrassment. Nobody is being sued or is there a warrant for arrest. Therefore I conclude these to be factual.
Re: regarding Osama bin Laden
Date: 1/6/11 15:35 (UTC)