![[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 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.