![[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.
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.