An opportunity to apply some consistency.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'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.

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I am in general agreement with your conclusions.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Given that there is no way for the store owner to have known whether the downed robber was alive or dead at that moment I don't think it matters whether he was live or dead.

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.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

There but for the grace of God go I. The verdict is correct. However, would I act differently? I don't know. The curious case of disarming one's attacker always comes to mind. If I were attacked by a man with a weapon, and I managed to disarm him, would I not simply then proceed to use that weapon against him? Probably. And I'd go to jail.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

it seems hard to believe he represented an active threat

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?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't really see any more to add.

Yeah, he's guilty, but of premeditated murder?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Murder in the First Degree? I don't think so. Certainly what he did was reprehensible, but had I been on that jury I don't think I would have convicted, just based upon what information is available for public consumption. I'd be inclined to say that the guy is guilty of murder, but I think it would be a stretch to call it premeditated, especially when one stops to consider what supposedly "highly trained" cops routinely get away with these days. I would be more inclined to convict were I to start seeing police held to the at least the same minimum standards of conduct but they are not. I've seen too much to be sold the faerie tale that the Rule of Law is intact. (http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/) Consistency cuts both ways.

regarding Osama bin Laden

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Curious. Since there's unanimous concencus here that the 5 shots after the first shot were unwarranted because the assailant was no longer an active threat... what are your thoughts on bin Laden's assassination?

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