When Self Defense Becomes Murder

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think it is a good analogy.

Both describe a person 'getting what they have coming to them' according to the beliefs of someone else, and ignoring what the law says.

When we decide to exact our own brand of justice on a person we consider a 'bad guy', there is no real difference between a robber whom we dispatch rather than let the law deal with them, and a late-term abortionist whom we dispatch rather than let God deal with him. It's all about dealing him the justice we feel he ought to be getting.

Same thing, pretty much.

Um... no. Not the same thing. I am honestly surprised that you would even purport such a notion, as you seem to be an intelligent man.

The reason that it is a bad analogy is that the man in the pharmacy was attacked and held at gunpoint and was able to respond with force and in the heat of the moment, did something very foolish. This was not a premeditated action and in the phamacist's mind, the downed thug still represented a potential threat to his person. The pharmacist did not have years, perhaps over a decade, to reason out his crime.

The person who shot the clinician, on the other hand, premeditated the crime, planned it out, and executed it without direct provocation and without any threat of harm to himself by the clinician.

Thus the pharmacist is guilty of taking defense of himself and his property beyond a reasonable limit while the other is guilty of premeditated murder. There is a huge difference.

Personally, I place the actual (not legal) responsibility for this one entirely on the robber. Once you decide that you are going to use force or the threat of force against another person, you run the risk of that person being crazier and better armed than yourself. You accept that risk the moment that you perpetrate the act. Once they drew their guns and threatened the pharmacist, they accepted that risk. Turned out that the pharmacist was equally well armed and able to use his weapon to greater effect than the robbers.

Kind of like playing chicken with your hot rods. You run the risk that neither of you will blink and end up in a head on collision. Both drivers 'get what they deserve' because they perpetrated the crime of stupidity. This is not justice, simply cause and effect. Same with the dead robber. Cause and effect.

Justice is left for the court to decide.

Daniel

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Um... no. Not the same thing. I am honestly surprised that you would even purport such a notion, as you seem to be an intelligent man.

The reason that it is a bad analogy is that the man in the pharmacy was attacked and held at gunpoint and was able to respond with force and in the heat of the moment, did something very foolish. This was not a premeditated action and in the phamacist's mind, the downed thug still represented a potential threat to his person. The pharmacist did not have years, perhaps over a decade, to reason out his crime.

The person who shot the clinician, on the other hand, premeditated the crime, planned it out, and executed it without direct provocation and without any threat of harm to himself by the clinician.

I am not comparing the crimes. I agree they are very different.

My comparison is a little more abstract. I am referring to the notion that one can justify (even while agreeing it was wrong) a crime on the basis that the deceased 'had it coming'. Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has declared that the doctor 'had it coming' and there are those in this thread who have made similar statements about the dead robber.

While I agree that the world is full of bad people who probably do 'have it coming', I have never felt it was my job to give them what they deserve.

And my point is that when you justify a crime on the basis that a person 'had it coming', you might want to consider that anyone can use that logic to justify killing anyone. I'm sure Boothe thought that Lincoln 'had it coming'. If we all acted on that internal and non-objective justification, we'd have a pretty sad world.

As Clint Eastwood's character said in the movie "Unforgiven," "We've all got it coming, kid."

 

[searcher]

I am not sure if this is in this thread or not, but I have the video of the shooting.

Warning: this video contains an individuals murder. It does not show the kid getting shot, but you will see the shooter. The video is about half way down.

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-si...natius-piazza-how-to-get-charged-with-murder/

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am not comparing the crimes. I agree they are very different.

My comparison is a little more abstract. I am referring to the notion that one can justify (even while agreeing it was wrong) a crime on the basis that the deceased 'had it coming'. Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has declared that the doctor 'had it coming' and there are those in this thread who have made similar statements about the dead robber.

While I agree that the world is full of bad people who probably do 'have it coming', I have never felt it was my job to give them what they deserve.

And my point is that when you justify a crime on the basis that a person 'had it coming', you might want to consider that anyone can use that logic to justify killing anyone. I'm sure Boothe thought that Lincoln 'had it coming'. If we all acted on that internal and non-objective justification, we'd have a pretty sad world.

As Clint Eastwood's character said in the movie "Unforgiven," "We've all got it coming, kid."

I got that, but I do not believe that that is what is happening here.

There are three factors going on in people's responses:

1. Kneejerk reactions.
The instant kneejerk reaction of most of the respondants is one of instant defense of the pharmacist because we are all aware of how defending ourselves can go against us legally. The kneejerk reaction is to not back away an inch on justifying it because legal precedent in favor of the pharmacist in this more extreme case could mean more reasonable response for us should we find ourselves in court making a case for our own self defense.

2. Zero sympathy for the robbers.
The he had it coming also reflects a total lack of sympathy for this clown, but it is also more of a cause/effect than a justification of the pharmacist. Like the two guys playing chicken with their hot rods: it is hard to have any sympathy for them when they have a head on collision. They gambled and lost. So did the robber. This is not the same thing as justice. This is a matter of suffering the consequences for doing somethng stupid.

Perhaps a better analogy would be those punks that antagonized the tiger. They gambled that the tiger would not be able to harm them. It was against the rules (perhaps against the law, but I do not know) for them to do this. Their gamble, though stupid, was less risky; the zoo was built specifically to contain the animal. Lower risk factor, and they mainly risked being tossed out of the zoo if caught. But the other risk was that the animal would somehow escape. They played the odds and lost; the tiger jumped the wall and mauled them, eating one if I remember correctly.

3. Sympathy for the pharmacist.
Nobody wants to be robbed. The man was minding his own business and two thugs come in and hold him at gunpoint. The pharmacist responds and one of them winds up dead.

Keep in mind that unlike yourself (you are LEO if I recall) the pharmacist is not specifically trained for this. He feared for his life and probably was also very pissed off; a bad combination. If the robber was lying unconcious on the floor, then the pharmacist went too far. If the man was moving and still had his gun, then I feel that the pharmacist was justified in eliminating a potential threat.

Keep in mind that we have not heard the pharmacist's full story, but from what Deaf indicates about the Bill O'Reilly show, it is possible that there is more to it than what is initially reported.

Either way, I do not think that anyone here is advocating vigilante justice or taking the law into their own hands, which is what you seem to feel is happening. We just have zero sympathy for the robber.

Daniel

 

[CanFightIt]

Self defense laws vary between states. While in your house, many states have "Castle Law" that allow you to defend yourself. Some states have "stand your ground" laws, while others have a duty to retreat. All self defense laws do have some things in common, however:

You can only use force equal to that encountered. For justifiable homicide, that person must be an imminent threat to your life, and they must have the means to carry out that threat.

Once the threat stops, your right to self defense stops. You can not continue to attack someone after they retreat.

Self defense is an "affirmative defense". This means it is your obligation to prove you had the right to use it.

 

[BLACK LION]

I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too. Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here. After all, the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right? It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice. Or are they somehow different?

You sure pulled that from a dark moist place. What is it with people assuming things??? Are we not respectable professional adults here???
If you are unsure then please request an explaination, dont just jump to an off the wall conclusion of your own.
I dont mean to sound harsh or be rude but is this so much to ask.
You dont see me doing it so please return the courtesy.
We all seem to be very intelligent folks so lets not throw junk around the forum just becuase of a misunderstanding in articulation.


This was ARMED ROBBERY... and those that chose to walk that path behind the gun met an inherent fate. Most often its the victim being robbed that fate meets but this time things were different. This could have been the perps first job or 20th job... they could have already been known as "killers" amongst thier peers or in thier neighborhood. This was the pharmacists first "gunfight". He didnt live behind the gun as the ones who attacked him did. He got the upper hand with the headshot and seemingly went overboard when he dumped the second gun into the torso.... but thats our perception... we werent there... Regardless of "justification" , the pharmacists life as he and his family knows it is ruined... his business and/or reputation may never be the same... not to mention the threat of retaliation. His pharmacy is closed and he is up to his waist in litigation... not to mention him having to relive those moments over and over again...
The suspects on the other hand had nothing to lose and if nothing happened to them they would be back at it the next evening..regardless of who they hurt, injure or ruin.... even if they did a bid in prison, they would most likely be back to it once out on parole...
A similar armed robbery occured down the street here not long ago in which two armed suspects attempted to rob a coin shop. A gunfight ensued and both of the suspects were hit...one while running out of the store... one escaped and one died on the sidewalk outside...
That man had been in business for over a decade and now his life is ruined...the store has been barred up and closed since that day. The family and friends of the suspect hold vigils outside the shop while demanding justice... justice for what... someone who put a gun in someones face to rob them and possibly kill them but they got killed instead... even if they were over killed what do you expect. There is a big difference between someone who lives behind the gun and someone caught in the moment who has access to a gun...


The Lord works in mysterious ways. Now its up to the legal system to hash out and either way...someone going to be dissapointed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Either way, I do not think that anyone here is advocating vigilante justice or taking the law into their own hands, which is what you seem to feel is happening. We just have zero sympathy for the robber.

I think it is a fine line, and in a couple of cases, that line exists only in theory.

I read statements which in effect say:

• I do not advocate murder, but the robber got what he deserved.
• I hope and believe the pharmacist will get off.
• This sends a message to all those who would rob a pharmacy.

All of these statements can be easily applied by fans of the abortion doctor shooter as well. All of them have to do with notions of rough justice that citizens can apply if they see a reason to do so.

I'm sorry, but "I don't agree with what he did but I'm glad he did it, and I hope he gets away with it" don't fill me with visions of law-abiding citizens who believe in the rule of law.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think it is a fine line, and in a couple of cases, that line exists only in theory.

I read statements which in effect say:

• I do not advocate murder, but the robber got what he deserved.
• I hope and believe the pharmacist will get off.
• This sends a message to all those who would rob a pharmacy.

All of these statements can be easily applied by fans of the abortion doctor shooter as well. All of them have to do with notions of rough justice that citizens can apply if they see a reason to do so.

They can also be easily applied by those who feel that the police and the courts are remiss in their duty, so be careful where you go with this one.

We are regaled daily in the news with stories of violent repeat offenders who go out and commit (gasp!) the same crime. The justice system has serious problems, a fact that has been mentioned to you several times, and which you simply brush off. Keep in mind that we, the citizens suffer for the shortcomings of the penal system and law enforcement. Remember all those comment I had made earlier about parole?

That does not, as I said earlier, justify crossing the line, but perhaps you may wish to put yourself on the other side of that badge and consider how those who are frustrated with the crime rate feel. When your son has been murdered or your daughter raped by some repeat offender, you will feel very differently. I know that I would! Thankfully, I have not been put into a position where I can have that perspective first hand, and I hope that you never are either.

I spent a lot of time in sales and customer service (still do the customer service part), and one of the things that we had to do was to remember that a customer does not see things from our perspective. When we quote company policies to them, they just become more inflamed because they feel that we are not addressing their issue. When police or the courts respond with legaleze, you do not reassure people; you deepen the divide between law enforcement and civilians.

I'm sorry, but "I don't agree with what he did but I'm glad he did it, and I hope he gets away with it" don't fill me with visions of law-abiding citizens who believe in the rule of law.

You can see what you wish, but last I checked, it is perfectly legal to hold such opinions and still be law abiding. I can think and feel whatever I like, but if a robber breaks into my home and I render him harmless, so long as I go no further, I am still abiding by the law.

You are judging people as law abiding or not based upon their opinions. Being law abiding is entirely restricted to our actions. Plenty of crimes are commited by people who never express such sentiments, such as the Craigslist killer, Jeff Dahmer, or Ted Bundy.

Daniel

 

[tellner]

Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.

That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.

 

[BLACK LION]

Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.

That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.

I disagree... Its seems this is what you want see and not what people are articulating.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.

Tellner, I just reread all seven pages of this thread and there is nowhere that I could find where anyone advocates murder and vigilante justice, either repeatedly or loudly.

I am not sure which posts that you are referring to, but I sure could not find them. There are a number that express hope and even predict that the pharmacist will get off, which he may. But each poster that sympathized with the pharmacist also said specifically that they do not advocate what he did. There are a few posts that straddle the line fairly closely, but none that outright advocate this.

That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.

That is an awfully big assumption. You assume that they will be attacked and will stop the threat and will go overboard and commit murder after the fact. That is a lot of variables. If they go through life and are never attacked, then none of the rest will even come into play. It has been a very long time since I have had to defend myself using physical force. Hopefully, I will never have to.

You also assume that they desire to commit murder. That is a fairly big leap. To be willing to and advocate using maximum force with the possibility of killing in defense of one's self is not the same thing as a desire to commit murder. Desire implies that they will seek out the opportunity.

Daniel

 

[sgtmac_46]

I guess it should be OK to murder abortion providers too. Since we're playing judge, jury, and executioner here. After all, the doctor got what he deserved, just like the robber in this story, right? It's not about obeying the law, it's about justice. Or are they somehow different?

So robbers are now legal abortion providers.......when you have to resort to the reductio ad absurdum you've lost the initiative.

By the way, reread my posts again until you actually understand them.......then get back with me......but spare me more of the same 'The sky is falling/The legal system is going to collapse' non-sense.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Bill, here's the difference:

People like ME (it doesn't matter who "ME" is) deserve understanding and mercy even if the blind stupid law doesn't agree.

People like THEM (it doesn't matter who "THEM" is) deserve the harshest possible treatment even if the blind stupid law doesn't allow it.

Actually we KNOW who 'Them' is, so you and Bill playing as if you don't is a bit of silliness......'THEM' are those who pick up a gun or knife with the intent to victimize, maim or kill others.......SOCIETY obviously knows who they are, even if you and Bill are blind to that.

Oh, and by the way.....he WILL be judged by the 'Blind Law' and acquitted.......apparently it's YOU who has a problem with 'The Law' and our system of Jury trials.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think it is a good analogy.

Both describe a person 'getting what they have coming to them' according to the beliefs of someone else, and ignoring what the law says.

When we decide to exact our own brand of justice on a person we consider a 'bad guy', there is no real difference between a robber whom we dispatch rather than let the law deal with them, and a late-term abortionist whom we dispatch rather than let God deal with him. It's all about dealing him the justice we feel he ought to be getting.

Same thing, pretty much.

It's not only a bad analogy, it's a bit disingenuous.........comparing a self-defense situation, where another man comes at you with a gun, with a terrorist act is asinine.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Um... no. Not the same thing. I am honestly surprised that you would even purport such a notion, as you seem to be an intelligent man.

He is an intelligent man......but he's been confronted with some arguments he can't deal with.......so in those situations folks revert to logical fallacies to attempt to regain the point.

Here's the problem he has........NOBODY is arguing that he did the right thing (which is the argument Bill and Tellner WANT to argue against!)......everyone is arguing that he did the WRONG thing, but that he doesn't deserve to go to prison for it.......and, in fact, it's the interest of anyone interested in self-defense that he GET convicted (now if you're interested in Robbery it's a different story) because that sets the bar for prosecution well above REASONABLE self-defense........so that someone engaging in reasonable self-defense need not remotely fear such prosecution.

Now, Bill and Tellner can continue to argue with the strawmen who are advocating doing what this guy did.......strawmen since noone in this conversation is actually making that argument.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I disagree... Its seems this is what you want see and not what people are articulating.

Strawmen......http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Exampe:

Bob: I think he did the wrong thing shooting that robber more times than he needed to, and should go to prison

John: I think he did the wrong thing, too......but I don't think he should go to prison for it......it was a tough situation to be in, and 1st Degree Murder seems pretty excessive.

Bob: So you support executing abortionists too, huh?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think it is a fine line, and in a couple of cases, that line exists only in theory.

I read statements which in effect say:

• I do not advocate murder, but the robber got what he deserved.
• I hope and believe the pharmacist will get off.
• This sends a message to all those who would rob a pharmacy.

All of these statements can be easily applied by fans of the abortion doctor shooter as well. All of them have to do with notions of rough justice that citizens can apply if they see a reason to do so.

I'm sorry, but "I don't agree with what he did but I'm glad he did it, and I hope he gets away with it" don't fill me with visions of law-abiding citizens who believe in the rule of law.

Strawmen are comfortable, aren't they?

It's a lot easier creating strawmen of my arguments than actually assailing my arguments, i'll give you that......I wouldn't want the task either.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Dan, the problem is that several people very specifically ARE advocating murder and "vigilante" justice. They've said so repeatedly and loudly. They are completely upfront and unashamed about it.

That means, of course, that they have a place in a country ruled by laws - behind bars when they turn their words into actions. Until then those of us who respect the Law tolerate them and their desire to commit murder because we do not punish people for what they think or what they are but for what they do.

What we have here is a man who feigns empathy for a robber......while strongly desiring that those he disagrees with end up behind bars......I think we have scratched the surface and witnessed something ugly.

The truth is that you and Bill have gotten yourself in to a losing argument......but ego prevails and now you and he have to come up with ABSURD points in order to regain some semblance of victory......specifically creating the strawman that EVERYONE here who disagrees with you is advocating murdering abortion providers and executing criminals, when nobody is making that argument but you and Bill.......get over it!


By the way, Tullner, in OUR society YOU don't get to decide who ends up behind bars.....YOU are not JUDGE, JURY and EXECUTIONER........a Jury of 12 people will decide this man's fate......and Acquit him........and I find it ironic that YOU will then declare that our system has failed......

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm through responding to silly strawman arguments driven by ego.......back to the original point, to hammer it home......

Jerome Ersland was confronted by armed robbers and allegedly exceeded his lawful authority to defend himself by firing more shots than he should have against one of the robbers.

If these allegations are true (sorry for a couple of you, we have to wait for a jury to decide ).....if these allegations are true

1) He was wrong to do so.
2) The Prosecutor is WRONG to charge him with 1st Degree murder

Two wrongs don't make a right in this case.

3) The jury should and WILL vote to acquit.

The justice system works.

Where in this equation is the advocacy for vigilante justice? First of all, Ersland is NOT a Vigilante.......he in no way, shape or form SOUGHT these robbers out.......they chose HIM! Unless someone has evidence he somehow baited these two clowns in.

By definition Ersland was a victim who was forced to defend himself, and allegedly in a matter of moments went beyond his legal authority to do so.

I always find it interesting when topics like this arise to see those who proclaim that the SKY WILL FALL and our justice system will fall apart IF someone like Ersland IS NOT convicted.......something they wouldn't make the same claim about for a common robber or murderer.....weird.

Bottom line.......our system is built around JURIES, and the Jury will acquit Ersland.........right, wrong or indifferent.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The truth is that you and Bill have gotten yourself in to a losing argument......but ego prevails and now you and he have to come up with ABSURD points in order to regain some semblance of victory......specifically creating the strawman that EVERYONE here who disagrees with you is advocating murdering abortion providers and executing criminals, when nobody is making that argument but you and Bill.......get over it!

I am not arguing that everyone who disagrees with me in this thread is advocating murdering abortion providers.

I compared the rationalization process that were used in both threads - that the person killed 'deserved it'. I did this as a point of reference to show that when we as citizens begin to decide what should be done to a criminal because 'they deserve it', we find ourselves in the same league with all those who make similar rationalizations.

It is pretty clear you're not comfortable with abstract concepts, so I'll drop this now. Hopefully a few people will understand my point.