TexasCHLforum.com

Some more thoughts, thanks to the article on page 6 of this (very engaging) discussion:

[District Attorney] Prater said that after researching the law, he found a charge that allowed those who didn't pull the trigger to also be charged with murder. "When a death occurs in (a) crime, you can pursue a murder charge," Prater said. "In this case, file felony murder charges in the first-degree against the two adults and the juvenile."

HGWC made a comment about this which I want to expand on. Since the other robbers are also charged with the murder of the one robber, whether or not the pharmacist is guilty could boil down to a legal technicality: did the 16 y.o. robber die during or after the robbery? Or asked another way, did he die as a result of the robbery or not? If he died during the robbery, then he was killed in self-defense, not murder (which makes the other perps guilty). Or, if he didn't die because of the robbery, then the pharmacist is guilty of murder (but the other perps are not guilty[?]).

This whole situation is reminding me of advice someone else gave in another thread: if you ever shoot in self-defense, as soon as you stop the threat call 911 immediately to not only report the incident, but also request emergency services for the attacker that you've just shot (assuming he's still alive). It paints you in a good light for the cops and the DA, but equally as important it also helps your own frame of mind...it keeps you from viewing the attacker as "human trash" that needs to be disposed of, a mindset that might cause to you to wind up in Mr. Ersland's shoes.

Something that just occurred to me from reading another thread is that many of us despise the idea of a judge ruling on a case out of "empathy," rather than the correct way, of blindly judging by the facts and the law. However, what many of us mean by this is that we don't want any empathy given for the perps (example: we're already theorizing, and bemoaning, headlines like "Teenager Has Life Cut Tragically Short"). But we're fine with empathy given to the pharmacist, by the jury. But justice has to be blind.

I really do feel terrible for all of this happening to Mr. Ersland. But ultimately, he made the decision to return to the perp and fire those additional five shots. Imagine for a second if Mr. Ersland had done this later in the day, when the perp was in the hospital from his head wound. Or a week later after the dude gets home from the hospital. Most of us would probably say that is pure murder, vigilante style. (If you don't, then well maybe that's another thread). So my question is: what's the difference between finishing him off at a later date, vs. finishing him off a minute after he's down?

what does he get out of the counter, just before he goes back and finishes the guy off??

Sorry guys, but I'm gonna have to cast my vote against the guy, at least from what I see so far. The first shot doesn't bother me, in fact it is quite impressive (tactically) given that he is already drawn upon by the other bad guy. But what bothers me is the way in which he delivers the second round of shots -- from a kneeling position, right next to the guy. To me, that removes the defense that those shots were fired due to an "imminent" threat. If he was being imminently threatened by the guy at that moment in time, it wouldn't make sense to get that close to him. Plus, the other bad guy (who was the one with the drawn gun) was long gone.

But I don't know whether or not that constitutes murder, because I know that legally there are many layers between self-defense and 1st degree murder, like manslaughter and what not.

Again, I hate to say anything bad against this guy, because clearly he's the main victim that was put in a bad situation by some real thugs. But I just can't support all his actions.