I am not aware of any way to determine from an autopsy whether or not someone was conscious during a given time window, but, as Steve Rothstein explained, a pathologist could certainly determine whether or not the deceased was moving his torso during the time the fatal shots were fired by looking at the paths of the bullets through tissue to see if they traveled at the substantially the same angles (indicating no movement, since the video shows the pharmacist firing from a relatively stable position) or at significantly different angles (which would indicate torso movement between or during the shots). One could reasonably infer consciousness from evidence of movement, since an unconscious person would remain limp under those circumstances.SlowDave wrote:I guess I'll throw in on this as well.
1. For my own education, lessons learned include things already metioned:2. From a legal perspective for Mr. (?) Ersland:
- When the threat is over, call 911, don't keep shooting.
- Careful what you say to the police. Be even more careful what you say to the media.
- Don't think I'd have fired those follow-up shots there at the end.
One thing tough to keep in mind in these situations is that the justice system has to work the same way when it's for you as for when it's against you, so I don't want to go overboard and give this guy a complete free ride, 'cause if I ever walk into a store and some nutcase shoots me, I don't want him getting off because he says I was there to rob him, I'm carrying a (concealed) weapon, and heck, "I probably deserved it."
- Imagine if there was no video. There are no living eye-witnesses (as far as we know) and it would be Mr. Ersland's word against no one's (other than forensic evidence). If he said the guy was moving, and a gun was found on the guy at the scene, he'd be pretty much off the hook, IMHO. At the moment, the video does nothing to change that situation, as it provides no conclusive evidence as to whether the BG was moving or not at the time of the 2nd shooting event. (I'm not disagreeing that it shows Mr. Ersland in an unfavorable light, but no conclusive evidence.)
- How is that in all of these reports, it is never mentioned whether the BG on the floor was found to be armed or not? (Makes me think he was not, but...?) This is an absolutely critical factor in deciding the situation.
- If the guy was moving but not armed, would Mr. Ersland still be justified in firing the 2nd volley? I mean, even without seeing a gun, he doesn't KNOW the guy's not armed, and the (moving) bad guy could be preparing to come at him with a knife or baseball bat or some other unseen object. All a reach, but enough (IMHO) to not convict Mr. Ersland of murder.
- Hard for me to believe that an autopsy can determine whether a person was conscious or not for a period of time of about one minute in between a non-fatal and a fatal shooting. If they can prove "beyond a reasonable (not "shadow of a") doubt" that the BG was unconscious at the time of the 2nd shooting, then Mr. Ersland should prepare to wear stripes for a long time as that is murder. Not saying the BG wasn't responsible for his actions, just that it's not self-defense. That would be Mr. Ersland taking the position of judge, jury, and executioner, and that is not allowed in the USA. Even BG's have the right to a trial by jury, and that's a good thing if you ever find yourself wrongly charged.
I concur on the impressiveness of the civil discussion of this topic. Thanks everyone.
p.s. Hard to make out everyting in that video, but it sure looks like the shot Mr. Ersland fired from the end of the counter that dropped the BG was from a large revolver (e.g. The Judge) rather than a .380. Someone said that all the shots to the BG on the floor were with the .380 though. Am I mis-seeing something or what's up there? I can't tell whether he fired before that shot from the end of the counter, but that shot looks like the one that definitely dropped the BG.
One could also look at any exit wounds on the back of the deceased, the markings on the floor, and the location and condition of the bullets for evidence that the body was or was not in contact with the floor at the moment the bullet(s) exited (if they exited at all). An exit wound with no indication of bounceback, an impact mark on the floor, and the round found at some distance from the body would usually indicate that the body was not in contact with the floor at the time of bullet passage, once again providing an indication of movement and probable consciousness.
On the other hand, a bullet deformed in a way that indicates contact with the floor and found inside the wound cavity at the point of exit with a matching impact mark on the floor would tend to indicate that the body was in contact with the floor at the time the shot was fired. This would not preclude consciousness, but if all the wounds followed this pattern, the findings wouldn't support significant torso movement at the time the projectiles traversed the body.
If the rounds didn't exit (and with a .380 they very well may not have), the angles of travel would still provide lots of information to an experienced investigator.
