Ersland petition..

[_CY_]

good point ... I've never shot a deer five more times after first shot, 30 seconds afterwards. but if I did betcha blood would gush out each hole. blood pressure alone only 30 seconds afterwards would cause blood to pool up at each hole.

I defer back to my original statement "it's impossible to determine time of death within 30 seconds"

seems Box didn't either was not allowed and/or didn't mount much of a defense for Ersland. if one reads blogs with minute by minute details of trails.... it comes out quickly the number of objections overruled by defense, but sustained for Prater.


someone correct me if I'm wrong... isn't Box 70 years old? don't think I'd allow someone 70 years old represent me with something this important.

before everyone starts bashing me for pointing out the obvious. someone that's 70 years old may not be sharp as he was at say age 50 in his prime. still mentally sharp, but with loads of experience.

didn't Box end up with ALL of Ersland's extensive gun collection?

this also demonstrates that heart was beating when you shot it

if you had followed up with 5 more shots and each of those wounds had a half pint of blood in them, what would that tell you about the status of the deer circulatory system prior to the 5 additional shots?

 

[HMFIC]

someone correct me if I'm wrong... isn't Box 70 years old? don't think I'd allow someone 70 years old represent me with something this important.

before everyone starts bashing me for pointing out the obvious. someone that's 70 years old may not be sharp as he was at say age 50 in his prime. still mentally sharp, but with loads of experience.

didn't Box end up with ALL of Ersland's extensive gun collection?

Yup, he's 70 and has a 31 year old wife who just happened to clerk for Judge Elliott last year also.

If I'm remembering correctly, yes Box did end up with Erslands guns but I don't know how many or value. I also don't know if we know the terms of that... they might have been used for payment, but I seem to remember there was a stink about it also because the judge either didn't have a chance to approve it or did and then regretted it or ???

I don't have any problem with Box being an effective attorney at 70, but he seems to be to just be a grandstander and not effective in general despite his length of experience.

 

[TerryMiller]

OK. Now that Ersland has been proven a nincompoop at best, others are coming out of the woodwork to prove themselves to be ninnies by signing this petition. I seriously doubt that any politician, including the governor, wants to run the risk of what will be said if they were to try to circumvent the jury system.

My guess is that anyone attempting that procedure would suffer mightily at the next election. Besides, Ersland is guilty, regardless of the beliefs of others.

So, lets move on to protecting ourselves from those most desirous of eliminating our desires of owning rifles and handguns. THOSE are the petitions that we need to be signing.

 

[doctorjj]

Since when is an individual justified in using deadly force against a potential threat? Everything and everybody is a potential threat. What was the kid going to do, throw a can of chili at Ersland?

Unarmed, shot in the head, bleeding on the floor = not a threat, unless you suspect the individual is wearing a suicide vest. I'm pretty sure that's not the case with most robbery suspects in OKC...yet.

So, I guess in your world I guy coming in to your house and pointing a gun at you is not justification for you shooting him, because at that point in time, he's only a potential threat. I mean, he hasn't actually shot at you or shot you. So the gun in his hand, waving it at you is just the potential for harm. Better wait for him to shoot you just to be safe.

 

[SMS]

So, I guess in your world I guy coming in to your house and pointing a gun at you is not justification for you shooting him, because at that point in time, he's only a potential threat. I mean, he hasn't actually shot at you or shot you. So the gun in his hand, waving it at you is just the potential for harm. Better wait for him to shoot you just to be safe.

No. In my world a guy pointing a gun at me is a real or perceived threat and a guy carrying a gun is a potential threat. If I shoot both of them the legal outcome will be dramatically different.

In this case the kid was not armed, not pointing a gun, and likely barely moving if moving at all. No threat. Real, potential or otherwise.

 

[inactive]

In this case the kid was not armed, not pointing a gun, and likely barely moving if moving at all. No threat. Real, potential or otherwise.

You forgot to mention "the kid was not armed, not pointing a gun, and likely barely moving if moving at all, and I left the premises." That is also a very important detail.

 

[doctorjj]

So you guys think that an untrained individual, in 30 seconds, should be able to determine that an individual that was part of an armed robbery, and is still moving on the floor, is no longer a threat?

 

[SMS]

So you guys think that an untrained individual, in 30 seconds, should be able to determine that an individual that was part of an armed robbery, and is still moving on the floor, is no longer a threat?

Yes....especially after he walks past him twice, turns his back on him, retrieves another gun, then walks up to him and shoots him at near point-blank range.

If it was safe enough to approach the wounded suspect, it was safe enough to NOT shoot him again.

(and if you carry a gun, you better not fall into the category of "untrained individual")

 

[doctorjj]

Yes....especially after he walks past him twice, turns his back on him, retrieves another gun, then walks up to him and shoots him at near point-blank range.

If it was safe enough to approach the wounded suspect, it was safe enough to NOT shoot him again.

(and if you carry a gun, you better not fall into the category of "untrained individual")

But that's not the law. The SDA "training" is woefully inadequate. I gues my take is if we are going to let basically untrained individuals run around with concealed guns (which I firmly believe we should) then there needs to be some discretion or perhaps some clarification of the laws regarding prosecution of those who were forced to protect themselves.
The alternatives are, take away people's right to carry a weapon, require training, or clarify and/or use discretion when applying current laws to otherwise law abiding, productive members of society. The laws are what we make them. There are those who want to ban all guns and there are those who think we should be able to use deadly force to protect property. Those views are not necessarily right or wrong but they are not in line with our current laws.

 

[OkieMoe]

My 2 cents...

Ersland for whatever reason went too far after he fired more than two shots at the thug.. One to drop.. two to make sure he would NOT be a threat..

At the most I would say 5 years in prison.. Life is a joke.. the DA is a joke.. and the jury is a joke leaned on by the DA..