Casey Anthony walks... This guy gets life in prison...

[GarMan]

I hope you are trying to be an butthole.  Kaos is being an butthole.  Kaos' assholing is funny.  At least to me it is.  I'm not so sure you are, but I hope you are.  Because if you are really trying to argue a point here? You're getting your ass handed to you.

Let me try this again...
My original concern still stands.  If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react?  Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me.  I've been in my share of confrontations.  The fear...  The rage...  The concern...  If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder.  That's human nature.  I don't want to murder anyone.  I'm not planning to kill anyone.  I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation.  Does that help? 

A legal debate on the topic is pointless if we don't dig into the facts.  More mindless speculation based on a 45 second video clip.  And, we don't see everything or learn all of the facts from that video. 

So, if you're willing to share your opinion based on my lead-in, I'd really appreciate it.  That's it. 

[JR4AU]

Let me try this again...
My original concern still stands.  If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react?  Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me.  I've been in my share of confrontations.  The fear...  The rage...  The concern...  If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder.  That's human nature.  I don't want to murder anyone.  I'm not planning to kill anyone.  I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation.  Does that help? 

A legal debate on the topic is pointless if we don't dig into the facts.  More mindless speculation based on a 45 second video clip.  And, we don't see everything or learn all of the facts from that video. 

So, if you're willing to share your opinion based on my lead-in, I'd really appreciate it.  That's it.

Your questions and concerns are a mix of human nature and legal.  If you perceive a threat, it better be based on something you can articulate, and that isn't contradicted by the evidence.   If there is no gun visible (because there isn't one), and the evidence suggests the person you shoot is supine and motionless...you're going to have a hard time getting someone to believe your fear and concern, and they're probably going to latch on to your "rage" (your words) instead. 

[GarMan]

Some things that worked against Jerome's self defense argument:

The kid on the floor was unarmed.  His accomplice was, and the first shots were legal.  Hard to argue your "he was still a threat".  But yeah, he didn't know he wasn't armed, so that's not huge, but a factor. 

Forensic evidence indicates the kid never moved after hitting the floor.  Head wounds tend to bleed profusely.  It was pooled where he fell, and the Pathologist said he didn't move when shot again, tending to indicate he wasn't conscience. 

Most people who are conscience tend to react to a gun being pointed at them, and fired from what GSR evidence said was 18-24 inches from the kid's chest.  The bullet wounds were tightly grouped.  The Human Nature I know says you don't walk up within 2 feet of something you feel is a threat.

He tried to tell police the robbers fired.  Not a big deal in and of itself, but they found no evidence, ie spent casings, bullet holes.  Ersland's own personal physician and friend testified against him, claiming he tried several times to get her to change his medical records to reflect a bullet wound.   They needed not fire on him to allow him to fire at them, but he got caught lying.  Months after the robbery he tried to pass off a .22 shell casing as being found under a book rack in the store. 

He apparently lied about his military record, trying to bolster his "I knew what I was doing, I was clear headed" defense....said he'd been in combat in the desert, but his military record said different. 

Jurors said they were satisfied the prosecution proved the kid wasn't moving when he was shot again 5 times.  They didn't rely on just the video.

Human nature that I'm familiar with nets you a conviction under such circumstances.   I'm certain I could read "human nature" enough to seat 12 jurors and get a conviction on those facts. 

Those are all great points, definitely more of a basis for assessing this as a murder than a 45 second video...  I still cannot say that I'm completely convinced, but it provides further insight. 

And GarMan, what the eff makes you and kind of expert on human nature or behavioral psychology?

I never suggested that I was, which is why I'm looking for other perspectives, not just some legal assessment of the judgement.  Again, I was never expecting this legal debate. 

[JR4AU]

Those are all great points, definitely more of a basis for assessing this as a murder than a 45 second video...  I still cannot say that I'm completely convinced, but it provides further insight. 
I never suggested that I was, which is why I'm looking for other perspectives, not just some legal assessment of the judgement.  Again, I was never expecting this legal debate.

Fair enough.  Kumbaya?

[GarMan]

Your questions and concerns are a mix of human nature and legal.  If you perceive a threat, it better be based on something you can articulate, and that isn't contradicted by the evidence.   If there is no gun visible (because there isn't one), and the evidence suggests the person you shoot is supine and motionless...you're going to have a hard time getting someone to believe your fear and concern, and they're probably going to latch on to your "rage" (your words) instead.

Now, this is exactly what I was hoping to read.  You're right.  The "rage" part of it is a risk, but I've been there.  I'm not a trained professional, and I would be inclined to do something more.  Would I really be expected to be of sound, rational reasoning in the heat of a situation that I was thrust into against my will?  That concerns me.  Yes, we all need to keep our "cool", but what is reasonable in an armed conflict?

[GarMan]

Fair enough.  Kumbaya?

Only with lots of tongue action...  I like that.

[JR4AU]

Only with lots of tongue action...  I like that.

Sani told me that.

[GarMan]

Sani told me that.

He can toss a salad.  I not gonna lie. 

[Saniflush]

He can toss a salad.  I not gonna lie.

They make you do that in county.

[GarMan]

They make you do that in county.

You gonna do that for a stranger?

[Saniflush]

You gonna do that for a stranger?

Well you become friends pretty quickly.

[Vandy Vol]

You're phucking goofy...  Whether it be culture, morals, religion or whatever, not everyone reacts the same way in certain situations.  I couldn't disagree more with your assessment.

No, they don't.  But most people simply don't turn their back to someone who they view as a threat.  If you're scared of someone, you don't turn your back or give him time to attack you while you go get a gun when you already have a perfectly good one in your hands.

But, let's just assume that this guy isn't like 99% of people who don't ignore something of which they're allegedly shitting their pants over.  Unfortunately, the law is based on a reasonable person standard.

So, I can't tell the jury, "Sorry guys, I was really scared shitless of that 90 year old wheelchair bound lady who was screaming for help, so I shot her."  Nor can I be blitzed out of my mind on drugs and try to explain to the judge, "Look man, you don't know how everyone reacts; whether I was on LSD or not, I personally thought that this five year old was aiming a cannon at me."

Those are obviously hyperboles, but my point is that the manner in which he acted was unreasonable.  A person lying on the floor who's been shot in the head and isn't moving does not, to a reasonable person, pose an immediate threat to you.  That is made even more clear when you see a video in which the man has the time and ability to turn his back to the "threat," walk away from him, come back, walk right past him, get a second gun, walk right up to the guy within reaching distance, and then shoot him five times.

Sure, maybe the guy was scared shitless and thought he was in danger, but you don't get off on self defense just because you claim to have been scared.  The law uses a reasonable person standard so that we don't set free ticking time bombs in the form of over reactive gun slingers who think that someone's a danger to them just because they asked them for change.

[GarMan]

No, they don't.  But most people simply don't turn their back to someone who they view as a threat.  If you're scared of someone, you don't turn your back or give him time to attack you while you go get a gun when you already have a perfectly good one in your hands.

But, let's just assume that this guy isn't like 99% of people who don't ignore something of which they're allegedly poopting their pants over.  Unfortunately, the law is based on a reasonable person standard.

So, I can't tell the jury, "Sorry guys, I was really scared poopless of that 90 year old wheelchair bound lady who was screaming for help, so I shot her."  Nor can I be blitzed out of my mind on drugs and try to explain to the judge, "Look man, you don't know how everyone reacts; whether I was on LSD or not, I personally thought that this five year old was aiming a cannon at me."

Those are obviously hyperboles, but my point is that the manner in which he acted was unreasonable.  A person lying on the floor who's been shot in the head and isn't moving does not, to a reasonable person, pose an immediate threat to you.  That is made even more clear when you see a video in which the man has the time and ability to turn his back to the "threat," walk away from him, come back, walk right past him, get a second gun, walk right up to the guy within reaching distance, and then shoot him five times.

Sure, maybe the guy was scared poopless and thought he was in danger, but you don't get off on self defense just because you claim to have been scared.  The law uses a reasonable person standard so that we don't set free ticking time bombs in the form of over reactive gun slingers who think that someone's a danger to them just because they asked them for change. 

I'm done with this mindless drivel.  Go rant to yourself in the mirror or something...

[Vandy Vol]

I'm done with this mindless drivel.  Go rant to yourself in the mirror or something...

Fixed.

[GarMan]

Fixed.

Oh come on, HotLips.  Don't get your pantsuit all wrinkled.  You jibber-jabbered about LSD, 90 year olds, hyperboles and other pointless nonsense, when a 2-3 sentence response clarifying the reasonable person standard would have been adequate. 

[Vandy Vol]

Oh come on, HotLips.  Don't get your pantsuit all wrinkled.  You jibber-jabbered about LSD, 90 year olds, hyperboles and other pointless nonsense, when a 2-3 sentence response clarifying the reasonable person standard would have been adequate.

I babble on in hopes that it makes you want to skip the small talk and get to teh man sexorz more quickly.