-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Murder?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I agree with Arbo. The first shot was defensive, even if the kid wasn't armed. (though why shoot first at the unarmed one?? poor shot, or poor judgement?)
The last 4 shots condemn him. Why? A second shot might have been justified if he still felt threatened, but 5 from a .380 leaves little doubt he intended to kill the kid rather than turn him over to the law.
The last 4 shots condemn him. Why? A second shot might have been justified if he still felt threatened, but 5 from a .380 leaves little doubt he intended to kill the kid rather than turn him over to the law.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
The article in the Huffington Post begins:
The case of a white Oklahoma merchant recently convicted of killing a black teenager attempting to rob his store has sparked a national debate.
Why should the colour of skin, either of the merchant, or of the teednager, make any difference?
100 shots are justified. If an armed robber comes into my place of business or my home, I will shoot until I am sure he/she is dead. Don't want to die? Don't be an armed robber.
It has nothing to do with it, except for the US media trying to gain sympathy against the shooter.
I fear that Black and White does matter in many areas of the world to-day, even in East London, where population has changed so drastically that we couldn't buy chippies because of the change. The Indian, Pakistani, African and Jamaican population has taken over the marketplace. Cockney Rhyme has a new accent!
Cheers,
Jim
Cheers,
Jim
How much of a threat could an unarmed teenager with a bullet in his head be that required 4 more rounds?
I would not have found this man guilty of murder, certainly, but it was definitely a case of an over-board vigilante shooting. And this guy is dead wrong. That is not what the Second Amendment is all about. Once the unarmed guy was down with a bullet in his head, the pharmacist should have called the police.
I'd have to hear more before I could decide if he should be charged with anything.
And David, the white/black thing? It's all about race-mongering. The press is quite good at it.
I would not have found this man guilty of murder, certainly, but it was definitely a case of an over-board vigilante shooting. And this guy is dead wrong. That is not what the Second Amendment is all about. Once the unarmed guy was down with a bullet in his head, the pharmacist should have called the police.
I'd have to hear more before I could decide if he should be charged with anything.
And David, the white/black thing? It's all about race-mongering. The press is quite good at it.
He was doing armed robberies. He was a threat to society. Jerome Ersland did us all a favor and kept this scumbag from robbing anyone else and keeping the scumbag from committing another crime.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I'm sorry, if it takes you 100 rounds to drop a teenage boy from threat to dead, you need to get some shooting lessons! (or a better gun)
The boy was down. He had a bullet in his head. *IF* he was still alive he was hardly a threat that required 5 more bullets from a SECOND gun to stop.
It doesn't matter what race either party was. That is just the media trying to keep race issues stirred up when we ought to be past them. The news needs to quit identifying race in their reporting. The words "teenager with a gun" and "business owner with two" are sensational enough!
But, Matt, according to the Bible and according to American law, stopping this man from committing more robberies and protecting the American people was not in Jerome Ersland's authority.
He's justified in the first shot - morally and legally. And had the man had a gun in his hand and was still trying to shoot it, even from lying on the floor, Ersland would have been justified to shoot again. But once the unarmed man was down with a bullet in the head - Jerome Ersland did not have a right to become the judge and juror and executioner of the robber - giving him the death penalty and protecting society from future crimes.
The Bible clearly distinguishes justice and revenge. It gives a layout for the concept of rulers, judges, and authorities over the wicked. And Amercian law does not give single individuals the right to do what Ersland did.
I own a gun, myself. I would shoot someone without hesitation who was in my home giving the impression that he might harm me or my home. And I would continue to shoot until he was down. But once he was down - I would run like the wind to my neighbor's house and call the police. I wouldn't execute him. Just because he invaded my home does not make me his judge, juror, and executioner.
Last edited:
Crucified in Christ
New Member
Anyone who has had firearms training will agree with what you have typed in this post. One is taught to fire in a sufficient way to drop the assailant and to keep firing so long as the assailant is a threat. To have chased the other robber out of the store (walking right by the downed assailant twice), then returning in order to switch weapons as to finish the guy off is certainly not legal. Every firearms instructor in the country will tell you that this would definitely bring charges. To shoot an unarmed man who is not currently a threat is at the least manslaughter. It is not justified legally, morally, or Biblically. Thank you for your wisdom Scarlett.
I'd need more info than the source provides to give an opinion.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Jim, I don't doubt that population-mix (as far as skin colour is concerned) has changed in many places over the years. When I was at teacher training college in Birmingham, my first teaching practice was at a school in handsworth, and there were more dark-skinned pupils in front of me than white.
What I meant in my earlier post, though, was that I could not understand (and still cannot) why the fact that the merchant's skin was white, and the teenager's skin black should make any difference to the question, "Was it murder?" (Or to whether or not the teenager was guilty of robbery, come to that.)
Suppose they had both been white, both been black, or the teenager white and the merchant black. So what? Whatever his skin colour, if the teenager committed robbery, he was guilty of it.
The same with the more complex question of whether the merchant really committed murder. If he did, then he's guilty, no matter what colour his skin might be, or that of the teenager.
After watching the video and finding this...
I believe a verdict of guilty would be possible.
But there may be a reasonable doubt in that we can't see into Ersland's mind and determine if such movements by the wounded man might have surprised and frightened him.
I will say this. Ersland's movements on the video seem very deliberate and not fearful.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
While I don't know all the evidence, from what I know my initial reaction is he's not guilty of first-degree murder, but is guilty of a lesser included offense.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
Second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.