The fake war hero issue is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the case at hand. The case is about whether or not Ersland committed murder in the first degree—and it’s about whether or not someone has a right (or even a duty) to defend oneself and others.
The facts of the case are these:
1. Two armed teenaged thugs entered a drugstore located in a high-crime area (note the burglar bars on the door in the video, for instance) that had been robbed many times before—employees were pistol-whipped in one of the robberies.
2. One employee (Ersland) pulls out his own gun and shoots one, chases the other.
3. He returns to the store and is seen shooting...something. From the video, it’s impossible to tell who or what he’s shooting, whether who or what he’s shooting is moving, or is reaching for another weapon (or even seems to be reaching for another weapon), or is lying there deader than a doornail. The video does NOT show this information. The prosecutors’ scenario was the only one presented. Other scenarios were possible, and even likely.
4. The other employees were huddled in the back (by their own stories) still fearing for their lives.
5. Ersland is arrested, and the left-wing, gun-hating, anti-self-defense media went into a frenzy.
6. The family of the posthumously sainted teenaged thug (”he was turning his life around!”) is now suing the pharmacy because their little rotter went in with a gun to threaten and rob the store and the employees, then got himself killed in the process. Some justice.
And finally, I’m reiterating the FACT that the video does not “show” what the media and the prosecutors (and some Freepers) say it does. The ONLY things it shows are Ersland’s actions. NOTHING is shown about what is happening on the floor. Anyone who says otherwise is just a common liar, or else is a complete idiot.
Take your red herring and put it....well, on a thread about fake war heroes. This thread is about something else entirely.
In this country, you should have the absolute right to gun down anyone who threatens your life with their own gun.
You should write for Oprah’s emotional audience, that post was not meant for a mature, thinking audience of people that know their way around gun carry and self defense.
Let's take a look at your so-called 'facts' shall we?
"1. Two armed teenaged thugs entered a drugstore located in a high-crime area (note the burglar bars on the door in the video, for instance) that had been robbed many times before—employees were pistol-whipped in one of the robberies."
Your 'facts' start out with a lie. Two teenaged thugs entered the pharmacy. Only one of them was armed. Even drugstores in low crime areas require burglar bars or equivalent security. It's a DEA mandate where RX's are maintained on premises. If you bring up previous instances in the store here as precedent, you can't dismiss the pharmacist's war stories as a 'red herring.' If previous robberies bore relevance to Ersland's actions in this case, his previous fabrications need to be taken into account by the jury in assessing his credibility.
"2. One employee (Ersland) pulls out his own gun and shoots one, chases the other.
He shot the unarmed one. Nobody, not even the prosecutor contests that he was wrong or that there was any issue at this point. Now you should add that not only did he 'chase' the other outside, but that while out there, he wildly pumped the remainder of his rounds into the residential neighborhood behind the store where he almost pegged a woman walking her kid. Don't believe me? Search on YouTube. There's a local news story from the very day of the shooting where they interview the woman.
"3. He returns to the store and is seen shooting...something. From the video, it’s impossible to tell who or what he’s shooting, whether who or what he’s shooting is moving, or is reaching for another weapon (or even seems to be reaching for another weapon), or is lying there deader than a doornail. The video does NOT show this information. The prosecutors’ scenario was the only one presented. Other scenarios were possible, and even likely."
How come your version of 'facts' seem to conveniently omit so much? Not only did he return to the store, he casually walked past where the first perp had fallen. Not ran mind you..just stepped oon by him, turned his back to him(!) for a somewhat extended period of time while he secured the second weapon. These are not the actions of a person who feels threatened or endangered. If you do turn your back to an immediate threat it's because you're trying to haul ass away from it. If he perceived such a threat from the time he re-entered the store, surely he would not have turned his back to him. If the perp 'came to' while he was securing the second weapon, Ersland would have spun around quickly, or at least snapped his head back to look. He didn't. You are correct in saying that the perp was out of sight. Just out of view of the camera. The fact that he is NOT seen only adds weight to the count that he didn't thrash about, try to get back on his feet, etc. The less you see of him, the more likely it is that he remained immobile and incapacitated. You say that the prosecutor's scenario was the only one presented. What was Ersland's council doing? Why didn't he advocate for his client? Surely he's not that dumb? Or perhaps it's because the evidence showed no other plausible scenario? Any head wound is going to produce copious bleeding, and I'd be willing to bet there are crime scene photos that show a nice round puddle under his head without any smears or splashes that would have been indicative of any movement.
4. The other employees were huddled in the back (by their own stories) still fearing for their lives."
they could not see what was happening, they heard the door buzzer when Ersland re-entered, then heard an additional five rounds being fired. Certainly they were in fear and Ersland did nothing to relieve their anxiety.
"5. Ersland is arrested, and the left-wing, gun-hating, anti-self-defense media went into a frenzy."
Had Ersland simply defended himself, the left-wing, gun-hating, anti-self defense media would have had to suck it up. Ersland's subsequent actions did more to reinforce all the negative caricatures of gun owners than the media could have ever hoped for. Had he secured his second weapon and hunkered down we would have been reading about the succesful use of a firearm in self defense, rather than the succesful prosecution of a murderer.
6. The family of the posthumously sainted teenaged thug (”he was turning his life around!”) is now suing the pharmacy because their little rotter went in with a gun to threaten and rob the store and the employees, then got himself killed in the process. Some justice.
Nobody here has posthumously sainted the teenager; even miserable human beings can be murdered. Again, he did not, "(go) in with a gun." He was unarmed. I'm fully willing to acknowledge that Ersland may have had no way of knowing that, but as long as we're dealing in facts, let's stick to them, ok? Certainly Ersland initially operated on the assumption he was armed, and even the prosecutor openly acknowledged that he was fully justified in the headshot. Nobody contests that.
" And finally, I’m reiterating the FACT that the video does not “show” what the media and the prosecutors (and some Freepers) say it does."
What have I said it shows that id doesn't?
"The ONLY things it shows are Ersland’s actions."
That was plenty for the jury.
"NOTHING is shown about what is happening on the floor."
Again, from the relative position of where the perp fell out of view of the camera, the fact that 'NOTHING is shown' is probably a pretty good indicator that NOTHING was happening on the floor.