If he hadn't recorded the whole thing we could have enjoyed a 29 page thread about whether he was justified or not but NOooo, he had to bring a camera along.
Well, there are still a few guys on here defending Erslan. There's hope for at least a seven page thread.
Ersland is guilty. The jury has spoken.
They spoke with a mouth full of mush and white guilt. If you had done your research you'd know the truth you ignorant, bleeding heart Demoncrat.
Cant blame him ,that BOOM-BOOM crap is as bad as Country music, makes a man .........wanna jus Shoot Sumthin?
A suppressed sniper shot to the boom box would be fun.
The SYG law is not what the guy misunderstood. He did in fact have every legal right to stand in that street, and had no requirement to retreat if attacked. The part of the law he didn't get is the provision that a person cannot take advantage of the defense of self defense if he is the aggressor; and the requirement that he had to be reasonably in fear of death/SBI.
In any case, the fact that the shooter was an idjit does not reflect negatively on the law in any way, IMO.
In any case, the fact that the shooter was an idjit does not reflect negatively on the law in any way, IMO.
The fact that dumbass people do dumbass things and then hide behind stand your ground protections doesn't mean there's a problem with the concept of stand your ground or the laws based on that concept. It means that there's a problem with dumbass people.
Ersland convicted himself, and his attorney let him do it by allowing him to give all those statements to the press.
That's not to mention the fact that he clearly wasn't afraid of the would-be robber when he stepped over him to go back behind the counter and grab his other gun so he could drill him a couple more times.
Having said all that, the main problem with SYG isn't the law. It's the people who interpret it on a daily basis in an attempt to justify their bad behavior.
Bingo.
The other problem, and one that I hesitate to bring up here because I'm trying to stop stirring up sh1t all the time, is race-related. SYG hinges on the perception of LE responding at the scene. Any which way you slice it, a white dude shooting a black dude is far more likely to get off than a black dude shooting a white dude under the same circumstances. This isn't saying that cops are more racist than the general population, just that prevailing cultural attitudes are what they are.
In effect, that means that this law is enforced unevenly across the various races. That doesn't sit right with me. I am all for stand your ground laws in principle, but I have some reservations about the implementation. I would like it if someone drafted hard-and-fast criteria for "good shoot" and "further review," for example.
Similar threads
