SeriouslySearching,
I seem to have stirred things up a little. The point I feel most defensive about it the implication that I am "supporting" the Perp. At no point have I expressed any concern or sympathy for him (or his mother) except in so far as I believe he is the victim of a crime (while also being a perpetrater of a separate crime).
In Post #50, I argued that Ersland's behavior after he re-entered the store was not consistant with that of someone who was still dealing with a perp who continued to pose a threat to his person of property. His turning his back to the perp I find particularly telling. If you disagree and believe he was still activly dealing with a precieved threat to life and property in a Reasonable and Prudent manner, we disagree. Big deal, happens all the time on this board.
If you, or anyone else, agrees that Ersland did not see the perp as danger, but, for what ever reason, wanted to make sure he was dead and you applaud this action, then you are supporting murder.
My point is that I feel the only way society can deal with crime is through the rule of law and the application of the legal process. If the law doesn't protect a
armed robber, it really doesn't protect anyone. Plenty of lowlifes are crime victims (usually by other lowlifes) and the legal process protects them, as it is intended to. Occasionally a lowlife is victimized by anotherwise "upstanding" citizen. The law should still apply. Otherwise it is a travesty.
(Please spare the umbrage, I really don't think I said anything "very derogatory and unnecessary" I try to keep my post well within the bounds of polite discourse. I used a term that I thought expressed what I ment to say. It was not ment as offend anyone. I will not use it again )
