fiddletown: But under our legal system malicious intent is never justifiable.
Which is exactly my point...under certain circumstances, it should be.
fiddletown: So your comment here is nonsense.
I have my opinion. You have yours. Both are valid. If you don't understand what my point is...perhaps I've not communicated with clarity. I'll happily give it another attempt. In the meantime, please dispense with the gratuitous insults.
Part of the problem
with the law is that the working vocabulary is complex, semantics count, and there is a wide difference of opinion concerning what constitutes justice. It's why lawyers and judges are required simply to decipher the technicalities for juries.
Several posters have spelled out legal definitions without noting that, common as many concepts are across the USA, precise definitions vary from state to state. Several posters have launched semantic arguments, berating the laymen among us for our lack of a legal education. I'm no lawyer. But I have a fairly precise and pragmatic world view concerning justice.
In any event, we have what we have...imperfect as that criminal justice system may be.
My issue is with the idea that the defendant HAD to be charged with some degree of murder, manslaughter, etc. I say he did not and that society's values (as expressed under current law) are askew.
I knew Ersland was guilty of a felony the very first time I viewed the video. Of course he was. As the law is written in most states, how could there be any other plausible outcome short of a Grand Jury refusing to indict?
Several other posters have implied that anyone carrying a CCW weapon must demonstrate an impeccably high level of situational awareness, morality, and tactical acumen when involved in a life and death struggle. That perhaps they must exhibit the equivalent due diligence we might require of a POST certified LEO. Or that a person be able to perform to highly trained standards and react (as trained) under fire while making near instantaneous judgement calls.
It's an interesting theory, but one that falls on its face when bullets meet bone for the average gun owner whose day job is shopkeeper.
Fighting for your life is a profoundly individual experience. The circumstances and outcomes are not predictable. You do the best you can and hopefully live to tell about it.
It's easy to say what should have been done or hypothesize about what line you'd never cross when you've never actually been there. And if you
have been there...and had excellent preparatory training...and did everything RIGHT...and survived...you will come to realize that you were also simply lucky.
Even if he's a lying crank who had no business with a weapon, Ersland did society a service. For that, in my book, he gets a pass.
The law should reflect that grim reality and sanction such a killing. It doesn't.
YMMV.
