Ersland wasn't the only witness, camera's from various angles gives us many clues. Forensics also play their part. There were also 2 other employess as well. Concerning the rational that "he could have been going for an unseen gun" isn't a defense under the Castle Doctrine. Parker would have to first present a weapon. You are compelled by law and do have a duty to retreat once a threat ends. You don't get to continue to act or reinitiate contact or become the assaulter. Once the threat is ended, self-defense is over. Just think for a minute if every citizen who had a weapon acted on a perceived threat. If in the end the person you acted on, didn't actually have a weapon, you would also be charged with murder. A private citizen’s ability to use deadly force is much more restricted. Using a hypothetical threat is not "reasonable." Secondly, Ersland had no right to pursue the 14 year old armed suspect, under the law police are authorized to use whatever force is necessary. Police have the power to pursue a suspect, Civilians don’t. Ersland's testimony, so far as I have seen, doesn't lend to accuracy, but again, that's my opinion.
"Detectives openly attest that Ersland lied to them about the facts in this case." This is the first I've heard on this. Can you provide a link?http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432
Again, the only witness says the perp on the ground was moving.
Well, again I state the Ersland isn't the only witness, but for the sake of your position, let's use his own testimony. Ersland states that Parker was "dazed." It would be a "reasonable" assumption that someone who is "dazed", especially if that person was bleeding out on the floor from their head, doesn't pose any imminent threat to your life. Parker would have had to reengage Ersland to justify deadly force again. No where in the Castle Defense does it provide you the right to continue to use dealy force on a subdued, incapacitated, disabled or cooperative suspect. In fact, it's the one thing that is able to remove your ability to claim a Castle Defense. It opens you up to, not only civil, but criminal prosecution. "He was moving" is not a "reasonable" defense. Parker would have to provide force upon Ersland, for Ersland to once again be justified to use deadly force. Ersland want's to state he's crippled as a justification for using deadly force the second time, but the "other witness," the camera, shows Ersland running through his pharmacy. If that is test for "crippled" or better said, disabled, where does that leave Parker under the same definition? It's my opinion that "reasonable" thought would preclude Parker with a brain injury, flat on his back on the floor poses no imminent threat whatsoever. That same "other witness," the camera, never shows Parker ever getting up.
"This entire matter certainly proves that not every person who legally owns a deadly weapon should actually possess one." Nice try. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves that armed criminals should fear for their lives when attempting an illegal act. That's a good thing.
It's my opinion that it does. People who show no restraint or exercise poor judgment don't need to be running loose deadly weapons. You know what I'm saying is true. Now, is that to say that I'm not an advocate for gun ownership? Not at all! Am I saying people with poor judgment shouldn't have one? Absolutely!
Dr. Ersland wasn't just walking through the mall when he started shooting random people. He'd just been faced with an armed gunman in a ski mask. Now the companion of the gunman was on the floor moving, perhaps even talking to Dr. Ersland. This is far from a hypothetical threat. Dr. Ersland's life had just been substantially threatened.
It would be a "reasonable" assumption that someone who is "dazed", especially if that person was bleeding out on the floor from their head, doesn't pose any imminent threat to your life.
I've heard no evidence that the downed criminal was bleeding out. You seem to use a lot of colorful language to describe the condition of the criminal. He wasn't mortally wounded and fully capable of being a threat.
I interpret "dazed" differently. The criminal was likely surprised or taken aback that plans had gone awry.
"He was moving" is not a "reasonable" defense.
A ski mask wearing criminal who just attempted to rob you at gunpoint moving on the floor is most definitely a threat.
It's my opinion that "reasonable" thought would preclude Parker with a brain injury, flat on his back on the floor poses no imminent threat whatsoever. That same "other witness," the camera, never shows Parker ever getting up.
You are correct, the criminal is out of the view of the camera.
You know what I'm saying is true.
It's never wise to assume other people share your delusions.