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.
First, for the record, I never said "you" said anything. My post was written to someone else. If you are going to argue, at least make a valid point. Now, on to some of your other "points."
1. Lie? A bit of hyperbole, perhaps? I used a simple figure of speech, actually. They both entered, one was most assuredly armed, the other was most assuredly his accomplice.
2. Please re-read my post. Carefully. I did not say anything other than that one was shot, the other chased.
3. Omit? I gave the important fact: he returned and shot the one on the floor. On the other hand, what you say are "facts" are theories of yours (and the prosecution) about whether or not he felt threatened. YOU do not know WHAT he felt, unless you're secretly Miss Cleo.
4. By their own stories, it was not Ersland they feared. In an interview on the news last night, one of them called Ersland a hero, and said she feels he saved their lives.
5. Coulda shoulda woulda. No one can tell what they would do in a situation like this. He did what he did. A bad kid is dead.
6. No one has sainted the little twerp? Well, you haven't seen the interviews with his mother and some of her supporters. "He was a wonderful boy." "He was turning his life around" (whilst robbing drug stores, apparently) and on and on. And I will allow this correction of yours: He did not go in with a gun. He went in with someone armed with a gun, apparently prepared to harm someone if what they demanded was not produced. He was just as guilty as the little thug with the gun.