TexasCHLforum.com

We still need to wait for all the facts and the trial. He may have lied about his service but that has nothing to do with this shooting. Liars still have the right of self defense against armed robbers.

Locke wrote:We still need to wait for all the facts and the trial. He may have lied about his service but that has nothing to do with this shooting. Liars still have the right of self defense against armed robbers.

True, but people who are admitted liars have less credibility as witnesses. If Mr. Ersland testifies at his trial, his veracity will be questioned because of his false statements to the police. If a suspect lies about something that doesn't matter, would they lie about something that does? IANAL, but IMO, Mr. Ersland should use his right to remain silent.

WildBill wrote:If a suspect lies about something that doesn't matter, would they lie about something that does?

Not trying to pick a fight here, WildBill, but some of us take our service quite seriously and having someone lying about what they did (if, in fact he ever served) is a VERY big deal. It diminishes those of us who served honorably and well. Also, considering the time he claimed to have served, if he didn't serve (or lied about what he did to enhance his standing), it pretty much calls into question the whole of his character simply because we are talking about the fight against the Nazis & Japanese Empire. Those who failed to serve when called in that time were considered by many to be beneath contempt. To try and claim service that isn't rightfully yours, especially in those circumstances, tends to lessen the respect given to those who actually did what he claims.

I agree that it appears to not be directly relevant to the case, but it seems to me that it surely taints any claims he may make to any heroic action or moral certitude in shooting the goblin in his pharmacy. Consider it this way, how is "I was a PT boat captain during WWII" and "I had to shoot him 'cause he was trying to attack me" different except on a matter of scale if they are both lies?

I do, however, understand your point that if he is shown to be lying about his military service, how can we trust him on this shooting. As I say, not trying to pick a fight over it.


Sorry for the semi-hijack.

I agree that if he lied about his service its a big deal. According to the story above he was in the service but lied about where he served and his experiences in uniform. It is shameful that he did ths.

But let’s look at the situation again. Two armed robbers threatened him at his place of business. He wasn't looking for a fight. One they decided to take up armed robbery they put their lives in danger. Don't want to get shot? Don't take up armed robbery. I don't care who you are or who your victim is. If I was on the jury (good thing I'm not) I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. I still think he'll walk and should. I'm fine sending a message to the miscreants not to take up robbery.

Mithras61 wrote:

WildBill wrote:If a suspect lies about something that doesn't matter, would they lie about something that does?

Not trying to pick a fight here, WildBill, but some of us take our service quite seriously and having someone lying about what they did (if, in fact he ever served) is a VERY big deal. Sorry for the semi-hijack.

Whoa there Mithras61! I am talking about mattering as in pertinent to the investigation. That's the point, if he lies about something that they probably never even asked about, it brings his whole character into question.

Locke wrote:I agree that if he lied about his service its a big deal. According to the story above he was in the service but lied about where he served and his experiences in uniform. It is shameful that he did ths.

But let’s look at the situation again. Two armed robbers threatened him at his place of business. He wasn't looking for a fight. One they decided to take up armed robbery they put their lives in danger. Don't want to get shot? Don't take up armed robbery. I don't care who you are or who your victim is. If I was on the jury (good thing I'm not) I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. I still think he'll walk and should. I'm fine sending a message to the miscreants not to take up robbery.

I agree 100%

WildBill wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:

WildBill wrote:If a suspect lies about something that doesn't matter, would they lie about something that does?

Not trying to pick a fight here, WildBill, but some of us take our service quite seriously and having someone lying about what they did (if, in fact he ever served) is a VERY big deal. Sorry for the semi-hijack.

Whoa there Mithras61! I am talking about mattering as in pertinent to the investigation. That's the point, if he lies about something that they probably never even asked about, it brings his whole character into question.

I understand, and as I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just think it goes directly to the issue of character is all, and I was pretty sure you did also. I wanted to make clear that lying about your service or lack thereof is a huge deal to some of us. I don't know that it has any relevance, aside from possibly impeaching his testimony. I'm not suggesting that the pharmacist was right OR wrong, or that the goblin did or didn't deserve it. I'm only addressing the character of the pharmacist and what the possible lying about his service implies about him.

As to the comments about don't be a goblin if you don't want to get shot, there's something to that, but it still isn't legal to go around shooting people who aren't a threat at the time of the shooting.

Locke wrote:We still need to wait for all the facts and the trial. He may have lied about his service but that has nothing to do with this shooting. Liars still have the right of self defense against armed robbers.

Key word :)

WildBill wrote:

Locke wrote:We still need to wait for all the facts and the trial. He may have lied about his service but that has nothing to do with this shooting. Liars still have the right of self defense against armed robbers.

True, but people who are admitted liars have less credibility as witnesses. If Mr. Ersland testifies at his trial, his veracity will be questioned because of his false statements to the police. If a suspect lies about something that doesn't matter, would they lie about something that does? IANAL, but IMO, Mr. Ersland should use his right to remain silent.

A Bible verse comes to my mind:

"let he who is without (THIS) sin, cast the first stone"


I know I have lied in the past. I suspect there is none of us on this group who hasn't. He may or may not be guilty, but I am not going to hold him mis-representing his military service against him.

So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

Purplehood wrote:So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
JL

Purplehood wrote:So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

I believe he shouldn't be guilty of murder, but he should at least get a reprimand or some small charge for lying. He gave a false statement to the police I believe, I need to reread everything.

TexasComputerDude wrote:

Purplehood wrote:So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

I believe he shouldn't be guilty of murder, but he should at least get a reprimand or some small charge for lying. He gave a false statement to the police I believe, I need to reread everything.

From what I gather, he is not the brightest light in the room. Perhaps he was just spouting off nervously to the police and got carried-away with his "statements". He may not even remember just what he did say in the first place. In any event, the fact that he misrepresented his Military history has no bearing on the facts of the shooting itself.

TexasComputerDude wrote:

Purplehood wrote:So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

I believe he shouldn't be guilty of murder, but he should at least get a reprimand or some small charge for lying. He gave a false statement to the police I believe, I need to reread everything.

For the false statement to the police to be a crime, it must be relevant to the investigation. His prior military service is not, IMHO.

srothstein wrote:

TexasComputerDude wrote:

Purplehood wrote:So he is a liar that shot an armed-robber in self-defense.

Not guilty.

Next~!

I believe he shouldn't be guilty of murder, but he should at least get a reprimand or some small charge for lying. He gave a false statement to the police I believe, I need to reread everything.

For the false statement to the police to be a crime, it must be relevant to the investigation. His prior military service is not, IMHO.

I can't remember if he lied to the police about being grazed by a bullet or if it was just to the media. If it was just the media, hey give him a medal and call him a hero. I'll have to reread this sometime tonight if I get a chance.