1. I didn't claim he was "incapacitated." I said he presented no threat. The testimony indicates that he was making no aggressive moves at the time Ersland returnd to kill him.

2. If he had a weapon, but it wasn't in his hand, then someone holding him at gunpoint could obviously easily deal with any attempt to produce and employ one. Furthermore, if he had a weapon, for some reason he didn't produce it while attempting the robbery, or after being wounded and then approached by the still-armed person who had just shot him. If he had a weapon and were actually capable of producing it, don't you think he just might have done so right about then?

3. The video rather clearly shows otherwise.

4. Wow...your worst strawman yet. "Innocent victim?" Feel free to point out where I said (or even implied) anything of the sort, or shut the fuck up. I have no patience with debating people who stupidly (or dishonestly) misrepresent my statements.

5. Yet another strawman. Where did I say anything about premeditation? R.I.F.

I already stated elsewhere in the thread that I don't consider the murder to be premeditated. You are aware that premeditation is only a condition of murder in the first degree, right?

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation...