Oklahoma's self-defense law states that you can shoot if you perceive your life is being threatened, but once the threat is neutralized, you have to stop shooting. If you don't, you've committed a crime, and it doesn't matter if you're fed up, if you think criminals deserve it, or if you've been the victim of violent crime. That is, if you really do believe that you have to follow the strict construction of the law and you believe that empathy shouldn't play a part in adjudicating a case like this. If you are a strict constructionist, that means you support Mr. Ersland being punished if found guilty of breaking the law, yet I'm wondering how many who consider themselves "strict constructionists" and who rail against "activists judges," would take an activist view and say to hell with the law? Imagine he's found guilty and the judge, rather than following the letter of the law, suspends any jail sentence and let's Mr. Ersland go free? That would be applauded by the many conservatives in the Oklahoma newspaper threat who think Ersland did the right thing. Why? Because we're empathetic.

Very interesting ...