Was this self-defense?

[Anaries]

He could have easily made a "coup de grâce" had he wanted to. So execution was evidently not his intent.

Lol true! I hope none of us are sure one way or the other, as we weren’t there. It certainly didn’t look like it to me.

I think the point is establishing what people think is ok or not ok and breaking down the distance between right and wrong.

In this case if it were a home invasion, to steal, and it was covered under the Castle Doctrine, would we all be ok with the steps he took or do we think he should have just allowed them to steal?

Obviously it is up to a DA first and possibly a court/jury second but I figured this was the point of the thread?

 

[David Mary]

would we all be ok with the steps he took or do we think he should have just allowed them to steal?

Intentionally or not, this sets up (or merely continues) a false dichotomy. Which I will not fall into. I am still not okay with how he handled it, but I think he should have used non-lethal force first to attempt to subdue, and escalated as needed depending on the resistance he met. Because not only is that what the law prescribes, but also what I believe is morally right.

 

[Anaries]

Fair enough, I appreciate your stance. And thank you for clarifying.

When possible I to believe using the minimum amount of force necessary is best. But finding that is very difficult, particularly when afraid.

I am not certain the clerk didn’t in fact do this. It is so hard in the moment to use the ‘right’ amount of force if not trained.

 

[MolokaiRider]

He could have easily made a "coup de grâce" had he wanted to. So execution was evidently not his intent.



Well that's a question for the law makers then isn't it?

This feels like a cop-out.

We are all speculating from a distance on whether this action was self defense, which is to also define legality.

 

[MolokaiRider]

Intentionally or not, this sets up (or merely continues) a false dichotomy. Which I will not fall into. I am still not okay with how he handled it, but I think he should have used non-lethal force first to attempt to subdue, and escalated as needed depending on the resistance he met. Because not only is that what the law prescribes, but also what I believe is morally right.

So you expect a business owner to have levels of defensive capability, and the know-how on how to apply them?

Clerk had a knife laying around, possibly as a utility tool, and used it.

 

[David Mary]

This feels like a cop-out.

I don't see how.

We are all speculating from a distance on whether this action was self defense, which is to also define legality.

No, the question was posed, and answered. The act, taken in itself does not constitute lawful self defense, per the Nevada Statutes, as clearly explained by the lawyer in that video. Anyone who doesn't like that has an issue with how the law is already defined in said statutes.

 

[rje58]

No, the question was posed, and answered. The act, taken in itself does not constitute lawful self defense, per the Nevada Statutes, as clearly explained by the lawyer in that video. Anyone who doesn't like that has an issue with how the law is already defined in said statutes.

The law does not matter, if it's not enforced. Take immigration laws, as an example. If law enforcement and prosecutors decide to 'look the other way', then all of a sudden, there ain't no law. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing, in specific instances. In general, I think it is more bad than good.

 

[David Mary]

So you expect a business owner to have levels of defensive capability, and the know-how on how to apply them?

I expect when a person takes a risk he or she also takes steps to mitigate that risk. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I wear PPE when I grind knives. And I learned self defense and trained my body to be stronger and more injury resistant. Perhaps I am merely expressing the wish that others would do the same. Owning a shop runs the risk of being strong armed for your stuff. I would like it if shop owners took the time to learn how to defend themselves effectively and lawfully.

 

[David Mary]

The law does not matter, if it's not enforced. Take immigration laws, as an example. If law enforcement and prosecutors decide to 'look the other way', then all of a sudden, there ain't no law. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing, in specific instances. In general, I think it is more bad than good.

Yes, that's a real problem. It doesn't mean I am going to abandon the principles I believe in that law in itself is a good and necessary thing.

 

[Anaries]

Pretty sure it was lawfully as he hasn’t been charged or convicted, yet. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

But you can have an opinion of course

 

[David Mary]

Actually that was covered in the video. Police and prosecutors do not render an act "lawful" by exercising their discretion to not pursue charges. The statutes clearly describe what is an is not lawful, and the act as recorded on video is contrary to those statues. If he is not charged, he got what the lawyer called a "lucky break" but it's not something that you can or should count on.

 

[MolokaiRider]

I don't see how.



No, the question was posed, and answered. The act, taken in itself does not constitute lawful self defense, per the Nevada Statutes, as clearly explained by the lawyer in that video. Anyone who doesn't like that has an issue with how the law is already defined in said statutes.

Because you are not answering my question, but deflected to "the lawmakers".

What is the difference between an intrusion of your car or house, in comparison to a business, when people are present, to allow Castle Doctrine?

I expect when a person takes a risk he or she also takes steps to mitigate that risk. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I wear PPE when I grind knives. And I learned self defense and trained my body to be stronger and more injury resistant. Perhaps I am merely expressing the wish that others would do the same. Owning a shop runs the risk of being strong armed for your stuff. I would like it if shop owners took the time to learn how to defend themselves effectively and lawfully.

This is the mindset that I am completely in disagreement. Not everyone can be a ninja like you David.

A civil and lawful society, in theory, should not stand for the service industry to be victim to an incredibly high amount of violent crime. It is easy for me to deduct that laws are not always effective, or even enforced.

 

[Blade Lab]

I would say that the difference between a place of business and a home or personal vehicle is one's expectation of privacy. Anyone can't just walk in off the street into your home. If you have a family, they are going to be at risk in a home invasion as well.

As far as expectations for the clerk, we KNOW that he's been in these situations before, and on at least one occasion he was able to scare off the thieves by showing them the knife. I think that was the reasonable course of action in this case as well.

 

[David Mary]

Because you are not answering my question, but deflected to "the lawmakers".

Castle doctrine allows the use of force rather than having an obligation to first attempt to flee. I said I think he should have used force. So the question, if directed at me seems - forgive me - confused.

This is the mindset that I am completely in disagreement. Not everyone can be a ninja like you David.

The mindset I advocated was one of personal responsibility, proactiveness and preparedness. I have already said that I do not believe a person has to be an athlete or martial artist to be an effective self defender.

 

[MolokaiRider]

I would say that the difference between a place of business and a home or personal vehicle is one's expectation of privacy. Anyone can't just walk in off the street into your home. If you have a family, they are going to be at risk in a home invasion as well.

As far as expectations for the clerk, we KNOW that he's been in these situations before, and on at least one occasion he was able to scare off the thieves by showing them the knife. I think that was the reasonable course of action in this case as well.

So he already brandished in a prior attempt, but they still returned again.

It is illegal to rob a store. Perps attempted to prior and were deterred by clerk brandishing a knife. Perps return, and knowing the clerk had already warned them once, still jumped the counter with a mask and bag.

It is not a stretch to assume such brazen stupidity was re-enforced with the thought by the clerk they were also armed.

 

[Anaries]

Actually that was covered in the video. Police and prosecutors do not render an act "lawful" by exercising their discretion to not pursue charges. The statutes clearly describe what is an is not lawful, and the act as recorded on video is contrary to those statues. If he is not charged, he got what the lawyer called a "lucky break" but it's not something that you can or should count on.

The video? What have we done to verify the credentials? Laws are open to interpretation.

 

[MolokaiRider]

Castle doctrine allows the use of force rather than having an obligation to first attempt to flee. I said I think he should have used force. So the question, if directed at me seems - forgive me - confused.




The mindset I advocated was one of personal responsibility, proactiveness and preparedness. I have already said that I do not believe a person has to be an athlete or martial artist to be an effective self defender.

Why would anyone in a first world society have to be an effective self defender in a low pay service job?

If my 5'4" daughter gets a job at a gas station, you expect her to have defensive capabilities? Against three masked robbers?

What about Grandpa?

 

[SimplyMinded]

Why would anyone in a first world society have to be an effective self defender in a low pay service job?

If my 5'4" daughter gets a job at a gas station, you expect her to have defensive capabilities? Against three masked robbers?

What about Grandpa?

No, I'd expect here to have a bulletproof kiosk. Barring that I'd expect her to have a gun. Barring that, anything other than an "up close and personal" weapon like a knife. Pepper spray. Plus, anyone 5'4 should be looking to retreat the second a situation turns hostile. Would you advocate that your 5'4 daughter stand there and go toe to toe with three masked robbers? We can play the castle doctrine game all folks want but the fact is without a gun..3 on one is asking for a funeral- the clerks. The guy in the video got lucky. VERY lucky. Late at night, a road less trafficked, three robbers and a single clerk with a knife? Good luck with that.
If that stabbed guy would have bled out quick they'd be wanting revenge and they'd take it any way they had to. The clerk didn't hit a major artery but he was mighty damn close.
As to Grampa, we saw that one. Robber brought an AR, Gramps blew his arm off with the scattergun.
I'm starting to think this is just a thread so folks can argue so I'm out.

 

[David Mary]

Man we live in the real world so I think we should try to prepare for what happens in it.

 

[DocJD]

clearly explained by the lawyer

Lawyers are not ALL scumbags out to make money and /or gain power / influence out of the pain and suffering of others , but ...

Laws are not made by or for the benefit of the common people , nor are they applied "blindly" (equally ) to everyone .

Wealth , power , and influence are the ruling factors .