Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DocJD said:
A small one man operation , business place should be understood to be more like a private dwelling than some mega-corp warehouse chain .

The owner has to pay for everything in it and all taxes , utilities , rent etc .

Most similar are heavily in debt to even get started .

This is his life ...his hope for future . He owns, or OWES, for everything in the store .

Invading this space with hostile intent is a very serious trespass , whether or not the local laws recognize the fact .

"Natural Law" is that you defend what you need to live ...or you die .
Click to expand...

What about people who can't defend themselves? The old. The weak. The poor.
 
Thank you for quoting him, yes, but it was too much to reply to from the shop on my old phone.

D DocJD you said "defend what you need to live, or you die..." okay but if they had fled, he would have had hardship to overcome the financial loss, but that is not death.
 
David Mary said:
Thank you for quoting him, yes, but it was too much to reply to from the shop on my old phone.

D DocJD you said "defend what you need to live, or you die..." okay but if they had fled, he would have had hardship to overcome the financial loss, but that is not death.
Click to expand...

It is a conformation bias. We look for ways knives make us more powerful and then create reasons for those ways to be just.
 
David Mary said:
Thank you for quoting him, yes, but it was too much to reply to from the shop on my old phone.

D DocJD you said "defend what you need to live, or you die..." okay but if they had fled, he would have had hardship to overcome the financial loss, but that is not death.
Click to expand...
Open a small shop with your own money and everything your can beg and borrow .

Stand aside as punks empty your store , repeatedly . Why should they stop ? The authorities either can't or won't do anything .

Till it's all gone . You are ruined .

You can't even have a "going out of business" sale ...all gone .

This is the road to a living death . Money gone , credit ruined , anybody you borrowed from PO'd , no pride or self-respect , no prospects for the future because your nerve and hope is gone .

The punk gang, by contrast, is happy as sheet and has moved on to feed upon other defenseless prey as is only simple justice . 😒
 
Drop bear said:
What about people who can't defend themselves? The old. The weak. The poor.
Click to expand...
Why do think they are so often victimized ?

Not sure what your question means .

Society may or may not provide for and protect those that cannot for themselves .

It's not been doing such a great job , and it's likely to get a whole lot worse .
 
Last edited:
Drop bear said:
Technically none. But I don't want bouncers for example, knifing people.
Click to expand...
I agree, technically there is not a huge difference.

In regards to bouncers, they are specifically hired for the purpose of security and to deal with aggressive behavior.

And thank you for quoting me, I appreciate that. Makes for a much more fluid conversation.
 
Blade Lab said:
First, you can't make a case that the Castle Doctrine applied, because it only applies to homes and autos in Nevada.

This isn't going to fly. The clerk was the aggressor for starters....

And this won't fly either, because the dude went Freddie Kruger on him, stabbing him seven times.

And this is the biggest problem, because the clerk was inarguably the aggressor. The robbers didn't attack him.
Click to expand...
From a little bit of Google-Fu, it is possible to find cases where Castle Doctrine can be applied to an office or business. Personally, I think it should be allowed, but that's just my opinion, as I don't see much difference in home, auto, or business. This will be up to the defense attorney to see if it's worth pursuing.

Most courts classify robbery as a violent crime, even when no weapons are present, and no one gets hurt.

The perps are the initial aggressors. The fact that they knowingly were breaking the law means they must have some basic level human instinct that they may get hurt.

The amount of times stabbed may be a factor that will go against the clerk, but it's possible it may be dismissed as he stopped as soon as the masked robber was neutralized.
 
Carboniferous said:
"Oh I didn't end up killing the person I intended to kill so your analogy to execution is totally off base" I don't think works. The precedent is set for execution if there is absolutely no crime committed by the clerk. If stabbing is justified then so is a shotgun.

Ambushes are not Hollywood/video game stuff. They're very important to self-defense. If someone has a weapon you generally don't want to attack them while they're looking at you/paying attention to unless you have to. That's all an ambush is.
Click to expand...
You are two for two on This one!

There definitely Was an ambush..... 3 against one. Definitely.

And you are right again, since a knife was acceptable, a shotgun would be good too. He could of been shot 6 times.

Thanks for bringing this up
 
Blade Lab said:
First, you can't make a case that the Castle Doctrine applied, because it only applies to homes and autos in Nevada.

This isn't going to fly. The clerk was the aggressor for starters....

And this won't fly either, because the dude went Freddie Kruger on him, stabbing him seven times.

And this is the biggest problem, because the clerk was inarguably the aggressor. The robbers didn't attack him.
Click to expand...
I can and I did.

"While Las Vegas Metropolitan Police haven’t confirmed whether or not the would-be robbers were armed, attorney Thomas Boley says you can’t assume the store owner knew that.
“What’s key in this case is the distance between the two people. You’ve got this clerk, and this guy is coming at him, you know he could, depending on the rest of the facts, theoretically fear for his safety,” said Boley.

Boley says, however, that theft in and of itself isn’t something you can defend with lethal force under Nevada’s version of the “stand your ground” law which creates a gray area for businesses."
Linked in entirety Here

The clerk wasn't the aggressor he was the victim, ffs. His attention was split, he was surrounded, his space invaded. He took action, the best action? Maybe. He is alive.

I don't think you know the definition of inarguably...

Masked robbers are attackers!


Carboniferous said:
Isn't the argument that simply having multiple people robbing the store and being in a restricted area is *generally* a dangerous enough situation that it warranted lethal force? That he didn't have to actually wait for the immediate threat? Because there was clearly no immediate threat. The clerk took the chance he had while neither guy was looking at him, specifically when he *wasn't* in immediate danger. Which was the right move if he wanted to avoid an immediate threat. How was there more than a general, potential threat? Isn't the point of the people saying it was entirely justified that a general, potential threat is enough when it's a robbery and there are multiple people in the restricted space? If that's an unfair characterization of the opposing view then I'd like to be corrected. The arguments about the clerk being so distressed and full of adrenaline that nobody can judge him for his actions in this situation...I don't know how to respond to those, but the rest of it at least makes sense to me as moral/ethical arguments (but not legal ones).
Click to expand...
You can not know or PROVE what was in his mind. IF he was afraid for his life, it was legal. The area invaded goes to personal security.
 
Anaries said:
You can not know or PROVE what was in his mind. IF he was afraid for his life, it was legal. The area invaded goes to personal security.
Click to expand...

Are you a lawyer? Well the lawyer in the video that you dismiss his argument without hearing: yeah he explained how this is wrong.
 
David Mary said:
Are you a lawyer? Well the lawyer in the video that you dismiss his argument without hearing: yeah he explained how this is wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not but I do read and interpret state, county and local code daily. I did listen I didn’t agree.

I also just posted another attorney’s opinion.
 
It doesn't matter what was in his mind. The law considers what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. It's an objective standard, not a subjective one.
 
Blade Lab said:
It doesn't matter what was in his mind. The law considers what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. It's an objective standard, not a subjective one.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. Did you read the other attorney’s opinion?

"While Las Vegas Metropolitan Police haven’t confirmed whether or not the would-be robbers were armed, attorney Thomas Boley says you can’t assume the store owner knew that.
“What’s key in this case is the distance between the two people. You’ve got this clerk, and this guy is coming at him, you know he could, depending on the rest of the facts, theoretically fear for his safety,” said Boley.”
 
"Boley says, however, that theft in and of itself isn’t something you can defend with lethal force under Nevada’s version of the “stand your ground"
 
And theft is all that happened. The "attack" was only ever speculative/theoretical. No force was actually used against the clerk on video. That is a fact.
 
The other lawyer explained that the Nevada statute specifically excludes "bare fear" from being a reason to use lethal force. The link above provides no rebuttal to this, nor even a suggestion that bare fear makes his actions legal. All he says is that maybe the clerk didn't know they were armed or not, and we don't know what was going through his mind. It appears you are inferring things that are not there. Which is kind of like speculating there is a weapon without seeing one.
 
Anaries said:
Actually it does. Did you read the other attorney’s opinion?

"While Las Vegas Metropolitan Police haven’t confirmed whether or not the would-be robbers were armed, attorney Thomas Boley says you can’t assume the store owner knew that.
“What’s key in this case is the distance between the two people. You’ve got this clerk, and this guy is coming at him, you know he could, depending on the rest of the facts, theoretically fear for his safety,” said Boley.”
Click to expand...
A genuine but unreasonable belief wouldn't entirely exonerate him, but I do think it would lead to a reduced charge.
 
Or possibly even the exercise of discretion to not charge at all. But that wouldn't mean the act itself was legal nor that someone else doing the same in similar circumstances can count on said discretion going in their favour.
 
My question is who cares whether or not this was self defense?
A thug was dealt some justice by a fed up store clerk, what more do you need ?

Instead of arguing about whether the store owner should or shouldn't take matters into their own hands or about how far they should take things and justification...ect , why not agree that people should just not steal or rob and let them face whatever consequences come their way if they choose to keep it up ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top