Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
EDIT FOR SOME CORRECTIONS

This happened in New York City. NO IT DIDN'T MY MISTAKE I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE OTHER ONE IN NYC

THIS IS POST IS A LITTLE OFF DUE TO MY MISTAKE IT'S ABOUT THE TERRIBLE INCIDENT AT A NYC BODEGA that was clearly self defense and tragic. New York has a duty to retreat if possible there obviously was no way to retreat. New York does have some sort of castle doctrine but I do not know the details.

The victim tried to mitigate by telling him he did not want trouble but the man attacking him remained to committed to continuing his attack until there was no choice.

Anyone who thinks that it is an obligation for someone to wait until he/she finds out whether his/her beating is going to continue until he/she is seriously injured, incapacitated, and/or killed before taking whatever action they can to stop an attack really needs to have a reality check.

This is not founded either in law anywhere in the US that I know of or common sense and rightfully so.

I certainly would have been in fear for my life if a stranger who is more physically fit and stronger than me jumped over counter cornered me and started beating me up.

Racism is very real all over the US unfortunately people willing to exploit this situation rather than deal with difficult situations honestly such as the district attorney who filed murder charges abound. They dilute and distort true actions to deal with racism.

This man would have went through the system like everyone who doesn't have enough money to hire a good lawyer to ensure they are treated fairly if the injustice was not caught on video tape and displayed for the world to see.
 
Last edited:
greater said:
This happened in New York City. It is clearly self defense and tragic. New York has a duty to retreat if possible there obviously was no way to retreat. New York does have some sort of castle doctrine but I do not know the details.

The victim tried to mitigate by telling him he did not want trouble but the man attacking him remained to committed to continuing his attack until there was no choice.

Anyone who thinks that it is an obligation for someone to wait until he/she finds out whether his/her beating is going to continue until he/she is seriously injured, incapacitated, and/or killed before taking whatever action they can to stop an attack really needs to have a reality check.

This is not founded either in law anywhere in the US that I know of or common sense and rightfully so.

I certainly would have been in fear for my life if a stranger who is more physically fit and stronger than me jumped over counter cornered me and started beating me up.

Racism is very real all over the US unfortunately people willing to exploit this situation rather than deal with difficult situations honestly such as the district attorney who filed murder charges abound. They dilute and distort true actions to deal with racism.

This man would have went through the system like everyone who doesn't have enough money to hire a good lawyer to ensure they are treated fairly if the injustice was not caught on video tape and displayed for the world to see.
Click to expand...
The law almost everywhere is that no, you don't get to leap to lethal force in the face of simple battery. You don't have to wait to be attacked but you never get to do "whatever action they can to stop the attack." Can you point to any example of a state without proportionality of force as part of their laws regarding self-defense?

Nobody is arguing that you have to wait to be attacked before you can do something.
 
Carboniferous said:
The law almost everywhere is that no, you don't get to leap to lethal force in the face of simple battery. You don't have to wait to be attacked but you never get to do "whatever action they can to stop the attack." Can you point to any example of a state without proportionality of force as part of their laws regarding self-defense?
Click to expand...
You should be able to, because you cannot know till it's over whether or not it's simple battery and because If they don't want to risk their life they shouldn't risk the lives of others.
 
That is not clear cut. In the heat of a fight you don't have the luxury of taking a pause for thought. Things happen fast and ugly. I will always give the benefit of the doubt to the victim.

Oh I was thinking about this one in Manhattan. The charges were withdrawn. I do think it was tragic though, very sad.

 
Last edited:
I didn't read all 20 pages. The main problems the clerk is going to face:
He identifies one by name ("Jacob") and calmly negotiates as "Jacob" 1945 heads for the door and second thief tries to grab some merchandise (which occupies his full attention), at which point clerk stabs him in the "back" as he heads away.

IF the clerk has no history my guess is 18 months, pled down to Parole.
 
greater said:
That is not clear cut. In the heat of a fight you don't have the luxury of taking a pause for thought. Things happen fast and ugly. I will always give the benefit of the doubt to the victim.

Oh I was thinking about this one in Manhattan. The charges were withdrawn. I do think it was tragic though, very sad.

Click to expand...
This one definitely harder. Old guy, someone trying to move him to another location, clear assault and battery had already occurred, and verbal threats the entire time.
 
Ok I just watched the Las Vegas Video it was horrible and appalling. I have to put myself the store owners shoes. I think there is a good chance the store clerk was in fear for his life.

2 people walk in with ski masks one with a bag in hand deliberately giving the impression they are armed robbers.

I counted about 2 seconds from the masked man jumping over the counter to the point where he was stabbed. He stabbed him repeatedly for about 4 seconds.

He did not wait to find out if a shotgun came out of that bag nor did stand over him and stab him over and over for a few minutes. This happened fast, very fast. Watching this horrible video makes is seem like slow motion but it was very fast how much time did he have to think.

He is pissed off that does not matter getting put in a situation where one fears for their life the natural fight or flight also includes anger in a vicious way.

I hope the guy didn't die. I really mean that sincerely.
 
Last edited:
Just to add more to the topic;

The clerk has stated that he thought it possible the perp was armed due to his bag.

After the encounter the clerk called the mother of the guy stabbed, either with the perps phone or by getting the number from the perp, not 100% sure on that detail.

Also, the clerk has since purchased a gun.

Many of the other local shops have been giving him praise, inviting him over, and started a GoFundMe for his upcoming legal costs.
 
I just want to make it clear that I

fully endorse the clerks/owners actions.

(the first video on this thread and the one greater just posted here)

Will you all stop blabbering on about the details and just say who you want charged with what? We are overdue for a conclusion to this thread.
 
David Mary said:
We should recognize that crime is high risk but we should also acknowledge and obey the good laws of society, which include don't use lethal force against someone not using it against you.
Click to expand...
Of course lethal force was used. Why else would you expect the store clerk to magically lower his prices to zero…you didn’t happen to see anyone pay for the goods that were taken? The clearly implied message is give us your stuff or we will hurt you. The message itself is by its nature legitimately fear inducing, and intended to be, that is how it works. Add jumping the counter and moving towards the clerk and all of the necessary elements for legal self defense are there. This is a robbery, not shoplifting, and certainly not a simple theft. It is a “license to kill”, the only one most of us are ever granted, legitimate and long standing right to defend yourself from grave injury.

n2s
 
This question isn’t directed toward anyone, I still think this is a respectful discussion worth having:

Was the clerk cornered? It looks like he came out of a back office/room from the far corner, and is then cornered by one on the left, one on the right, and one holding the door.
 
Yes he looked pretty boxed in to me.

not2sharp not2sharp your definition of lethal force is not the same as the legal ones I've seen. Do I believe the thieves threatened violence implicitly? Yes. The law requires a stricter test, perhaps in part because other circumstances can accidentally imply violence which might arise. Someone in a hurry coming at you fast in a dark place, but really quietly could seem like a sudden ambush, but it was a barefoot fartlekker during a sprint phase. It could happen.

Masked people brazenly appearing in numbers and stealing items from you? Yes, fear inducing. It implies violence intrinsically! But my instincts tell me they were total clueless bluffers who had no idea what they'd really do if the clerk raised a hand to them, let alone a knife. Some thieves are clueless kids, and other are armed professionals. No way to know. Someone said these crooks know the technicality of not directly threatening violence so it's "technically shoplifting" not robbery.

Perhaps a case precedent where multiple "non-violent" thieves openly occupying a business they want to steal from is considered reasonable grounds to presume lethally violent intent...and the lethal force is then deemed lawful. I wouldn't be against a ruling like that. If you only imply violence to someone, it is unmistakable, but undefined. Maybe we'll only rough you up, the situation says, but we're ready to kill you if we have to and escape without being IDed.

Sending a message like that to someone ... should be a capital offense.

Looks like I have been wrestling with this one more than I thought.

Yes. You may be surprised to know this, and since this is the Knife LAWS forum, I guess I can talk about this here. Any crime that willingly threatens the life of another, if found guilty, should be punishable by death sentence. But also that the sentence should be carried out after a certain period in the hopes of the condemned making atonement before they are executed. That's my personal opinion. It was even before this thread. And it seems to be consistent, I should also want those types of crimes to be defensible by lethal force, since the implied, undefined violence could be lethal, and rolling the dice and getting it wrong could mean death.

Sometimes I'm a slow learner. Maybe getting beaten up by teenagers at soccer yesterday evening humbled me enough to see the dots I wasn't connecting. Nope those are the dots in front of my eyes because it's 3:00 am. Probably both.

Yes, it should be self defense. Does anyone know if the clerk faced charges?
 
jux t said:
This question isn’t directed toward anyone, I still think this is a respectful discussion worth having:

Was the clerk cornered? It looks like he came out of a back office/room from the far corner, and is then cornered by one on the left, one on the right, and one holding the door.
Click to expand...
Does it matter that the bad guys seemed to very easily and quickly hop over the counter? Couldn't the clerk have done that? Still a barrier though, so a fair point.
David Mary said:
Perhaps a case precedent where multiple "non-violent" thieves openly occupying a business they want to steal from is considered reasonable grounds to presume lethally violent intent...and the lethal force is then deemed lawful. I wouldn't be against a ruling like that. If you only imply violence to someone, it is unmistakable, but undefined. Maybe we'll only rough you up, the situation says, but we're ready to kill you if we have to and escape without being IDed.

Sending a message like that to someone ... should be a capital offense.
Click to expand...
Does committing any crime while wearing a mask mean that they're willing to kill you to escape without being IDed? Still seems like a stretch to me. I wouldn't disagree that it was self-defense, even from the start, just not entirely reasonable self-defense in my view. I'm still going to need more than an implicit threat of eventual undefined violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top