Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carboniferous said:
No, not getting that vibe from you at all. The slight sensationalism (although I'd maintain it is slight) is a response to some other folks I wouldn't say the same about. Some folks don't seem like they're arguing in good faith, kind of seem to refuse to consider other points, and definitely do come off as hostile towards anyone questioning the actions of the clerk. As if we aren't even entitled to scrutinize his actions.
Click to expand...
That's fair, and reading through this thread I can see how that could be gleaned.

I agree there needs to be due process, and careful scrutiny as deadly force was applied.

After reading scdub scdub post above, I sorta align with his assessment. He explains his thought process with more elegance than I am able.

And I will be the first to admit, that through my own personal experiences and background, I am quick to sympathize with victims, and in many cases cheer on counter-aggression, even if considered excessive.

It's clear I would be a terrible judge.
 
SimplyMinded said:
Hasn't happened yet. I don't live an ostentatious lifestyle and I don't advertise I have anything. If I go on vacation I don't say it on social media and I have my mail held. I'm armed, have security cameras and an alarm. If somebody steals something outside that's one thing, coming inside is different- but a house is not a store. To paint every dumb teen with an addiction as a savage is dehumanizing, and addicts do stupid things. If it were your child stabbed seven times after you watched them struggle through addiction would you give the shopkeep a high five? They wanted money, guess why? You do you, though.
If those two are an exhibit on the current state of savage criminal behavior.. I feel pretty confident. :D
Click to expand...

If that group only wanted money, why didn't they steal after hours?
Break into the store when Nobody was there?

The moment that person jumped the counter, it wasn't theft.
 
AlongTheRazorsEdge said:
Why do criminals who are tried and convicted (sometimes multiple times) have any rights? I'm not talking about prior to being proven guilty, just based on a hunch or unproven accusation. But why do proven murderers, rapists and child molesters have any rights in this or any other country? These thugs were caught on video commiting criminal acts, there is no question whether they are guilty. Letting criminals victimize innocent people, slapping them on the wrist and setting them free to victimize more people is the farthest thing from American, it's called sabotage and/or treason. Don't think for a second that those behind this thinking and who promote it aren't aware of the strategy of destabilizing a country to take it over, or divide and conquer.

He showed restraint by waiting until he was cornered to defend himself. He did everything to de escalate the situation until cornered.

You talk in another post about American norms; letting thugs run wild victimizing people and then crying foul and hiding behind the "law" when things go bad is not and never was an American "norm", certainly not for generations and certainly not anywhere except the usual suspect states. These are infiltrator implanted ideas of enabling criminals, not American but anti American. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify where these ideas are coming from. Hint: the same areas and people who abuse all the systems, the same areas and people who want to decriminalize theft, the same areas where crime is rampant, the same areas where riots are tolerated or even encouraged, the same areas and people who support (or actively are) the erasing of our history.
Click to expand...

Very eloquently said!

What C Carboniferous is doing is called projection.

They are calling us un-American..... Unpatriotic. For this.

But what You wrote, is Actually true. Thank you.
 
Crag the Brewer said:
Very eloquently said!

What C Carboniferous is doing is called projection.

They are calling us un-American..... Unpatriotic. For this.

But what You wrote, is Actually true. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I'm advocating for rule of law and respect for human rights, even for criminals. I'm responding to people who are advocating against rule of law, against our criminal justice system, and against human rights. Those are American values, in the constitution. Those are American institutions. And I called the sentiment un-American, not the person. But yeah OK.
 
Carboniferous said:
He took a swing after being stabbed. There's no way you can say he attacked the guy before getting stabbed. Regardless of your view of the outcome, we should be able to recognize clear facts of the case.
Click to expand...
Clear Facts.

The act of jumping the counter.
1.After being asked to leave
2. Hiding true identity
3. Showing force perceived to be armed
4. Multiple assailants
5. Tactics. (Distractions, flanking, ambush, etc.)

Jumping the counter AFTER all those precursors WAS THE ATTACK.
It was like the first swing, the first shot. The guy Attacked the clerk!


It Wasn't about theft!!!!!!!

If it was, the clerk would of stabbed all three of them......did he?
No.
 
Crag the Brewer said:
Clear Facts.

The act of jumping the counter.
1.After being asked to leave
2. Hiding true identity
3. Showing force perceived to be armed
4. Multiple assailants
5. Tactics. (Distractions, flanking, ambush, etc.)

Jumping the counter AFTER all those precursors WAS THE ATTACK.
It was like the first swing, the first shot. The guy Attacked the clerk!


It Wasn't about theft!!!!!!!

If it was, the clerk would of stabbed all three of them......did he?
No.
Click to expand...
Not what the word means.
 
David Mary said:
Silly choice of words, but I wanted to call them snots for what they did. Guess what? I was a snot when I was a teenager. I did my share of stupid things. I'm glad I was given time to rethink many things. Effortlessly was perhaps hyperbolic, centered on the very evident lack of confidence or presence from these two punks. I almost felt like the clerk only needed to make some noise to scare them away.



Agreed.



I think more people should familiarize themselves with the concepts taught by Marc MacYoung on nononsenseslefdefense.com. And not subscribe to the false dichotomy of "either you think this guy was 100% justified of jumping straight to lethal force without any doubt just by seeing the video, or you don't even believe in self defense or defense of property".
Click to expand...
David, I like your contribution here to this topic.
I value Your views. And I know you believe in self-defense, and all that.

But......
When You say that this incident wasn't a life and death situation, requiring potentially lethal force. I disagree.

First. What's lethal force?
I'm sure you probably be ok if the clerk punched the guy a couple times?

As another poster proved with links earlier.
A single punch Often kills.

So now...... Punching a couple times, is "way to lethal" to have done..... Ugh!
Any defense, could have severe effects.
It's unfortunate.
But the bad guys Were in control of that. And what happened.



Also another issue.
You are what....? 6'5" or so? Maybe more?
A Big, strong, fellow. Who has done some training.

You, saying a defender went too far, used too much force.
They shouldn't of needed to do that, or felt That way.....

Well...... I'm sorry, but I don't feel You get to decide that.
It was a little store owner.

You are going to have a much different perspective/feelings walking home late at night.

Than a woman walking home, alone at night. It's Different.
I know for a fact you Do go by late hours, and bike at night, returning home.
I also know women, who would NEVER even dream of doing just that. They never would. It's Different. We all have different viewpoints, and experiences.

For that clerk, at That moment. It wasn't about theft.
He was a small, wimpy man. Fighting off potentially multiple attackers. He did what he could, with what he had.

It was 100% justifiable self defense.
 
David Mary said:
As you said, potential. Not imminent. They might attack. They might not. And...

They. Didn't. Attack him.

He. Attacked. Them (the one guy).

You are saying because they "might" attack him, that he has the right to instantly preemptively use lethal force. And you don't see how that would create an untenable societal precedent.
Click to expand...
We have lots of car jackings where I live.
Often with harm to the owner.


My opinion was violence happened Instantly the moment the dude jumped the counter. Not before.

Just like if instantly someone at a stop light climbing into my front seat.

That Was a violent action.
I could defend myself.
 
Wow, I find this to be such a tough call. I suspect that if the jury only gets to watch it once, not knowing the outcome in advance, they'll rule in favor of the clerk. Yeah, after a couple viewings and some reflection, I think the thief was only going for the merchandise, but it happened so quickly I think the clerk had to assume his life was in danger.
 
DocJD said:
A scared little man is often more likely to overreact and kill you than a large , confident and brave one . :(

Also , some of the absolutely meanest and fiercest fighters ,I've known in the martial arts , were rather small in stature . :cool:
Click to expand...
Never thought of That......
kind of like at the dog park.... All that dogs that snap and bite are the little ones.
 
David Mary said:
But how far does this line of thinking go? Only at the shop counter? Only masked people? What about passing in the street? Or you misinterpret someone suddenly waving their hands and yelling at the clouds, or on a bluetooth earpiece, as though they're attacking, and you put two to center mass? Don't see how many ways it could go horribly wrong if we make it "legal" to preemptively use lethal force at every perceived potential threat?
Click to expand...

It goes as far as common sense.

Shooting someone in the chest for randomly waving their hands in the air, yelling at the clouds, or talking on their phone is clearly not a reasonable response.

Shooting someone in the chest when they break into your home or business armed, yelling threats of violence and or actually using violence is clearly a reasonable response.

This is an instance that lies in between.
 
SimplyMinded said:
Child soldiers with AKs and machetes, fine. Spaghetti arms boy with a wadded up jacket, not so much, but I can't control what others find intimidating. If you're asserting these two look threatening to you that's okay. My wife would feel the same.
Click to expand...
Both programmed to see violence and threats against unarmed people as a means to gain wealth and power.. same animal... uneducated, probably impoverished, no family support and absolutely refuses to make a decision that could have prevented himself from being killed by the same violence. His boy ran out. He decide to jump the counter and get stabbed.
 
Crag the Brewer Crag the Brewer I appreciate your comment, and also appreciate your perspective in the discussion. I have not been swayed to the thinking that lethal force was justified in how this case played out, but I do recognize the plausibility that the clerk could have been in real fear for his life. A court ultimately decides though, if our actions as a result of such fear will be "100% justifiable" or not, and the way the law is written doesn't make it seem likely preemptively stabbing that guy multiple times will be seen as justifiable.
 
B benchwarmer380 you say it's common sense, but it could be pretty easy to make a mistake, especially if we are going around thinking that we're justified to use lethal force at the first hint of trouble, especially on the street. Situations can be misinterpreted was my whole point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top