Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
garry3 said:
When the robber jumped over the counter it was on no matter the thief's intentions.

People are just fed up with crime. A lack of prosecution or a slap on the wrist when criminals are caught.

Whether you agree with it or not in today's climate I don't think any kind of charges would end in a conviction of the store clerk.
Click to expand...
I don't either and I want to post this quote again.

‘Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.’

I feel bad the clerk has to go through this and I am mad as hell at the dumbasses that think robbing a store is ok.
 
Carboniferous said:
I think that would be a sufficiently different case that I'd condone a different set of responses. Would you agree that it is, at least, not an exactly identical situation?

I understand being upset about crime. I don't think theft qualifies for the death penalty. Again, maybe just me.

Is this forum about laws relating to knives or is it about justice porn and uncritical analysis based on outrage? As far as lawful self defense goes, lethal force typically requires a reasonable expectation of death or severe injury. I think it's implausible that there was such reasonable expectation in this case. I don't believe it was lawful.
Click to expand...

I agree that different people will see this differently - some as justified, some as an over reaction. Personally, I agree with those who say that once the thief jumped across and behind the counter, he was a legitimate threat at that point. Additionally, and this is a very important point: the shopkeeper was OUTNUMBERED by the thieves. Use of force greater than that necessary to stop the threat of a SINGLE threat can sometimes be justified when the person being attacked is either 1. outnumbered 2. physically smaller, weaker or in poor health. As another poster mentioned, "disparity of force".

So there is more that goes into this equation than just "... dude, that looks excessive to me, sitting here on my couch surfing the web ...".
 
rje58 said:
I agree that different people will see this differently - some as justified, some as an over reaction. Personally, I agree with those who say that once the thief jumped across and behind the counter, he was a legitimate threat at that point. Additionally, and this is a very important point: the shopkeeper was OUTNUMBERED by the thieves. Use of force greater than that necessary to stop the threat of a SINGLE threat can sometimes be justified when the person being attacked is either 1. outnumbered 2. physically smaller, weaker or in poor health. As another poster mentioned, "disparity of force".

So there is more that goes into this equation than just "... dude, that looks excessive to me, sitting here on my couch surfing the web ...".
Click to expand...
I didn't just say the latter and leave it at that. Bad faith characterization.
 
Carboniferous said:
I didn't just say the latter and leave it at that. Bad faith characterization.
Click to expand...

I never said that you - or anyone for that matter - said anything. I said THERE IS MORE THAT GOES INTO THE EQUATION. I was not characterizing you or anyone personally - well, maybe just Joe Blow Internet. Bad faith is accusing me of characterizing you a certain way when I was making a general statement about the scenario and potential opinions regarding it.
 
rje58 said:
I never said that you - or anyone for that matter - said anything. I said THERE IS MORE THAT GOES INTO THE EQUATION. I was not characterizing you or anyone personally - well, maybe just Joe Blow Internet. Bad faith is accusing me of characterizing you a certain way when I was making a general statement about the scenario and potential opinions regarding it.
Click to expand...
If not your intent then I wouldn't call it bad faith. I'll take your word that it wasn't and retract the accusation.
 
A friend of mine pointed out that the clerk "attacked" before the guy who jumped over the counter's feet hit the ground. With a knife, closing the distance was the start of the attack, not when he started stabbing. At that point, the clerk was unaware if the person was after him or the stuff. He was on high alert. I didn't catch that the 1st time thru, I think it is a valid point. The clerk had committed to the action of attacking/defending as soon as he saw the person up on the counter, not after he landed and appeared to be grabbing stuff.

Depending on how you analyze the timing of everything, that changes the series of theoretical thoughts the clerk would have gone through. The person jumping the counter was perceived an adequate threat to respond with deadly force once he started over the counter, not after he landed and reached for the stuff.

Something to consider, maybe it's already been mentioned in the previous 10 pages as I read most but not all them.
 
Carboniferous said:
Wow, long video. I won't have a chance to watch for a while, can you give kind of his overall conclusion?
Click to expand...

Top comment on the video:

"Branca (name of the attorney), I'm sure you're objectively right. But as a juror, I would struggle with the "No evidence of a weapon." The attire and demeanor of the thieves was innately threatening. I would expect that 90% of thieves with similar attire and actions to be armed. The guy who got stabbed hopped over a counter into close quarters with the owner while his back was turned. I would never imagine a person acting that way to be unarmed."

So I guess the lawyer said "no evidence of a weapon, unlawful killing".

But I just rewatched it. The commenter is right. The Nguyen's attention was on the taller guy the moment the jump occurred, and he could have been in an adrenaline fuel tunnel vision from then on - just as he is reported to have said he was.
 
David Mary said:
First comment on the video:
"Branca (name of the attorney), I'm sure you're objectively right. But as a juror, I would struggle with the "No evidence of a weapon." The attire and demeanor of the thieves was innately threatening. I would expect that 90% of thieves with similar attire and actions to be armed. The guy who got stabbed hopped over a counter into close quarters with the owner while his back was turned. I would never imagine a person acting that way to be unarmed."

So I guess the lawyer said "no evidence of a weapon, unlawful killing".

But I just rewatched it. The commenter is right. The Nguyen's attention was on the taller guy the moment the jump occurred, and he could have been in an adrenaline fuel tunnel vision from then on - just as he is reported to have said he was.
Click to expand...
I don't think an adrenaline rush somehow absolves you of responsibility. If it did we'd be in big trouble. More leniency in sentencing sure. But I don't think people get to panic and just do whatever, even in stressful situations. I've had some pretty serious adrenaline dumps in stressful situations, I don't just turn into an unthinking robot.

I don't think people who mess up in self-defense situations are horrible people who deserve life in prison, but I also don't think that's a good enough excuse in this situation.
 
I bolded it, even. That the jump started while his attention was focused elsewhere changes everything. Absolutely reasonable to think at that moment he was being strategically ambushed. Yes, he messed up technically because he stabbed way too many times after he had control of the kid, but as killgar said at the start, in THAT MOMENT (the jump) it was reasonable to fear for his life against a potentially lethal ambush. I didn't say it exonerated everything Nguyen did, but I think it casts a new light, at least in my mind, on his initial decision to use lethal force.
 
Carboniferous said:
Wow, long video. I won't have a chance to watch for a while, can you give kind of his overall conclusion?
Click to expand...
Fails as self defense under the objective threat part of the self test. One needs subjective fear + an objectively reasonable threat. Some one with their back turned and their hands on merch not looking at you doesn't amount to an objectively reasonable threat. Speculative he may had had or done XYZ in the future isn't enough, it has to have evidence for it at the time.
 
David Mary said:
Who do you believe falls into this category?
Click to expand...
David, I appreciate your take on this so far and do believe when possible that de-escalation is best. We have always emphasized this for staff and trainings.

To answer your question, the dumbasses that robbed the store. And put the clerk in that situation.
 
NebulaMask said:
Fails as self defense under the objective threat part of the self test. One needs subjective fear + an objectively reasonable threat. Some one with their back turned and their hands on merch not looking at you doesn't amount to an objectively reasonable threat. Speculative he may had had or done XYZ in the future isn't enough, it has to have evidence for it at the time.
Click to expand...
A lawyer agreeing with me is some consolation I guess. Doesn't seem the general public does.
 
David Mary said:
I bolded it, even. That the jump started while his attention was focused elsewhere changes everything. Absolutely reasonable to think at that moment he was being strategically ambushed. Yes, he messed up technically because he stabbed way too many times after he had control of the kid, but as killgar said at the start, in THAT MOMENT (the jump) it was reasonable to fear for his life against a potentially lethal ambush. I didn't say it exonerated everything Nguyen did, but I think it casts a new light, at least in my mind, on his initial decision to use lethal force.
Click to expand...
It's a fair consideration, I'm just jumping ahead to whether I think that reasonably warrants the kind of adrenaline dump and tunnel vision that some argue justifies his actions beyond the initial stab.

I still don't see how even the initiation of lethal force was warranted, or how a reasonable person would be in such terror or distress that I wouldn't expect them to make an evaluation.

I think at this point we're at the crux and it's down to a judgment call, agree to disagree I suppose.
 
Carboniferous said:
A lawyer agreeing with me is some consolation I guess. Doesn't seem the general public does.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between how people would like the law to work and how the law actually works. Gotta get the legislature to change that if one wants things to be different. I get it though, people are tired of prosecutors letting people go within hours when they've done far worse things than just theft.
 
It;s very easy to dissect a situation like this in hindsight and measure degree of justified lethal force in millimeters.
But in real ife I suspect the store clerk was terrified and acting out of survival response.
With the two perps entering the store masked, refusing to leave, one jumping over the counter and the store clerk not knowing if they had a firearm and
to what exent they were prepared to escalate this criminal act. I believe this can be seen as "self defense".
The criminals brought this on themselves.
 
Carboniferous said:
It's a fair consideration, I'm just jumping ahead to whether I think that reasonably warrants the kind of adrenaline dump and tunnel vision that some argue justifies his actions beyond the initial stab.

I still don't see how even the initiation of lethal force was warranted, or how a reasonable person would be in such terror or distress that I wouldn't expect them to make an evaluation.

I think at this point we're at the crux and it's down to a judgment call, agree to disagree I suppose.
Click to expand...
Not to be glib but have you ever been truly scared? Sitting on the couch makes things look easy!

The world is messy, man.
 
Law: black and white, real life: grey. And the law has to be interpreted over real life situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top