Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
nevertakeadayoff said:
This was a better video than I saw earlier.

There obviously was not a significant threat. They were casually talking and it was obvious they were both stupid. If you seriously fear for you life in that situation, you're a frail, scared little person with very little life experience.

Horrible placement on all of those stabbings. It made me think of idiot hunters leaving an animal to suffer after a poor shot. But that is expected, right? The guy probably isn't trained in knife fighting so I wont fault him for how he ended up defending himself like that.

All that being said, I don't give a eff about that stupid kid getting effed up. I hope the owner doesn't catch a case.
Click to expand...

I wanted to respond to all this nonsense that you wrote.....
Then I figured you might be a 10 year old?

I went to your area here, read your description about you....
It says you are 111 years old.

IGNORE/Blocked.
 
SimplyMinded said:
Gee I can hardly wait for the next example of "BF violence porn" :rolleyes: . Some of you are getting off too much on this. Having seen the aftermath and having been involved in a few violent encounters I can assure you none of this is funny, gung ho, tacticool or anything to be happy about. Stabbing some dumbass isn't patriotic, fun or shows that you live in a "free state". If you want to throw political shade I hear there's a forum here for that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like YOU need to go find said political forum.

*Funny how you throw shade, projection, and innuendo.
 
MolokaiRider said:
Is that due to perception of threat, the fact that it was a business, or actual wording of the law?

I understand it to be of your car or home is invaded, you may be protected from penalization of deadly force.
Click to expand...
It's due to the wording the Nevada law, which restricts Castle Doctrine to home and autos. Probably not a bad thing, as you wouldn't want business owners routinely executing shoplifters. At least I wouldn't. ;)
 
Crag the Brewer said:
Sounds like YOU need to go find said political forum.

*Funny how you throw shade, projection, and innuendo.
Click to expand...
If you're taking offense at my comment then my question is.. why? I must have said something that you took personally. Please explain exactly what that was? To me knives are a hobby and a useful tool. If you want to paint them as tools that's good, but personally I think knife owners get painted in a bad enough light as is without glorifying violence, internet swaggering, braggadocio or gore porn. This subforum is publicly viewable.
I can generally tell who's never been in a really bad situation because they always seem to want to be in one so desperately. Not always, but usually.
 
Last edited:
SimplyMinded said:
If you're taking offense at my comment then my question is.. why? I must have said something that you took personally. Please explain exactly what that was? To me knives are a hobby and a useful tool. If you want to paint them as tools that's good, but personally I think knife owners get painted in a bad enough light as is without glorifying violence, internet swaggering, braggadocio or gore porn. This subforum is publicly viewable.
I can generally tell who's never been in a really bad situation because they always seem to want to be in one so desperately. Not always, but usually.
Click to expand...

Right on there, sir!
 
bikerector said:
The difference between your situation and the clerk's is he was present in his and you weren't in yours.

One security specialist guy a family member pointed me to (I'll have to dig his name up, has a book or two) states something along the lines that if they come while you're gone, they want your stuff; if they come while you're home they want you too. In the case of a business, many people steal and try not to get caught either by being sneaky or by grab and dash. Openly confronting the clerk as they did falls into the camp of "they want you too" if you follow the logic of the security specialist.

Edit: found it faster than I thought, the guy's name is Clint Emerson. Also, Clint's number one thing is to make yourself not a target. Same thing that's stated here. Do your best to avoid the conditions that put you at risk in the 1st place. Obviously, that doesn't always keep you safe, but it's very effective.
Click to expand...
I love Clint. I intend on taking one of his classes one day.

I wasn't comparing my theft to the clerk's situation, but I can clearly see how it would be taken that way.
 
Blade Lab said:
It's due to the wording the Nevada law, which restricts Castle Doctrine to home and autos. Probably not a bad thing, as you wouldn't want business owners routinely executing shoplifters. At least I wouldn't. ;)
Click to expand...
Are you ok with business owners executing shoplifters if they being burglarized in their home or car?
 
MolokaiRider said:
Are you ok with business owners executing shoplifters if they being burglarized in their home or car?
Click to expand...


In that case those would be home invaders/carjackers, not shoplifters.
 
You mean when the owners are not around? If they come into home or car when someone is already occupying, my understanding is that constitutes home invasion or carjacking, which are violent crimes that permit lethal force in defense of. If they do it when nobody is around, then it is burglary, and not a violent crime. Also if it is a burglary, then nobody is there to execute the burglar anyway, so your questions seems like it is an attempt to trick someone into contradicting themselves? Or I don't know what you're trying to get at.
 
David Mary said:
You mean when the owners are not around? If they come into home or car when someone is already occupying, my understanding is that constitutes home invasion or carjacking, which are violent crimes that permit lethal force in defense of. If they do it when nobody is around, then it is burglary, and not a violent crime. Also if it is a burglary, then nobody is there to execute the burglar anyway, so your questions seems like it is an attempt to trick someone into contradicting themselves? Or I don't know what you're trying to get at.
Click to expand...
In relation to the context of this thread conversation, why would I be talking about if the owners were not around?

From my understanding, Castle Doctrine allows a person leniency in applied lethal force for an invasion.

What differentiates a home from a business when people are present to the robbery?
 
The line between a business and a home is the question. Similar activity in a different location. Or so the crux of Castle Doctrine seems to lay.

Clearly executing shoplifters is overzealous but jumping over that counter and the other actions seemed threatening to me.

Also, I certainly didn’t see an attempt to kill, in that he didn’t cut his throat. Stabbing could kill but it could also deter and defend. In this case he didn’t die. All would go to clerks intent and proving that.
 
He could have easily made a "coup de grâce" had he wanted to. So execution was evidently not his intent.

MolokaiRider said:
What differentiates a home from a business when people are present to the robbery?
Click to expand...

Well that's a question for the law makers then isn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top