Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This ignores that laws surrounding human life are generally reflections to the natural law alluded to by the US Constitution ie inalienable rights
 
David Mary said:
I don't see how.



No, the question was posed, and answered. The act, taken in itself does not constitute lawful self defense, per the Nevada Statutes, as clearly explained by the lawyer in that video. Anyone who doesn't like that has an issue with how the law is already defined in said statutes.
Click to expand...


It's against the law to dance in my local city...... It's true.
Obviously not enforced. this isn't Footloose.... haha


Having a lawyer saying Anything on YouTube doesn't necessarily mean anything.
A different lawyer will say something else entirely different.

I know Nevada is pretty business friendly, tourist friendly, and a bit "Old West" like.
From what I read the local nextdoor business owners Liked this individual. That will speak well for the outcome, too.
I don't know the latest in the case?
But if I were a betting man........ No pun intended.
the store clerks will be 100% clear.
 
I heard the arguments made in the video and have not seen anyone rebut them. Go ahead and do it point for point if anyone wants to actually undermine what he said or they're just blowing hot air
 
David Mary said:
I heard the arguments made in the video and have not seen anyone rebut them. Go ahead and do it point for point if anyone wants to actually undermine what he said or they're just blowing hot air
Click to expand...
I'll watch the lawyer video, I haven't yet, still at work.

Might have to did into how/if being a buisness owner somehow puts a mark on your head???

In My state, I believe he walks..... 100%
Surprised that Nevada wouldn't be the same.
 
I looked at you state self défense laws already and the way they they are written this was objectively not legally justified use of deadly force
 
David Mary said:
I looked at you state self défense laws already and the way they they are written this was objectively not legally justified use of deadly force
Click to expand...
As an individual, or as a business owner???

I already said I don't know how businesses are stated, but I know If I was a customer, and If it was in my state..... I'd be ok.

I find it difficult to think Nevada would be different.

Even N.Y. sided (eventually) with the business recently...(no charges).
The most liberal/corrupt cesspool in America....


The average working man can only be pushed so much.
Our police have their hands tied,
Our government won't keep us safe.


It's up to Us. Like it or not.
 
David Mary said:
I heard the arguments made in the video and have not seen anyone rebut them. Go ahead and do it point for point if anyone wants to actually undermine what he said or they're just blowing hot air
Click to expand...
They can't. What they're doing implicitly and imo should do explicitly is entirely cede the legal argument and just admit they don't care about the law in these cases. They'd prefer different more lenient laws but they aren't really engaging with the ones we currently have.
 
Last edited:
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 .
 
SimplyMinded said:
No, I'd expect here to have a bulletproof kiosk. Barring that I'd expect her to have a gun. Barring that, anything other than an "up close and personal" weapon like a knife. Pepper spray. Plus, anyone 5'4 should be looking to retreat the second a situation turns hostile. Would you advocate that your 5'4 daughter stand there and go toe to toe with three masked robbers? We can play the castle doctrine game all folks want but the fact is without a gun..3 on one is asking for a funeral- the clerks. The guy in the video got lucky. VERY lucky. Late at night, a road less trafficked, three robbers and a single clerk with a knife? Good luck with that.
If that stabbed guy would have bled out quick they'd be wanting revenge and they'd take it any way they had to. The clerk didn't hit a major artery but he was mighty damn close.
As to Grampa, we saw that one. Robber brought an AR, Gramps blew his arm off with the scattergun.
I'm starting to think this is just a thread so folks can argue so I'm out.
Click to expand...
That is a sad outlook on your perception of reality. I think society can do better than that.

In regards to the thread being about arguments, what did you think this thread title meant?

As far as I know, people are sharing their perceptions.
Carboniferous said:
They can't. What they're doing implicitly and imo should do explicitly is entirely cede the legal argument and just admit they don't care about the law in these cases. They'd prefer different more lenient laws but they aren't really engaging with the ones we currently have.
Click to expand...

Laws are open to interpretation, and also subject to scrutiny when in court. I mean sheesh...lawyer's cherry pick jurors to help sway their case, regardless if prosecuting or defense. Just because you feel your argument is correct does not make it so.
 
And since a few of you are posting with a broad net about some of the posters, I suppose I will do the same.

I can't believe that some of you are so naive and willing to accept that the clerk is in the wrong.

Hypothetical:

Lets say I enter your shop and attempt to rob you. You have no idea who I am, because I am masked.

I show no indication that I am armed. I get close to you and start taking stuff. You poke me in the face with a stick after I jump the counter. I pull my gun you did not see and shoot you.

You were willing to take the chance on the assumption I am not armed. Now you are dead, and I am not.

I watched most of the hour and a half video of the lawyer. He said he would not advise doing what the clerk did, because the case could go either way, based on the judge, jurors, and dissertation.

That does not sound like a cut and dry matter of solid law.
 
It's easy to see the clerk as launching an ambush when he lunged at the tall guy first. If you watch it again you hear the knife click open, he lunged at the tall guy and the tall guy runs away in that order THEN he gets the second guy. I now think it looks like his plan was in motion to stab these guys before the jump
 
David Mary said:
I heard the arguments made in the video and have not seen anyone rebut them. Go ahead and do it point for point if anyone wants to actually undermine what he said or they're just blowing hot air
Click to expand...
Which video? The guy charging $5 for an answer with the Aussie? Accent? What are his credentials and area of expertise ?
David Mary said:
I looked at you state self défense laws already and the way they they are written this was objectively not legally justified use of deadly force
Click to expand...
And you are an attorney? There is spirit of the law and letter of the law. I believe he was fine on stand your ground legally and a case could be made that once he came over that counter it was castle doctrine regardless if it was a business.

  1. you have a reasonable belief that the aggressor poses an immediate threat-and
  2. you use no more force than is necessary to repel the aggressor’s threat.
I contended both meet the criteria but you clearly disagree.


  1. The person did not start the fight; and
  2. The person has the right to be at the location where deadly force is used; and
  3. The person is not otherwise breaking the law at the time deadly force is used.
All apply again the way I see it.



Carboniferous said:
They can't. What they're doing implicitly and imo should do explicitly is entirely cede the legal argument and just admit they don't care about the law in these cases. They'd prefer different more lenient laws but they aren't really engaging with the ones we currently have.
Click to expand...
Good contribution 👍


As to morally we can agree to disagree. Those guys are scum and I truly hope they get their lives together and become assets to society instead of asses dragging down an honest businessman.
 
David Mary said:
clerk as launching an ambush
Click to expand...
A guy capable of planning and successfully "executing" such an operation is stuff of Hollywood / video games .

Mission Improbable ! 💩

If he was that clever /
David Mary said:
Execute criminals?
Click to expand...

ruthless and wanted to kill those hoodlums , he wouldn't have proceeded as seen on the video .

He also would not be working in his own small shop .

He would be an operative for someone that would pay well and appreciate his talents .

Nobody died . Injuries were during a hostile/ apparently armed robbery .

Execution doesn't mean what you seem to think it means .
 
Anaries said:
Which video? The guy charging $5 for an answer with the Aussie? Accent? What are his credentials and area of expertise ?

And you are an attorney? There is spirit of the law and letter of the law. I believe he was fine on stand your ground legally and a case could be made that once he came over that counter it was castle doctrine regardless if it was a business.
Click to expand...
First, you can't make a case that the Castle Doctrine applied, because it only applies to homes and autos in Nevada.
Anaries said:
  1. you have a reasonable belief that the aggressor poses an immediate threat-and
Click to expand...
This isn't going to fly. The clerk was the aggressor for starters....
Anaries said:
  1. you use no more force than is necessary to repel the aggressor’s threat.
Click to expand...
And this won't fly either, because the dude went Freddie Kruger on him, stabbing him seven times.
Anaries said:
I contended both meet the criteria but you clearly disagree.


  1. The person did not start the fight; and
Click to expand...
And this is the biggest problem, because the clerk was inarguably the aggressor. The robbers didn't attack him.
 
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).
 
I don't know any more. All I know is even if that were a lawful lethal force scenario, I would still rather see a fixed blade on his person and quite a bit more respect and/or moderation of the immense power it gives him. React quickly to incoming threats and cease as quickly as when the hostilities against your person have ceased.
 
DocJD said:
A guy capable of planning and successfully "executing" such an operation is stuff of Hollywood / video games .

Mission Improbable ! 💩

If he was that clever /


ruthless and wanted to kill those hoodlums , he wouldn't have proceeded as seen on the video .

He also would not be working in his own small shop .

He would be an operative for someone that would pay well and appreciate his talents .

Nobody died . Injuries were during a hostile/ apparently armed robbery .

Execution doesn't mean what you seem to think it means .
Click to expand...
"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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top