Was this self-defense?

[David Mary]

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.

 

[Drop bear]

I agree, technically there is not a huge difference.

In regards to bouncers, they are specifically hired for the purpose of security and to deal with aggressive behavior.

And thank you for quoting me, I appreciate that. Makes for a much more fluid conversation.

The argument is that bureaucracy and ideology is an acceptable reason to kill someone. The law says this. Or people shouldn't steal so therefore the acceptable responses is.......

Now if you are out and a bouncer asks you to leave and you don't it's trespass. You are now a criminal. He is protecting his business and of course he should be able to stab you.

I mean crime is crime.

Basically we give over the decisions of who lives and dies to anyone who is capable of killing people.

 

[benchwarmer380]

The argument is that bureaucracy and ideology is an acceptable reason to kill someone. The law says this. Or people shouldn't steal so therefore the acceptable responses is.......

Now if you are out and a bouncer asks you to leave and you don't it's trespass. You are now a criminal. He is protecting his business and of course he should be able to stab you.

I mean crime is crime.

Basically we give over the decisions of who lives and dies to anyone who is capable of killing people.

I don't think a bouncer is a great analogy to the clerk's circumstance.

They are there for security and will be the ones to eject people that get unruly, who are often drunk. Stabbing for a simple trespass is absurd. Even in the video of the OP, we clearly see that no one was stabbed for a simple trespass. If the patron refuses to leave and resists with violence then more force is obviously required, but one must also consider those circumstances. It is usually just some drunk person that doesn't want to leave so just using hands is almost always all that is needed. If they pull out a weapon or try to smash a bottle over the bouncers head then that is obviously an extreme situation and warrants a greater response but I would guess that is a little more on the rare side.

That is a much different scenario than someone that went into a business masked with the clear intent to commit a robbery, it is very possible that said robber is armed, and the robber crosses the threshold from public space to private. You don't and cannot know if they will just be satisfied with stuff.

 

[Hickory n steel]

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.

I say otherwise.
Let the risk so greatly outweigh the reward that thugs think twice, their life of crime should not pay.
Something has to change, there are too many cities practically run by criminals who aren't deterred by laws that punish them.

 

[Drop bear]

I don't think a bouncer is a great analogy to the clerk's circumstance.

They are there for security and will be the ones to eject people that get unruly, who are often drunk. Stabbing for a simple trespass is absurd. Even in the video of the OP, we clearly see that no one was stabbed for a simple trespass. If the patron refuses to leave and resists with violence then more force is obviously required, but one must also consider those circumstances. It is usually just some drunk person that doesn't want to leave so just using hands is almost always all that is needed. If they pull out a weapon or try to smash a bottle over the bouncers head then that is obviously an extreme situation, but I would guess a little more on the rare side.

That is a much different scenario than someone that went into a business masked with the clear intent to commit a robbery, it is very possible that said robber is armed, and the robber crosses the threshold from public space to private. You don't and cannot know if they will just be satisfied with stuff.

Ok. So now we have criminals and only sort of criminals. And by sort of criminals. I would suggest that it is the sorts of crimes we would engage in. And don't want to get stabbed for.

Bouncers are employees just like every other employee for every job. (They are not imbued with any extra powers) So if a shop clerk can stab criminals then a Bouncer can.

 

[DocJD]

The argument is that bureaucracy and ideology is an acceptable reason to kill someone. The law says this. Or people shouldn't steal so therefore the acceptable responses is.......

Now if you are out and a bouncer asks you to leave and you don't it's trespass. You are now a criminal. He is protecting his business and of course he should be able to stab you.

I mean crime is crime.

Basically we give over the decisions of who lives and dies to anyone who is capable of killing people.

Not anywhere near to being an analogous situation .

If three ski masked, and possibly armed, men come in and try to rob the bar ... still , not the same . But:

That's not the same as aggressive drunks or even some brawling , which just a routine part of many establishments .

That's why the bouncers /coolers are employed . A certain expertise in handling violence is expected . Stabbing the customers is bad for business .

Not so for a small shop owner , IMO .

 

[benchwarmer380]

Ok. So now we have criminals and only sort of criminals. And by sort of criminals. I would suggest that it is the sorts of crimes we would engage in. And don't want to get stabbed for.

Do you equate a robbery with something like public intoxication, jaywalking, or speeding?


This differentiation is not a "now" thing, it is a "currently is and should be" thing.

Bouncers are employees just like every other employee for every job. (They are not imbued with any extra powers) So if a shop clerk can stab criminals then a Bouncer can.

I don't think every crime is the same and worthy of the same response. Apparently you do and i find that notion absurd.



Question.

Do you think that the clerk would have stabbed the robbers had they not jumped the counter and only took stuff on the public side?

 

[MolokaiRider]

The argument is that bureaucracy and ideology is an acceptable reason to kill someone. The law says this. Or people shouldn't steal so therefore the acceptable responses is.......

Now if you are out and a bouncer asks you to leave and you don't it's trespass. You are now a criminal. He is protecting his business and of course he should be able to stab you.

I mean crime is crime.

Basically we give over the decisions of who lives and dies to anyone who is capable of killing people.

This is not a good comparison, as it's a different scenario.

 

[MolokaiRider]

Ok. So now we have criminals and only sort of criminals. And by sort of criminals. I would suggest that it is the sorts of crimes we would engage in. And don't want to get stabbed for.

Bouncers are employees just like every other employee for every job. (They are not imbued with any extra powers) So if a shop clerk can stab criminals then a Bouncer can.

You are way off in the weeds here.

Are you are a bouncer in a business, where you are being robbed by masked intruders inside your business where you are behind a counter, alone, and then encroached on within touching distance, after asking them to leave, with no knowledge if they are armed since they have a unchecked bags in hand?

 

[DocJD]

They are not imbued with any extra powers)

You need to go watch "Roadhouse " again !

IDK much about the rowdier bar environment , but in medical settings , the SOP for handling just ONE , flipped out patient , was to have a minimum 5 to one advantage .

One physically fit person to grab each limb , and one to give the tranq . Personnel still got banged up pretty good sometimes .

On certain drugs or just ape sheet crazy people can be scary strong . Not inhibited about using teeth and/or foul blows , either .

 

[Carboniferous]

My question is who cares whether or not this was self defense?
A thug was dealt some justice by a fed up store clerk, what more do you need ?

Instead of arguing about whether the store owner should or shouldn't take matters into their own hands or about how far they should take things and justification...ect , why not agree that people should just not steal or rob and let them face whatever consequences come their way if they choose to keep it up ?

Because it's impossible to justify within the consistent set of beliefs/values I have, and is entirely antithetical and incompatible with the structure of our legal system and government, which I personally think are worth keeping around.

I'm unwilling to compromise on the value of human life or of human rights. That's all it boils down to. Our laws and judgements need consistency, so in no case do those things get to be disregarded. Even if it's in reference to criminals. If you don't apply it to criminals it isn't a consistent universal rule and you've paved the way to selectively applying it to folks you personally deem worthy. That's a moral no-go for me. Being upset about things wrong in the world can't make me compromise on values.

 

[Drop bear]

You need to go watch "Roadhouse " again !

IDK much about the rowdier bar environment , but in medical settings , the SOP for handling just ONE , flipped out patient , was to have a minimum 5 to one advantage .

One physically fit person to grab each limb , and one to give the tranq . Personnel still got banged up pretty good sometimes .

On certain drugs or just ape sheet crazy people can be scary strong . Not inhibited about using teeth and/or foul blows , either .

For us I think It was 2 for the first fifty and one for every hundred after that.

And they are remaking it. With some sort of Connor McGregor involvement.

 

[Drop bear]

This is not a good comparison, as it's a different scenario.

If a criminal threatens a business then a criminal gets what he gets. Right?

 

[Hickory n steel]

Our laws and judgements need consistency, so in no case do those things get to be disregarded.

Things aren't so black and white.

I'm not saying we erase the criminal justice system and innocent until proven guilty, I just don't think law abiding citizens should have to keep taking it.
The police only arrive after a crime is committed and the criminals only get punished if they get caught, the damage is already done because nothing is actually being stopped.
At some point we need to say enough is enough, the safety and income source of law abiding citizens need to be prioritized over the rights of criminals.

Often their rights would mean letting them do whatever they want and hoping the criminal justice system catches up with them, this often doesn't happen and things just get worse.
It may or may not be fair but the buck has to stop somewhere and I'd rather things be more fair for us then for the criminals.

 

[Hickory n steel]

If a criminal threatens a business then a criminal gets what he gets. Right?

Should be, they should fear very high risks.
So what if it's not fair for the criminal to worry about potentially getting shot or stabbed for snatching some merchandise, something has to change and better things favor us than them.

 

[MolokaiRider]

If a criminal threatens a business then a criminal gets what he gets. Right?

I don't know, do they?

 

[Fonedork]

But what if it’s an illegal business?

 

[Carboniferous]

Things aren't so black and white.

I'm not saying we erase the criminal justice system and innocent until proven guilty, I just don't think law abiding citizens should have to keep taking it.
The police only arrive after a crime is committed and the criminals only get punished if they get caught, the damage is already done because nothing is actually being stopped.
At some point we need to say enough is enough, the safety and income source of law abiding citizens need to be prioritized over the rights of criminals.

Often their rights would mean letting them do whatever they want and hoping the criminal justice system catches up with them, this often doesn't happen and things just get worse.
It may or may not be fair but the buck has to stop somewhere and I'd rather things be more fair for us then for the criminals.

Criminals aren't fundamentally different people. Nothing I said is more fair to criminals than to not-criminals. Things are that black and white. Either it applies to everyone or someone in power gets to decide who it applies to, or every random person on the street gets to decide who it applies to. You're OK with people in power and/or random individual folks getting to decide which lives are worth valuing? Who gets which rights? What happens when they decide your life isn't one of the ones that matter? Or that your right to an attorney and a trial by your peers doesn't need to be respected?

 

[Hickory n steel]

Criminals aren't fundamentally different people. Nothing I said is more fair to criminals than to not-criminals. Things are that black and white. Either it applies to everyone or someone in power gets to decide who it applies to, or every random person on the street gets to decide who it applies to. You're OK with people in power and/or random individual folks getting to decide which lives are worth valuing? Who gets which rights? What happens when they decide your life isn't one of the ones that matter? Or that your right to an attorney and a trial by your peers doesn't need to be respected?

It does though, if criminals rights are highly valued it means they get to do whatever they want until the justice system catches up with them if at all.
The damage is already done to law abiding citizens at that point, and the law was much less fair for them.
I'm not talking about their rights after the fact I'm talking about a law abiding citizens right to take action now stopped damage that can't be undone by the justice after the fact.


We can still have laws yet also be very lenient on victims who take action.
We can stop protecting criminals and let the life they lead be as risky of a proposition as possible.

 

[garry3]

Have they arrested that store owner yet?

The one that should take hand to hand combat classes or maybe wear protective clothing to work. The evil one that set up a store to lure unsuspecting criminals into so he could ambush them?

DA might be trying to decide if bringing charges against him is worth not getting reelected?