Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
killgar said:
In my opinion, implying that one might have a gun, or the possibility that one might have a gun, would not justify continuing to stab a person while at the same time attempting to restrain them.

It's hard to claim that a person is an ongoing threat when, instead of attempting to escape, you grab onto the other guy and physically restrain him.
Click to expand...
How is the clerk to know whether or not the attacker has a weapon on him? How is the clerk to know whether or not the other robber will return? He doesn't know when the threat is over.

GmpaJim said:
The clerk should never have strolled from cover in the presence of two masked men. Situational awareness.
...
You train, to be able to be rational in an insane moment, and GET OFF THE X, not so you can attack and overwhelm. That MAY come later.
Click to expand...
I doubt the clerk has had any kind of training at all.
 
I thought most store policies were if you were getting robbed just give them what they want. It's not worth it. I would let them steal the whole store and could care less. The employee goes home alive and the store owner collects his insurance money. I rather be alive coward than a dead hero. A lot of interesting replies on this thread
 
Carboniferous said:
I don't see anything a reasonable person would perceive as a deadly threat. I don't believe the employee feared for their life (partially based on his comments on a reddit "Ask Me Anything" he started). I don't think the employee was even particularly concerned about the merchandise. The employee certainly wasn't concerned about morals or ethics. Not a good outcome in my book, and certainly not a justified one. Being aggressed against or wronged doesn't give you carte blanche to retaliate to whatever extent is available to you.

People shouldn't rob stores, and people shouldn't act with complete and casual disregard for human life. Maybe just me.

I don't see how it's lawful in any case.
Click to expand...
Dude, it's his shit he's fighting for. That guy was literally taking food out of the mouths of his children. I didn't see any coup de gars or anything excessive, he stopped when he went slack and dragged him up front. Which might look bad on him, if it wasn't on video. Fuck that thieving asshole.
 
GmpaJim said:
The clerk should never have strolled from cover in the presence of two masked men. Situational awareness.
The rule of defense is, protect your life first, (get taken out, game over) your family’s second, strangers third.
The ”stuff” doesn’t matter.
Stand your ground isn’t for a macho win, or to protect your flat screen.
Always avoid conflict.
It’s very tough to discuss this since every case is different.
You train, to be able to be rational in an insane moment, and GET OFF THE X, not so you can attack and overwhelm. That MAY come later.
Click to expand...
He might of not known they were masked up, until he walked up to them?

It Would of been nice if he had a loaded shotgun in the back room.....

(To me) it does look he was going by your first rule, to protect yourself First.
* He went to the cash register to grab his knife. He Should of been wearing it.

Not sure why you keep repeating "GET OFF THE X"?

He is moving constantly once the assault happens.

What flat screen are you worried about, I didn't see one involved in the interaction?


Overall it was impressive looking, he did most things right.
 
GmpaJim said:
Both sides made huge, HUGE, tactical mistakes.
Rule no. 1…Stay off the “X”, if you’re on it, get off it.
Do not kill or be killed over merchandise, or money. kill or be killed trying to escape a presumed life threat, not protecting a gameboy.
Click to expand...
Was the clerk charged with a crime? Pardon my ignorance I don't know the answer.
 
Never mess with a potheads ability to buy his favorite snack from the vending machine...

The number of stabs might've been a tad bit too high. I think he was already "dead" after the second stab. If you really have to stab someone,make sure you perform a precise and powerful stab that will immobilize your opponent immediately. Kidneys are good for that.

To answer OPs question:

Yes,i think it was justified self-defense,just sucks to see people getting stabbed,no matter how bad they might be. This is why guns are so great..they are much more humane IMO.

Something to add: If you never fight back against these criminals,they will come back and next time they might escalate the situation even further.

Do we know what knife was used?
 
Regarding the OP's question, I'm with K killgar :

The guy jumps the counter, the owner stabs, the guy fights back, the owner stabs again ... so far so good; then the guy turns around to run, pleading, at this point the owner should have stopped instead of holding him and finishing him off. Then again, easy to say for an onlooker in the aftermath, the owner was probably just running on auto-pilot.
 
ferider said:
Regarding the OP's question, I'm with K killgar :

The guy jumps the counter, the owner stabs, the guy fights back, the owner stabs again ... so far so good; then the guy turns around to run, pleading, at this point the owner should have stopped instead of holding him and finishing him off. Then again, easy to say for an onlooker in the aftermath, the owner was probably just running on auto-pilot.
Click to expand...
Easy to scrutinize for us in our safe living rooms. I agree.

What is important to note.......
The criminal CHOSE this interaction every step of the way. With Many bad decisions.

The clerk just showed up for work, like a normal day. He was merely reacting to the bad guy's actions. He didn't initiate anything


In close call decisions....... Tie goes to the runner.
The clerk was in the clear.
 
tokerblue said:
How is the clerk to know whether or not the attacker has a weapon on him?
Click to expand...

We're being asked to offer an opinion on whether or not we believe the owners actions were self-defense. For me this is both a question of ones primal fear and right to protect themselves, as well as a legal question, because the Law will most definitely be involved to some degree.

And while I would always consider the state of mind of the person claiming self-defense, and give it A LOT weight, like them not knowing whether or not someone has a weapon, this is not going to be the sole basis of my opinion.

A person can always justify, at least in their own mind, the use of lethal force, or the use of more lethal force. If I see someone trying to steal my bike, they might have a weapon. But the possibility that they might have a weapon would not justify my use of lethal force, not even to prevent the theft of expensive personal property (unfortunately).


tokerblue said:
How is the clerk to know whether or not the other robber will return? He doesn't know when the threat is over.
Click to expand...

Whether or not a second robber returns has no bearing on how much lethal force the store owner may use against the first robber. Ones use of lethal force against an individual should be determined, and will be judged, by that individuals actions and level of threat, not the possible actions of a accomplice.


There are two sides to self-defense-

One side is what actually happens during the event, in the heat of the moment, with adrenaline and stress, and powerful emotions like mortal fear. There are the actions of those involved, their perceptions, and the results.

The other side is how the criminal justice system will judge all of that.

Both are important for people to consider, prior, after, and if possible, during the event.

If a person only focuses on just one side, if they only think about how the justice system will react to their actions, or if they only think about unleashing a fury of unbridled lethal force, they can get themselves into a lot of trouble. This is the catch-22 of self-defense, if one hesitates or holds back because they fear how the Law might react, they could end up very dead. But if they focus only on unleashing as much lethal force as they can, with zero consideration for the law, they might find themselves in prison, where "self-defense" takes on a whole new meaning.


I think a lot of people (I don't mean you Tokerblue) make the mistake of combining their very justifiable hatred of criminals, and their desire to see them punished, with armed self-defense. And that can be a VERY dangerous combination that can get a person into a lot of trouble. The "Dirty Harry" mindset of "The system won't stop these scumbags so I will" does not go well with carrying, and being prepared to use a weapon in self-defense. I'm not saying the store owner had this mindset, but I know that it exists.


No one hates criminals more than I do. In the past on this forum I have shared my 2 experiences being violently assaulted on the street, including a very near-fatal assault. My attitude towards criminals would make Dirty Harry look like Mother Teresa. But from the other side of the coin, I have also shared on this forum my experience going through the criminal justice system after using force to defend myself, my conviction, and my time in prison. It is from a combination of these two sets of experiences that I form much of my views on self-defense, and the need to consider how the Law may judge us.

On one hand, if the store owner were charged, and if I were on the jury, I would not convict. Because the thief is a scumbag criminal, and I don't consider the store owner to be a threat to society.

But on the other hand, I'm not going to change my personal definition of self-defense, or my beliefs regarding proper rules of engagement of self-defense just because I hate criminals, or just because I don't think the store owner deserves to go to jail.

As stated before, I believe the store owner was justified in using lethal force up to a point, but I believe he went too far and stepped outside the bounds of "self-defense".

Those are my opinions.
 
Last edited:
Ruari said:
I would say this is definitely in the self defence realm for me. If there is legitimate grounds for fearing ones life may be at risk.
Here is an example from the UK of not self defence;
www.bbc.com

Halewood man who killed burglar after seeing break-in via Ring doorbell jailed

Karl Townsend stabbed Jordan Brophy to death after seeing him breaking into his home on a phone app.
www.bbc.com
TL;DR
Guy sees people breaking into his home through a security camera app, drives home and sets to the burglars with a knife.
Click to expand...
19 years... Jesus. He should have served tea to the thief instead.
 
Carboniferous said:
He did an AMA on reddit afterwards. He himself says he did not feel threatened.

Edit: Overlapping messages, sorry, getting messy. I see the guy hold his hand in his pocket as if he has something briefly at one point. I'm not sure that changes my evaluation. The question isn't just whether a person COULD reasonably fear for their life in that situation, but whether he actually did. It doesn't seem like he did to me, but I don't know how much legal protection that hand in the pocket gesture affords him (especially given his unprompted statements on reddit afterwards).
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the AMA? I couldn't find it. If he wrote he didn't feel threatened that is his undoing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top