Was this self-defense?

[DocJD]

When the store owner attempted to physically restrain the thief, while continuing to stab him,

The store owner needed to control the first( #1 ) assailant completely , because the other ,( #2) robber was still on the loose .

#2 could have easily come back with a gun and or reinforcements .

Owner couldn't safely turn his back on #1 , just cause the punk said " I'm dead ! " .

Plus , owner was smart to keep #1 as a possible meat shield and hostage against further assault .

 

[killgar]

The store owner needed to control the first( #1 ) assailant completely , because the other ,( #2) robber was still on the loose .

#2 could have easily come back with a gun and or reinforcements .

Owner couldn't safely turn his back on #1 , just cause the punk said " I'm dead ! " .

Plus , owner was smart to keep #1 as a possible meat shield and hostage against further assault .

In my opinion, none of that constitutes "self-defense", nor does it justify continuing to use deadly force while restraining the thief.

Nor do I believe that any of what you posted in the quote constitutes a justifiable use of continual force in any part of the US.

Of course if anyone can show me statutes of justifiable lethal force from any jurisdiction in the US where a defender is legally permitted to hold a criminal as a "meat shield" or as a "hostage", I'd love to read them.

I believe the store owner had readily available options other than holding onto the thief and continuing to stab him. Like, running into the back room from which he initially emerged at the start of the video, and perhaps locking himself in a back room, or bathroom, or heading out a rear access door that shopping mall stores typically have. Is it possible that something bad might have happened if he did that, well, any decision a person makes during a self-defense event can end badly.

Speaking from my experience, when it comes to self-defense and the use of deadly force, I want to use as little force as is necessary to remove myself from the immediate situation and environment. And although attempting to flee has it's risks, so does stabbing a person while restraining them. We each are free to choose our own way, and we must each deal with the consequences of those choices.

Like I said, people can always find a way to justify using MORE force, especially when it's against a scumbag criminal. I prefer to find ways of using less force, so long as I believe I can still safely make my escape, or otherwise survive the situation.

Again, these are just my opinions, and I don't need you to agree with me. Nor is anyone going to change my mind.

 

[Drop bear]

If his lawyer is good then it is self defence. If the other guys lawyer is good then it is manslaughter.

 

[David Mary]

D Drop bear I think you already said that before you went to bed...

 

[kreole]

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220805215100/https://old.reddit.com/r/robbersgettingfucked/comments/wh5tq4/las_vegas_smoke_shop_robbing_owner_ama/

Archive with his now-deleted posts

edit: trying to fix link because the media tag is redirecting it incorrectly from web archive back to reddit...

 

[ferider]

If his lawyer is good then it is self defence. If the other guys lawyer is good then it is manslaughter.

Only if the guy died. Not sure if I missed this ?

 

[DocJD]

In my opinion, none of that constitutes "self-defense", nor does it justify continuing to use deadly force while restraining the thief.

Nor do I believe that any of what you posted in the quote constitutes a justifiable use of continual force in any part of the US.

Of course if anyone can show me statutes of justifiable lethal force from any jurisdiction in the US where a defender is legally permitted to hold a criminal as a "meat shield" or as a "hostage", I'd love to read them.

I believe the store owner had readily available options other than holding onto the thief and continuing to stab him. Like, running into the back room from which he initially emerged at the start of the video, and perhaps locking himself in a back room, or bathroom, or heading out a rear access door that shopping mall stores typically have. Is it possible that something bad might have happened if he did that, well, any decision a person makes during a self-defense event can end badly.

Speaking from my experience, when it comes to self-defense and the use of deadly force, I want to use as little force as is necessary to remove myself from the immediate situation and environment. And although attempting to flee has it's risks, so does stabbing a person while restraining them. We each are free to choose our own way, and we must each deal with the consequences of those choices.

Like I said, people can always find a way to justify using MORE force, especially when it's against a scumbag criminal. I prefer to find ways of using less force.

Again, these are just my opinions, and I don't need you to agree with me. Nor is anyone going to change my mind.

I don't have a legal opinion . You might be theoretically correct .

Morality here is mostly beyond my reckoning . How do you judge another's true intentions in this kind of fluid situation ?

The perps at very least had planned (premeditated) armed robbery vs the store owner just trying to do his legal business .

Owner did nothing we know of to incite the robbery . He could only react to the apparent immediate threat of lethal violence from two perps .

If owner had been armed with a gun , as he has stated he intends to be in the future , I believe he could have justifiably shot both these fools even before the counter jumping .

The perps could then have easily been DRT .

Owner only had a short knife to deal with two apparently armed robbers . I think he displayed admirable restraint !

 

[AdamFuzzyballs]

While I think you could look at this after the fact and say “Wow, he didn’t need to stab him that many times or hold him close for that long!” And I also think a jury in some parts of the country might scrutinize this specific example pretty harshly, I have two thoughts that I wonder as I watch this video.

(And also, these are independent of the clerks own responses after the attack, which I personally think is stupid to do but I’ve been naive before so maybe he thinks he’s in the clear at this point)

1. Does the common trope that a knife is a “horrible choice for self defense” come into play- I.E. this is something almost always heard on this forum and in some ways the video proves it. Knowing or believing that knives are a poor way to defend against attack would certainly lead to the mentality of “stab them until they stop moving”. At least it’s logical to assume that, especially under fear or pressure.

2. I know that the best defense in this scenario is putting space in between you and the attacker, but many hand to hand combat systems work best if you actually close the gap between yourselves. Getting up close can prevent movement by the attacker, is a factor in intimidation, and can be viewed as a way to stop the threat- imagine police tackling a suspect or security walking a problem individual out of an area.

I don’t know anything about the clerk, but I do know that these would certainly be running through my head in this situation. It’s always a split second decision- if you brandish a knife in hopes of deescalating, the attacker can just as easily brandish a weapon and kill you in an instant. It’s the classic “don’t pull your gun unless you’re ready to use it” which I think probably leads to a ton of these close call scenarios. Which is why my opinion would usually favor the victim, if they didn’t put themselves in the situation.

 

[fishface5]

Two vs one, and masked
Clerk asks them to leave
Clerk says ok take the money but leave the change
Then guy jumps the counter, clerk is in the corner - to try to get away would require facing away from the threat - Never do that if within reach of the threat!
Clerk attacks, and properly continues until the threat is ended - if you are in fear for your life you don't strike once and then pause, that pause can get you killed - end the threat!
All of this takes place at high speed with adrenaline at max - fight or flight reflex

BUT - if he later said he --didn't-- feel threatened he's 1. An idiot 2. Should be looking at prison time

 

[Crag the Brewer]

While I think you could look at this after the fact and say “Wow, he didn’t need to stab him that many times or hold him close for that long!” And I also think a jury in some parts of the country might scrutinize this specific example pretty harshly, I have two thoughts that I wonder as I watch this video.

(And also, these are independent of the clerks own responses after the attack, which I personally think is stupid to do but I’ve been naive before so maybe he thinks he’s in the clear at this point)

1. Does the common trope that a knife is a “horrible choice for self defense” come into play- I.E. this is something almost always heard on this forum and in some ways the video proves it. Knowing or believing that knives are a poor way to defend against attack would certainly lead to the mentality of “stab them until they stop moving”. At least it’s logical to assume that, especially under fear or pressure.

2. I know that the best defense in this scenario is putting space in between you and the attacker, but many hand to hand combat systems work best if you actually close the gap between yourselves. Getting up close can prevent movement by the attacker, is a factor in intimidation, and can be viewed as a way to stop the threat- imagine police tackling a suspect or security walking a problem individual out of an area.

I don’t know anything about the clerk, but I do know that these would certainly be running through my head in this situation. It’s always a split second decision- if you brandish a knife in hopes of deescalating, the attacker can just as easily brandish a weapon and kill you in an instant. It’s the classic “don’t pull your gun unless you’re ready to use it” which I think probably leads to a ton of these close call scenarios. Which is why my opinion would usually favor the victim, if they didn’t put themselves in the situation.

1. Who says a knife is "a horrible choice for self defense" ?
Those people would Wrong.

More often, a knife is better than a gun in self defense.

When you hear the stupid saying...... Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Just shows their ignorance.
I instantly know how little those people know about how attacks occur, statistically.
*They mostly occur up close and personal. Just....like in the video. And Hundreds of other videos you have seen.


Try taking a knife away from someone.
Next try taking a gun away from someone.

Those drills are real eye-openers.

2. Partially true.
A hard to believe reality for survival is you are taught that you need to run away from a knife, and towards a gun.

Nothing to do with intimidation. Brandishing??? What are you even talking about?

If you pull a weapon out to intimidate someone..........

YOU ARE THE BAD GUY!!!!!

 

[Crag the Brewer]

Everyone keeps saying 2 against one.

That's not true.
Read the article, and watch the video again.

It was a minimum of 3 bad guys.
One held the door.
Who knows how many more were outside?

 

[Legendary_Jarl]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220805215100/https://old.reddit.com/r/robbersgettingfucked/comments/wh5tq4/las_vegas_smoke_shop_robbing_owner_ama/

Archive with his now-deleted posts

edit: trying to fix link because the media tag is redirecting it incorrectly from web archive back to reddit...

I don't see where he says he didn't feel threatened. All I see is he said he learned to remain calm under pressure because he played who knows what game or activity. Either way, not a good idea to do this specially with the potential of legal troubles.

 

[clayton c]

In my state, that encounter would not be seen as self-defense, only just enough force can be applied to get the intruder to stop or flee. The shop owner/worker was not in immediate danger, nor fearful for his life and looked to be in control of the situation the whole time.

 

[GmpaJim]

.

 

[Carboniferous]

In my state, that encounter would not be seen as self-defense, only just enough force can be applied to get the intruder to stop or flee. The shop owner/worker was not in immediate danger, nor fearful for his life and looked to be in control of the situation the whole time.

Seems like plenty of folks just don't care. If anyone makes you uncertain you get to kill them to avoid taking any chances (even if doing so is a tactical mistake, it's apparently the ideal choice and unquestionably moral). Pretty disheartening to me that it seems to be the predominating sentiment. No rule of law, no blind justice. Outrage makes you untouchable and beyond recourse. Can't defend a criminal at all, can't question a victim's choices.

85% of people would probably be happy getting rid of public defenders or a presumption of innocence or the state's burden of proof in at least some criminal cases.

Sorry for the sour attitude I guess, just seems like principles and values that have been an American norm for generations (for good reason imo) are becoming unappreciated, and not after a calm and critical look at the norms. Just casually disregarded. I find these issues important and always worthy of serious consideration, not something to be disregarded because of outrage over a specific instance (or disregarded in a specific instance because of general angst about society broadly).

 

[NebulaMask]

I don't see the imminent threat to the clerk's life or threat grievous bodily harm. First stab was to the dude's back/side. He wasn't moving towards the clerk at that time (I can't tell if he was even looking at the clerk tbh). Seems like he was defending property, not himself to me, so I can't call it self defense.

 

[AdamFuzzyballs]

1. Who says a knife is "a horrible choice for self defense" ?
Those people would Wrong.

More often, a knife is better than a gun in self defense.

When you hear the stupid saying...... Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Just shows their ignorance.
I instantly know how little those people know about how attacks occur, statistically.
*They mostly occur up close and personal. Just....like in the video. And Hundreds of other videos you have seen.


Try taking a knife away from someone.
Next try taking a gun away from someone.

Those drills are real eye-openers.

2. Partially true.
A hard to believe reality for survival is you are taught that you need to run away from a knife, and towards a gun.

Nothing to do with intimidation. Brandishing??? What are you even talking about?

If you pull a weapon out to intimidate someone..........

YOU ARE THE BAD GUY!!!!!

More times than you’d think, go read every thread about “best knife for self defense”. Not saying I agree with it.

And yes, Intimidation is absolutely a factor. Most crooks would arguably expect their victims to surrender in some form or fashion- be it the money, the jewelry, whatever. Closing the gap between yourself and the attacker, no matter if it’s necessarily the right defense or not, is NOT the expected outcome that the attacker had in mind. Same as shouting and waving your arms at an angry bear- you are definitely intimidating the attacker.

As far as brandishing, I’m talking about people who suggest that you don’t always have to pull the trigger to deescalate a situation. Obviously many many crimes are prevented by a good guy pulling out a gun to stop the criminal without firing a shot- I.E. police pointing a gun at a person during an arrest. But every single person who pulls their gun without immediately putting down the threat has run the risk of actually escalating the problem by allowing the criminal time to potentially access their own weapon.

 

[bikerector]

I don't think I would like to be in the defense seat on this one, but at least he is alive to make it that far.

The main problem I see is the assailants/thieves are doing a clear distraction technique where one gains the clerks attention while the other grabs something. There have been many cases of this leading to an unseen attack to the victim. If the clerk knows this, he realizes he's in a really bad spot if a weapon is currently being hidden.

Justifiable defense, definate maybe. I don't want to be in that position and have no idea what would be running thru my mind at the time, but the clerk was clearly threatened. The last few stabs and dragging the perp out of the shop is where I think the defense lawyer is going to have to spend his time if the clerk gets charged. The clerk gave the perps plenty of time to leave the confrontation.

I also noticed the thieves confronted the clerk, an act of hostile intent in my mind. If they only wanted stuff, they would've done more of a grab and dash, or the distraction thing they started with but then gotten out of the place instead of escalating. And the thieves definately continued to escalate the situation thru the interaction. Bad intentions are all over the place regarding potential harm for the clerk.

Sucks someone felt the need for someone else's stuff was more important than their own life. I could see this going either way if brought to court.

I think this also points out where knives can be tricky for self defense. When do you stop stabbing or slashing?

 

[bikerector]

BUT - if he later said he --didn't-- feel threatened he's 1. An idiot 2. Should be looking at prison time

I think the clerk is either an idiot or a liar if he didn't feel threatened. Scared is different than threatened and the scene to me shows obvious and high chances of harm for the clerk.

 

[David Mary]

Good counterpoints bikerector . While what I see in the video, when I place myself in the clerk's shoes, does certainly not justify the use of lethal force, I don't know what he knows about crime and violence in his area, and I don't know what his training is (though from the video it appears to be non-existent). Would I have used lethal force in his shoes? Absolutely not, because the threat from those jittery, uncertain looking punks seemed minimal to me, and I am pretty sure it would be seen that way by a prosecutor and judge as well. Would I have engaged and fought with the intent of calling the cops and handing them over? 99% certain I would have. Then again that is if I were in that situation. I would never want to work in a place like that.