Was this self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think this is Prac, though, not knife laws....
 
Legendary_Jarl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Professional soldiers may not be "scared" going into battle but that doesn't mean they are not in a deadly situation.

Veteran firefighters who run head first into a fire to save a child may not be "scared" but they certainly are in a deadly situation.

This man very well may be suffering from shock and/or PTSD after having been forced into this situation, which can affect his mental state and answers to questions of those possibly fishing for ammo to violate him with.

Regardless if he was scared, felt threatened or any other feeling..he was in fact in a potentially deadly situation forced upon him. He showed incredible restraint, he was brave, stood his ground, protected himself and others who may have been there and also would have been exposed to threat.

It is honestly disgusting that anyone be held to the unrealistic and un natural man made standards which defy natural hard wired instinctual responses. What's next? Pulling your hand away from a stove top when you get burned is illegal? This is like punishing a bird for flying, when spooked.

Generally I support reasonable law and order, but this is getting out of hand. Who is the law protecting? Why railroad the guy who just wanted to go to work and didn't ask for any of this? Why do criminals have any rights?

These turds initiate the situation, push the limits, then cry foul when they realize they lost the upper hand and run to the "law" for protection. It's to the point where the legitimacy of the justice/legal system is questionable at best.
 
Last edited:
The point about PTSD seems very serious and relevant. But the laws the western world has adopted in its statutes regarding this are based on natural law. If equity and balance in trade and relationships, then even so when judging individual circumstances. The desire to lay blanket judgments on events based on their content and picking sides is strong, and can lead to knee jerk reactions, sure. But new information, or points not considered make a difference to some of us. And it's people like that who believe in a jury of their peers, so they can see all the facts.
 
AlongTheRazorsEdge said:
Professional soldiers may not be "scared" going into battle but that doesn't mean they are not in a deadly situation.

Veteran firefighters who run head first into a fire to save a child may not be "scared" but they certainly are in a deadly situation.

This man very well may be suffering from shock and/or PTSD after having been forced into this situation, which can affect his mental state and answers to questions of those possibly fishing for ammo to violate him with.

Regardless if he was scared, felt threatened or any other feeling..he was in fact in a potentially deadly situation forced upon him. He showed incredible restraint, he was brave, stood his ground, protected himself and others who may have been there and also would have been exposed to threat.

It is honestly disgusting that anyone be held to the unrealistic and un natural man made standards which defy natural hard wired instinctual responses. What's next? Pulling your hand away from a stove top when you get burned is illegal? This is like punishing a bird for flying, when spooked.

Generally I support reasonable law and order, but this is getting out of hand. Who is the law protecting? Why railroad the guy who just wanted to go to work and didn't ask for any of this? Why do criminals have any rights?

These turds initiate the situation, push the limits, then cry foul when they realize they lost the upper hand and run to the "law" for protection. It's to the point where the legitimacy of the justice/legal system is questionable at best.
Click to expand...
Pretty anti-American sentiment re: "Why do criminals even have any rights?" Not sure "restraint" is a word I would use in this situation. He took the the absolute first opportunity, without hesitation, to employ lethal force. You can call it justified but how do you see restraint? He could not have stabbed the guy any faster. The argument doesn't really make sense either. Did he show restraint or was he acting on hard-wired instinctual responses? Did he stay calm thanks to playing...video games, or was it a traumatically stressful situation?

This was not a situation that reasonably called for such pure terror that all rational thought should have been made impossible. You have a lawful and moral duty to act reasonably, even when faced with dangers like this. This sentiment that, "Well he was wronged so how can you hold him accountable for his actions?" is just beyond the pale. The proper response to bad behavior doesn't involve throwing standards of "good" and "bad" and "reasonable" and "ethical" out the window.

Trusting a jury of your peers was mentioned. These sentiments make it hard for me to trust a jury of my peers. My peers are telling me, "Screw rule of law, screw rights, screw ethics, just appeal to whatever 'natural law' and 'human instinct' mean and go with your gut." Please have some restraint.
 
AlongTheRazorsEdge said:
Why do criminals have any rights?
Click to expand...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't want to be pedantic, but the 5th amendment quoted above is a cornerstone of civilized society. Every citizen has inalienable rights and cannot be called a criminal until proven so in a court of law, and even then they still have rights to prevent abuse by government and popular majorities. I would want the same protection for myself, as would each person in the video, and as should you. Without it we will devolve into tyranny.

I'm conflicted re the video. Each person has the right to use lethal force to defend themselves and others from death and grievous bodily harm. If the clerk indeed says that he did not feel threatened with either of the above then he did not need to use lethal force.

However, I think it is worth asking: if a person is placed in a compromised position, where lethal force can, and likely will be, used against them at any moment by an obvious aggressor(s), must that person wait to be attacked first? Or is lethal, preemptive action ever justified?
 
Last edited:
A reasonable expectation is the only realistic threshold. It's subjective but necessary. Without a standard of reasonable expectation, anybody in an aggressive confrontation or fight can kill the other person without recourse or accountability.
 
Last edited:
Crag the Brewer said:
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?
Click to expand...
I missed that !

Just makes the owner's actions that much more justified , IMO .

You can't fight off a gang , with only a short knife , using half baked "harmless" SD doctrine .
 
:mad:I gotta love the passionate defense of the"thug life" and the violent criminals' inalienable right to victimize legitimate small business without risking injury or even condemnation . 💩

It's hardly a mystery why violent crime is so rampant in some areas of misguided permissiveness .

Once people experience being victimized personally , there is usually a radical attitude adjustment .

More concern for victims than the real life ,violent repeat "career " criminal perpetrators . :cool:
 
Condemning their actions isn't a point of contention. I don't feel the need to point out that theft is wrong. I assume that's an agreed upon point.
 
Carboniferous said:
Condemning their actions isn't a point of contention. I don't feel the need to point out that theft is wrong. I assume that's an agreed upon point.
Click to expand...
This had Nothing to do with theft!
Why do you keep twisting the facts.


Three (at least) criminals went into the store.

Only one attacked the clerk. Only one got stabbed.
The clerk defended himself against the one who attacked him.
Not because of theft.


If this was about Theft, like some of you here keep pushing.........
The clerk would of stabbed all THREE of them.

Did he???
No.
 
“any weapon that can be used for either militia duty or for private self-defense qualifies as an “arm.””

it’s been trending in mass media…not going to expand further on the implications.
 
GmpaJim said:
My question is..which one of you would walk into a room, where there are two masked men?
If you would..why?
Click to expand...

We spent almost the last two years with half the country wearing masks.....


But yes..... I agree with you.
I don't want to be around them.
 
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...
Should he of waited for him to pull a gun or knife and attack him

what was his intent in coming behind counter ?
 
The last stab to the back made him/her go limp, lethal placement, wow. Arguably excessive that last thrust when the perp is trying to flee but cannot.
 
816768-D3-DA7-F-4-FDA-ABCA-1013-ECFD7-B8-C.gif
 
DocJD said:
I'm simply more worried about the fate of my country than the letter of the law .
Click to expand...
Some other guys who thought that way are enjoying new prison accommodations now.
In my opinion this was overkill. If they had a gun they would have shown it. They're kids, that's obvious and they just wanted the money, not to attack the guy. Seven stabs? Come on. Those twerps were about as threatening as a girl scout troop. Not that the store owner was much bigger though, so there is that.

On the other hand, the old man who used his shotty to blow the arm off the guy with the AR-15 in another recent story was 100% good to go.
 
Last edited:
I wonder why we don’t see as many videos of clerks defending themselves with guns. It Is likely far more prevalent, and then we can hear the enablers and anarchist complain that it wasn’t necessary to blast the attacker in the brain pan. Hey, he should have shot the gun or knife out of his hand. 😳

n2s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top