Was this self-defense?

[David Mary]

That's also deadly force and would also be appropriate in this instance.

Mmmm....... you don't need a lot of power behind a poke to the face with a baseball bat. And you have a whole lot more control over how lethal or not your blow will be. All out babe ruth swing? You'll kill him almost for sure it you hit. Quick pokes to the face to back him up? That was what I was talking about because it would be quicker, leave less of an opening for counterattack and give the defender more control of the situation, and more importantly the legal consequences of acting.

 

[jux t]

Mmmm....... you don't need a lot of power behind a poke to the face with a baseball bat. And you have a whole lot more control over how lethal or not your blow will be. All out babe ruth swing? You'll kill him almost for sure it you hit. Quick pokes to the face to back him up? That was what I was talking about because it would be quicker, leave less of an opening for counterattack and give the defender more control of the situation, and more importantly the legal consequences of acting.

Just pointing out that to the law, using a bat in the manner you described is also deadly force. In order to use deadly force, you have to be in fear of great imminent bodily harm. 3 potential attackers that are definitely robbers at the very least, and one jumps the counter at you? I could see being afraid of receiving great bodily harm.

 

[MolokaiRider]

As you said, potential. Not imminent. They might attack. They might not. And...

They. Didn't. Attack him.

He. Attacked. Them (the one guy).

You are saying because they "might" attack him, that he has the right to instantly preemptively use lethal force. And you don't see how that would create an untenable societal precedent.

You put too much faith in those who choose to break the law, with a scenario of 3 against 1, within touching distance, backed up to a wall, signaling a weapon is present, in a repeat offense, who had knowledge the clerk was armed prior.

What is untenable is to put all the responsibility for this act on the victim.

 

[DocJD]

Right but knocking his teeth out with a good thrust from a baseball bat, for example, would have knocked the brazen right out of him too.

That's potentially no less lethal than a short knife . This really should be in Prac/Tac !

Did the kid even die ? Anybody know his actual medical condition ?

Owner did NOT slit the dummy's throat , which would have been easy as pie .

So considerable restraint and mercy was shown , IMO .

Being in an actual fight , adrenaline pumping like wildfire , is nothing like watching the video . Don't judge , lest ye ...

 

[David Mary]

The judge shows mercy. Vigilante justice seekers want to dole out the punishment themselves.

Just pointing out that to the law, using a bat in the manner you described is also deadly force. In order to use deadly force, you have to be in fear of great imminent bodily harm. 3 potential attackers that are definitely robbers at the very least, and one jumps the counter at you? I could see being afraid of receiving great bodily harm.

Or using a bat as a barricade to push back trespassing thieves. Force, but not lethal, yet capable of being turned lethal in an instant if so needed. My point is we know that stabbing with a knife at just about any power level is going to cause damage that using a bat at low power levels doesn't hardly threaten. A tool that can escalate to a much higher damage output if needed, and potentially a faster stopper as well if good night. And those nuances would come out in a trial, where intent to kill and not just stop would be found or not, and any mental health related issues that might mitigate culpability, but not the liability represented to society by letting potential killers loose without due scrutiny.

In order to use deadly force, you have to be in fear of great imminent bodily harm. 3 potential attackers that are definitely robbers at the very least, and one jumps the counter at you? I could see being afraid of receiving great bodily harm.

I'm not going lethal force on an unarmed person, especially one smaller than me who looks scared out of his wits. Weapon appears, then maybe different story, but only if I can't get away.

 

[jux t]

I'm not going lethal force on an unarmed person, especially one smaller than me who looks scared out of his wits. Weapon appears, then maybe different story, but only if I can't get away.

You are speaking for the clerk or yourself? The clerk was smaller than the guy who jumps the counter and punches. 5'5'' and 140-150lbs if I remember right, but you can see in the video he is smaller, plus there are two more of them in his store robbing him. Likely the clerk isn't on your kettlebell routine, it's not really fair to say that he shouldn't have stabbed the guy because YOU think you could have ripped them all to shreds.

 

[Anaries]

It’s the internet so I shouldn’t be surprised but I somehow still am. How anyone has more sympathy for the robbers( aggressors) than a shop owner, outnumbered, on his own property, behind a counter, who was likely scared half to death, is nuts.

 

[DocJD]

As you said, potential. Not imminent. They might attack. They might not. And...

They. Didn't. Attack him.

He. Attacked. Them (the one guy).

You are saying because they "might" attack him, that he has the right to instantly preemptively use lethal force. And you don't see how that would create an untenable societal precedent.

Real life is not a movie . Not a video game , where you can respawn if you die .

If you wait for the bullet , blade , baseball bat , or boot ...you will probably lose the fight and be severely injured or dead .

Try this with the cops for instance . Point a gun or anything that possibly could be a gun at them , see what happens .

This gang assault on the vape store wasn't some argument that got out of hand in public .

The perps were zero percent righteous in any intent or action taken .

They looked like an imminent threat to me , maybe even crazy . Brazen and bizarre for a robbery , but too damn creepy to be a sane prank .

What is unknown must be considered dangerous , when it comes to aggressive robbers .

I can't imagine what the plan was , the owner had reportedly chased these same idiots off before with his knife .

The fact they came back for more is kinda insane . Stupid and insane its not a reassuring combination .

It's not the owner's duty to assume the risk of these nutballs not being as harmless, as you seem to believe them to be .

 

[David Mary]

@juxT, you asked about what I would do and how I would feel. If you want me to put myself in his shoes, I can't because because I don't know what his experiences are. But I don't think a person needs to be an athlete or a martial artist to have some grounding in basic ideas that can keep us calm, safe, and blameless in a situation like that. I can tell you kettlebells or not, I would have felt a lot better having a bat under the counter than knife, knowing it would be used.

 

[DocJD]

one smaller than me who looks scared out of his wits.

A scared little man is often more likely to overreact and kill you than a large , confident and brave one .

Also , some of the absolutely meanest and fiercest fighters ,I've known in the martial arts , were rather small in stature .

 

[jux t]

@juxT, you asked about what I would do and how I would feel. If you want me to put myself in his shoes, I can't because because I don't know what his experiences are. But I don't think a person needs to be an athlete or a martial artist to have some grounding in basic ideas that can keep us calm, safe, and blameless in a situation like that. I can tell you kettlebells or not, I would have felt a lot better having a bat under the counter than knife, knowing it would be used.

I was saying I don't think it's far outside the realm of possibility that the clerk felt in danger of great imminent bodily harm after one of the three robbers jumped the counter.

Was he cornered? Kind of looks like it, but I don't know the layout of the place. Do three guys larger than him present imminent danger, when one feigns having a weapon and jumps the counter, then takes a wild swing? You bet. My point in my response to you was that it's not fair to assume the clerk knows the basic self defense techniques and has the physical attributes that you do.

And the point you make that you'd "rather have a bat than a knife under the counter, knowing it would be used"? Who knows if the knife was kept there for defensive purposes, and even if it was, I personally would feel more confident defending myself with a knife than a bat (if no guns are allowed). One to three people attacking, yeah, I might have one good swing before they're too close to effectively use the bat again.

No hard feelings here, it's a healthy discussion. I just think that the guy could have easily thought that he was in great danger considering the circumstances.

 

[David Mary]

Also , some of the absolutely meanest and fiercest fighters ,I've known in the martial arts , were rather small in stature .

My first whipping in "full contact" sparring was delivered to me at around 16 years of age, and six feet tall by a year or so younger kid who seemed like half my height, using a wide back leaning stance and countering my every lumbering move with a sudden leap forward landing on my nose every time it felt like. Nice kid, but I was ill prepared for him.

If you wait for the bullet , blade , baseball bat , or boot ...you will probably lose the fight and be severely injured or dead .

But how far does this line of thinking go? Only at the shop counter? Only masked people? What about passing in the street? Or you misinterpret someone suddenly waving their hands and yelling at the clouds, or on a bluetooth earpiece, as though they're attacking, and you put two to center mass? Don't see how many ways it could go horribly wrong if we make it "legal" to preemptively use lethal force at every perceived potential threat?

Three on one? Yes, I do perceive that as a threat, for someone with or without training. The clerk didn't try to get out of the store. Yes, that's probably what the thieves wanted, so they likely would have let that go. But we don't know, because lethal force was the first choice. Do you think civilians have greater rights to use of lethal force than law enforcement?

What is unknown must be considered dangerous , when it comes to aggressive robbers .

Of course, which dictates vigilance, but not preemptive lethal force.

I can't imagine what the plan was , the owner had reportedly chased these same idiots off before with his knife .

Is that right, eh. Part of the problem, then. These morons decided he was bluffing. Problem is, they are probably half right. Who in their normal right mind thinks "I hope I am going to have to stab someone today?" I bet the clerk is feeling the weight of these events. I bet he is wishing he didn't have to stab someone. And while I'm wildly speculating, let's say he hoped the sight of the knife was enough to scare them away the whole time, and didn't think through the consequences of them actually becoming immune to it and thinking it was an empty threat? Too bad he didn't have a baseball bat?

It's not the owner's duty to assume the risk of these nutballs not being as harmless, as you seem to believe them to be .

I didn't say they were harmless, but I felt their demeanor suggested a certain lack of commitment and enthusiasm that might be exploited.

 

[SimplyMinded]

This really should be in Prac/Tac !

Always should have been and you've started a thread there, so I agree with your assertion.

 

[Carboniferous]

People saying that actions during stressful moments like this can't be judged are making completely untenable arguments.

I'm sorry but expecting people to turn into unthinking, instinct-driven killing machines at the slightest provocation is a pathetic standard. Cowardly. This was not some crazy high stress situation. I'm tired of people in this thread pretending it is. Being in a stressful situation doesn't absolve you of responsibility, especially not two socially awkward dweebs who never threatened the clerk.

Yes, we get to judge folks who use lethal force. That's...literally how criminal justice works. You know, that whole trial by jury thing? Yes, I'm going to judge his actions without being in his position. Stop pretending like you aren't doing the same all the time every day, including right now. Be principled and consistent.

If you can't handle it I don't think you deserve to make the choice, you're unfit for society. A liability. If you can't handle yourself here how can I expect you to follow the law generally? To respect the rights of people generally? People in this thread are explicitly advocating for vigilante justice without accountability, for destruction of rule of law. That's bad citizenship imo.

The clerk is a psychopath.

 

[David Mary]

when one feigns having a weapon

I've seen people saying this, but please provide the alleged video timestamp. I watched it twice and never saw a weapon other then the clerk's knife. Thanks.

 

[jux t]

I've seen people saying this, but please provide the alleged video timestamp. I watched it twice and never saw a weapon other then the clerk's knife. Thanks.

Yeah, you're right. I had read so many times that a weapon was feigned that I must have mistaken part of the backpack for it. I still don't think it's far outside the realm of possibility that the clerk felt in danger of great imminent bodily harm after one of the three robbers jumped the counter, given that there are 3 of them (bigger than him) and they reportedly have tried to rob him before.

I wouldn't have stabbed the dude at the point the clerk did, but I'm not the clerk. Maybe there were violent robberies in the area recently and he was scared, again, I don't know because I'm not him. I'm just saying he might have felt that afraid, and if he did, I don't think it's fair to call it attempted murder or whatever charges others think should be pressed on him. If it comes to light that he just couldn't wait to get stabby with someone? Then yeah.

 

[MolokaiRider]

People saying that actions during stressful moments like this can't be judged are making completely untenable arguments.

I'm sorry but expecting people to turn into unthinking, instinct-driven killing machines at the slightest provocation is a pathetic standard. Cowardly. This was not some crazy high stress situation. I'm tired of people in this thread pretending it is. Being in a stressful situation doesn't absolve you of responsibility, especially not two socially awkward dweebs who never threatened the clerk.

Yes, we get to judge folks who use lethal force. That's...literally how criminal justice works. You know, that whole trial by jury thing? Yes, I'm going to judge his actions without being in his position. Stop pretending like you aren't doing the same all the time every day, including right now. Be principled and consistent.

If you can't handle it I don't think you deserve to make the choice, you're unfit for society. A liability. If you can't handle yourself here how can I expect you to follow the law generally? To respect the rights of people generally? People in this thread are explicitly advocating for vigilante justice without accountability, for destruction of rule of law. That's bad citizenship imo.

The clerk is a psychopath.

I get what your saying, but disagree with your sensationalism.

The clerk will have his day in court, and hopefully served fair judgement without influence from political or public sway.

How do you know it was not high stress? Do you agree with the fact that those in the service industry face some of the highest homicide rates?

How do you know they were "social dweebs?" Your passing your bias judgement and condemning those who disagree with your personal assessment. Just like others here, including myself.

Have you ever been robbed? If so, what did you do?

Here are a few snippets from the event:

• Nguyen can be heard asking: 'Why are you guys wearing masks like that?' After they refuse to answer, he requests them 'to just leave'
• The clerk said that 'at first I thought they were normal customers and then I realized they had like ski masks on. I had to assume they had a firearm'
• He adds that though he never saw a visible firearm, he felt 'I couldn't take that chance' given the situation
• Nguyen said it was an 'adrenaline rush and fight or flight even thinking about it now my heart rate is a little bit elevated'.

 

[MolokaiRider]

I would also add that I have no animosity to David Mary or C Carboniferous or anyone else in the thread, and I hope I am not coming off as hostile or anything.

It is a tough situation.

Its a good discussion and a pertinent one.

 

[scdub]

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 usual I agree with the vast majority of your posts here, but I think the clerk was defending himself. The questions I’m interested in are:

1) Were his actions lawful/justified?
From my understanding and experience with the law, I don’t believe so.

2) If unlawful, should he be imprisoned for them? This is where it gets strange, because, like you, I don’t believe so.

To me, this is a rare example of an unlawful act that should be given a pass due to the very specific nature of the encounter.

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?

I think preemptive actions CAN be lawful/justified but you need much more than a “strong suspicion” that someone both wants to AND has the means to do you great bodily harm. That doesn’t seem to be the case here, which is why I think his actions are probably not lawful.

Nobody in here actually thinks the clerk was attacked. Nobody in here thinks either of those guys were threatening.

Agree 100% with the first point - if you ACTUALLY watch the video, you will see that the clerk begins stabbing WELL before being punched, however I agree in principle with those that say the act of jumping the counter was a threat. If he didn’t feel threatened, he SHOULD have.

I think the clerk could likely have handled the situation better, either by surrendering his goods or being properly armed with a firearm (which is much more effective as a deterrent than a knife when standing across the counter from the bad guy).

As has been said, it’s sad all around, but the thieves certainly created most of the mess and should pay the biggest price.

 

[Carboniferous]

I would also add that I have no animosity to David Mary or C Carboniferous or anyone else in the thread, and I hope I am not coming off as hostile or anything.

It is a tough situation.

Its a good discussion and a pertinent one.

No, not getting that vibe from you at all. The slight sensationalism (although I'd maintain it is slight) is a response to some other folks I wouldn't say the same about. Some folks don't seem like they're arguing in good faith, kind of seem to refuse to consider other points, and definitely do come off as hostile towards anyone questioning the actions of the clerk. As if we aren't even entitled to scrutinize his actions.