the masked guy is very clearly not there for afternoon tea and biscuits.
Right.
His partner, who had departed, had already done a bit of shoplifting. Why they were there is obvious.
Why did he vault over the counter?
That, of course, was initially in question. It was probably threatening enough to cause a prudent actor to prepare to defend himself if necessary. He could not retreat, and he would not have been required. to do so
But we very soon learned. We
know why he vaulted. He did so tog et to the other side, where there was stuff hat he wanted.
We know that because
that's exactly what he did. He started grabbing stuff from the shelf--
without attacking the shop owner.
The owner then attacked the thief--with deadly force.
The question of justification would hinge upon three things:
- Would the initial charge have been adequate to justify preparation for a deadly force defense by a reasonable person--not might be, or might have, but as it happened--
- ---and if so, and more importantly, would a person have had time to realize that a deadly force attack was not occurring, and to cease before doing serious harm. It goes back to that "how quickly can you make a no-shoot decision" question
- Once the attack had been launched, was the store owner justified in continuing to hold and stab the thief as he tried to escape--did he use more force than would have been reasonably necessary in lawful self defense.
I think the first one is a pure judgment call. And the store owner did not have the luxury of time to reflect on it. I'm sure I would have been drawing.
For the second, we would need experts to discuss reaction times, speeds, time for decision-making, etc. The video evidence to support this is excellent.
The last looks less ambiguous to me.
Andrew Branca does not see a l
egal justification for self defense or for any other defense that might be possible under Nevada law..
What would a jury decide? I never predict what juries will do.
Of course, the DA may choose to not charge. He or she may feel that the evidence, even with the excellent video, could well lead a jury to decide that there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the owner. Or, he or she may not want to face an unsympathetic electorate at the polls.
And there is the possibility of an out-of-court plea.
We'll see.