Had the store owner reached for a firearm when the thief jumped the counter, and if he had fired hitting the thief in the bask of the side as he reached toward the merchandise above him, we be faced with the usual questions: Was producing a weapon justified by the sudden and tumultuous jumping of the counter? Would a reasonable person be able to make and execute a "no shoot" decision before realizing that the thief was turned away from him to steal "stuff"? Those questions would enter into a charging decision and, if it went to trial, discussed before a jury. Expert witnesses on both sides would speak of and demonstrate speeds, distances, and reaction times. Reasonable people might decide wither way. The state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a self defense claim was not supported--BUT they would have to prove that only one of the underlying requirements (there are four in Nevada) for a legal defense of self defense was not met. Based on the trials and appellate rulings we have seen, I would not bet either way. Now, suppose that the thief, having been shot, started running around the corner to escape. Suppose the store owner fired at him repeatedly as he ran. Different story. We've seen that one often enough, and it's usually a slam dunk for the prosecution and th eplaintiff--not always, but usually. That's pretty much what I see here as the store owner continued to hold and to jab, jab, and jab. Three things come to mind: The persons who were the bad guy and the good do not necessarily continue in those roles as events unfold. People who may need to threaten or use deadly force should be know the relevant laws. Those who rely on bladed weapons for defense should become skilled in using them effectively and lawfully, without using excessive force.