Bad Tactics, Bad Journalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that the clerk came around the corner of the counter and register to get to the punk that jumped the counter is very damning. The punk in black wasn't going towards the clerk. Many are ignoring that the clerk went to the punk who jumped the counter.



Stay on his side of the register instead of running around the counter corner and over to the hood(ie) grabbing property off the wall and engaging him.



Watching the video again, it seems to me the owner and bad guy are “behind the counter” all the way until the owner chunks the bad guy out from behind them. The owner never went on the “public” side. For him to move away from the jumping bad guy, would force him to move towards the other one, being in what seems to be a corner. Appears to be a large U shape counter, if they run continuously from blue arrow on left to blue arrow on right.

7DB1764C-E566-4C50-8E38-4CE63286E368.jpeg


Would your opinion change if you learned the knife by the register wasn’t the only weapon and others existed, behind the counter, where customers are not allowed?
 
A kniffe may be used in lawful self defense. But the knife must be used properly. Michael Janich teaches how to do so. It involves the use of the knife specifically to stop or prevent an attack. It involves cutting specific tendons Random stabbing does not meet the requirement. Self defense not a "knife fight", or viie versa.

If a single punch caused death, how does that not meet the definition of lethal force?

As for the cutting of specific tendons to prevent or stop an attack, does that mean preemptive cutting is ok if one believes an attack is imminent?

Also, it seems to me the targeting of such small points as tendons (which also can’t be seen) is akin to saying aim for the legs or shoot the gun or knife from an attackers hand?
 
If a single punch caused death, how does that not meet the definition of lethal force?
likelihood.
As for the cutting of specific tendons to prevent or stop an attack, does that mean preemptive cutting is ok if one believes an attack is imminent?
Same as all other justifications of deadly force. Perception won't cut it.
Also, it seems to me the targeting of such small points as tendons (which also can’t be seen) is akin to saying aim for the legs or shoot the gun or knife from an attackers hand?
Not for persons trained in the use of kinves for defensive force.
 
Is it the sense of the board that the storekeeper should have hung back and let the criminals take what they wanted and hope that did not include kicking his head in?

Ordinary force might have been justified on the part of the store owner to prevent the theft. It is the owner's use of deadly force, where no clear, imminent threat of deadly force was presented by "hoodie", that I find problematic.

Of course, the owner said that he was concerned that "hoodie" could pull out a gun or a knife, so he took the initiative and stabbed "hoodie". But that isn't the way that self-defense law works. Defenders have to wait to see an imminent deadly threat before they are justified in using deadly force themselves. It's tough on defenders; they are always at an initiative deficit. But it is what the law demands.
 
Defenders have to wait to see an imminent deadly threat
No, they merely have to reasonably believe such a threat is imminent...
To convict otherwise, the jury would to see that a belief in such a threat was in fact absent, ...beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another factor will be that the stabbing/defensive actions were all within 4 seconds of actual close-in/continuous/violent body contact.

This particular case will be a toss-up -- both terms of whether the DA chooses to pursue, and how the jury is instructed.


.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that no one trained to shoot the legs or hands because it’s such a low probability of success. I would think aiming for small hidden tendons would have a similar chance of success.

I was speaking more for the preemption portion than the deadly force part. If one believes a threat is imminent it isn’t necessary to wait for an attack to happen is it?
 
My prediction is worth what you paid for it.

1. A jury will be told that when the second guy came over the counter in the direction of the clerk, the latter was reasonable in thinking he would be attacked. Thus he started to move. He did not have to wait for the attacker to come to him more directly.

2. The stabbings were in a continuous stream of action to remove the threat. In cases, a significant pause that would allow a person to discern that the attacker is 'out of action' did not occur.

3. Verbalisms to stop are insufficient evidence behind a reasonable doubt to say the threat has ended. Only clear physical evidence is such.

4. Talking after the fact is stupid.

5. In today's world, a jury will see reasonable doubt and acquit IF charges are filed. I'm betting none of filed.

6. The clerk could have acted differently but he didn't. I'm evaluating what I think from what actually happened.

A side note for the fans of OC, this is how quickly knife attacks occur. Someone seeing you have a gun might do something like this. In a knife class, a big guy said to the instructor that no one messes with him as he is big and strong. With a training knife, the instructor sauntered over and 'stabbed' him numerous times in the blink of an eye. I also know of a case where big strong guy argued with little old man. The latter pulled a paring knife (like you cut an apple with). Stuck it in strong guy's chest, hit a sweet spot and young strong guy just dropped stone cold dead.




This X 100000000000.


Thanks for typing that out so I didn't have to.

Thats all that needs to be be said for anyone with even a half functioning brain.
 
In the prevailing coast-to-coast violent lawless environment…how could a shop proprietor, alone in his store, NOT believe his life was in imminent danger when three robbers were roaming the store? Vaulting over the display case and essentially "cornering" the shop owner was an extremely threatening attack posture.
 
I was under the impression that no one trained to shoot the legs or hands because it’s such a low probability of success.
Correct.
I would think aiming for small hidden tendons would have a similar chance of success.
The point is that cutting the tendons that hold weapons is more effective than stabbing the body.
 
No, they merely have to reasonably believe such a threat is imminent...

This isn't really correct.

If my shorthand summary wasn't clear, I apologize. For clarity, let me describe the underlying principles in more detail to explain why the statement you made and that I've quoted here isn't quite correct.

All elements of the Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy (Manifest Intent) triad have to be present simultaneously to justify the use of deadly force by a defender against an attacker. Note that the following definitions are carefully written. Every word matters.

Ability: does the attacker have the power to kill or cripple, either through possession of a deadly weapon, through disparate force (numbers, physical size, etc.), or because the defender is in a position of physical disadvantage and unable to fight back?

Opportunity: If the attacker has a contact weapon, is he close enough or otherwise able to actually use the contact weapon to injure or kill the defender? If an attacker has a distance weapon like a firearm he can fulfill Opportunity at a very long distance.

Jeopardy (Manifest Intent): Has the attacker, as shown by his words and/or actions, manifest the intention to cause great bodily injury or death to the defender, as construed by a reasonable and prudent person?


Merely believing/suspecting/supposing/being worried that an attacker might have a deadly weapon does not satisfy Ability. The defender must know ("see"), or at least be able to truthfully claim that he thought he saw, that the attacker had a deadly weapon, in order to satisfy this element.

In this case, the store owner told the local TV reporter, with the camera rolling, that he did not see a gun or other deadly weapon, and this statement was broadcast worldwide. With that simple statement, he effectively eliminated any future claim that his attorney might make that he perceived that hoodie dude might have possessed a deadly weapon. He basically admitted that Ability was absent. Not too smart.

But the mere open possession of a deadly weapon only satisfies Ability. The other two elements must also be met. Simultaneously.


So, let's apply AOJ to hoodie dude's actions. He didn't flash any deadly weapons (at least not in the video), the store owner says that he didn't see a deadly weapon, hoodie dude was similar in size and age to store owner, and hoodie's buddy was heading out the door (no Ability). Because he did not clearly show a deadly weapon, hoodie's only contact weapon was his empty hands and he showed no distance weapon (no Opportunity). It is questionable whether jumping over the counter reasonably manifested any intent to do great bodily harm to the shop owner, but without satisfying Ability or Opportunity, Jeopardy doesn't matter. AOJ is not satisfied.

And, as a result, the store owner does not appear to have been legally justified in using deadly force against hoodie.



By contrast, and just for fun, let's apply AOJ to the shop owner's actions. He visibly grabbed a knife from near the register (from that moment on, he satisfied Ability). He rapidly approached hoodie (satisfying Opportunity). And then, with each stabbing motion, a reasonable person could quickly conclude that he demonstrated clear intent to severely injure, maim, or even kill hoodie (satisfying Jeopardy).


Not understanding the AOJ triad can lead to some disastrous consequences, especially for defenders. And I think that this is probably one of those situations.
 
Last edited:
MEhavey said:
...reasonably believe...
This isn't really correct.
I'm afraid it is correct.
Those two words "reasonably believe" summarize all of your follow-on detail in the post.
And those two words are at the heart of any jury's decision as to the facts.
... if it goes that far.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lawyers and judges argue the law.
The jury finds the facts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





But your post was very enlightening -- many thanks. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
No need to replay the hindsight bias of some. A good lawyer will play the AOJ principles for the clerk. The thief might have had a gun or knife in a pocket, without X-ray vision how are you to know? That he did or didn't is irrelevant to the perception. By the time the defendant gets to trial - the story of perceived threat will be locked in solid. His initial excited utterances will be downplayed. That is a standard tactic.

About shooting to wound. It is typical to shoot to stop with targeting areas that have a higher probability of death, like COM or head shots. Look at the competitive USPSA or IDPA targets and the ones used in police training.

It is incorrect to say that there is not a debate about training to shoot to disable or wound. It is being proposed:
https://www.police1.com/police-trai...oot-to-incapacitate-program-82YJIpU2MUoRvuqV/

and doctrine is some European countries.

While severing mobility is a good way to escape an attacker, it is not the only doctrine. Slashing what is available to target is also taught as getting at the tendons needs some positioning. Not always available when entangled. It is argued that the results of slashing are more visible and perceived by the attacker to break off.

We will see if this goes to trial. Is it worth the state's time? Is it worth the retrial expense with a hung jury. Just take one to say the analyses here are BS and after the fact of a dynamic incident.
 
....does not satisfy Ability.
I say again those two magic words...
"...reasonable belief...."
The jury decides that, not the lawyers, not the editorialists, not the YouTube "influencers".

(Where's Gary Spence when you need him?)

.
 
I say again those two magic words...
"...reasonable belief...."
The jury decides that, not the lawyers, not the editorialists, not the YouTube "influencers".
Yep--and not the defendant.
 
Sorry but I can't fault the shopkeeper for his actions, or feel appalled at the kid's wounds. I mean I hope he recovers, but I also hope he turns his life around. We now live in a society where it's ok to steal as long as it's under 950 bucks in some places. Many years ago, it would have been easy to get these guys to leave (For me, once) by simply using my fists or grappling, without losing any merchandise, but even that now would be seen as violence against "the poor misguided youths" and the proprietor would still possibly find himself charged. Personally I hope he gets off scot-free. Maybe crime will take a downturn if more people got involved in the protection of their own business, and a few more prosecutors angled right.
 
Many years ago, it would have been easy to get these guys to leave (For me, once) by simply using my fists or grappling, without losing any merchandise, but even that now would be seen as violence against "the poor misguided youths" and the proprietor would still possibly find himself charged.
The use of reasonable non-deadly physical force to prevent theft is still lawful.
 
MEHavey said:
The jury decides that, not the lawyers, not the editorialists, not the YouTube "influencers".
Kleanbore said:
Yep--and not the defendant
"Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said,
for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen.
“Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice
.:evil: :neener: :what:
(Where's Gary Spence :D . . . . )


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top