Alrighty then.
The question would then be what will become of you afterward, which is beyond your control.
Bad Tactics, Bad Journalism
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
theotherwaldo
Member
What would likely happen is that I would probably continue to breathe.
Everything else is peripheral.
That's what fifteen years in south central Los Angeles has taught me... .
FL-NC
Member
Amen. Better to fall back on experience and realistic training when there's no room or time for anything else like playing the "what if" game in your head. Everything else is for doctors and lawyers, as needed.
Realistic training tells us that unless we have an objective basis for reasonably believing that we are faced with a deadly force threat, a deadly force defense will not fly.
Being "cornered" by one individual who does not show the ability of serious bodily harm and who has not done anything to indicate that the actor is in jeopardy will most likely not cut it.
Would that knowledge be useful in assessing the reasonableness of a fear of deadly force?
Howland937
Member
It's relevant because someone that wouldn't appear imposing to most people could easily enough be a serious threat to the feeble, immobile, injured or otherwise disabled. No weapons needed.
Being cornered by anyone, let alone mask wearing thieves, could be pretty frightening to anyone who knows they've got serious physical limitations. Waiting until an observed thief makes his intentions clear could create a disadvantage that can't be overcome.
Yep. Clear disparity of force. That would take care of the imminence (A,O, J) part of the puzzle.
FL-NC
Member
I. Should. Have. Known. Better. I'll leave this to the experts, since I am clearly outmatched and should have never gone down this rabbit hole.
Zerodefect
member
I still see a possibly armed guy, jumping aggressively over a counter, while dressed exactly like many violent criminals have that week.
Not guilty.
You're welcome to hesitate, and become a victim and statistic. I don't recommend it.
Not guilty.
You're welcome to hesitate, and become a victim and statistic. I don't recommend it.
Howland937
Member
I disagree. You understand probably as well as anyone that you can train for anything but you can't train for everything. Anyone can get lucky once and overcome their adversary's training and tactical advantages, so why would a person take that chance?
tubeshooter
Contributing Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,140
^ As right as you are, I don't think that is what FL-NC was saying with his post.
Some writers in this thread assume that you can predict through ESP, AI or quantum mechanics that two masked men and one jumping over a counter to where you are mean you no harm and you can decide this in a second. They assume you can determine they are unarmed despite the facts (as I pointed out) I can conceal lethal weapons, easily available as I turn on you as I am committing this crime. The jury then will buy into this as the prosecution goes thru an AOJ analysis that I contend a competent defense attorney will shred as have been done in other cases. Goetz is one clear example.
Let's have some more pages of this as these folks are locked into their analyses in profound posts.
Let's have some more pages of this as these folks are locked into their analyses in profound posts.
Exactly. Totally concur.
In the pathetic soft-on-crime environment we sadly find ourselves the masked guy is very clearly not there for afternoon tea and biscuits. Why did he vault over the counter? Why did not instead run to a different and totally unoccupied area of the store to steal something and race out the door? The jumper was escalating. Every move he made increased the danger level. Jumper thug had many opportunities to totally disengage.
Right.
His partner, who had departed, had already done a bit of shoplifting. Why they were there is obvious.
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.
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 legal 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.
Zerodefect
member
I've got $20 on no charges.
Howland937
Member
Was referring to his being "clearly outmatched" statement. That's what I disagreed with, since his assessment makes as much sense as anyone else's.
The other part was pointing out why it made sense, to me at least.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
How many times do you have to watch the video to be sure the crook only wanted to steal a better candy bar?
Because on the first pass, it is frightening.
Where do you get training in making lightning decisions on the intentions of the leader of a group of masked men?
Because on the first pass, it is frightening.
Where do you get training in making lightning decisions on the intentions of the leader of a group of masked men?
Exactly correct. The initial 99% of the actions the jumper thug took were very clearly hostile.
So now we are being asked to believe, in our new lawless society, his remaining 1% will be gracious and kind?
The concern is second-guessing ourselves and incremental delay can result in the loss of our life.
The saddest part is that if he were killed, the poor shopkeeper would be forgotten within 72 hours.
The jumper thug was the master of his destiny. He could have r-e-a-c-h-e-d to grab accessible items.
He could have decided he obtained all he was going to obtain and simply run to join his coconspirators.
But, nope. He (and he alone) decided he was going to "raise the stakes" and corner the helpless proprietor.
Every action he took he further assumed an attack posture. He chose to get closer to the lawful store owner.
And who watched the video first, before reading or hearing what happened? Everything from the MSM to the OP of this thread try to instill bias before the target audience ever watches the video. Many here are not being led by the OP though.
Last edited:
One does not have to be sure of that. One would have to have a basis for a reasonable belief that he wanted to do a lot more than that. Read that twice.
We do not need to think about it. We see that he did not threaten the proprietor with deadly force after having vaulted the counter.
That leaves two questions:
- Did events unfold so quickly that a reasonable person might have been unable to realize that timely, and
- did the proprietor's continuing to hold and stab the escaping thief constitute excessive force?
People really, really need to watch out for that, whether they are pulling a trigger, thrusting a blade, or swinging a club.
A good guy can become a bad guy in the blink of an eye.
The OP watched the video several times, and watched a legal analysis of the event by a recognized expert in self defense law before posting.
bdickens
Member
I'm just going to say that in a society where the majority of people still value law and order and still at least pay lip service to the idea of self-reliance, but where the criminal justice system increasingly refuses to deal appropriately with miscreants we should not be surprised to see more and more of this sort of thing happening.
Somebody is going to step in and fill that void. Would you prefer it be the criminals?
Somebody is going to step in and fill that void. Would you prefer it be the criminals?
There is an important difrerence between prevention and punishment. The latter requires a trial by a fair and impartial jury.
Jim Watson
Member
Yes
No. Lacking a crippling cut by one of those trained knife fighters, a knife has no "stopping power", they just keep flopping around, no knowing what they will do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked