Current Events > Do any of you think that las vegas smoke shop owner should be charged for...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kimberly posted...

Anyone who is attempting to rob you, even if you can't visually confirm a weapon...they value their score more than your livelihood. It's not a stretch to think that they may also value their score above your life, too.

Ive already said that self defense should be a response to a verified actual threat, not an imagined one.

Kimberly posted...

Though I think this guy was also just itching to use this defense to engage in some legal killings, given the weird-ass way he's handled his 'media tour' after the event.

If you think this, and still think his actions were justified, then you just think the value of the criminals life is so low that you're just willing to let it go.

Those are like the two options. You cannot believe this, and believe it was valid self defense at the same time.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

They were stealing. Stealing is not a threat to somebodys safety.

COVxy posted...

If you think this, and still think his actions were justified, then you just think the value of the criminals life is so low that you're just willing to let it go.

I don't really understand. I'm not saying you're wrong - it might be something I have to address/think more on. But I genuinely don't understand how you've reached that conclusion.

I don't like people acting with intent to kill, because I often think those sorts are more destructive to society than the act of theft itself. But as I understand it from a legal standpoint, it is incredibly difficult to prove intent and provide insight into the mindset of the 'defender' too, and the legal system errs on the side of innocence before assuming guilt. (In theory.) So I'm at a loss regarding why you think that, but I'm open to changing my mind. It just honestly might not have been something I'm giving proper consideration of.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

2 guys bigger than you grab you and you're expected to go non-lethal not knowing if they had a weapon or what their intentions are?

Dude didn't go anywhere near the shop owner.

Why not watch the video before commenting?

Kimberly posted...

I don't really understand. I'm not saying you're wrong - it might be something I have to address/think more on. But I genuinely don't understand how you've reached that conclusion.

I don't like people acting with intent to kill, because I often think those sorts are more destructive to society than the act of theft itself. But as I understand it from a legal standpoint, it is incredibly difficult to prove intent and provide insight into the mindset of the 'defender' too, and the legal system errs on the side of innocence before assuming guilt. (In theory.) So I'm at a loss regarding why you think that, but I'm amenable to changing my mind. It just honestly might not have been something I'm giving proper consideration of.

Well, let's simplify this. Remove the court. What do you think the intentions of the cashier were? Not what could be proven in court, or what you think should be assumed by default. Just: what do you think the state of the world is?

If the answer is that you think the dude was just itching for the chance to use lethal force, saw the counter jump as justification, and started stabbing because he was likely to have a justified murder, then you don't think the dude was acting in self defense. If, on the other hand, you think the guy jumping the counter clearly made the dude fear for his life, and that a 7 foot gallop to stab the dude was the only reasonable option to preserve his safety, then it's self defense.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The cashier used lethal force. It literally doesn't matter if the thief lived.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'm sure that makes a difference in terms of sentencing, but I would view anyone who attacks someone with a weapon or lethal force as being prepared to kill. I don't know if morally that makes much of a difference.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Robbery is taking by force or threats of force. Neither of those elements were present. It was just stealing.

COVxy posted...

What do you think the intentions of the cashier were?

I'm guessing to defend his own life. While the thief wasn't near him and primarily focused on robbing product, they were in incredibly close proximity and if he had a concealed weapon on him (like the cashier did) he could've very easily been attacked in a similar fashion.

COVxy posted...

If the answer is that you think the dude was just itching for the chance to use lethal force, saw the counter jump as justification, and started stabbing because he was likely to have a justified murder, then you don't think the dude was acting in self defense. If, on the other hand, you think the guy jumping the counter clearly made the dude fear for his life, and that a 7 foot gallop to stab the dude was the only reasonable option to preserve his safety, then it's self defense.

I understand you a bit better now, and I appreciate it. I don't know man, I'm still conflicted...but I think thanks to you it's way less certain than before. It's just so easy to close a gap like that and stab someone though. I definitely think that dude's motives were impure, but it was also informed by likely decades of being explictly coded to treat all robbery as a potential lethal threat to one's life with no ambiguity whatsoever. I think the fact that he's reveling in it and going on media tours signals that he's morally bankrupt, and eager to join the grift, but I don't know if I can still fault his actions in that moment. He should've realized that he contained the threat, and the level of force he used at that point was beyond excessive. But the initial attempt at defense still...seems somewhat justified even if these two gormless dinks walked in with no apparent weapons saying 'lol gimmie ur shit' and took it despite the cashier asking them not to.

e: sorry I realized in my last paragraph it started to blur legality and morality again and that's my bad - i think broadly i agree with you that morally it was utterly wrong to continue to attack the thief after the threat was 'neutralized' and i think it's a failure in our societal understanding of self defense that it doesn't consider a reasonable level of force in its response...at least in terms of social actions and not legality, anyway.

Tenlaar posted...

Robbery is taking by force or threats of force. Neither of those elements were present. It was just stealing.

This is also a fair point. Pretty clear the dude's were playing distract and grab.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Imagined threats still dont count no matter how many times you repeat them.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Stealing something doesnt go from not being a threat to being a threat based on which side of the counter the product is on. Stealing alone is not a threat to somebodys safety and all they did was steal.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Thieves, not robbers. Distract and grab tactics are not taking by force or the threat of force. You are wrong.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Lol. They weren't trying to steal from the tip jar. Not really.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

So your view of this would be different if they werent wearing ski masks?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Then stop making pointless posts that mean nothing. This wasnt burglary either, they didnt enter the building illegally. We have these words that distinguish crimes for a reason. This was plain old theft.

Dude, you have been desperately reaching this whole topic. Like, nobody gives a fuck anymore because it's pretty clear you don't think what he did falls under self defense, though you think it was justified.

Kimberly posted...

I understand you a bit better now, and I appreciate it. I don't know man, I'm still conflicted...but I think thanks to you it's way less certain than before. It's just so easy to close a gap like that and stab someone though. I definitely think that dude's motives were impure, but it was also informed by likely decades of being explictly coded to treat all robbery as a potential lethal threat to one's life with no ambiguity whatsoever. I think the fact that he's reveling in it and going on media tours signals that he's morally bankrupt, and eager to join the grift, but I don't know if I can still fault his actions in that moment. He should've realized that he contained the threat, and the level of force he used at that point was beyond excessive. But the initial attempt at defense still...seems somewhat justified even if these two gormless dinks walked in with no apparent weapons saying 'lol gimmie ur shit' and took it despite the cashier asking them not to.

e: sorry I realized in my last paragraph it started to blur legality and morality again and that's my bad - i think broadly i agree with you that morally it was utterly wrong to continue to attack the thief after the threat was 'neutralized' and i think it's a failure in our societal understanding of self defense that it doesn't consider a reasonable level of force in its response...at least in terms of social actions and not legality, anyway.

He's not reveling in it. His comments are all available in a link in the other thread. Nothing he said incriminates him further. It's definitely stupid of him to have done the AMA, but there's no jury that will ever convict him of anything even if he faces charges.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that he continued attacking after the threat was neutralized. He literally stabbed the guy, and then got punched in the face, so he had to stab him again to try to neutralize him and hold him from behind and had stopped stabbing.

You continue to be wrong and desperate twist things however you can to justify a drastically excessive response to theft. Covering your face during a crime is not intimidation.

InfinityMonster posted...

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that he continued attacking after the threat was neutralized. He literally stabbed the guy, and then got punched in the face, so he had to stab him again to try to neutralize him and hold him from behind and had stopped stabbing.

From the video I watched, he stabbed him at least two more times after the guy threw a punch. That seems excessive to me, because the thief's figure is slumped over in the cashier's arms at that point.

Kimberly posted...

From the video I watched, he stabbed him at least two more times after the guy threw a punch. That seems excessive to me, because the thief's figure is slumped over in the cashier's arms at that point.

There was a first set of stabs, which didn't neutralize him and resulted in a punch. Then a second set, which ends when he got him against the counter and stabbed his neck. Which is when he slumped over.

Like, you got a guy you just stabbed and it resulted in him attacking you, so you stabbed some more to actually neutralize him this time, which ended up working. I think it's ridiculous to think that's too much or excessive as if the guy was out cold and he kept stabbing or something. It's on the level of "he should have shot his knees out" lol.

Eh, fair enough. I may not be taking reaction times into account. To me it looked like he continued the stabbing after the slump, but maybe I'm wrong/misreading the sitution. FWIW I definitely do not agree with the philosophy that you can target limbs in heated altercations with threat to life/deadly weapons, because it's often just a crutch centrism uses to whitewash the difficulties in altercations like this...So maybe I'm reading that situation under that lens still despite trying to do otherwise.

I'll think on it. Thank you.

COVxy posted...

The cashier used lethal force. It literally doesn't matter if the thief lived.

The cashier was acting in self defence. It literally does not matter if the thief died.

I get it, he overdid it

But stfu about being nice to people robbing you

Try waiting until you're bleeding out and then fight back

I cant believe there are people actually defending the robbers.

I cant believe you guys take an obvious troll so seriously

Don't know enough to comment on US law but I think he'd be fucked in the UK. No way pulling a knife and stabbing someone who hasn't threatened you with violence in any way multiple times will be seen as proportionate. Imagine the fact that any complete idiot can potentially have a gun in his pocket over there does change mentalities a bit.

You know what you can do to avoid getting stabbed while robbing a store?

Not going to rob a store. If you create a dangerous situation, you can't bitch when you get hurt.

If its a white criminal and black business owner, no one in this topic would defend the criminal.

DarkProto05 posted...

If its a white criminal and black business owner, no one in this topic would defend the criminal.

I dunno man, Covxy and Tenlar seem pretty pro-criminal.

Being pro-rehabilitation and anti-vengence, is not being pro-criminal lol.

The justice system shouldn't exist to "give people what they deserve". But to mitigate harm.

Legally I'm not familiar enough with the law. But morally he wasn't wrong.

It looks excessive but compare a knife with a gun. It takes a lot more stabs into the gut to kill than a single shot. A shot or two will get the person to stop being a threat. You can stab life 6 times in 4 seconds and still not have time to tell if they're still a threat or not. And he wasn't aiming for the neck so it isn't like you can say he was intending to straight up kill the robber like some people here think. And even if he did, I mean... A gun would have probably killed the robber and basically nobody would have been offended by his actions.

gunplagirl posted...

It looks excessive but compare a knife with a gun. It takes a lot more stabs into the gut to kill than a single shot. A shot or two will get the person to stop being a threat. You can stab life 6 times in 4 seconds and still not have time to tell if they're still a threat or not. And he wasn't aiming for the neck so it isn't like you can say he was intending to straight up kill the robber like some people here think. And even if he did, I mean... A gun would have probably killed the robber and basically nobody would have been offended by his actions.

Nah, I would still be angry that someone took someone elses life over what amounts to shoplifting.