I would be interested to see what angle they're taking here, given that Alba was being physically assaulted by Simon at the time...
The only one I can think of is some shitheel DA asserting that because Alba had a knife within reach it was premeditated or something.
I mean, I'm sure it was premeditated. No doubt at all in my mind that Alba deliberately and consciously intended to open some boxes or something along those lines. Kind of thing you use a knife for, you know?
I would be interested to see what angle they're taking here, given that Alba was being physically assaulted by Simon at the time...
It's in NYC. New York state has the idiocy called "duty to retreat" in it which basically means if you have any possible chance to run away from the person attacking you then you are obligated to take that rather than trying to defend yourself. I'm willing to be that argument in court is going to be that since Alba was able to push past Simon to get the knife (as seen in the video) then he should have kept moving in that direction and run away instead.
since Alba was able to push past Simon to get the knife (as seen in the video)
Doesn't look like he had to push past him at all to me. Looks like Simon picks him up by the scruff of his collar and starts marching him out, and Alba grabs the knife as he's being pushed past it.
It's quite possible you are correct. I'm certain a NYC prosecutor would try to argue that it showed Alba wasn't trapped in the corner though because self defense = bad in NYC.
Oh yeah, I don't expect anything charitable from the prosecutors. I just didn't want anyone accidentally conflating what a prosecutor might argue with an accurate representation of the situation.
Honestly, this is a really sketching killing. I never saw one act of lethal force used by Simon. Now, maybe Simon was yelling something about how he'd kill him or something, but if Alba was not being threatened with being killed, and this was (effectively) a strong arm robbery for a bag of chips, there's a real liklihood that this really does warrant a murder charge.
If a guy shoves you, and gets in your face, and calls you a bitch, you actually can't just plunge a knife in his throat, and you are likely to get hit with a charge of murder. Generally, if someone is engaging in simple battery, you can't just start blasting.
Especially, if Alba told the police: "Yeah, as soon as he shoved me, I was gonna get the knife", that would do it for the premeditation.
I'm not honestly sure on that point. As described, Simon is shoving Alba into bits of shop furniture. I imagine he's not being too careful about it, either, so I can easily picture somebody genuinely being worried about being smashed back into something hard enough to knock them out, at which point you're entirely dependent upon your assailant's charity.
Unfortunately, yes, he was. But that's what can be used against him. His assailant wasn't trying to murder him. In fact, he stopped hitting him. He just stood there and intimidated him. If you're gonna argue that you had the right to kill him, he needs to be doing something more than mean-mugging you.
If he's got any chance of avoiding a conviction for murder, there's gotta be saying something about Simon threatening to kill him, and then not letting him leave. At that point, it's an argument that a jury can parse through. Without that, he's genuinely guilty of murder, and his articulation of imminent grievous bodily harm is going to have to be some stretch-armstrong levels of rationalization.
New York law states that self defense using deadly physical force is not permitted unless a person reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or is about to be used on himself, herself or a third person. Even in such a situation however, the law imposes on a person a duty to retreat before he or she can resort to using deadly physical force if they can retreat with complete safety.
If the guy genuinely believed his life was in danger then according to the law, he could use lethal force because he literally had no place to retreat. He could probably argue the the violence was escalating leaving him no choice but it might be a tough sell to a jury. If he's been robbed or assaulted before that may help speak to his state of mind, but again, it might be difficult to convince a jury.
At the point Alba grabbed the knife Simon had picked him up by the scruff of his collar and was marching him past the knife to God knows where to do god knows what.
Given the obvious size and fitness differences, the now-or-never choice being presented by being forced out from behind his counter, and the fact he was still being physically restrained and taken against his will, that should cover the bases for inability to retreat and reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
When the choice is take the last possible opportunity to use his only known and reasonably likely means of successfully defending himself, or let himself be abducted by someone with unknown intentions who had already demonstrated a desire to do him bodily harm, he was justified in taking immediate action at the last moment it was presented to him, even if it necessitated lethal incapacitation of his attacker. The argument that a dazed old man who'd just been thrown into a wall can definitely escape that weak collar grip imay not be untenable but certainly isn't beyond reasonable doubt, and should not be basis for a murder conviction.
If you watch the video he has his hand on the back of the dudes neck as he gets up to grab the knife. I think at that point old dude can start making a better argument for himself
I would be interested to see what angle they're taking here, given that Alba was being physically assaulted by Simon at the time...
The only one I can think of is some shitheel DA asserting that because Alba had a knife within reach it was premeditated or something.
I mean, I'm sure it was premeditated. No doubt at all in my mind that Alba deliberately and consciously intended to open some boxes or something along those lines. Kind of thing you use a knife for, you know?
It's in NYC. New York state has the idiocy called "duty to retreat" in it which basically means if you have any possible chance to run away from the person attacking you then you are obligated to take that rather than trying to defend yourself. I'm willing to be that argument in court is going to be that since Alba was able to push past Simon to get the knife (as seen in the video) then he should have kept moving in that direction and run away instead.
Doesn't look like he had to push past him at all to me. Looks like Simon picks him up by the scruff of his collar and starts marching him out, and Alba grabs the knife as he's being pushed past it.
It's quite possible you are correct. I'm certain a NYC prosecutor would try to argue that it showed Alba wasn't trapped in the corner though because self defense = bad in NYC.
Oh yeah, I don't expect anything charitable from the prosecutors. I just didn't want anyone accidentally conflating what a prosecutor might argue with an accurate representation of the situation.
Honestly, this is a really sketching killing. I never saw one act of lethal force used by Simon. Now, maybe Simon was yelling something about how he'd kill him or something, but if Alba was not being threatened with being killed, and this was (effectively) a strong arm robbery for a bag of chips, there's a real liklihood that this really does warrant a murder charge.
If a guy shoves you, and gets in your face, and calls you a bitch, you actually can't just plunge a knife in his throat, and you are likely to get hit with a charge of murder. Generally, if someone is engaging in simple battery, you can't just start blasting.
Especially, if Alba told the police: "Yeah, as soon as he shoved me, I was gonna get the knife", that would do it for the premeditation.
I'm not honestly sure on that point. As described, Simon is shoving Alba into bits of shop furniture. I imagine he's not being too careful about it, either, so I can easily picture somebody genuinely being worried about being smashed back into something hard enough to knock them out, at which point you're entirely dependent upon your assailant's charity.
Unfortunately, yes, he was. But that's what can be used against him. His assailant wasn't trying to murder him. In fact, he stopped hitting him. He just stood there and intimidated him. If you're gonna argue that you had the right to kill him, he needs to be doing something more than mean-mugging you.
If he's got any chance of avoiding a conviction for murder, there's gotta be saying something about Simon threatening to kill him, and then not letting him leave. At that point, it's an argument that a jury can parse through. Without that, he's genuinely guilty of murder, and his articulation of imminent grievous bodily harm is going to have to be some stretch-armstrong levels of rationalization.
New York law states that self defense using deadly physical force is not permitted unless a person reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or is about to be used on himself, herself or a third person. Even in such a situation however, the law imposes on a person a duty to retreat before he or she can resort to using deadly physical force if they can retreat with complete safety.
If the guy genuinely believed his life was in danger then according to the law, he could use lethal force because he literally had no place to retreat. He could probably argue the the violence was escalating leaving him no choice but it might be a tough sell to a jury. If he's been robbed or assaulted before that may help speak to his state of mind, but again, it might be difficult to convince a jury.
At the point Alba grabbed the knife Simon had picked him up by the scruff of his collar and was marching him past the knife to God knows where to do god knows what.
Given the obvious size and fitness differences, the now-or-never choice being presented by being forced out from behind his counter, and the fact he was still being physically restrained and taken against his will, that should cover the bases for inability to retreat and reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
When the choice is take the last possible opportunity to use his only known and reasonably likely means of successfully defending himself, or let himself be abducted by someone with unknown intentions who had already demonstrated a desire to do him bodily harm, he was justified in taking immediate action at the last moment it was presented to him, even if it necessitated lethal incapacitation of his attacker. The argument that a dazed old man who'd just been thrown into a wall can definitely escape that weak collar grip imay not be untenable but certainly isn't beyond reasonable doubt, and should not be basis for a murder conviction.
Good to know. Seems self-defence is just about as theoretical a concept in NY as it is in my own UK...
he goes to jail for being retarded then, the only words exchanged with police should be "am I free to go?" and if the answer is no, then "lawyer"
If you watch the video he has his hand on the back of the dudes neck as he gets up to grab the knife. I think at that point old dude can start making a better argument for himself
Sure, but not likely a good enough one.