AFAIK, the law in most jurisdictions requires you to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger to justify the use of deadly force in self defense. The assailant doesn't need to inform you that he intends to kill you.
Given NYC's skyrocketing violent crime due to the communist DA's practice of repeatedly releasing violent criminals without charge, in the name of "restorative justice," until they go on to commit capital offenses, I think it is reasonable in that climate to think that your life may be in danger when some piece of shit, who fears no punishment, comes behind the counter to assault you over a bag of chips.
Waiting to defend yourself until a goon with no impulse control beats you into semi-consciousness seems like a recipe for getting dead.
Of course, defending yourself under those circumstances means you'll have to deal with that same DA, who will prosecute you mercilessly to enforce the state of anarcho-tyranny. But it's still better than having your head stomped in by a troglodyte.
That's my semi-informed legal take.
My moral take is, there is no place in a moderately civilized society for the type of person who will assault a convenience store clerk over a bag of chips, and someone like that should absolutely be in fear of their life if they are thinking about doing violence to someone for such a petty reason.
If some random dude punches you in the face in the street, and you pull a gun, and he yells, 'shoot me bitch', and you shoot him, you still get charged with murder.
Something like that happened last year in Phoenix, AZ. A crazy guy attacked a legally armed man outside his home, told him to drop the gun and fight like a man, kept moving in on him, and got fatally shot. The shooter was (correctly IMO) not charged.
Waiting to defend yourself until a goon with no impulse control beats you into semi-consciousness seems like a recipe for getting dead.
Yeah, honestly, he should have maced both of them, and pulled the knife sooner and used it in a defensive display. He could have actually gotten them to back off.
Had he used ordinary force to counter ordinary force he would have been fine.
Something like that happened last year in Phoenix, AZ
I know which one you're talking about, and there's a major difference.
That guy kept pursuing after the defensive display of a firearm. That's the reasonable belief that someone's going to kill you. You showed that you had a weapon, that you are prepared to use lethal force, and they won't stop attacking.
I'm saying, if you pull the gun, and he stops and says shoot me, and you shoot him, that's still gonna be murder.
And in a similar way, the only thing that can save Alba right now is that Simon grabbed him to keep him from leaving. If he hadn't done that, this would be an open-and-shut case.
It's like a gun. You don't pull it until the situation dictates you use lethal force. Otherwise it's just brandishing
Plenty of states allow for defensive displays of firearms.
Easy. He should walk.
I reversed my position on this once I heard more information. I couldn't be sure originally that he would have had a reason to argue that he feared for his life. BUT, then I found out that the girlfriend had already stabbed an employee.
Yeah, honestly, he should have maced both of them, and pulled the knife sooner and used it in a defensive display. He could have actually gotten them to back off.
In a reasonable world, with reasonable people, this would make sense. But rational people don't physically assault someone because of the price of a bag of chips. There is no reason to assume the assaulter would come to his senses.
Also, given the confined space, the clerk would have just as likely been macing himself, leaving himself disadvantaged, with an already unreasonably violent attacker, now even angrier.
Had he used ordinary force to counter ordinary force he would have been fine.
Maybe from the legal perspective in a fundamentally broken jurisdiction, but in reality, when it comes down to violent conflict, you do not want to meet force with equal force. You want overwhelming force to stop an attacker and end the conflict. Anything less risks prolonging the fight and injuring innocent parties.
We are supposed to be living in a free country here in the US. To me this means all law-abiding citizens should have the freedom to go about their daily business without being assaulted by some utter shit-skull who wants to hurt people just because he can get away with it.
Even when the State is prosecuting properly It would be no comfort to wake in a hospital bed with your jaw wired shut and a traumatic brain injury to be "legally in the right."
When the State is compromised, as it is now in many states, it would be flat out humiliating to find your attacker was given a year of probation for kicking you in the head because he just kinda felt like it. It sends the message to criminals that they won't face consequences. It sends the message to the law-abiding citizens that their suffering is worth less than the freedom of a violent psychopath.
This is the line in a civilized society, and individual citizens have the moral right to hold that line. There is no valid reason to physically assault someone who hasn't done anything to you. There is no valid reason to let someone attack you and hope the cops come to rescue you before you suffer grievous injuries.
A thug who is considering violently attacking someone should absolutely have the fear that they will suffer immediate consequences for their actions.
FWIW, I upvoted your post. I never downvote for disagreement if it is thoughtful and interesting.
There is no reason to assume the assaulter would come to his senses.
It's actually NOT about making the dude come to his senses. First, it generally does work to stop mentally ill, and even dedicated attackers. Second, it blinds and incapacitates your attacker to a degree allowing you to escape, or even further attack them, equalizing the playing field on a stronger opponent. Third, again: it blinds and partially incapacitates them, meaning that their attacks on YOU are going to be weakend. Fourth, it actually helps in your justification to switching to lethal force because "He was so fucking crazy that after I maced him he still attacked me! I reasonably feared for my life since he was so aggressive."
Also, given the confined space, the clerk would have just as likely been macing himself
Depends on the mace. You want mace that goes out in a stream, not a fogger. You're gonna feel some spice, but it won't be nearly as bad as what they are getting.
Maybe from the legal perspective in a fundamentally broken jurisdiction, but in reality, when it comes down to violent conflict, you do not want to meet force with equal force. You want overwhelming force to stop an attacker and end the conflict. Anything less risks prolonging the fight and injuring innocent parties.
If you're a cop that makes sense, because we task the police with being a giant blunt-force object that everyone is required to obey, at least initially.
You don't want to use overwhelming force most of the time. It makes you look like the bad guy to other people who might intervene, and disproportional violence is not an appropriate solution in any just society. If you keep poking me, it is wrong for me to wheel around and hit you in the skull with a shovel, causing you permanent brain-damage and destroying your life... because you were annoying.
That's not a good society to live in, that's a horrible and terrible society where no one can be trusted not to fly off the handle. Most ghettos work like that because it's a kind of Honor Culture that is enforced through social violence. All minor slights have overwhelming and nearly lethal consequences, and the world is worse for it.
Proportional force doesn't mean equal. It just means within reason.
This is the line in a civilized society, and individual citizens have the moral right to hold that line.
Look, I think we live in a society that has made all social violence unacceptable, when it should be acceptable.
I would much rather prefer a cop taze me for 3 seconds for doing 15 mph over the speed limit, taze me for 10 for going 40 over, and macing me for other general infractions. A lot of people need to get their ass beat. Hell, I'd go so far that women need to get their ass beat for being so entitled they decide to maul a fucking restaurant because extra sauce was too expensive.
And yes, there should be the underlying concern that "I don't know this person, and if i act badly, or take things too far, I could get shot". That's a good thing.
Hell, I think it's downright unacceptable that we can't buy stingball grenades. That's how you stop these stupid flash mobs.
But proportionality still plays a part in all of that. We need a society that is:
A) prepared to use force to stop innocent people's lives and property from being harmed
B) prepared to be stoic in the face of some provocation. Because some shit isn't worth getting violent over.
AFAIK, the law in most jurisdictions requires you to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger to justify the use of deadly force in self defense. The assailant doesn't need to inform you that he intends to kill you.
Given NYC's skyrocketing violent crime due to the communist DA's practice of repeatedly releasing violent criminals without charge, in the name of "restorative justice," until they go on to commit capital offenses, I think it is reasonable in that climate to think that your life may be in danger when some piece of shit, who fears no punishment, comes behind the counter to assault you over a bag of chips.
Waiting to defend yourself until a goon with no impulse control beats you into semi-consciousness seems like a recipe for getting dead.
Of course, defending yourself under those circumstances means you'll have to deal with that same DA, who will prosecute you mercilessly to enforce the state of anarcho-tyranny. But it's still better than having your head stomped in by a troglodyte.
That's my semi-informed legal take.
My moral take is, there is no place in a moderately civilized society for the type of person who will assault a convenience store clerk over a bag of chips, and someone like that should absolutely be in fear of their life if they are thinking about doing violence to someone for such a petty reason.
Something like that happened last year in Phoenix, AZ. A crazy guy attacked a legally armed man outside his home, told him to drop the gun and fight like a man, kept moving in on him, and got fatally shot. The shooter was (correctly IMO) not charged.
Yeah, honestly, he should have maced both of them, and pulled the knife sooner and used it in a defensive display. He could have actually gotten them to back off.
Had he used ordinary force to counter ordinary force he would have been fine.
I know which one you're talking about, and there's a major difference.
That guy kept pursuing after the defensive display of a firearm. That's the reasonable belief that someone's going to kill you. You showed that you had a weapon, that you are prepared to use lethal force, and they won't stop attacking.
I'm saying, if you pull the gun, and he stops and says shoot me, and you shoot him, that's still gonna be murder.
And in a similar way, the only thing that can save Alba right now is that Simon grabbed him to keep him from leaving. If he hadn't done that, this would be an open-and-shut case.
Plenty of states allow for defensive displays of firearms.
I reversed my position on this once I heard more information. I couldn't be sure originally that he would have had a reason to argue that he feared for his life. BUT, then I found out that the girlfriend had already stabbed an employee.
100% justified.
In a reasonable world, with reasonable people, this would make sense. But rational people don't physically assault someone because of the price of a bag of chips. There is no reason to assume the assaulter would come to his senses.
Also, given the confined space, the clerk would have just as likely been macing himself, leaving himself disadvantaged, with an already unreasonably violent attacker, now even angrier.
Maybe from the legal perspective in a fundamentally broken jurisdiction, but in reality, when it comes down to violent conflict, you do not want to meet force with equal force. You want overwhelming force to stop an attacker and end the conflict. Anything less risks prolonging the fight and injuring innocent parties.
We are supposed to be living in a free country here in the US. To me this means all law-abiding citizens should have the freedom to go about their daily business without being assaulted by some utter shit-skull who wants to hurt people just because he can get away with it.
Even when the State is prosecuting properly It would be no comfort to wake in a hospital bed with your jaw wired shut and a traumatic brain injury to be "legally in the right."
When the State is compromised, as it is now in many states, it would be flat out humiliating to find your attacker was given a year of probation for kicking you in the head because he just kinda felt like it. It sends the message to criminals that they won't face consequences. It sends the message to the law-abiding citizens that their suffering is worth less than the freedom of a violent psychopath.
This is the line in a civilized society, and individual citizens have the moral right to hold that line. There is no valid reason to physically assault someone who hasn't done anything to you. There is no valid reason to let someone attack you and hope the cops come to rescue you before you suffer grievous injuries.
A thug who is considering violently attacking someone should absolutely have the fear that they will suffer immediate consequences for their actions.
FWIW, I upvoted your post. I never downvote for disagreement if it is thoughtful and interesting.
I've 100% reversed my position on this because I got new information, so I have to preface my response with that.
It's actually NOT about making the dude come to his senses. First, it generally does work to stop mentally ill, and even dedicated attackers. Second, it blinds and incapacitates your attacker to a degree allowing you to escape, or even further attack them, equalizing the playing field on a stronger opponent. Third, again: it blinds and partially incapacitates them, meaning that their attacks on YOU are going to be weakend. Fourth, it actually helps in your justification to switching to lethal force because "He was so fucking crazy that after I maced him he still attacked me! I reasonably feared for my life since he was so aggressive."
Depends on the mace. You want mace that goes out in a stream, not a fogger. You're gonna feel some spice, but it won't be nearly as bad as what they are getting.
If you're a cop that makes sense, because we task the police with being a giant blunt-force object that everyone is required to obey, at least initially.
You don't want to use overwhelming force most of the time. It makes you look like the bad guy to other people who might intervene, and disproportional violence is not an appropriate solution in any just society. If you keep poking me, it is wrong for me to wheel around and hit you in the skull with a shovel, causing you permanent brain-damage and destroying your life... because you were annoying.
That's not a good society to live in, that's a horrible and terrible society where no one can be trusted not to fly off the handle. Most ghettos work like that because it's a kind of Honor Culture that is enforced through social violence. All minor slights have overwhelming and nearly lethal consequences, and the world is worse for it.
Proportional force doesn't mean equal. It just means within reason.
Look, I think we live in a society that has made all social violence unacceptable, when it should be acceptable.
I would much rather prefer a cop taze me for 3 seconds for doing 15 mph over the speed limit, taze me for 10 for going 40 over, and macing me for other general infractions. A lot of people need to get their ass beat. Hell, I'd go so far that women need to get their ass beat for being so entitled they decide to maul a fucking restaurant because extra sauce was too expensive.
And yes, there should be the underlying concern that "I don't know this person, and if i act badly, or take things too far, I could get shot". That's a good thing.
Hell, I think it's downright unacceptable that we can't buy stingball grenades. That's how you stop these stupid flash mobs.
But proportionality still plays a part in all of that. We need a society that is: