Don't be mad at me. I don't write the ****. I'm telling ya'll how it is.

I feel like I'm sitting in the back row of a CHL class with all this crazy talk.

I already told y'all that we all would have shot both the mfers. No question.

What I'm trying to impress on you people is that it ain't as easy as it looks, after the fact.

The clerk set up the camera for security but that doesn't always mean its gonna work in your favor.

I hope the video doesn't **** the dude. I hope he no bill or nullified

All I'm telling y'all is its a problem and not everybody on here appreciates that.

Quote:

---

As much as I utterly dispose property crimes like theft, did they have arms, make a threat of force, or initiate an attack on his person, or were they just trying a grab and run?

---

A person only has to make that decision if they are a victim.

Don't make someone a victim and you don't have to worry about dying.

I don't think a jury would convict on this. And I don't think it would be based not on nullification but on reasonable doubt. However, I think this will play out like the New York bodega incident at worst. A Soros DA may file charges, but public pressure will never allow it to get to trial.

El_Zorro said:

---

I am a criminal defense attorney, former cop, former prosecutor, a self-defense/use of force expert in Texas.

In my jurisdiction no charges are brought on this 99 times out of a 100 and I could win this if he was charged every single time.

Edit: you might have to pay me at least $50k though.

---

That would be a pretty easy GoFundMe. Well, I guess as long as GoFundMe doesn't pull the plug on it.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Hypothetically

If clerk shoots when the dude first jumped the counter, the clerk would be better off.

But instead he runs towards him and stabs him in the back with a knife.

Thats two different things, and that's what y'all don't appreciate.

---

You are saying that you need to use a gun for self defense because a knife forces you to advance toward the bad guy to defend yourself?

His guilt depends upon the weapon he used to defend himself?

Yeah. That's what I'm saying.

Stat is trolling.

Seven Costanza said:

---

This is a more complete clip.

---

This just warms my heart.

Satellite of Love said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

The perp takes a swing at him

---

After the clerk stabbed him a few times.

---

After being ROBBED!

---

Again this is what the law on the books. Not your personal feelings.

I loathe thieves and wish nothing but the worst for them but when within the realm of the law the clerk isn't in the clear.

---

So he asked them to leave, he was outnumbered, they were dressed in a threatening way, and one aggressively and violently jumped over the counter where he's now cornered.

I would say that would make a reasonable person fear they would die or suffer great bodily injury.

Are you saying that a reasonable person would NOT fear great bodily injury in this scenario?

Stupe said:

---

El_Zorro said:

---

I am a criminal defense attorney, former cop, former prosecutor, a self-defense/use of force expert in Texas.

In my jurisdiction no charges are brought on this 99 times out of a 100 and I could win this if he was charged every single time.

Edit: you might have to pay me at least $50k though.

---

I have no issue with people that commit crimes having to pay a boatload to attorneys.

But this guy shouldn't even be charged. Let alone have to spend even a dime on an attorney.

---

I agree. He likely wouldn't even be charged in west Texas. Dallas, Harris, Travis, and Bexar might be a different story.

30 years ago, you would be good statewide.

Sad, but he didn't seek this confrontation. Innocent in my eyes

If he's convicted, Is that Asian-hate?
If he's not, then racism?

Seems like a conundrum for MSM.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What I'm trying to impress on you people...

---

!?!?!?

Quote:

---

His guilt depends upon the weapon he used to defend himself?

---

It's not really guilt though. Thats the wrong way to look at.

It's a matter whether it was justified.

What you see is murder. Whats unclear is whether is was justified.

At the end of the day 9 12 mfers are going to decide that and thats always a risk.

Last I heard, the white kid he stabbed was alive. Has that changed?

No death = not murder, by definition .

Aren't there 12 folks on a jury? And the kid lived.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

His guilt depends upon the weapon he used to defend himself?

---

It's not really guilt though. Thats the wrong way to look at.

It's a matter whether it was a justified killing.

What you see is murder. Whats unclear is whether is was justified.

At the end of the day 9 mfers are going to decide that and thats always a risk.

---

12

We talking whether the clerk would have been better off if he shot the dude when he jumped the counter.

Yeah 12 is what I was trying to say.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

It isn't about what we think the guy deserved, it is what the law actually allows.

At the moment he was stabbed, the guy was using both hands to take things from the shelf. At the moment he was stabbed, he was not accosting the clerk. The clerk stabbed him and in fact it was the clerk who quickly closed the distance and stabbed him when it may not have been necessary to prevent imminent risk to his life. Imminence is a huge legal factor in self defense claims. That's going to be the major point of contention moving forward IMO.

This is a big difference from the NY case. In the NY case, the guy was being physically and verbally threated with bodily harm and the threat was still imminent.

---

This is my issue with the law. Lawyers and DAs will spend hours Monday morning quarterbacking the video to decide. None of them will be able to put the emotions and fear into it that should be taken into account as well, IMO.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Borderline either way. Really going to depend on how the state's law is written. (Personally, I'm not losing any sleep over the guy being killed.)

Biggest question is if the perp displayed a weapon which I didn't see. Also, the perp did not advance on the clerk or even really pay attention to him. He looked to just be trying to grab the smokes.

I think the owner is probably going to be in trouble.

---

You right.

I see the clerk as the aggressor here.

I'm pretty sure he has a duty to retreat here.

He wasn't in imminent danger of serious bodily harm … imo.

Bottom line is he ran towards the guy.

You can't use deadly force to defend personal property. At least not in this situation.

So thats the problem the guys got. If somebody brought this case under the right circumstances … I think you in real trouble. Jury might nullify but if they follow the law you might be in real trouble here.

Everybody on here would have shot the mfer 8 times. I get that.

But,

You got to really look into and think about whats going on here. And it might not be what you think.

---

Do you even Joe Horn bro? You can use deadly force to protect property

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

I'm telling ya'll how it is. And y'all talkin about how it should be. Thats two different things.

---

You're telling us how it is after watching the video several times without being threatened, and having time to think about options/laws/etc.

doubledog said:

---

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice ... No
Aforethought ... No

Manslaughter.. questionable...
Criminally negligent homicide ... No

---

He won't get convicted of murder, but based on Nevada law it seems like this could certainly meet the criteria for manslaughter.

Even conservative self defense experts are saying this probably doesn't meet the criteria for self defense in Nevada.

Artorias said:

---

Two men come into the store in masks, and jump the counter, and people are saying the shop owner should not have defended himself?

WTF is wrong with you people?

---

This discussion isn't about what should be, it's about what is.

Morally he didn't do anything wrong IMO. Legally, in Nevada, it's very possible he could be convicted of a crime.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice ... No
Aforethought ... No

Manslaughter.. questionable...
Criminally negligent homicide ... No

---

He won't get convicted of murder, but based on Nevada law it seems like this could certainly meet the criteria for manslaughter.

Even conservative self defense experts are saying this probably doesn't meet the criteria for self defense in Nevada.

---

Those "experts" aren't too smart, then. He didn't die. So NONE of those charges are even possible.

I'm trying to learn y'all something but you fightin me every step of the way.

BigRobSA said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice ... No
Aforethought ... No

Manslaughter.. questionable...
Criminally negligent homicide ... No

---

He won't get convicted of murder, but based on Nevada law it seems like this could certainly meet the criteria for manslaughter.

Even conservative self defense experts are saying this probably doesn't meet the criteria for self defense in Nevada.

---

Those "experts" aren't too smart, then. He didn't die. So NONE of those charges are even possible.

---

He's still in serious condition was my understanding, so death is certainly still possible.

But my reference to self defense guys was that this probably won't hold up to self defense claims. If the guy eventually fully recovers there are other things they could charge him with.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

As much as I utterly dispose property crimes like theft, did they have arms, make a threat of force, or initiate an attack on his person, or were they just trying a grab and run?

I'd agree if they came at him into reach and he was outnumbered he definitely had a right to defend a perceived threat. The question is if he can pursue to continue the defense?

---

You need to up your level of despise.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice ... No
Aforethought ... No

Manslaughter.. questionable...
Criminally negligent homicide ... No

---

He won't get convicted of murder, but based on Nevada law it seems like this could certainly meet the criteria for manslaughter.

Even conservative self defense experts are saying this probably doesn't meet the criteria for self defense in Nevada.

---

So the thief actually did die, then?

From www.fox5vegas.com/2022/08/06/las-vegas-smoke-shop-owner-fights-back-stabs-robber/:

Quote:

---

"The whole time I was a little bit nervous because obviously I was getting robbed," said Johnny Nguyen.

"I was really scared for my life because they were wearing baggy clothes... one of them came in with a bag as if he had a firearm," Nguyen explained.

...

Nguyen now plans to get a gun for the store in case someone tries to rob his store again.

"I don't know who their friends with, maybe they want to come back and do something else, so I just must stay vigilant," Nguyen stated.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police tell FOX5 News two juveniles were arrested, and one more is still outstanding.

They did not say how badly the robber who was stabbed was hurt.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice ... No
Aforethought ... No

Manslaughter.. questionable...
Criminally negligent homicide ... No

---

He won't get convicted of murder, but based on Nevada law it seems like this could certainly meet the criteria for manslaughter.

Even conservative self defense experts are saying this probably doesn't meet the criteria for self defense in Nevada.

---

Those "experts" aren't too smart, then. He didn't die. So NONE of those charges are even possible.

---

He's still in serious condition was my understanding, so death is certainly still possible.

But my reference to self defense guys was that this probably won't hold up to self defense claims. If the guy eventually fully recovers there are other things they could charge him with.

---

Gotcha.

Yeah, unfortunately in today's "society", common sense isn't too common.

When law enforcement isn't there to protect you, whether philosophically or physically, you have to be able to defend yourself and your property. As an employee, he's given charge over the store's wares.

Maybe if more people are stabbed while trying to be dewshcanoes, there will be less dewshcanoes.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice ... No
Aforethought ... No

Manslaughter.. questionable...
Criminally negligent homicide ... No

---

He won't get convicted of murder, but based on Nevada law it seems like this could certainly meet the criteria for manslaughter.

Even conservative self defense experts are saying this probably doesn't meet the criteria for self defense in Nevada.

---

Those "experts" aren't too smart, then. He didn't die. So NONE of those charges are even possible.

---

He's still in serious condition was my understanding, so death is certainly still possible.

But my reference to self defense guys was that this probably won't hold up to self defense claims. If the guy eventually fully recovers there are other things they could charge him with.

---

I guess we've become so adjusted to stealing with no consequences, that we've forgotten most thieves typically wouldn't expect a shop own to just stand right there quietly while you rob them. When I first saw the video of the guy jumping over the counter, my first thought was he was going to attack the cashier. Wouldn't the cashier assume so too? Does the cashier have to wait until he gets stabbed to fight back?

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Borderline either way. Really going to depend on how the state's law is written. (Personally, I'm not losing any sleep over the guy being killed.)

Biggest question is if the perp displayed a weapon which I didn't see. Also, the perp did not advance on the clerk or even really pay attention to him. He looked to just be trying to grab the smokes.

I think the owner is probably going to be in trouble.

---

You right.

I see the clerk as the aggressor here.

I'm pretty sure he has a duty to retreat here.

He wasn't in imminent danger of serious bodily harm … imo.

Bottom line is he ran towards the guy.

You can't use deadly force to defend personal property. At least not in this situation.

So thats the problem the guys got. If somebody brought this case under the right circumstances … I think you in real trouble. Jury might nullify but if they follow the law you might be in real trouble here.

Everybody on here would have shot the mfer 8 times. I get that.

But,

You got to really look into and think about whats going on here. And it might not be what you think.

---

Do you even Joe Horn bro? You can use deadly force to protect property

---

He's not in Texas. He's in Las Vegas. You can't defend property with deadly force in Nevada.