Private PoopyPants said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

It seems that the robber closed the distance. The store owner had the counter between him and the 2 robbers when one jumped it and put the owner in danger.

---

That's not what the video showed. The clerk was looking at the guy on the right as he was reaching over the counter. He sees the guy jump over the counter to the left, but the guy on the left isn't even looking at the clerk. He's grabbing stuff off the shelf. The clerk runs toward him and stabs him.

And if this guy really is blabbering to the media and to Reddit he's going to get himself in trouble. He will say something wrong (may already have) and it will be used against him.

---

Agree on second part, but first part I think you have to be able to put yourself in the clerk's shoes. If someone robbing you comes over the counter, you have a split second to assess their intentions. You can either wait and see if he tries to shoot or stab you, or you can attack and potentially disarm or bewilder him into retreating.

At this juncture, the clerk's in a corner. Even if he has a duty to retreat, he's got nowhere to go. I think a reasonable person would immediately Cobra Kai the guy coming over the counter in that situation.

We need more people involved in no billing or acquitting on these types of cases.

Putting victims on trial needs to end.

Hopefully more people will wake up, get involved and be active in the jury pool.

That's a lot of words that repeat an *opinion* that the threat to the clerk's life was not reasonably assessed to be urgent, pressing and absolutely necessary to avoid serious bodily harm.

But my opinion is that the moment two criminals hoped into the enclosed area in masks towards the clerk it was entirely reasonable for him to fear for his life - and that threat would not have subsided until the assailants were gone.

What is going to matter will be the opinions of the jury of peers that get selected.

Still not seeing any local push either way on this one.

Except he didn't immediately do so. He grabbed a knife, advanced toward the guy who wasn't even looking at him, reached his left hand out and actually grabbed the guy than stabbed him in the back. The guy was stealing merchandise, he was not accosting the clerk. The clerk closed the distance.

Under Nevada law, the danger must be so real and present that the only way to save your own life or to prevent your own great bodily harm is to kill the person. It also must be "absolutely necessary."

Did that really happen here? The clerk got mad, justifiably so, and stabbed a guy.

All I'm trying to do here is correct the myth that saying you were scared will necessarily get you off of charges or conviction. In fact, Nevada law specifically spells out that bare fear is not enough to justify killing someone.

When you attempt to kill someone, you are putting a lot of faith in people you've never met to use their discretion to let you go free. It doesn't always work out for you. Sure, he might get no billed. But he's putting his life in the hands of other people and it was completely unnecessary.

If anyone here is a gun owner I strongly recommend looking at Branca's website and YouTube videos. It may save you a lot of problems down the road in the event you are in a position to use deadly force.

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

Private PoopyPants said:

---

Except he didn't immediately do so. He grabbed a knife, advanced toward the guy who wasn't even looking at him, reached his left hand out and actually grabbed the guy than stabbed him in the back. The guy was stealing merchandise, he was not accosting the clerk. The clerk closed the distance.

Under Nevada law, the danger must be so real and present that the only way to save your own life or to prevent your own great bodily harm is to kill the person. It also must be "absolutely necessary."

Did that really happen here? The clerk got mad, justifiably so, and stabbed a guy.

All I'm trying to do here is correct the myth that saying you were scared will necessarily get you off of charges or conviction. In fact, Nevada law specifically spells out that bare fear is not enough to justify killing someone.

When you attempt to kill someone, you are putting a lot of faith in people you've never met to use their discretion to let you go free. It doesn't always work out for you. Sure, he might get no billed. But he's putting his life in the hands of other people and it was completely unnecessary.

If anyone here is a gun owner I strongly recommend looking at Branca's website and YouTube videos. It may save you a lot of problems down the road in the event you are in a position to use deadly force.

---

So what you are saying is that in Nevada as long as you rob a store but ignore the employees or owner they can't touch you? I'm not touching you so you can't touch me, that's what the law says? Once he jumped the counter any reasonable person can see the employees life was reasonably in danger

This blade, it will keeeel.

VegasAg86 said:

---

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

---

I thought it was Ne-va-da

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

Except he didn't immediately do so. He grabbed a knife, advanced toward the guy who wasn't even looking at him, reached his left hand out and actually grabbed the guy than stabbed him in the back. The guy was stealing merchandise, he was not accosting the clerk. The clerk closed the distance.

Under Nevada law, the danger must be so real and present that the only way to save your own life or to prevent your own great bodily harm is to kill the person. It also must be "absolutely necessary."

Did that really happen here? The clerk got mad, justifiably so, and stabbed a guy.

All I'm trying to do here is correct the myth that saying you were scared will necessarily get you off of charges or conviction. In fact, Nevada law specifically spells out that bare fear is not enough to justify killing someone.

When you attempt to kill someone, you are putting a lot of faith in people you've never met to use their discretion to let you go free. It doesn't always work out for you. Sure, he might get no billed. But he's putting his life in the hands of other people and it was completely unnecessary.

If anyone here is a gun owner I strongly recommend looking at Branca's website and YouTube videos. It may save you a lot of problems down the road in the event you are in a position to use deadly force.

---

So what you are saying is that in Nevada as long as you rob a store but ignore the employees or owner they can't touch you? I'm not touching you so you can't touch me, that's what the law says? Once he jumped the counter any reasonable person can see the employees life was reasonably in danger

---

Can't use deadly force =/= can't use any force.

NoahAg said:

---

This blade, it will keeeel.

---

He is now the new forged in fire champion. He passed the bandit stab test.

eric76 said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

---

I thought it was Ne-va-da

---

I was isolating the a sound because that's the mistake.

Everyone is missing out on the real issue here - the burglar appears to be white and used the "n-word." Therefore, any violent results were justified.

Quote:

---

The thief was still fighting until the final stab. The worker had absolteuly no way to determine whether or not the thief had a firearm and would, if he got away, draw it and shoot him with it resulting in his serious damage or death.

This isn't a baseball game where the winner is the one with the most runs. The only way to win this "game" is to survive.

---

The thief was being stabbed repeatedly...of course he was "fighting until the final stab." He turned his back to the clerk, he appears to me to be trying to get away from the guy stabbing him in the back repeatedly.

"I didn't know if he did or didn't have a firearm" is almost never really how the law works.


p.s. If the clerk thought he might get shot, why did he stand there trying to talk to the two robbers face to face? It seems to me the clerk, as much as anything, was understandably pissed off he was getting robbed and saw a chance to go after one of the thieves once the guy jumped over the counter.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

So what you are saying is that in Nevada as long as you rob a store but ignore the employees or owner they can't touch you? I'm not touching you so you can't touch me, that's what the law says? Once he jumped the counter any reasonable person can see the employees life was reasonably in danger

---

For starters, there's some distance between "touching" and "killing" or "attempting to kill."

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

So what you are saying is that in Nevada as long as you rob a store but ignore the employees or owner they can't touch you? I'm not touching you so you can't touch me, that's what the law says? Once he jumped the counter any reasonable person can see the employees life was reasonably in danger

---

For starters, there's some distance between "touching" and "killing" or "attempting to kill."

---

There's also some distance between the employee and robber until the robber jumps over the counter cornering the employee. At that point you shouldn't be forced to wait for the robber to take another step and pull out a gun, if you wait for him to that it might be too late at that point.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

So what you are saying is that in Nevada as long as you rob a store but ignore the employees or owner they can't touch you? I'm not touching you so you can't touch me, that's what the law says? Once he jumped the counter any reasonable person can see the employees life was reasonably in danger

---

For starters, there's some distance between "touching" and "killing" or "attempting to kill."

---

There's also some distance between the employee and robber until the robber jumps over the counter cornering the employee. At that point you shouldn't be forced to wait for the robber to take another step and pull out a gun, if you wait for him to that it might be too late at that point.

---

Not my point, but the clerk wasn't cornered. The clerk was around the corner of the counter, pulled the knife up to shoulder level and shuffled around the corner and took multiple steps towards the thief who had his hands out trying to grab some of the smokes.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/california-liquor-store-owner-shoots-would-be-armed-robber/

How about this one

Tex100 said:

---

https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/california-liquor-store-owner-shoots-would-be-armed-robber/

How about this one

---

Easy self-defense. The robber is pointing a gun at the store owner.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

So what you are saying is that in Nevada as long as you rob a store but ignore the employees or owner they can't touch you? I'm not touching you so you can't touch me, that's what the law says? Once he jumped the counter any reasonable person can see the employees life was reasonably in danger

---

For starters, there's some distance between "touching" and "killing" or "attempting to kill."

---

There's also some distance between the employee and robber until the robber jumps over the counter cornering the employee. At that point you shouldn't be forced to wait for the robber to take another step and pull out a gun, if you wait for him to that it might be too late at that point.

---

Not my point, but the clerk wasn't cornered. The clerk was around the corner of the counter, pulled the knife up to shoulder level and shuffled around the corner and took multiple steps towards the thief who had his hands out trying to grab some of the smokes.

---

Your phrasing makes it sound like a signifiant time elapsed between when the thief jumped over the counter and the store clerk responded.

In reality, the store clerk's response took about a second.

In the very limited time he had to react, he could not have known the extent of the robber's intentions. Are you suggesting that he should have stood back and analyzed the situation for a while before deciding whether or not to defend himself?

It is reasonable to suspect that two people coming into your store wearing masks, who refuse to leave, who then begin stealing, who further advance toward you are indeed armed and will use whatever force to complete their criminal act.

To see this situation any other way is nave or simply sinister and disregards the purpose and intent of self-defense defenses. Their appearance, and in particular their wearing of masks, followed by their ongoing criminal act, creates a heightened danger and justifies the knife used in self-defense.

The clerk is being judged by the standard we'd use for a cop. Masked guys outnumber you and hop your counter? I assume everything is in play. The flanking counter jump changes everything in my book.

Btw, he already had the knife but didn't start stabbing the first guy who was grabbing stuff but didn't hop the counter. But he does stab the guy that did hop it. That tells me a ton about his fear and real-time, split second assessment of the threat. First guy assessed as a thief. Second assessed as a true threat. And I don't blame him

2 vs 1 is disparity of force and a huge element in green lighting lethal force in defense of self or property.

And jumping the counter in some places is automatically considered strong arm robbery that justifies deadly force by store owner or employee.

fixer said:

---

And jumping the counter in some places is automatically considered strong arm robbery that justifies deadly force by store owner or employee.

---

Just wearing something that disguises your face such as a motorcycle helmet will be considered by many store clerks as a clear sign that you are going to rob them.

I walked into one convenience store one morning without taking my motorcycle helmet off and the manager let me know in no uncertain terms to never do that again.

VegasAg86 said:

---

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

---

A true Texan don't give a sheit and pronounces it Nuh-vaah-duh

fka ftc said:

---

It is reasonable to suspect that two people coming into your store wearing masks, who refuse to leave, who then begin stealing, who further advance toward you are indeed armed and will use whatever force to complete their criminal act.

To see this situation any other way is nave or simply sinister and disregards the purpose and intent of self-defense defenses. Their appearance, and in particular their wearing of masks, followed by their ongoing criminal act, creates a heightened danger and justifies the knife used in self-defense.

---

I would strongly suggest you watch the video I linked above. A lot of what you said is actually legal myth and can get people in trouble. Neither one of those individuals represented a threat under Nevada law which would allow someone to use deadly force against them. Had the guy behind the counter turned and come at the clerk it would be very different.

Look at the cases of Michael Drejka and Michael Dunn. Both used deadly force to "defend themselves" because they "were scared." Both are now serving significant prison sentences. They were convicted in Florida, a state notorious for upholding the right to self-defense. Both had the mindset that as long as they were acting in "fear" that a jury would not convict them. Both of them argued they were scared about what might happen, and it didn't work.

fixer said:

---

2 vs 1 is disparity of force and a huge element in green lighting lethal force in defense of self or property.

---

Completely false. The first person stole the tip jar. The other guy jumped the counter to take things off the shelf. Stabbing the second guy had nothing to do with a threat from the first guy.

I'm saying he wasn't cornered in response to a claim he was cornered. I'm not sure how imply all of that but if you want to argue against something you made up, go for it

VegasAg86 said:

---

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

---

He's an interesting guy. I think he's from Massachusetts originally and now lives in Colorado. Probably explains the pronunciation. He's a Second Amendment absolutist and doesn't think there should ever be gun laws, at all. Carries with him pretty much everywhere he goes.

One of the reasons he specializes in self-defense law is because he wants to help gun owners avoid prison.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

It is reasonable to suspect that two people coming into your store wearing masks, who refuse to leave, who then begin stealing, who further advance toward you are indeed armed and will use whatever force to complete their criminal act.

To see this situation any other way is nave or simply sinister and disregards the purpose and intent of self-defense defenses. Their appearance, and in particular their wearing of masks, followed by their ongoing criminal act, creates a heightened danger and justifies the knife used in self-defense.

---

I would strongly suggest you watch the video I linked above. A lot of what you said is actually legal myth and can get people in trouble. Neither one of those individuals represented a threat under Nevada law which would allow someone to use deadly force against them. Had the guy behind the counter turned and come at the clerk it would be very different.

Look at the cases of Michael Drejka and Michael Dunn. Both used deadly force to "defend themselves" because they "were scared." Both are now serving significant prison sentences. They were convicted in Florida, a state notorious for upholding the right to self-defense. Both had the mindset that as long as they were acting in "fear" that a jury would not convict them. Both of them argued they were scared about what might happen, and it didn't work.

---

Neither of those cases are the least bit comparable to the robbing of the store in Nevada.

They are much more similar to that of Raul Rodriguez in Texas.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I'm saying he wasn't cornered in response to a claim he was cornered. I'm not sure how imply all of that but if you want to argue against something you made up, go for it

---

Did he have a duty to retreat?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

---

A true Texan don't give a sheit and pronounces it Nuh-vaah-duh

---

I've known people who pronounce the 'a' at the end of the word as an 'er'.

One woman from Alaska who I knew years ago always pronounced Alaska as if it were Alasker.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

One complaint on the video. It's Nev-ad-a, not Nev-ah-da!!!!!

---

A true Texan don't give a sheit and pronounces it Nuh-vaah-duh

---

That is correct.