A "stand your ground" law would only save him from need to prove that he could not flee, but we are told that "he was unable to flee" (and that's how it looks in the video). The more difficult question is whether he believed he was threatened by great bodily harm, and that's still an issue if there is a "stand your ground" law. If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
११ जुलै, २०२२
"A New York City bodega group says the Big Apple should adopt a local version of Florida’s controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law after a Manhattan store worker was charged with murder..."
"... for defending himself.
United Bodegas of America — which has rallied behind Jose Alba, the 61-year-old shop employee facing a slay rap after fending off a violent ex-con — said Sunday that the measure is needed to protect others who toil behind the counter.
'Bottom line — in Florida, this is what you would consider stand your ground,' UBA spokesman Fernando Mateo said at a press conference, referring to Alba’s case.
'That’s what New York City needs,' Mateo said of the law.... Mateo said a more expansive statute in New York, similar to Florida’s, would have provided Alba with legal grounds for stabbing and mortally wounding 35-year-old Austin Simon when he stormed behind the counter July 1 and accosted Alba. Alba tried to get past Simon and pulled a knife when he was unable to flee, in the caught-on-video incident."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८५ टिप्पण्या:
If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
Bullshit.
In the act of robbery violence is implicitly threatened.
Societal fabric is formed by the pressures society places on the individual.
Once you threaten to steal someone else's stuff by force you are fair game in a decent high trust society.
If you want a violent low trust society you throw people in jail for killing violent robbers.
If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
If they're only trying to rob you, they're likely to be easily deterred by someone standing their ground.
Hands up! This is only a robbery!
That guy was charged?! That's outrageous. All New Yorkers should be pissed. At what point does the state think it is okay for people to defend themselves.
The real question is where do the robbers go if the bodega owners become a hardened target?
When crime spills out onto the streets, it impacts a whole lot more votes.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
And this needs to fucking change.
“If someone is only trying to rob you…”
And how would you know, exactly? More specifically, that’s a pretty imprecise and incorrect way to phrase the self defense standard.
But then we get to the shoot from the hip opinion aspect of the issue, and in that realm I would say the tie breaker goes to the person who was not aggressively charging and assaulting the other person (without saying “I only intend to rob you”).
Criminals are an important constituency in cities with "enlightened" district attorneys. Bodega owners are not.
What a lot of stories are leaving out is that the thug's baby momma pulled a knife on Alba - and stabbed him in the arm - after he took the chips from her thuglet because she couldn't pay. He was in fact, already in threat of sever bodily injury and lethal assault before he was ever confronted by wifebeater jones.
And guess what...he might be dead but she's still free.
AA said: "If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
***********
There's a reason the Beatles sang: "She could steal, but she could not rob."
Robbing people always has an element of force attached to it. What if the robber is holding a gun to your head while trying to rob you? Just how force much do you have to accept? After all, your life is being threatened *while* the robber tries to relieve you of your Rolex.
Why should a robber KNOW in advance that he won't be killed in the act?
A hypothetical: what if someone is trying to rape you. Do you "get to kill them", or are you required to "Close your eyes and think of England"?
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
Why not? Shouldn't we try to put some fear into the potential robbers?
Or should the rule be you can maim the robber, but you can't kill him?
I don't like the current system where robbers have no pushback from society.
NYC will change one way or another. Many wealthy people moved to Long Island or Florida during the pandemic because of remote work, and they took NYC's tax base with them. At the same time NYC and many blue cities went crime-wild in 2020 with the aftermath of George Floyd and BLM.
Now, in 2022 NYC's subways are running at less than 50% of their prior usage:
https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/nyc-subway-turnstiles/
NYC will soon become the apocalyptic wasteland of "Escape from New York" or they'll find a way to fix the city. Not coincidentally, New York state responded to the recent Supreme Court 2nd Amendment gun ruling by doubling down on (proven ineffective) gun control efforts.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/07/09/new-york-gun-law-social-media-accounts/10013081002/
"When all you have is a hammer, the world is full of nails."
It looked to me like the so called "victim" was not trying to rob him, but was trying to HURT HIM. Self Defense. All over a bag of potatoe chips. This is what a Progressive Utopia looks like. Enjoy the downfall!!
Given the age differences and that the perp came behind the counter, Alba has a good argument that he reasonably feared serious bodily harm or death.
If he’s convicted, then bodega employees should quit.
Then Michelle Obama can whine about Food Desserts in high crime areas where shoplifting and robberies are rampant.
The more difficult question is whether he believed he was threatened by great bodily harm, and that's still an issue if there is a "stand your ground" law. If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
If someone pulls a knife or gun on you, I dont' care if they "say" they are "only" going to rob you.
Having that weapon pointed at you is a clear threat of great bodily harm
This gets so tiresome sometimes. Stand Your Ground means the statutory abrogation of the common law Retreat Doctrine. Most of the country has gone this way, because of prosecutorial misuse, where defendants had seconds to find a viable, safe, avenue of retreat, while experiencing stress induced tunnel vision, while prosecutors had months to find an avenue of retreat. We see it, time and again, with progressive, often Soros funded, DAs not prosecuting violent criminals for their crimes, but instead prosecuting law abiding citizens who engage in self defense when attacked by those violent criminals. They control the process, and even if they have no real case, as they probably don’t here, they destroy the lives of those who resist, even if the are acquitted, as they deserve to be. The process is the penalty.
The proper question here is whether the bodega worker was in reasonable fear of imminent death or rest bodily injury (which typically includes broke bones). Any sort of rational jury is going to side with the defendant here. The deceased was much younger, more violent, and he had an accomplice (his GF) with a knife.
There is newly released video of the girlfriend pulling a knife on the proprietor.
Althouse wrote: If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
It’s hard to judge the desperation of a $3 attack. In those moments, it is also hard to judge the motivation. If the root cause is coke, crack, heroin, meth, or fentanyl….it can go in any sad, violent direction quickly.
When it comes to these situations where gas stations, bodegas, and convenient stores are robbed, the killing happens quickly. This 61-year-old had probably been robbed many times before. In the video, the much younger, and stronger African-American male had him cornered. Great bodily harm can be done quickly.
From reading the stories, it was all over some $3 dispute that the attacker’s girlfriend started. Sad part is the guy that got stabbed was wearing an expensive name brand t-which makes becoming violent over $3 ridiculous.
Last week in Milwaukee two men died during a robbery at an El Ray grocery store at about 15th and National Ave, not far from The Third Ward. The robber shot a security guard, and a second security guard shot the robber. And it all happened in and instant. AND it happened at 10:30 am.
This is where I believe that white people from Madison, WI really don’t care about the suffering of the minority communities in Milwaukee. They just want their Democrat votes. Claiming “if they are just going to rob you, you don’t get to kill them” purposefully ignores the fact that you don’t know if they are going to rob you AND take your life along with the merchandise. EXPECIALLY in drug filled neighborhoods.
These root cause problems destroying Milwaukee and all of America’s cities are also brushed aside by the general white liberal population who consider themselves politically aligned and sympathetic to these communities. And they like to call everyone else racists.
All thieves should be stabbed to death. shot to death. whatever it takes.
What the hell is the problem here?
Want to stop thievery? Allow home owners and business owners to kill thieves.
Make the Soros cry!
Simon didn't just "accost" Alba, he assaulted him. He was 35, Alba 61, and appeared to tower over him, probably 6 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier. He had Alba trapped behind the counter. That's as much as I need to know. Of course Alba feared for his life, and had every right to eliminate the threat. Stabbing him once wouldn't have done that, clearly, as Simon continued to come after him. Any idea that he could have used less force is as dumb as the idea that cops can just shoot to injure rather than kill.
The president and politicians are all allowed to defend themselves. You cannot even approach the President much less tell him to give you his stuff.
You will get shot.
Now lets talk about Ashley Babbit. The government thugs shot her. But this poor clerk is being charged with murder?
While we are at it how many Black people are in jail for possession and distribution of crack? For possession of illegal fire arms?
Hunter Biden has committed dozens of felonies on camera and they are charging this clerk with murder?
This regime is evil. It is supported by evil people.
Period.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
Not true.
I suppose if someone is trying to rob you without threatening you in any way, you might be right. But if he is saying "Give me X or I will hit you", you are not required to give him X, and you are allowed to prevent him from hitting you, using deadly force. I suppose there could be issues about how credible his threat is. That asshole looked pretty credible to me.
At 87K right now;
https://www.givesendgo.com/helpjosealba
It's abundantly clear from the video that the assailant initiated physical contact, committed battery, and then prevented Alba from leaving. Only at that point did Alba grab the knife and attempt to free himself.
I trust the Daily Mail more than they lying NY Times. The girlfriend of the so called "victim" stabbed him with a knife too, yet SHE wasn't arrested. WHY?? This is what happens when you defund the police, and criminals run the cities. Enjoy the progress!!! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11002189/New-videos-bodega-worker-stabbed-gangsters-girlfriend.html
“ If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.”
That needs to change.
"Controversial" to who? Why not just be truthful and write "Disliked by liberals"?
When you're a 61 y/o man, and you're attacked by somone bigger and stronger with no place to run, its understandable you fear for your life and use a knife. There was no evidence that Alba was tryng to kill anyone, just disable them to stop the attack.
However, I wonder if Alba will get a fair trial in Manhattan. I suppose it will depend on the jury. Someone should look at manslaughter and 2nd degree murder in NYC and see if 250K is high amount of bail. I would bet it is.
I read it wrong, but the New York POST didn't mention the girlfriend stabbing the store workers arm and getting off scot free when SHE was the one who caused the whole debacle
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
In NYC if you are a drug dealer fighting off a gang member by decapitating said gang member, that probably gets pled down to criminal mischief and littering.
I am also at a loss as how to identify if someone is "only" planning to rob you. That's not a reasonable test when in that sort of stressful situation. You generally do not take a criminal's word for the level of violence they are planning to use when relieving you of your property, and often the criminal does not know what they are going to do when put in a high stress situation of their own making. Mind reading is typically not considered when determining criminal charges.
Emerging video also shows the attackers girlfriend pulled a knife and stabbed Alba during the $3 attack at the bodega.
It all happens so fast. She hasn’t been charged with ANYTHING, and the old man gets prosecuted. She stabbed the old man [Alba} in the arm as he fought the $350 t-shirt wearing boyfriend. Bitch got her boyfriend killed too. This man stood his ground, saved his own life, and should not be charged.
This is what Democrat woke DA’s are all about. It’s what Milwaukee’s Democrat DA John Chisolm is all about. And it is one of the many reasons our once beautiful Wisconsin City, like NY and Chicago, is turning to shit.
I'm old enough to remember when a famous man only wanted to bepenised a woman, she couldn't even get to cancel him.
Baby steps.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
"only trying to rob you"? Only? You know this... how? So if you say "No", they'll just go away. Is that how it works?
And "get to"? You make it sound like those who want to protect themselves are looking for an opportunity to kill people.
If robbers needed to fear for their lives, there might be more dead robbers and fewer robberies. Not seeing the downside.
Sorry. Wrong. If someone is trying to rob you, they are threatening you with deadly force--that is the threat is that they will kill you. Unless you can easily escape (and Alba could not) you must fight or be a victim. The retroactive "see you gave money and didn't die" is not a valid analysis because it ignore the people who gave their money and were killed anyway or who didn't give their money and were killed.
Being liberal means you have to be very concerned about criminals, but not so concerned about innocent victims.
I suppose that the real question is , which has more voters: store owners or thugs?
The punk came around the counter because of a dispute over a bag of chips. Given that action, and his string of vulgarities, he wasn’t interested in rationally discussing the impact of monetary policy on snack foods or shrinkflation in packaging. Case dismissed.
If you're robbed with threat of lethal force, the guy is saying your property is worth more than your life. That might set the rules.
“If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.”
From the description this was assault, battery, and false imprisonment as well as robbery. Anyway, regardless of the law, if I’m on the jury the guy walks.
Order collapses when we tell assailers that their victims aren't allowed to act disproportionately.
I want them to fear for their lives every time they rob or assault or rape. I want them to know that it's not just illusory fear, because robbers and assaulters and rapist HAVE been killed for their crimes.
We protect ourselves. Cops do the paperwork after it's all over.
I agree that stand your ground isn't in play here, but considering the risk he took in his attempt to flee, I can see why the bodega group wants it.
That tape is going to make it very hard to get a conviction. He had already been roughed up pretty badly. Pretty reasonable to assume that there was more to come.
"Only robbing?" He was stabbed by the woman before the video of the man continuing to harass him. Do perps now deserve one free stab in addition to outnumbering the victim?
Thieves always share their motivation and willingness to do bodily injury to you as they rob you. You can always count on someone who, when trying to rob you, shows no immediate intention to harm you. Especially as they charge into your personal space.
To me, that type of rationed thinking comes from someone who has never been robbed in person or faced the threat of violence or intimidation to rob you.
The reality of being robbed in person is that the thief, the robber, isn't just taking your stuff while you watch. They (often he) is using the threat of bodily harm if you try to intervene. Sometimes that's directly, through the pointing of a gun or knife, sometimes thats simply by their size and body language. But that is what makes them comfortable robbing you to your face.
Why are we even debating this? There is no way that a person robbing you is not a potential threat to your life. Therefore, if the person gets killed by the victim it should be justifiable homicide.
I'm thinking he should get to kill the Soros DA as well. Fair is fair.
And Democrats wonder why Hispanics might be considering switching their votes.
People keep talking about Robbery. This wasn't a robbery, the young black guy was trying beat Alba up for "disrepecting" his girlfriend. She'd already stabbed Alba. This should be an open and shut case of self-defense. Alba basically had two alternative: Let the black guy beat him up and possibly kill him OR use the knife. He was too old to fight back, and couldn't run away.
But then these 'Self-defense' cases are very strange to my non-lawyer eyes. Rittenhouse was flat on his back, and guys were coming up to attack him, he shot to stop them, and was put through hell. The McMichaels was attacked by the Jogger who punched him and tried to take his shotgun away. It went off, and he was convicted of Murder One.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, two men got in a fight. One was knocked out cold, the other took out a knife and stabbed the unconcious man to death. The DA ruled it was "Mutal combat" and he was left go!
Emerging video also shows the attackers girlfriend pulled a knife and stabbed Alba during the $3 attack at the bodega.
Working link
I can't tell if she stabbed Alba before or after he stabbed Simon. But it doesn't matter, since Alba's self-defense was justified regardless of what the girlfriend was up to.
Has the NYT described Alba as a "white Hispanic"? The parallels to the Zimmerman case are there. Older, smaller Hispanic guy gets pinned down (in this case, trapped) and assaulted by a younger black thug and kills in self-defense.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
“If someone is only trying to rob you…”
After assault and battery have already happened, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove the criminal was “only” trying to rob the victim.
Always remember that the police and courts do not protect us from criminals. They protect the criminals from us.
Most people who step up and demand money have a weapon while doing so….
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
Just speaking for myself: Enjoy? Of course not. But I have a hard time seeing the moral justification for protecting predators. I also wonder if such a world would see dramatically less crime. IDK that it would, but if it it did, yeah, I think it would be worth it.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
Only trying to rob you? No. For mere stealing, sure. You can't go shooting shoplifters. But someone threatens your life to take your property? You don't have to wait for the guy to kill you to start fighting back. That's unworkable unless one believes in ghosts.
’Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.’
Is the person demanding the money pointing a gun at the clerk?
The robber attacked the shopkeeper.
@wendybar
All over a bag of potatoe chips.
Dan, is that you?
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
Such interpretations of the natural right of self-defense are grossly unfair. If someone is trying to rob you, you are automatically outnumbered.
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
Not true. Guns should only be used on those who show up with 13 items in the 10 item line.
"It was a Robbery gone wrong". How many dead men have gotten that obituary?.
We see it, time and again, with progressive, often Soros funded, DAs not prosecuting violent criminals for their crimes, but instead prosecuting law abiding citizens who engage in self defense when attacked by those violent criminals. They control the process, and even if they have no real case, as they probably don’t here, they destroy the lives of those who resist, even if the are acquitted, as they deserve to be. The process is the penalty.
I love how so many of the commenters here make an assertion of fact (20 million illegal votes in the 2020 election, 3 million illegal immigrants voting in Los Angeles alone in 2016) without the least shred of evidence or even a link to a single event.
Can you provide multiple examples (since you claim this happens "time and again")
You can't, because you are full of shit.
"It was a Robbery gone wrong". How many dead men have gotten that obituary?.
Does not sound like a robbery situation. Sounds like an angry fight escalation situation. Also reason don't see the girlfriend being charged for using a knife to stab the guy with a knife stabbing her boyfriend.
If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
You get to use deadly force to defend yourself against the robber if you fear death or serious bodily injury, which in turn may or may not kill the robber.
Althouse makes it sound like an execution-style intentional killing. Or something like this?
https://twitter.com/grindfacetv_/status/1545783133890441216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1545783133890441216%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2022%2F07%2Fclerk-oreillys-auto-parts-shoots-customer-woman-pulled-counter-beat-talked-mama-video%2F
“ Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.”
No question in my mind that that would be a better world. Just hope I’m not standing near the guy and get icky stuff on me.
You got it, Prof.
@Althouse wrote: "Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun"
This attitude is a natural reaction to the opposite, where some claim there is no right to self defense. In turn, they recently squandered time and credibility prosecuting people who defend themselves, such as Kyle Rittenhouse and Oberlin College vs. Gibson's Bakery.
Push too hard ideologically and you'll get a mirror reaction ideologically. Politics 101. Avoid this state of affairs or face tribal warfare.
Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
Pure Bad Faith on your part.
"and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
Works for me! The difference now is meth. They will do anything on meth.
"and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
Works for me! The difference now is meth. They will do anything on meth.
@Althouse
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
The world that exists now vs. the world that's coming. Incidents like this and the thousands of others in recent memory provide the evidence for just the kind of world you think others would enjoy. Nobody would enjoy that, but that is the world these people and elected leadership that are soft on this kind of behavior are unknowingly creating. This kind of free-for-all leads one place and one place only: necklacing in Nigeria.
Fundamentally, we're not stuck in society with criminals. Criminals are stuck in society with us. Society puts up with a lot, until it doesn't anymore and shoplifters end up with tires around their necks or their hands cut off. No one wants such things to happen, but society has limits.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
How do you know how the "robbery" is going to proceed? IMO, that's a completely unworkable position. If I have the means to make sure I am still alive 5 minutes from now, I'm going to take it. And since I didn't initiate the "robbery", I feel morally justified in doing so.
Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
What is really funny is that Ann would never live in a place where people are thrown in jail for defending themselves.
She lives in a place surrounded by rich people who don't steal.
If a poor/low class person comes to Ann's neighborhood they will be harassed by police.
But Ann wants poor people in inner cities to have to deal with the constant threat of violence without the ability to defend themselves.
This is the part where you should really start being honest about what the results of your words and policies would be.
Because your words and actions do not match.
It's high time Congress passed the Thugs and Robbers Bill of Rights. It's been languishing in the Senate because Republicans threated a filibuster.
President Obama and I fought... Look...
It's not rocket science. Come on!
We've gotta come together. Stop fighting, so we can get things done.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
I am not sure this is an accurate hypothetical, though I do agree that some people have been less than clear about the dividing lines.
If someone comes up and demands money, it's not really a robbery. The clerk can just ignore the request. And the robber would know this, so there is probably some actual or implied threat assumed by the commenters. At this point it should not be necessary for the clerk to wait to see if the robber will make good on the threat. If the person is willing to threaten bodily harm, there is no safe way of knowing if they will not make good on that threat after obtaining the money.
Now, if you are away from the till and a person walks up to empty it, there is no threat, and going all John Kersey on them would be inappropriate. If they just grab arm loads of stuff and walk out without paying, same deal.
I think our commenting group is more in line with scenario A rather than B.
Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
**************
Wow, we've really hit a nerve, haven't we?
The thing is, "some of us" are arguing that if a robber uses physical force against you, or threatens to do so, you have a right to defend ourselves ---up to and including killing the perp..
In the bodega case, the girlfriend first wounded the clerk with a knife, then her criminal boyfriend (much larger, much younger, and very fit) came behind the counter and began waling on the old guy who was armed only with a knife.
That's a far different situation than the utterly-false--and--totally--off-point hypothetical you are trying to hold us to: this isn't a gun control issue!
But yes: robberies would certainly decline if perps knew they risked death every time they engaged in one.
Perhaps you might want to read up on the topic:
https://felonyguide.com/What-makes-robbery-a-felony.php
"While the exact definition of felony differs from state to state, robbery generally involves the taking of another person's property by force, fear, or intimidation, with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property.
Robbery differs from theft in that robbery always involves some use of force, or threat of force. Therefore, robbery is always considered to be a violent crime, as well as a more serious crime than theft. As a result, while theft can result in misdemeanor or theft charges, robbery usually results in a felony charge."
I read an account from an eyewitness in a market in Nigeria. A shopkeeper called "help thief" as a young man ran away. The crowd closed around him and beat him to death. Did he steal anything? A single mango? But this is what you get when there are no cops. Democracy indeed.
Bruce Hayden said...
This gets so tiresome sometimes. Stand Your Ground means the statutory abrogation of the common law Retreat Doctrine.
The reason why people flipped out over Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was not the "stand your ground" part, but the part where someone asserting self defense could demand a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing.
In Peterson, the Court found that “when immunity under [the “Stand Your Ground” law] is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes … [and] must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches”.
The point being you don't have to go to trial, you only need a 51% likelihood of it being self defense, and if you lose you still get a second shot at the criminal trial.
Bringing THAT to NY would be a good thing
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
I'd enjoy it a lot more than a world where robbers are allowed to assault and steal while those who attempt to protect their lives and property are threatened with prosecution by the state.
Oh shit. Did I make a rape joke up there? 👆🏽
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
1: Yes, I would
2: That isn't what happened in this case. First his girlfriend stabbed the guy, then he threatened him, and then the guy pulled out a knife to defend himself, and the now dead guy attacked him
3: When the populace decides to get rid of the Soros DAs who refuse to charge criminals for their crimes, #1 might change. But given a choice between "this robber won't be prosecuted, so will rob and rob again" and "this robber has been shot and killed, and will never rob anyone again", I vote for the latter.
The criminal justice system was created to provide something better than mob justice.
The left wing "anti-punishment" movement is worse than mob justice
So, you all can either restore a criminal justice system that punishes criminals to a better extent than mob justice does, or you quite properly will get mob justice.
The priority queue of any decent criminal justice system is (from most important to least important):
1: Provide justice for the crime victim
2: Protect future potential victims
3: Rehabilitate criminals
The Dems have elevated #3 to #1. That is not a legitimate choice
“ Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.”
That’s a gross mid characterization of both this case and the arguments made here. A person demanding money has not demonstrated an intent to commit great bodily harm. The criminal in this case did.
Also, in the vast majority of defensive gun uses, no shots are fired. The criminal realizes you’re not a soft target, and he leaves. So yes, I would “enjoy” a world where the manager can draw a gun to deter an advancing thief; and if the thief continues to advance, shoot him. Self defense law doesn’t work that way, but it should. Anyone who advances in the face of a drawn gun is counting on you not to use it, and intends to take it away from you. Violently.
Ann, this doesn't really have much to do with someone demanding money per se. Someone could in theory "demand" money from a cashier and not present any significant threat of serious bodily harm. (For example, picture a seven-year-old kid with a water pistol trying to hold up a candy store.) OTOH, someone could present a significant threat of substantial bodily harm without demanding any money (e.g., if a stranger walks in to your store and holds a gun to your head while saying nothing). It's not the demand for money that justifies the use of force, it's the unlawful threat of serious bodily injury. Where that exists, I most certainly do prefer a world in which citizens at the receiving end of such threat be able to use the gun to extinguish it.
IMO, cashiers who use deadly force in such cases should only be prosecuted if it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no actual and reasonable fear on the cashier's part that the assailant presented an immediate threat of serious bodily harm.
Long time rule, adhered to by those of us who have seen violence first hand.
If you point a gun or knife at me, your intentions are to kill me.
Draw your weapon, only if you are ready to use it- a code that has existed for thousands of years.
what is shocking to me is that so many have forgotten that rule.
You don't get to fake it, or change your mind. Not a video game, or a kids game.
When I was a kid, these things were understood. Guns and knives aren't toys, and consequences are terrible.
Freder Frederson said...
Other: We see it, time and again, with progressive, often Soros funded, DAs not prosecuting violent criminals for their crimes, but instead prosecuting law abiding citizens who engage in self defense when attacked by those violent criminals.
I love how so many of the commenters here make an assertion of fact (20 million illegal votes in the 2020 election, 3 million illegal immigrants voting in Los Angeles alone in 2016) without the least shred of evidence or even a link to a single event.
Can you provide multiple examples (since you claim this happens "time and again")
Well, Freder, let's start with this event: do you agree that THIS is a case where the DA is prosecuting a law abiding citizen for engaging in self defense, while refusing to prosecute the actual criminal (in this case the girlfriend)?
Because If you don't agree we're already at 1, there's no point in discussing this with you
During the George Floyd riots in Omaha, we had a very similar case.
A bar owner in the Old Market was protecting his property. He was armed. He was on the street when the mob knocked him and his dad to the ground. The guy got up but JuJu Scurlock wouldn't let it go. JuJu was a convicted felon. His father was a convicted felon and the father of something like 20 kids.
The bar owner told people to back off. He fired a warning shot in the air. JuJu jumped on the guy's back and put him in a choke hold. The bar owner told him to get off. He then reached around his back and killed JuJu.
The Omaha Police and the county attorney investigated. Witness interviews, the defendant spoke while in jail and much cell phone video reviewed.
The County Attorney is Don Kleine. He's a friend. I donated to his campaign. He gave a press conference and reviewed the facts and evidence. He declined to press charges.
The Left and the Dems go wild. They want criminal charges. Kleine appoints a special prosecutor, a law school classmate of mine who recently retired as an AUSA.
My classmate decided to file charges.
Bar owner had been with his family in OR. He committed suicide in OR.
The Dems then pass a resolution at their party convention stating that Don Kleine is a racist. He switched parties. A defender of JuJu is running for County Attorney.
My prediction is that the Manhattan DA will prosecute the case. And the bodega clerk better get lawyers from a real law firm and not the Public Defender.
Under progressive liberal criterion of self-defense, it is only necessary to assume, assert that a criminal entity is a "burden". The employee is a hero in the modern sense.
If someone tries to rob me they risk being killed. I will take my chances with the jury.
“If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.”
“Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.”
Maybe you were using the word ”rob” in the more colloquial sense of stealing? In that light your original statement makes some sense.
But the common law definition of robbery is the unlawful taking of property from the person of another through the use of threat or force. So it depends upon the level of force used by the robber and whether under the circumstances that use of force makes it reasonable for the victim to fear death or serious bodily injury. If the robber has a gun or knife or creates the impression he has a gun or knife, the victim has a straightforward self-defense defense. If no weapon is displayed or simulated, it’s a closer question but if you have actual force used by a significantly larger/younger man plus no means of escape, that’s a pretty good self-defense defense, too. All things being equal, it probably makes more sense policy-wise to disincentivize people from being the initial aggressor than it does to disincentivize people from using excessive force in response to aggression.
Apparently some of you wish to be the DA in Kenosha County. There, only if you are already mortally wounded do you have the right to defend yourself, and even then it should be less than proportionate just to "be fair" and all.
At what point in absorbing a felonious assault does an old man have a right to attempt to equalize the battlefield with his younger stronger armed attackers? Please point out the line so we know where you stand.
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
Texas State law allows for the use of deadly force to prevent robbery and the use of deadly force to prevent the criminal from fleeing with your property immediately after committing the robbery, if you have a reasonable fear your property cannot be recovered by other means.
More and more, the idiots running things demonstrate that they want a state of anarchy wherein nobody bothers to call the cops. Ever. They'll just go back to doing what they always did, and deal with these things informally and with limited to no regard for the rights or privileges of the criminal.
Don't be real surprised when you start seeing video of these criminal types being dragged away from the scenes of their crimes and set afire, or them simply disappearing, never to be seen again anywhere. The more you tear down people's faith that justice will be done, the more that they're going to take matters into their own hands, and the less humane the entire situation will become.
The victims and the mob will make their own justice, and good luck finding any witnesses or any evidence. All you'll have to work from will be the desiccated charred remains of men like Austin Simon, probably accompanied by everyone else involved in the incident. And, you'll likely further see federations of the victimized banding together to deal with these situations, in some permanent manner. Absent any involvement from the police or prosecutors.
If you won't provide public justice in such a manner as to provide effective dissuasion...? Don't be real surprised when someone else steps in to fill that vacuum. If not the local government, then it'll likely be either pissed-off victims, or organized crime. Time was, robbing a store that had paid their local racketeer "protection money" was a positively lethal endeavor, one likely to result in you being made a rather unpleasant example of by other criminals. Don't provide effective policing and justice? You're just encouraging more of that good ol' anarchy.
Wa St Blogger said...
@wendybar
All over a bag of potatoe chips.
Dan, is that you?
7/11/22, 12:25 PM
What do you expect from a public school education???
Professor,
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
This is pure bad faith. This is beneath you. No one looking at that video would think that hate DA is in the right here. Ask Meade, he won’t lie.
"Time was, robbing a store that had paid their local racketeer "protection money" was a positively lethal endeavor, one likely to result in you being made a rather unpleasant example of by other criminals. Don't provide effective policing and justice? You're just encouraging more of that good ol' anarchy."
I'm beginning to understand that protection money has its upside. Maybe American Express should include it as an offered benefit.
The more difficult question is whether he believed he was threatened by great bodily harm, and that's still an issue if there is a "stand your ground" law. If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
(Having just gotten my ID concealed carry permit a few months ago ...)
Depends. If you feel threatened with death or serious bodily harm while the robbery is in progress, then by all means you get to kill the robber. However, once the robbery is completed you don't get to attack the perpetrator leaving the scene.
"Your money or your life" is the traditional expression of the basic criminal proposition in a robbery (as opposed to mere stealing). So, yeah, if the robber is armed, or using the threat of being armed to get money or goods, I would think that is a basic self-defense situation as it has been understood with or without statutory clarification.
But as I understand the facts in the bodega guy case, robbery is irrelevant. The felonious boyfriend was called in to deliver a beat-down to the bodega clerk for refusing to let the girl-friend walk out with an unpaid-for bag of chips. The boyfriend had begun the physical assault on the bodega guy, who tried to escape. Whether the size and age difference created a reasonable fear for his life would be a classic prosecutorial and/or jury issue in determining self-defense.
The dead guy wasn’t trying to rob the clerk he had come to fuck him up as his girlfriend promised he would. With that in mind, having just heard the threat from the girlfriend, the clerk could reasonably conclude he was about to get fucked up. By her N as she explained. Personally glad the thug no longer strolls the streets of NYC.
And yes, Althouse, it is an excellent idea for store clerks to blast the shit out of anyone pointing a gun at them asking for the cash.
“Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.”
You seem to have left out some salient information in your response. How did the robber demand money? Was it an armed robbery? Did he brandish a weapon such as a knife or a gun and threaten to kill the cashier or did he just politely ask to be given the money? If it were the latter, then you make a good point, but, somehow, I don’t think that would be the case.
My prediction is that the Manhattan DA will prosecute the case. And the bodega clerk better get lawyers from a real law firm and not the Public Defender.
GoFundMe wouldn't allow donations for him (of course), but nearly $90,000 has been donated through GiveSendGo.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
Yup. And for much the same reason that I didn’t mind when my doctor excised a pre-cancerous growth from my scalp.some cells don’t deserve to remain in my body.
If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
You most certainly can.
"I feared for my life."
And then have your lawyer demand the prosecutor try to prove otherwise.
Can someone who’s passed the New York bar explain whether, under the law, the girlfriend can be prosecuted for murder and attempted murder? In some states if multiple people working together to commit a felony (not the theft of potato chips, the assault and attempted murder of Mr. Alba), and if one of the perpetrators is killed, then the surviving perpetrators can be charged with murder. But does New York law work that way too?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
I would much rather have that than seeing someone carted off to jail for defending themselves. But honestly I think your attempt at an argument here is ridiculous. You are avoiding the actual issue and jumping over to a more defendable one.
By definition, robbery implies a threat of physical violence, otherwise it would be blackmail, panhandling, or shoplifting.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
Well, I'd rather live in that world than the one you're espousing where robbers and thieves get to do whatever the fuck they want with no threat of repercussions.
And believe it or not, I have personal experience in this type of situation. It wasn't at a cash register. It was inside my garage. And yes. There were guns involved.
Spare me your fantasy land. There are people out there with the intent to do real harm. Better they be on the receiving end than me.
Can you provide multiple examples (since you claim this happens "time and again")
You can't, because you are full of shit.
Field Marshall Freder sure has powerful arguments.
Ann thinks a robber gets the victim to surrender the money with no threat of violence. I would buy that argument with burglary but this was a situation in which the aggressor returned for revenge for his girlfriend being denied her ability to steal an item. The old man (Alba) did not know his intentions.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell..
The word "enjoy" is a pretty deep and offensive accusation. Well chosen, but false. Nobody enjoys any of this. We just have sympathy for the guy who got attacked and stabbed first. He got stabbed first. The lack of acknowledging this information is simply prejudice.
Most of us, like Althouse, don't live in areas where this type of thing happens frequently. Ann doesn't have to worry about it in her part of Madison. And Milwaukee is and hour and twenty minutes away. Like most of us, Ann doesn't have to fear going to the grocery store like those that live at 16th and National in Milwaukee. It's a privilege.
I would challenge any Madison liberal to go to the Milwaukee's hood and ask the suffering community members if store owners should be able to defend themselves. Ask the people who are afraid to go to the store at night...and robbery / murders are happening at the stores at 10:30am. Ask them if they want to defund the police.
Trust me. There is more interaction between those people and conservatives in Waukesha County that between Milwaukee and Dane County Elite. We share borders. We work together. Run factories together. Dig ditches together. And yeah...they don't blame us for avoiding driving through the rough neighborhoods.
And then go ask the wealthy white liberals in Madison WI. You're gonna get very different answers. Just like we witnessed here.
Or the controversial LA riot shop owner's stand your roof. From Seattle to Portland to Salt Lake City to Madison to Charlottesville to District of Corruption... Columbia to New York City and places in between, rise from your knees, stand up for your rights. No rites. No heroes.
Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
How many robberies do you think occur where the robber just walks in and says; "Gimme all your money!" without any threat of violence real or implied involved?
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money stabbed me with his sharpened spoon * he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
If you add in place of my asterisk "in a manner that makes me fear death or great bodily harm", then, yes.
Used to work at a gas station in high school. I have a nice scar on my stomach where my robber - one of many - stabbed me with his sharpened spoon when I wouldn't open the drop safe. A damned spoon! Harmless, right? Nope. GBH. Many stitches.
I watched a guy die after being punched in the face. One punch. Broke his skull, brain bleed, dead. No weapon. Harmless, right? Nope. Dead.
This is not a contract class where we arrive at some agreement beforehand - if you rob me, I will react THIS way. The burden is on you, the robber. Want to take the chance that I will react nicely? Go for it. I won't. I won't start such things, but I will end them, and I won't be limited by what a robber thinks I might do. Proportionate response is a tool of bullies and beaters.
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
1: Yes, I would
2: That isn't what happened in this case. First his girlfriend stabbed the guy, then he threatened him, and then the guy pulled out a knife to defend himself, and the now dead guy attacked him
3: When the populace decides to get rid of the Soros DAs who refuse to charge criminals for their crimes, #1 might change. But given a choice between "this robber won't be prosecuted, so will rob and rob again" and "this robber has been shot and killed, and will never rob anyone again", I vote for the latter.
The criminal justice system was created to provide something better than mob justice.
The left wing "anti-punishment" movement is worse than mob justice
So, you all can either restore a criminal justice system that punishes criminals to a better extent than mob justice does, or you quite properly will get mob justice.
The priority queue of any decent criminal justice system is (from most important to least important):
1: Provide justice for the crime victim
2: Protect future potential victims
3: Rehabilitate criminals
The Dems have elevated #3 to #1. That is not a legitimate choice
The girlfriend, whose name is for some reason withheld despite being the person that started this event, wanted a bag of chips, gave the owner a bad credit card, and then decided to just leave with the bag of chips without paying. The bodega owner tells her she can't just steal the bag of chips but does not kill her. Differing accounts suggest at this point she may have brandished a knife at the bodega owner, but I'll concede we don't know if that happened. Still, it is pretty clear that nobody was killed for only robbing the bodega.
The girlfriend then has her boyfriend, Simon, go into the bodega to rough up the owner. If you watch the video, you'll see that Simon enters the bodega. Simon then pushes Alda, who is not confronting Simon, out of his chair and on to the floor. Simon then stands over Alda making threats, messing with his back pocket, and all the while Alda does not physically respond. Simon then starts confronting a third person, which is when Alda stands back up and tries to move past Simon with his back to Simon. At this point, Simon grabs Alda and now Alda produces a knife and stabs Simon. It looks to me that Alda was actually in the process of retreating when Simon laid hands on him a second time with Alda's back to Simon.
You know what could have prevented this tragic loss of life? Simon keeping his hands to himself and finding a better girlfriend.
takirks said...
Don't be real surprised when you start seeing video of these criminal types being dragged away from the scenes of their crimes and set afire, or them simply disappearing, never to be seen again anywhere. The more you tear down people's faith that justice will be done, the more that they're going to take matters into their own hands, and the less humane the entire situation will become.
This is all historical norm. This is the way things are handled all over the world and throughout history in general.
People who live in the US have no idea what the real world is like.
People like Ann certainly don't think about it from a systemic and societal frame of reference.
They take the high trust society for granted. They do not understand what it takes to get to the point where you have trust in the people around you and the types of people and activities a high trust society must suppress.
I live in a place where a robber has a high likelihood of being shot. Perhaps consequently, there are lots of thefts but very few robberies.
Robbers are much more polite in the presence of armed shop keepers....There's a video record of this this. Does anyone imagine that the DA would have charged the shopkeeper if he was a small Black man being pushed around by a much larger man with a lengthy felony record? There's racism in play here, and it doesn't make the DA look good.....Physical intimidation as a negotiating tactic works. Empires have been built upon its use. It works until such time as it doesn't work. The dead felon had no doubt used such tactics successfully in the past. He's learned a valuable lesson. Well, maybe not him but others who might be tempted to emulate his tactics. I hope the DA doesn't screw up the moral of this story.
@Greg the Class Traitor
3: Rehabilitate criminals
The Dems have elevated #3 to #1. That is not a legitimate choice
I beg to differ. Rehabilitate does not belong here. Coddle, enable, make excuses for..., something along those lines would be a better choice of phrasing.
I am going to put this right here:
rob·ber·y
/ˈräb(ə)rē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force.
"he was involved in drugs, extortion, and robbery"
Ann said:
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
Actually, the problem here is that Ann utterly ignores the value of what is being robbed, in terms of what it takes the honest victim to earn that value, or the importance to their life. In the old West, horse theft was punished by death, because if you stole someone's horse, you were leaving them at the mercy of the elements, as well as fate and circumstance. That horse may have made the difference between escaping a wildfire, an attack by bandits, or whatever. It's an easy thing, to sit in a college classroom and pronounce profundities about the relative value of human life vs. possessions, but that's done mostly by the well-off idiot class that's never had to worry about life-or-death issues resulting from someone stealing a few thousand dollars from them, or burglarizing the tools they need to make a living. "It's only money..." or "Well, you've got insurance, right..." are things that only an idiot would say to someone victimized by this sort of low-level criminality. Every dollar taken represents a chunk of life spent earning it; if you steal a thousand dollars from a college professor, it may not be that big a deal to them, but if you steal a thousand dollars from a pensioner on a fixed income, that may literally mean the difference between life and death for them, because that money being taken is what they were going to be eating off of, or paying their rent with.
Robbery is never trivial, either, in terms of the effect having someone stick a gun into your face. I've actually dealt with victims of that "harmless" crime, who never recovered their mental equilibrium or trust in people. That is not a trivial thing, either; one of the women I know who was a teller in a bank robbery where they shot one of the other tellers committed suicide about a year after, because she couldn't cope with the insecurity and helplessness she felt afterwards. Victims of armed robberies take years to recover, if they ever do.
So, yeah... You can weigh the scales however you like, but I will never trivialize what criminals do as "merely" taking money. They're actually robbing people of a lot more, via the violence they threaten. Thieves are the same; they may "only" be burglars, or opportunistic thieves taking that which they see as being left out for them, but the raw fact is, they're stealing bits and pieces of other people's lives and livelihoods. None of it is "trivial"; all of it is worth defending with deadly force.
About the only thing I'd say wouldn't be worthwhile killing a thief over is if they were "stealing" something out of a trash can, that had been discarded. Outside of that, everything is worth being killed over, because the thief is really taking lives piecemeal when they steal.
"I watched a guy die after being punched in the face. One punch. Broke his skull, brain bleed, dead. No weapon. Harmless, right? Nope. Dead."
That's the problem with Althouse's impractical declaration. The robber has initiated a chain of events that you, the victim, can not know how it will end. I believe you should have a right to be proactive; not have to sit there and take come what may.
"You know what could have prevented this tragic loss of life? Simon keeping his hands to himself and finding a better girlfriend."
Also, Simon sitting in jail rather than out on the street (hard to imagine this is a one off incident).
Chez Althouse this afternoon, the rubble is bouncing....bouncing....bouncing.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
If I'm on the jury, you get to kill them if they're robbing you. I got your back bro. You should have mine.
And not for nothing, but this bodega guy was taking on TWO attackers. People forget the woman who actually had a knife in her hand and stabbed the guy and walked SCOTT FREE because the heathens have been allowed to take over the judiciary in this state.
I see that they're doing public service announcements in New York about what to do if they get nuked, and my response is "don't start nothing, won't be nothing." If New York gets nuked, it's not going to be like after 9-11. The country isn't going to come together for these people.
I for one am rooting for the nuke this time.
And now, for a refreshing change of pace.....
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-father-shoots-pair-teens-attempted-rob-car-infants-inside
See the Roderick Scott case. Far more egregious than George Zimmerman. But Scott was acquitted.
I guess we'll see what the jury says, presuming the prosecutor doesn't force a plea deal by threatening to bankrupt the family down to the latest generation or something.
If they are trying to rob you, draw a gun and rob them back. After all, you are only trying to rob them and not kill them.
"All over a bag of potatoe chips."
Yeah, this isn't really about robbery, is it? This is about getting your kicks from beating up a stranger. A lot of that going around. And we're supposed to just sit back an take it.
The stabbing by the girlfriend happened after the stabbing by the clerk. Boyfriend was already down.
The clerk looked like he knew how to use that knife.
Y'all all do, don't you, Lem?
Don't fuck with a Dominican!
'If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.'
Really???
Except you don't know he 'only' wants to rob you until you're dead.
It's like a home invader saying, 'Just open the safe and I will leave.'
If I have a gun handy I'm still going to shoot the fucker.
In Brea, a store clerk was fatally shot during an armed robbery at the 7-Eleven on Lambert Road and N. Brea Boulevard around 4:18 a.m., police said. The male victim died at the scene.
...
A similar crime was reported around 3:23 a.m. at the 7-Eleven in the 300 block of 17th Street in Santa Ana, police said. A man was found dead in the parking lot, suffering from a fatal gunshot wound to his upper torso.
Police said they believe the victim is connected to the robbery at this location. A suspect description was not immediately available.
...
According to police, a customer was shot in the head inside the convenience store and remains in grave condition. There is no indication the customer did anything to intervene in the robbery but was still shot by the suspect, police said.
And we want to live in a world where we wait to see if the robber is murderous. I say the onus is on the Robber to choose a different means of cash accumulation, and the minimum wage employee should not have to ask politely "Is you intention to do me grievous harm harm, good sir/madam/uh, what's your pronoun?" To which the robber would reply: "I would not harm you, my good man, for the sake of your till, but woe unto you for misgendering me!" At which point the lowly clerk is quickly dispatched with a small measure of Plumbum, accelerated to high velocity for the sake of the cause and the robber is proclaimed a hero by Gascon and receives a lofty settlement from the chain store headquarters for the violation of his civil rights. The clerk is tried in absentia and his progeny serve out his 21 year sentence in his stead.
"This is pure bad faith. This is beneath you. No one looking at that video would think that hate DA is in the right here."
Is it not beneath you to portray me as taking a position I never took?
All I said was that a stand-your-ground law would not address what happened here. He didn't need a stand-your-ground law since he, in fact, was unable to escape. The point of law that presents a difficulty for him is whether he believed he was threatened by great bodily harm. I never said he didn't. I'm only saying the argued-for remedy — while it may be a good idea — isn't a remedy to the legal problem in which he finds himself. Under stand-your-ground laws, you still have to believe you are threatened by great bodily harm. I never said I thought this particular defendant didn't have that belief, so it's just factually wrong to portray me like that. I don't think that and I never said anything like that.
Please work harder at the legal questions. A little more careful reading and thinking and less roiling emotion. Okay?
'All thieves should be stabbed to death. shot to death. whatever it takes.'
During all of the BLM/Antifa rioting, I hoped that governors would deploy the National Guard and declare that looters and arsonists would be shot on sight.
No such luck...
"Please work harder at the legal questions."
You first.
Stand Your Ground would only help if the argument was he should have tried to run away and given the proximity and cramped space he obviously couldn't; they probably meant something like having a formal Castle Doctrine apply to the workplace. I assume the idea is to change the reasonableness presumption burden such that the use of force up to and including deadly force is by default permissible when facing an attack.
Both castle doctrine and stand your ground involve a lessened duty to retreat, so that's probably the source of confusion.
At any rate most of the pro-bodega worker outrage is from people who think deadly force is an appropriate response to being (unlawfully) physically attacked, especially by a younger/stronger person--they think any such attack should be considered a deadly threat and therefore deadly force would be a reasonable and appropriate response. The NY DA (and the police who arrested the guy) obviously disagree!
I'd hope a jury would be presented with a long list of cases where a punch or two from a younger/stronger person killed an older worker and from that agree that the defendant's belief that his life was in danger was reasonable. I don't trust juries, though, and the racial angle on this one can't be ignored.
"Every dollar taken represents a chunk of life spent earning it;"
It bears repeating. In bold. Think how privileged it must be, to be able to brush off the loss of those dollars as if they were nothing.
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
THIS is the bad faith argument. Not what you said about stand your ground, this. No one here is endorsing blowing a guy to hell for nonviolently demanding money. No one said they would enjoy this. You’re the one who delved into emotion over reason.
You made the ludicrous accusation to which people are responding. Why blame them for responding to it?
... any time anybody steps up and demands money ...
That is what you saw in the video? If so, off to the eye Doc or you. If not, your claim is foolish and insulting.
If there is always at least an implied threat of violence in any robbery, otherwise it's simply begging.
This wasn't about a robbery. The young lady called Corn Row into the store to kick the clerk's ass. He knew what was coming and moved proactively to prevent it.
The intensity of the comments on this post implies a great deal of anger and concern about the inability of government to protect the personal autonomy of crime victims. Laws vary slightly from state to state, but generally, when you are being robbed, raped, assaulted, or otherwise seriously victimized, and you reasonably believe that you or others are in imminent danger of physical harm, and that force is necessary to stop the danger, you are permitted to use the degree of force reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
What that means in practice, if you are a victim, is that a woke DA will scrutinize closely the reasonableness of your belief in imminent danger, and the reasonable necessity of the degree of force you employ. For the many reasons articulated by the posters, you need 20/20 foresight, and it isn't realistic to expect crime victims to be skilled decisionmakers in the heat of the moment. So there is a real potential for injustice to victims of crime who get the post hoc treatment from Soros style prosecutors. Juries work against such injustices, but imperfectly of course. What person wants to be arraigned, post bail, be ostracized as an arrestee, hire a lawyer, conduct a defense, and then wait for a jury to return a verdict? Exoneration is not vindication.
But law is about rules, and there needs to be some limit on the right of self defense, or we incentivize all kinds of vicious and disproportionate response. Even the best rules will sometimes be misapplied. That makes me (and probably you, too) uncomfortable.
“Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.”
Apparently, we live in a world where law professors don’t know the difference between robbery and theft.
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell"
If someone is demanding money from you there is presumably an "or else" associated with the demand, no? I would posit that the demand itself is a threat of harm by the demandor.
On the flip side of the situation, loss of a few dollars to a crook is less expensive than being put through the criminal system, even if you are justified in the use of force. The trick is trying to figure out whether they will give up with just the money. Since they are already behaving irrationally (Stealing from somebody else should not be considered rational) I'd be concerned that it wouldn't be sufficient. Good grief, these perps escalated to violence over a bag of chips! No way were they behaving rational - more like rabid animals.
Stand your ground laws are better than you must retreat rather than fight back. I really resent the laws requiring you to retreat since you, the victim, are made to appear the aggressor if you fail to retreat. Why should the victim be forced to retreat or submit to the abuse of criminals?
As others have said here, there might be fewer crimes if they are being punished immediately at the hands oftheir victims.
Bruce Hayden said...
This gets so tiresome sometimes. Stand Your Ground means the statutory abrogation of the common law Retreat Doctrine
Retreat doctrine is not common law- stand your ground is.
First result in googling the question "is stand your ground based in english common law" is:
"The common law jurisdiction of England and Wales has a stand-your-ground law rooted in the common law defence of using reasonable force in self-defence."
Duty to retreat has been written into law, it isn't derived from common law. Stand your ground is now being written into law because liberals have been eschewing self defense for the common man and prosecuting people for defending themselves.
Seen in school doctrine. Used to be the person starting the fight was punished. Now the person punching back is also punished- often more severely for daring to stand up for himself.
Please work harder at the legal questions. A little more careful reading and thinking and less roiling emotion. Okay?
******************
Here's what YOU said:
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
YOU raised the gun issue. You said some of us would "enjoy" seeing a clerk whipping out a gun and blowing the "guy to hell".
WE never said such a thing.
YOUR imputation leaves out the crucial FACT that the clerk was violently assaulted and seemingly had a justified fear of great bodily harm---the per was beating him up!!
For some reason, you don't think that "demanding money" without legal justification isn't robbery.
YOU muddied the waters by asserting that a person can't be "killed" when he is "only" trying to commit robbery---a violent felony--against you.
Do you have authority for that claim?
You've had lawyers point out why you are wrong, but you persist---
And lecture us on reading and thinking more carefully.
"Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell."
This was not that situation. A man entered the store (probably at the urging of his girlfriend) and went behind the counter and assaulted the clerk, trapped the clerk in a corner, and probably threatened the clerk with bodily harm. When the clerk attempted to leave, the other man prevented him from doing so. It is then, and only then, that the clerk used a knife.
Robbery does not appear to be the only motive here. The man could have taken the money at any time and left. He chose instead to spend time yelling at an old man and making (in my opinion) threatening gestures, while not allowing the old man to leave. Most people would fear for their lives in that situation.
"All I said was that a stand-your-ground law would not address what happened here."
Since the clerk is claiming no avenue of escape, I would think that is obvious.
If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them.
============
so here I come == to rob you of your guns! >>> what do you conclude Professora?
[or as D keep saying : We want to take your guns away]
The law school analysis. It doesn't really work in the real world where things are happening quickly. Mr. Alba did not go seeking this situatio, Mr. Alba had no idea what the intent of his assailant was, and in this situation the chin-puller can come up with many nuanced responses.
And then there is reality. Mr. Alba's assailant valued his own life very little or else he wouldn't have attacked Mr. Alba and he got a response that wasn't a surprise possibility.
The neobarabarians at the NYC DA's office don't want people defending themselves. Self defense is an attribute of a free people. That will never do. People must be made over into cowering serfs, to be "cared for" by the noble people in government. Those noble people will then transform themselves into Nobles and Royalty, destined to subjugate the serfs. Just like in Russia.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
Works for me. Anyone who walks up to a clerk and demands money from the cash register is committing a crime of violence. There's an implied threat to his demand. "Give me money or I'll hurt you!" Blowing said criminal away is an improvement to the gene pool. Also, since the NYC DA doesn't believe in prosecution, the blown away robber won't be around to victimize someone else.
The police/prosecutors weren't created to protect the public, they're there to protect the criminal from vigilante justice. When the public no longer believes that justice will be done and is fair, then the public will impose its own justice.
That happened in San Francisco ca 1854. The city government was corrupt. The public organized itself into vigilante platoons, kicked out the corrupt politicians, restored justice and order, then disbanded once civil life was restored.
The NYC DA should be shunned. No service or goods for him. He goes into a bodega, and the clerk tells him that his business is not wanted and that he will not be served in any bodega. Same for all businesses. No services. No goods. No gasoline for his luxury automobile.
Ann: Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
I can't imagine what ate so many IQ points that you would make such a stupid, dishonest, and vile statement. Boxed wine? Was Simon gay or something?
Hence the phrase "Let God Sort Em Out". A true authority called upon.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
Don't forget the head! After he just whips out the gun and blows the guy to hell.. He mounts the head on a stake outside the door. RAH
In Florida if someone enters your home without your permission you can shoot them. You don’t have to prove anything. I would think that entering a workers only area would count as the same thing. I know I wouldn’t have hesitated to shoot that guy once he came around the counter.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
YES. I would. As a woman I would feel much safer with more of the kind of people who accost, rob and violate others six feet underground. This is a NORMAL sentiment in most of the USA. Only people who live in Ivory Towers don’t have to worry about this.
The brits have this wonderful phrase: " demand money with menaces. " So poetic, that "menaces". What do you suppose it implies?
It implies GBH or Death, that's what.
Althouse said: "The more difficult question is whether he believed he was threatened by great bodily harm, and that's still an issue if there is a "stand your ground" law. If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
True, but in a tepid way. In most robbery situations, a victim has no reliable way to discern whether or not the aggressor is "only trying to rob" him. Robbery by definition is the taking of physical property from another person by force or by threat of force. In 99% of robbery scenarios, robbery victims should reasonably fear that they are in great danger of being seriously hurt.
Your president thinks the police should just shoot advancing gunmen in the leg to stop them.
So Alba should probably just have stabbed the negro in the leg. Proportional response, and all...
The point of law that presents a difficulty for him is whether he believed he was threatened by great bodily harm. I never said he didn't.
"Disparity of force" comes into play. Factors that permit the disparity of force defense include age (i.e., a younger, stronger attacker against an older victim), overwhelming size, overwhelming strength, force of numbers. the attacker possessing special training in unarmed combat, and/or a male attacking a female.
I perceive the word "great" in "great bodily harm" as being a red herring. No one should be required even to accept mild bruises from an attacker just because one is armed and the attacker is not, provided that the attacker presents disparity of force (as Jose Alba's attacker certainly did). Many years ago, when I regularly worked out in the gym and studied martial arts and spent hours per week in a dojo, then if someone unarmed attacked me then I'd have to handle that attacker using my training. Now I'm in my seventies, I have two metallic knees, I'm overweight, and I've lost considerable quickness. If a younger, stronger man attacks me, or if I have to deal with multiple simultaneous attackers, well, I have a Virginia concealed handgun permit and I'll do what I have to in order to avoid being hurt. Under Virginia law I would subsequently be arrested, fingerprinted, and jailed overnight, but the case won't come to trial because my lawyers would raise the disparity of force defense and the DA would lose the case.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
To me, that's better than poor people who are financially forced to take jobs as gas station attendants or convenience store workers wondering whether, when they start their shift, they will be alive at the end of it.
M said...
In Florida if someone enters your home without your permission you can shoot them. You don’t have to prove anything. I would think that entering a workers only area would count as the same thing. I know I wouldn’t have hesitated to shoot that guy once he came around the counter.
**************
Cite the FL statute.
I doubt you can.
Consider what likely would have happened if Alba had not stabbed the guy- he would have taken a beating between severe and minor more likely, but also could have died- for a man that old it doesn't take a lot for them to die while being beaten.
However, if Simon hadn't killed Alba, it is all but certain that even if he were arrested, he would have been released without bail and almost certainly pled out for little or no jail time. If he had kill Alba, would he have been arrested or identified? He might well have gotten away with murder.
Alba did the right thing in killing this scumbag.
M said...
In Florida if someone enters your home without your permission you can shoot them. You don’t have to prove anything. I would think that entering a workers only area would count as the same thing. I know I wouldn’t have hesitated to shoot that guy once he came around the counter.
**************
Cite the FL statute.
I doubt you can.
That happened in San Francisco ca 1854. The city government was corrupt. The public organized itself into vigilante platoons, kicked out the corrupt politicians, restored justice and order, then disbanded once civil life was restored.
You’re talking about the 1856 Committee of Vigilance. There was an earlier Committee of Vigilance, in 1851, which was more focused on restoring order than cleaning up corrupt politicians, and the two vigilante groups had overlapping membership. Besides cleaning up corruption the two committees lynched at least 12 men.
That's the stupidest thing I've read in ages. Someone tries to rob me, I'm shooting him in the head. Or maybe center mass first, then the head. What a maroon.
Reading through the Althouse comments, it might seem, right to life begins with conception, ends with adolescence. Abortion--black genocide. Violent black death thereafter--shrug.
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
How exactly am I supposed to know the person is only trying to rob me? I'm being threatened with bodily harm or death by a person who is presumably brandishing a weapon capable of performing such a function. This person (in an effort to instill urgency) has made it clear he/she views my life as his/hers to take. I can't read his/her mind and I may only have one chance to stop what is happening. You really expect me to roll the dice and hope for the best so you can feel good about the situation?
The title sums it all up. Social Justice warriors turn victims into killers and criminals into saints. THIS is why I will NOT step foot in NYC ever again. They can keep their criminals there. Done.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11003427/Social-justice-warriors-turn-victims-killers-criminals-saints-BATYA-UNGAR-SARGON.html
"If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
Ann, if someone boxes you in like they did him... you gonna ask 'em if they are "only trying to rob you"??????
Well?
Get real.
He was in fear of his life.
Here in Texas the bad guy would have been capped in an instant and the cops would have patted the old man on back for a job well done.
Ann, I don't believe you have ever stepped in it this badly. Your surly straw man of a response only made it worse.
"Reading through the Althouse comments, it might seem, right to life begins with conception, ends with adolescence. Abortion--black genocide. Violent black death thereafter--shrug."
Let me help you with your straw man. What some here are saying is the right to life ends when you decide to threaten to take another person's life in the process of taking their stuff. Since your true intentions can not be known with any certainty, the other person has to conclude you are planning to go through with the threat no matter how cooperative the victim might be. You don't get to threaten people with death just because you like the pair of shoes they are wearing.
Althouse: "Please work harder at the legal questions. A little more careful reading and thinking and less roiling emotion. Okay?"
Very sound advice. I'd want to start with the precise charge, but oddly can't find it, other than generic references to "murder." I guess, no more than that, that the charge is sec. 125.25, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.25, which is an iteration of what was historically described as "depraved mind" (or "heart") murder. It's characterized by "depraved indifference to human life." Assuming I'm right about the charge -- and there's no assurance I am -- then it strikes me in the first instance as plainly excessive. If anything (and I suspect Alba's use of force *was* justified), it's a form of manslaughter, genuinely-held belief that deadly force was necessary, but the belief was unreasonable. That's just an intuitive reaction -- I know nothing about NY law, don't even know if NY has a manslaughter option as I just defined it, but I don't presently have time to research it. Point is, Althouse is exactly right -- ultimately this is a legal question, and it should start with the facts (which, given the videos, cam be discerned with confidence) and applying them to the precise charge.
Readering said...
Reading through the Althouse comments, it might seem, right to life begins with conception, ends with adolescence. Abortion--black genocide. Violent black death thereafter--shrug.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
Your right to life ends when you threaten mine.
That's why even most pro-lifers support abortion when the mother's life is in danger.
But who needs reason why you want snark, right Readering?
I've been doing a slow burn, since reading this yesterday. I wanted to ignore the arrant idiocy embodied in the professor's last line, but... Nope. Can't do it.
It's going to be interesting, for a given value of that word, observing what happens once the logical end point of the professor's belief system is reached.
The professor's tautology runs as follows: "If someone is only trying to rob you, you don't get to kill them."
Couple of points to be made, here: One, such a puerile construct could only come from someone who has never had a knife stuck in their kidney and their wallet demanded of them, never felt the terror of that arm reaching around to hold them by their neck, never known that moment of existential despair as they realize they're helpless in the face of another human being's greed and disregard for their life. You have that happen once, and you never look at these things dispassionately, ever again.
My theory of life is different: If you threaten my life once, I will kill you.
Period. No question, no doubt, no issue. I have taken the steps necessary to never again find myself in that position of helplessness, and if it means taking another human life? So be it; don't want some? Don't start some; you start it by threatening me, I'm going to do my best to make sure you don't do it again.
Learning has occurred, in my case: Other people are dangerous animals, and should be automatically regarded as such until proven otherwise through long experience.
That's how people that have actually experienced these things think. The touchy-feely bullshit artists that say you don't have the right to kill another human being because they're "only" robbing you of your goods and peace of mind? They've never, ever felt that arm across their throat, or the point of the knife in their back. If they have, and still feel that way? They're exquisitely unfit for survival, and nature will inevitably do what it does to such unfit creatures.
Another ridiculous point with this construction is embodied in that little italicized word: "Only". Tell me, professor... When, exactly, did you become clairvoyant? When did you develop the asinine expectation that other people should share your enlightened knowledge of precisely what other people intend and will do, in the moment? How, pray tell, do I distinguish between armed criminal who "really doesn't mean it", and one who does? I mean, absent the god-like omniscience of the professorial academic? Am I required to stay my hand, until said creature of the night actually demonstrates their intent? I feel like them making the threat in the first place is pretty indicative, myself. Sufficiently, even.
More to the f*cking point, why do I have any obligation at all, in any way, to risk my life by trying to make that distinction? All I need to know is embodied in that one, singular and salient fact, that this asshole has decided to threaten my life for money or possession of mine, that he or she feels more entitled to.
That fact alone gives me cause to take them at their word, and kill them in defense of my own life. Period. Anything else is sheer stupidity and sophistry. I did not initiate this; they did. Because of that, they have chosen to forfeit their "right to life".
The world has listened to the oh-so-refined moral pronouncements of the professorial class, and the results are before us: You can't walk the streets or parks you pay for. It's only going to get worse, given the things that have extended forth from this specious reasoning, and when they reach their inevitable conclusions, we're all going to be a lot worse off.
(cont.)
Particularly including the criminal class, who instead of getting the necessary environmental feedback telling them that crime is a mug's game, they're going to escalate until someone is tying their bleeding bodies to a fence, somewhere, dousing them in flammables, and then lighting them on fire. That's where the path espoused by the professor here takes a society, because once you lose faith in the formal justice system, you find other means of ensuring that behavioral norms are established and enforced. You will not like how the general public chooses to do that, once everything is broken down and "improved".
This kind of idiocy could only come out of the mouth of a sheltered academic who has never, ever felt that arm around their neck or the tip of the knife in their back. I suspect that if the professor had ever felt that realization that someone was about to end their life over a few paltry dollars in her wallet or purse, that she'd have reached an entirely different set of conclusions.
My rule of thumb, having lived through this sort of thing? If someone threatens my life, I'm killing them. I won't ever initiate something like that, but I will damn sure terminate it as best I can, with lethal force that I will feel not one whit of angst over deploying. That's the natural law of the universe, and if you think differently, well... You're relying on what everyone else is doing along those lines to dissuade malefactors from taking advantage of your feckless stupidity.
I've rarely encountered such exquisite stupidity as embodied in that closing sentence of the professors, and it pretty much encapsulates everything wrong with modern academia and law. You chose to rob someone? Using even the threat of lethal force or violence? You absolutely deserve to die, and that's not even an issue of law; that's natural consequence of your poor choices. The fact that the professor here has the audacity to make such a statement calls into question the very legitimacy of the entirety of her profession and work; such an asinine assertion indicates an inherent inhumanity and inability to empathize with the law-abiding victims of such criminal behavior. Rarefied pronouncements such as this are indicative of an inherent sympathy with the criminal, and an utter disregard for the victim; as such, people demonstrating such a mindset should be banned from civilized company and kept far away from the mechanisms of law.
You wonder why we're so screwed up, why crime is rising the way it is? Look at who the hell has been teaching "law", and what they've been telling people going into that field. The professor is telling you that she doesn't give one whit about the victims of criminals, here, that they count for nothing when compared to the criminal's right to "self-expression" and their ability to appropriate your goods and chattels, along with life itself. She's not actually on the side of the law-abiding; she's on the side of the criminal, and has demonstrated that fact with what she's saying here.
Sometimes, I feel bad that I chose the path of the auto-didact. Then, I read utter bullshit like this, coming out of academia, and I realize something: American academia is, at this moment in history, utterly compromised and entirely corrupt.
As soon as the robbery starts, it doesn't matter if it's a bag of chips or a diamond. Now we have two criminals disregarding the law. One stabs the old man. at assault. Now we have a stabbed, robbed elderly man being beaten by the other criminal. Agg assault. Does he just wait for the gun to come out? The line of legality has been passed, and he has been stabbed and is being threatened and beaten. Why not think there will be a gun?
What if it was an old woman? A young girl? A disabled man in a wheelchair. You? Someone you love? You mother? Your son? What if someone comes into your house and says, don't worry, we're just going to restrain you and stab you and scream at you and beat you up, but then we will leave?
Law or no law. As Judge Dredd says: "There's no justice. There's just us."
There are only two choices: the law, or no law.
Reading through the Althouse comments, it might seem, right to life begins with conception, ends with adolescence. Abortion--black genocide. Violent black death thereafter--shrug.
How stupid. Even for you.
I'd shoot a white guy just as soon as a black one. And nearly did.
It is also far from uncommon for robbers to kill their victims after the robbery takes place, to leave no victims. My next door neighbor was killed for his lunch money after he gave the crackhead his only five dollars. More recent incidents I can recall in my region include murder over $2, over someone having no money on him, which angered the assailant, watching your seven year old's brain explode all over your car seat because you drove down the wrong street, and another "just a robbery" murder over a tank of gas because the killer thought the clerk might call the police. The whole jury, in this guy's case, ought to be bodega owners. And if you hide or do nothing, you will be targeted again because you are an easy mark. Just ask the employees of a certain internationally famous American designer who aren't allowed to call the police, even if the assailants have guns.
Anyone who can't pronounce bodega or has never been to one should be a free juror strike.
Natural law says that when an organism is threatened by another, it acts in self-defense. When the wolf pursues the bison, the bison will do as it must, and that wolf may well wind up thrown thirty feet after being hooked by a bison horn. This is what nature decrees: An organism will defend itself, when threatened. To say that the organism has no inherent right of self-defense is contradictory to nature, and such a conceit will not be suffered in the harsh light of reality. Organisms embracing such ideas will not survive; should they try to impose those ideas on others of their kind, they will rightly be ignored and even attacked themselves. As they should be.
There is nothing noble in the outlaw or robber; they are parasites in their purest form. Rather than labor themselves, they steal the fruits of other people's labor, in effect stealing the bits and pieces of those lives devoted to that labor. As such, they deserve no more consideration than the basest worm or tick, and should rightfully be killed when encountered, as humanely as possible. Should they show evidence of reform, and a return to civilized behavior, they should be embraced once again by the community. But, not until they prove themselves as trustworthy. So long as they remain on the side of the criminal, when engaged in their criminal activities? Kill them, without a second thought. Such creatures are unworthy of remorse or consideration as human.
Why? Because, my friend, that is exactly what they would to their victims. The fact that they've brought violence into the equation is what wise men would term an indicator that you're not dealing with another human being, but a two-legged predator. Treat them accordingly, as you would a wolf attacking you or your flock.
Apparently, some of you would enjoy a world where anyone who works at a cash register has a gun right there with him and any time anybody steps up and demands money he just whips out the gun and blows that guy to hell.
If the would be thief threatened the cashier with a weapon, I’d enjoy the hell out of that world.
And as a former cashier, I can’t imagine someone without a weapon stepping up to register and asking for money without a weapon. Why on Earth would I comply?
Ann, just out of curiosity: Why does your hypothetical involve a gun, whereas the actual case involves knives? You surely aren't going for the "gun violence" idea that assumes that all violence that matters is committed with a gun? The bodega clerk had only a knife, so that's what he used when the guy cornered him behind the register.
It's something like the current situation in the UK. Hardly anyone -- not even the police, most of the time -- has guns. Does that mean there isn't murder in the UK? Of course not. They have knives, along with all other manner of lethal weapons. So now there's a call for all knives sold in the UK to have blunt tips. Which, if successful, will mean a switch to something else.
The more I read your comments, the angrier I become. What's "just a robbery?". Have you never once in your life been cornered by an attacker? Don't you read every day about the clerk or cop or ordinary citizen who was walking away from a violent encounter, or in the middle of it, or fleeing, and gets killed? What makes you think we would enjoy self-defense? Enjoy hurting or killing someone?
This is an attack on victims of crime.
As you may recall, I survived a nascent serial killer when I was 21. 1986. Thank God for the Mets: they kept me going in the ensuing months. The rapist played catch and release with me for hours between sexual assaults. I had the unique luxury of time to consider my odds of survival or escape. I tried several methods. At one point, I was going to beam him with a copy of Poetry and Poetics, as the OED was out of reach. He anticipated my effort. Another time, I considered hitting him in the head with a big ceramic lamp. He punished me, dragging me around by my hair. A third time I tried to lock myself in the bathroom. He easily broke in. The only weapon I had found was a pair of nail clippers. He and I stared at them, and I silently handed them to him. Luckily I survived. He was just starting out. The point is simple: people who are not criminals have to train themselves to think like criminals to survive such things. I'm sure the bodega clerk had lots of experiences that guided his actions. Today, I'd be a hell of a lot harder to attack or kill. I sleep with a gun and have a dog who would rip an intruder to shreds. This breed can take five bullets and keep coming. When my husband is away, I do not sleep at all. I am building a safe room. I take no pleasure in any of this, nor have I ever met another crime victim who does.
Idiot.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
You come into my house to rob me, I'm assuming you will do me great bodily harm or try to kill me. I'm not doing 20 questions. You ded as the kids like to say.
Marcus
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा