Did this Las Vegas Smoke Shop Owner Go Overboard when Protecting his Store?

[Mai72]

**Caution. If you want to watch the video it is graphic. Not safe for work.**

This incident happened about a month ago. Two young men enter his store with masks. They look very suspicious.They don't have any weapons. Not any that are visible. They could had something under their clothing. The one man is wearing a bag on his back. The one guy takes the donation jar. The owner asks if he could at least leave the change. A very brief back and forth conversation takes place. It all seems very odd. At this time the shop owner has grabbed a very large knife. The guy who took the donation canister bolts. His friend jumps the counter and starts to take items off the shelf. The owner starts to stab the heck out of this guy. At least 7x. You don't see any blood, but the scene is very graphic, intense and violent. The kid tells the owner that he's sorry and says that he is dead. I don't believe he has passed away.

The owner has every right to defend his store and himself. The issue I have is he over reacted, and used excessive force. Both these men didn't branish any weapons. The young guy who jumped the counter didn't initially attack the owner. He landed a punch or two when he was getting stabbed.

The smoke shop owner did a AMA Reddit which IMO was a terrible idea. Thoughts?

Community gathers behind smoke shop clerk caught on camera stabbing would-be robber

“Glad you’re safe”, “Supporting you from Hong Kong”, and “Bravo! ”

news3lv.com

 

[lxskllr]

I don't feel like reading the story, but the kids chose their path, and it ended up about right. An "equal" fight is a losing fight. Overwhelming force is the correct path.

edit:
Oh, and you don't do an ama. You don't talk to media, and you only talk to cops when your lawyer is present. IOW, STFU

 

[Torn Mind]

This is one of those matters where he has probably crossed the legal lines somewhere but does not deserve much scorn from a morality/ethics perspective.

There is both a civil thread and a criminal thread.

Civil violations generally use the Restatement of Torts as guideline; not sure about Nevada though. Shopkeeper's privilege, allows for use of force provided it is not deadly.

Intentional Torts: Merchant’s Privilege - The ALI Adviser

The following entry contains the Black Letter and Comments a and b to § 37 of Tentative Draft No. 5, Chapter 3. Privileges, Topic 4. Arrest and Prevention or Termination of Crime, from Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons. The full draft contains additional Comments...

www.thealiadviser.org

§ 37. Merchant’s Privilege
An actor is privileged to use force against another for the purpose of investigating a potential theft or knowing nonpayment for goods or services, the purpose of recapturing personal property, or the purpose of facilitating the arrest of a person suspected of theft or knowing nonpayment, if:
(a) The actor is a merchant or a merchant’s agent or employee;
(b) The actor reasonably believes that the other
(1) has wrongfully taken, or is attempting to take, merchandise from the merchant’s premises; or
(2) has wrongfully failed to make due payment for personal property purchased on those premises or for services rendered there;
(c) The actor uses force against the other on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the actor’s premises, in a reasonable manner, and only for the time reasonably necessary for investigating the matter, for recapturing the property, or for facilitating the other’s arrest; and
(d) The actor does not use deadly force, i.e., force intended or reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, as defined in § 20(h).

So, based on this, there is an opening for the thief to start a personal injury case if he/she so desire. However, that is the thief's choice, as his name will go public if he wants to go that route, which he may not want. If the thief wants privacy to continue thieving...he may very well let the civil violation go. In essence...permitting "anarchy".

However, there is potentially a case self-defense since the one thief did cross into privileged space behind the counter and well under the 20 ft for a thief to produce their own knife and lunge at him.


Criminal law is based on statute and the discretion of the state's attorney in applying the law. If the law was purely mechanical, both the keeper and the thief can be charged for their respective crimes, and it's quite possible for it to happen if monetary opportunity exists for the state.


There's also the pop morality held by the lay public...which is let's just out-of-touch with the suffering of victims; they sympathetic attribute to criminals a "conscionability" criminals do not have. Criminals do not consider their acts "crimes"; from thieving all the way up to murder, it's just another action to obtain goods. Which is why they also wreck houses and don't pay as tenants. The thief here will resurrect as a zombie and simply refine his tactics.

I'm also not surprised such a brazen act occurs, as those who get into vaping has a "belligerence" that involves disregarding rules in pursuit of pleasure.

The video is redacted...so we have no sense of just how bad the stabbing was.

 

[Torn Mind]

Another thought.

Store owner is lucky the vape boy isn't dead.

Had vaper loser died....vape boy would have had his name released to the public anyway and some sad mama might be mad enough to file a wrongful death lawsuit.

 

[kt]

How much force is the "right" amount of force for someone to use in a self-defense situation?

 

[Captante]

Far as I'm concerned it should be 100% fine for the store owner to defend himself using any and all force against those thieves.

They deserved whatever they got including being stabbed multiple times, beaten with a bat or shot .... try stealing from me I would do the same damn thing!

 

[Artorias]

Far as I'm concerned it should be 100% fine for the store owner to defend himself using any and all force against those thieves.

They deserved whatever they got including being stabbed multiple times, beaten with a bat or shot .... try stealing from me I would do the same damn thing!

Yeah in scenarios with high tension the law should not expect a victim to make calculated judgments on the necessary force required defend oneself.

The law should now put victims in a place where they question what is allowed as it gives to much freedom for those committing crimes.

You have no idea if there are additional weapons or accomplices.

Now if the situation is under control, and the victim takes offensive action its another scenario altogether which may or may not be the case here.

 

[pcgeek11]

The store operator was totally justified IMO. I would like to see more enforcement of the asshole snatch and grabs and mobs.

 

[Torn Mind]

Yeah in scenarios with high tension the law should not expect a victim to make calculated judgments on the necessary force required defend oneself.

The law should now put victims in a place where they question what is allowed as it gives to much freedom for those committing crimes.

You have no idea if there are additional weapons or accomplices.

Now if the situation is under control, and the victim takes offensive action its another scenario altogether which may or may not be the case here.

The "Law" does not have a heart. If conditions are met, it can execute its action at will. Since the perp is alive and apparently well, the owner lost little. Had the stabbing been a mortal blow, he'd be out of some coin at least.

In some places, the populace has welcomed anti-self defense rules in the name of correcting "racial wrongs" and chasing a feeling of being weapon-free. Imminent danger really means imminent in those particular locales. Here in MD, since the perp had no knife, that means victim does not have the right to draw until the very moment a weapon is actually seen. Thus, the populace at large happens to be greatest aiders and abetters of non-violent criminal activity like thievery along with violent crimes.

 

[Red Squirrel]

No amount of force in a situation like this is too much imo. Victims of theft, assault etc should not have to put up for that shit in first place and they are justified in whatever they do to make it stop. We need better laws to protect us from that, and to punish those who want to cause harm to others instead. Theft is an epidemic in my city and if we had better laws to protect us from legal trouble, the problem would go away after a couple of em got their skulls bashed in. They will think twice about stealing when there is an actual risk involved. Problem is here in Canada and even in some states, self defense is basically illegal. It's BS. The law values thieves lives more than their victims.

 

[kt]

The "Law" does not have a heart. If conditions are met, it can execute its action at will. Since the perp is alive and apparently well, the owner lost little. Had the stabbing been a mortal blow, he'd be out of some coin at least.

In some places, the populace has welcomed anti-self defense rules in the name of correcting "racial wrongs" and chasing a feeling of being weapon-free. Imminent danger really means imminent in those particular locales. Here in MD, since the perp had no knife, that means victim does not have the right to draw until the very moment a weapon is actually seen. Thus, the populace at large happens to be greatest aiders and abetters of non-violent criminal activity like thievery along with violent crimes.

Self defense is not equivalent to vigilantism. The "law" should see the difference and not conflate the two.

 

[Torn Mind]

Self defense is not equivalent to vigilantism. The "law" should see the difference and not conflate the two.

The owner can do what he did because Nevada is still "Stand your Ground". https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

Is Nevada a "stand your ground" state?

Nevada law lets you stand your ground in self-defense f you are not the instigator, are not breaking the law, and have a right to be at the location.

www.shouselaw.com

So, because of that, he can indeed stand behind the counter and use some force to subdue someone who violated some law.

A small collection of states are "Duty to Retreat". If option 1 is to run, then that what must be taken under the eye of the law. In the eyes of a Duty to Retreat locale, the state might very well have charged him criminally just to make a few bucks for the system before dropping the charges. It just so happens that Duty to Retreat laws are more common in well-to-do big money blue states, full of the touchy and sensitive "bourgeois values". I already got a taste of "Duty to Retreat" by coming across Marc "Animal" McYoung. Self-defense is not learning how to fight, it's more mental and about deescalating and running away first before even considering combat.
And don't think a "Duty to Retreat" states' attorney is going to have his feelings overrule both the money the system can make and to "please the populace at large". Even in the OP's article, you got one guy saying he should have not used the knife. The line would be like "unfortunate, but we are a state of laws and duty to retreat is a scared law we believe is best for humanity in this state". When the social scientists like Alexa R. Yakubovich are exactly the ones pushing for "duty to retreat" to become the law of the land everywhere...it's only a matter of time for certain aligned states to follow that intellectual pathway because that's what the people will eventually want.

So, since I already read some of McYoung's work, when I attended a gun licensing class, I was already ready in terms of understanding the "legally acceptable" protocol in the "duty to retreat" paradigm. Run first, and there is no pre-emptive excuse for killing. You have to run first. If running doesn't work, combat cannot be initiated until the perp actually draws a weapon(satisfying the condition for imminent danger, not just danger). Then you can draw your own gun/weapon and fire. So, the amount of time the "law" grants under such a rule is a snap of the fingers and no more.

The common law also doesn't allow for deadly force, but because the juvenile perp probably doesn't want the sun shining on his "actions that rely on the shadows" or his name, he nor his parents/guardian won't sue civilly.

Every one has to be a de facto vigilante prior to the arrival of law enforcement and sometimes even after their presence if law enforcement doesn't do shit. There is no way to enforce anything without the individual himself defending his life, liberty, or property. Law enforcement doesn't work for the people, they work for themselves, the state, and avoiding public embarrassment.

 

[ch33zw1z]

MA play by play for duty to retreat. Doesn’t literally mean run first, it means forceful self defense is final option.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/xm/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

 

[pauldun170]

Went form petty larceny (shoplifting) to Robbery the second the guy hopped the counter.
A reasonable person would consider crossing that line, where someone travels from a established "permitted area" to behind the counter "non-permitted area" where another person is present is implied threat of violence.
A visible weapon doesn't change that threat.

The minute the guy jumped the counter, owner had legit fight or flight response.

 

[Captante]

MA play by play for duty to retreat. Doesn’t literally mean run first, it means forceful self defense is final option.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/xm/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

Connecticut's law is very similar.

 

[allisolm]

Here's the graphic video:

WATCH: Las Vegas shop owner stabs would-be thief multiple times

In a dramatic surveillance video, the owner of a local smoke shop defended himself with a knife from three would-be thiefs – identified only as juveniles – after one of them jumped the …

www.brproud.com

Lots of stabbing.

 

[Captante]

Went form petty larceny (shoplifting) to Robbery the second the guy hopped the counter.
A reasonable person would consider crossing that line, where someone travels from a established "permitted area" to behind the counter "non-permitted area" where another person is present is implied threat of violence.
A visible weapon doesn't change that threat.

The minute the guy jumped the counter, owner had legit fight or flight response.

Agreed.... stabbing somebody for shoplifting and then running away is going too far but this incident crossed that line. Laws which prevent people from defending themselves against violent criminals are just stupid.

When every store in any metropolitan area only has a small "access-hatch" so the clerk can hand you your stuff instead of a front-door in the near-future don't act surprised.

 

[Mai72]

Active Self Protection (You Tube Channel) had reacted to this incident a few weeks ago. Their argument is the smoke shop owner went way overboard when he attacked the second guy, because in reality his life was not in jeopardy. Active Self Protection went over the Nevada law, and what is in question is the use of deadly force. And, Nevada law states that bare fear doesn't justify the use of deadly force. When we look at these type of videos we should seperate our feelings from the actual law. When I viewed the video, anger was the first felling that I felt. But, when the prosecutor is reviewing this video, he or she won't be engaged in feelings. They will have to enact the law, and from the viewpoint of Active Self Protection, the smoke shop owner is probably in some sort of legal trouble.

The video is age restricted. Just sign in with your YouTube account to view the video.

 

[pauldun170]

Here's the graphic video:

WATCH: Las Vegas shop owner stabs would-be thief multiple times

In a dramatic surveillance video, the owner of a local smoke shop defended himself with a knife from three would-be thiefs – identified only as juveniles – after one of them jumped the …

www.brproud.com

Lots of stabbing.

That's not a lot of stabbing. Stabbing in a fight or flight situation is lots of rapid quick thrusts.
Initial round of 3 quick stabs when he jumped over, kid fights back which is met with another round of stabs and the guy stopped stabbing once the kid stopped being a threat.

 

[HomerJS]

I don't have a problem with it

 

[kt]

Active Self Protection (You Tube Channel) had reacted to this incident a few weeks ago. Their argument is the smoke shop owner went way overboard when he attacked the second guy, because in reality his life was not in jeopardy. Active Self Protection went over the Nevada law, and what is in question is the use of deadly force. And, Nevada law states that bare fear doesn't justify the use of deadly force. When we look at these type of videos we should seperate our feelings from the actual law. When I viewed the video, anger was the first felling that I felt. But, when the prosecutor is reviewing this video, he or she won't be engaged in feelings. They will have to enact the law, and from the viewpoint of Active Self Protection, the smoke shop owner is probably in some sort of legal trouble.

The video is age restricted. Just sign in with your YouTube account to view the video.

Your perception of reality and the shop owner's reality in that split second moment is totally different. When you have a guy in a ski mask jumping over a counter at you, your first instinct is protect yourself. It's fight or flight, neither choice is wrong. That's what I am saying.

 

[purbeast0]

Here's the graphic video:

WATCH: Las Vegas shop owner stabs would-be thief multiple times

In a dramatic surveillance video, the owner of a local smoke shop defended himself with a knife from three would-be thiefs – identified only as juveniles – after one of them jumped the …

www.brproud.com

Lots of stabbing.

I think this full video helps his cause.

He lets up once the guy is no longer a threat and grabs his ass and tosses him to the ground. He also doesn't really go after vital organs.

That guy showed a lot of calmness to be honest.

 

[MrSquished]

I don't see the owner doing anything crazy here. The guy jumped over the counter in a threatening manner, he had to defend himself

 

[Torn Mind]

Active Self Protection (You Tube Channel) had reacted to this incident a few weeks ago. Their argument is the smoke shop owner went way overboard when he attacked the second guy, because in reality his life was not in jeopardy. Active Self Protection went over the Nevada law, and what is in question is the use of deadly force. And, Nevada law states that bare fear doesn't justify the use of deadly force. When we look at these type of videos we should seperate our feelings from the actual law. When I viewed the video, anger was the first felling that I felt. But, when the prosecutor is reviewing this video, he or she won't be engaged in feelings. They will have to enact the law, and from the viewpoint of Active Self Protection, the smoke shop owner is probably in some sort of legal trouble.

The video is age restricted. Just sign in with your YouTube account to view the video.

Yes, the video is technically correct from a "legal perspective". As I said, had the perp actually dropped dead, it's very possible the law would "activate".

However, the exhortation to be "good, sane, sober, moral" is a load of bullshit. "Prudent" is the only thing that matters in dealing with the legal system or pieces of shit trying to engage in misconduct. "Sleepless nights", that too is a bit hyperbole. "Next 15 years", nah.

On the face, life is more valuable than property.
But behind the scenes, the law and its agents values property over life.

 

[Torn Mind]

Teens in Las Vegas smoke shop robbery were on GPS monitoring

The 8 News Now I-Team has learned that three teens accused of a robbery at a smoke shop had records in the juvenile justice system

www.8newsnow.com

Two teens who took part in a smoke shop robbery learned their fate Wednesday. One is headed to Spring Mountain Youth Camp, while the other is headed is a juvenile correctional facility. A third teen who was stabbed by the store owner after he jumped over the counter remains hospitalized.

So, that article was August 24, 2022. So, the hospitalization was not a short one.

Parents of both teens who appeared virtually in juvenile court told Clark County District Court Judge Sunny Bailey they repeatedly tried to get their sons help.
The adoptive parents of the first teen to face Judge Bailey said the teen has not been willing to receive treatment for trauma he experienced as a child and that he has been self-medicating.

Also some sob stories in that link. Milk that trauma for clemency.

Earlier article:

Teens in Las Vegas smoke shop robbery were on GPS monitoring

The 8 News Now I-Team has learned that three teens accused of a robbery at a smoke shop had records in the juvenile justice system

www.8newsnow.com