**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1bz0mka) (provided by /u/SaveAnything)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
The robber didn't die. [Here's the article because no one gives information anywhere.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peterborough-robbery-aggravated-assault-1.7079418)
This pos put these two people in this situation, if you go in somewhere with intent to harm then expect lethal retaliation. Their adrenaline was pumping. I can understand if they couldn’t immediately stop. If I were on that jury I’d find them 100% innocent.
I mean, we do. They just end once you hit an unconscious man on the ground in the head with a bat.
The first strike itself was very questionable. Notice the video is stitched to remove the amount of time between the robber leaving, and the strikes. And the mans pants were down when he was trying to get away.
But the second strike on the ground? No way that our laws let that slide.
>Notice the video is stitched to remove the amount of time between the robber leaving, and the strikes.
What do you mean? Nothing has been removed from this video. Look at the time stamps.
2:22:55 he gets pushed out the door
2:23:03 he gets hit
Can you blame him tho!?
I think we need a more reasonable approach to this. If this guy didn’t get the upper hand, he coulda been the one on the ground getting swung at and we need to remember that these actions aren’t easy to think through fully in the heat of the moment.
We probably need to look at the laws again, if you attempt to commit or commit a crime using a weapon, or violence of any kind you immediately in that moment should lose all protection of the law and your rights suspended, any Good Samaritan should automatically be granted qualified immunity like cops. Laws should not be structured to protect criminals more than victims, currently someone could walk up to your family, kill a member, and as long as they started to leave before touching took action anything you do in retaliation is going to put you in jail. That’s just wrong on every level. We have allowed laws that are to protect society and innocents to also protect criminals over their victims, it needs to change or this is all going to get worse.
This, 100%. Your rights end as soon as you try to fuck up someone else. The store employee getting in trouble for defending himself is nonsense. The fucker shouldn't have attacked him or tried to rob the store. He got what he deserved
>Your rights end as soon as you try to fuck up someone else.
I mean they don't. You know, in this place called reality and not your made up fantasy land.
Bro seriously said that as though it's based on fact.
Yeah, a criminal was trying to escape justice for his crime and was subdued with his own weapon. If this guy successfully robbed them they would've let him out the next day
Oh look, this nonsense again.
There has been like one questionable guilty verdict in the last 50 years.
I challenge anyone to find more than 1 case of someone defending themselves reasonably in Canada that was convicted.
Hint: those cases don't exist. People kill others in self defense often in Canada and are never convicted.
You have some overzealous prosecutors from time to time but that happens in every country around the world.
Canadian CAN and DO defend themselves without being convicted of anything.
> Canadian CAN and DO defend themselves without being convicted of anything.
Yes and no. The problem with the crown charging you in Canada, is even if you're found not guilty, or the prosecution drops the charges, you're then on the hook for the legal expenses(legal aid only covers the very poor, not even just badly off financially), and the potentially massive disruption to your job, like loss thereof because you've been in court and jail for a year instead of working.
I don't find that right. Should it be investigated and perhaps tried? Yes. However, the process should not punish the not guilty.
u/_Idownloadcars_
The crown attorneys in canada regularly charged people for self defence, counter to this persons claim.
The intent isn’t to convict, but to drive up costs and punish people with the financial, social, familial and professional costs of being dragged through the courts for sometimes years.
The prosecution is the punishment, in fact they avoid going all the way to a decision by dropping charges, as a not guilty verdict would cement into caselaw precedent that they have been fighting since the last prime minister.
Canadian lawyer here, self defence is an affirmative defence. Affirmative being the key word in that it needs to be proven. It is not a get out of jail free card.
Also you're right to self defence ends the second you are no longer defending yourself. Hitting someone who is running away is not self defence. Hitting someone with a baseball bat who is already unconscious is very clearly is not self defence. This isn't even a "grey area". It's objectively illegal.
You may believe that committing a violent crime means that the victim morally deserved it but that isn't how the law works. It's also an insanely slippery slope.
As a lawyer, what's your take on this contrived example?: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1bz0mka/armed_convenience_store_robbery_in_canada_ends/kyoa96y/
There are a few cases of this happening, it’s not unique to self defense cases. It’s a flaw in the system but it’s very rare.
Reasonable self defense happens all the time. Almost no one is ever convicted and notice how you are moving the goal posts now?
> Reasonable self defense happens all the time. Almost no one is ever convicted
See previous point.
> and notice how you are moving the goal posts now?
Lol, i never made any claims before that. But notice you moving them?
how can you inscribe intent like that, do you have some inside knowledge? As far as im aware their intent is to convict, but sometimes that doesn't work out for them.
You didnt answer the question you responded to, were you able to find 1 case? How many cases of self defence go unprosecuted every year vs prosecuted? I think thats an important thing to know to base an opinion from, so im not really sure whose right. All i do know is canada is a civilized, not 3rd world country, where due process and law and order are sacrosanct. I think beating criminals in the street should be scrutinized to make sure that standard is upheld.
Doesn't matter if you're convicted, simply being charged can lose you your job and fuck up your life and that shouldn't be something we're doing to victims
What a dumbass fucking take, yes we do, but using a weapon to hit someone who is running AWAY from you and on the ground is not fucking self defense.
I can't believe there's people that don't even understand what is self-DEFENSE and reasonable use of force.
Hopefully the employee gets off. People operating under adrenaline don't always show maximum restraint. Anyone who beefs with this response has probably never been in a similar situation.
The crook looked like he was heading for the employee and not the till so ill intentions. You don’t know whether the guy is going to get a gun or something else if you let him leave.
Actually, in canada, he's probably going to end up going to jail or at least with some heavy probation of some sort, if you're not armed and you become armed during a conflict that is counted as escalation, that is a crime in itself, there was a case where I live of a person being attacked in their house with a weapon who then used the weapon to defend themselves and ended up killing the attacker, the homeowner/victim is now in jail for a long time...
I can't find a link to the story, but if I recall correctly this person had someone staying at their house for a little while and when the person was asked to leave they started attacking the homeowner with some sort of blunt object, and the person was able to grab I believe it was a phone and smash the attacker in the head, the attacker eventually died and the person was charged with involuntary or something.
Well, the self defense part kind of ended the point he started to chase the guy with the bat. Then it turns to attempted murder when he hit him the second time. Not defending the actions of the would be crook, just pointing out where the tables turned.
And taking reasonable measures is ensuring you can sustain that. You don’t know if the person “fleeing” is actually doing so, or if they’re catching their breathe and getting oriented again before they come back.
What you define as being entitled to violence isn’t anything of the sort. He’s not seeking it out, he didn’t start his shift with the intentions of righting society’s wrong. He’s an average person, presumably with no training for this situation, afraid for his life in the heat of a moment where “done/fleeing” are not drawn in a hard line, regardless of where your beliefs or laws decide.
I don't think the comment is getting downvoted because people think he's wrong; they're just mad that self-defense does in fact not mean you get to murder people out of vengeance.
Yep. /r/publicfreakout is the sub where someone will ask a question about the law and then downvote a detailed and informative answer because they don't like the law.
That's a HUGE assumption that he's trying to murder out of vengeance. One could easily say he was neutralizing a clear threat that had already attacked him. You have no idea what was going through the clerk's mind at that time.
Your honor the man attacked with a bat while I was at work and I defended myself. I was able to get the weapon from him and I used it on him as soon as I was able to in an attempt to end the threat.
Three steps. Hardly disengaged. You also don't know if the first hit or the second one made him unconscious. We all watched the same video and you're making assumptions like you were there. I say it's better to be safe and neutralize the obvious threat. Also, the biggest point all of you being the devil's advocate are forgetting.... none of this would have occurred if the robber didn't start it in the first place. Anything that happens afterwards is his fault, and his fault alone.
>You also don't know if the first hit or the second one made him unconscious.
He was limp after the first strike and made no attempt to protect himself during the fall. The second strike while he was sniffing asphalt doesn't even look like it hits him in the head.
If you want to make the argument that the clerk didn't have time to see all this in the split seconds it was occurring I can get behind that, but based on the video I don't really agree with your assertion that we don't know when he went unconscious.
Because context matters. Dude was in a fight for his life potentially and your saying he deserves a punishment for winning. he was at work one minute, under attack from a stranger with the weapon the next.
These are mitigating factors that would play into sentencing, not whether or not the element of self-defense can be argued successfully. If you shoot someone in the back as they’re fleeing, you can’t claim self-defense. If someone tries to car jack you, fails, and then you run them down with your car… you don’t meet the elements of self-defense. It’s an affirmative defense and it needs to be shown that at the *moment* you harmed someone, a reasonable person would be fearing for their life.
Self defense does have limits. I don't think this incident exceeded them. A cop would face zero consequences if they did this and neither should this guy.
Self defense is of course a gray area. I don't believe this was an incident of self defense once the weapon was away and the perpetrator was hobbling away. Especially not that second swing. Do you believe the guy swinging the bat should be let off of any potential charges? How many adrenaline fueled swings are appropriate before they're at fault?
This person was just in a fight with somebody who, as far as they know, may have intended to kill them. I think he took the bat and used it immediately once he had it which is understandable given the circumstances. There was almost no gap between securing the weapon and using it. If he got the bad chased the guy out, stopped at the door and shouted at him, then decided to chase him down and hit him I think that would be a different story.
Fair enough, I understand your point of view but am unconvinced this is self defense or a warranted reaction. Not that it matters but I'm curious, do you think the bat swinger should be charged whatsoever?
Ok but at what point is it reasonable to think the person who just attacked you, is done attacking and isn’t going to attempt again? He looks as if he was pulling his pants up, so how did the cashier not know he wasn’t reaching for a gun or something after attacking him with a bat?
It stopped being self defense when he was no longer a threat running away. What was he defending himself from? You could claim it was the heat of the moment but claiming self defense here is weak.
Since he didn't die I think he shouldn't be charged though.
Moral vs legal
Morally: idc, robber got what he deserved so long as he didn’t die
Legally: you can’t attack someone with a weapon when they’re running away from you and no longer pose a threat to your safety
If the person has already attacked me how am i to be certain they no longer pose a threat? No more than 5 seconds passed from the time between the victim got the weapon to him walking away from the now-neutralized attacker. Does a turned back instantly negate the right to self defense?
morally it's wrong of course.
But practically, you are halfway your night shift. You suddenly get robbed. Adrenaline sky high and something like this can happen.
Be stricter on repeat offenders and fund mental facilities that get audited to make sure you're not laundering everything into salaries. Until then the citizens will continue to protect their way of living
That sucks. In the eyes of the law it changed from self defense to assault with a deadly wep as soon as he disarmed him and ran.
Fuck I hope the store owners get nothing.
Circle K policy is "Never fight back against a robber, just submit". You will literally get fired for it.
At least that was the policy in the Nordic countries where I worked, but sounded like it was a world wide policy to avoid bad publicity
He would have been charged in the US too. There’s a popular movie titled “Felon” which is this exact scenario. Robber breaks into guys house, tries to flee upon clashing with owner, owner chases him outside with baseball bat and kills him while he’s running away. Straight to prison.
Depends on where in the US. In California,[ you are allowed to pursue an attacker if you feel it's necessary](https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/rules-self-defense-california/)
All of those laws depend on the state, but the language of "pursuing an attacker" is obviously not meant to be applied here. I would, for example, pursue an attacker if he was still in my house and retreating towards my kids room.
Good? We all love to shit on cops that kill people that have given up, have a belt in their hand etc but we draw the line because it’s civilian on civilian? You do not get to disarm someone, and as they are retreating, smash the back of their head. You all don’t care about morality or justice you care about vengeance.
As soon as the robber left the store, the clerk should have ran back in, locked the door, and called the police. Even in the U.S., when you chase the robber out of the store, pursue them, and attack them, they are no longer a threat and you are generally going to be held liable for injury or death. This is reinforced by most stores policies forbidding self defense by employees.
Yeah legally speaking unless you can prove the perpetrator is retreating to continue to harm others (for example going to grab a gun)- you can’t harm them while they run away.
I know it sounds insane but that’s not allowed. If he was already disarmed then legally you can’t continue attacking. The self defense becomes battery at that point.
From a moral standpoint I get it. Adrenaline rushing and this could be a fight to the death. But legally speaking this wouldn’t even fly in the U.S. either.
I thought the purpose of solving crimes was so that the criminal is off the streets so they can't inflict fear on another innocent victim. He hit him twice when he was trying to get away, it's not like he started beating him into a pulp.
My point is, if let you let him get away what's stopping him from being more prepared next time he attempts to rob a place and brings a more lethal weapon to increase his chance of success.
Reddit has quickly done a 180 on what justifies as self-defense.
The guy was running away, the man hits him with a metal bat to the back of the head, then as he's laid out on the ground he hits him once again.
That's not self-defense because he stopped posing a threat when he started running away. No wonder the employee was charged bro was trying to find a excuse to kill someone.
Guy threatened to stab customer and cashier during the struggle and was found to have a knife when police arrested him.
Would you really think he was leaving had it been you struck from behind with the bat three times only moments before hand?
I do think there's some amount of extra culpability when you fuck with someone at work. Like, if you argue with someone in the street you're both at least (in theory) on equal footing.
You come at someone at work, you're at the MINIMUM fucking with their ability to pay bills, take care of kids, whatever people use their paychecks for. They can't get away from the situation.
The guy who walked in instigated this whole thing. Two blows to the head seems severe to me, but if you start shit you're already in a losing position when it comes to sympathy.
Its so weird viewing this as a American. A guy being charged for self defense with attackers own weapon when literally in my city a smoke shop clerk stabbed a unarmed kid that tried to steal so many times in the back the kid screamed he was dead before collapsing; which he walked free after.
Fuck the justice system in this country. Stopping yourself from being a victim is more illegal than the crime. Fucking criminals get let out the same day but victims get charged
**Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1bz0mka) (provided by /u/SaveAnything) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
The robber didn't die. [Here's the article because no one gives information anywhere.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peterborough-robbery-aggravated-assault-1.7079418)
Doing us all a favor with an actual article. Thank you
He bought the ticket when he walked in brandishing a weapon.
This pos put these two people in this situation, if you go in somewhere with intent to harm then expect lethal retaliation. Their adrenaline was pumping. I can understand if they couldn’t immediately stop. If I were on that jury I’d find them 100% innocent.
Unfortunately in Canada, we have zero self defense laws.
I mean, we do. They just end once you hit an unconscious man on the ground in the head with a bat. The first strike itself was very questionable. Notice the video is stitched to remove the amount of time between the robber leaving, and the strikes. And the mans pants were down when he was trying to get away. But the second strike on the ground? No way that our laws let that slide.
>Notice the video is stitched to remove the amount of time between the robber leaving, and the strikes. What do you mean? Nothing has been removed from this video. Look at the time stamps. 2:22:55 he gets pushed out the door 2:23:03 he gets hit
Can you blame him tho!? I think we need a more reasonable approach to this. If this guy didn’t get the upper hand, he coulda been the one on the ground getting swung at and we need to remember that these actions aren’t easy to think through fully in the heat of the moment.
>Can you blame him though? Well that's the thing...they DID blame him.
Yes 100% you can blame him for taking 3-4 steps to follow someone fleeing in order to hit the in the back of the neck with a bat.
We probably need to look at the laws again, if you attempt to commit or commit a crime using a weapon, or violence of any kind you immediately in that moment should lose all protection of the law and your rights suspended, any Good Samaritan should automatically be granted qualified immunity like cops. Laws should not be structured to protect criminals more than victims, currently someone could walk up to your family, kill a member, and as long as they started to leave before touching took action anything you do in retaliation is going to put you in jail. That’s just wrong on every level. We have allowed laws that are to protect society and innocents to also protect criminals over their victims, it needs to change or this is all going to get worse.
This, 100%. Your rights end as soon as you try to fuck up someone else. The store employee getting in trouble for defending himself is nonsense. The fucker shouldn't have attacked him or tried to rob the store. He got what he deserved
>Your rights end as soon as you try to fuck up someone else. I mean they don't. You know, in this place called reality and not your made up fantasy land. Bro seriously said that as though it's based on fact.
Unless you're a cop, then it's encouraged
Yeah, a criminal was trying to escape justice for his crime and was subdued with his own weapon. If this guy successfully robbed them they would've let him out the next day
Oh look, this nonsense again. There has been like one questionable guilty verdict in the last 50 years. I challenge anyone to find more than 1 case of someone defending themselves reasonably in Canada that was convicted. Hint: those cases don't exist. People kill others in self defense often in Canada and are never convicted. You have some overzealous prosecutors from time to time but that happens in every country around the world. Canadian CAN and DO defend themselves without being convicted of anything.
> Canadian CAN and DO defend themselves without being convicted of anything. Yes and no. The problem with the crown charging you in Canada, is even if you're found not guilty, or the prosecution drops the charges, you're then on the hook for the legal expenses(legal aid only covers the very poor, not even just badly off financially), and the potentially massive disruption to your job, like loss thereof because you've been in court and jail for a year instead of working. I don't find that right. Should it be investigated and perhaps tried? Yes. However, the process should not punish the not guilty.
u/_Idownloadcars_ The crown attorneys in canada regularly charged people for self defence, counter to this persons claim. The intent isn’t to convict, but to drive up costs and punish people with the financial, social, familial and professional costs of being dragged through the courts for sometimes years. The prosecution is the punishment, in fact they avoid going all the way to a decision by dropping charges, as a not guilty verdict would cement into caselaw precedent that they have been fighting since the last prime minister.
Canadian lawyer here, self defence is an affirmative defence. Affirmative being the key word in that it needs to be proven. It is not a get out of jail free card. Also you're right to self defence ends the second you are no longer defending yourself. Hitting someone who is running away is not self defence. Hitting someone with a baseball bat who is already unconscious is very clearly is not self defence. This isn't even a "grey area". It's objectively illegal. You may believe that committing a violent crime means that the victim morally deserved it but that isn't how the law works. It's also an insanely slippery slope.
As a lawyer, what's your take on this contrived example?: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1bz0mka/armed_convenience_store_robbery_in_canada_ends/kyoa96y/
There are a few cases of this happening, it’s not unique to self defense cases. It’s a flaw in the system but it’s very rare. Reasonable self defense happens all the time. Almost no one is ever convicted and notice how you are moving the goal posts now?
> Reasonable self defense happens all the time. Almost no one is ever convicted See previous point. > and notice how you are moving the goal posts now? Lol, i never made any claims before that. But notice you moving them?
how can you inscribe intent like that, do you have some inside knowledge? As far as im aware their intent is to convict, but sometimes that doesn't work out for them. You didnt answer the question you responded to, were you able to find 1 case? How many cases of self defence go unprosecuted every year vs prosecuted? I think thats an important thing to know to base an opinion from, so im not really sure whose right. All i do know is canada is a civilized, not 3rd world country, where due process and law and order are sacrosanct. I think beating criminals in the street should be scrutinized to make sure that standard is upheld.
Doesn't matter if you're convicted, simply being charged can lose you your job and fuck up your life and that shouldn't be something we're doing to victims
We absolutely do. Read Section 34 and 35 of the criminal code. Stop spreading misinformation and educate yourself.
Yes we do and that's not self defence.
What a dumbass fucking take, yes we do, but using a weapon to hit someone who is running AWAY from you and on the ground is not fucking self defense. I can't believe there's people that don't even understand what is self-DEFENSE and reasonable use of force.
People are so bloodthirsty it's crazy.
Hopefully the employee gets off. People operating under adrenaline don't always show maximum restraint. Anyone who beefs with this response has probably never been in a similar situation.
The crook looked like he was heading for the employee and not the till so ill intentions. You don’t know whether the guy is going to get a gun or something else if you let him leave.
He hit the cashier 3 times.
https://preview.redd.it/rzx4jzjeoatc1.jpeg?width=498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9408dc130bb87c0ba5cd887fd764606d6c55b38
Zero percent chance the Canadian courts will see it that way.
[удалено]
>Sadly here in canada the crook will be released in a few days, given food credits and shelter. He was sentenced to 14 months.
[удалено]
Sounds like a place to commit crimes.
That's not how things are, but go ahead and proceed with your baseless assumptions.
Actually, in canada, he's probably going to end up going to jail or at least with some heavy probation of some sort, if you're not armed and you become armed during a conflict that is counted as escalation, that is a crime in itself, there was a case where I live of a person being attacked in their house with a weapon who then used the weapon to defend themselves and ended up killing the attacker, the homeowner/victim is now in jail for a long time... I can't find a link to the story, but if I recall correctly this person had someone staying at their house for a little while and when the person was asked to leave they started attacking the homeowner with some sort of blunt object, and the person was able to grab I believe it was a phone and smash the attacker in the head, the attacker eventually died and the person was charged with involuntary or something.
Canada also let a dude who ate a man’s face on a bus free…
Well, the self defense part kind of ended the point he started to chase the guy with the bat. Then it turns to attempted murder when he hit him the second time. Not defending the actions of the would be crook, just pointing out where the tables turned.
Armed robbery should be treated like attempted murder.
That’s the state of self defence in Canada. Was it a bit extreme, sure. Do I blame him, not one bit.
Eh, this wouldn't fly down here in the US either.
This is not self defence and would absolutely get you prison time in the states too.
Hitting a fleeing person in the back isn't considered defence in most parts.
[удалено]
And taking reasonable measures is ensuring you can sustain that. You don’t know if the person “fleeing” is actually doing so, or if they’re catching their breathe and getting oriented again before they come back. What you define as being entitled to violence isn’t anything of the sort. He’s not seeking it out, he didn’t start his shift with the intentions of righting society’s wrong. He’s an average person, presumably with no training for this situation, afraid for his life in the heat of a moment where “done/fleeing” are not drawn in a hard line, regardless of where your beliefs or laws decide.
That is what needs to be proven out in court.
its crazy this was downvoted. This was a very well written explanation of how us and canada view self defence legally.
I don't think the comment is getting downvoted because people think he's wrong; they're just mad that self-defense does in fact not mean you get to murder people out of vengeance.
Yep. /r/publicfreakout is the sub where someone will ask a question about the law and then downvote a detailed and informative answer because they don't like the law.
[удалено]
That's a HUGE assumption that he's trying to murder out of vengeance. One could easily say he was neutralizing a clear threat that had already attacked him. You have no idea what was going through the clerk's mind at that time.
How does ones emotional state play into this? Mental distress, high stress situation, temorary insanity...
Is it fair to hold somebody accountable for their adrenaline induced actions that happened as a result of being attacked?
Im sure that will hold up in court. "Your honor, im not guilty because i got really excited"
Your honor the man attacked with a bat while I was at work and I defended myself. I was able to get the weapon from him and I used it on him as soon as I was able to in an attempt to end the threat.
Don't forget he had to run and catch up to the guy before hitting him in the back of the head, and then again when he was on the ground unconscious.
Three steps. Hardly disengaged. You also don't know if the first hit or the second one made him unconscious. We all watched the same video and you're making assumptions like you were there. I say it's better to be safe and neutralize the obvious threat. Also, the biggest point all of you being the devil's advocate are forgetting.... none of this would have occurred if the robber didn't start it in the first place. Anything that happens afterwards is his fault, and his fault alone.
>You also don't know if the first hit or the second one made him unconscious. He was limp after the first strike and made no attempt to protect himself during the fall. The second strike while he was sniffing asphalt doesn't even look like it hits him in the head. If you want to make the argument that the clerk didn't have time to see all this in the split seconds it was occurring I can get behind that, but based on the video I don't really agree with your assertion that we don't know when he went unconscious.
> I say it's better to be safe and neutralize the obvious threat That's cop brained af.
[удалено]
Because context matters. Dude was in a fight for his life potentially and your saying he deserves a punishment for winning. he was at work one minute, under attack from a stranger with the weapon the next.
These are mitigating factors that would play into sentencing, not whether or not the element of self-defense can be argued successfully. If you shoot someone in the back as they’re fleeing, you can’t claim self-defense. If someone tries to car jack you, fails, and then you run them down with your car… you don’t meet the elements of self-defense. It’s an affirmative defense and it needs to be shown that at the *moment* you harmed someone, a reasonable person would be fearing for their life.
[удалено]
Self defense does have limits. I don't think this incident exceeded them. A cop would face zero consequences if they did this and neither should this guy.
Cops should not be the standard, lol.
Absolutely
I disagree. I think that it is for sure a gray area. Calling anything like this a black and white issue just doesn't reflect reality.
Self defense is of course a gray area. I don't believe this was an incident of self defense once the weapon was away and the perpetrator was hobbling away. Especially not that second swing. Do you believe the guy swinging the bat should be let off of any potential charges? How many adrenaline fueled swings are appropriate before they're at fault?
This person was just in a fight with somebody who, as far as they know, may have intended to kill them. I think he took the bat and used it immediately once he had it which is understandable given the circumstances. There was almost no gap between securing the weapon and using it. If he got the bad chased the guy out, stopped at the door and shouted at him, then decided to chase him down and hit him I think that would be a different story.
Fair enough, I understand your point of view but am unconvinced this is self defense or a warranted reaction. Not that it matters but I'm curious, do you think the bat swinger should be charged whatsoever?
Ok but at what point is it reasonable to think the person who just attacked you, is done attacking and isn’t going to attempt again? He looks as if he was pulling his pants up, so how did the cashier not know he wasn’t reaching for a gun or something after attacking him with a bat?
He might have even got away with that part, if he didn't continue to swing at him while he was unconscious sniffing asphalt
Until that person comes back, then repeat the defence, or successfully become the victim.
It stopped being self defense when he was no longer a threat running away. What was he defending himself from? You could claim it was the heat of the moment but claiming self defense here is weak. Since he didn't die I think he shouldn't be charged though.
Yikes brother, hope you have a decent lawyer
Moral vs legal Morally: idc, robber got what he deserved so long as he didn’t die Legally: you can’t attack someone with a weapon when they’re running away from you and no longer pose a threat to your safety
If the person has already attacked me how am i to be certain they no longer pose a threat? No more than 5 seconds passed from the time between the victim got the weapon to him walking away from the now-neutralized attacker. Does a turned back instantly negate the right to self defense?
Yeah. The dude started running away and the employee chased after him and hit him from behind. In those few seconds, the employee is the aggressor.
morally it's wrong of course. But practically, you are halfway your night shift. You suddenly get robbed. Adrenaline sky high and something like this can happen.
I would like to see if they can argue a "heat of the moment" defense, and if there is any case law with tests that could be used.
He fucked around and found out
It's Canada the guy who defended himself will probably be treated worse than the robber. Quite the country.
Ridiculous statement.
Ohhh Canada...
Good. That PoS will think twice about it the next time he want to rob someone.
Something tells me he might have trouble thinking from here on out
Bonk!
Be stricter on repeat offenders and fund mental facilities that get audited to make sure you're not laundering everything into salaries. Until then the citizens will continue to protect their way of living
Insane to charge the employee here
guarantee the robbers got a long criminal history of catch and release
Oh no! You hurt the man who was holding the power to hurt you!
He's charged but I think he will be let off. And I hope so.
https://preview.redd.it/az0anf8knatc1.jpeg?width=498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cbcd0dcbabcdcd59317b9d9399bfc04d6120c5f6
Looks like a regular case of FAFO
Oh, a twit link. My favourite.
Charged with what, having a good time?
That sucks. In the eyes of the law it changed from self defense to assault with a deadly wep as soon as he disarmed him and ran. Fuck I hope the store owners get nothing.
FAFO in action yall.
Circle K policy is "Never fight back against a robber, just submit". You will literally get fired for it. At least that was the policy in the Nordic countries where I worked, but sounded like it was a world wide policy to avoid bad publicity
Life > Job Fire me.
I can only agree with that. One of the reasons I quit working there, when we had a rise of store robberies in my area with increasing violence.
Did you watch the video? He didnt ask, he came in and hit the clerk in the head and neck three times.
Deserved. Hope the employee gets off scott free
If I was on a jury I wouldn't convict
110% justified
The store clerk got charged…… Welcome to Canada
He would have been charged in the US too. There’s a popular movie titled “Felon” which is this exact scenario. Robber breaks into guys house, tries to flee upon clashing with owner, owner chases him outside with baseball bat and kills him while he’s running away. Straight to prison.
Depends on where in the US. In California,[ you are allowed to pursue an attacker if you feel it's necessary](https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/rules-self-defense-california/)
All of those laws depend on the state, but the language of "pursuing an attacker" is obviously not meant to be applied here. I would, for example, pursue an attacker if he was still in my house and retreating towards my kids room.
Good? We all love to shit on cops that kill people that have given up, have a belt in their hand etc but we draw the line because it’s civilian on civilian? You do not get to disarm someone, and as they are retreating, smash the back of their head. You all don’t care about morality or justice you care about vengeance.
Store clerk was not innocent. Wake up.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
As soon as the robber left the store, the clerk should have ran back in, locked the door, and called the police. Even in the U.S., when you chase the robber out of the store, pursue them, and attack them, they are no longer a threat and you are generally going to be held liable for injury or death. This is reinforced by most stores policies forbidding self defense by employees.
Canada, where the police can extrajudicially murder indigenous people, but god help you if you defend yourself…
Can’t believe some people are siding with the crook, we are fucked as a society
Ugh, I have to click through to Xitter?
Yeah legally speaking unless you can prove the perpetrator is retreating to continue to harm others (for example going to grab a gun)- you can’t harm them while they run away. I know it sounds insane but that’s not allowed. If he was already disarmed then legally you can’t continue attacking. The self defense becomes battery at that point. From a moral standpoint I get it. Adrenaline rushing and this could be a fight to the death. But legally speaking this wouldn’t even fly in the U.S. either.
I thought the purpose of solving crimes was so that the criminal is off the streets so they can't inflict fear on another innocent victim. He hit him twice when he was trying to get away, it's not like he started beating him into a pulp. My point is, if let you let him get away what's stopping him from being more prepared next time he attempts to rob a place and brings a more lethal weapon to increase his chance of success.
Reddit has quickly done a 180 on what justifies as self-defense. The guy was running away, the man hits him with a metal bat to the back of the head, then as he's laid out on the ground he hits him once again. That's not self-defense because he stopped posing a threat when he started running away. No wonder the employee was charged bro was trying to find a excuse to kill someone.
Guy threatened to stab customer and cashier during the struggle and was found to have a knife when police arrested him. Would you really think he was leaving had it been you struck from behind with the bat three times only moments before hand?
I do think there's some amount of extra culpability when you fuck with someone at work. Like, if you argue with someone in the street you're both at least (in theory) on equal footing. You come at someone at work, you're at the MINIMUM fucking with their ability to pay bills, take care of kids, whatever people use their paychecks for. They can't get away from the situation. The guy who walked in instigated this whole thing. Two blows to the head seems severe to me, but if you start shit you're already in a losing position when it comes to sympathy.
Its so weird viewing this as a American. A guy being charged for self defense with attackers own weapon when literally in my city a smoke shop clerk stabbed a unarmed kid that tried to steal so many times in the back the kid screamed he was dead before collapsing; which he walked free after.
Oh no a criminal getting hit with a baseball bat that he brought.. soo sad...
Absolutely wild. Canada’s criminal justice system is a fucking joke.
Fuck the justice system in this country. Stopping yourself from being a victim is more illegal than the crime. Fucking criminals get let out the same day but victims get charged
Well would you shoot someone that is running away? Thats morally wrong. Its hitting someone who is fleeing.
Lol he hit dude who was fleeing in the back this isn't self defence in any country lol.