🤔 If you don’t want smacked with your own bat, don’t jack up someone’s adrenaline/fight or flight response and expect them to be chill the second the situation might be over. The clerk’s response afterward is telling. My two pence.
Expecting an untrained civilian who just survived a violent life or death attack with injuries to properly de-escalate and keep in mind and follow the letter of the law.... Jury nullification!
Came to say the same. This isn't a case of vigilantism where he found the guy at home, and he's not a trained police officer: if he was a trained police officer, if he initiated the contact, then you expect him to be thinking clearly, but he was doing his job and was attacked, you can't expect someone to react rationally in the moments after an attack like that.
@@wilfdarr It's unlikely it will go to trial. The whole system is rigged for plea deals. Most people cannot afford to hire a good attorney who will prepare a defense for a jury trial. Prosecutors will load up the charges, and you'll plea guilty to a lesser offense. In this case, I'd bet dollars to donuts they'll charge him with aggravated assault, and as long as the robber wasn't permanently injured, the clerk will accept a plea for misdemeanor assault. Want to go to trial, you're looking at 100K minimum, if you need investigators and expert witnesses along with your team of attorneys, legal assistants, etc. Just hiring an attorney who will negotiate a plea for you will cost about 10K on a serious offense like this. That is from recent experience, btw, not speculation.
I worked as a police officer for over 24 years, the harddest thing I ever did was to call on a very good friend and inform him that his son who was 18 had been killed while working as a convience store clerk. I brought along our preacher to help the family with the news, it is something I will never forget. He is still a friend but every time I see him I think of that nigh some 45 years ago.
❤. I’m sure he appreciates it was you and also appreciated you kind thoughts on bringing a priest with you. As a nurse it’s terrible too inform families of a death, let alone someone you know.
Wow…. This is heartbreaking. The clerk didn’t ask for this. He’s trying to get an education, working a job, minding his own business. You mentioned adrenaline - I can see that second strike as a product of wanting to make sure he doesn’t get away while authorities come? This just tragic. I hope the Crown shows leniency. Please keep us updated.
I think you're wrong. If I was on the jury, I would give him a fair listen. But from that video it doesn't look like self-defense to me. I'm not a fan of jury nullification.
The second hit can be defended by using studies about reaction time on the road. The average reaction time is between 1 and 2 seconds, the first heat was at 03 seconds, and the second one was at 04. He couldn't be sure the first hit would be so efficient and the second one was already planned in his head for self-defence. Once he was able to realize the threat was neutralized, he stopped and walked away.
Strongly agree. Even trained professionals have difficulty with this. There should be an allowance in the law for the human nature of someone who has just been assaulted himself with a deadly weapon. “[it] is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” Drop all charges, lest the system of justice become a system of injustice. Proceeding with prosecution would create a wider disrespect for the law.
I went frame by frame and it does look to be barely under 3 seconds from the bat first making contact to the second contact. The guy still had to fall during that time frame. I'm glad to know there is science to point to about how unreasonable it is to expect the clerk to have taken a different action.
I wonder if the Toronto cop who got stabbed in the leg today is going to get charged for shooting his attacker? Both are in hospital tonight. Another story to follow!
Charged and convicted are two different things. I would assume the clerk’s lawyers will argue that he was distraught and fearing for his life. The adrenaline and anger got the better of him.
We the jury find the defendant guilty of deserving a medal. I'm sure the judge would over rule me, berate me, and probably replace me, but I'd NEVER agree to a guilty verdict. Is the clerk guilty of assault ? By our bent laws, yes. Of course he is. Would I agree to punishing him for it ? Nope. not a hope in hell. If that means ignoring the letter of the law in this circumstance....oh well.
In many jurisdictions, the person bringing a gun or other weapon to the scene would never get to press charbges and the state or local jurisdiction would not press charges.
@@johns1625 between the time that he got the bat from the robber and the time that he took his second swing only five seconds elapsed. In my first watch-through at full speed I thought it was 2-seconds . . . and I wasn't struggling for my life with a violent offender. It looks less like a 'decision' and more like reflex to me. And then, when he realizes the robber is out of the fight, he walks away and calls (presumably) the police. No intent, no crime.
If the store clerk hadn't had help he would most likely be the one laying knocked out on the floor. Although the robber was running away I do think this is a case where the crown should use discretion with the store clerk.
I feel terrible for this man. The time and expense required to defend a man just trying to protect himself, the other customer(s) and his job is such a waste, not to mention an injustice. Canada’s ‘legal’ situation would be comedy, if it weren’t tragedy foremost. When will we stop protecting the *real* criminals from the consequences of their actions???
I can't tell if you're joking but obviously the clerk would have been found by the police and he would still face charges. Maybe even worse charges if he didn't call for help after knocking the guy out.
@@acmhfmggru If the criminal believes that the state will act in his favor, then of course they'll report it. Do you think they'll necessarily be truthful? It wouldn't be the first time a crook has called the cops on their victim. It's also not something that never works out in the favor of the crook.
@@acmhfmggru What part of the things I described sounds like a hollywood film? I have to ask you, since apparently you spend much more time engrossed in those sorts of fiction, sweet cheeks.
The problem I have with this situation is that it all happens so fast that the clerk was quite likely running purely on instinct - he'd just been hit - there was history of other problems at the location. It was no more than 2 or 3 seconds of anger. I just don't think that adrenaline and fight-or-flight shuts off that fast. Against the law? As you said, I think he met the definition of having committed the crime. But, I do think it's a crime that should not have been charged.
I feel similarly. This is a typical "one (or two) hits too many" situation which the law probably wouldn't accept here as self-defense either, but I feel bad for him. When I talked about this with people, they often don't realize at what point they should stop, even when rationally debating. A man in that situation definitely isn't just thinking rationally.
I guess I look at it as to whether I think the foreign student/clerk is likely to be a danger to the public. It would seem that the answer is "no" and that he's only a danger to criminals trying to rob him or his workplace while he's working. I hope he gets a very good defense attorney and that the prosecutor sees it similarly to me...
The things that sway my opinion are 1. his reaction afterwards. hands on head, doubled over, squatting down, I recognize this behavior as what i do when I am panicking. Also immediately calling police (assuming that's what he's doing with his phone) shows that getting help is a bigger priority to him than avoiding consequence. I think this is someone who is scared and operating in a mentality of self defense. 2 the original bat wielders mask and hood. I think obscuring his face and bringing a bat is enough to justify an assumption that he is a threat, even without considering whatever happened at the beginning of the altercation. 3. I would not expect a person flooded with adrenaline to recognize when a threat has given up as quickly as he would have needed to here. Hormones hinder our more complex thoughts and impact the way we interpret our observations. I'm sad this led to serious injury, but also I cant expect anything else from someone in this circumstance.
He should never have been charged. It’s ridiculous that someone can’t deal with a threat against their life without having to worry about getting arrested. The guy came into his place of business hit him with a bat and tried to rob him. He should be allowed to neutralize the threat.
I don't like it, either. I don't know what the law is like in Onterio, but the DA's hands might be tied. But depending on how the law's written, this might be a crime. And, some will argue that it's not like a moving violation or parking ticket, where you can expect a "no harm, no foul" argument for digression. Someone went down and that someone went to the hospital. I don't like arguing Jury Nullification, but if this does go to trial, I hope it happens in this case.
@@jackielinde7568US and Canadian criminal law are quite different. In Canada, criminal law is strictly federal. The prosecutors are called, "Crown Counsel", as they represent the Crown. Also, prosecutors are hired, not elected. They do have the ability to not bring charges if it isn't in the public interest. I would argue in this case that it isn't. As others have have said, it is very likely that I wouldn't convict if I was on the jury.
He was disarmed. Attacker was retreating. The threat was over. I swear to god the most ignorant people on self defense are the ones commenting on these videos.
An old work mate caught someone in the act of robbing his apartment. He basically ended up ejecting from the fore escape and he ended up in hospital. My mate told the police how he put the guy over and the copper says ‘you mean he slipped and fell’? Matey says ‘no, I put him over’. The copper repeats ‘you mean he slipped and fell’? The penny finally dropped and he agreed that the burglar slipped and fell while running away. He’d have been in trouble if the copper hadn’t tipped him the wink. This was years ago. Most police would probably be on the side of the actual villain now.
I have an adrenaline disorder that's incredibly debilitating. My (palpitating) heart goes out to the clerk. I know for most people adrenaline rushes don't involve fainting and muscle tremors so intense they're mistaken for seizures, but fucking hell. Punishing a person for doing to an aggressor what the aggressor was trying to do to them? The moment someone is down, with no referee, you're supposed to stop that instant? It's 2 seconds. 2:18 to 2:20. They guy only starts retreating after they have the bat. Before then, it's taking two people to push this guy out the door. And you can still fight from the ground. Not well, and it's not likely when the person is already trying to run. But the other guy is full of adrenaline too, he's not thinking straight either, who knows what the hell he's going to do. It's 2 seconds and the clerk has to realize the guy's on the ground, he has to realize that he needs to stop and take a moment to re access. He can't, in 2 seconds, tell if the guy is going to be getting up or lashing out from the ground in 2 seconds. In those 2 seconds, the guy is still falling. Please, don't let those 2 seconds ruin the clerks life.
It really varies from one state to another and sometimes even from county to county. Generally speaking, red jurisdictions are a lot more understanding when it comes to armed victims than blue ones are.
"second hit when he's on the ground" yeah, so he doesn't get back up and keep assaulting you, possibly getting the best of you. Are you supposed to give your assailant a fair chance? I hate when determinations are made by people who have never been in a fight/dangerous situation and understand nothing of reality.
The last bar fight I was in, I had to go to the ER to get my mouth stitched up, because the guy (about my size) sucker-punched me, putting one of my teeth through my lower lip. Yes, a fight ensued, and he was charged and I was not. But the punch to my jaw would not have given me an excuse to pull out a pistol (which I sometimes carry). People have wildly exaggerated views on what they can do in "self-defense" which is only the amount of force required to reasonably protect yourself. If the aggressor is someone like Mike Tyson, the amount of force used in self defense is greater than if the aggressor is a 100 lb young woman. In the case of this video, the clerk had to wrestle the bat away from a third party in order to use it on the fleeing robber. Tough to argue that he was in any danger at that point. I see two crimes.
Honestly, if this were a jury trial, I wouldn't convict him at all. He got hit with a mf bat. That sh*t hurts, and that's a scary situation. I might not have stopped at 2, especially if there was a chance of him getting back up to try again.
There's nothing to reform or rehabilitate. The clerk was only put into the situation because they were a victim. Punishing them only serves to send a message to the public that they cannot attack someone once the confrontation ends.. Does that really help when many people aren't going to be in a logical frame of mind during these types of scenarios. I don't think society really benefits from punishing the clerk in any meaningful way.
It also send the message what a DANGER all these cameras in society really are.....the camera did absolutely nothing with regards to identifying the robber, but did everything to sink the store clerk. The old ways were a lot better.
This! I agree, and I also think that this is where Runkle made an excellent point, too, that the Crown should have looked at this and decided that pursuing it was not in the public interest.
I really hope some good lawyer from the area will step up and provide a pro bono legal support. Would be sad, if the robbery victim gets punished more than the perpetrator.
My impression from the earlier story on this event was that the robber was disarmed INSIDE the store, then chased outside and hit with his bat. If that was what happened I could see an argument for charging the clerk as he would have known the robber was fleeing, even if I personally would disagree. To convict on what we see here you would have to determine that the fight was over the exact second the robber lost control of the weapon and that the clerk knew this. Refusing to allow an assault victim even 5 seconds to recognise that the assault is over is clearly unreasonable.
Our laws are broken especially in regards to self defense. I don't want to see people being beat to death for attempting to rob a store but if you attack someone with a bat that person has to assume that you are armed. When he turned he could have easily pulled a gun or knife. He had a bat God only knows what else he could have. The clerk stopped as soon as he was no longer a threat you can't turn off adrenaline that easily. If it was a police officer in place of the clerk he would never have been charged.
I agree with you, the clerk should be given some kind of leniency. He was defending himself it looked like he was favoring his head like he got hit first. I think really depends how good his lawyer is.
I think there's a really easy way to address this, the same standard should be applied to police and everyone else in these circumstances. Police are argued to be operating in their own defence only and have no obligation to protect others, therefore there is a perfect analogue here, honestly... I think that, if it's unacceptable for a civilian or, frankly anyone to have a different right to bodily integrity or autonomy to anyone else with the exception of people who have been convicted of a crime by a court and are undertaking judicial punishment at that time.
I see how it's legally problematic, but the charges being dropped would suit me just fine... Was the attacker really retreating or was he just trying to get space to come at them again? I mean it's a couple seconds of difference, and in the heat of the moment your mind is in fight mode.. No audio means we also don't know if the guy was threatening verbally or pleading "I give up"
Yeah... on one hand I can see why a processor would charge the guy becuase by the second swing he was clearly incapacitated. On the other hand I probably would do the exact same thing in his position (not on purpose) with all of the adrenaline. I feel the theif should definitely be getting more of a serious charge than the clerk. I dont think he needs to be deported for defending himself. Its just a bad situation and I hope the judge/jury can see that and be kind to the guy.
That poor clerk. What a hell of a situation he was put in. It's not surprising that he freaked out & whacked the bat-bringer a couple times before he stopped himself. It feels very icky to prosecute this clerk to the full extent of the law...
Thats a slippery slope to start charging people defending themselves against criminals. Whose to say he didnt have a second weapon and was gaining distance to pull it out.
This! I hope the clerk gets a lawyer that considers this. I mean the clerk did stop once he came down a bit from the adrenaline and realized the guy wasn't going to fight back further.
Ian, do the courts not make any allowance for actions that one might take under the stress of having just been assaulted and forced into a potentially life and death confrontation? I think it's only human to want to stop the criminal from escaping and as with police, parsing the exact amount of allowable force is unreasonable in the moment.
@@PunchingDummy are you saying that every person that is not locked in solitary confinement should get the same training as a police officer? because if you are anywhere other than there you have an alarmingly high chance to just be attacked. or are you saying all retail employees and store clerks should be trained as both police and lawyers? because that makes no sense. Have you left your house? do you have training and a good grasp of the related laws governing such?
@@PunchingDummy (1) Most (I believe) cases where there's a public outcry about a police officer's use of force are not even remotely self-defense. (2) If you're attacked (as someone whose job description does not include violence), you did *not* "CHOOSE to put yourself in a situation where you'll have to use force", someone else made that choice for you. It's not clear to me how the current case should be judged, but I don't think much of your argument here. I do believe in the general principles: first, self-defense is allowed; second, force must not be disproportional to defense; third, you use what you have available (it's not your fault someone else chose their attack when you had whatever and not something closer to the necessary minimum); fourth, a slight miscalculation is excusable. However, there are a lot of what you might call "rubber words" in there, such as what is "slight", what is "proportional", and so on. That's where my not being an expert in law comes in.
@@PunchingDummy"But they're trained" is a perfectly reasonable and valid argument, though. You can try to preemptively dismiss it but you're still wrong.
Not a lawyer here, obviously. And I'm from Eastern Europe, so our laws are somewhat different anyways. But seeing a video of (I believe) US police officers emptying few mags into a woman in her own house, just to be proven the woman broke into her own house because she lost a key? To me it just proves that even trained professionals whose job is to keep cool under pressure can make terrible decisions under pressure, let alone regular person not expecting life threatening attack. I feel very strongly that guy should not be prosecuted, but I know law is not about feeling. I just hope he can get his life together after this whole ordeal.
You’re absolutely right! So many tragedies have occurred because fully trained, heavily armed police have panicked and made a bad judgement call. (I was just reading about a case where a teenage girl was shot and killed by the police who were supposed to be rescuing her from a parental kidnapping, even though one of the officers recognized her and told his colleagues to stop shooting.) The police rarely face meaningful consequences in these situations, and they absolutely ought to know better. It’s absurd to hold an ordinary citizen who has just been attacked to a higher standard than the police!
this is why I hate "legal" systems. The assumption should be that if attacked like that, even with the attacker retreating, the attacker could come back and continue the assault. A temporary retreat
Yes, this was running on a loop in my mind throughout the video. The first hit, even with him retreating (and still on property!) shouldn't be questionable. That second hit when he's on the ground, the clerk could go back into the store to lock up and call the police? Well, logically that should be a no. But adrenaline isn't logical.
that button was pushed he was just in that mode. can't blame him for that. that person could have turned around at any time and attacked again. it's like poking a bear in the woods. then all of a sudden it's the bear's fault
@@JayeEllis "[You are] not so sure," and you're sitting at home with time to think rationally about the situation seen from a bird's-eye view. No chance the clerk could know his assailent was incapacitated before he _began the motion_ of his second swing (it's kinda hard to stop swinging a bat after you start!)
WTf ?? Mine too. Long dissertation about how the guy should have gotten additional charges for infliction of emotional distress for the clerks charges.. and its nowhere to be found..
The clerk probably decided to incapacitate him@@Brittanysplittany and that's as far as his jacked up brain could get until it was 'too late' to change the script.
I wonder if the store had been robbed before? It's hard to tell if the 1st hit was enough to stop him from getting away or if the clerk believed he was able or started to get up & attack him🤔🤔
Sometimes people need a reminder that stealing other people's property is wrong. If there is any sort of jury nullification in Ontario then that would be the correct way to go.
The circumstances alone tell you this is in Canada. Only in the tyrannical country formally known as Canada can the store clerk be the criminal in this situation. Clerks in the United States can literally (and recently have) shoot robbers in the back who are running away. I hate my country now.... Sad.
Painful when you see reality for the first time, but don't worry, it gets much worse, right now the government is trying to remove the right of personal property, they are using scary guns atm to hide the true intent of their law.
I know some people argue that New York City isn't really the US any longer, but just a year or so back there was a case that came up where a bodega clerk defended himself from a knifeman that was only quashed because of the attention it got in the media.
I hesitate, because I don't want to see people able to use the self-defense law to seriously hurt somebody for a minor defense because they are angry. That said though? Yeah, I ultimately agree with you. That second hit came extremely quickly after the first one, and then he backed off. He didn't pummel the dude into soup. He didn't hit him once, stew for a bit, and then come back for more. It was very heat of the moment, and once he realized the guy was down and then was in fact not getting back up, he looked distressed. That doesn't seem like vengeance to me.
If you come at someone with a weapon and with intentions to do a crime, what happens to you after you tried to hurt the person shouldn't be charge if you get beat or killed. Investigated sure but charged...
the the way i lean. am not sure that the way the law lean but that the way i would lean. If you fk around dont come crying when you are on the ground. the clerk is not a police officer, he does not have handcuff. Clearly the swing was in the heat of the moment.
I completely understand the need for some limitations on self-defence; it would be unreasonable for someone to, say, choke someone to death in retaliation for being punched. This case is tricky as both swings are not clear-cut - for the first the robber is running away so is not currently a threat, amd by the second he's on the ground and even less of a potential threat. In the heat of the moment I can see how it happened, and I definitely hope they're lenient on the clerk in this instance, but I understand where the law is coming from because there does need to be some line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Stopping when the attacker is no longer an immediate threat is a reasonable place to draw such a line, but of course there will always be these fuzzy cases where it's on the line.
The line has to be far enough past the point where the threat is neutralized (in cases where neutralizing it is justified) for human brains to have enough time to process it, else the law criminalizes measured responses.
Here in Ontario we love to prosecute folks who defend themselves. Should the clerk have hit the guy when he was down? Probably not but in the heat of the moment I fully understand why he did. Frankly we can barely get police to respond at all when we need them. Since we can't defend ourselves and are maximally scrutinized with little to no understanding when we do this place is feeling more and more dystopian all the time
@@AliceBowie You've already disarmed him of his primary weapon, and you just assume he also has a gun? Now you're beyond the element of reasonableness.
Criminals are often dumb. Maybe he idolized someone who uses a bat to fight or gets off by dreaming of beating someone to death, but his girl made him bring the gun "for safety"? 🤔
It's not ignorance of the law, it's an unfair law being enforced by an ignorant prosecutor. This self-defense law is ridiculously too strict and does not take into account the fact that he was attacked unprovoked with a weapon! I don't really care if the thief did suffer TBI or other long-term consequences. FAFO. Actions have consequences. Punishing a man for defending his life emboldens the criminals by reducing the chances they will suffer any consequences of self-defense! Attempted robery with a weapon is worse than causing injury in immediate instinctual retaliation. Thats my opinion anyhow.
I agree, the clerk should be convicted of assault for the second hit, but with 'exigent circumstances' (having just been assaulted and fought off the robber) being taken into account.
Just because you can "shoehorn" this into aggravated assault doesn't mean you should. There is a difference between the letter and the spirit of a law and that is prosecutorial discretion. Also if the robber had been able to flee, would the cops have been able to find him? Next question, what is to stop the robber from returning the next night or week and attempting the crime again? Other then finding another bat.
@milktobo7418 0 seconds ago Canadian justice seems to always benefit the criminal and re-victimize the victim. If you show depraved indifference to someone by hitting them with a bat - a potential lethal assault - then your rights should be forfeit immediately thereafter. Once the video confirmed the clerk didn't assault an innocent bystander then this should be the end of it.
Definitely an 'oof' moment. I dont believe that that the clerk swung with 'aggrevated' intent. In the moment, he did not know whether or not this individual still presented a threat. He did not continue to swing after the individual was clearly incapacitated. The second blow, with hindsight, was excessive. There was a struggle ongoing, and it was not clear that his actions were excessive.this is a grey area and unfortunately, this is where courts or the crown may weigh in.
I agree with your assessment. It's worth pointing out that it took two people to get that bat away from the original dude. It was obviously a situation where it could be VERY dangerous if the clerk ended up one-on-one with him or caught unaware. Faking a retreat and faking being down are not uncommon tactics to get people to drop their guard either, and it's not unreasonable to be afraid of him coming back later with reinforcements and/or different weapons. In the heat (and FEAR) of the moment, it absolutely makes sense for the clerk to think his safety is dependent on keeping the masked dude from being able to come back at him. He couldn't safely turn away from the masked dude until after he was incapacitated tbh. With the benefit of watching the recordings in a safe place where I'm not in any physical danger, sure, it is conceivably not the best optics for the poor clerk. But this is real life, not a movie or a tik tok skit. It's gonna be messy and involve split-second decision making that doesn't have all the facts. Our brains literally don't function in logic mode when we're in "fight or flight" anyway!!! The neural pathways for critical thinking massively shut down as energy is focused into areas most necessary for survival. We are scientifically proven to be poorer logic-driven decision-makers in those types of situations. It's extremely unfair to judge the clerk based on how people feel watching the video or what the ideal outcome would have been or other such concepts that ignore the realities of how the world actually works. And fwiw, what I see is a guy who was scared and suddenly had the power to protect not only himself but the person with him as well and likely felt like his only safe option was to stop the attacker in his tracks. I think he only wanted to incapacitate the guy, nothing more. That's my opinion on why he freaked out in the ways he did at the end when he realized the guy wasn't moving *at all*. He probably expected him to be moaning and trying to move but being too sore/ having too much pain to move much. Seeing him not moving at all would of COURSE be terrifying for the clerk in that situation. It would be way beyond what he had wanted. :(
If the first swing is self-defence, the second one can be scientifically proven to be self-defence. The problem is with the first swing, the robber was fleeing for at least 20 seconds before the first swing, and there was plenty of time to assess the situation.
@@buhmandI don't know why you're claiming the masked dude had been running away for 20 seconds before getting hit with the bat the first time. Are you trying to claim he was running away throughout the entire physical struggle over control of the bat? Because from watching the footage it seems pretty clear to me that it was only after the clerk won control of the bat that the dude started to flee. The time stamp on the footage shows he was only running free for 3 seconds before the impact of the first hit too. 3 seconds is a very far cry from 20. The struggle actually weakens your argument that there was plenty of time to assess the situation. The clerk had just been in a difficult physical struggle which he barely won (even with the help of another person) and had only been free of that struggle for 3 seconds. So the clerk was not safe for those 20 seconds you claim, even if the masked dude was intending to get away. The clerk's reasonable understanding was that he and the other person were still in danger from the dude, so that first hit (and thus also the second, by your own argument) would still count as self-defense.
@@clockside Well, I tried to rewatch and there is some time jump when they are at the door so I do not know for sure whether it was 20 or 10 seconds since the masked man started to retreat but it was immediately after the second man intervened. The 3 seconds the clerk chased him are very bad from a legal perspective(I think).
Im sorry but no self defense situation is over until the other guy isnt moving. It may have looked like he was trying to get back up to the clerk. Had similar once with a guy who tried to bearspray his way into my place. Dont like dirt naps? Dont attack people. If it was a consentual fight its obviously not the same. I had a guy chasing a girl with a gun a few days ago and couldnt do a damn thing after being charged 3x in self defense situations. Cop tried to give me the eye. Wtf. Good on your for raising awareness for this guy.
This is one where clearly he broke the law, but also the prosecutor should use their discretion to not press charges against him. It's really a terrible practice that every single possible violation needs to result in charges.
I'm so sick of everyone having to behave PERFECTLY when they're robbed, attacked, whatever when defending themselves or they get to go to jail because some criminal got hurt. This commie western world is insane. You can't do anything without the government punishing you, even being a victim.
The coup de grace is problematic for sure. I would simply hope for the MOST leniency for victims of violent crimes who cross the line. This is not how the system works though...
Why does it feel like in Canada, criminals Get the better end of things. most of the time the police just let them get away with stuff. Stealing vehicles, etc. When they do get caught, there's very little fines and the honest people, whether it be with guns or self defense or whatever, are the ones who end up with Being charged.
because our country is a tyrannical joke with an overtly kowtowed society happy to be F'd raw by uncle daddy guberment? they happily signed away their rights and freedoms for convenience and the illusion of sfaety
I've never had to physically fight for my life. I would *hope* I could calm down enough to follow the law, but I can imagine feeling like "What if he gets the upper hand again? What if he turns around and grabs the bat?" And if I hit him once, "What if he gets back up and now he's *really* pissed?" After all, it took two guys and a struggle to get him out the door, and the whole situation would feel so chaotic and unfamliar -- I think I'd feel like I was still defending my life past the point where the law would say "You have the upper hand, now it's not self-defense." I understand why the law is the way it is and I hope I'd be able to follow it, but I also really hope the charges are dropped.
Whacking a person walking away from you, is not self defense. Even more, while they are on the ground. A lot of people don't seem to get this. They think an eye for an eye should rule, and I don't know why that is.
The clerk should not be charged. He was defending himself. He didn't know if the robber was going to grab a gun and come back. Plus, the clerk was attacked. He was not in his right mind and shouldn't be accountable when he immediately attacks his attacker.
We had a farmer over here (UK) sued because he used a shotgun in self defense the THIRD time the same robbers came to his farmhouse where he liked alone. This is not justice. I believe criminal charges were also brought and that he did jail time....
Yeah the second hit would have definitely been better to not happen, at the same time who knows if that clerk even really realized what was going on there, he was just attacked and was likely in full fight or flight mode and might not have realized that the robber was no longer a threat by the time he was swinging that second swing. I agree with one of the other commenters. Fundamentally if you attack someone innocent (it could be different if they fully knew this was coming or knew the attacker) out of the blue there should be great great leniency for what the innocent person does in self-defense
especially if his job does not require him to show self restraint. aka a secuirty guard or policeman. It hard to have self control when you are in a fight mode
As someone who's been in similar situations as the clerk, it's very hard while experiencing fear and adrenaline to correctly assess when the immediate threat is over. For all we know, the robber could have said "I have a knife" or "I'll be back with a gun" etc. The threat, for me, would not be over until I could be sure the robber couldn't hurt me again. I hope they give the clerk a break on this one. He's not a threat to society. The robber is.
🤔 If you don’t want smacked with your own bat, don’t jack up someone’s adrenaline/fight or flight response and expect them to be chill the second the situation might be over. The clerk’s response afterward is telling.
My two pence.
Totally agree on every point.
Expecting an untrained civilian who just survived a violent life or death attack with injuries to properly de-escalate and keep in mind and follow the letter of the law.... Jury nullification!
If i was on that jury i would never vote to convict that clerk
I'm not a fan of jury nullification. I think it degrades our society.
@@MarcumDavid Prosecutors who go harder on victims than they do criminals degrade it far more.
he needs a jury trial for sure, no reasonable canadian will convict this guy for taking out the trash
Came to say the same. This isn't a case of vigilantism where he found the guy at home, and he's not a trained police officer: if he was a trained police officer, if he initiated the contact, then you expect him to be thinking clearly, but he was doing his job and was attacked, you can't expect someone to react rationally in the moments after an attack like that.
@@wilfdarr It's unlikely it will go to trial. The whole system is rigged for plea deals. Most people cannot afford to hire a good attorney who will prepare a defense for a jury trial. Prosecutors will load up the charges, and you'll plea guilty to a lesser offense.
In this case, I'd bet dollars to donuts they'll charge him with aggravated assault, and as long as the robber wasn't permanently injured, the clerk will accept a plea for misdemeanor assault. Want to go to trial, you're looking at 100K minimum, if you need investigators and expert witnesses along with your team of attorneys, legal assistants, etc. Just hiring an attorney who will negotiate a plea for you will cost about 10K on a serious offense like this. That is from recent experience, btw, not speculation.
The robber came armed and ready for confrontation. If it wasnt for the other person, the clerk could have been the one on the ground.
The would be robber should have been made to call the police himself. Or to speak to police after some one called police.
I worked as a police officer for over 24 years, the harddest thing I ever did was to call on a very good friend and inform him that his son who was 18 had been killed while working as a convience store clerk. I brought along our preacher to help the family with the news, it is something I will never forget. He is still a friend but every time I see him I think of that nigh some 45 years ago.
❤. I’m sure he appreciates it was you and also appreciated you kind thoughts on bringing a priest with you.
As a nurse it’s terrible too inform families of a death, let alone someone you know.
Wow…. This is heartbreaking. The clerk didn’t ask for this. He’s trying to get an education, working a job, minding his own business. You mentioned adrenaline - I can see that second strike as a product of wanting to make sure he doesn’t get away while authorities come? This just tragic. I hope the Crown shows leniency. Please keep us updated.
I feel that the clerk was acting in self defense and was effctively drugged with adrenaline.
Which he would not have been, but for the actions of the aggressor.
So unfortunate all around. Poor clerk.
Can he have a jury trial? No jury would convict him. Period.
A Democrat jury would. So would a jury in Quebec
I think you're wrong. If I was on the jury, I would give him a fair listen. But from that video it doesn't look like self-defense to me. I'm not a fan of jury nullification.
It’s a form of brainrot that makes you turn every internet comment into a chance to bash the “other side”. Also this is in Canada.
@@MarcumDavid
What would you listen to, he has the right to remain silent.
The bad guy jacked up the other guy with adrenaline against his will.
@@MarcumDavid you are the problem.
The second hit can be defended by using studies about reaction time on the road. The average reaction time is between 1 and 2 seconds, the first heat was at 03 seconds, and the second one was at 04. He couldn't be sure the first hit would be so efficient and the second one was already planned in his head for self-defence. Once he was able to realize the threat was neutralized, he stopped and walked away.
Strongly agree. Even trained professionals have difficulty with this. There should be an allowance in the law for the human nature of someone who has just been assaulted himself with a deadly weapon. “[it] is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” Drop all charges, lest the system of justice become a system of injustice. Proceeding with prosecution would create a wider disrespect for the law.
I went frame by frame and it does look to be barely under 3 seconds from the bat first making contact to the second contact. The guy still had to fall during that time frame. I'm glad to know there is science to point to about how unreasonable it is to expect the clerk to have taken a different action.
@@soulcstudiosI'm not trained in any weapons so if I had to hit someone I wouldn't assume I'd achieved my goal after the first swing.
@@darkfirezero Another great point!
I wonder if the Toronto cop who got stabbed in the leg today is going to get charged for shooting his attacker? Both are in hospital tonight. Another story to follow!
Charged and convicted are two different things. I would assume the clerk’s lawyers will argue that he was distraught and fearing for his life. The adrenaline and anger got the better of him.
They're different, but he should neither be charged or convicted
Did you miss the part where he is having trouble raising money for a lawyer?
the issue he was even charged to begin with when you have such crystal clear evidence is the real problem.
We the jury find the defendant guilty of deserving a medal. I'm sure the judge would over rule me, berate me, and probably replace me, but I'd NEVER agree to a guilty verdict. Is the clerk guilty of assault ? By our bent laws, yes. Of course he is. Would I agree to punishing him for it ? Nope. not a hope in hell. If that means ignoring the letter of the law in this circumstance....oh well.
It was not clerks decisions to rob and bring a bat ...
This is the problem in Canadian justice!
In many jurisdictions, the person bringing a gun or other weapon to the scene would never get to press charbges and the state or local jurisdiction would not press charges.
It was the clerks decision to use lethal force in an unlawful manner.
@@johns1625 How clear do you expect someone's decision making process to be after they've been suddenly hit with a bat?
@@johns1625 between the time that he got the bat from the robber and the time that he took his second swing only five seconds elapsed. In my first watch-through at full speed I thought it was 2-seconds . . . and I wasn't struggling for my life with a violent offender. It looks less like a 'decision' and more like reflex to me. And then, when he realizes the robber is out of the fight, he walks away and calls (presumably) the police. No intent, no crime.
Please keep us posted… that’s terrible that the clerk is now in trouble
If the store clerk hadn't had help he would most likely be the one laying knocked out on the floor. Although the robber was running away I do think this is a case where the crown should use discretion with the store clerk.
I feel terrible for this man. The time and expense required to defend a man just trying to protect himself, the other customer(s) and his job is such a waste, not to mention an injustice.
Canada’s ‘legal’ situation would be comedy, if it weren’t tragedy foremost. When will we stop protecting the *real* criminals from the consequences of their actions???
Had he not called the police, no one would have complained about anything.
Good point!
I can't tell if you're joking but obviously the clerk would have been found by the police and he would still face charges. Maybe even worse charges if he didn't call for help after knocking the guy out.
@@acmhfmggru He's unconscious in the street. Of course someone would notify the police or paramedics (who would also notify the police)
@@acmhfmggru If the criminal believes that the state will act in his favor, then of course they'll report it. Do you think they'll necessarily be truthful? It wouldn't be the first time a crook has called the cops on their victim. It's also not something that never works out in the favor of the crook.
@@acmhfmggru What part of the things I described sounds like a hollywood film? I have to ask you, since apparently you spend much more time engrossed in those sorts of fiction, sweet cheeks.
The problem I have with this situation is that it all happens so fast that the clerk was quite likely running purely on instinct - he'd just been hit - there was history of other problems at the location. It was no more than 2 or 3 seconds of anger. I just don't think that adrenaline and fight-or-flight shuts off that fast. Against the law? As you said, I think he met the definition of having committed the crime. But, I do think it's a crime that should not have been charged.
I feel similarly. This is a typical "one (or two) hits too many" situation which the law probably wouldn't accept here as self-defense either, but I feel bad for him. When I talked about this with people, they often don't realize at what point they should stop, even when rationally debating. A man in that situation definitely isn't just thinking rationally.
This. The law seems to have zero understanding of cognitive responses to the stress of a deadly situation.
To quote John Correia over at active self protection "the criminal put the coin in the jukebox he gets to dance to the tune"
Not in Canada ☹️
I guess I look at it as to whether I think the foreign student/clerk is likely to be a danger to the public. It would seem that the answer is "no" and that he's only a danger to criminals trying to rob him or his workplace while he's working. I hope he gets a very good defense attorney and that the prosecutor sees it similarly to me...
Our entire legal system needs to be revamped, it seems criminals have more rights than citizens.
He wasn't a citizen. But this is ridiculous.
The things that sway my opinion are 1. his reaction afterwards. hands on head, doubled over, squatting down, I recognize this behavior as what i do when I am panicking. Also immediately calling police (assuming that's what he's doing with his phone) shows that getting help is a bigger priority to him than avoiding consequence. I think this is someone who is scared and operating in a mentality of self defense. 2 the original bat wielders mask and hood. I think obscuring his face and bringing a bat is enough to justify an assumption that he is a threat, even without considering whatever happened at the beginning of the altercation. 3. I would not expect a person flooded with adrenaline to recognize when a threat has given up as quickly as he would have needed to here. Hormones hinder our more complex thoughts and impact the way we interpret our observations.
I'm sad this led to serious injury, but also I cant expect anything else from someone in this circumstance.
That poor clerk 😢
I think the prosecutor should be forced to get on his knees and beg forgiveness for wasting the courts time.
Cops wouldn't have been half as gentle taking him down for resisting arrest. I get the law, but this does not seem like justice.
"Stop resisting!" As the guy is knocked out on the ground.
He should never have been charged. It’s ridiculous that someone can’t deal with a threat against their life without having to worry about getting arrested. The guy came into his place of business hit him with a bat and tried to rob him. He should be allowed to neutralize the threat.
I don't like it, either. I don't know what the law is like in Onterio, but the DA's hands might be tied. But depending on how the law's written, this might be a crime. And, some will argue that it's not like a moving violation or parking ticket, where you can expect a "no harm, no foul" argument for digression. Someone went down and that someone went to the hospital.
I don't like arguing Jury Nullification, but if this does go to trial, I hope it happens in this case.
@@jackielinde7568US and Canadian criminal law are quite different. In Canada, criminal law is strictly federal. The prosecutors are called, "Crown Counsel", as they represent the Crown. Also, prosecutors are hired, not elected. They do have the ability to not bring charges if it isn't in the public interest.
I would argue in this case that it isn't. As others have have said, it is very likely that I wouldn't convict if I was on the jury.
He was disarmed. Attacker was retreating. The threat was over. I swear to god the most ignorant people on self defense are the ones commenting on these videos.
@@johns1625 You’re probably one those people that says you can’t shoot an armed person that breaks into your house.
@@johns1625 Regardless, the prosecutor has the power of discretion, meaning he still *doesn't have to charge this guy* despite all of those facts.
If that was a random attack and not a self-defense scenario, the clerk would have gotten less time. Criminals go free, normal people are punished
An old work mate caught someone in the act of robbing his apartment. He basically ended up ejecting from the fore escape and he ended up in hospital. My mate told the police how he put the guy over and the copper says ‘you mean he slipped and fell’? Matey says ‘no, I put him over’. The copper repeats ‘you mean he slipped and fell’? The penny finally dropped and he agreed that the burglar slipped and fell while running away.
He’d have been in trouble if the copper hadn’t tipped him the wink. This was years ago. Most police would probably be on the side of the actual villain now.
No sarcasm at all, that's good police right there
(Also a wire reference)
Great cop! Where are you from? I like the vernacular!
@@ThatRedhedd Prolly UK, look at the username
*fire
Shiiiiiiiiiit. @@bencheevers6693
In any event the fact that the robber got only 14 months tells us everything we need to know about how rotten the Canadian system is.
There needs to be a FAFO ammendment to the criminal code.
Should not have been charged to begin with.
It’s appalling the poor clerk was even charged and is risking getting deported.
I have an adrenaline disorder that's incredibly debilitating. My (palpitating) heart goes out to the clerk. I know for most people adrenaline rushes don't involve fainting and muscle tremors so intense they're mistaken for seizures, but fucking hell.
Punishing a person for doing to an aggressor what the aggressor was trying to do to them? The moment someone is down, with no referee, you're supposed to stop that instant? It's 2 seconds. 2:18 to 2:20.
They guy only starts retreating after they have the bat. Before then, it's taking two people to push this guy out the door.
And you can still fight from the ground. Not well, and it's not likely when the person is already trying to run. But the other guy is full of adrenaline too, he's not thinking straight either, who knows what the hell he's going to do.
It's 2 seconds and the clerk has to realize the guy's on the ground, he has to realize that he needs to stop and take a moment to re access. He can't, in 2 seconds, tell if the guy is going to be getting up or lashing out from the ground in 2 seconds. In those 2 seconds, the guy is still falling.
Please, don't let those 2 seconds ruin the clerks life.
I don't believe the clerk would have been charged with anything if he were in the United States. I certainly would not charge him.
I disagree. We have had some cases where citizen hero’s have been charged. It is all a mess
It really varies from one state to another and sometimes even from county to county. Generally speaking, red jurisdictions are a lot more understanding when it comes to armed victims than blue ones are.
I'm in the Deep South. I should not have been so generalized in my comment. @@adampeters9861
I'm in the Deep South. My comment was too generalized. I agree we are a hot mess. @@kchickw2557
"second hit when he's on the ground" yeah, so he doesn't get back up and keep assaulting you, possibly getting the best of you. Are you supposed to give your assailant a fair chance?
I hate when determinations are made by people who have never been in a fight/dangerous situation and understand nothing of reality.
that is pretty well the entire government and a good chunk of the police system, we live in a pampered coddled society.
The last bar fight I was in, I had to go to the ER to get my mouth stitched up, because the guy (about my size) sucker-punched me, putting one of my teeth through my lower lip. Yes, a fight ensued, and he was charged and I was not. But the punch to my jaw would not have given me an excuse to pull out a pistol (which I sometimes carry).
People have wildly exaggerated views on what they can do in "self-defense" which is only the amount of force required to reasonably protect yourself. If the aggressor is someone like Mike Tyson, the amount of force used in self defense is greater than if the aggressor is a 100 lb young woman. In the case of this video, the clerk had to wrestle the bat away from a third party in order to use it on the fleeing robber. Tough to argue that he was in any danger at that point. I see two crimes.
Honestly, if this were a jury trial, I wouldn't convict him at all. He got hit with a mf bat. That sh*t hurts, and that's a scary situation. I might not have stopped at 2, especially if there was a chance of him getting back up to try again.
There's nothing to reform or rehabilitate. The clerk was only put into the situation because they were a victim. Punishing them only serves to send a message to the public that they cannot attack someone once the confrontation ends.. Does that really help when many people aren't going to be in a logical frame of mind during these types of scenarios. I don't think society really benefits from punishing the clerk in any meaningful way.
It also send the message what a DANGER all these cameras in society really are.....the camera did absolutely nothing with regards to identifying the robber, but did everything to sink the store clerk. The old ways were a lot better.
This! I agree, and I also think that this is where Runkle made an excellent point, too, that the Crown should have looked at this and decided that pursuing it was not in the public interest.
I really hope some good lawyer from the area will step up and provide a pro bono legal support. Would be sad, if the robbery victim gets punished more than the perpetrator.
I think the clerk will become a victim twice at the hands of a thief and a crown prosecutor which is a sad reality here in Canada.
My impression from the earlier story on this event was that the robber was disarmed INSIDE the store, then chased outside and hit with his bat. If that was what happened I could see an argument for charging the clerk as he would have known the robber was fleeing, even if I personally would disagree.
To convict on what we see here you would have to determine that the fight was over the exact second the robber lost control of the weapon and that the clerk knew this. Refusing to allow an assault victim even 5 seconds to recognise that the assault is over is clearly unreasonable.
Our laws are broken especially in regards to self defense.
I don't want to see people being beat to death for attempting to rob a store but if you attack someone with a bat that person has to assume that you are armed. When he turned he could have easily pulled a gun or knife. He had a bat God only knows what else he could have.
The clerk stopped as soon as he was no longer a threat you can't turn off adrenaline that easily.
If it was a police officer in place of the clerk he would never have been charged.
I agree with you, the clerk should be given some kind of leniency. He was defending himself it looked like he was favoring his head like he got hit first. I think really depends how good his lawyer is.
I think there's a really easy way to address this, the same standard should be applied to police and everyone else in these circumstances. Police are argued to be operating in their own defence only and have no obligation to protect others, therefore there is a perfect analogue here, honestly... I think that, if it's unacceptable for a civilian or, frankly anyone to have a different right to bodily integrity or autonomy to anyone else with the exception of people who have been convicted of a crime by a court and are undertaking judicial punishment at that time.
I see how it's legally problematic, but the charges being dropped would suit me just fine... Was the attacker really retreating or was he just trying to get space to come at them again? I mean it's a couple seconds of difference, and in the heat of the moment your mind is in fight mode.. No audio means we also don't know if the guy was threatening verbally or pleading "I give up"
the canadian justice system at its best
Yeah... on one hand I can see why a processor would charge the guy becuase by the second swing he was clearly incapacitated. On the other hand I probably would do the exact same thing in his position (not on purpose) with all of the adrenaline. I feel the theif should definitely be getting more of a serious charge than the clerk. I dont think he needs to be deported for defending himself. Its just a bad situation and I hope the judge/jury can see that and be kind to the guy.
That poor clerk. What a hell of a situation he was put in. It's not surprising that he freaked out & whacked the bat-bringer a couple times before he stopped himself. It feels very icky to prosecute this clerk to the full extent of the law...
Thats a slippery slope to start charging people defending themselves against criminals. Whose to say he didnt have a second weapon and was gaining distance to pull it out.
This! I hope the clerk gets a lawyer that considers this. I mean the clerk did stop once he came down a bit from the adrenaline and realized the guy wasn't going to fight back further.
Hence why it is the second hit while he was on the ground that is an issue.
It's a slippery slope not pursuing legal justice, because you favor one party over another. That sword is a double edged one.
@@acmhfmggruI agree. It’s a system that disincentivizes reporting crimes and injuries, which could result in even worse outcomes overall.
Ian, do the courts not make any allowance for actions that one might take under the stress of having just been assaulted and forced into a potentially life and death confrontation? I think it's only human to want to stop the criminal from escaping and as with police, parsing the exact amount of allowable force is unreasonable in the moment.
Jury will never convict him.
Under mortal danger, people don't think straight.
Expecting people to figure and calculate the EXACT amount of force the law will deem appropriate while defending their lives is an insane ask
@@PunchingDummy are you saying that every person that is not locked in solitary confinement should get the same training as a police officer? because if you are anywhere other than there you have an alarmingly high chance to just be attacked. or are you saying all retail employees and store clerks should be trained as both police and lawyers? because that makes no sense. Have you left your house? do you have training and a good grasp of the related laws governing such?
@@PunchingDummy (1) Most (I believe) cases where there's a public outcry about a police officer's use of force are not even remotely self-defense. (2) If you're attacked (as someone whose job description does not include violence), you did *not* "CHOOSE to put yourself in a situation where you'll have to use force", someone else made that choice for you.
It's not clear to me how the current case should be judged, but I don't think much of your argument here.
I do believe in the general principles: first, self-defense is allowed; second, force must not be disproportional to defense; third, you use what you have available (it's not your fault someone else chose their attack when you had whatever and not something closer to the necessary minimum); fourth, a slight miscalculation is excusable. However, there are a lot of what you might call "rubber words" in there, such as what is "slight", what is "proportional", and so on. That's where my not being an expert in law comes in.
Wait, so every store clerk is choosing to put themselves in a deadly situation? That's cray cray.
@@PunchingDummy what choice did he make exactly other than to go to work that night?
To compare cops to this is absurd.
@@PunchingDummy"But they're trained" is a perfectly reasonable and valid argument, though. You can try to preemptively dismiss it but you're still wrong.
Not a lawyer here, obviously. And I'm from Eastern Europe, so our laws are somewhat different anyways. But seeing a video of (I believe) US police officers emptying few mags into a woman in her own house, just to be proven the woman broke into her own house because she lost a key? To me it just proves that even trained professionals whose job is to keep cool under pressure can make terrible decisions under pressure, let alone regular person not expecting life threatening attack.
I feel very strongly that guy should not be prosecuted, but I know law is not about feeling. I just hope he can get his life together after this whole ordeal.
You’re absolutely right! So many tragedies have occurred because fully trained, heavily armed police have panicked and made a bad judgement call. (I was just reading about a case where a teenage girl was shot and killed by the police who were supposed to be rescuing her from a parental kidnapping, even though one of the officers recognized her and told his colleagues to stop shooting.) The police rarely face meaningful consequences in these situations, and they absolutely ought to know better. It’s absurd to hold an ordinary citizen who has just been attacked to a higher standard than the police!
this is why I hate "legal" systems. The assumption should be that if attacked like that, even with the attacker retreating, the attacker could come back and continue the assault. A temporary retreat
Or bring reinforcements, or get the drop on you. Why are you giving them the initiative? People are stupid.
Yes, this was running on a loop in my mind throughout the video.
The first hit, even with him retreating (and still on property!) shouldn't be questionable.
That second hit when he's on the ground, the clerk could go back into the store to lock up and call the police? Well, logically that should be a no. But adrenaline isn't logical.
that button was pushed he was just in that mode. can't blame him for that. that person could have turned around at any time and attacked again. it's like poking a bear in the woods. then all of a sudden it's the bear's fault
Self defense, the culprit could get up.
Could he? I'm not so sure. He looks incapacitated to me.
@@JayeEllis "[You are] not so sure," and you're sitting at home with time to think rationally about the situation seen from a bird's-eye view. No chance the clerk could know his assailent was incapacitated before he _began the motion_ of his second swing (it's kinda hard to stop swinging a bat after you start!)
@@delta3244 So? That doesn't change the law. Guy was disarmed and fleeing. No imminent threat.
@@JayeEllis "That doesn't change the law" indeed, but it might demonstrate that the law's flawed.
@@delta3244 It might, you never know. Won't help this guy, though. The law at the time is the law applied.
My only issue is that he stopped at two swings. Jokes aside, I hope there is a defense lawyer like you in Ontario willing to help this clerk out.
How would 'in the heat of the moment' impact the charges? I can see that the clerk would have been in the heat of the moment situation.
My comments don't always get deleted on CZcams, but when they do, they were 100% true .
so true
WTf ?? Mine too. Long dissertation about how the guy should have gotten additional charges for infliction of emotional distress for the clerks charges.. and its nowhere to be found..
If they can get up, they are still a danger to you. I don’t even know how this is the law. The clerk was attacked and defended himself.
I agree, but I think the problem is the robber was running away.
The clerk probably decided to incapacitate him@@Brittanysplittany and that's as far as his jacked up brain could get until it was 'too late' to change the script.
I wonder if the store had been robbed before? It's hard to tell if the 1st hit was enough to stop him from getting away or if the clerk believed he was able or started to get up & attack him🤔🤔
Sometimes people need a reminder that stealing other people's property is wrong. If there is any sort of jury nullification in Ontario then that would be the correct way to go.
The circumstances alone tell you this is in Canada. Only in the tyrannical country formally known as Canada can the store clerk be the criminal in this situation.
Clerks in the United States can literally (and recently have) shoot robbers in the back who are running away. I hate my country now.... Sad.
Painful when you see reality for the first time, but don't worry, it gets much worse, right now the government is trying to remove the right of personal property, they are using scary guns atm to hide the true intent of their law.
I know some people argue that New York City isn't really the US any longer, but just a year or so back there was a case that came up where a bodega clerk defended himself from a knifeman that was only quashed because of the attention it got in the media.
I hesitate, because I don't want to see people able to use the self-defense law to seriously hurt somebody for a minor defense because they are angry.
That said though? Yeah, I ultimately agree with you. That second hit came extremely quickly after the first one, and then he backed off. He didn't pummel the dude into soup. He didn't hit him once, stew for a bit, and then come back for more. It was very heat of the moment, and once he realized the guy was down and then was in fact not getting back up, he looked distressed. That doesn't seem like vengeance to me.
I love watching this Canadian Law Mage.
If you come at someone with a weapon and with intentions to do a crime, what happens to you after you tried to hurt the person shouldn't be charge if you get beat or killed. Investigated sure but charged...
the the way i lean. am not sure that the way the law lean but that the way i would lean. If you fk around dont come crying when you are on the ground. the clerk is not a police officer, he does not have handcuff. Clearly the swing was in the heat of the moment.
I completely understand the need for some limitations on self-defence; it would be unreasonable for someone to, say, choke someone to death in retaliation for being punched. This case is tricky as both swings are not clear-cut - for the first the robber is running away so is not currently a threat, amd by the second he's on the ground and even less of a potential threat. In the heat of the moment I can see how it happened, and I definitely hope they're lenient on the clerk in this instance, but I understand where the law is coming from because there does need to be some line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Stopping when the attacker is no longer an immediate threat is a reasonable place to draw such a line, but of course there will always be these fuzzy cases where it's on the line.
The line has to be far enough past the point where the threat is neutralized (in cases where neutralizing it is justified) for human brains to have enough time to process it, else the law criminalizes measured responses.
Here in Ontario we love to prosecute folks who defend themselves.
Should the clerk have hit the guy when he was down? Probably not but in the heat of the moment I fully understand why he did. Frankly we can barely get police to respond at all when we need them. Since we can't defend ourselves and are maximally scrutinized with little to no understanding when we do this place is feeling more and more dystopian all the time
Why did they have to charge this guy? This is ridiculous. How do these prosecutors sleep at night?
Because he lost the element of imminence. They guy was running away, so no self defense. Are YOU asleep?
The guy could have been running to get distance so he could turn around and start shooting.
@@AliceBowieIf he had a gun he wouldn't have brought a bat.
@@AliceBowie You've already disarmed him of his primary weapon, and you just assume he also has a gun? Now you're beyond the element of reasonableness.
Criminals are often dumb. Maybe he idolized someone who uses a bat to fight or gets off by dreaming of beating someone to death, but his girl made him bring the gun "for safety"? 🤔
Stores should leave the money in a bag at the door - so the robbers will leave the employees alone (at least according to TO Police).
It's not ignorance of the law, it's an unfair law being enforced by an ignorant prosecutor. This self-defense law is ridiculously too strict and does not take into account the fact that he was attacked unprovoked with a weapon! I don't really care if the thief did suffer TBI or other long-term consequences. FAFO. Actions have consequences. Punishing a man for defending his life emboldens the criminals by reducing the chances they will suffer any consequences of self-defense! Attempted robery with a weapon is worse than causing injury in immediate instinctual retaliation. Thats my opinion anyhow.
All I can think of is the movie Zombieland. Rule #2 Double Tap.
I agree, the clerk should be convicted of assault for the second hit, but with 'exigent circumstances' (having just been assaulted and fought off the robber) being taken into account.
I think the charges should be dropped! No question about it
Just because you can "shoehorn" this into aggravated assault doesn't mean you should. There is a difference between the letter and the spirit of a law and that is prosecutorial discretion. Also if the robber had been able to flee, would the cops have been able to find him? Next question, what is to stop the robber from returning the next night or week and attempting the crime again? Other then finding another bat.
@milktobo7418
0 seconds ago
Canadian justice seems to always benefit the criminal and re-victimize the victim. If you show depraved indifference to someone by hitting them with a bat - a potential lethal assault - then your rights should be forfeit immediately thereafter. Once the video confirmed the clerk didn't assault an innocent bystander then this should be the end of it.
Previous comment deleted?
@@uncletedscabin4625 yup - not sure why.. I guess reasonable comments get deleted because they are reasonable now.
@@milktobo7418 That does seem to be the trend.
Definitely an 'oof' moment. I dont believe that that the clerk swung with 'aggrevated' intent. In the moment, he did not know whether or not this individual still presented a threat. He did not continue to swing after the individual was clearly incapacitated. The second blow, with hindsight, was excessive. There was a struggle ongoing, and it was not clear that his actions were excessive.this is a grey area and unfortunately, this is where courts or the crown may weigh in.
I agree with your assessment. It's worth pointing out that it took two people to get that bat away from the original dude. It was obviously a situation where it could be VERY dangerous if the clerk ended up one-on-one with him or caught unaware. Faking a retreat and faking being down are not uncommon tactics to get people to drop their guard either, and it's not unreasonable to be afraid of him coming back later with reinforcements and/or different weapons. In the heat (and FEAR) of the moment, it absolutely makes sense for the clerk to think his safety is dependent on keeping the masked dude from being able to come back at him. He couldn't safely turn away from the masked dude until after he was incapacitated tbh.
With the benefit of watching the recordings in a safe place where I'm not in any physical danger, sure, it is conceivably not the best optics for the poor clerk. But this is real life, not a movie or a tik tok skit. It's gonna be messy and involve split-second decision making that doesn't have all the facts. Our brains literally don't function in logic mode when we're in "fight or flight" anyway!!! The neural pathways for critical thinking massively shut down as energy is focused into areas most necessary for survival. We are scientifically proven to be poorer logic-driven decision-makers in those types of situations. It's extremely unfair to judge the clerk based on how people feel watching the video or what the ideal outcome would have been or other such concepts that ignore the realities of how the world actually works.
And fwiw, what I see is a guy who was scared and suddenly had the power to protect not only himself but the person with him as well and likely felt like his only safe option was to stop the attacker in his tracks. I think he only wanted to incapacitate the guy, nothing more. That's my opinion on why he freaked out in the ways he did at the end when he realized the guy wasn't moving *at all*. He probably expected him to be moaning and trying to move but being too sore/ having too much pain to move much. Seeing him not moving at all would of COURSE be terrifying for the clerk in that situation. It would be way beyond what he had wanted. :(
If the first swing is self-defence, the second one can be scientifically proven to be self-defence. The problem is with the first swing, the robber was fleeing for at least 20 seconds before the first swing, and there was plenty of time to assess the situation.
@@buhmandI don't know why you're claiming the masked dude had been running away for 20 seconds before getting hit with the bat the first time. Are you trying to claim he was running away throughout the entire physical struggle over control of the bat? Because from watching the footage it seems pretty clear to me that it was only after the clerk won control of the bat that the dude started to flee. The time stamp on the footage shows he was only running free for 3 seconds before the impact of the first hit too. 3 seconds is a very far cry from 20.
The struggle actually weakens your argument that there was plenty of time to assess the situation. The clerk had just been in a difficult physical struggle which he barely won (even with the help of another person) and had only been free of that struggle for 3 seconds. So the clerk was not safe for those 20 seconds you claim, even if the masked dude was intending to get away. The clerk's reasonable understanding was that he and the other person were still in danger from the dude, so that first hit (and thus also the second, by your own argument) would still count as self-defense.
@@clockside Well, I tried to rewatch and there is some time jump when they are at the door so I do not know for sure whether it was 20 or 10 seconds since the masked man started to retreat but it was immediately after the second man intervened. The 3 seconds the clerk chased him are very bad from a legal perspective(I think).
I'm just glad I did not study in Canada
The store clerk needs help. This is not fair. It's not like he kept hitting him. I hope this works out for the clerk.
Im sorry but no self defense situation is over until the other guy isnt moving. It may have looked like he was trying to get back up to the clerk. Had similar once with a guy who tried to bearspray his way into my place.
Dont like dirt naps? Dont attack people.
If it was a consentual fight its obviously not the same.
I had a guy chasing a girl with a gun a few days ago and couldnt do a damn thing after being charged 3x in self defense situations. Cop tried to give me the eye. Wtf.
Good on your for raising awareness for this guy.
Yeah, I wouldn't give an armed robber time to regroup either.
This is one where clearly he broke the law, but also the prosecutor should use their discretion to not press charges against him.
It's really a terrible practice that every single possible violation needs to result in charges.
I can see both sides. My issue is that fear and adrenaline can impair thinking.
I'm so sick of everyone having to behave PERFECTLY when they're robbed, attacked, whatever when defending themselves or they get to go to jail because some criminal got hurt. This commie western world is insane. You can't do anything without the government punishing you, even being a victim.
I definitely thought the clerk was clear until I saw that second hit…
What a decent officer. They are so hard to come by.
Oh, I was only trying to detain him for the authorities......
The coup de grace is problematic for sure. I would simply hope for the MOST leniency for victims of violent crimes who cross the line. This is not how the system works though...
Why does it feel like in Canada, criminals Get the better end of things. most of the time the police just let them get away with stuff. Stealing vehicles, etc. When they do get caught, there's very little fines and the honest people, whether it be with guns or self defense or whatever, are the ones who end up with Being charged.
because our country is a tyrannical joke with an overtly kowtowed society happy to be F'd raw by uncle daddy guberment? they happily signed away their rights and freedoms for convenience and the illusion of sfaety
Can the Order of Canada be awarded to a non citizen?
I've never had to physically fight for my life. I would *hope* I could calm down enough to follow the law, but I can imagine feeling like "What if he gets the upper hand again? What if he turns around and grabs the bat?" And if I hit him once, "What if he gets back up and now he's *really* pissed?" After all, it took two guys and a struggle to get him out the door, and the whole situation would feel so chaotic and unfamliar -- I think I'd feel like I was still defending my life past the point where the law would say "You have the upper hand, now it's not self-defense." I understand why the law is the way it is and I hope I'd be able to follow it, but I also really hope the charges are dropped.
Whacking a person walking away from you, is not self defense. Even more, while they are on the ground. A lot of people don't seem to get this. They think an eye for an eye should rule, and I don't know why that is.
The clerk should not be charged. He was defending himself. He didn't know if the robber was going to grab a gun and come back. Plus, the clerk was attacked. He was not in his right mind and shouldn't be accountable when he immediately attacks his attacker.
We had a farmer over here (UK) sued because he used a shotgun in self defense the THIRD time the same robbers came to his farmhouse where he liked alone. This is not justice. I believe criminal charges were also brought and that he did jail time....
Agree with your analysis & hopeful outcome
As far as I see it, he disabled an imminent threat.
jury nullification
I think leniency is appropriate.
100% agree with you on this.
Yeah the second hit would have definitely been better to not happen, at the same time who knows if that clerk even really realized what was going on there, he was just attacked and was likely in full fight or flight mode and might not have realized that the robber was no longer a threat by the time he was swinging that second swing.
I agree with one of the other commenters. Fundamentally if you attack someone innocent (it could be different if they fully knew this was coming or knew the attacker) out of the blue there should be great great leniency for what the innocent person does in self-defense
especially if his job does not require him to show self restraint. aka a secuirty guard or policeman. It hard to have self control when you are in a fight mode
@@Marveryn oh yeah that is a really good point that I hadn't even considered!
As someone who's been in similar situations as the clerk, it's very hard while experiencing fear and adrenaline to correctly assess when the immediate threat is over. For all we know, the robber could have said "I have a knife" or "I'll be back with a gun" etc. The threat, for me, would not be over until I could be sure the robber couldn't hurt me again. I hope they give the clerk a break on this one. He's not a threat to society. The robber is.