NJ: Unlawful Interference in a Robbery

[awshoot]

Hilarious collar:

WATCH: N.J. store clerk pulls gun, forces suspected shoplifter to strip

The gas station store clerk Amit Saraswat is charged with aggravated assault, making terroristic threats and two weapons charges.

www.nj.com

We all know threatening deadly force in a property crime situation is (in most places) a no-no. And of course this is NJ, so you might as well forget about interfering in a property crime. I will confess to feeling sympathy for the clerk though and I sincerely hope he gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

EDIT: and yeah, it really isn't a robbery, but still. I laughed.

Read More

 

[cigars]

What exit?

 

[SavageGerbil]

For shoplifting? Yeah, guy is in trouble.

It's worth discussing something like this in the context of a hypothetical robbery. It would be an amusing "I would so.." story with your friends, but it really needs to be hammered in for folks. When you've stopped a situation, push no further. I'm sure this was extremely cathartic, but I certainly wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a jury with the "made him strip at gunpoint" video playing.

Hate to get serious when something is posted for the amusement factor, but having that discussion when self defense comes up is something we should all do. Seen too many defense videos where somebody gets themselves out of hot water, but then either pursues the original aggressor, or shoots a downed opponent (that old pharmacist video is the example that comes to mind)

 

[ma96782]

If I still had faith in humanity......

I'd ask for a jury trial (if it's available). Who knows......maybe someone on the jury will find some humor in the situation?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Alexx1401]

This is funny but, the problem is this is what the anti gun people just love. Even though the guy (thank god) did not have a real gun. You can't use deadly force for petty theft. The guy he pulled his toy gun on may have very well have had a real gun of his own and started shooting. I suspect the store clerk will be allowed to plead to some slap on the hand and I have to hope he gets some common sense before he gets himself hurt. Years back there was a clown here who was working at the stop'n'rob. Some kid tried to run off with beer and the clerk, who had a CPL, shot the damn kid. Fortunately the kid lived. They of course charged the idiot clerk. Can't remember what they did to him but it just feeds the anti gun people when someone does something stupid like this.

 

[Camelfilter]

IMO this entire idea of not shooting someone (or use of lethal force) over property theft simply needs to go the wayside.

This idea that property isn't worthy of defending came about about because "most folks" think it's no big deal, "it's not worth taking a life" blanket & across the board. Who's idea is that?

Certainly not the idea of those whom have had thefts. They are the ones dealing with such, in some instances daily.

To allow the individual the decision whether or not to defend property, I'm perfectly fine with. To say as wrote that no one can? That's simply asking for a downfall in society as a whole. Where we are at now, likely unable to recover.

Don't get me wrong here, the law is the law, plus the general moral of taking a life.

Would "I" take a life over "simple" property crime, we're it legal to defend such here? No, extremely unlikely*.

However I have no problem AT ALL with someone who chooses to do so where it is legal. None.

The thief chose there path.

*were the law to change, here, AND our lives / quality of life / were affected by repeated thefts, my thoughts on such would likely change.

 

[MannyGlocks]

If shoplifting is in effect no longer a crime...what next?

Mugging OK, cuz it only broke some bones and knocked out only a few teeth, but not all?

You get my drift...

 

[bbbass]

Regarding deadly force for property crimes....

I FIRMLY believe in Biblical justice, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Justice handed out immediately by the victim is no problem for me. But death for stealing a candy bar is a bit much. Just a bit.

Murder would be punished by death. In the case of murder with special circumstances, death by Bula Bula - carnal relations with a male gorilla!

 

[SavageGerbil]

IMO this entire idea of not shooting someone (or use of lethal force) over property theft simply needs to go the wayside.

This idea that property isn't worthy of defending came about about because "most folks" think it's no big deal, "it's not worth taking a life" blanket & across the board. Who's idea is that?

Certainly not the idea of those whom have had thefts. They are the ones dealing with such, in some instances daily.

To allow the individual the decision whether or not to defend property, I'm perfectly fine with. To say as wrote that no one can? That's simply asking for a downfall in society as a whole. Where we are at now, likely unable to recover.

Don't get me wrong here, the law is the law, plus the general moral of taking a life.

Would "I" take a life over "simple" property crime, we're it legal to defend such here? No, extremely unlikely*.

However I have no problem AT ALL with someone who chooses to do so where it is legal. None.

The thief chose there path.

*were the law to change, here, AND our lives / quality of life / were affected by repeated thefts, my thoughts on such would likely change.

I'm not ethically opposed to using any force necessary to defend property. Take my gun safe as a property example, there's a lot of money in there, and that represents a very large piece of my life. I don't make a lot of money, so that contains massive swaths of my life. In effect, that's what the thief is taking. Yes, it's property, but it's also every finite minute of your life that you've invested to earn that property.

My opposition is strictly because I value the life of the clerk, the pharmacist, and the random victim more than the scumbag. Take the pharmacist I mentioned earlier, he got life with parole. Was what he did right? No, it was both legally, and ethically wrong. His defensive education should have covered what you can't do, as well as what you can.

@MannyGlocks

Just because you're not permitted to use lethal force to prevent something doesn't mean that it's de facto legal. Just because I can't shoot someone for pooping in my sunroof doesn't mean that it's not a crime, and I'll have to let him use me as his next target. It definitely doesn't mean that he can't face charges for what he did. With our laws, lethal force is to prevent unlawful injury. It's not an option for justice and retribution, we're legally tethered to the courts for that. Unless you're wearing a badge, taking the person off the board to prevent the next crime isn't our responsibility, and more importantly, isn't our privilege. We don't legally have the opportunity.

Do I agree? No, I really don't. Saw a video the other day of a couple people coming up in a guy's yard to rob the man...stupid move as the man was open carrying. He drew, one man ran away, one just stood there for a minute before casually turning and strolling away. The homeowner said "stop or I'll shoot," and Mr Casual said "shoot then" before strutting off. I think the man should have been permitted to disable the person for the police to collect, they will (and, as it turns out, did) continue doing this exact thing. The homeowner did the right thing. Had he fired, even though it would have prevented further harm to his community, would have gone to prison for the encounter.

 

[bbbass]

Judge, "Why did you shoot the intruder 17 times?" Answer, "Because if forgot to put one in the pipe after inserting my 17rd mag."

Judge, "Why did you shoot the perp 34 times?" Answer, "Because I only had two mags!"

Judge, Why did you shoot the intruder 18 times?" Answer, "Because he kept moving and I couldn't get to my spare mag!!!"

 

[MannyGlocks]

SG,

I read and re-read your post.

It's so disjointed (to me) that your message seems all over the place.

Will you summarize as I don't understand your message.

And thanks.

 

[SavageGerbil]

SG,

I read and re-read your post.

It's so disjointed (to me) that your message seems all over the place.

Will you summarize as I don't understand your message.

And thanks.

Apologies, about a week into the plague. Between that and the cough medicine, I feel lucky that I'm not speaking in tongues.

Ethically, I think using force should be kosher in property crime, especially since you're not dealing with the one person that's going to go "ok, just this ONE little robbery, and we're good. We'll get a job after this!" I think it would be a good thing for that person to be stopped, even if it requires some hospital time after.

Legally, that's not ok. While I'd approve of someone removing the individual, it's not worth a non-crook to go to prison for stopping the person. Police are allowed to do that, we're not.

You said that shoplifting is, in effect, not a crime. I was wondering where you got that idea. Yes, it's a crime. No, you're not permitted to use the threat of deadly force because someone slipped a can of tuna in their pocket without paying for it. That really doesn't track with your comparison to a violent mugging.

Criticism of this encounter isn't about whether the knucklehead that stole stuff was breaking the law, it's about the OTHER knucklehead who got arrested for having him strip at (pretend) gunpoint.

 

[SUPER X]

When the thieves know the law is on their side they will just take what they want and sue you if you offend them.

 

[balaperdida]

If it's not really a weapon, would a weapons charge apply?

 

[No_Regerts]

The part where he had him strip naked could get him in trouble. The kind of trouble you have to register with the Sheriff's office.

I wish there was a mechanism for thieves to learn learn painfully. Id be good with tying them up with their back facing a pitching machine cranked up to maybe 75mph.

 

[Knebel]

Not okay. Shoplifting vs THINKING someone shoplifted are different things. Besided that, why would I shoot someone and go through that financial and emotional struggle over some snacks or cheap crap someone steals. Now if the clerk was robbed at gunpoint its a different story that is basically a "me or him" situation.

 

[SavageGerbil]

If it's not really a weapon, would a weapons charge apply?

Not exactly easy to find case law on an oddball situation like this. However, if you perform an armed robbery with a fake weapon, it's still armed robbery. So, this likely falls under the same rules.

 

[awshoot]

If it's not really a weapon, would a weapons charge apply?

People have been justifiably killed when brandishing replicas or BB guns because it can be very hard to tell the difference between those and real firearms in the tension of the moment and at any distance.

Next time, the clerk should just pull out a flourescent orange and green nerf gun and ask the perp if he feels lucky. It would be extra amusing if the perp complied.

 

[Gks]

I'm actual from Salem nj terrible state

 

[Gks]

The police will most likely give the store clerk a larger charge than the thief. I have a friend in prison for shooting a shotgun out a car window. His been in there for 4 years he is out in December. In nj someone can break into your house trip and fall then sue the home owner.