It's not the guns

[ZiprHead]

From the WaPo link:

Alba later told the police that Simon “wanted me to come apologize to the girl.” A video shows Simon shoving Alba into a wall inside the bodega. As the two fought, Alba grabbed a knife and stabbed Simon in the neck and chest at least five times, according to the complaint. “Simon fell to the ground, face-down and bleeding,” it said.
“I took the knife we use to open boxes and I stabbed him,” Alba told police.

The police, who reviewed security footage at the scene, said in the complaint that Simon’s girlfriend tried to pull Alba off Simon and “held the defendant’s right arm but the defendant continued to stab [him].” She then took out a knife from her purse and stabbed Alba in the arm, the complaint says.

To prove self-defense outside the home under New York law, a person must — broadly speaking — show that they used physical force “to avoid an imminent public or private injury,” in a situation not of their own making, “which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality,” the benefit of avoiding that injury outweighs the benefit of avoiding the use of physical force in the first place.
New York law also imposes a “duty to retreat.” This means that if someone believes they are in danger of imminent injury outside their home, they must first try to get out of that situation — by fleeing the scene, for example — before they respond. This is different from other states’ “stand your ground” laws.

There is no duty to retreat inside your own home. See 2.a.1 of the law you linked to. The law also allows the use of lethal force against burglars who do not necessarily present an immediate threat to you.

He wasn't in his home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there some reason to think he wasn't acting like he usually acted?

Is there some rational reason to think that is the way he usually acted?

I suggest looking up the meaning of "usually".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But, yeah, charges have been dropped. Alba walks free. America rejoices.

Exhibit A for why many states have passed stand your ground laws. The actual change to the legal situation with self defense is minimal, but stand your ground laws generally prohibit reflexive arrests. It avoids things like this guy's record now being forever tainted by being arrested for murder.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is there some reason to think he wasn't acting like he usually acted?

Jose Alba did not know Austin Simon's criminal record, and it was not why he stabbed the unarmed assailant five times. But, yeah, charges have been dropped. Alba walks free. America rejoices.

I think knowing your attacker's criminal record is not necessary to defend yourself.

"He's assaulting me, I better Google him." No.

 

[ZiprHead]

Austin Simon was not "some poor innocent criminal is killed just doing his job of crime" at the time of the incident. Jose Alba killed an unarmed man who pushed and shoved him around.

How is this different from "Simon went to the store to attack the staff. It didn't turn out well for him or anybody."?

Unless you know tht Mr Simon was in the habit of attacking staff in general or that he went to the store with the intention of attacking the staff, the difference is in the phrase "doing his job of crime".

Is there some reason to think he wasn't acting like he usually acted?

Jose Alba did not know Austin Simon's criminal record, and it was not why he stabbed the unarmed assailant five times. But, yeah, charges have been dropped. Alba walks free. America rejoices.

Good.

 

[TomC]

Austin Simon was not "some poor innocent criminal is killed just doing his job of crime" at the time of the incident. Jose Alba killed an unarmed man who pushed and shoved him around.

How is this different from "Simon went to the store to attack the staff. It didn't turn out well for him or anybody."?

Unless you know tht Mr Simon was in the habit of attacking staff in general or that he went to the store with the intention of attacking the staff, the difference is in the phrase "doing his job of crime".

Is there some reason to think he wasn't acting like he usually acted?

Jose Alba did not know Austin Simon's criminal record, and it was not why he stabbed the unarmed assailant five times. But, yeah, charges have been dropped. Alba walks free. America rejoices.

Good.

That pic is the sort of "news" that makes me uninclined to make any sort of judgement.

My understanding is that Simon was a large dude, unarmed, attacking a smaller guy manning a store register. This pic shows a much bigger dude with a knife attacking a smaller guy.

Somebody's lying here. I don't know who. But somebody is.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Austin Simon was not "some poor innocent criminal is killed just doing his job of crime" at the time of the incident. Jose Alba killed an unarmed man who pushed and shoved him around.

How is this different from "Simon went to the store to attack the staff. It didn't turn out well for him or anybody."?

Unless you know tht Mr Simon was in the habit of attacking staff in general or that he went to the store with the intention of attacking the staff, the difference is in the phrase "doing his job of crime".

Is there some reason to think he wasn't acting like he usually acted?

Jose Alba did not know Austin Simon's criminal record, and it was not why he stabbed the unarmed assailant five times. But, yeah, charges have been dropped. Alba walks free. America rejoices.

Good.

That pic is the sort of "news" that makes me uninclined to make any sort of judgement.

My understanding is that Simon was a large dude, unarmed, attacking a smaller guy manning a store register. This pic shows a much bigger dude with a knife attacking a smaller guy.

Somebody's lying here. I don't know who. But somebody is.
Tom

I'd like to see the whole video because I too still have questions.

 

[laughing dog]

I suggest looking up the meaning of "usually".

Unlike you, I know “usually” does not mean once.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That pic is the sort of "news" that makes me uninclined to make any sort of judgement.

My understanding is that Simon was a large dude, unarmed, attacking a smaller guy manning a store register. This pic shows a much bigger dude with a knife attacking a smaller guy.

Somebody's lying here. I don't know who. But somebody is.
Tom

Seconded. This doesn't match the reported incident at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suggest looking up the meaning of "usually".

Unlike you, I know “usually” does not mean once.

Well, duh! That's my point! He's mad at the clerk so he walks in and shoves the clerk to the ground. I'm saying that that is likely his usual reaction when upset--use violence.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, duh! That's my point! He's mad at the clerk so he walks in and shoves the clerk to the ground. I'm saying that that is likely his usual reaction when upset--use violence.

You contradict yourself. You agree that once instance is not mean usual but you use one instance to conclude that this is usual.

 

[TomC]

Well, duh! That's my point! He's mad at the clerk so he walks in and shoves the clerk to the ground. I'm saying that that is likely his usual reaction when upset--use violence.

You contradict yourself. You agree that once instance is not mean usual but you use one instance to conclude that this is usual.

No, Loren is not contradicting himself.

There's only a tiny number of data points concerning Simon's "usual" behavior.

His girlfriend went and got him to resolve an issue over a bag of chips.

He attacked the employee, rather than pay for the chips.

His girlfriend attacked the employee when Simon lost the fight that he started.

It's possible that this is unusual behavior for Simon, but there's no reason to think that. There's very good reason to believe it's usual behavior, as in "Simon attacked a clerk over a bag of chips, because his girlfriend wanted him to do so, rather than just buy the chips which he clearly didn't choose to do."

All the available data suggests that this is Simon's usual behavior.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Well, duh! That's my point! He's mad at the clerk so he walks in and shoves the clerk to the ground. I'm saying that that is likely his usual reaction when upset--use violence.

You contradict yourself. You agree that once instance is not mean usual but you use one instance to conclude that this is usual.

No, Loren is not contradicting himself.

There's only a tiny number of data points concerning Simon's "usual" behavior.

His girlfriend went and got him to resolve an issue over a bag of chips.

He attacked the employee, rather than pay for the chips.

His girlfriend attacked the employee when Simon lost the fight that he started.

It's possible that this is unusual behavior for Simon, but there's no reason to think that. There's very good reason to believe it's usual behavior, as in "Simon attacked a clerk over a bag of chips, because his girlfriend wanted him to do so, rather than just buy the chips which he clearly didn't choose to do."

All the available data suggests that this is Simon's usual behavior.
Tom

There is only one point for Mr. Simon (his girlfriend's reactions are not Mr. Simon's) One data point is insufficient to show "usual". What other data are you alluding to?

Of course it is possible that this is usual for him. It is just as possible that it is not usual for him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, duh! That's my point! He's mad at the clerk so he walks in and shoves the clerk to the ground. I'm saying that that is likely his usual reaction when upset--use violence.

You contradict yourself. You agree that once instance is not mean usual but you use one instance to conclude that this is usual.

You have it backwards.

I'm asking why we should think that his behavior that day wasn't his usual behavior?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, duh! That's my point! He's mad at the clerk so he walks in and shoves the clerk to the ground. I'm saying that that is likely his usual reaction when upset--use violence.

You contradict yourself. You agree that once instance is not mean usual but you use one instance to conclude that this is usual.

No, Loren is not contradicting himself.

There's only a tiny number of data points concerning Simon's "usual" behavior.

His girlfriend went and got him to resolve an issue over a bag of chips.

He attacked the employee, rather than pay for the chips.

His girlfriend attacked the employee when Simon lost the fight that he started.

It's possible that this is unusual behavior for Simon, but there's no reason to think that. There's very good reason to believe it's usual behavior, as in "Simon attacked a clerk over a bag of chips, because his girlfriend wanted him to do so, rather than just buy the chips which he clearly didn't choose to do."

All the available data suggests that this is Simon's usual behavior.
Tom

There is only one point for Mr. Simon (his girlfriend's reactions are not Mr. Simon's) One data point is insufficient to show "usual". What other data are you alluding to?

Of course it is possible that this is usual for him. It is just as possible that it is not usual for him.

It's not enough to prove usual, but it's enough to suggest normal.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not enough to prove usual, but it's enough to suggest normal.

Really, so the next time some police officer blows away an unarmed civilian who has their back turned, you will agree that was normal behavior for the officer?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not enough to prove usual, but it's enough to suggest normal.

Really, so the next time some police officer blows away an unarmed civilian who has their back turned, you will agree that was normal behavior for the officer?

You're making a completely false comparison and you know it.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not enough to prove usual, but it's enough to suggest normal.

Really, so the next time some police officer blows away an unarmed civilian who has their back turned, you will agree that was normal behavior for the officer?

You're making a completely false comparison and you know it.

I am applying your reasoning - one instance defines normal or usual. If you don't like the results of the application, perhaps you should rethink your reasoning.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not enough to prove usual, but it's enough to suggest normal.

Really, so the next time some police officer blows away an unarmed civilian who has their back turned, you will agree that was normal behavior for the officer?

You're making a completely false comparison and you know it.

I am applying your reasoning - one instance defines normal or usual. If you don't like the results of the application, perhaps you should rethink your reasoning.

No. You're willfully ignoring data we have.

If you have only one data point it's reasonable to assume it reflects normal. When you have a whole bunch of data points you can't look at just one and pretend it's normal when it's clearly not.

 

[laughing dog]

No. You're willfully ignoring data we have.

Nope. Whenever a police officer blows away an unarmed civilian, we only have one data point at that time. It is no different this any situation with civilians.

If you have only one data point it's reasonable to assume it reflects normal. When you have a whole bunch of data points you can't look at just one and pretend it's normal when it's clearly not.

It is not reasonable to assume that one data point reflects normal.