This video will make your day: Sikh immigrant shop owners teach thief a painful lesson

[John Dule]

Obviously there are circumstances where using self-defense can go too far and cross into pure revenge, but that's not what I saw in this video. This seems like a straightforward example of a man trying to neutralize an active threat.

Instead of hemming and hawing over the specifics of the methods the store owner used, it would be more helpful to discuss why this thief thought he could get away with a robbery this blatant despite being caught on camera and not even attempting to conceal his actions. The sheer gall it takes to behave like this is only possible in an environment where one can credibly expect to not suffer any consequences from one's actions. This is the result of particular types of destructive policies that are in the process of ruining my state, and which many people on this site continue to advocate for. The folly of such a system is self-evident in the types of people it produces-- as this video depicts.

[John Dule]

Some of you guys aren't right in the head.

This irony? Looters and shoplifters who steal from hardworking people making an honest living deserve this treatment.

Nobody deserves this treatment.

Sure. But the store owner did not deserve to be robbed, and his rights trump the rights of the man robbing him. End of analysis.

[John Dule]

Some of you guys aren't right in the head.

This irony? Looters and shoplifters who steal from hardworking people making an honest living deserve this treatment.

Nobody deserves this treatment.

Sure. But the store owner did not deserve to be robbed, and his rights trump the rights of the man robbing him. End of analysis.

Are you familiar with the concept of disproportionate retribution?

Of course, but as I said earlier in this thread, that is not what happened here. It is clear from the video that he was neutralizing an active threat, not exacting vengeance.

[John Dule]

It should be illegal. All forms of torture should be illegal.

I would think brutally beating someone with a stick could be considered to be torture.

If this is torture, then a soldier shooting an enemy combatant is also torture. Both situations involve a person inflicting physical harm/pain on another in order to induce them to perform a certain action (retreat/leave the store). What makes the infliction of physical pain immoral in the context of torture is the fact that one party is completely at the other's mercy. This was not true in this video.

[John Dule]

Of course, but as I said earlier in this thread, that is not what happened here. It is clear from the video that he was neutralizing an active threat, not exacting vengeance.

I watched the same video you did, and I don't agree.

You’re a member of a small minority of Americans who reflexively sympathize with literal villains for the sake of being controversial, so I’m not even remotely surprised. Any action an individual takes to protect his property from a legitimate threat should be treated with a presumption of legality and morality.

[John Dule]

I think that the shop owners were justified in defending themselves against a potentially dangerous person robbing them. I would not, however, say that this sort of situation “makes my day”, and it seems like a kind of twisted to get excited about it.

Yeah. I'm certainly not happy that my state has devolved to this level.

[John Dule]

How many of you think he should be allowed to walk free because of his beating?

Both men should go to jail.

But remember guys, I totally think mass incarceration is a bad thing!

[John Dule]

How many of you think he should be allowed to walk free because of his beating?

Both men should go to jail.

Why should the business owner go to jail for defending his livelihood?

Because he went beyond what was needed to defend his property and began enacting revenge.

He was in an extremely intense situation and was probably terrified of the man. The perpetrator was still struggling when he was on the ground, and it was unclear whether he’d be able to pull a weapon or counterattack if the store owner stopped. If I can’t tell whether he’s still a threat from this video, imagine how hard it would be to tell in the moment!

Overall, your comments in this thread are excellent microcosms of how insanely judgmental the left has become in recent years. You have never been in a situation like this, yet you feel wholly justified in condemning people like this store owner or Kyle Rittenhouse for the split-second decisions they make in extremely dangerous circumstances. If you were placed in a situation where you feared for your life and had to physically fight your way out, how would you feel about some snot-nosed bystander with 20/20 hindsight finger-wagging about how you hit your attacker one or two too many times? You would rightfully tell him to go pee his pants.

[John Dule]

How many of you think he should be allowed to walk free because of his beating?

Both men should go to jail.

Why should the business owner go to jail for defending his livelihood?

Self-defense applies to physical threats, not economic threats. The only justification for this was the thief threatened to pull a knife, not that he was stealing.

Incorrect both legally and morally.