He would surely know that bongs and pipes and hookahs *might* be used as drug paraphernalia -- unless he has been living under a rock all his life. That hardly makes him a "true innocent" -- tho' it might make him "technically-not-guilty", which isn't quite the same thing.
By selling that stuff he is skating about as close to the edge of the ice as is humanly possible, knowing full well that he's so close to breaking the law it's not even funny. That's why he gave the guy $40 bucks: he knew he'd be in for a hassle if the police came to his store.
If he was a true innocent he would have held the perp at gunpoint and waited for the cops. However, he had the conscience of a guilty man, as his actions proved. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
undercover cops went into that man’s store to purchase bongs, in the midst of the conversation these cops mentioned they wanted to smoke marijuana with aformentioned bongs.
then they returned with backup to seize this man’s merchandise (which by the way were displayed with a sign that stated they were to be used for tobacco products only).
whose action was it that made this transaction illegal?
if the cops went in and purchased the bongs without saying anything except ‘how much?’ and ‘have a nice day’ the transaction would have been perfectly legal.
the laws on paraphenalia are so vaguely worded in most cases, your local 7-11 can be raided under the same circumstances for selling e-z widers.
his acts during the robbery were genuine because the crime he commited was not displaying the bongs, nor even selling the bongs. it only became a crime when the police mentioned drugs while buying the bongs.