Burglar shot in the face in St Louis

[Kidlicious]

Not racist then.

[Proteus_MST]

In germany the case would be clear ... here you can even await multiple years in prison for attempted manslaughter, if you defend yourself with a knife, when being attacked by a gang of thugs (who just use their fists) and seriously harm one of them in this process.
Something that happened in Garching 6 years ago and brought a computer science student 3.5 years of prison (although one might add that the harch ruling of the judge was highly controversial, even among jurist circles).

Someone who kills a fleeing burglar with a firearm, even if he was attacked by them before, would, without doubt, be charged with manslaughter if he kills one of them in the process (disparity of force, as well as the need for self-defense getting voided as soon as the burglars flee).

( I just tell how it is in germany ... I am not in agreement with these laws ... seems like in some cases [such as this CS student] the victim gets made the offenderr and would be better off, with leting the attackers beat him up without defense instead of resisting [just a few months stay in hospital instead of multiple years in prison and being forced to give an excusation to his attacker])

I definitely don´t have any sympathy with the burglars in the case depicted, although one might wonder if shooting to kill wasn t way over the top, after the girl yelled that she is pregnant (under the assumption that the home owner could also have targeted parts of her body that don´t let her bleed to death within short time)

[SlowwHand]

I'll be sure not to shoot a home intruder if they're a different color than me.

[DinoDoc]

I definitely don´t have any sympathy with the burglars in the case depicted, although one might wonder if shooting to kill wasn t way over the top, after the girl yelled that she is pregnant (under the assumption that the home owner could also have targeted parts of her body that don´t let her bleed to death within short time)

Never point your weapon at something you aren't prepared to kill.

[DinoDoc]

That's ****ed up.

Why?

[N35t0r]

Um, cases such as this?

[DinoDoc]

Um, cases such as this?

I'm still missing the ****ed up part.

[Sava]

I'm still missing the ****ed up part.

Seems to give people a license to go beyond what is legally allowed when defending oneself.

[kentonio]

I'm still missing the ****ed up part.

Because it assumes that accomplices are always equally culpable and further puts the blame for a crime on someone that they didn't commit. Guy decides he's going to rob a deserted store at night, drags his unwilling but weak friend along. Guy gets shot to death by a night watchman, friend gets charged with felony murder. How does that make any sense?

[Kidlicious]

I'll be sure not to shoot a home intruder if they're a different color than me.

Don't shoot any women either. K? K ...k

[Kidlicious]

In germany the case would be clear ... here you can even await multiple years in prison for attempted manslaughter, if you defend yourself with a knife, when being attacked by a gang of thugs (who just use their fists) and seriously harm one of them in this process.
Something that happened in Garching 6 years ago and brought a computer science student 3.5 years of prison (although one might add that the harch ruling of the judge was highly controversial, even among jurist circles).

Someone who kills a fleeing burglar with a firearm, even if he was attacked by them before, would, without doubt, be charged with manslaughter if he kills one of them in the process (disparity of force, as well as the need for self-defense getting voided as soon as the burglars flee).

( I just tell how it is in germany ... I am not in agreement with these laws ... seems like in some cases [such as this CS student] the victim gets made the offenderr and would be better off, with leting the attackers beat him up without defense instead of resisting [just a few months stay in hospital instead of multiple years in prison and being forced to give an excusation to his attacker])

I definitely don´t have any sympathy with the burglars in the case depicted, although one might wonder if shooting to kill wasn t way over the top, after the girl yelled that she is pregnant (under the assumption that the home owner could also have targeted parts of her body that don´t let her bleed to death within short time)

Do people there think people will go crazy defending themselves?

I don't know if we have less crime because people have guns. It doesn't seem like it. However, people like to have the right to defend themselves. That seems like an important right. That said, I have no gun even though I was robbed at gun point by a 15 year old crack head.

[Lorizael]

Because it assumes that accomplices are always equally culpable and further puts the blame for a crime on someone that they didn't commit. Guy decides he's going to rob a deserted store at night, drags his unwilling but weak friend along. Guy gets shot to death by a night watchman, friend gets charged with felony murder. How does that make any sense?

Guy giving up pediatrics for petty theft seems plausible to me.

[N35t0r]

I'm still missing the ****ed up part.

How is the guy gulty of the death?

[Proteus_MST]

Do people there think people will go crazy defending themselves?

I don't know if we have less crime because people have guns. It doesn't seem like it. However, people like to have the right to defend themselves. That seems like an important right. That said, I have no gun even though I was robbed at gun point by a 15 year old crack head.

Well, our strict gn laws definitely are a good thing IMHO ... while crominals, of course, have their means to get firearms via illegal means, at least it prevents things like homeowners shooting their family members because they think they are burglars ... or people thinking, pistols would be a way to end vergal arguments.

Our self defense laws on the other hand:
On paper they are well meant ... they want to prevent escalations of fights (by the attacked party choosing much bigger weapons to defend than the attacking party) and want to prevent revenges (i.e. the victim continuing its attack when the attacker already is lying helpless on the ground).

Problem is that it is up to the judge to decide whether a means of defense is justified (or at least understandable considering the emotional state of the victim) and whether not .... if you meet an idiot on the judges chair (like the one in the case of the CS student) who more or less turns the view on who is victim and who attacker by 180 deg around, the public gts needlessly made insecure and might abstain from taking necessary steps of self defense, out of fear of getting criminalized.