5 ms·

I'm pretty sure any country would be fine with you killing someone in self-defense...

Viliam1234 5y ago
For example, Soviet Union made self-defense illegal. This was part of a larger strategy to encourage crime against citizens, because the more the citizens are worrying about criminals, the less they think about the regime they are living in. They will even welcome more police oversight, because it is the only protection against crime they have. (Crimes against the state, on the other hand, were punished extremely.)
- widespace_ 5y ago
  Congratulations you made me make an account. Do you have any sources for that story? I would be interested in reading them because what you are describing sounds so idiotic that it seems like a parody of anti-communist talking points.
foxfluff 5y ago
You'd be surprised. No, there are many places where you want to think twice about responding to violence with violence, because if your violent response is deemed exaggerated, you end up being the one worse off on day of judgement. Technically I suppose you could get away with killing if it can be shown that your life was in immediate danger, and not in the "old hobo waves a knife so cop shoots him in the back from thirty feet away" way like in the US. In practice that never happens, because it is very difficult to show that the only thing you could've done was to kill. Even if someone had you at gunpoint. Someone waving a rock or a knife? Lol no, unless you emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones.
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  Your example is interesting because 21 feet is enough distance for someone with a knife to stab a someone before they can draw a gun (under 2 seconds) I think most would agree that waiting to shot until you are suyre you will emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones is too late.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    Most in America? Shrug, maybe. In many other parts of the world, someone having a weapon out is not sufficient evidence to show that they were going to murder you in 2 seconds unless you did it first. Even if they seemed angry and threatening. A threat of violence is not violence, a weapon is not violence, and an unstable person is not violence, and even violence doesn't justify killing unless that violence was life threatening. That's the difference. The question here isn't about what they could in theory do. If you're going to kill someone in self defense, you'd better have very convincing evidence or other means to show that they were in fact about to kill you. Without signs of struggle, that evidence can be quite hard to procure. So what do you do in this situation? If you can run, you run. If someone chases you with a knife and you can't outrun them, that's already much better for your self defense claim than if you just decided to shoot them the moment you got scared.. If you can fight or shoot back, you don't have to kill them, just respond enough to fend off the immediate threat. If you're not good enough with guns to make a non-lethal disarming shot, then I don't recommend bringing a gun (not that it'd be legal here anyway, guns are for sport and hunting). Your self defense can be regarded as exaggerated even if you didn't intend it that way. So if you accidentally make a lethal shot or accidentally punch someone to death, you're on the hook for it.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      > A threat of violence is not violence, a weapon is not violence, and an unstable person is not violence, and even violence doesn't justify killing unless that violence was life threatening. > If you're going to kill someone in self defense, you'd better have very convincing evidence or other means to show that they were in fact about to kill you. I don't understand this at all. A mentally unstable person shouting threats and approaching me with a deadly weapon is 150% enough evidence that my life is in danger. I can't see any other possible rationalization. It is a complete failure of the state to make someone scared of defending themselves against legitimate threats.
    - defen 5y ago
      > If you're not good enough with guns to make a non-lethal disarming shot This suggests to me that you don't know much about guns, gun safety, or gun laws. I'm not trying to be insulting, but saying something like that indicates that you really have no idea what you're talking about. No use-of-force experts recommend attempting a "non-lethal" shot with a gun. In fact, you'd almost certainly get in more trouble for doing that than for killing the person, at least in the US. A gun is a lethal weapon, and there is no way to reliably perform a "non-lethal" shot. If you shoot someone in the leg, they can very easily bleed out. Aiming for the arm or hand makes it extremely likely that you will miss and hit someone/something downrange.
- HelixEndeavor 5y ago
  I would never want to live in a country that would prosecute me for defending my life and safety.
imarid 5y ago
You are wrong. In most EU countries self defense has to be proportional to attack, and to be used only when necessary. So if you exceeding limits of self-defense and you kill or damage someone using forces disproportionate to the danger you can go to jail.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Jewish tradition the first murder weapon in human history was a rock. Using lethal force against somebody who intends to attack you with lethal force is proportional.
- afiori 5y ago
  > > In most states, you can claim under almost any circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. A rock to the head can be quite deadly; every situation will have its own important nuances still.

For example, Soviet Union made self-defense illegal. This was part of a larger strategy to encourage crime against citizens, because the more the citizens are worrying about criminals, the less they think about the regime they are living in. They will even welcome more police oversight, because it is the only protection against crime they have. (Crimes against the state, on the other hand, were punished extremely.)

widespace_ 5y ago
Congratulations you made me make an account. Do you have any sources for that story? I would be interested in reading them because what you are describing sounds so idiotic that it seems like a parody of anti-communist talking points.

foxfluff 5y ago

You'd be surprised. No, there are many places where you want to think twice about responding to violence with violence, because if your violent response is deemed exaggerated, you end up being the one worse off on day of judgement. Technically I suppose you could get away with killing if it can be shown that your life was in immediate danger, and not in the "old hobo waves a knife so cop shoots him in the back from thirty feet away" way like in the US. In practice that never happens, because it is very difficult to show that the only thing you could've done was to kill. Even if someone had you at gunpoint. Someone waving a rock or a knife? Lol no, unless you emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones.

qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
Your example is interesting because 21 feet is enough distance for someone with a knife to stab a someone before they can draw a gun (under 2 seconds) I think most would agree that waiting to shot until you are suyre you will emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones is too late.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  Most in America? Shrug, maybe. In many other parts of the world, someone having a weapon out is not sufficient evidence to show that they were going to murder you in 2 seconds unless you did it first. Even if they seemed angry and threatening. A threat of violence is not violence, a weapon is not violence, and an unstable person is not violence, and even violence doesn't justify killing unless that violence was life threatening. That's the difference. The question here isn't about what they could in theory do. If you're going to kill someone in self defense, you'd better have very convincing evidence or other means to show that they were in fact about to kill you. Without signs of struggle, that evidence can be quite hard to procure. So what do you do in this situation? If you can run, you run. If someone chases you with a knife and you can't outrun them, that's already much better for your self defense claim than if you just decided to shoot them the moment you got scared.. If you can fight or shoot back, you don't have to kill them, just respond enough to fend off the immediate threat. If you're not good enough with guns to make a non-lethal disarming shot, then I don't recommend bringing a gun (not that it'd be legal here anyway, guns are for sport and hunting). Your self defense can be regarded as exaggerated even if you didn't intend it that way. So if you accidentally make a lethal shot or accidentally punch someone to death, you're on the hook for it.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > A threat of violence is not violence, a weapon is not violence, and an unstable person is not violence, and even violence doesn't justify killing unless that violence was life threatening. > If you're going to kill someone in self defense, you'd better have very convincing evidence or other means to show that they were in fact about to kill you. I don't understand this at all. A mentally unstable person shouting threats and approaching me with a deadly weapon is 150% enough evidence that my life is in danger. I can't see any other possible rationalization. It is a complete failure of the state to make someone scared of defending themselves against legitimate threats.
  - defen 5y ago
    > If you're not good enough with guns to make a non-lethal disarming shot This suggests to me that you don't know much about guns, gun safety, or gun laws. I'm not trying to be insulting, but saying something like that indicates that you really have no idea what you're talking about. No use-of-force experts recommend attempting a "non-lethal" shot with a gun. In fact, you'd almost certainly get in more trouble for doing that than for killing the person, at least in the US. A gun is a lethal weapon, and there is no way to reliably perform a "non-lethal" shot. If you shoot someone in the leg, they can very easily bleed out. Aiming for the arm or hand makes it extremely likely that you will miss and hit someone/something downrange.
HelixEndeavor 5y ago
I would never want to live in a country that would prosecute me for defending my life and safety.

imarid 5y ago

You are wrong. In most EU countries self defense has to be proportional to attack, and to be used only when necessary. So if you exceeding limits of self-defense and you kill or damage someone using forces disproportionate to the danger you can go to jail.

Eelongate 5y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Jewish tradition the first murder weapon in human history was a rock. Using lethal force against somebody who intends to attack you with lethal force is proportional.
afiori 5y ago
> > In most states, you can claim under almost any circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. A rock to the head can be quite deadly; every situation will have its own important nuances still.