3 ms·
Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives because you were carrying a weapon and that is why they pointed a weapon
by siva7 5y ago
Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives because you were carrying a weapon and that is why they pointed a weapon at you in the first place. There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.
- School-Cotton 5y ago> Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true? > There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager. For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying a gun is illegal is a different question from whether using it in this specific situation makes you also guilty of the additional crime of murder.
- Zickzack 5y agoIf you can read German, then search for the term Putativnotwehr - or Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum which looks so much more German. It refers to an understandable, but wrong belief to be in a situation that justifies self defense. It is a valid excuse in penal law, yet it does not apply to civil liabilities. You can still be sued for damages. An official prosecutor told me that you can use it once in your life to beat somebody up. After that, they will not believe you anymore. However, I completely agree that it does not make sense to judge the Rittenhouse case by German law.
- School-Cotton 5y agoThanks!