3 ms·

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could a

by bulbar 1mo ago

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.

butvacuum 1mo ago
people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter. Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual. Ultimately- you're going to have PTSD either way.
- crote 1mo ago
  Your example isn't quite as cut-and-dry because in a lot of cases that's going to involve the Castle Doctrine as well, and "starts shooting" means there is an actual danger merely than a perceived potential danger. Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away? Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.
  - butvacuum 1mo ago
    It seems I may have misremembered my example and inadvertantly made duty to retreat appear worse than it is. However- it was meant to highlight the positons both sides and it holds correct enough for thst still.
- derriz 1mo ago
  > Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.
  - oopsieDayz 1mo ago
    It's a BS If someone comes through your home door guns akimbo in the US, blasting back is fine US Supreme court has often leaned heavily on right to protect self in one's own home in ruling against local and state laws that might ban ridiculous things.
    - zimpenfish 1mo ago
      > If someone comes through your home door guns akimbo in the US, blasting back is fine Unless that someone is a cop, of course.
  - lukan 1mo ago
    Germany has had some weird court decisions in that regard, in general the law does say flee and not shoot back if this is an option. But mostly courts are reasonable and do not punish the victim. Only if the victim decides to use violence after the threat is over https://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/3/15/3-199-15.php https://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/3/15/3-199-15.php But there was even a case, where a hells angel shot a police officer in his home who were doing a raid - and got free (because they did not identify themself as police). https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-spricht-hells-angel-frei-toedlicher-irrtum-ohne-strafe https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-spricht-hells-a...
    - bulbar 1mo ago
      The law says your are allowed to stand your ground. You don't have to flee. > But there was even a case, I don't know the details of the case, but if somebody thought some criminals are raiding his house with guns and it's reasonable the he thought that, then he's fully within his rights to defend himself and, depending on the necessities, by shooting at them. Still terrible what happened, of course.
weinzierl 1mo ago
Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one. This is very different from the law in Texas, where, from what I understand, if you catch someone in the night stealing you could just kill them even if they never threatend you.
- lwkl 1mo ago
  > Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one. Being attacked with a knife means your life is being threatened and using a firearm would be legal even in Germany. The response has to be proportionate to the threat on life or limb not the size of the weapon.
  - bulbar 1mo ago
    > The response has to be proportionate to the threat No, not even that, at least not in general. For example, it could be well within your rights to hit somebody who keeps insulting you. And yes, not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws. Wikipedia mentions more example of what you are generally allowed to protect: > Das unberechtigte Anfertigen einer Fotoaufnahme stellt einen Angriff auf das Recht am eigenen Bild dar.[10] Das Anrauchen einer Person kann einen Angriff auf deren Ehre und Gesundheit darstellen. Translation: > Taking a photograph without authorization constitutes an infringement of the right to one's own image.[10] Exposed to secondhand smoke can constitute an infringement of a person's honor and health. Will be easy enough to find more example if your are not satisfied with Wikipedia.
    - weinzierl 1mo ago
      Yes, find an example that proofs that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.", as you claim. Neither of your sources supports "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.". If you had linked the original sources, it would have been obvious that the examples are taken out of context.

by bulbar 1mo ago

butvacuum 1mo ago

people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter. Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual. Ultimately- you're going to have PTSD either way.

crote 1mo ago
Your example isn't quite as cut-and-dry because in a lot of cases that's going to involve the Castle Doctrine as well, and "starts shooting" means there is an actual danger merely than a perceived potential danger. Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away? Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.
- butvacuum 1mo ago
  It seems I may have misremembered my example and inadvertantly made duty to retreat appear worse than it is. However- it was meant to highlight the positons both sides and it holds correct enough for thst still.
derriz 1mo ago
> Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.
- oopsieDayz 1mo ago
  It's a BS If someone comes through your home door guns akimbo in the US, blasting back is fine US Supreme court has often leaned heavily on right to protect self in one's own home in ruling against local and state laws that might ban ridiculous things.
  - zimpenfish 1mo ago
    > If someone comes through your home door guns akimbo in the US, blasting back is fine Unless that someone is a cop, of course.
- lukan 1mo ago
  Germany has had some weird court decisions in that regard, in general the law does say flee and not shoot back if this is an option. But mostly courts are reasonable and do not punish the victim. Only if the victim decides to use violence after the threat is over https://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/3/15/3-199-15.php https://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/3/15/3-199-15.php But there was even a case, where a hells angel shot a police officer in his home who were doing a raid - and got free (because they did not identify themself as police). https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-spricht-hells-angel-frei-toedlicher-irrtum-ohne-strafe https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-spricht-hells-a...
  - bulbar 1mo ago
    The law says your are allowed to stand your ground. You don't have to flee. > But there was even a case, I don't know the details of the case, but if somebody thought some criminals are raiding his house with guns and it's reasonable the he thought that, then he's fully within his rights to defend himself and, depending on the necessities, by shooting at them. Still terrible what happened, of course.

weinzierl 1mo ago

Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one. This is very different from the law in Texas, where, from what I understand, if you catch someone in the night stealing you could just kill them even if they never threatend you.

lwkl 1mo ago
> Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one. Being attacked with a knife means your life is being threatened and using a firearm would be legal even in Germany. The response has to be proportionate to the threat on life or limb not the size of the weapon.
- bulbar 1mo ago
  > The response has to be proportionate to the threat No, not even that, at least not in general. For example, it could be well within your rights to hit somebody who keeps insulting you. And yes, not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws. Wikipedia mentions more example of what you are generally allowed to protect: > Das unberechtigte Anfertigen einer Fotoaufnahme stellt einen Angriff auf das Recht am eigenen Bild dar.[10] Das Anrauchen einer Person kann einen Angriff auf deren Ehre und Gesundheit darstellen. Translation: > Taking a photograph without authorization constitutes an infringement of the right to one's own image.[10] Exposed to secondhand smoke can constitute an infringement of a person's honor and health. Will be easy enough to find more example if your are not satisfied with Wikipedia.
  - weinzierl 1mo ago
    Yes, find an example that proofs that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.", as you claim. Neither of your sources supports "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.". If you had linked the original sources, it would have been obvious that the examples are taken out of context.