ThirdConsul comments on Anon the murderer

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I believe I explained that in the first example. If you go to your neighbour to grab the gun and return that is excessive.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

a disproportionately strong means of defense

It's not a question of availability, but explicitly a question of strength.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

And the first link explain that shooting a child for stealing an apple from on orchard would not be self-defense.

I still fail to see why are you arguing that shooting a home invader mid burglary should be illegal, or is illegal under German self defense laws.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

And the first link explain that shooting a child for stealing an apple from on orchard would not be self-defense.

So you agree now that according to German law self defense should be proportionate. That's the sentence you tried to refute in your message.

shooting a home invader mid burglary should be illegal

Because you don't kill someone to save a TV. It's basic human decency.

is illegal under German self defense laws

That's not something I ever said. I don't know. I presume it depends on the details, sometimes it's legal, sometimes it's not. I know it's the case in France.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

Because you don’t kill someone to save a TV. It’s basic human decency.

You don't burglar homes, it's basic human decency.

So you agree now that according to German law self defense should be proportionate.

Like talking to a wall or chat gpt.

You do not need to balance the value of the attacker's health against your property or minor rights or health or life. Because the attacker chose to break the law, the defender's priority is to uphold the safety/order/legal order. (That's the difference between proportionality vs necessity)

Only gross imbalance is forbidden (child apple orchard example).

Go talk to a chatbot, I am done.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago

Because the attacker chose to break the law, the defender's priority is to uphold the safety/order/legal order. (That's the difference between proportionality vs necessity)

In your dream maybe, not in the law. Use ChatBots yourself, I heard they're yes-men. But if you repeat the same flawed arguments, don't expect a different answer from an actual human.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent