Balance between neutered citizens and overly violent citizens...?

**rvg** · 01-07-2014, 01:22

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Yeah, I just don't want to spend 15 years in jail for having taken them out of the gene pool... That should be quite understandable.

Aren't you allowed to defend yourself?

**Kadagar_AV** · 01-07-2014, 01:32

Originally Posted by rvg

Aren't you allowed to defend yourself?

Sure you are, with least amount of force. PROVING you were only defending yourself with least amount of force is a whole other matter.

As an example, some years ago, a lady around 70-80 or so years old had stopped with her car. A psychotic man opened the door, and started to strangle her.

All she could do was honk her cars horn...

A guy stopped, saw what happened, grabbed the nearest tool and beat the perpetrator unconscious.

Perpetrator went to a mental ward, the guy with the tool went to prison for "armed assault". Judge thought he could have used less force.

Sure, our version of supreme court cleared him after a public uproar, but that still goes to show where we are at legally.

**rvg** · 01-07-2014, 01:36

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

...Perpetrator went to a mental ward, the guy with the tool went to prison for "armed assault". Judge thought he could have used less force.

This is horrible! Don't people have a problem with a law like that?

**Kadagar_AV** · 01-07-2014, 01:46

Originally Posted by rvg

This is horrible! Don't people have a problem with a law like that?

Well, we used to have quite low statistics on crime, so people were happy as is. You know, the "perpetrator" used to be someones son and neighbour..

These days, crime is sky rocketing and the perpetrator is generally some arab or negroe fresh out of a warzone...

Sweden these days accept more than 1% of their population as immigrants, generally from the lowest scum cultures. Guess what happens when that is a trend for 10-20-30 years.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 01-07-2014, 02:14

Castle law and stand your ground.

Property is an extension of the person, defending it is part of a person's right of self defense.

Maybe a courteous "Get away from my car or I'll shoot" first. I note that I believe that to be a courtesy, not a requirement.

**Kadagar_AV** · 01-07-2014, 02:50

Sometimes I hate it when Americans make sense..

Still though, I DO NOT want Sweden to turn into some mini-USA where signs like "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" seem reasonable.

**Husar** · 01-07-2014, 10:10

IMO you should be able to defend yourself with what you have but if you can avoid killing the perp and do it anyway, then it's not okay. Before he is incapacitated or runs away, anything goes. Shooting someone in the back because he is carrying your TV is not okay. If the TV breaks from the shot or when he falls, you get the double sentence. Not that you would need a gun for self defense.

Any conflict is always problematic though. And these stories about Europeans favouring the criminals in court make their rounds here as well, heard about a guy who fell onto a knife while breaking in through a window and the homeowner was charged for not storing the knife properly. Just hearsay though, could be entirely made up.

In another story, a Hell's Angels member shot and killed a policeman through his front door when he saw shades outside and thought another gang was coming to kill him, he was let go because he claimed self defense. In Germany!

And don't come with the old "but the cops are so dangerous!", that's only true for the US, as fair and balanced news report: http://rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/
(Another link: http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/0...le-2011/52162/ )

The only thing all the guns in the US seem to do is fill the air with even more lead, how that makes one more secure apart from a few single cases is anyone's guess.
So please excuse me while I enjoy my freedom in my superior country.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 01-07-2014, 13:47

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Castle law and stand your ground.

Property is an extension of the person, defending it is part of a person's right of self defense.

Maybe a courteous "Get away from my car or I'll shoot" first. I note that I believe that to be a courtesy, not a requirement.

And this is where you need a MIDDLE GROUND.

The force you are allowed to apply should be comparable to the force the perpetrator is applying.

So, if some guy is trying to strangle an old lady to death and you hit him, and he dies, then you shouldn't have to worry about more than a night in the cells while the cops get their facts straight.

I'm not in favour of Castle Laws when they allow you to shoot someone who steps on your roses.

Force should be a last resort - used in defense of life and limb. Generally speaking, you should not be allowed to use violence to protect your property. However, if you attempt to apprehend the culprit and he attacks you - well, see above.

**Fragony** · 01-07-2014, 13:58

What if your property can't be replaced? A car can be replaced. I got some rare paintings and african webpons/artifacts, some hundreds of years old, they are worth a lot but I don't care as they aren't for sale. Should I settle for what the insurance company is willing to give me if I catch someone trying to steal them from me? Money isn't everything.

**Sp4** · 01-14-2014, 20:40

Originally Posted by rvg

This is horrible! Don't people have a problem with a law like that?

Property can be insured against theft. In a way, there really is no reason to confront anyone. Call the police, let them deal with it, that's what they preach. Getting involved yourself just makes it all very confusing, apart from you putting yourself in danger.

:p