you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 1 month ago (49 children)

Self-defense should be proportionate. To put four bullets in a seemingly unarmed man (if he had a weapon Anon would have said it) is anything but proportionate. Murdering a criminal is still a murder.

  • source
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 month ago (31 children)

    Leftie here: You literally don't know if someone has a weapon until you do. Fuck gun culture, fuck "muh rights" gun-nut assholes, but so long as Anon told the guy "I have a gun, leave" and the guy didn't, that's it for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If someone breaks into my home, I'm going to assume they mean harm to me or my family, and I'm going to assume they are armed.

    If you are breaking into a home, in Florida no less, you should assume the homeowner has a gun.

    Telling someone "I have a gun" is a good way to get shot, IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -17 points 1 month ago* (26 children)

    I understand it's a complicated matter, without any easy answer or clearly good reaction. But I don't think a TV is worth a man's life, even a criminal's life. Let him take the TV and put your life and your loved ones in security. That's what assurances are for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    I'd agree, if you or I knew he was there for the TV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 1 month ago (16 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You're right, it's not a movie, so stop assuming you can see what happened, or that the perp was a logical actor. This is one big reason gun nuts won't fucking listen to people like you: you assume perfect rationality on behalf of the perpetrator in any refutation you can cook up. You assume that because the guy is there for a TV that that's all he would do; that he is a rational actor with needs and goals that he will achieve and leave. You do the exact same thing right wingers do: You put your ideals into your assumptions without actually trying to understand the parties involved. It just so happens that right wingers are obsessed with sexual violence for some reason.

    99% of the time this is what happens: The perpetrator breaks in to steal something of value. They're already dealing with panic, anxiety, fear, already rooted in the material conditions that push them to resort to robbery for survival. They realize someone else is in the home. Those same material conditions force a choice on an already compromised actor: fight or flight. There is no "Well, I'm caught, time to apologize and walk away." There is "I NEED THIS. I'M HERE BECAUSE I NEED THIS. I NEED THIS AND THIS PERSON IS IN THE WAY OF THAT." This isn't a value judgement: Anyone who has anxiety and has had a breakdown because of it knows this feeling.

    But that feeling on an already compromised person results in 2 outcomes, always: Fight or flight. No robber in the history of humanity has decided anything other than "I need to run away" or "I need to retaliate." Now, knowing that, switch to the victim. You know the robber is going to either fight or flee. But you, too, are a compromised actor. You, too, have a fight or flight response. And the bitch is, you won't have the wherewithal to put together the flight response unless you've already done drills. Even then, that's assuming it's just you; If you decide to flee, are you going to have time to gather other people in the home to make that same choice? Are they going to make that same choice? Are they even going to execute that same choice competently? No. Both parties in this scenario, whether by US culture, poverty, desperation, or panic, are predisposed to choosing fight. How that plays out is down to just the tools available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I explicitly said “put your life and your loved ones in security”, I never said “discuss ethics with the guy who broke your door”…

    If you have the money and the time to buy a firearm and train to learn how to actually use it, you have time and money to prepare yourself and your family without being lethal. American culture is fucked up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    OK, I'll bite. I am in an apartment. I have a gun. I live on the 4th floor. There is exactly 1 door in and out. My apartment is in thirds: The front door leads directly into a living area that stretches all the way back to the only door to the porch. I am in the master bedroom with a window out to the porch. My kid has their room on the other side of the living space, with a window to just outside. So, big shot, what would you want us to do? My son puts out the trash at night and forgets to lock the door, we go to sleep, and then someone comes in. Do I jump out my window onto the balcony, then jump from the 4th floor? Does my son just jump from the 4th floor? Or let's wipe the kid from it entirely; let's say I forget to lock my door. Shit happens. So, again, do I jump from the 4th floor, breaking at least my legs, or can you admit that the money and the time means absolutely nothing? Because the training was accrued since I was a child, and the gun itself was a Christmas present when I moved out here all alone from my paranoid but loving boomer parents. You just don't like guns, and for as much as you're willing to bitch about american culture being fucked up, you'd rather blame somebody for the death rather than the very american culture you claim to oppose. It is fucked up out here. That's not anons fault, nor is the death of the perp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You go in a closed room, like your bathroom. Or you install locks in all bedrooms. And you call the cops without making noises. And boom, you have no more TV but nobody's dead.

    Or even better: you sell the gun and use the money to buy a lock that prevents entry without the key, plus a system that automatically pushes the door shut. With the money left over, you buy an alarm. Your home is easy to secure. And everybody would be in a far more secure place than a open thing with a gun. Your gun is far more dangerous for your family than the burglars…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Locks on interior doors are for privacy NOT security. As so many Europeans have rightly pointed out US houses are made from cardboard and popsicle sticks. A locked bedroom door will hold for maybe 3 kicks. Which isn't even enough time to call the police let alone wait for them to arrive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago

    That's of the penetrator wants to kill you. If they just want to commit burglary, they won't shoot until they feel threatened. Someone who locks themselves isn't a threat. The idea is not to be protected by the door, but not to escalate the situation. That will put your family in security far more than playing a discount John McClane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I can think of three serial killers in my own city who broke into people's homes to rape and murder them in my lifetime. Here's my take: if someone breaks into my house to steal my TV, they value that TV over their own life. I have a perfectly good car to steal from in the driveway if they want a low risk option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    And how much people died because they had firearms at home in your city during your lifetime? Buying a weapon to protect your family is like bathing them in Roundup to protect them from dengue fever. Dengue is a real danger, but less so than a Roundup bath...

    It’s not as if the alternative were "a gun or no protection." If you’re afraid of dengue fever, you buy a mosquito net: it’s just as effective, if not more so, and less dangerous. If you’re afraid of serial killers, you install proper locks and an alarm system. You don't expose your family to a real danger to protect them from a possible one; that's absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You don't break into homes at night to rob them. Robbers break in during the day. Rapists and murderers break in at night.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    False. While it is true that the majority of burglaries occur in the afternoon, one in four takes place between 2 and 4 a.m. It may be a minority, but one-quarter is not insignificant.

    (These numbers are for France, but it should be equivalent in the US)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I would question the veracity of that statistic. I would agree that a quarter of recorded robberies might occur at night, but it would seem many or most of those cases are people either:

    1. Going into homes at night that they know to be empty.
    2. Breaking into homes for purposes of rape/murder, but committing robbery while they're there.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    They do think that the homes are empty for a part; others think they're stealthy.

    As for the rest, no. People breaking into homes to kill or rape strangers are far rarer than you seem to think. In France, and again I have no reason to believe the situation is very different in the United States, more than 80% of rape victims knew their attacker. These are not typically people who break into homes at night. Of the remaining 20%, only a fraction involve home invasions.

    At worst, that amounts to a few thousand cases per year in the United States, and probably fewer than the number of firearm-related intrafamilial homicides (which also number a few thousand, but are at least slightly more common than rapes committed during home invasions) and vastly fewer than firearm suicides.

    Owning a firearm does not statistically make you safer, on the contrary. If you have enough money to buy a weapon, buy a security system and an alarm instead. They will be far more effective and much less risky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Sorry. But if someone is breaking into my home at night, I have no means to judge their intent. As far as I'm concerned, you forfeit your right to life when you choose to break into someone else's home. You're right on the relative riskiness of gun ownership, but that's irrelevant to this conversation. We're talking about incidents of shootings of home invaders, not whether it's a good idea to own a firearm in general.

    I'm sorry, but I have no problem with home intruders being shot dead. If you have so little concern for the safety and well-being of others that you would put their lives at risk in such a brazen way, you deserve whatever consequences you receive. It's instant karma.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You don't know their intent and few people will gamble with the lives of their family

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    If you have a gun at home, you already gamble with the lives of your family. Household firearms are involved in tens of thousands of deaths annually, while deaths caused by burglars is a small fraction of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I have my gun securely put away, I treat it with the seriousness it demands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I'm sure you do. It's a personal choice, but for me benefits do not outweigh the risks. One time's enough…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'd be more against it (and I used to be) if my country weren't teetering on the edge of civil war and I'm in a red county.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Right? which is it?

    Lemmy EU: Americans are weak. Be more like the French and rise up - of course ignoring the fact that if we did any of that, we would be domed by a cop without a blink.

    Lemmy US: I'm a leftist and I would love a world where the firearm was never invented and everyone had everything they needed, but I guess I'll have one to protect my family today, and join the civil war tomorrow. I know that's likely a requirement to actually effect change Lemmy EU and US wants.

    Lemmy EU: gross, no

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Self-defense should be proportionate

    No. Thats the must stupid idea ever. That makes the victim hesitate, put responsibility on them. It makes sense only in the context "he offended me, so shooting him is illegal", not in the context of "hi burglar sir, could I frisk you to decide how should I defend against you. I hope you are not sick or anything. Chuckles, I'm in danger".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (15 children)

    That's the law in almost all civilised countries, and even theoretically in America, and for a good reason. Americans have hard-ons about being heroes but it's the real life here, with real stakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

    That’s the law in almost all civilised countries,

    No it is not.

    For example, in Germany, the rule is necessary defense. Was the level of defense necessary to defend yourself. If you sleep with a gun under the pillow, the "mildest necessary defense" is shooting the home invader. If you had to go to your neighbour to borrow said gun, come back and then shoot them, that would be breaking the law.

    See https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-defense-in-germany/?lang=en

    (Sorry its some random lawyer practice, but it in English and I don't want to scour the internet on Friday)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    In Germany it's literally illegal to sleep with a gun under your pillow as you are violating gun storage laws. This already makes your claim to self defense very murky. Because why are you breaking the law in the first place?

    It could be argued you intended in advance to shoot whoever entered your home which would then constitute murder.

    § 34 StGB Justifiable Emergency.

    Anyone who, in the face of an imminent and unavoidable danger to life, physical integrity, liberty, honor, property, or another legally protected interest, commits an act to avert the danger from themselves or another person does not act unlawfully if, upon weighing the conflicting interests—namely, the legally protected interests involved and the degree of danger threatening them—the protected interest substantially outweighs the interest that is impaired. This applies, however, only to the extent that the act is a reasonable means of averting the danger.

    The right to personal property never substantially outweighs the interest of another person to stay alive. You must be (about to be) attacked to be able to resort to a gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I was afraid, confused and frightened, as any reasonable person in the situation when my home was broken into when I was asleep.

    33 StGB

    Whoever exceeds the limits of self-defence due to confusion, fear or fright incurs no penalty.

    The other legalese is literally making sure noone tries to use it as an excuse to "pre-emptively" maliciously defend themselves by shooting, idk, e.g. all the gingers, or shoots a child for stealing an apple from your orchard.

    Heck, even shooting your stalker could be considered justified self defense under German law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Proof in what exact way you were afraid, confused or frightened. Did you fear bodily harm? What made you think that? Did the intruder move to attack you? Did they notice you?

    The law is written such that you need to prove innocence, that is, the existence of these effects. If you cannot prove you felt this way you are guilty.

    as any reasonable person in this situation would

    That is not sufficient. It is always scary to be put into a situation where the need to self defence arises. You must prove your terror was exceptional.

    According to law student material of a university:

    The asthenic affect [confusion, fear fright] must be of such severity that the perpetrator is able to process the events only to a significantly reduced extent.

    https://www.uni-potsdam.de/de/rechtskunde-online/rechtsgebiete/strafrecht/entschuldigungsgruende/notwehrexzess-33-stgb

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    No, per your own link: “The act of self-defense must also be reasonable”, that is, proportionate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (7 children)

    Literally the whole article explain it does not. With examples.

    Yet you see "reasonable" and think it must mean "proportionate". You USian by any chance? Or French?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Restriction of the Right of Self-Defense in Germany

    The right of self-defense can be severely restricted in certain situations. Case law has defined several groups of cases in which the right of self-defense is restricted:

    […]

    Excess in self-defense: One speaks of an excess of self-defense when the limits of self-defense are exceeded:

    • “Intensive Excess of Self-Defense”: In the case of an intensive excess of self-defense, a disproportionately strong means of defense is used, although milder means would have sufficed.

    Your link again. Do you read what you send?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    a disproportionately strong means of defense

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    You're making their point for them. No one is popping a boner because someone broke into their house and might injure or kill them. They will likely be traumatized either way, so for all the human life is sacred persona you are running in this thread, you actually don't seem to care about the victim here at all.

    You are right in the second half though. There are real stakes. It could be the victim's life just as easily, and that's the whole point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    They will likely be traumatized either way

    It's perfectly true. I see people excited by the idea of shooting a burglar. But if they have to do that, they'll understand that the reality is not what they imagined. It's traumatic to be burgled, but even more to be burgled and killing someone, at least for decent people. And I think most people in this thread are decent, their imagination is just corrupted by a fucked up culture. I'm just trying here to state facts to counter this culture.

    I don't see any other reason for people to prefer a firearm, which is dangerous for the owner and the owner's family and if used “successfull”y will leave everyone ever more traumatized over actual security systems and deescalation technics.

  • source
  • parent