View Poll Results: Was the reaction justified?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Indeed, it was fully justified.

    48 97.96%
  • No, it wasn´t necessary and/or an overreation

    1 2.04%
  • Other/Different (please explain)

    0 0%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76

Thread: Woman Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home

  1. #51
    Lost in Melancholia
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thusnelda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Bavarian tribe
    Ancestry
    Bavarian
    Subrace
    Nordid-Borreby
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Occupation
    Breathing the forest
    Politics
    Regionalist-conservative
    Religion
    Ásatrú/Forn Siðr
    Posts
    4,380
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    37
    Thanked in
    26 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    Glad the local law there afford protection for such action, lethal force would be taken as "excessive self-defense" here and might indeed end up being charged as culpable homicide/manslaughter/"Totschlag".
    I´m not sure about it. German lawyers here say that her reaction would be perfectly fine in Germany as well, and that she would stay without persecution. Her action would be covered by the "Notwehr" laws. And likewise to the laws in the USA, the laws can be applied on mortal force to protect people and to protect things, like a car.

    http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/weltg...r-Polizei.html

    Notwehr, in Deutschland festgeschrieben in §32 StGB, ist „die Verteidigung, die erforderlich ist, um einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff von sich oder einem anderen abzuwehren“.

    Flucht sei nicht zumutbar, ein „Ausweichen“ aber geboten – bei Angriffen von Kindern oder psychisch Kranken wohl gemerkt.

    Wäre die gleiche Tat in Deutschland passiert, sagt Jan Manshardt, Rechtsanwalt für Strafrecht aus Berlin, hätte also eine Mutter in Sorge um sich und ihr Kind einen Einbrecher getötet, wäre die Frau auch hierzulande straffrei geblieben.
    ...
    „Es ist das Mittel zu wählen“, sagt Jan Manshardt, „das sicher geeignet ist“. Von dem der Bedrohte annehmen kann, dass es den Zweck erfüllt, auch wenn die Verteidigung für den Angreifer tödlich ausgeht.

    Einem Laien sei schließlich nicht zuzutrauen, einen gezielten Schuss abzugeben, um jemanden bewegungsunfähig zumachen.

    Und was, wenn es nicht um das Leben, sondern nur um Besitz geht? „Sie können auch auf jemanden schießen, der gerade ihr Auto klaut“, sagt Manshardt. Oder anzündet, wie der deutsche Brandstifter Harry B., der in Los Angeles 50 Autos abgefackelt hat und nun nach Auffassung der Staatsanwalt lebenslange Haft verdient.
    § 32
    Notwehr

    (1) Wer eine Tat begeht, die durch Notwehr geboten ist, handelt nicht rechtswidrig.

    (2) Notwehr ist die Verteidigung, die erforderlich ist, um einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden.

    § 33
    Überschreitung der Notwehr

    Überschreitet der Täter die Grenzen der Notwehr aus Verwirrung, Furcht oder Schrecken, so wird er nicht bestraft.

    § 34
    Rechtfertigender Notstand

    Wer in einer gegenwärtigen, nicht anders abwendbaren Gefahr für Leben, Leib, Freiheit, Ehre, Eigentum oder ein anderes Rechtsgut eine Tat begeht, um die Gefahr von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden, handelt nicht rechtswidrig, wenn bei Abwägung der widerstreitenden Interessen, namentlich der betroffenen Rechtsgüter und des Grades der ihnen drohenden Gefahren, das geschützte Interesse das beeinträchtigte wesentlich überwiegt. Dies gilt jedoch nur, soweit die Tat ein angemessenes Mittel ist, die Gefahr abzuwenden.

    "Judge of your natural character by what you do in your dreams" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 13th, 2012 @ 01:16 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England
    Subrace
    Possibly Borreby
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Widowed
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Nationalsocialist
    Religion
    Nationalsocialist
    Posts
    114
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    Insults won't be necessary, thanks.



    I would hardly call an order to freeze at gunpoint "gentle." Would you? If I aimed a loaded gun at your head at close range and warned that I would shoot you at the first sign of movement, would that be overly gentle of me?

    I hardly think your post was necessary. In my last post, which I suspect you did not read, I conceded that since the woman stated that she believed the intruder's weapon was a gun rather than a knife, she was justified in shooting him.
    I had indeed read your last post and I was not being insulting, I was stating the truth. If you believe that anything less than lethal force would have prevented these vermin from doing whatever it was they had planned to do, then you are very definitely living in a fantasy world.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 08:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Irish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Computer CAD/ Civil
    Politics
    Libertarian/Conservative
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thusnelda View Post
    I´m not sure about it. German lawyers here say that her reaction would be perfectly fine in Germany as well, and that she would stay without persecution. Her action would be covered by the "Notwehr" laws. And likewise to the laws in the USA, the laws can be applied on mortal force to protect people and to protect things, like a car.
    In the United States, it greatly depends on where you are located as to how far those rights extend.

    In the State of Texas, you can in fact shoot and kill a intruder even if that intruder is breaking into you car out side of your house, but the stipulation is that it be at night. Recently there have been several cases of this being tested by local Law, and even though the Cops, do not like the law, they are not able to stop it because an attempt to do so would lead to an end of their carriers.

    As far as the Laws in Germany goes, if you are not allowed to own and posses a fire arm then they have by removed any ability for the home owner to kill the perp, without physically engaging him.

    I also want to point out that the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is one that has to be vigorously defended by the population or else that will be the first right removed by the State, because of obvious associations with assassination of corrupt officials.

    If you want to find out how far the US Federal Government will go to derail constitutional gun rights then check out the Operation Fast and Furious which is an ongoing episode where the ATF allowed hundreds of AK-47 assault rifles be sold directly to drug dealers in the hops of creating up such a mess that they could use it to ban all legal weapons by de facto.

    Whistleblower ATF Agent John Dodson Exposes Deadly "Operation Gunrunner"

  4. #54
    Senior Member twiggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:24 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Germanic/Anglo
    Ancestry
    Wales England Germany
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Georgia Georgia
    Location
    Helen
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Chainmaille jewelry
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    31
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I am very proud of that woman, she did what she had to do to protect what's hers. More people should have the same mindset that she does and do what is necessary to stay alive instead of just bowing down and hoping that the local police can bring justice. If I were in the same situation I would have done the same thing.

  5. #55
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 @ 09:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    It's justified imo but legal... Well, that depends upon the legal jurisdiction. Iirc, I think that in NY State you're permitted to kill an intruder only after that the intruder has been verbally warned or somesuch. It falls under the interpretations of the Castle Doctrine I do believe; hopefully this young lady won't be slapped after the fact with a wrongful death lawsuit by the idiot prowler's next-of-kin.

  6. #56
    Senior Administrator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Aeternitas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,564
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    44
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    393
    Thanked in
    133 Posts
    IMO yes, in this case it was justified. In most US states, you will not be criminally charged with assault or murder if you shoot an intruder or burglar who breaks into your property ("Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground"). Typically, state laws can allow for the use of deadly physical force and it's legally presumed to be justified if an intruder is in the process of unlawfully/forcefully entering a residence. Some states even allow the use of deadly force if there is an unlawful or forceful entry into a business, or occupied vehicle.

    I believe US laws to be quite reasonable when it comes to such matters. In Europe, on the other hand, gun laws are much more repressive and people typically have to rely on the assistance of the police which, in this particular case might have arrived far too late. Anyway, also from an ethical point of view, I don't think self-defense against an intruder who breaks into your home and potentially threatens your life is an unjustified reaction, and this particular case ticks most if not all of the boxes; since a woman with her baby was involved, she more than likely had a reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend herself, but she'd have more than likely been physically disadvantaged had she chosen to defend herself by using brute force instead of a gun, not to mention her baby would have remained exposed had she for example engaged in a fist fight. So in this case it was a particularly efficient decision that more than likely saved the life of her baby and that's where anything else such as trying to freeze them at gunpoint could have been too much of a risk.

    Sure, that may be the more "rational" and sensible thing to do but being threatened in one's own home and especially having one's loved ones threatened leaves little time and room for rationalizing and making plans. Your priority is to protect your life and the life of your family members/residents, and not that of the intruder/burglar. While you give out a verbal warning, the intruder might for example panic, draw his gun and shoot at you first. One should also consider the fact that the home owner could be physically and numerically disadvantaged. They have no idea who else might be in the house and where, whether or not they are armed (which is quite likely considering they are engaging in an illegal activity in the first place).

    Anyways, when it comes to such situations, there is only one victim, and that sure as hell ain't those who try to break into someone's property.

  7. #57
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 @ 09:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    The trouble is killing someone in self-defense is a slippery slope. I'm a paralegal student so I'm familiar with some of the problems that can come up as a result of a seemingly justifiable killing. Say, warning a guy that you're armed, will shoot, and do shoot and kill the burglar is alot different than, say, warning the guy, who takes the warning and withdraws, and you still shoot and kill anyways. You might consider it to be justified if you shoot the guy as he's running away, thinking he might come back later with a weapon of his own or somesuch, but the law will most likely disagree with you and slap you with a charge of first-degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, etc.

    Of course being aware of the way a particualr jurisdiction handles matters of self-defense is pretty much outside of the scope of the typical citizen, which is why I think self-defense cases ought to be given the benefit of the doubt if no extenuating circumstances are forthcoming (i.e. the guy was clearly shot from behind, multiple times, etc.). In the particular example of the young lady shooting the burglar consider:

    * The man was a burglar.
    * Burglary is a felony crime.
    * The burglar may've been a habitual, perhaps violent, criminal.
    * The burglar may've been armed.
    * If the burglar had had a weapon on his person or, better yet, in his hand when he was shot then it's a slam dunk case of justifiable self-defense.
    * The mother was fearful for her own safety and the safety of her child.

    Etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

  8. #58
    Senior Member Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 19th, 2019 @ 04:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    The trouble is killing someone in self-defense is a slippery slope. I'm a paralegal student so I'm familiar with some of the problems that can come up as a result of a seemingly justifiable killing. Say, warning a guy that you're armed, will shoot, and do shoot and kill the burglar is alot different than, say, warning the guy, who takes the warning and withdraws, and you still shoot and kill anyways. You might consider it to be justified if you shoot the guy as he's running away, thinking he might come back later with a weapon of his own or somesuch, but the law will most likely disagree with you and slap you with a charge of first-degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, etc.

    Of course being aware of the way a particualr jurisdiction handles matters of self-defense is pretty much outside of the scope of the typical citizen, which is why I think self-defense cases ought to be given the benefit of the doubt if no extenuating circumstances are forthcoming (i.e. the guy was clearly shot from behind, multiple times, etc.). In the particular example of the young lady shooting the burglar consider:

    * The man was a burglar.
    * Burglary is a felony crime.
    * The burglar may've been a habitual, perhaps violent, criminal.
    * The burglar may've been armed.
    * If the burglar had had a weapon on his person or, better yet, in his hand when he was shot then it's a slam dunk case of justifiable self-defense.
    * The mother was fearful for her own safety and the safety of her child.

    Etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
    Which is why it is probably advisable to shoot at first contact, while the criminal act is still in progress, so as to "lock-in" the act of self-defence in a compressed space of time and place to prevent ambiguities in your actions that can be attacked later by a prosecutor. You can always claim that you called out a warning.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 08:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Irish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Computer CAD/ Civil
    Politics
    Libertarian/Conservative
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    The trouble is killing someone in self-defense is a slippery slope. I'm a paralegal student so I'm familiar with some of the problems that can come up as a result of a seemingly justifiable killing. Say, warning a guy that you're armed, will shoot, and do shoot and kill the burglar is alot different than, say, warning the guy, who takes the warning and withdraws, and you still shoot and kill anyways. You might consider it to be justified if you shoot the guy as he's running away, thinking he might come back later with a weapon of his own or somesuch, but the law will most likely disagree with you and slap you with a charge of first-degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, etc.
    Yes we all realize the US Court System is BS in the most elaborate form. Especially those of us that have served on Juries.

    But lets pretend for a moment that we have beamed into the real world, where reason and common sense reign supreme.

    This should not be difficult, Cross the Property line after dark and Die.

    Here is some things I don't care about as a juror.

    1) He was just looking around after dark and is really innocent.
    (too bad now you are dead, for being too stupid)

    2) He changed his mind, and was now not going to commit the Robbery.
    (he should have changed his mind before he was inside the boundary of someone else's; property now he is dead.)

    3) He was a mental retard, and did it by accident.
    (good deal, one fewer retard in the world)

    4) was unarmed and just wanted to take some stuff that was not his.
    (As the old saying goes, Don't bring a Knife to a Gun fight")

    * >>5) Any BS miscellaneous that might come out of the mouth of Dr. Liberal Bolshevik Goldberg, Civil Rights Lawyer.

    The bottom line here for me is, I am willing to lose the lives of less than completely evil burglars and crooks than to have citizens, die.

    Also I certainly DO NOT want to give the Government any more validation to create a further police state that might result to whole communities being placed under the incompetence of "Police Protection" without the ability to act themselves.

  10. #60
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by "EQ Fighter
    this should not be difficult, Cross the Property line after dark and Die.
    So a sweet little pigtailed nine year old girl finds a lost trembling & malnourished kitty. She painstakingly coaxes it out of the tree. After incurring all manner of scratchy damages to her person, from both tree and kitten alike, she finally manages to wrestle the collar's tag into view for long enough to see that the weary cat belongs to the man just across the street. She placates the kitten, thinking, in her typically selfless manner, how horrible it must be to have been lost and alone so young. Remembering what Mummy, Daddy and the teachers are always telling her about 'doing the right thing', she resolves to put her good heart and moral upbringing into practice, so, even though it's growing late, she skips across the street, the purring kitty under her arm, as she merrily hums to the thought of bringing together a gentle young little animal with its no doubt distraught owner. She unlatches the gate of her neighbour's home as the crimson sun sets behind her. Her sweet face begins to light up as she notices a light on in the house. Someone must be home. Maybe they -- BAM! She gets shot in the face.

    Here is some things I don't care about as a juror.

    1) He was just looking around after dark and is really innocent.
    (too bad now you are dead, for being too stupid)
    So your next door neighbour's daughter goes missing late one afternoon. The day is growing dark and he begins to get worried. Where could she be? He searches the house, he searches the garden, he phones the parents of every friend he knows about. Where oh where is she? This isn't like her at all! Suddenly he hears a sharp screech outside. That sounded like a child! And it sounded as though it came from next door! He races outside into the icy night. He can't be sure -- it's very dark and everything's quiet now -- but he swears he can make out a figure lying still on the grass of his neighbour's garden. Is it Jenny? Maybe she's hurt! Sometimes the neighbour's son visits with his vicious rottweilers. Or maybe a pervert attacked her and left her for dead! Blood begins to rush to his face. His cheeks and head throb with every beat of his heart. The man gulps and braces himself as he decides to take a closer look. He nears the garden. The silhoutte begins to take shape. Yes, oh God, oh no, oh man, oh no, oh man, it looks like it might be -- BAM! He gets shot in the face.

    3) He was a mental retard, and did it by accident.
    (good deal, one fewer retard in the world)
    So there's this young Down's Syndrome kid, only 14, fresh home from the Special Olympics, where he'd won a silver medal for his country. He's so proud of himself. All his life he's been looked down on, made to feel like a useless burden, a snivelling ant of a human being, a slimy little maggot on the ruptured spleen of a dead octopus. But not today! This is his special day! He wants to tell everyone who matters to him -- in person! A phone call just won't do it. He wants to see their reactions, because this is the one and only time in his life people will care about anything he does. His parents feel this way too, and think it'd be nice for him to go and see his aunt and uncle, so they set off. irritatingly, the parent's car breaks down not two blocks from his aunt and uncle's house. Dammit! He's just so excited! His aunt and uncle don't even know the news and he's just bursting to surprise them! So he belts off into the night. His parents call him back, but he doesn't care. Now this is the street, but which house is it? It's dark and they all look the same. This one, he thinks it's this one. He charges through the front gate in excitement. "They'll be so proud of me!" he screams to himself. "This is the happiest moment of my life!" he declares. "Oh, but wait a minute", he exclaims. "Did they get a new car?" I don't think this is..." -- BAM! He gets shot in the face.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Woman Wakes Up to Find Intruder in Her Bed
    By Ediruc in forum The United States
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 10th, 2010, 01:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •