321–330 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was once beaten senseless by a group of 3 young men when I decided to take an early-morning walk to get some smokes from the store down the way, in a sleepy small city in Ohio. There was nothing that I was doing that was wrong in any way. I was quietly minding my own business when they came up from behind me with other ideas and one of them hit me in the side of my face, from behind, with an intensity that I'd neve…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread is the living, breathing American dream.
Your daily reminder that many people don't see lethal self defense as an unfortunate last resort. They active want to be put in a situation where it is justified so they get to enjoy killing another human, as seen on TV.
But we're not the only ones: all other animals do the same. Only now, that we've turned into Democrats, is there hope for our kind, now that we know every life is precious and irreplaceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Anfertig…
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.
> Bereits der Diebstahl mittelwertiger Gegenstände darf nach herrschender Meinung jedoch auch mit einer tödlichen Abwehrhandlung vereitelt werden, sollten mildere Mittel (wie Warnschüsse oder Schüsse auf die Beine) nicht zum Erfolg geführt haben bzw. nicht zur Verfügung stehen.[73][55][56]
> However, according to prevailing opinion, even the theft of items of moderate value may be thwarted by lethal self-defense if less severe measures (such as warning shots or shots aimed at the legs) have failed or are not available.[73][55][56]
More specifically, a teacher slapping a child to defend against six year old children: https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2016/09/08/richter-billigen-... https://famos.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
He was also hit by the six year olds, but the court explicitly mentions the attack on his honor as well as foundation for their judgement.
Slapping the child was deemed to be the mildest mean for defence and therefore lawful.
Just to iterate on the first point, even theft of values starting as low as 100 Euro could justify lethal force. Knowing that honor is a protected right, it should not be surprising that hitting somebody can be justified when one get heavily and continuously insulted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language is solely defined by what people think it means. The terms are in fact fully interchangeable. If you'd like it packaged in something that looks authoritative, you might consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster: burgle: to commit robbery rob: to take away as loot : steal thieve: steal, rob
So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?
But the law is using the language incorrectly in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion. This is a problem. The law should be using the language correctly, which it isn't doing now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?
Laypeople aren't casual with language. You're not going to hear anyone referring to a theft as a bubble bath. They know what the words mean. But the law is using the language incorrectly in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion. This is a problem. The law should be using the language correctly, which it isn't doing now.
The law does not require nor permit you to bring your own dictionary for crimes; they give you the definition for free and require to use theirs. As an example, burglary is defined in
Texas Penal Code § 30.02 - Burglary: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm
They further go on to define "building" and "habitation" in Penal Code § 30.01.
If you find a dictionary definition that conflicts with the Texas Penal Code's definition of burglary or of a building, guess which one prevails in a criminal proceeding in Texas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.
Yes, I think so. I doubt a court would interpret that as being reasonable use of force though. In English common-law it's not just the wording of the laws that matter, one must also look at how the courts have interpreted and applied them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Texas I'm surprised it's not legal to shoot a catalytic converter thief if caught in the act. That's what they used to do for cattle rustlers.
My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.
I have weeds in my yard that are more useful than most of the fancy primates that occupy Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Support for the general argument: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwehr_(Deutschland) > Bereits der Diebstahl mittelwertiger Gegenstände darf nach herrschender Meinung jedoch auch mit einer tödlichen Abwehrhandlung vereitelt werden, sollten mildere Mittel (wie Warnschüsse oder Schüsse auf die Beine) nicht zum Erfolg geführt haben bzw. nicht zur Verfügung stehen.[73][55][56] > However, according to prevailing opinion,…
Your claims were that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws." and that "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.".
Both are false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not cliché; Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone.
bryanlarsen says "Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone." Not true.