I guess it all comes down to your lawyer. If he can make you the victim before the court

Betanov, the whole self defence angle hinged on one issue, it is a common issue which comes up again and again across many jurisdictions.
It came up in the local one I mentioned and it comes up in your local one, It is over the point in which the self defence justification is no longer in play.
In your case it came from the fact that he was shot in the back while leaving so no longer could be considered a threat in that instance, in mine it was where the person was incapacitated and was no longer a threat at that time.

That is where things differ, in the Irish case the person was deemed to be unsafe in prison because thats where lots of the scum who he had killed relatives were.

A lot of it comes down to who the other party is, which is why a jury is always best. If you can paint the other party as despicable scum (or even better get themselves to do it) then you can walk free even if you are guilty as hell:03:

He was no longer a threat because he was leaving, yes. At least that's what the witneses say. Even if, he was not running home to hide under his bed. There's no doubt that he would return with another gun and ''reinforcements'' one other day. Shooting him even while fleeing saved Romans life. The cops would file papers on the incident, gun would have been confiscated, no body would go in jail and when the dust settled Roman would be found dead somewhere. Self defence in a long run, crazy idea but true in this case. He was still a threat to him even while running away. Not counting his ''brothers'' will one day finish the job. While being a ''murderer'' Roman was placed in police protection and a safe jail cell. He even confesed because he knew he'll be safer inside than out.
Plus, as a bar owner he's been extorted daily by those thugs and he must have simly snapped.

Legaly he's a killer. He's doing time for it. I chose this case because it's the only one I can prove it happened, not just blab about some XY that went to jail because he killed a KM that tried to kill him first.

So you chose this case to prove that you cannot use self defence in Slovenia as it is against the law to defend yourself...yet the case is he was found to have not been acting in self defence when he shot someone in the back and so was convicted of an unjustifiable homicide.

Confessed????? he went for not guilty and fought the case all the way till the verdict and then launched numerous appeals after conviction and got a reduction in the jail term.

I do like your notion of self defence in the long run, pre emptive execution as someone may in the future pose a threat. I am sure Hollywood can make a film about instant "justice" for potential future crimes.

He waited for the cops, turned himself in and told the he shot someone.
He told it as it happened, therefore he confesed. But he also tried to prove he was an extortion victim and got attacked first, not for the reduced sentence but to clear the rest of the scum of the street, which failed because of the roting system and then the media picked it up as an atempt to get himself aquited.

The fact still is the criminal law here doesn't recognize self defence. You'r only hope is judge/jury for letting you go for murder with intent but you still go in for involuntary murder.

That's why I said it's a crazy idea. Prone to abuse

If he confessed then he would have been pleading guilty or would have retracted his confession.

If it doesn't recognise self defence then why were the lawyers playing the self defence angle through the courts in the trial and appeals and why was the reason it failed due to the ballistics testimony that the fatal wound could only have been inflicted with a shot in the back?

That is also a common problem with self defence laws as they stand.
Do you recall that crazy coot in the States who decided defence of property meant he could shoot some kid in the street because someone had walked on his lawn?

They weren't. They tried to get him of murder with intent, but he would still be faced with charges of involuntary killing. It's just that reporters here watch Boston Legal and think that's how our legal system works. The only way you walk off of the jury finds you not guilty on all charges, there's no legal get out of jail because you defended yourself card. You don't go if you prove you were trying to save yourself.

I heard of many. And for even more trivial things. Some crazy old bugger in our village stabed the pizza delivery man about 10 years ago because he thought he's here to rob him (pizza was ordered by his grandson who lived in teh same house). He survived, some stiches to his hand. The old man was taken to an institution and found in sane mind, just paranoid.

Not in the slightest, all that would matter if that was the case is making an arguement that he shot him but didn't intend to kill him.
But the actual arguement was if he was shot in the back while leaving or not, nothing more was really attempted...well apart from the mental one which involved proving that he thought he was acting in self defence....which fell apart because a reasonable arguement would be that if someone is running away they are not at that moment threatening so you are not shooting in self defence.
Sorry Betanov but you chose an example to prove your case about self defence where the lawyers chose a defence of their client that shows you were incorrect, since then you have been backpedalling like mad while still trying to claim it still stands correct.

I second this. You guys can keep arguing. I've been in your situation once before, but I fought out of it and there weren't any laws against defending oneself.
How are you doing Anthony?

Probably most people have been in situations where they have been in a fight.
The whole point is that there are not the laws he set out, in the US the right to self defence has been done and dusted all through the supreme court so it is of no matter what town city county or state you live in.
The only details differing on what you are or not allowed to do are in regards to levels of force, particularly deadly force, and the run away bits which some states don't have when it comes to deadly force.
The only other issues with the OP would be the actual details of the incident and of course his unfortunate habit of simply making things up.

Ok, let's close this one, I was just trying to say that there are no laws which give you a free pass when you injure/kill someone in self defence. You might prove yourself not guilty on charges but the legal system is so messed up you'd probibly end up in jail for intent of mass murder because your fought back agains multiple attackers.
And even if you managed somehow to survive the persecution, you'd still be sued by the attacker for personal injury, because there are no laws which state that you injured someone in self defence and you are imune to a lawsuit.
I was just agreeing with Anthony here, if he fought back he'd probibly get sued. Plus multiple attackers also means multiple (false) witneses how Anthony started the fight. But then again, if he can afford a mustang, he can afford a good lawyer, sue them all.

Like all laws, terms and conditions apply, self defence is always a tricky one, but that isn't the same as saying there is no allowance for self defence.

No, that also would be judged on its merits like any potential lawsuit is.
If you go back tothat example I used, the son who was accompaanying his father on the burglary spree tried to sue, it was judged on its merits and thrown out(he was also jailed for being a criminal scumbag). The wife who tried to sue on her own behalf and on the behalf of her 12 children for the murder of her husband tried to sue, she was laughed out of court

It often happens that multiple witnesses can be far more of a hindrance than an asset, though it would be interesting in the OPs incident to get some of the views of the people he was with who attacked him for no reason as (even without his record of making things up) something just doesn't ring true there.

Let him post, it's a free forum, even if he makes things up or doesn't show us the whole picture of the incident. He's not posting hate speech, he's not ranting about Obama, he's not calling us idiots, if there's no harm done it's OK to BS a little.

And to finish it off, a famous quote atributed to Otto von Bismarck:

Laws are like sausages, if you don't see them made you sleep better at night

"Boobs are like Christmas presents: you love them until you open one and see what is inside."
-A doctor.

:k_rofl::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

What would Dowly say on that :hmmm: