So how about them Washington Redskins? They gonna suck next year? :D

And again you're making a logic leap that is not implied by my previous posts.

You're also confirming that you're okay with the child's defence of " he made me do it".

Perhaps it's the culture of I have rights but not wanting the responsibility that comes with those rights that is driving the problems Neal mentioned.

Again this is extremist and again it's bollocks with no relevance to the discussion.

Perhaps. But approval expressed on a public forum on the internet is hardly tacit.
Good to see we agree on some things.

No - it isn't, on 2 counts. One - stealing a berry is not a felony. Stealing a car is. The reason for this is simple - a car can often be a necessity to survival here in the US. Without it, some people can not access the necessities of survival - for example: food or employment. The car is the modern day horse, and for folks outside the US - it is hard to understand why horse-thieving was a capital offense in many states in the 1800's.

Here is the problem. You have the benefit of hindsight. Self defence is based not just on hindsight, but the fear created at what the victim THINKS and FEELS at the moment. If someone turns toward you and you think they have a gun and are about to shoot you, do you shoot first or wait? If you shoot first - as Mr. Gerlach did - and you later learn that they did not in fact have a weapon - then what? If you wait to find out - and they fire first - you may not have a chance to ever defend yourself. Self defense is thus predicated on what a reasonable person would feel given the circumstances. In this case, when Gerlach yelled "stop! stop!", the car thief put their arm back with something in their hand - appearing to point a gun (he could have even just been making a "gun hand" to intimidate - we will never know). At that moment, thinking the criminal had pulled a gun, Mr. Gerlach reasonably reacted to save his own life from a perceived threat. While you may not agree, 12 jurors unanimously did given the evidence.

Well, lets see....
It was dark and I woke up with you in my room. I could not see who it was, but I saw you had something about 3 feet in length and round. I thought it was a baseball bat. You lifted it high and were about to hit me with it, so I shot you in defense of my life. After all, getting my head bashed in by a stranger in the dark with a baseball bat is likely going to be fatal.

After you fall, I turn on the light and see that it is you, my friend and neighbor, still holding a piece of foam pipe insulation. You were at a wild party, let yourself in with the key I had given you when you watched my house during my last vacation and you intended to only wake me with the insulation in a big joke or gag.... But now your dead on my floor.

Am I guilty of murder? Or was it self defense? Hindsight is 20/20, but to the person facing what they THINK is a likelihood of death if they don't act - they are faced with the choice of act or die..... Which would you choose in that instant?

No. If you consider a rightful use of self-defense, there, on that level, you never balance the affected legal interests, which would be here: „ life“ on the car-thieves' side and „car property“ on the other. That does not matter in a legal sense. It is your good right to defend your property as well as the legal order in general in such a situation, even with lethal force. That is a general priciple of law, already found out by the Romans („stand your ground“).

Famous case in Germany: „cherry tree“ case, Reichsgericht 1920:
a handicapped guy in a wheel-chair is protecting his garden with his K 98 rifle against starlings, the birds, your know.
Two children climb the cherry tree and start picking and eating the cherries. Guy tells them to stop, they make jokes of him, guy fires a warning shot, still no reaction. Guy shoots at target and hits one kid.

Decision by the court in 1920: rightful use of self-defense beacuse a balancing of the legal interests does not matter here.

Such a result is extremely hard to bare as being a rightful decision, come on, we have underage kids here who steal fruits. Does the legal order really ask for a stand your ground approach here?

Law development therefore: there is a very rare exemption that you go back looking at the legal interests affected. That is when it is a Bagatelle which you respond to with lethal force, But again, you can't expect a person in a self-defense situation to think long whether it is a better idea to shoot at the tyres instead of the thief.

So, under German law, it would be rightful self-defense, too, if an attempted car theft leads to a dead car thief because the car-owner was better armed.

And, George Zimmerman would have been justified here in Germany for his actions as well.

That there is more dead people in the US in such situations because people are armed, that is something else. Europe is not "more advanced" here.

Ok, I'm in a more sober state of mind now, so I can express my opinion in a calmer manner, without overreacting to people's opinions :)

I think we can all agree that Mr. Gherlach was defending his property, and should be congratulated for doing so.

But could he have really thought that his life was in danger? The Police found no gun on the thief, and the windows were dirty, so that seems unlikely, but not impossible.

Personally, I find it excessive that a simple car thief be killed. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not by a whole lot, (EDIT: To be honest, I'm more on the fence about it) seeing as the only people it really applies to are murderers and rapists. A car thief deserves a good beating and a ticket to the local jail (EDIT: Or prison, whichever one can hold prisoners more years) at the most. But, in the circumstances, Mr. Gherlach acted as he saw fit (and proved to be a hell of a shot). It's unfortunate that the thief ended up dead, but he shouldn't have turned to a life of crime in the first place.

BTW Neal, sorry for sort of exploding at you earlier. Puberty does weird things with your head, especially when you're thinking about deep stuff like this. :)

No - Tarjak would call that encouraging such killings.

If anything, the dirty windows adds plausibility to the idea that Mr. Gerlach thought he saw a gun. His view was obscured, and he had to react to what he thought.

Would you feel the same way if he had been found with a gun?
Does his then "well founded" suspected intention of murder make it "more ok" to have been killed? What if he had been a simple car thief driving toward Mr. Gerlach instead of away?

Would you be opposed to it if you were one of the victims? Or had the opportunity to put a stop to it during one of these acts? If you walked around a corner alley to see someone being raped or murdered, how would you react? What if it were you being murdered and you had to "impose the death penalty" to save your own life?

So a trip to the local jail? Usually jails only hold people for a max of 30 days. So the most a car thief should get is 30 days and a beating? What if it is - as in the case of Mr. Kaluza-Graham, not the first time?

As he saw "fit"? Or as he felt necessary due to a perceived threat?

Amen!

True, true.

Well, if he'd had a gun, he probably wouldn't have even ended up in court, as it would be concrete evidence that his life was in danger. The same thing goes if it had looked as though the thief was going to hit him with the car.

Well, I'm not really opposed to the death penalty, I'm more on the fence about it. I personally consider life in prison to be a more fitting punishment, as death is too quick for rapists and murderers. But on the other hand, if they manage to escape incarceration, they could well claim more victims.

But if you're being raped or your life is in danger, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself. If I saw someone being raped or murdered, I'd want to tackle the assailant and beat the crap out if them, as I don't carry weapons.


Wait, only 30 days? Then where the hell do people go when they get sentenced to life imprisonment? Are jail and prison to different things? If that's the case, then I meant prison.

Aren't 'fit' and 'necessary' the same thing?

Nice to see we agree on something.

Its not hard to understand , other countries hung people for stealing horses in the 1800s, they also hung people for stealing rabbits, stealing firewood, chopping down trees, stealing bread, pickpocketing and damaging roads.
They have moved beyond that sillyness now.

But if you want to go all 1800s on it, stealing cotton was a capital offence in South Carolina wasn't it, but only if the thief was black.:yep:

No we can't all agree with this. :nope:

Unless we all want to remain rooted in the 1800's.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that the thief died, I'm saying that it's a good thing that Mr. Gherlach defended his property. It would've been better if he hadn't killed the thief, though. Personally, I would've aimed for the tires.

But you and Steve are right, not everyone has to agree.

Not all of us. I try to look at it from the court punishment point of view. Would the court hand out a death sentence for property theft? Then neither would I. You say pretty much the same in the rest of your post, so basically we are in agreement. I'm just saying that I'm not congratulating the guy or declaring him a hero for shooting a thief in the back as the thief was fleeing the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, the jury came to the verdict they did for a reason. I can't disagree with it for the reason that I didn't hear all the evidence and they almost certainly have information that I don't.

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

Ok, then I'll answer that with my opinion. It's just my opinion, mind you.

No. Killing people for stealing from you is an unnecessary waste of life, even if they're a criminal. Killing should only be done when your or another's life is in danger (That said, if Mr. Gherlach did indeed believe his life was in danger, then he is justified in his actions. Wether or not he actually did think he was in danger, or made that up to support his case in court, is another question.)

I can understand why people disagree with me, though. I think that every life is precious, they think that a criminal's life is worthless. Perhaps I'm just too naive, or they're too cynical, or maybe a bit of both. Whatever, I'll still respect them after this argument.

The law in many geographical areas - including this one - says yes. In some areas, it is no. The difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" laws are a perfect example.

If the theft already has taken place - then no, it should be a police matter. If the theft is taking place, then it can be. In the case that started this discussion, the theft had not "taken place" because criminal action is not complete until the criminal "gets away" from the scene of the crime. Because the criminal was still "at the scene" - he was still in the act of theft and had not completed his criminal actions.

Now that is all the legal wrangling behind it. But it is really a moral or ethical question as well as a legal one. So to answer I will ask (then answer) the questions behind this one...

Should I respect the rights of another who willfully and with malice aforethought chooses to violate my rights? Am I morally or ethically bound to offer them a level of rights they deny me when they are violating my own in an intentional, criminal manner?

No, I do not believe that I am morally or ethically bound to do so. I believe that when a person chooses to willfully violate the rights of another person, they are abrogating their own rights.

Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.

So if you can accept that a criminal - by their own choice AND action - sets aside their rights in the violation of the rights of another, then you must ask the next set of questions....

Why should a person who is victimized by a crime be LESS authorized to act to protect his/her self or property during the commission of a crime than the judicial system is "after" a crime has been committed and the criminal caught? After all - many jurisdictions have the "three strikes and your out" law - which can result in permanent incarceration (a sentence many would consider worse than simple execution).

Why should the person who is being victimized have less authority than a governmental entity (police) responding to the call?

Because police respond AFTER a crime has started (generally speaking), they can not protect a victim undergoing a violent or serious crime at the time. Thus, does not the victim have the right to protect themselves (whether their person or their property)? If not, why are door locks legal, as they serve to bar entry and protect the homeowner and property?

Points to ponder....

Trust me I've not lost sight of it. ;)

I don't dispute the legal decision and as long as there are no questions around the investigation and prosecution of the case am satisfied that the right result was achieved.

I'm more interested in exploring the moral question particularly around the choice of pulling out a weapon and using it to end someone's life.

Certainly to me, celebration, congratulation, thanking, encouragement are all inappropriate responses to the verdict.

On Neal's comment that the shooter should not have been prosecuted in the first place; if it had been my child shot dead by someone, with no other witnesses around, I'd want to make sure that the police and prosecution did their job, to make sure that the death of my child was properly investigated and prosecuted. Anything less and anyone could claim anything to avoid prosecution in a similar situation where there was no evidence of theft.


That said, if I knew my child was stealing cars, they would be getting a visit from the law.

I'd also like to add, and this isn't me arguing with anyone, that another reasons that I, personally, would not shoot a thief who wasn't threatening my life, would be that the thief could well be a good person who's been forced in to crime by poverty. After all, surely a Father would choose his family's wellbeing over regard for the law if he and his family were broke, and they couldn't get a job. That's one of the terrible things about poverty :nope: But judging from CaptainHaplo's comments about the car thief being a 'repeat offender', that doesn't seem to be the case here :nope::down: arguably that's a good thing.

I don't know why I'm saying this, BTW. It doesn't have a lot to do with the topic.

Now, if you want rights, there I this thing called a right to due process, there is also this right to not have cruel or unusual punishments , it is rather unusual to be punished by summary execution for theft when theft is not a capital crime anymore.:hmmm:

Once again into extremist bollocks, if your argument cannot stand without taking it to ridiculous extremes then you have a very poor argument.

But if you want to take it to extremes on defending property, how about that crazy old coot who shot a kid because he had an issue over some kids walking on his lawn?
He thought he was morally right because he believed he had a right to defend his property.

Not guilty

http://www.krem.com/news/Gerlach-att...255416571.html

And the taxpayers get to pay for his defense.:O:

I think Mr. Gerlach's quote is spot on:

A bit sad that some people here don't regard Kaluza-Graham as a Human, when THE GUY HE WAS STEALING FROM clearly considers him one :hmmm: I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinions, I'm just pointing out that the guy you're defending disagrees with you.

I also feel sorry for Brendon Kaluza-Graham's family.

(I'm not sure why a changed person would steal someone else's car, but whatever...)

Think about it. What do we know about Kaluza-Graham, part from him being a thief? I'm not saying he's innocent or anything, but he was still a Human being. It's a shame he turned to a life of crime. It doesn't seem he was in poverty or anything, so I don't know why he did it :nope:

I think shooting a car thief in the back while he's trying to get away would be regarded as excessive force in a German court. I believe it would be called "Extensiver Notwehrexzess".
Have a look at this link (German only) and the example on the bottom of the page.
http://www.juraforum.de/lexikon/notwehrexzess

It stands in stark contrast to your 1920 case.