When "Anti Bullying Laws" Go Too Far...

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No cases are dealt with on their merits, self defence is something that is weighed.

I guess that's true. But it scares me even more. Laws should be specific about self defence. It should all come down on proving I was attacked first and then automaticly dropping charges and even getting legal imunity from being sued for personal injury. I knock out someone before someone tries to knock me out and it's all down to the whim of a judge/jury, how they themselves see the case. God forbids I defend myself against a minority, the legal system will eat me alive.

Thats a very short sentance for murder, isn't it 15-30?

Nobody gets more then 10 for single homicide. Only two got 30 years as I recall, both were multiple killers. We have a very leniant penal system. But a very unforgiving public Once in jail and you're branded.

for a kick or a punch? I doubt even the court or police will make a serious proesecution out of that...comon not even Slovenia is that backwards.
If it's true...well make sure you floor the bastard with one good kick or punch and just walk away.

They won't actually. The police will do their duty, detain both parties, file the papers, some time in the cooler and then off you go. If there was no property damage or inocent bystander injury you won't even be fined. It's the law-suits that follow. You'll get persecuted even if you were the attacked. I know I know, it happens everywhere, there's no doubt, but the legal system is seriusly screwed up if the attacker sues their victim and wins.

I miss the old Yugoslav system. If you got into a fight and the police came, they thrashed both parties and the case was settled.

[Castout]

Wow sorry to hear that Anthony.

Sucks but some people are just broken I guess.

Are you alright?

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by Castout

Wow sorry to hear that Anthony.

Sucks but some people are just broken I guess.

Are you alright?

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?

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.

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.

[Betonov]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Betonov]

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

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Betonov

I miss the old Yugoslav system. If you got into a fight and the police came, they thrashed both parties and the case was settled.

Aye,

when both parties are fighting both parties are to blame

HunterICX

I guess that's true. But it scares me even more. Laws should be specific about self defence. It should all come down on proving I was attacked first and then automaticly dropping charges and even getting legal imunity from being sued for personal injury. I knock out someone before someone tries to knock me out and it's all down to the whim of a judge/jury, how they themselves see the case. God forbids I defend myself against a minority, the legal system will eat me alive.

Betanov, it probably would have helped in the claim of self defence (which of course does exist despite what you said) if the person he killed had died differently.
The lawyers and their experts in several fields tried to paint a picture of how the death didn't really occur how it occured, but despite that and all the appeals the specifics were clear and it couldn't be ruled as justifiable homicide.
As for the whims of judge and jury in matters of self defence, always go for the jury option if available as they will likely have a more reasonable view of what is reasonable.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Betonov, it probably would have helped in the claim of self defence (which of course does exist despite what you said) if the person he killed had died differently.

The killed one (I refuse to call him a victim, he was known around here and not for his charity) did draw a knife when Roman snatched his gun, but it's not known if he then charged him or backed off. The media are everything but informative on this.

Roman should have let himself be stabed first and even then he would do time, if not for shooting his attacker than for robbery for stealing someones gun.

Plus, he's safe while in prison. I doubt he'll live long when he gets out

[Betonov]

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.

Plus, he's safe while in prison. I doubt he'll live long when he gets out

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.

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

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

[Betonov]

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.

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.

I chose this case because it's the only one I can prove it happened

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.

He even confesed because he knew he'll be safer inside than out.

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.

[Betonov]

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.

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.

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