Man on trial for shooting car thief

Dan D · 04-16-14, 04:47 PM

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.

04-16-14, 04:47 PM	#11
Dan D Grey Wolf Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: 9th Flotilla Posts: 839 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________