In Sittingbourne (Niedersachsen) has a gang of five Albanians, including at least one of known offenders, a 77-year-old handicapped man attacked on his property. When the perpetrator had robbed the man who found a safe and alarm triggered accidentally, it was a mess, during which the old man an offender shot and killed with his legal weapon. Already stirs protest. Can I threaten to shoot heavy criminals life and limb?
We do this question at this point does not legally recognize . Right to speak in Germany still courts, not newspapers, not politicians. A court will determine if the old man could invoke his right to self-defense. He had his gun legally as a hunter.
We want to answer the question with the famous common sense. To make it short: We believe - and without knowing the details - the man had reason to defend with the weapon.
The man was old and walked with crutches . He found himself against five offenders.
First, he must have been the perpetrators grown physically in any case, if he had fought in other ways. Second, he had expected, even if he had not fought to be forced by the use of violence to reveal the data of debit card, cash and jewelry hiding in the house. Even if he would have given anything, it could well be that the perpetrators so that not fewer than five would have been satisfied. An old man can more easily be physical violence to nursing care, as a younger man.
Not only is there enough Examples of how criminals torture their victims in their own house in order to make more loot, but just been too close to this crime scene was another elderly man was killed during a robbery.
There were five offenders. The victim identified a sixteen-year-old Albanian who was as well known offenders. You have to be not influenced by prejudice, get out of this Constellation - we call it this way - to derive more problematic relationship to violence. This may be the case with a high degree of uncertainty for the perpetrators and a group dynamic process marked situation (eg prey appears too low for the risk, fear of discovery, controversial ranking in the gang) exponentially.
First, the old man why any "negotiated settlement" as an excluded and only flight (impossible, since old and unable to walk) or resistance success appeared to be promising.
Second, the old man has been in an extreme situation (five masked men threaten him), in which he is hardly an accurate analysis of his situation and a peaceful prognosis on his survival and his physical integrity can be expected.
The question of whether the criminal was killed about 16 or 18, not only because of immaterial because he was masked. It is therefore also negligible because criminals of this caliber and deal in such a "career" as brutal as adults and are no less dangerous.
invite in and discussing the first time?
The police and the prosecution can not be everywhere. That is clear. But increasingly many are urging citizens to avoid the impression that they are hardly in a position to crimes, including violent crime, to dominate. The other point to cited crime report calls dramatically high crime figures (and treated naturally only the statistically recorded light field), so that may stagnate or decline, a minimum not be interpreted to some extent as a success. This is not the fault of the police, who are increasingly thinned, due to cost in the area in decline and in some, nearly go areas can hardly dare without seeing it afterwards exposed to considerable political pressure. Instead, police should at the football game to the alternative festival 1st District May, both of which regularly degenerate into some serious violence, a grueling, poorly paid and often despised service provided, the less and less Opportunities to combat crime effectively.
principle has won every citizen's right to physical integrity, to protect his life and his property. Examples such as the brutal murder of Dominik Brunner, who won a beautiful medal, because he "did everything right" and "show courage" has - even though he was somewhat criticized because he has once learned boxing and taken appropriate defensive position - show yes, as a violent incident can also start (BTW: Brunner had called the police).
;
And if someone is so against an old, handicapped man five heavy criminals see that threaten him and potentially his life, he also has the moral right, on the other hand fight with all of him in this situation means available.
But what would have been if the victim would have been 35 years old, healthy and strong? How does an exemplary behavior from the perspective of victims of green or left-wing politician or star, or the time of the taz - those to each weapon, at least every legal weapon to keep a weapon for too much? And how would these people behave themselves as victims of violence? Ironically, a Critics of the sharpest weapons in the U.S., Senator RC Soles, with 74 years also has an older man, on 12 December also a shot criminals who threatened him at his home. Why he has not attacked and abuse have?
;
Is not it true that the legal, private gun ownership reduces crime and does not promote. There are indeed some findings:
"In sum, banning guns for the general public Increases people's vulnerability and fails to reduce violence because the law-abiding citizenry are victims of violent crime, not Perpetrators."
G. Mauser: Some International Evidence onGun Bans and Murder Rates. Fraser Forum. Oktober 2007. Volltext
"Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from using the most effective means for defending themselves and their families. The first myth is that if you are attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach. … By far the safest course of action for either a woman or a man confronted by a criminal is to brandish a gun. Women who behave passively are 2.5 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than women who resist a criminal confrontation with a gun. Men who behave passively are 1.4 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than men who resist a criminal confrontation with a gun."
J. R. Lott: More Guns, Less Crime. Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. In: American Experiment Quaterly. Summer 1999. Volltext
references
armed self-defense and the peace dividend
No right to self defense?
0 comments:
Post a Comment