EPT
On January 05 2012 10:13 Spekulatius wrote:
Not to argue with you, just to clarify this from the point of view of the law because you raise a valid, reasonable point.
It doesn't need to be the same for all countries around the world but most follow the same reasoning: Killing in self-defence - i.e. defending all the goods you have: property, liberty, life, your family, etc - is ultima ratio but it's covered if the circumstances are there.
Generally, one is to consider if a less agressive/defensive measure can be applied: a warning (shot) or a non-lethal reaction can have the same protective outcome. But in a situation like this, judges usually factor in that you might have no time to act less harshly (if the risk of endangering yourself or the baby in that case is too big) or simply that you're too scared to think clearly. In that case, what prevails is the interest of the one who's innocent and not at fault over the one who's deliberately endangering you. There's a threshold of leniency for the defenders as well as an influence of common sense. And the doubt (how the circumstances really were) benefits the person who defends herself.
Not to argue with you, just to clarify this from the point of view of the law because you raise a valid, reasonable point.
It doesn't need to be the same for all countries around the world but most follow the same reasoning: Killing in self-defence - i.e. defending all the goods you have: property, liberty, life, your family, etc - is ultima ratio but it's covered if the circumstances are there.
Generally, one is to consider if a less agressive/defensive measure can be applied: a warning (shot) or a non-lethal reaction can have the same protective outcome. But in a situation like this, judges usually factor in that you might have no time to act less harshly (if the risk of endangering yourself or the baby in that case is too big) or simply that you're too scared to think clearly. In that case, what prevails is the interest of the one who's innocent and not at fault over the one who's deliberately endangering you. There's a threshold of leniency for the defenders as well as an influence of common sense. And the doubt (how the circumstances really were) benefits the person who defends herself.
The aspect of a warning is the only thing in this situation which has any validity imo. The duo was trying to break in for a good 20 minutes and she was on the phone with a dispatcher the whole time. I would think that she would have an opportunity to warn them she has a gun, but at the same time that only increases the odds that they will immediately shoot you if they also have one. In the end, I don't think there is any reason someone should be prohibited from shooting an armed person intruding into their home.
