On December 13 2012 23:57 Femari wrote: Any talk about hitting people until they die is truly irrelevant, and even so it would be hard to get someone on killing someone in self defense when your body naturally reacts this way.
It's not relevant to the situation at hand, but it's relevant to your point that you should make sure you're "safe". The moment he stopped hitting them, he was less safe than when he was still hitting them.
I don't see why urges and instincts are something that should be some sort of an ultimate excuse. Humans have the capacity to control their urges and basic instincts and are expected to do so - people do that all the time in everyday life, and MOST manage do it in a fight (and this was barely even a "fight") or other potentially dangerous or tense situations.
You're not somehow clear of all responsibility just because you're scared or angry. The law should be more favorable to you in these situations, sure, but not to the point where you can get away with anything (upwards to a straight up murder).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
My issue with that is that we cant see if they were attacking his legs or trying to get away from that video.
Also, what does he know that if he lets one of them get up and get away she wont be comming at him with a weapon of her own? Their intent to hurt him was pretty obvious, and I doubt he was thinking of more than his own safety with that much adrenaline pumping, Adrenaline makes you strong and stupid. I dont know.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Here...... take my likes!!!!
Maybe they would... cause of their wide eyed naivete..
Also, you can hear him telling them to "stay down" in the video, and if you look closely, see one of them very obviously refusing to stay down. If you're not going to do what the man with the pipe says, the man with the pipe is going to whack you.
It's too bad. People on TL are just as dumb as the general population now. I can't believe some of you are suggesting this guy should have served time. These girls assaulted him and then JUMPED THE FUCKING COUNTER to come after him when he retreated. He defended himself, and it doesn't matter if you think he threw in too many blows. You could clearly see that bitch getting up to come after him AGAIN after she took 2-3 blows. Stupid wastes of skin are lucky he didn't kill them with the first shot. And you expect him to not arm himself and just grapple with these bitches? They were obviously not right in the head. Why would he risk that?? What if they had knives or razors or some shit? What if they had guns? He disabled them and he did it using a weapon so that his ass didn't get fucked up or killed. That is exactly what self defense is.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: I can't speak for the US of course but on the basis of German law, there's no discussion to be had.
1. State of assault He was assaulted by another person. His life/health was in danger. Which gives him the right to
2. Use defensive measures against the attacker by trying to stop his attack effectively and for a foreseeable future. He is permitted to hit them until they stop being a threat. Which, in that case, is until they stay down or get firmly held by bystanders/the police. Hitting them with fists wouldn't have been equally effective. So he was allowed to use that kind of metal bar he was swinging.
There's no reason not to let him defend himself the way he did, seeing how the women tried to stand up with the intent of attacking him further.
That's what laws are for where I come from. Noone's fucking allowed to attack you for no valid reason. And if laws don't stop him/her from doing that, I will and I'm allowed to do so.
seems like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on ANY charge. No fine, no nothing.
There's more, less extreme examples. I can dig them up if you like me to.
one case, point proven. if you can't see the special case here i don't know. he's a GANG MEMBER. so maybe he expected other ARMED gang members to come after him. a very rare case in germany were a very low percentage of people are armed.
it's not a misconception that german courts value "self-defence" very strict and punish excessive violence very often.
On December 14 2012 00:39 rEalGuapo wrote: Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
yes, it is permitted. but german courts valuate "excessive" much more strict than other countrys. shooting someone in self-defence will get you to jail nearly every time (rare exceptions are cases like the above).
no, this is not correct. You might go to jail for illegal weapon posession, but not for the self defence. There is something called "Notwehrexzess". In the majority of the cases where the court assert that such a "Notwehrexzess" happened the offender is not being punished, he just gets told that his act of self defence was inappropiate (using over the top level of violence with weapons or without), but there is no punishment dished out (fines, jailtime, compensation of the victim etc.).
Some years ago there was another case of an old man who got held hostage by young robbers who wanted to know the combination for his safe (happened at his home). As far as I remember they were unarmed but physically much stronger. The old man got his hands on a weapon (he was a registered weapon owner) and shot one of the robbers in the back (dead) while they were seemingly on the run.
He got cleared off all charges because he could not be sure that they were unarmed and he could not be sure if they were to flee or just regroup infront of his house to come back and finish the job. Additionally the robbers showed a lot of criminal energy (holding someone hostage, beating him in order to get their hands on his money), the victim couldn't be sure whether they were done with him or not.
Cases like that are numerous and verdicts like that are the norm.
On December 13 2012 23:57 Femari wrote: Any talk about hitting people until they die is truly irrelevant, and even so it would be hard to get someone on killing someone in self defense when your body naturally reacts this way.
It's not relevant to the situation at hand, but it's relevant to your point that you should make sure you're "safe". The moment he stopped hitting them, he was less safe than when he was still hitting them.
I don't see why urges and instincts are something that should be some sort of an ultimate excuse. Humans have the capacity to control their urges and basic instincts and are expected to do so - people do that all the time in everyday life, and MOST manage do it in a fight (and this was barely even a "fight") or other potentially dangerous or tense situations.
You're not somehow clear of all responsibility just because you're scared or angry. The law should be more favorable to you in these situations, sure, but not to the point where you can get away with anything (upwards to a straight up murder).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
My issue with that is that we cant see if they were attacking his legs or trying to get away from that video.
Also, what does he know that if he lets one of them get up and get away she wont be comming at him with a weapon of her own? Their intent to hurt him was pretty obvious.
He doesn't need to let them get up, but full swings of a metal bar wasn't the only way to keep them down.
And while we can't KNOW from the video that they weren't "attacking his legs", I think that was extremely unlikely to have happened, as in that position, you're normally trying to run away from the huge metal bar about to crack your skull, not to kick his legs. -_-
As for the intent to hurt, from that video his intent to cause pain was much more apparent than the attackers'.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
On December 13 2012 23:57 Femari wrote: Any talk about hitting people until they die is truly irrelevant, and even so it would be hard to get someone on killing someone in self defense when your body naturally reacts this way.
It's not relevant to the situation at hand, but it's relevant to your point that you should make sure you're "safe". The moment he stopped hitting them, he was less safe than when he was still hitting them.
I don't see why urges and instincts are something that should be some sort of an ultimate excuse. Humans have the capacity to control their urges and basic instincts and are expected to do so - people do that all the time in everyday life, and MOST manage do it in a fight (and this was barely even a "fight") or other potentially dangerous or tense situations.
You're not somehow clear of all responsibility just because you're scared or angry. The law should be more favorable to you in these situations, sure, but not to the point where you can get away with anything (upwards to a straight up murder).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
My issue with that is that we cant see if they were attacking his legs or trying to get away from that video.
Also, what does he know that if he lets one of them get up and get away she wont be comming at him with a weapon of her own? Their intent to hurt him was pretty obvious.
He doesn't need to let them get up, but full swings of a metal bar wasn't the only way to keep them down.
And while we can't KNOW from the video that they weren't "attacking his legs", I think that was extremely unlikely to have happened (and they'd have to be literally insane to react to the situation that way).
I dont think it is unlikely, they were both drunk, and drunks do retarded shit all the time and you dont feel much pain. Besides, someone throwing a shit-fit, spitting and slapping a worker for checking the 50$ bill you handed them is pretty fucking insane as well.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote: just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
Well the dude was in jail for 10 years for manslaughter.
I think we now can see why lol. No one rational acts like that.
Girl slaps and spits on you----------> break her skull in and snap her arm with metal rod.
You have no idea how anyone rational would act in that situation. He felt trapped and helpless, getting attacked in an area that is supposed to be safe. They were wrong to attack him, he then retaliated which is perfectly understandable.. they deserved it.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
Oh of course this guy would easily retaliate against two attackers, because they are women, and not hurt hurt them in the process.
Will people stop saying he hit them with a metal bar? It was a fry cleaner, do you know how they look? Its basicly a car antenna with a bent hook for uncloging a deepfryer. They weigh like 200-500 gram
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: I can't speak for the US of course but on the basis of German law, there's no discussion to be had.
1. State of assault He was assaulted by another person. His life/health was in danger. Which gives him the right to
2. Use defensive measures against the attacker by trying to stop his attack effectively and for a foreseeable future. He is permitted to hit them until they stop being a threat. Which, in that case, is until they stay down or get firmly held by bystanders/the police. Hitting them with fists wouldn't have been equally effective. So he was allowed to use that kind of metal bar he was swinging.
There's no reason not to let him defend himself the way he did, seeing how the women tried to stand up with the intent of attacking him further.
That's what laws are for where I come from. Noone's fucking allowed to attack you for no valid reason. And if laws don't stop him/her from doing that, I will and I'm allowed to do so.
seems like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on ANY charge. No fine, no nothing.
There's more, less extreme examples. I can dig them up if you like me to.
one case, point proven. if you can't see the special case here i don't know. he's a GANG MEMBER. so maybe he expected other ARMED gang members to come after him. a very rare case in germany were a very low percentage of people are armed.
it's not a misconception that german courts value "self-defence" very strict and punish excessive violence very often.
edit:
On December 14 2012 00:39 rEalGuapo wrote: Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
yes, it is permitted. but german courts valuate "excessive" much more strict than other countrys. shooting someone in self-defence will get you to jail nearly every time (rare exceptions are cases like the above).
no, this is not correct. You might go to jail for illegal weapon posession, but not for the self defence. There is something called "Notwehrexzess". In the majority of the cases where the court assert that such a "Notwehrexzess" happened the offender is not being punished, he just gets told that his act of self defence was inappropiate (using over the top level of violence with weapons or without), but there is no punishment dished out (fines, jailtime, compensation of the victim etc.).
Some years ago there was another case of an old man who got held hostage by young robbers who wanted to know the combination for his safe (happened at his home). As far as I remember they were unarmed but physically much stronger. The old man got his hands on a weapon (he was a registered weapon owner) and shot on of the robbers in the back (dead) while they were seemingly on the run.
He got cleared off all charges because he could not be sure that they were unarmed and he could not be sure if they were to flee or just regroup infront of his house to come back and finish the job.
Cases like that are numerous and verdicts like that are the norm.
True.
For anyone else doubting this, reading this or this might clear things up (German only, sry).
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
He did no damage close to "almost killing one of them". While a hit in the head is really fucking dangerous, the fact of the matter is that he did not.
On December 14 2012 01:01 Solarist wrote: Will people stop saying he hit them with a metal bar? It was a fry cleaner, do you know how they look? Its basicly a car antenna with a bent hook for uncloging a deepfryer. They weigh like 200-500 gram
Eh, you could fuck someone up pretty bad with one of those things, not as bad with a metal rod sure, but still:
i would say that he was excessive in grabbing a weapon, except it was 2v1, while he most likely would have been able to fend one off without any weapons, anytime you fight in lesser numbers you need a significant advantage to win, he found one
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
And potentially trip or slip and fall into incredibly hot grease or injure a coworker? I'd take beating the shit out of my attacker(s) over potentially causing permanent damage to myself or an innocent person any day of the week
You do understand the environment he was in, don't you? You don't run in a kitchen.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.webstaurantstore.com/28-fryer-clean-out-rod/28-fryer-clean-out-rod.jpg)
