That’s the law in almost all civilised countries, and even theoretically in America, and for a good reason. Americans have hard-ons about being heroes but it’s the real life here, with real stakes.
For example, in Germany, the rule is necessary defense. Was the level of defense necessary to defend yourself. If you sleep with a gun under the pillow, the “mildest necessary defense” is shooting the home invader. If you had to go to your neighbour to borrow said gun, come back and then shoot them, that would be breaking the law.
In Germany it’s literally illegal to sleep with a gun under your pillow as you are violating gun storage laws. This already makes your claim to self defense very murky. Because why are you breaking the law in the first place?
It could be argued you intended in advance to shoot whoever entered your home which would then constitute murder.
§ 34 StGB Justifiable Emergency.
Anyone who, in the face of an imminent and unavoidable danger to life, physical integrity, liberty, honor, property, or another legally protected interest, commits an act to avert the danger from themselves or another person does not act unlawfully if, upon weighing the conflicting interests—namely, the legally protected interests involved and the degree of danger threatening them—the protected interest substantially outweighs the interest that is impaired. This applies, however, only to the extent that the act is a reasonable means of averting the danger.
The right to personal property never substantially outweighs the interest of another person to stay alive. You must be (about to be) attacked to be able to resort to a gun.
I was afraid, confused and frightened, as any reasonable person in the situation when my home was broken into when I was asleep.
33 StGB
Whoever exceeds the limits of self-defence due to confusion, fear or fright incurs no penalty.
The other legalese is literally making sure noone tries to use it as an excuse to “pre-emptively” maliciously defend themselves by shooting, idk, e.g. all the gingers, or shoots a child for stealing an apple from your orchard.
Heck, even shooting your stalker could be considered justified self defense under German law.
Proof in what exact way you were afraid, confused or frightened. Did you fear bodily harm? What made you think that? Did the intruder move to attack you? Did they notice you?
The law is written such that you need to prove innocence, that is, the existence of these effects. If you cannot prove you felt this way you are guilty.
as any reasonable person in this situation would
That is not sufficient. It is always scary to be put into a situation where the need to self defence arises. You must prove your terror was exceptional.
According to law student material of a university:
The asthenic affect [confusion, fear fright] must be of such severity that the perpetrator is able to process the events only to a significantly reduced extent.
Restriction of the Right of Self-Defense in Germany
The right of self-defense can be severely restricted in certain situations. Case law has defined several groups of cases in which the right of self-defense is restricted:
[…]
Excess in self-defense: One speaks of an excess of self-defense when the limits of self-defense are exceeded:
“Intensive Excess of Self-Defense”: In the case of an intensive excess of self-defense, a disproportionately strong means of defense is used, although milder means would have sufficed.
And the first link explain that shooting a child for stealing an apple from on orchard would not be self-defense.
So you agree now that according to German law self defense should be proportionate. That’s the sentence you tried to refute in your message.
shooting a home invader mid burglary should be illegal
Because you don’t kill someone to save a TV. It’s basic human decency.
is illegal under German self defense laws
That’s not something I ever said. I don’t know. I presume it depends on the details, sometimes it’s legal, sometimes it’s not. I know it’s the case in France.
You’re making their point for them. No one is popping a boner because someone broke into their house and might injure or kill them. They will likely be traumatized either way, so for all the human life is sacred persona you are running in this thread, you actually don’t seem to care about the victim here at all.
You are right in the second half though. There are real stakes. It could be the victim’s life just as easily, and that’s the whole point.
It’s perfectly true. I see people excited by the idea of shooting a burglar. But if they have to do that, they’ll understand that the reality is not what they imagined. It’s traumatic to be burgled, but even more to be burgled and killing someone, at least for decent people. And I think most people in this thread are decent, their imagination is just corrupted by a fucked up culture. I’m just trying here to state facts to counter this culture.
I don’t see any other reason for people to prefer a firearm, which is dangerous for the owner and the owner’s family and if used “successfull”y will leave everyone ever more traumatized over actual security systems and deescalation technics.
That’s the law in almost all civilised countries, and even theoretically in America, and for a good reason. Americans have hard-ons about being heroes but it’s the real life here, with real stakes.
No it is not.
For example, in Germany, the rule is necessary defense. Was the level of defense necessary to defend yourself. If you sleep with a gun under the pillow, the “mildest necessary defense” is shooting the home invader. If you had to go to your neighbour to borrow said gun, come back and then shoot them, that would be breaking the law.
See https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-defense-in-germany/?lang=en
(Sorry its some random lawyer practice, but it in English and I don’t want to scour the internet on Friday)
In Germany it’s literally illegal to sleep with a gun under your pillow as you are violating gun storage laws. This already makes your claim to self defense very murky. Because why are you breaking the law in the first place?
It could be argued you intended in advance to shoot whoever entered your home which would then constitute murder.
The right to personal property never substantially outweighs the interest of another person to stay alive. You must be (about to be) attacked to be able to resort to a gun.
I was afraid, confused and frightened, as any reasonable person in the situation when my home was broken into when I was asleep.
33 StGB
The other legalese is literally making sure noone tries to use it as an excuse to “pre-emptively” maliciously defend themselves by shooting, idk, e.g. all the gingers, or shoots a child for stealing an apple from your orchard.
Heck, even shooting your stalker could be considered justified self defense under German law.
Proof in what exact way you were afraid, confused or frightened. Did you fear bodily harm? What made you think that? Did the intruder move to attack you? Did they notice you?
The law is written such that you need to prove innocence, that is, the existence of these effects. If you cannot prove you felt this way you are guilty.
That is not sufficient. It is always scary to be put into a situation where the need to self defence arises. You must prove your terror was exceptional.
According to law student material of a university:
https://www.uni-potsdam.de/de/rechtskunde-online/rechtsgebiete/strafrecht/entschuldigungsgruende/notwehrexzess-33-stgb
No, per your own link: “The act of self-defense must also be reasonable”, that is, proportionate.
Literally the whole article explain it does not. With examples.
Yet you see “reasonable” and think it must mean “proportionate”. You USian by any chance? Or French?
Your link again. Do you read what you send?
I believe I explained that in the first example. If you go to your neighbour to grab the gun and return that is excessive.
It’s not a question of availability, but explicitly a question of strength.
And the first link explain that shooting a child for stealing an apple from on orchard would not be self-defense.
I still fail to see why are you arguing that shooting a home invader mid burglary should be illegal, or is illegal under German self defense laws.
So you agree now that according to German law self defense should be proportionate. That’s the sentence you tried to refute in your message.
Because you don’t kill someone to save a TV. It’s basic human decency.
That’s not something I ever said. I don’t know. I presume it depends on the details, sometimes it’s legal, sometimes it’s not. I know it’s the case in France.
You’re making their point for them. No one is popping a boner because someone broke into their house and might injure or kill them. They will likely be traumatized either way, so for all the human life is sacred persona you are running in this thread, you actually don’t seem to care about the victim here at all.
You are right in the second half though. There are real stakes. It could be the victim’s life just as easily, and that’s the whole point.
It’s perfectly true. I see people excited by the idea of shooting a burglar. But if they have to do that, they’ll understand that the reality is not what they imagined. It’s traumatic to be burgled, but even more to be burgled and killing someone, at least for decent people. And I think most people in this thread are decent, their imagination is just corrupted by a fucked up culture. I’m just trying here to state facts to counter this culture.
I don’t see any other reason for people to prefer a firearm, which is dangerous for the owner and the owner’s family and if used “successfull”y will leave everyone ever more traumatized over actual security systems and deescalation technics.