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.
Because you don’t kill someone to save a TV. It’s basic human decency.
You don’t burglar homes, it’s basic human decency.
So you agree now that according to German law self defense should be proportionate.
Like talking to a wall or chat gpt.
You do not need to balance the value of the attacker’s health against your property or minor rights or health or life. Because the attacker chose to break the law, the defender’s priority is to uphold the safety/order/legal order. (That’s the difference between proportionality vs necessity)
Only gross imbalance is forbidden (child apple orchard example).
Because the attacker chose to break the law, the defender’s priority is to uphold the safety/order/legal order. (That’s the difference between proportionality vs necessity)
In your dream maybe, not in the law. Use ChatBots yourself, I heard they’re yes-men. But if you repeat the same flawed arguments, don’t expect a different answer from an actual human.
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 don’t burglar homes, it’s basic human decency.
Like talking to a wall or chat gpt.
You do not need to balance the value of the attacker’s health against your property or minor rights or health or life. Because the attacker chose to break the law, the defender’s priority is to uphold the safety/order/legal order. (That’s the difference between proportionality vs necessity)
Only gross imbalance is forbidden (child apple orchard example).
Go talk to a chatbot, I am done.
In your dream maybe, not in the law. Use ChatBots yourself, I heard they’re yes-men. But if you repeat the same flawed arguments, don’t expect a different answer from an actual human.