192
A Ukrainian man was robbed in his car by two armed men in Alanya, Turkey, but the man caught up and ran them over.
(streamable.com)
Mirror:
Source: https://youtu.be/VXQeaklpJf4
It's sad that defending yourself and your property from robbers is often vilified in the west. There is a 0% chance the police were going to find and return his property.
Most countries require an appropriate level of force for self defense. Killing someone for stealing your money, especially after the fact when they're already running, is usually not part of that. And neither is Turkey part of "The West". Erdogan made damn sure of that not going to happen any time soon.
Chasing someone who just robbed is an appropriate response. The article indicates the robbers then escalated the threat by firing a sidearm at the robbed. The robbed responded with an equal level of force.
He didn't just chase them, he rammed into them and into a wall or something, consequently killing them. And no, the article doesn't state that he was shot during the pursuit. It says that he was following the suspect who shot him.
The state has a monopoly on violence for a reason. Imho. this wasn't self defense, this was vigilantism and killing two people over money is a break with civilization.
You could argue that it was an excessive force during self defense. But vigilantism it was not.
You have to be entitled to think that 36000 euros is something you just shrug over.
In Germany this would definitely have been self-defence. Whether it was excessive self-defence would be up to the courts but 36k are a lot of money and the amount of force, well, it was the only suitable avenue he had available, doubly so because he got shot at (meaning that he can't be expected to catch up and bump them from the side or something). I would estimate that a German court would acquit him. Also for that whole reasoning to even start to apply he must not have been confused, scared, or startled that is there's huge allowances for affect.
But then, OTOH, Germany probably has the most hardcore self-defence laws in the world. You can literally deck someone in cold blood when being insulted (massively and incessantly) and walk free.
Which dollar amount precisely do you place on a human life? Or to put that differently, at which dollar amount is suspected theft punishable by death?
I'm not sure, but did he have any other reasonable way of recovering his €36,000 they stole from him while threatening his life? The police certainly weren't going to find it.
You may hypothesize all you like about whether or not the money would have been recovered, but the fact remains that two people were killed. The value of a human life is in my opinion more than €18,000 and I'm very sorry to hear that you disagree.
Then they shouldn't have put that price on their own life.
They didn't put a price on their own lives, because manslaughter is illegal in Turkey as it is in most places as a disproportionate use of force, nor is it a case of self-defense. There are punishments for theft, and I'm not personally interested in advocating for capital punishment or vigilantism.
Two people who would've never been killed, had they not decided to risk their lives and the life of their victim over €36,000.
They devalued their own lives when they made the decision to devalue the life of their victim. And in most cases, this situation plays out in their favor.
Honestly, I'm glad they got what was coming to them and I hope the victim here is found totally Innocent of any wrongdoing.
He did not punish them with death. He reclaimed his property using suitable, and in fact minimal, means at his disposal. That they died is regrettable but also occupational risk, they could have taken various measures to avert that -- like not robbing, not shooting, dropping the cash, etc.
The alternative is "duty to retreat" like laws which are a severe infringement on the right to avert crimes committed against you, brought to you by the "if raped, just lay down and let it happen" strain of thought. Stand your ground laws are the default in continental Europe.
You are conflating the right to self-defence with what we see in the video. It would be very unlikely that a court would deem this as self-defence.
What we are observing in the video is a disproportionate use of force with a deadly weapon. I see your strawman and raise you a slippery slope: if lethal use of force is acceptable by your measure, would you be happy to live in a society where shoplifters are shot dead in the street? I don't aspire to live in such a society.
Shop goods generally aren't personal property and no, corporations don't get that right not even in Germany. As per German doctrine, "the just do not have to yield to injustice", he is entitled to reclaim his property by available means. Again: If the robbers had wanted to lower the risk they're in they could've organised the whole thing differently, e.g. people generally don't die in foot chases.
Why should all the responsibility for the consequences fall, of all people, on the victim? Where, in your equation, is the responsibility of the attackers? Have another slippery slope: Criminals getting more and more over the top to make sure that any force against them will always be considered disproportionate: No more muggings with fists or at knifepoint, no it has to be guns and motorcycles.
By your very logic, criminals will use disproportionate force. The thief in this case would have been better off murdering the victim had he known lethal force is an acceptable response.
You are sketching a society where any injustice is countered with excessive counter force. If that's the society in which you wish to live, it's your prerogative, but it certainly isn't mine.
In this particular example, I will simply remind you that €36,000 can be replaced, but these individuals' lives cannot. No matter whether they are both culpable to the same extent, their particular circumstance, age, background—the outcome of this theft is the recovery of some money and two lives lost and likely many others disrupted.
I understand that thievery is a blemish, but death is not the better outcome. I'm very sorry to see the sentiment in this thread that it would be.
There's quite a higher punishment for murder than robbery, and that's by design. Speaking about German law: What they did was armed robbery, which has quite a higher punishment than ordinary robbery. The incentives to go easy on your victims is there, plenty.
Nah. In Germany there's been rules around excessive force since the 1920s or so, IIRC that was a case where a farmer shot kids who stole a couple of apples (no basket or such involved). The limit, very abstractly, is "where justice itself does not want to be defended by those means". Said farmer had, besides the value of the apples being a trifle, the option of walking up to the house of the kid's parents and have them give the kids a rather stern talking to, and probably be invited over for cake.
Are you going to replace that money? If you had been there, as a witness, would you have gone ahead and said "Don't worry Mister Ukrainian, I shall reimburse you for the actions of those scoundrels"? Yes or no? If not, who are you to judge him for going after his money?
Lastly: In Germany, if someone insults you massively and incessantly, you can deck them to make them stop. In the US, you can't. Guess where people are getting insulted like that more often. I'm choosing precisely this example because the offence isn't influenced by socio-economic necessities etc. which all to easily pull at heartstrings in these matters (and don't fly in front of a German court, anyway: The judge would tell you to collect your welfare payments).
I'm sorry, I've completely lost your train of thought. You began with legitimizing manslaughter as a reasonable action. If the thieves face death as a consequence of their crime, why would they care about the consequences of murder?
Certainly a German court would not rule in favor of chasing down the perpetrators after the fact and killing them with a deadly weapon? I cannot speak for Germany, but it's clear from the verdict in Turkey that this didn't fly, and similar cases in the Netherlands didn't side with use of deadly force, either.
Sure, I'll pay the money. Where do I transfer it to in order to bring these to individuals back to life and face a punishment proportional to the crime?
It wasn't that hard to follow the post or understand their logic, yet here you are, defying the odds.
They lost the right to their life when they pulled a firearm and fired at the victim, hitting him.
Would it be fair to say that you are a proponent of capital punishment for armed robbery?
Manslaughter requires intent to kill, or, in certain circumstances, negligence (e.g. a construction worker responsible for securing a worksite not securing a worksite). Are you implying that he intended to kill the robbers? That he would have run them over regardless of whether they had his money or not? That he chose this approach over other suitable means because it was maximally lethal? Can you think of a less dangerous way he could've gotten his money back? How likely was it even in the first place that the robbers would die, instead of spend a couple of weeks in the hospital? Is it reasonable to demand that the victim take into account that the aggressors might be maximally unlucky? What if he had chased on foot, punched them in the face, they fell to the ground, cracking their skulls? (Punches to the face indeed are very dangerous as unconscious people don't have brace reflexes).
It's not "after the fact": They still had the money hence the offence to his person was ongoing, it was also in direct connection to the start of the offence, that is, days didn't pass and he didn't have opportunity to contact police in the meantime. Had he continued the chase after they dropped the money (which they didn't) he would've been in the wrong, that indeed would be vigilantism.
From what I can tell he wasn't sentenced, at least not yet. He was arrested, and also in Germany the whole thing would definitely be brought before court.
You invent a time machine and travel back in time.
"Manslaughter is the act of killing another human being without malice. It is a general intent crime that is distinct from murder because it requires less culpability." (source)
If we're in the business of creating hypotheticals, would you still stand by your approval if an innocent bystander was killed in the reckless chase? What if the Ukrainian was killed in the exchange of gunfire instead?
Again, what is the value of a human life? Should he have risked his life for €36,000? How about €36?
I understand that you can relate to the victim of the robbery, because so can I. My only position is that we should at any cost avoid endangering one another (or worse) over material things.
The chase wasn't reckless but in any case that's generally negligent manslaughter.
Robbery resulting in death, ten years to life. Usually on the life end of the scale, there's also the possibility to convict them of straight murder but that needs more work establishing intent and whatnot.
(also murder isn't "malicious manslaughter" under German law but "manslaughter with base motive". The base motive, here, is greed).
That's not how this works, there's no ascribed value in German law because money and life aren't things that can be brought in relation to each other.
Yeah then maybe the robbers shouldn't do that don't you think?
I agree that we should leave these matters to systems of justice instead of taking them into our own hands.
I believe we are arguing the same thing from different angles. Let me be clear: I'm not arguing in favor of the actions of the Turkish men, but rather against the actions of the Ukrainian man. Both parties endangered themselves and others and the outcome is not something we should celebrate.
The article clearly indicates the robbers shot (and hit) the robbed during the short pursuit. The robbers escalated the threat to the level bodily harm, not the robbed. Self-defence is clearly a defense.
That's fair, it could be argued.
I think this is more complicated than just what the law needs to say. Or even whether human life has value. Personally I think it is good to prevent vigilante justice and that the death penalty is too extreme a punishment for crimes.
But from a more non-legal, purely visceral standpoint... I think that anyone, good or evil, for the wrong reasons or right, forfeits their right to safety when they willfully endanger others. The second that guy pointed a gun at someone he no longer had a right to life for at least the short term future, nor did the person aiding and abetting that action. They took on that risk willingly and knowingly and they suffered the worst possible outcome for their choice. But so did the guy that ran them over, by chasing them he also forfeited his life, and had be been shot, it wouldn't have been a tragedy either. You chose to chase someone with a gun, you accepted the risk to your life and proceeded anyway. So the real question is, is property really worth the risk to your life? Everyone in this situation is a moron, property is not worth it, imo.
It certainly is more complicated and I'm well aware that I'm armchair judging all of this. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Unpopular answer here, but: seems like the criminal decides that when they make the decision to risk their life to steal a given dollar amount.
Like...I get why we have a legal system and the channels to "resolve" this sort of thing, but for me personally, as someone who's not creating policy or managing the justice system?
Fuck em.
If they're stealing shit by force, and someone they've victimized ends up turning them into a grease spot, they shouldn't spend even a single day in jail or face any charge.
So does the victim by choosing to retaliate over that dollar amount. Had he been shot, he also placed that same value on his own life.
Three counter points:
First, the two robbers would have not been shot by the victim had they not threatened and stole from the victim in the first place, meaning their decision to visit violent crime on the victim is still the precipitating event.
Second, the victim here is responding after the criminals decided to both commit a crime as well as to escalate the stakes of that crime to life and death. The victim, given the choice only between being victimized and responding on the terms they set, chose the latter.
Third, your last sentence is a wildly warped view, only tenable by a completely disconnected third party spectator and ridiculously impractical in the situation. It takes a severely out of touch perspective to place the blame for "devaluation of life" on a robbery victim for nothing more than having the audacity to possess a valuable and be the victim of a crime. It's entirely possible for a victim in this case to be shot whether they resist or not, and implying that any of the blame for that is on them is as heartless as it is ridiculous.
The robbers created the situation. The robbers determined the life or death stakes. Anyone faulting the victim for anything in this situation is doing nothing but suggesting that anything beyond simply submitting to violent criminals is a bigger evil than actually being a violent criminal in the first place, which is certainly an opinion you're entitled to hold, but one that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of common sense, confidence, or justice.
I was merely pointing out the contradiction in what you said.
You were responding to a comment about the dollar value placed on life, I was pointing out that if the victim is prepared to protect that value then they are also placing that dollar value on their own life. The aggressors had already fled, I agree with you that I don't much care if the aggressors live or die.
I believe that anyone that shows others they are prepared to kill, are therefor prepared to die themselves. If you wield that type of power you are accepting that risk. It's not a moral judgment, it is a reality judgment, it is simply true that you are increasing you own risk of death. But by recognizing that truth you also must recognize that when that danger passes and you chose to follow someone to retaliate, you are also accepting that risk, even if you believe you are in the "right". The universe does not care about right or wrong, moral judgments be damned, if you put yourself into danger, then you are accepting the consequences of your actions. For those reasons, it's just silly to follow someone after danger has passed. Once they do that they have become someone who has potentially forfeited their life.