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
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.