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.

Are you going to replace that money?

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You began with legitimizing manslaughter as a reasonable action.

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).

Certainly a German court would not rule in favor of chasing down the perpetrators after the fact and killing them with a deadly weapon?

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.

I cannot speak for Germany, but it’s clear from the verdict in Turkey that this didn’t fly

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.

Where do I transfer it to in order to bring these to individuals back to life and face a punishment proportional to the crime?

You invent a time machine and travel back in time.

[–] poopkins 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

The chase wasn't reckless but in any case that's generally negligent manslaughter.

What if the Ukrainian was killed in the exchange of gunfire instead?

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).

Again, what is the value of a human life? Should he have risked his life for €36,000? How about €36?

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.

My only position is that we should at any cost avoid endangering one another (or worse) over material things.

Yeah then maybe the robbers shouldn't do that don't you think?

[–] poopkins 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] theluckyone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They lost the right to their life when they pulled a firearm and fired at the victim, hitting him.

[–] poopkins -1 points 1 year ago

Would it be fair to say that you are a proponent of capital punishment for armed robbery?

[–] hydrospanner 2 points 1 year ago

It wasn't that hard to follow the post or understand their logic, yet here you are, defying the odds.