Shopkeepers shoot two robbers to death

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2005-01-26 02:15pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Where are you from? I find it strange that it's illegal to defend your life? Or is it the firearms that are illegal?

Sweden. Firearms are very illegal and using them even more so. They would get charged, and probably convicted, for opening fire when the criminal's gun jammed since they were not in mortal danger at that point. If the criminals managed to return fire they might get off.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-01-26 02:20pm

CJvR wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Where are you from? I find it strange that it's illegal to defend your life? Or is it the firearms that are illegal?
Sweden. Firearms are very illegal and using them even more so. They would get charged, and probably convicted, for opening fire when the criminal's gun jammed since they were not in mortal danger at that point. If the criminals managed to return fire they might get off.

Are you serious? A gun jam is easily cleared if you know what you're doing. Giving them a chance is like giving them a free shot at your life. They were in mortal danger as long as they had that gun.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-26 02:37pm

As far as kids and guns goes, children should *never* have unsupervised access to firearms.

Teach them to shoot and show them just what a gun can do and that it is not a toy.

Regarding the story, I'd say it's good news.
Good Guy & Gal=2
Goblins=0

Post by **Coyote** » 2005-01-26 02:45pm

I could never live in a place like Sweden. Defending your life would be against the law. It's.... bizarre.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-01-26 03:08pm

Coyote wrote:I could never live in a place like Sweden. Defending your life would be against the law. It's.... bizarre.

In Italy it is legal to shoot in self-defense, but you must be able to prove that not only your things, but also your life, was in danger. It is quite difficult.
On there other hand, there are been cases of shopkeepers chasing unarmed thiefs for hundred of meters in the traffic and shooting them in the back from a car, and one of the most moronical political parties (that also wants the north of the country to secede) argued that they were right.
These guys are part of the governament coalition.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-26 03:20pm

In Italy it is legal to shoot in self-defense, but you must be able to prove that not only your things, but also your life, was in danger. It is quite difficult.

Outside of your home (very different laws apply in the home), that's generally true here as well.
The key is did the robbers threaten 'serious bodily harm or death' and did they have the means and ability to carry out the threat?

You can't shoot a shoplifter or pickpocket.
You can't shoot a panhandler.

You can shoot an armed robber, as they have made the threat and their arms give them the means and ability to carry it out.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2005-01-26 03:21pm

Coyote wrote:I could never live in a place like Sweden. Defending your life would be against the law. It's.... bizarre.

Not quite, but almost. Just make damn sure you are in mortal danger first, you have a split second to decide and that decission will have to stand up to days of "Ifs and buts" from the court.
I doubt this couple's decission to open up would stand in a Swedish court - once the gun jammed they were not in immediate mortal danger, they had guns themselves then and the criminals were effectively unarmed. Also one of the criminals seem to have been unarmed to begin with.

That is how I suspect a Swedish court would reason, they are very sensitive to honest citizens using force against criminals.

Oh yeah, if you are found guilty the criminal, if he survived, will sue you and you will have to pay his hospital bill and other compensations.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-26 03:34pm

One of our most noted jurists once observed 'the law cannot demand detached reflection in the face of an upraised knife', and that sounds exactly what you say a Swedish court would demand.

My defense would be:

1.) They've demonstrated their intent to kill when the robbers tried to shoot the old man.

2.) Just because the pistol failed to fire doesn't mean the threat is over.
I can clear a jammed semauto in most situations (tap-rack-bang technique) in about 3 seconds. Should they have given him the chance to do so?

3.) Simple prudence would demand that you assume the second robber is armed as well.

4.) Age disparity. The article doesn't give the age of the robbers so I could be wrong on this, but this was probably an older couple against a pair of younger robbers who didn't need firearms to carry out their stated threat and demonstrated intention to kill them.

The legal standard in the US is the 'reasonable person' standard.
Simply put, what would a hypothetical reasonable, prudent person do in the same situation, knowing the facts as you knew them at the time.

In the case of an armed robber threatening my life and then trying to shoot me, I'd say the average 'reasonable person' would assume his life is in danger and react accordingly.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-01-26 03:52pm

Glocksman wrote: Outside of your home (very different laws apply in the home), that's generally true here as well.
The key is did the robbers threaten 'serious bodily harm or death' and did they have the means and ability to carry out the threat?

Here, if you shoot someone outside of your home, it is almost impossible to avoid jail.
Now, I think gun-control is actually useful, but now the law is quite absurd: you pratically have to prove that you would have surely died if you didn't have fired.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-26 03:53pm

CJvR wrote:Not quite, but almost. Just make damn sure you are in mortal danger first, you have a split second to decide and that decission will have to stand up to days of "Ifs and buts" from the court.
I doubt this couple's decission to open up would stand in a Swedish court -

That's a testament to how awful Swedish law is with regard to self defense.

once the gun jammed they were not in immediate mortal danger, they had guns themselves then and the criminals were effectively unarmed.

That's bullshit. A jammed gun can be easily and very quickly cleared. If someone tried to run you down in a car, would you conclude your life was no longer in danger when they were turning around to drive at you again?

Also one of the criminals seem to have been unarmed to begin with.

That is how I suspect a Swedish court would reason, they are very sensitive to honest citizens using force against criminals.

Right, which is a testament to how bad the Swedish court system is.

Oh yeah, if you are found guilty the criminal, if he survived, will sue you and you will have to pay his hospital bill and other compensations.

That makes sense, and the same would be true in the US, also, but the Swedish method of determining guilt in such matters is ludicrous.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2005-01-26 04:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So kids aren't responsible enough to drive a car or vote or drink, but they are responsible enough to wield power of life or death over others?
One of the most critical things drilled into someone just starting shooting is: Don't point the gun at anything you don't want shot. Also up there is: Always assume the gun's loaded unless you personally check it out yourself.
So? One of the most critical things drilled into someone just started driving is: "don't drive through red lights", yet people still do it. How have you addressed the argument at all? It's a question of maturity and responsibility; if kids don't have it for drinking, driving, or voting, then why should we assume they have it with guns?

Which is why you don't let them shoot unsupervised, and tell them not to touch a gun when you're not around. Don't store ammo next to the guns, or store them loaded, etc.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-01-26 04:36pm

CJvR wrote:Oh yeah, if you are found guilty the criminal, if he survived, will sue you and you will have to pay his hospital bill and other compensations.

If you're using deadly force to defend yourself, that criminal shouldn't survive.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-26 04:51pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
CJvR wrote:Oh yeah, if you are found guilty the criminal, if he survived, will sue you and you will have to pay his hospital bill and other compensations.
If you're using deadly force to defend yourself, that criminal shouldn't survive.

In the US it's the same, and if the perpetrator does not survive, you will be sued on behalf of his nine children and their mothers, regardless of how the grand jury regards the legality of the shoot.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-01-26 04:53pm

CJvR wrote:
Coyote wrote:I could never live in a place like Sweden. Defending your life would be against the law. It's.... bizarre.
Not quite, but almost. Just make damn sure you are in mortal danger first, you have a split second to decide and that decission will have to stand up to days of "Ifs and buts" from the court.
I doubt this couple's decission to open up would stand in a Swedish court - once the gun jammed they were not in immediate mortal danger, they had guns themselves then and the criminals were effectively unarmed. Also one of the criminals seem to have been unarmed to begin with.

That is how I suspect a Swedish court would reason, they are very sensitive to honest citizens using force against criminals.

Oh yeah, if you are found guilty the criminal, if he survived, will sue you and you will have to pay his hospital bill and other compensations.

Yes, that's absolutely true. We have the incident with the elderly man in the small town of Torshälla who shot a burglar with a shotgun in the arm. He was sentenced to one year in prison and also had to pay his medical expenses as well as the cost of the trial. The burglar was sentenced to community service. We can't defend our property, it's as simple as that.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-26 05:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:lovin that 2nd amendment.

I dont really get anti gun types. a lot of the cases they provide (kids shooting themselves) would be dismissed if *you taught the kids how to shoot*.
So kids aren't responsible enough to drive a car or vote or drink, but they are responsible enough to wield power of life or death over others?

They can kill just as easily with a few diffrent things, Bows, Knives, Hell a good old fasion Rock will kill folks good

Guns just make it very easy to kill people, nothing more nothing less

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-01-26 05:13pm

On a side note from the "teaching kids to use guns" argument, I did know people who were "taught" by their parents how to drive when they were young (preteen or early teens). What normally happened is that they learned bad habits from being too immature and too young when they started driving on their parent's land and ended up being worse drivers than people who started learning later, and they did stupid things like drive around town before they got their licenses (obviously illegally).

Think on that (or dismiss everything I say because I was surrounded by stupid rednecks during my childhood, and so my observations mean nothing).

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2005-01-26 05:30pm

Mayabird wrote:On a side note from the "teaching kids to use guns" argument, I did know people who were "taught" by their parents how to drive when they were young (preteen or early teens). What normally happened is that they learned bad habits from being too immature and too young when they started driving on their parent's land and ended up being worse drivers than people who started learning later, and they did stupid things like drive around town before they got their licenses (obviously illegally).

Think on that (or dismiss everything I say because I was surrounded by stupid rednecks during my childhood, and so my observations mean nothing).

So, if you start teaching them about guns when they're too young (in the "cowboys are cool and so are guns!" age), they'll grow up with some awful vices about guns. That's a comforting thought...

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2005-01-26 05:51pm

Glocksman wrote:One of our most noted jurists once observed 'the law cannot demand detached reflection in the face of an upraised knife', and that sounds exactly what you say a Swedish court would demand.

Yes it would. IIRC there was a case a while ago when somone used a baseball bat on a burglar and took him out with three quick swings. He got convicted for the third swing since the "victim" according to the court wasn't a threat anymore.

Master of Ossus wrote:That's a testament to how awful Swedish law is with regard to self defense.

The law is actually fairly generous but the courts interpretation (Rättspraxis) of it have little to do with the real world.

Master of Ossus wrote:A jammed gun can be easily and very quickly cleared.

Yes, but for a short time you would have two par of guns pointed at the criminals who at that moment was effectively unarmed. The court would never have accepted you simply opening fire especially not on the apparently unarmed one. If you hadn't noticed that the gun jammed you might have gotten away with opening fire on the armed one.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2005-01-26 07:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:lovin that 2nd amendment.

I dont really get anti gun types. a lot of the cases they provide (kids shooting themselves) would be dismissed if *you taught the kids how to shoot*.
So kids aren't responsible enough to drive a car or vote or drink, but they are responsible enough to wield power of life or death over others?

No, but they can be taught NEVER to point a gun at another human being.

When my brother and I found my parents guns (we were in 3rd and 1st grades), we miraculously managed not to kill each other or anyone else because our parents taught us that guns are dangerous and not to be played with. Simple training and common sense.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-01-26 07:19pm

Guns + Children = Bad
Guns in the hands of trained honest people like shopkeepers = Good

If ya own a gun and have kids, keep the gun locked and secured from the kids. The Masterbedroom underlock and key is a good idea.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-26 10:29pm

Mayabird wrote:On a side note from the "teaching kids to use guns" argument, I did know people who were "taught" by their parents how to drive when they were young (preteen or early teens). What normally happened is that they learned bad habits from being too immature and too young when they started driving on their parent's land and ended up being worse drivers than people who started learning later, and they did stupid things like drive around town before they got their licenses (obviously illegally).

Think on that (or dismiss everything I say because I was surrounded by stupid rednecks during my childhood, and so my observations mean nothing).

That's how I learned to drive when I was 11, and I'm a great driver (if I say so myself). I also went wild turkey hunting when I was 12 with my cousin. I think he was 16 at the time. We did just fine. I guess it depends on the kid.

In spite of some ridiculous laws, I wouldn't give a shit. If someone tries to throw down on me and I have a gun, I'd like to think that I'd blast him a new asshole right between the eyes and take the penalty for it. Luckily I haven't been forced to do it.

Of course it's easy for me to say. I live in Texas where you can kill anyone who breaks into your home from sundown to sunrise, any armed intruder (whether they actually try to kill you or not) at any time, and anyone who tries to remove your vehicles or livestock or barbed wire from your property after sundown. Yes, repo men get shot here with no repercussions. Police are pretty casual about it once they realize it's self defense.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2005-01-26 11:12pm

How many times do I hear this argument that living in a country where it is illegal to own a firearm would mean I am automatically in mortal danger. I've never seen a gun in my life and IIRC last year there were less than 150 gun related deaths in the whole of the UK... how many gun related deaths were there in the US? (Population difference is only a ratio 5:1?) But that will only start another silly argument, I would have edited it out but I hit the submit button before I realised!

Blair is still a fucking moron for refusing to untighten self defence laws here though. We really can go to prison for harming someone in self defence!

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-26 11:20pm

Jon wrote:How many times do I hear this argument that living in a country where it is illegal to own a firearm would mean I am automatically in mortal danger. I've never seen a gun in my life and IIRC last year there were less than 150 gun related deaths in the whole of the UK... how many gun related deaths were there in the US? (Population difference is only a ratio 5:1?) But that will only start another silly argument, I would have edited it out but I hit the submit button before I realised!

Blair is still a fucking moron for refusing to untighten self defence laws here though. We really can go to prison for harming someone in self defence!

The problem is that handguns are everywhere in the US and have been for at least 140 years. So trying to ban them is about as futile as trying to ban VCRs. Any criminal who wants one can get one with little if any effort. Now knowing this, if you lived in a high crime area, wouldn't you resent the living shit out of a government that tried to disarm you while at the same time being unable to disarm thugs?

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2005-01-26 11:24pm

I agree, indeed and I don't necessarily support the banning of guns in the US, it's of no primary concern to me. But the absence of guns in this country doesn't make it any less safe/more safe- like people say, if criminals really want a gun, then they will get one.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-26 11:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:So kids aren't responsible enough to drive a car or vote or drink, but they are responsible enough to wield power of life or death over others?

I don't see how that follows. It seems that gun use education is being advocated, not that juveniles are responsible enough to have unfettered personal access to deadly firearms.