Meanwhile in USA

[Falka]

Absolutely correct. I was responding to the statement that civilians do not have the right to use a gun to defend themselves from a knife attack. That's why in your example the first case is self defense and the second case is murder or manslaughter.

Quite obviously a person 10 meters away, doing nothing, does not put you in imminent danger of death or grievous harm.

I was referring to the guy from the video who didn't put anyone in "imminent danger of death or grievous harm" I thought that you relate your statement to him as well, not only put it as a general rule.

[Xant]

I don't know where you are from but in my country, if a reasonable person (legal concept) has a reasonable expectation (another legal term) that he facing the threat of death or grievous bodily harm, then lethal force is permitted in self defense.   It has been established that a person with a knife can cover 21 feet and stab another person before that second person can draw a holstered pistol and fire.  A knife is a lethal weapon that can cause death in an instant.  Any civilian threatened with a knife and in close proximity to a knife wielder most certainly has the right to self defense up to and including the use of lethal force with a gun.  That's how it should be.  His actions will be scrutinized to the nth degree by the police and prosecutor and during a jury trial if he is charged with murder.

If a jurisdiction or a country has removed your right to defend your life or the lives of your family if and when you are faced with the gravest extreme, then they have taken away one of your most basic civil rights.

Finland. Pretty sure the laws are more or less the same in all of Europe. While in theory you may be allowed to shoot someone with a knife (if you somehow get your hands on a gun -- unlikely), in practice it can be very different. Self-defense laws at least here are pretty fucked up. Or well, not the laws, but how they're handled in court - a lot of the time the "bad guy" sues the defender and wins, even if he's got nothing but a bruise. Witnesses, how much people in the court like the accuser and accusee, what was said in the police investigation, and perhaps most importantly, what the doctor said ("the description of the event matches the injuries" = conviction), etc.

If you killed a knife-wielding dude, 99.9% of the time you'd be the bad guy. Where do you live? If not in the US, I can almost guarantee it's the same in your country.

[Molly]

Yea, the handling of those cases lacks common sense a lot of times.
I have a nice example, happened like this in Germany:

Drunk guy threatens a young woman in a subway tunnel, later afternoon. He's holding a beer bottle, yells at the girl, pushing her against a wall.
At some point the drunk breaks the bottle on the wall and threatens the woman with a broken! bottle.
A young man comes along, sees it, and starts to intervene. He grabs the arm with the bottle and pulls on it, standing in the back of the drunk.
As drunk as he is, he falls down and unlucky onto his right arm which he was holding the bottle in. The arm breaks twice.
The young man escorts the woman a few meters away, ensures that she isn't cut anywhere and then calls the cops. After the call he went back to the drunk and fixated him on the ground to hold him there for the police to arrive.
They arrive and arrest the drunk.

8 months and a trial later the young man was convicted for breaking the drunks arm to 18 months on probation. That young fellow is now a convicted criminal. For saving that chick. It was said that he wasn't using proportional force since the other guy was obviously drunk and less pulling and pushing would have been the way to go. No joke. Spoken by a German court.
Imagining now that a guy comes with a knife at me and I shoot at him (just the thought of having a gun here is ridiculous but anyway), I am pretty sure that even if I just wounded him, I would do jail time.

Theory and praxis, I guess.

[Prpavi]

I was on probation and I'm not classified as a convicted criminal

He doesn't necesarry have a file on him if he's on probation especially if that was his first offense

[Havelle]

Finland. Pretty sure the laws are more or less the same in all of Europe. While in theory you may be allowed to shoot someone with a knife (if you somehow get your hands on a gun -- unlikely), in practice it can be very different. Self-defense laws at least here are pretty fucked up. Or well, not the laws, but how they're handled in court - a lot of the time the "bad guy" sues the defender and wins, even if he's got nothing but a bruise. Witnesses, how much people in the court like the accuser and accusee, what was said in the police investigation, and perhaps most importantly, what the doctor said ("the description of the event matches the injuries" = conviction), etc.

If you killed a knife-wielding dude, 99.9% of the time you'd be the bad guy. Where do you live? If not in the US, I can almost guarantee it's the same in your country.

No, is pretty much the same way here. You can shoot someone who breaks into your house with a gun and still get sued and jail time. It might be a little different in states like Florida with a Stand Your Ground Law or whatever, though.

[Tibe]

I kinda agree on that one. Its not like the laws any better in this EU country aswell. Generally the person defending himself is the one going to jail. We just had a case here where some egyptian tourist and his wife got hassled by a group of assholes. The guy said stop and they beated the shit out of him. Out of desperation he pulled out a knife and stabbed those douchebags. Unfortunately the guy is going to jail now and the dickbags are probably getting fined, IF even that. I mean the law is severely fucked up here. If someone breaks into your house and you catch him stealing your shit, you have to very carefully subdue him. BY GOD, if he even gets a single bruise, you will go to jail! Its just better to lie down and cry if you get into a fight here and if someone breaks into your house just go back to sleep, call the police in the morning and start hoping for the best. I dont even....

[Xant]

#1 rule is to never call the cops, ever. Just leave. Worst case scenario, you're found later... but you've lost nothing. You have no obligation to give yourself up to the police and you can't be punished for not doing so.

[Butan]

Theory and praxis, I guess.

Yep, civilians are way more prone to be injustly pursued, similar cases occured in France and all the time it was deemed pretty stupid and sometimes if the press coverage was big enough there was local protest and creation of association to protect the civilians put on trial.

The question relative to the topic would be, why try to pull the same kind of bs on police? Stop trying to put them in jail each time they fire their gun.

There's also the fact that if you hold someone at gunpoint he can travel an average of zero meters before you can react and shoot. Hence why neither persons in the videos posed a threat warranting the use of deadly force.

Held at gunpoint and trigger ready is still about a few meters before actually being able to react to the threat.
Yes, they werent in the "you're gonna die if he chooses to" zone (judging the distance on the vid), so basing on the immediate threat is not enough to say that the guy should be gunned down.

[Falka]

From my experience what's said in the media about law cases and what really happened more often than not have very little if anything in common. As far as I know it's not that bad with the right to self defense as you describe it. At least in my country, but as was mentioned above legal systems are more or less the same in whole EU.

[Miwiw]

Absolutely correct.  I was responding to the statement that civilians do not have the right to use a gun to defend themselves from a knife attack.  That's why in your example the first case is self defense and the second case is murder or manslaughter.

Civilians do not have the right to use a gun because they do not own a gun. In a real country nowadays civilians should never get in contact with a gun. Ever.

[Kafein]

Held at gunpoint and trigger ready is still about a few meters before actually being able to react to the threat.

wat

The question relative to the topic would be, why try to pull the same kind of bs on police? Stop trying to put them in jail each time they fire their gun.

Because it's obviously not the same thing. The cases here are not representative of "each time they fire their gun". Hopefully, anyway.

[Butan]

wat

I will rephrase : even down the sight and fingers on the trigger, if you wait for the guy to move before shooting, your whole body totally relaxed and focused on doing that perfect non-lethal leg shot combo break 360° no scope, it will still translate into the guy being able to move a few meters before you are able to touch the trigger in reaction, and then you still have to actually hit the target,  and hit him bad enough to drop him before he slits your throat.
All this to explain it could be why they shot before he actually tried to use his shit on them actively. You know, to not die first, this sort of things. Or are you the kind of guy who profess that police should wait for susp to hit first before returning fire?


I think the more pages we get this thread on, the more everyone forget the full story : guy's a lunatic, violent police record, refused to comply for hours, threatened to kill everyone and their mothers before the shooting, held knives in the face of a K9 officer and the other policemen, even after getting flashbanged and aggressively approached by gung ho police shooters.
Whats debatable is why they began firing when they did, but in a tense armed confrontation like this even a wink can kill you.
And then, the threat he posed and will to use his weapons is impossible to deny, except if you're as mentally challenged as the dude.

Because it's obviously not the same thing. The cases here are not representative of "each time they fire their gun". Hopefully, anyway.

Ok, you're right... noone ever moan each time a cop uses a gun... except there is always a whole lot of people (on the scene itself, going on rampages, or on the internet, like we do atm) overly debating the same similar cases each time it happens, whenever someone got killed by a cop, however the circumstances, everyone's distraught and trying to find what went wrong, because everytime someone dies, its bad and unjustified because life is precious yada yada yada this is as old as the universe itself

I understand people being distressed in the first few seconds/minutes on a crime scene, but once the shock wears off, if you're still here saying "cops are pigs", then you have a problem with the law enforcement, not the policemen.

Prove me wrong and analyze that footage:

(click to show/hide)

Dont worry, I already know your answer, but thats just to feed the thread.

[SixThumbs]

Even if you murder a man you're still put on trial before you're sentenced to execution (where applicable).

[Leshma]

That's another major difference between EU and USA. There is no death penalty in EU.

[CrazyCracka420]

Not trying to argue for or against Butan or Heskey (or their respective arguments) since I haven't really given a shit about this thread for pages now, and haven't been reading most of what is being said... but have any of you talking about hand guns, actually fired a hand gun?  They are wildly inaccurate even if you are trying your damndest to hit a 1 foot by 1 foot window at more than say 5 meters while you are standing.  If you are not perfectly smooth when pulling the trigger your shot will go off the mark by a few feet (or more).  Now try doing that in an intense situation while someone is charging at you with a knife (also knives can be thrown).