Outrageous.

[Foeni]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

But think about it. Jewelery shoots two out of three burglars and injures them severe.

I never said they were severely injured.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

You tell me, how a jewelery can shoot two out of three burglars that have him at gun point? That are effectively threatening his life. That is imo impossible. I don't think that is what happened.
If they had the intention of killing him than they would have the moment they walked in the shop.

Firstly, their guns were fake, so of course they didn't have the intention of killing him. But how would the watchmaker know that, as far as I know they weren't even masked, so if the robbery was succesful he would be a witness.
Apparently there was a bit of a struggle in a tiny room, he could easily have shot one of them in the back by accident. Besides, they were violently attack by armed men, how do you expect a watchmaker to know for certain when he's in fatal danger and when he's not?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

You know what i think has happened? He shot them while they were actively robbing his shop, braking the glass and putting jewelery in bags or when leaving the shop with his property and that is the difference. He did not shoot them out of self defense, he was protecting his property.

Eyewitnesses saw a robber holding a gun under the watchmaker's chin. I'd say that's pretty life threatening seen from his point of view.

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

I agree with Pieter that there needs to be some sort of official inquiry. People can't use "self defense" as carte blanche for murder. However, those who kill in self defense should be given the benefit of the doubt when faced with a weapon, even if that weapon turns out to be a toy. That jeweler had no idea that they weren't going to kill him. To my way of thinking, if you brandish a weapon in the course of a robbery, you have declared to your victim that if you don't get what you want, you are willing to injure and/or kill. I don't give a rat's ass or a flying fuck what your "true intentions" are. Has a criminal ever taken the stand and said that, "yes...I intended to kill the gas station attendant"? No. Everyone hides behind the "things went wrong...I didn't mean to kill anyone" defense.

Exactly what I mean. I never talked for letting people use self defense as a carte blanche for murder.

Pete, you seem to think all the crime in the US is a product of the way their society is formed. It's formed a lot different than yours or mine, and still we see armed robberies and criminals with guns. There will always be criminals, and you need to stop feeling sorry for them. They drew the first gun, not their victim.

[mongoose]

Man Flightf. you have missed your career. You should have become a lawyer.
I couldn't say all that things you mentioned above. Keep up the good work, and when I kill a bulgarian I will call you to defend me

[Foeni]

Pete, due to the ongoing investigation, all information regarding what happened isn't out yet. I.e. what the security cameras show. So I can't really judge whether or not it was legal self defense or not. I have no doubts it was what I'd consider self defense, though.
Actually, as much as you say I'm missing your point, I think you're missing mine as well. No, I do not think people should be able to use self defense as a carte blance to commit murder. But once it's proven, by a court of law, that you've been threatened in any way that could be considered just slightly dangerous, I think you have the right to defend yourself. Regardless of the injuries on your 'victim'.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Eyewitnesses saw a robber holding a gun under the watchmaker's chin.

Yes, I did use as an argument that an eyewitness saw the robber hold a gun under the watchmaker's chin, because that's the source the public has at this moment - as I said, due to the ongoing investigation.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Really i don't get what you're going on about, on the one hand you say that people should not get a carte blanche and on the other hand you're going on about how outrages it is that a jewellery is being charged with attempt to murder and taken in too custody while you in fact know nothing.

At the time he was arrested, neither did the police. They learned that two robbers had been shot, and he was arrested for attempted murder. I think they should investigate first, witnesses tell that he was being held up at gun point. I say that smells like self defense.

[hasselbrad]

The small room in the back may very well have been where he keeps loose diamonds. Or, more to the point where the theives thought the loose gems are kept. What you are failing to realize is that the situation could have very easily gotten out of hand because the theives became distracted. That's usually what happens when robberies go bad. The shopkeeper doesn't (or isn't able to) produce what they want and they begin to threaten him or her. Once confusion sets in, theives become agitated, and that's usually when someone gets hurt.
That's what happened in the case of my assailant. When he moved from robbery to rape, the police said the stakes were raised and each situation became more unstable. Eventually, stress takes over and someone gets hurt badly. The woman he shot didn't die.
From the limited amount of information, I would imagine one (no more than two) of the thieves went into the back room with him. There aren't going to be three guys standing there with three toy pistols at his chin, moving about the store in unison like some Benny Hill skit. What you fail to take into consideration is that most thieves aren't as slick as Ocean's 11. Criminals get confused. Adrenaline causes them to do stupid things. Perhaps they had masks, but left them in the getaway car. Things rarely, if ever, go according to plan.
The greater point in all of this can be summed up in something my father told me when I was young.
"Don't ever aim a gun at something you don't intend to kill."
That can be expanded to cover knives too. Your example of the knife wielding MP3 player thief is all well and good, but if a criminal pulls a weapon in a robbery, then whatever the response, the criminal brought upon him/herself.
Do I think an MP3 player is worth taking a life over? No.
But then, it's not really up to me if someone with a knife is willing to make it so.

As for American crime rates, Brussels has almost double the murder rate of New York City. This excerpt from an article from an old Weekly Standard is quite interesting.

Last year, London saw more serious assaults, armed robberies, and car thefts than New York; 2002 could see London's murder rate exceed the Big Apple's.

The same pattern can be seen throughout Europe--indeed, in much of the developed world. Crime has recently hit record highs in Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Toronto, and a host of other major cities. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office (the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Justice) found violent and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates throughout the E.U., Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States.

Americans, on the other hand, have become much safer. Preliminary 2001 crime statistics from the FBI show America's tenth consecutive year of declines in crime. While our homicide rate is still substantially higher than most in Europe, it has sunk to levels unseen here since the early 1960s. And overall crime rates in this country are now 40 percent below the all-time highs of the early 1970s. In 1973, nearly 60 percent of American households fell victim to property crimes. In 2000 (the most recent data available), only about 20 percent did. Among the economically powerful democracies in the Group of Seven, only the Japanese now have a lower victimization rate than the United States.

[Foeni]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

How can you have no doubts about whether it was legal self defense or not if even apparently the legal authorities doubt about it?

I said I had no doubts that it was self defense. Never said legal self defense.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

I could kill you with a knife, if i threat you with a knife because i want your mp3 player you apparently think it's your right to kill me. That's what you're saying, thats what you're pleading for. I think it's quite absurd to kill someone because he wants your mp3 player.
Mp3 player = Life?

How can I know you're not going to stab me? These things do happen. And I'd rather shoot to be sure, than I'd just be hoping he wouldn't harm me. Besides, as brad says, as soon as he pulls a knife at me, he has brought the response upon himself.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

If i want to kill you I'd do it right on the spot, i would not threaten you I'd just do it and take your mp3 player after killing you. If you resist you think the life of your own and that criminal is less worth than a 100 dollars mp3 player.

What if I saw you coming towards me with a knife without saying anything, then I'd presume you are going to harm me, and therefor I would find it reasonable to shoot.

I'd never pay a hundred bucks to save that kind of criminal's life.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Is it legal self defense when you shoot a criminal because he threatened you for your mp3 player? Or did you end up murdering him in attempt to protect your property?

I should be legal self defense to shoot a criminal that tries to rop me for my mp3 player if he draws some kind of weapon, or in any other way sends signals that he might have intentions to harm me.

]QUOTE=Flightfreak]Do you expect a criminal to walk in to your jewelery and ask you kindly without threatening you, "could you please put all the jewelry in a bag".
I think not, he'll threaten you. He'll act like or say give me the cash or I'll kill you. For you that's enough to give you the right to kill the criminal without any legal consequence.[/quote]
Yes.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Criminals are failures of society. Criminal are created by society, a society that failed in their surroundings, in their environment.

Bah. It's not the society's fault that people choose to be criminals. There's plenty of poor, badly educated people that deal with their problems in a legal way.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

You won't stop crime by punishing it in a more violent way simply because criminals get created in crime, a surrounding were society failed.

I believe that legalising defending yourself you will keep the unarmed criminals from doing their crimes. Unarmed criminals don't all of the sudden decide to use a gun, that's quite a step.

[hasselbrad]

I chose New York because it's the largest city. I assume Brussels is as well.
I also looked up New Orleans, which has been on a tear of killing as of late, but I couldn't get a good figure. I am slammed as well, so I only had time to do cursory research. My point in this whole thing is that as a criminal, if you threaten someone else's life, whether you intend them any harm or not, you put yourself at risk of having deadly force used against you.
If someone runs past and snatches a purse or an MP3 player, should the victim have the right to shoot them? Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about here. If eyewitnesses saw one of these men put a gun to this man's chin, that is a life threatening action, whether the gun was real or not. The jeweler could have no idea that his life wasn't in danger.
If you want a clear cut example of excessive deadly force, I'll give you one. A [sarcasm]fine, upstanding citizen[/sarcasm] robbed a local restaurant owner at gunpoint and ran out of the building. The owner went outside, got into his car and proceeded to run the guy down in the street. Killed him. Excessive? Yeah. But after seeing the guy's rap sheet, I think even you could be hard pressed to find any sympathy. That's a clear cut case of someone being out of danger, but taking the law into their own hands.

As for not using Detroit...it's a goddamn zoo. That would be like using Fallujah as an example.

[Norseman]

I don't, and will never own a gun. I don't think shooting people solves much. It will probably just lead to more aggressive attackers in the first place, since they know their victims have the means, and will use it to defend themselvs. I also believe that if you shoot someone you are a murderer and should be treated like one.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Norseman

I don't, and will never own a gun. I don't think shooting people solves much. It will probably just lead to more aggressive attackers in the first place, since they know their victims have the means, and will use it to defend themselvs. I also believe that if you shoot someone you are a murderer and should be treated like one.

Nope. Most criminals that are interviewed say the same thing. They look for easy targets, and easy targets are the places that don't appear to have guns. Any criminal, unless they are cracked out of their skull, will rob the house with the Honda Insight covered in Kerry bumper stickers instead of the one with the Ford Bronco covered in Bush and NRA stickers, period.

[Norseman]

Yes, maybe so. But I still will never have a gun, mostly because i never will have use for it and it's a prinsiple. Too easy to just shoot someone these days...sigh.

Never mind me, not much happening where I live.:fencing:

[KeiraIsFIT]

i use a baseball bat but the weird thingy at the top on pistols that you pull back is too hard to pull back, well on a Desert Eagle it is, but still, so Baseball bat for me or one of many, many hockey sticks

[Foeni]

The case ended today. Fortunately he was not convicted for attempted manslaughter. He got 6 months for possesing 3 armed weapons.
The D.A. wanted him behind bars for 2 years..

[Leonie]

Justice, then.

I reckon, anyone having a gun-like object and aiming it in your general direction while stealing all your stuff? You have every right in the world to have a go at him.

No one finds himself accidentally robbing a jewelery shop. The jeweller was on his own, they were taking his income away, and threatening his life.

If you can, shoot them. The world will be a better place.

However, it wasn't legal for the jeweller to have weapons, so he was rightly punished for that. I don't particulary promote the legality of guns (cause people are stupid), nor do I support the death penalty (cause you're never sure you've got the right person) BUT in the event that a bunch of people are robbing the shop you make a living from, and they seem like they might take your life along with the rest of your stuff? Hurt the bastards as much as you can. Caught redhanded.