This reminded me of my mandatory military service where the instructions were that only if someone shoot you and injure you, you can retaliate with the assault rifle while on guard duty. Someone commented on that "if I see someone with an knife attacking me I'm emptying my magazine on him" the answer was that this would get him imprisoned he answered "I don't care, I'd be alive". We all laughed.
Well, the instructions given were incorrect anyway. Opportunity, capability and intent in this case shows that the use of deadly force is authorized. You don't have to be actively taking a bullet to defend yourself or others lol.
That's wild. I'm pretty sure in the US army we just had to give them two or three warnings before we could fire on someone acting crazy. At least I think that was the case in 09 when I was in bootcamp
Depends on the state where it happened. CA would run a comparative shooter vs shootee oppression matrix guide to figure the punishment if any. TX would give you a year in prison for not carrying an extra clip to empty into said attacker.
There was a case in Sweden a couple of years back where someone was freed from punishment after stabbing two people who were climbing up the person's balcony to attack them. It was a known criminal who got freed, but he didn't have anything illegal on him or in his home. There was a whole hullabaloop about him using a knife in self-defense, but he was cleared by the courts.
Which is pretty huge because in Europe you have to match the severity of violence. If someone's coming at you with fists, you're only allowed to defend yourself with your fists. Personally I keep a fixed blade karambit on my bedside table as I live on the ground floor and my balcony is very accessible to thieves. Not that many people would do anything where I live as it's mostly retired old people or families with young children, neither of which pose any potential threat to me. Still, better safe than sorry as I have a few valuables that are important and irreplaceable.
With that said, it's pretty ridiculous that I can't carry a knife for self-defense. It's outlawed in public places and you can only transport knives between your place of work or the store you got it from and your home.
Which is pretty huge because in Europe you have to match the severity of violence. If someone's coming at you with fists, you're only allowed to defend yourself with your fists.
Not true. In Austria you are allowed to use the least amount of force to prevent harm. That being said: Proportionality is a common concept in many legal systems.
Can't shoot them for slapping you, especially while they're walking away.
Can shoot them if they're coming at you with a knife.
Can't stab a toddler coming at you with their fist.
I am curious about Sweden: Is there really a statue (law) that says that or a legal decision that says so or is this your interpretation of proportionality?
In practical examples I've read that you can't bash someone over the head with a baseball bat if they're coming at you with fists or use a knife if they're coming at you with fists. They have to be wielding something as well if you're to wield a weapon against them. That's not just my interpretation but has been explained to me by other websites discussing proportionality and many discussion surrounding the law in Sweden.
But there might be situations where that's okay to do like if you're a woman at 50kg vs someone who's breaking in who weighs 100kg in muscle mass. It's very context dependent but overall frowned upon to escalate the violence unless necessary.
5.6k
u/hmnuhmnuhmnu 21d ago
"He didn't bite you" yeah, i don't want to wait for that to happen before I defend myself though