I assumed you would link the actual articles, but instead you linked articles about his articles. One should start with the original sources at least.
You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written.
I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.
This seems like a common misconception, but it actually isn't an indivisible human right to settle in another EU country if you don't have the means to support yourself [1]. If you have ever been engaged by them, it's obvious the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
Left, right, north or south on the political compass, all parties are in agreement about this, and thousands of people are deported from Denmark every year without Alligator Alcatraz concentration camps or other platitudes about nazism.
> the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
I'm guessing by the quotes on "gypsies" that these are not the Roma that have been in and out of Finland and Denmark since the 16th century .. but apparently still being used as a slur after several hundred years?
Finnish Roma live in the same houses, their children go to the same schools (including those I attended), they speak the same language and they poop in the same toilets as everyone else. They also have every right to a safe city center without foreigners causing a nuisance.
Regarding terminology, many call themself "mustalainen" (literally "blackie", basically same as "gypsy" I guess) themselves. Although it can be considered offensive in some context, it's not exactly the same as dropping the n-word.
The linked article (not DHH's article) is the reason why Trump is in power and why right wing extremists are in the rise in Europe.
People are concerned about things that can't even be expressed without getting labeled as fascist or racist. While the concerns may be irrational and without merit, it should be talked and discussed with those people and trying to understand their concerns better. Instead the reaction is "no need to talk with them as they are racists".
And yes, there are many racists out there and they have gotten so much support lately because many people feel heard by them and only them.
Bullshit: the primary reason Trump (and many other right-wingers) are in power is economic. Pushback to this sort of outward white supremacy is, in fact, quite popular.
And to a large degree, there is little point in rationally debating these concerns as they are rooted in racial animus. If somebody deeply feels that their glorious white race is being replaced by hordes of deranged brown immigrants, that's not a position they can be argued out of: it's an axiomatic outlook on the nature of society and humanity that, for the most part, only generational turnover (and maybe life experience) can correct.
You're not engaging in good faith if you reduce every criticism to "they're not 100% with us". People have explained their views well enough for you to understand where they're coming from.
Why would you want to switch? Did you check the original sources or did you only observe how angry some person on the Internet is and deduced how guilty some other person must be?
Not OP, but personally I spent some time reading DHH's blog posts. They are truly vile. It's entirely reasonable to want to boycott any product that sends money his way.
Public companies stand for making (more) money, that's always been the case. In a democracy, the foundation of the power in a society is what people vote for and who they vote for. Companies adhere to what the administration decide, can't blame them to show no resistance to such a stupid thing. Out of all crazy things that orange grandpa does, this is really only minor.
And by the way, for most of the world the map looks different, even on Google maps. For me, it correctly shows "Lake Ontario" first and below it shows the crazy man's fantasy.
Pathetic. The most maddening words in corporate america are "ohhhh, mmmeeee tooo".
If it's minor then why comply? If it's major then it's a major error to comply.
Stop being an apologist for the stupidity of corporate America. And yah, I can and I do blame them.
A final point: the more political things get, the more things become about cheap symbolism and shadow boxing BS the more things get untied to reality which pre-sages failure.
> That's however something an AI would not implement without being specifically asked.
This is true for all LLMs today, none of them work 100% autonomously, somewhere along the chain one human made at least one decision that lead to what the agent end up working on.
There has been voices in Germany to do the same. I assume they just need longer for the planning and/or coordinate their effort so not not everybody does it the same time, to avoid another tantrum from that orange grumpy man.
That's of course also why a little bit was taken out of Canada.
Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one).
Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.
people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate.
I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter.
Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual.
Your example isn't quite as cut-and-dry because in a lot of cases that's going to involve the Castle Doctrine as well, and "starts shooting" means there is an actual danger merely than a perceived potential danger.
Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away?
Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.
It seems I may have misremembered my example and inadvertantly made duty to retreat appear worse than it is. However- it was meant to highlight the positons both sides and it holds correct enough for thst still.
> Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge.
Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.
Germany has had some weird court decisions in that regard, in general the law does say flee and not shoot back if this is an option. But mostly courts are reasonable and do not punish the victim. Only if the victim decides to use violence after the threat is over
But there was even a case, where a hells angel shot a police officer in his home who were doing a raid - and got free (because they did not identify themself as police).
The law says your are allowed to stand your ground. You don't have to flee.
> But there was even a case,
I don't know the details of the case, but if somebody thought some criminals are raiding his house with guns and it's reasonable the he thought that, then he's fully within his rights to defend himself and, depending on the necessities, by shooting at them.
> Allerdings gilt besonders hier der Grundsatz, dass das Unrecht dem Recht nicht zu weichen braucht. Man darf sich zur Wehr setzten und muss nicht flüchten.
Translation:
> However, the principle that wrongdoing need not give way to what is right applies here in particular. One is allowed to defend oneself and is not required to flee.
I believe that's pretty common and a sane approach.
"In bestimmten Situationen kann das sonst umfassend geltende Notwehrrecht eingeschränkt sein. Dies ist dann der Fall, wenn die Verteidigung außer Verhältnis zum Angriff steht."
"Besonderes gilt bei dem Einsatz von Schusswaffen."
"Auch wird das Notwehrrecht eingeschränkt, wenn der Angriff von schuldlos Handelnden wie Kindern, Betrunkenen oder Geisteskranken ausgeht. Hier muss zunächst versucht werden, dem Angriff auszuweichen. Erst wenn ein Ausweichen nicht möglich ist, ist eine Notwehrhandlung geboten"
In other words, my statement above was in those words indeed not exact correct - you don't must flee before shooting, but germany does not has a "home is your castle" law.
Sure, there are sane guardrails in place. Your are not allowed to shoot at somebody who steals a bottle of water from you or makes a picture of you against your will. You also correctly mentioned kids or sick people that do not have a criminal intend in a narrow sense.
Generally however, you don't have to flee and the defence doesn't need to be proportionate to the attack or what you are defending.
You just generally have to choose the mildest defence available to you that you can reasonably know having under an ongoing or imminent attack - you don't have to "take your time and look around" if some milder defence is around the corner.
"Anthony Edward Martin was an English farmer who shot two burglars in his home [...] was convicted of murder, which was later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility"
> The prosecution accused him of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire without warning from close range, in retribution for previous break-ins at his home.[13]
No warning shot.
He also llegally bought a semi-automatic pump shotgun, possibly with the explicit plan to kill the intruders (as he got robbed in the past).
He also shot at them while they were fleeing.
So, yeah, in this particular case the judge decided that what he did was not covered by the law.
Examples? Maybe it’s true but I’d be surprised. Like I said from experience of living under a number of jurisdictions, none will charge a person with murder in those circumstances. Everywhere I’ve lived, if your life is directly threatened like that, you are absolutely allowed to defend yourself with violence commensurate with the threat.
They may have been confusing or deliberately conflating things with the fact that in most western jurisdictions, you are not allowed to kill, for example, a fleeing trespasser or burglar. This is viewed as an entirely different situation from one where you are being threatened directly with immediate physical violence.
If someone comes through your home door guns akimbo in the US, blasting back is fine
US Supreme court has often leaned heavily on right to protect self in one's own home in ruling against local and state laws that might ban ridiculous things.
Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one.
This is very different from the law in Texas, where, from what I understand, if you catch someone in the night stealing you could just kill them even if they never threatend you.
> Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one.
Being attacked with a knife means your life is being threatened and using a firearm would be legal even in Germany. The response has to be proportionate to the threat on life or limb not the size of the weapon.
Your are not arguing against the parent comment, right?
Because when somebody attacks you with a knife, drawing a gun oftentimes will not even be an effective defense. But if that is all that's available to you, it's only reasonable to give it a try. You should shoot multiple times or empty the whole magazine though and yes, that's generally justified by the law if that's what it takes to stop the attack.
The exact thing has happened to police man and woman and yes, they get trained to shoot multiple times to defend themselves. Was an outcry in media a few times because people don't understand the situation those people were put into.
I'm saying that when you use a gun against an attacker with a knife you will end up before a judge as the defendant and not as the victim. The court will decide if using the gun in this specific case was necessary (notwendig) and appropriate (geboten). Only if it was both will you go unpunished.
> The response has to be proportionate to the threat
No, not even that, at least not in general. For example, it could be well within your rights to hit somebody who keeps insulting you.
And yes, not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.
Wikipedia mentions more example of what you are generally allowed to protect:
> Das unberechtigte Anfertigen einer Fotoaufnahme stellt einen Angriff auf das Recht am eigenen Bild dar.[10] Das Anrauchen einer Person kann einen Angriff auf deren Ehre und Gesundheit darstellen.
Translation:
> Taking a photograph without authorization constitutes an infringement of the right to one's own image.[10] Exposed to secondhand smoke can constitute an infringement of a person's honor and health.
Will be easy enough to find more example if your are not satisfied with Wikipedia.
Yes, find an example that proofs that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.", as you claim.
Neither of your sources supports "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.". If you had linked the original sources, it would have been obvious that the examples are taken out of context.
> Bereits der Diebstahl mittelwertiger Gegenstände darf nach herrschender Meinung jedoch auch mit einer tödlichen Abwehrhandlung vereitelt werden, sollten mildere Mittel (wie Warnschüsse oder Schüsse auf die Beine) nicht zum Erfolg geführt haben bzw. nicht zur Verfügung stehen.[73][55][56]
> However, according to prevailing opinion, even the theft of items of moderate value may be thwarted by lethal self-defense if less severe measures (such as warning shots or shots aimed at the legs) have failed or are not available.[73][55][56]
He was also hit by the six year olds, but the court explicitly mentions the attack on his honor as well as foundation for their judgement.
Slapping the child was deemed to be the mildest mean for defence and therefore lawful.
Just to iterate on the first point, even theft of values starting as low as 100 Euro could justify lethal force. Knowing that honor is a protected right, it should not be surprising that hitting somebody can be justified when one get heavily and continuously insulted.
Your claims were that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws." and that "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.".
Not sure what you mean, I provided sources and examples for both.
More sources:
> Mithin kann das Recht auf Notwehr grundsätzlich auch bei einer Beleidigung greifen und nicht etwa nur bei einer Körperverletzung oder Ähnlichem.
> Consequently, the right to self-defense can, in principle, also apply in the case of an insult, and not just in cases of bodily injury or similar offenses.
Yes, the specific sentence you quoted was too hand waiving, not every insult can result in lawful self defence, but generally, defending against insults can be lawful.
Similarly, not everything somebody writes is protected by copyright, but generally what somebody writes can be protected by copyright.
Search for Texas castle doctrine. The intention is to provide extreme deterrence against home invasion crimes. The liability for shooting a person, for any reason, in Texas outside the home is much greater.
> in Texas, where, from what I understand, if you catch someone in the night stealing you could just kill them even if they never threatend you.
It's worth pointing out that night is doing some of the work in this statement. Texas is unusual, as far as I know, that darkness makes a big difference in how self-defense and danger are viewed. It kinda makes sense, because in the dark, the would-be victim is less able to fully and accurately assess the situation. So Texans need to be aware that their actions may be interpreted more harshly in the dark.
> Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one.
No, that's explicitly not the case, it doesn't has to be proportionate, only needs to be the mildest defence available to you that will stop the attack.
Not sure where people get the idea that the defense has to be proportionate, for some reason many believe that.
Defending yourself with a gun against an attacker with a knife is well within your rights (assuming that drawing and defending with a gun would even be effective).
About Germany, §32 StGB doesn't require proportionality, the test is "Erforderlichkeit" or "necessity". So if you only have a gun and get attacked by a knife, you don't have to "make things even".
Of course, if someone is simply stealing a Catalytic Converter you can't really shoot them, as it's a bit much... you can point a gun at them, and possibly even shoot the air, that's easier to argue as self-defence. If they threaten you back, the situation changes.
The problem is having a gun in the outside, in Germany, good luck with that... of course, if it's someone stealing something inside your house, it becomes a home invasion, which is a completely different thing than someone stealing your property on the street.
It's way more nuanced than Texas, which has a bit more clear cut law.
But if the "mildest mean available" of self-defence against a knife assailant is a gun, the a gun is the most appropriate, simply because others aren't available. Naturally pretty much nobody has a gun, so not a problem, but this has happened and has been discussed. Germany doesn't have proportionality.
And there are even other articles like §33 StGB, which excuses excess arising from fear, fright or confusion, which is what happens if someone points a knife at you.
"Gebotenheit" refers mainly to what I'm talking about in my second sentence (trying other means before shooting) and to sozialethische Einschränkungen (e.g.: psychosis, provocation, trivial attacks, etc), it doesn't "forbid" using a legal gun against an assailant actively attacking you with a knife as a last resort.
Doesn't change what I'm saying. When you use a gun against an attacker with a knife expect to end up before a judge as the defendant and not as the victim. The court will decide if using the gun in this specific case was necessary (notwendig) and appropriate (geboten). Only if it was both will you go unpunished.
And nope, nope, nope. It only goes to court if the police investigation supports it wasn't self-defence, and a public prosecutor decides to move the case forward. The realistic endpoint for a clean case is a dismissal letter from the prosecutor, not a courtroom. And this is true for everyone: even police can't kill someone and not expect an investigation. However naturally it doesn't go to court, for obvious reasons.
This is an extremely loaded request that once again shows lacks of familiarity with legal systems.
Prosecutor dismissals don't and shouldn't generate published decisions or press coverage the same way trials do. Why should they? They would only serve to besmirch the name of people who are innocent in the first place, and potentially put a target on their backs.
You are asking me to dig into private data that I don't have access to, and Germany is a country that respects privacy.
However here's a few samples here of cases that got a lot of publicity before there could be a case, and where the dismissals were publicized:
> "Die Staatsanwaltschaft wertete das Verhalten des Jägers als Notwehr – und stellte das Verfahren gegen den 63-Jährigen ein. Die Familie des Albaners hatte Beschwerde gegen den Beschluss eingelegt. Die Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm bestätigte nun jedoch die Entscheidung."
> "Da die Abgabe eines gezielten Schusses in dieser Situation die einzige Möglichkeit darstellte, einen Messerangriff auf sich oder ihre Kollegen abzuwehren, war das Vorgehen der Polizeibeamtin aufgrund von Notwehr bzw. Nothilfe gerechtfertigt. Ein strafbares Verhalten liegt somit nicht vor."
> "Die tödlichen Schüsse wurden in Notwehr abgegeben: Mit dieser Begründung hat die Staatsanwaltschaft Göttingen jetzt das Ermittlungsverfahren gegen zwei Polizisten eingestellt"
> "Ansbach: +++ Polizeilicher Schusswaffengebrauch in Ansbach – Polizei stoppt 47-Jährigen mit Schuss ins Bein – Staatsanwaltschaft Ansbach stellt Ermittlungen gegen Polizeibeamte ein +++"
You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written.
I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.
reply