Europe needs more women like this one!
'The woman, 20, was standing on an escalator at Kaiserslautern train station, in the southwestern state of Rhineland-Palatinate, when the 64-year-old man grabbed her bottom on June 29, Bild reported.
The woman took out a folding knife and made a stabbing motion towards the man.
The woman, who lives in Germany told police she tried to keep the man at a distance, but when he backed away, she followed.
The man from Eritrea, a country in East Africa, grabbed her arm, and as the woman tried to free herself, she stabbed him in the heart “during the same movement”, according to prosecutors.
The man died at the scene.
The woman has been charged with causing bodily harm resulting in death and could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
In court she argued she acted in self-defence and did not intend to stab the man in the heart.
After reviewing CCTV footage, prosecutors believed the woman did not intentionally stab the man in the heart. She allegedly wanted to injure the man but not kill him.
After the incident, a search was launched for the woman, who soon turned herself in at a police station.
The American has since been released. Youth court is due to decide if it will accept the charge against the woman.'
I think you can find many an American state willing to repatriate her back to the states for her crimes.
Oh wait how foolish of me, Germany doesn't want to set the precedent of deporting it's foreign criminals does it.
Technically, moving someone from a vassal state to the ruling state does not count as deportation.
I guess they're right, immigrants are doing the jobs Germans refuse to do.
Accidentally? No.
That being said, there was never one reason to rationalize why lethal force is necessary against sexual battery.
Sexual battery is grievous bodily injury as far as I'm concerned, and shows that you are in imminent threat of grievous bodily harm. Lethal force is certainly within your legal rights. Once you start adding up being located on a subway and not having an avenue of escape, disparity of force in size & aggression of her attacker, I'll bet money there were several other men with him encouraging her, the number of violent sexual assaults and rape that Germany is plagued by; her actions are inherently reasonable. Kill your rapists in self defense.
Do not wait for the German state to save you.
Remember to accidentally double tap. It's the only way to accidentally be sure.
"It was an accident!!"
"You accidentally carved "die jigaboo, die" into the man's chest?"
Shrugs "I was very clumsy."
No no - it was "the Jigaboo, The"
"Told you it was an accident, look at those typos! Who doesn't capitalise the start of a sentence or end it with a period. Pfft, imagine what could have happened if it wasn't an accident!"
Then, one day...
64 year old Africans are coming to Europe to grab the asses of women 40+ years younger than them. 🤮
Youth court? She's 20. She shouldn't have to go to any court but this sounds strange.
German courts are divided into 14-17, 18-20 & 21+ divisions.
Supposedly predates WW2.
Good for her. I hope the rest of the creepy turdwhirlders get the message to keep their filthy monkeypiggy hands to themselves
Not guilty your honor.
Not gonna lie though, Eritrea is a cool sounding name, even if, like most of the continent, it's a hellhole i'd never want to visit...
Do some recent arrivals think Europe is like some mass swinger’s vacation resort?
certain sects of islam, particularly those in africa and the middle east, tend to not consider it rape or murder if the person you're attacking is a non-muslim.
then you get into the particulars of how circumcision (barbaric practice even when done over here in a hospital, but jesus) is performed int hat part of the world, and the damage it does to nerve endings... etc etc...
So she is retarded. She wanted to stab the guy, but didn't understand that stabbing kills people and isn't some "shoot them in the legs to not kill" nonsense you can pull.
This sentence stands out heavily from everything else. If he had her arm, then she couldn't have been following him so the assumption is that he backed off once she pulled a knife on him and then grabbed her when she followed him while brandishing a knife.
Ignoring the entire woke element of the crime, she is an absolute imbecile who shouldn't be allowed neither a weapon nor to be allowed in public if she does something as stupid as follows the man who just "assaulted" her with only a knife she doesn't know how to use or understand how it works.
The best case scenario here is her getting jail time because it ends with two dregs of society gone, one dead and the other locked away.
There are plenty of places you can stab someone and it isn't fatal, the hands being a very easy example. What is retarded about the idea of trying to disable someone with a knife is that they rarely, if ever, let you. Too many idiots watch too much media and think stabbing, or shooting, someone and only injuring them is easy when completely forgetting the points that when it's done in media it's very often a very, very skilled character doing so in part to show off just how much control they have in the situation. Shooting to injure/incapacitate generally still comes with some distance between you and the target. Knifes being the melee weapons they are mean you're at risk of reprisals when trying to do anything, including losing the knoife [this was a typo, I'm keeping it], and then being stabbed yourself!
And the chance of actually hitting those deliberately while also not hitting one of the fatal spots is pretty iffy. So much like guns, if you are going to pull it out to use it, you can't be thinking its anything less than fatal. Even if you are some prodigal master of the arm.
Especially as, like you said, its a melee weapon. Meaning that if you aren't aiming with conviction and able to seriously hurt them on the initial hit, you are now open to a terrible reprisal from someone now afraid for their own life. Grabbing a knife blade isn't very good, but its, as you said, non-fatal usually and well worth doing to spare your own life among the many other options a grown man has over a tiny woman in arm's reach.
Which is why I called her retarded. She doesn't understand weapons nor self-defense, and its only luck that the consequence of her idiocy is a different retard who earned it.
Sigh... I hate to defend these types, but...
Thin Skull Rule in legal court: If you intended to do a lesser crime, but because of incompetence or unique unknown circumstances of the victim you accidentally commit a greater one, you are still liable for the greater crime [intending to injure someone with a thin skull by hitting his head with a brick, and killing him instead, you're on for murder, not just battery]. She intended to stab him, the fact her aim is incompetent and his sternum is apparently made of paper doesn't matter.
As for self-defense, you must have equivalent force. To respond with a weapon, they must have a weapon or a second party involved. A practically-retired old man is about physically on par with a height-of-strength woman, and given he was allegedly groping her, he clearly was bare-handed.
Were this woman a man, who stabbed a 64 year old woman to death because the old woman touched his backside, this would be an open and shut case of accidental manslaughter if not just plain manslaughter, and a psych evaluation and possibly permanent incarceration in the loony bin. Courts aren't, but should be, neutral to the sexes of the parties involved.
This'll get me downvotes, but yeah, the guy should be in prison for a few weeks, some community service, maybe deported back to his homeland, and the gal should be checked for psychoses. Notably, she's carrying around a switchblade for self-defense and instead of brandishing it (to ward off a threat), she immediately starts stabbing. When you pull a gun on someone in the USA, while you're escalating, you're also de-escalating: brandishing is diminishing the threat from the other side. You wait and see if the other side backs off, you don't start blasting the moment something doesn't go your way.
While this might be true in certain areas its absolutely retarded to even entertain. You don't know what the other party has on them, nor their capability for violence. He might only be bare handed because he didn't think he needed it to frighten a young woman into compliance and you need an open palm to grope, but it could still be sitting there right in his pants.
As you say later, pulling the weapon is diminishing the threat and is a valid form of doing so without putting yourself in any further danger.
But her actions with said weapon completely invalidate those claims as she became the aggressor herself by following the retreating man with full intent to injure him and only "accidentally stabbed him in the heart."
Nah, she stabbed a rape-nigger to death. Case dismissed.
No, you definitely don't do that. It's illegal and is called brandishing.
If you weren't in enough danger to use the gun immediately, you shouldn't have pulled it out. And if you were in enough danger then you should use it. You are not allowed to pull out a weapon for any reason other than self defense. Intimidation is not a legitimate reason.
A career criminal isn't going to be impressed with you waving your gun around like a magic talisman. If you're too much of a pussy to use it, he's just as likely to yank it from your limp wrists.
A very faggy comedian once said the most important thing to remember
Which is why cops never give warnings. They either execute people or hug them. Right?
Or is it that police officers use a different set of laws than everyone else?
Help me understand your thinking here.
Yes, cops use different laws than anyone else, especially with respect to weapons.
Police are supposed to be the local monopoly on force, so even in a state with functional police (and not clownworld) they're supposed to be able to brandish their weapons at any time.
I would argue that when employing force for self defense, the defender should escalate along the continuum of force proportionally in response to the threat.
I also argue that drawing a weapon is employing less force than employing deadly force.
I would argue that warn, draw, warn, shoot is probably a defensible course of action. It stands that should the threat be reduced before the final step that the defender has an obligation to deescalate the use of force rather than executing the attacker.
I am quietly confident that a specialist lawyer would reluctantly agree, depending on the specifics of the situation.
I see no link to anything, so you made it all up.
Too lazy to look it up?
This is why they're called "your problems"