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.'
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.