On 4/14/2016 at 0:42 AM, l3ubba said:

If you understand their reaction and say that even you would do the same thing if you were in their shoes then how does that make what they did wrong? That is the whole defense as to why they did that. I am not talking about any civil law BS, people sue all the time and this 17 year old girl is well within her right to sue if she wants but civil law and criminal law are two different things. You can be found civilly liable and still not have committed a crime or visa versa. I am only looking at this from a criminal standpoint, the police officers were justified in defending themselves.

This is a bit old now, but FYI: "Civil law" the way Hastings is using it has nothing whatsoever to do with lawsuits. It's a type of legal system, commonly found in continental Europe and former continental European colonies, rooted in Roman law codes and spread throughout Europe by Napoleon. The core feature is that the law is what is found in statutes; judicial decisions aren't a primary source of law, and aren't binding on judges in future cases. It contrasts with common law, which is a different type of legal system found in the UK and former British colonies, where judicial decisions determine what the law is and are binding on future courts. For a notable example, England still has no statute prohibiting the intentional killing of another person. There are laws that say "here is the sentence for murder," but the actual definition of murder is just the definition that courts created and refined over the centuries. The US is a former British colony, and our law is the result of a long period of evolution with English common law as a starting point. Russian law does not have that as a starting point, and is apparently more influenced by the systems found on the European continent.

I get your point brother.

The German system is way too strict and in my opinion, he should not have been suspended.

Totally legit response.

The middle way you suggestes is, to me, the right decision. We need a less strict system in Germany but still strict enough so that we don't have a police state.

2 hours ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

We need a less strict system in Germany but still strict enough so that we don't have a police state.

I would hardly consider Germany a police state. It is probably the furthest thing from a police state.

I guess you did not understand my post.

On 11.6.2016 at 8:17 PM, Sn0wf4ll said:

... he should not have been suspended.

Totally legit response.

The officer is no longer suspended. The State Atorney in Bremen (the federal state in question) ruled the case as a justified shooting in self-defense.

According to german Law (§ 32 StGB) self-defense is every action necessary to stopp an assault.

"Necessary" meaning the "nicest" way to stopp the attack.

"Assault" meaning an attack on every individual right (life, health, honor, property, ...).

The means of defense do not have to be proportional to the attack. The only thing to remember is "don't shoot with cannons at sparrows" -> don't shoot a fruit-thief.

2 minutes ago, himura85 said:

The officer is no longer suspended. The State Atorney in Bremen (the federal state in question) ruled the case as a justified shooting in self-defense.

According to german Law (§ 32 StGB) self-defense is every action necessary to stopp an assault.

"Necessary" meaning the "nicest" way to stopp the attack.

"Assault" meaning an attack on every individual right (life, health, honor, property, ...).

The means of defense do not have to be proportional to the attack. The only thing to remember is "don't shoot with cannons at sparrows" -> don't shoot a fruit-thief.

You're absolutely right and that's what I'm saying.

(NIce German saying by the way! :P)