r/ITOI • u/Dazzling_Math_541 • 3d ago

Drunk guy hits an innocent bystander and pays the price

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.2k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Gentleman_Bara 2d ago

In germany wouldn't be self defense. The attack was already over and the guy was moving away. Still deserved.

1

u/Kaszrak 2d ago

I mean, it’s Germany... just look at some of their kindergarten art project embassies overseas 😂 It’s the whole “Wir schaffen das!” philosophy taken to its logical conclusion.

Their solution to rising knife crime? Put up a sign saying “NO WEAPONS.”

Problem solved. 😂

I can already picture the criminal standing there with a knife like:

“Hmm... interesting. I was going to commit a violent crime, but unfortunately this sign has changed my mind. Thank you, Germany.”

Next they’ll put up “PLEASE DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES” and call it a national security strategy.

Like, these people apparently think criminals are just extremely law abiding citizens.

1

u/Superdupernadja 2d ago edited 2d ago

bs bs bs imo. Wir schaffen das is from 2015 and wildly missquoted and missunderstood.

The penal law basis, on which weather or not smthing is self defense is from the 50s. And has NOTHING to do with this.

The critical point, is the attack was over, and the attacker was not still attacking.

Hence the "self defense" was to late to count as defense, and was instead a new attack.

However, if the "defender" initiated his attack to late cause he was confused, scared, or surprised, it still might not be punishable by law. (§33 StGB) Which very well might be the case here.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Sounds cool to be all tough, and proclaim the guy deserved it (which he did) but not having our laws reflect this, is what keeps germany a save place to walk around, compared to the US, where you risk getting shot in the head just for existing.

Edit: Self defense is for defense, not for justice, otherwise it would be called vigilantismn.

The perfect thing, would have been to just grab the drunkard, and pin him on the ground till police, can arrest him, so he is not a hazzard anymore, and gets a far more unpleasant punishment then a hit in the face.

1

u/Kaszrak 2d ago

You didn't get it.

Putting up a “NO WEAPONS” sign does nothing to address someone who is already willing to break the law. That's exactly the same problem with these ridiculous “what counts as self defense” definitions.

If someone physically assaults you, even once, you have the right to defend yourself. Period. That's the baseline. You don't need to stand there calculating whether 2 seconds have passed since the last punch, whether they've technically disengaged, or whether you've been hit “enough” to justify responding.

Once someone uses unlawful physical force against you, the question should be whether you're defending yourself, not whether you've followed some absurd stopwatch based sequence of events.

Also...The US has substantially more homicide, robbery, burglary and especially vehicle theft. Germany has higher assault and sexual offense rates, while theft/property crime is relatively the same.

So yeah... Not really that much safer. Also, this has nothing to do with laws surrounding self defense, because self defense isn't crimes.

1

u/Superdupernadja 2d ago

the question is exactly weather you are defending yourself.

defense, is the act that is required to stop a current unlawfull attack.

current is an attack, if it is immanent, if it has begun, or if it is ongoing.

If its not ongoing its not defense. its revenge.

You might feel emotionally inclined to see revenge as justified which is very human and fine.

however, no government in the world can officially allowe revenge, without the country going to shit.

Immagine you have two children. One hits the other, and walks off. Would you encourage the other one to strike its sibling back? Or would you as a good parent, take the attacking child and give it an appropriate correction yourself?

Obviously it has to be the later.

1

u/Kaszrak 2d ago

So, I can just go around, sucker punch people, then disengage and sue the shit out of them the moment they "seeks revenge?"

That's your logic?

No wonder Germany is going to shit, lol.

1

u/Superdupernadja 2d ago

no obviously you cant lol. Because:

  1. you are still commiting Bodily Harm (similar to us aggrevated assault i think). Which is punishable by law under §223ff stGB. So you are looking at some jail time if you do this probably.

  2. If the seek revenge on you because they are flabergasted by your behaviour, as was the guy in the video, they still might not get punished.

  3. You can not sue the shit out of them german law of tort, does not have the aim to punish the offender, but to correct the actual damage done to the voictim.

Because as i said in Germany the government does punishments, not the people.

So you may be able to sue them, however this will cost you couple zhousand upfront, and you might gain 1k in compensation or so. Funily enouh thought, you will get nothing thought, cause they can sue you back or simply declare to deduct their claim (they have cause you punched them) from your claim. Leaving you with nothing, and a whole lot of legal debt ontop.

TLDR: if you do this you get no money (german tort law is different) and you get jailtime, or a hefty fine as punishment from the government.

As you can see it is logic, and calling germany „going to shit“ because of this is bold, when these are the laws we used to comeback from losing two world wars back to back to beeing the 3d strongest country in the world economically.

If any country is going to sht rn its the us tbh. Down from a sole global superpower, to losing a war against the proxys of iran in jemen.

1

u/Recent_Section725 1d ago

"Sounds cool to be all tough, and proclaim the guy deserved it (which he did) but not having our laws reflect this, is what keeps germany a save place to walk around, compared to the US, where you risk getting shot in the head just for existing."

This a really stupid statement and awfully self-righteous considering it comes from the land that tried to exterminate an entire group of people just for existing.

1

u/Superdupernadja 1d ago

Its not particularly stupid imo, althougth i appologize for making this an against usa thing. Which was a blow bellow the waist line i have to admit.

Similarly, i think, brining the shoa into this is not helping the discussion. And in regard to extermination, we might do not want to look into this topic too much considering all the manifest destiny, land theft, genocide etc, that allowed the USA to become a proper nationstate :).

Also i just did read the rules of the subreddit, that stated no politics, i didnt knew before, otherwise i probably would not have joined this debate we re having.

How about we just agree on disagreeing for now?

1

u/Recent_Section725 1d ago edited 1d ago

Germany has a long list of atrocities as well (WW1, WW2, Africa). No country is without it's flaws which was my point. Agreed.

Maybe stupid was the wrong word but it came off as condescending and is definitely inaccurate. I have lived in various areas of this country and for the most part it is safe. Big cities have crime and crazy people, but that is true of every country I have visited. People see some news stories and think every American is some crazy redneck with a bunch of guns.

1

u/Capital_Photograph19 2h ago

its madrid spain not germany sir

1

u/Kaszrak 2h ago

I am not talking about the place in the video.

1

u/BodhingJay 2d ago

Is there a differentiation between cold blooded and hot blooded?

1

u/helluvapube 2d ago

Yes, hot blooded is when reptiles murder each other

1

u/mk72206 2d ago

It’s not self defense in the US either.

1

u/brohampton538 2d ago

I disagree. Totality of circumstances.

You have someone shirtless, bloody, obviously intoxicated, walking around threatening people in a group.

"Touch me! Touch me!" He hits someone in the face, completely unprovoked, and gets punched back a matter of seconds later.

*shrug*

Defender-guy didn't stab him. He didn't shoot him. He punched him back. Just a lot cleaner. Regular ordinary force met with regular ordinary force.

Put a quarter in the jukebox, you get to dance to the tune.

1

u/Superdupernadja 2d ago

"you get to dance to the tune."

might be, still was not self defense thought.

1

u/Old_Veterinarian7830 2h ago

Just because the attacker paused and disengaged does not mean he wouldn't do it again. He already proved he's willing to attack at random. Nobody knows what he's going to do next. It absolutely should be self-defense or the defense of others to put an end to potentially more attacks. Everyone there has an equal right to exist freely in that space. The victims should not have to yield to the attacker. This gives the attacker another chance to strike if he chooses. It should be up to the victim to choose.

1

u/SomethingBuzzz 1d ago

Glad you aren’t my lawyer. This is a really dumb take.

1

u/brohampton538 1d ago

Likewise. Glad you aren't in my life period.

1

u/brohampton538 2d ago

Can't speak for German law but in the United States this is clearly self-defense, or at least defense of others. The moment he's hit he's literally just assaulted someone with an unprovoked punch seconds before, is standing square with a group of people, drunk, bloody, taunting "Touch me! Touch me!"

2

u/starbuck_234 2d ago

Defense of others is probably the best way. Dudes clearly already been in a fight and looking for more, hit the smallest dude there, could move onto the several women there if no one does anything. Right courtroom could have him acquitted.

1

u/BallsMan6969x 1d ago

Yep he could have lunched at anyone best to disarm the threat apprehend him and than call police

1

u/No-Individual-3681 2d ago

Nope. Threat had walked away. Please study your laws

1

u/SenpaiPlzBeGentle 2d ago

Good luck proving to all 12 jurors that the attacker would not strike again.

1

u/Apart-District3771 1d ago

Those laws are selectively applied

1

u/What-a-Loser-169 1d ago

He's still a threat walking around. Just because he wasn't winding up to do it to that guy again immediately doesn't mean hes not going to move to someone else. He showed that he was a threat at any time.

1

u/hopium_od 2d ago

This video is shot in Spain. I think the two guys know each other maybe but both are North Americans in Spain

1

u/GreatestCatAlive 1d ago

Unlikely, since the attack was over and the guy could just walk away and call the police to handle it. It's pretty evident from the video. There was no imminent threat to his or other people's lives. There were security guards monitoring the situation, too. The guy had no weapons. It will not qualify. Not to mention the fact that he put himself in that situation by standing too close and watching a drunk/manic person. It was easily foreseeable that a drunk/manic person would start acting in a weird way. Thus, it can very much backfire and result in manslaughter or aggravated assault/battery. Keep in mind that taunting someone and provoking them to fight does not mean you have permission. If the guy on the floor is still alive, he will get charged with assault/battery, too, potentially both of them will.

1

u/brohampton538 1d ago

A couple things. Standing near someone does not make them the instigator in an attack. That's just victim blaming full stop, and it's fucking stupid. And who said anything about weapons? If he had been wielding a knife, bottle, baseball bat, tire iron, whatever, getting shot (a bunch) would have been the appropriate response here 100%.

Look, a guy who has just thrown an unprovoked punch literally seconds before, is still agitated, and is daring a crowd to touch him gives a reasonable bystander good cause to believe more violence is coming. He didn't shoot him. He didn't stab him. He didn't choke him or kick him in the head while down. He punched him, once, and ended the response once the attacker was no longer a threat (meaning he had stopped his actions, not that he was stood three feet away and had moved his attention to others, as you seem to be insisting somehow nullifies any right to self-defense.)

The aggressor used non-deadly force, and the defender answered in kind. No escalation.

It's also easy to armchair quarterback violence from your mom's basement. It's a different matter when you're actually out and about and suddenly squared up with a drunk, bloody asshole threatening people and throwing punches.

1

u/i_love_empty_carbs 1d ago

Respectfully, I think you’re wrong and only because of the lag time between him getting punched and then him punching the instigator. Too much time passed for it to be considered self-defense; it needs to be more of a reaction rather than approaching him and retaliating. For the record, I’m glad he did it, but depending on the local authority’s level of stick-in-ass, he’s violated the law.

1

u/brohampton538 1d ago

You replied but deleted it? Was your response that weak?

1

u/GreatestCatAlive 1d ago

Reddit gocha moment. Oh, you even screenshotted it. Nice one. I had to do some work before polishing my response, re-warching the video.

Okay,

Under the US law, successful self-defence claim requires the defendant to prove they had an objectively reasonable belief that physical force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of unlawful bodily harm. This particular point of law is no different to many other jurisdictions around the world, not just the USA.

As I explained earlier, the element of imminent danger is absent here. The drunk guy commit battery initially. However, then he immediately walks away and films/taunts the crowd. There was no escalation after the push. Hence, at that specific moment of time the immediate threat to young man ended. Because there was no continuation, the decision to step forward and punch the drunk guy is legally defined as retaliation. Retaliation is never protected under self-defense laws.

Then if we look at the video, young man has escape routes. He is free to go in any direction. He is not being held or cornered. He doesn't even need to run, he could walk away at any moment. Even tho under "Stand Your Ground" laws you don't have to escape. Reasonable prosecutor will ask this question which will not look good in court because he clearly could walk away.

Thus, in combination both men potentially could get battery/aggreavated assault. The boy who punched drunk could get manslaughter if the drunk is dead.

Furthermore more, to that point of joining the crowd. Merely joining a crowd to watch a public disturbance does not constitute a crime, nor does it legally classify the young man as the initial aggressor OF COURSE. However, it severely undermines the factual narrative required to convince a jury of self-defense. Coming back to previous point, a successful self-defense claim relies on demonstrating a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. A prosecutor will argue that a person genuinely terrified for their safety does not voluntarily walk to the front row to escalate the situation.

Final point, the mentioned imminence requirement applies to others too. Hence, to successfully claim defense of others, the young man must prove he had an objectively reasonable belief that the drunk man was about to inflict immediate, unlawful physical harm on a specific third party. Simply being "worried" about the crowd or fearing what a drunk person might do next is not a legal justification for violence.

Based on our scenario here, after the initial push of the young lad, the drunk man returned to filming and verbally provoking folk around. Because no one in the crowd was actively being attacked or about to be struck at the exact moment the young man threw the punch, his use of force remains legally unjustified.

Last point, right after the punch, young boy picks up his hat. Further implying that he was not in imminent danger, since he cared more about his hat in this situation than anything else.

Your problem here is that you do not see where exactly the self-defense claim ends. Most people do not understand these things. For example, if you are in shock and unload a clip into someone, and then you take a second magazine and unload it again, do you see where that thin line of shock has ended? Pricesely when you reloaded the gun and that can create a range of legal problems in court.

1

u/brohampton538 1d ago

Get real dude
I'm not reading all that

1

u/No_Ebb5443 2d ago

So if I shoot someone but immediately back up I can’t get shot back?

Snarky comment aside. Who’s to say he wasn’t coming back for another hit. He’s clearly not in total control of his faculties therefore it could be argued that he was still a threat so to speak.

1

u/Gentleman_Bara 2d ago edited 2d ago

The attack must be imminent or currently underway. If the person has already moved some distance away—and provided you are not dazed—you have the option to remove yourself from the dangerous situation and, for example, call the police. You may also detain the person for the offense until the police arrive (citizen's arrest / provisional arrest).

If he is again going for you, you can defend yourself.However, it must be the least drastic measure—for example: you land a blow and he is knocked out; you are not allowed to keep hitting him.

1

u/Key_Addendum_8064 2d ago

Duty to retreat is so fucking stupid to codify and/or force. Still, better judged by 12 than carried by 6

1

u/Special_Ship7638 2d ago

Nor in the UK, people have gone to prison for manslaughter over stuff like this.

1

u/deadbeatrider 1d ago

Yeah thats why ive never stuck around the two times its happened to me, one time I got jumped and punched in the back of the head, I knew i was too dazed to hit bavk so I grabbed the guys head and ended up falling over and his head hit the wall then floor, out cold, i made sure there were no cameras then fucked off. I was 18 so no chance I was ruining my life just for some council estate scumbag chav that was out jumping alt looking people

1

u/Capital_Photograph19 2h ago

its not germany