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.

▲

lwkl 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

weinzierl 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The knife vs gun is literally the example from legal education to teach that §32 StGB requires the mildest means available in the concrete situation.

▲

bulbar 12 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	weinzierl 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

bulbar 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

▲

weinzierl 13 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

bulbar 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Support for the general argument: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwehr_(Deutschland)

> 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]

More specifically, a teacher slapping a child to defend against six year old children: https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2016/09/08/richter-billigen-... https://famos.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/...

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.

	▲	weinzierl 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are shifting goalposts. 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.". Both are false.

▲

austin-cheney 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

CWuestefeld 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

bulbar 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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).

See here for example as reference: https://zjs-online.com/dat/artikel/2020_2_1383.pdf

First 1-2 sentences.

	▲	weinzierl 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"First 1-2 sentences" First sentence is "Zur Erforderlichkeit der Notwehrhandlung" (About the necessity of self defense acts). The whole document is about the necessity aspect but §32 StGB requires Notendigkeit (necessity) AND Gebotenheit (appropriateness).

▲

whstl 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

weinzierl 13 hours ago | parent [-]

§32 StGB requires "Erforderlichkeit" (necessity) AND "Gebotenheit" (appropriateness).

The knife vs gun example is from legal education to teach that §32 StGB requires the mildest means available in the concrete situation.

▲

whstl 12 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	weinzierl 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.