Nordisk Våbenforum

Nogen der ved mere om denne sag, evt hvordan den er endt?

http://politiken.dk/indland/article676497.ece

Hjemmerøverne brød ind hos den 38-årige, der sad sammen med sin mor og en kammerat. Herpå trak banden en pistol og truede familien til at udlevere smykker.

For mig at se bør det ikke takseres som andet end selvforsvar. He even brought a knife to a gun fight... and won!!

Stakkels mand


Via sky

bofhenator skrev:Nogen der ved mere om denne sag, evt hvordan den er endt?

http://politiken.dk/indland/article676497.ece

Jeg ved det ikke, men jeg ville ønske at domstolsstyrelsen snart opgiver deres mangeårige modstand mod en offentligt tilgængelig domsdatabase.

Som det er nu er det helt umuligt at danne sig et indtryk af domspraksis på et område.

Kalthoff skrev:

bofhenator skrev:Nogen der ved mere om denne sag, evt hvordan den er endt?

http://politiken.dk/indland/article676497.ece

Jeg ved det ikke, men jeg ville ønske at domstolsstyrelsen snart opgiver deres mangeårige modstand mod en offentligt tilgængelig domsdatabase.

Som det er nu er det helt umuligt at danne sig et indtryk af domspraksis på et område.

Enig!

Om han så havde stukket ham yderligere 10 gange så havde det stadig været i orden.
Hvis man trænger ind i andre folks hjem, bevæbnet, med røveri for øje, så må man også tage med at risikoen er der for ikke at forlade huset igen.
Der skal helt sikkertlaves om på lovgivningen på det område, som de skriver nederst i artiklen; Det bør altid være lovligt at forsvare sig overfor bevæbnede røvere i eget hjem. Min tilføjelse; Med hvilket som helst middel.

Edit: Desuden havde manden jo intet valg. Alternativer var at udlevere hvad røveren krævede, og bare HÅBE på at man ikke alligevel blev skudt bagefter. Han var nødt til at gøre hvad han gjorde.

Jeg er som udgangspunkt helt enig i at det skal være i orden at bruge nødværge i sådanne situationer, men hvis det ligefrem bliver som i USA, hvor du er i den fulde ret til at skyde folk der trænger ind i dit hus, risikerer vi så ikke at hjemmerøverne bare bliver det mere rå og at dødelig udgang på sådanne bliver normen? Hvis det går ud over røverne - fint nok, men jeg tænker at det også vil koste flere af ofrenes liv..

Den er svær, for jeg er slet ikke i tvivl om at jeg ville bruge alle de midler jeg havde til rådighed, hvis nogen trængte ind og truede min familie.

Problemet, som jeg ser det, er vel at de fleste hjemmerøverere går efter ofre som alligevel ikke kan forsvare sig. Derfor er debatten om retten til at forsvare sit hjem og ikke kun sit liv, en smule hypotetisk.

Jeg håber alligevel at min hund og min alarm kan give mig så meget et forspring, at jeg når at klargøre hvad der måtte falde i min hånd til forsvar af min familie.

Chrstn_Olsen skrev:Jeg er som udgangspunkt helt enig i at det skal være i orden at bruge nødværge i sådanne situationer, men hvis det ligefrem bliver som i USA, hvor du er i den fulde ret til at skyde folk der trænger ind i dit hus, risikerer vi så ikke at hjemmerøverne bare bliver det mere rå og at dødelig udgang på sådanne bliver normen? Hvis det går ud over røverne - fint nok, men jeg tænker at det også vil koste flere af ofrenes liv...

I dette tilfælde trænger et større antal røvere ind bevæbnet med en pistol.. Hvilken eskalering frygter du? At de ankommer i en kampvogn?
Råheden er kommet for at blive og hjemmerøverier har allerede krævet dødsofre - hos ofrene vel at mærke.

Manden reagerede resolut og undgik derved at være i røvernes vold og blive behandlet efter deres forgodtbefindende. Det er prisværdigt.

Der er eksempler på folk der er tæsket ihjel fordi de var passive. Smadrede knæskaller mv. Eller døde på grund af fiksering med reb igen fordi de var passive. Hvis vi lader forbryderne bestemme om vi skal leve så foretrækker de os døde da vi ikke kan vidne imod dem.

Gentleman røveren eksisterer kun på film.

Nu er sagen jo over 4 år gammel, så har noget resultatet?

I forhold til antal hjemmerøverier er antal døde ofre lavt - bevidste mord endnu lavere. De omkomne er typisk svagere ældre. Lidt knubs er da at foretrække frem for at tage en chance mod flere røvere, men hvis man i situationen fornemmer hvor det bærer henad så er det self bare med at slå først og slå hårdt!

Chrstn_Olsen skrev:I forhold til antal hjemmerøverier er antal døde ofre lavt - bevidste mord endnu lavere. De omkomne er typisk svagere ældre. Lidt knubs er da at foretrække frem for at tage en chance mod flere røvere, men hvis man i situationen fornemmer hvor det bærer henad så er det self bare med at slå først og slå hårdt!

'Lidt knubs' ER i min optik at tage chancen mod flere røvere.
Man satser ved passivitet vel på at gerningsmændene holder inde eller viser mådehold? - det er for mig at se en helt ubegrundet antagelse at opstille overfor ufredsmænd der er brudt ind i ens hjem.

Marius skrev: 'Lidt knubs' ER i min optik at tage chancen mod flere røvere.
Man satser ved passivitet vel på at gerningsmændene holder inde eller viser mådehold? - det er for mig at se en helt ubegrundet antagelse at opstille overfor ufredsmænd der er brudt ind i ens hjem.

My point exactly

Jeg kan sku sagtens se logikken i at slå først, men det skal jo holdes op imod risikoen for at der kan gå noget galt, som går ud over ens familie..

Chrstn_Olsen skrev:Jeg er som udgangspunkt helt enig i at det skal være i orden at bruge nødværge i sådanne situationer, men hvis det ligefrem bliver som i USA, hvor du er i den fulde ret til at skyde folk der trænger ind i dit hus, risikerer vi så ikke at hjemmerøverne bare bliver det mere rå og at dødelig udgang på sådanne bliver normen? Hvis det går ud over røverne - fint nok, men jeg tænker at det også vil koste flere af ofrenes liv..

Den er svær, for jeg er slet ikke i tvivl om at jeg ville bruge alle de midler jeg havde til rådighed, hvis nogen trængte ind og truede min familie.

Your statement about the U.S. is not entirely correct. Yes, in some states this may be true but not in all, actually only in a few. Most states do not have such laws, thankfully. In most states one must meet the criteria for use of deadly force even in one's home.

Remember that we are the United States, 50 actual states, each with our own laws.

Universal 2.0 skrev: Your statement about the U.S. is not entirely correct. Yes, in some states this may be true but not in all, actually only in a few. Most states do not have such laws, thankfully. In most states one must meet the criteria for use of deadly force even in one's home.

Remember that we are the United States, 50 actual states, each with our own laws.

I wrote a thesis on gun control in the US 5 years ago. I had a section on the Castle Doctrine. I do not know whether the details have changed in the last 5 years but in 2008 the Castle Doctrine stated that if a person unlawfully enters your residence and you reasonably believe that the person did so to inflict you bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine contains a Duty-to-Retreat clause in which you are obligated to retreat as far back in your residence as possible, before the use of deadly force is allowed. In 2005, only 2 of 50 states had adopted a Duty-to-Retreat clause.

Gunslinger skrev:

Universal 2.0 skrev: Your statement about the U.S. is not entirely correct. Yes, in some states this may be true but not in all, actually only in a few. Most states do not have such laws, thankfully. In most states one must meet the criteria for use of deadly force even in one's home.

Remember that we are the United States, 50 actual states, each with our own laws.

I wrote a thesis on gun control in the US 5 years ago. I had a section on the Castle Doctrine. I do not know whether the details have changed in the last 5 years but in 2008 the Castle Doctrine stated that if a person unlawfully enters your residence and you reasonably believe that the person did so to inflict you bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine contains a Duty-to-Retreat clause in which you are obligated to retreat as far back in your residence as possible, before the use of deadly force is allowed. In 2005, only 2 of 50 states had adopted a Duty-to-Retreat clause.

The so called stand your ground and Castle Doctrine laws are state laws so to say "in the U.S." is indeed incorrect. If there was a federal Castle Doctrine it would be correct. I am fairly sure that the states with such laws are in the minority.

Also, and I do not know this for sure either, but I believe a lot more than two states have a duty to retreat.

Which state's law are you quoting?

Gunslinger skrev:

Universal 2.0 skrev: Your statement about the U.S. is not entirely correct. Yes, in some states this may be true but not in all, actually only in a few. Most states do not have such laws, thankfully. In most states one must meet the criteria for use of deadly force even in one's home.

Remember that we are the United States, 50 actual states, each with our own laws.

I wrote a thesis on gun control in the US 5 years ago. I had a section on the Castle Doctrine. I do not know whether the details have changed in the last 5 years but in 2008 the Castle Doctrine stated that if a person unlawfully enters your residence and you reasonably believe that the person did so to inflict you bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine contains a Duty-to-Retreat clause in which you are obligated to retreat as far back in your residence as possible, before the use of deadly force is allowed. In 2005, only 2 of 50 states had adopted a Duty-to-Retreat clause.

OK. I was on my phone before but have the full sized keyboard now. My main point is that it is common to refer to the United States and its laws as one entity. That is incorrect in most cases. When you mention the Castle Doctrine my question is which one? There are several. Just because one state's version is written a certain way does not mean they all are.

Regarding duty to retreat, that may very well mean different things depending on the context. I am best informed about Nebraska criminal law and there duty to retreat means that if one can get away to prevent the use of force, then one must do so. This does not apply in one's home or place of work. That, however, does not mean the use of deadly force may be used unless the likelihood of death or great bodily harm is present. Someone breaking into one's home with the intent to steal would not qualify and as far as I know, Texas is the only state in which deadly force may be used to protect property. Also, Nebraska law states that if one can prevent harm by giving up the item or items "requested" then one should do so. To the best of knowledge that is pretty standard across many states.

I personally think that laws that allow a person to kill someone without having a very good reason i.e. the threat of death or serious injury are a bad idea. To ask someone to run away if possible to prevent the use of force is correct. Of course, no one should have to run away from his/her home but being able to shoot someone just because that person is in one's home without permission is crazy.

What level of thesis was this? Undergrad or graduate? What is your degree in? I, myself, wrote a graduate thesis in history and teach the subject at the college level now.

P.S. No need to write in English. I can read Danish but normally write in English as it takes me forever to reply in Danish.

Marius skrev:

Chrstn_Olsen skrev:I forhold til antal hjemmerøverier er antal døde ofre lavt - bevidste mord endnu lavere. De omkomne er typisk svagere ældre. Lidt knubs er da at foretrække frem for at tage en chance mod flere røvere, men hvis man i situationen fornemmer hvor det bærer henad så er det self bare med at slå først og slå hårdt!

'Lidt knubs' ER i min optik at tage chancen mod flere røvere.
Man satser ved passivitet vel på at gerningsmændene holder inde eller viser mådehold? - det er for mig at se en helt ubegrundet antagelse at opstille overfor ufredsmænd der er brudt ind i ens hjem.

Specielt det sidste er og vil blive min begrundelse hvis jeg nogensinde gør en indbruds tyv fortræd, skulle jeg være hjemme når det skete.
Er folk afstumpet nok til at bryde ind i dit hjem mens du er hjemme, så har de nok heller ikke så svært ved at gøre dig fortræd, i større eller mindre grad.

Vil også argumentere for at det ikke kan være acceptabelt at jeg skal være offer, i en situation som den modsatte part har startet.

Universal 2.0 skrev:

Gunslinger skrev:

Universal 2.0 skrev: Your statement about the U.S. is not entirely correct. Yes, in some states this may be true but not in all, actually only in a few. Most states do not have such laws, thankfully. In most states one must meet the criteria for use of deadly force even in one's home.

Remember that we are the United States, 50 actual states, each with our own laws.

I wrote a thesis on gun control in the US 5 years ago. I had a section on the Castle Doctrine. I do not know whether the details have changed in the last 5 years but in 2008 the Castle Doctrine stated that if a person unlawfully enters your residence and you reasonably believe that the person did so to inflict you bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine contains a Duty-to-Retreat clause in which you are obligated to retreat as far back in your residence as possible, before the use of deadly force is allowed. In 2005, only 2 of 50 states had adopted a Duty-to-Retreat clause.

OK. I was on my phone before but have the full sized keyboard now. My main point is that it is common to refer to the United States and its laws as one entity. That is incorrect in most cases. When you mention the Castle Doctrine my question is which one? There are several. Just because one state's version is written a certain way does not mean they all are.

Regarding duty to retreat, that may very well mean different things depending on the context. I am best informed about Nebraska criminal law and there duty to retreat means that if one can get away to prevent the use of force, then one must do so. This does not apply in one's home or place of work. That, however, does not mean the use of deadly force may be used unless the likelihood of death or great bodily harm is present. Someone breaking into one's home with the intent to steal would not qualify and as far as I know, Texas is the only state in which deadly force may be used to protect property. Also, Nebraska law states that if one can prevent harm by giving up the item or items "requested" then one should do so. To the best of knowledge that is pretty standard across many states.

I personally think that laws that allow a person to kill someone without having a very good reason i.e. the threat of death or serious injury are a bad idea. To ask someone to run away if possible to prevent the use of force is correct. Of course, no one should have to run away from his/her home but being able to shoot someone just because that person is in one's home without permission is crazy.

What level of thesis was this? Undergrad or graduate? What is your degree in? I, myself, wrote a graduate thesis in history and teach the subject at the college level now.

P.S. No need to write in English. I can read Danish but normally write in English as it takes me forever to reply in Danish.

Det var mit Bachelor projekt fra Universitetet i Aarhus. Jeg undersøgte hvordan og hvorfor amerikanernes forhold til våben opstod, og hvordan NRA og The Brady Campaign profilere sig for at få støtte fra befolkningen. Til præsentationen blev vi opfordret til at komme med nyt materiale, for ikke at gengive dele af opgaven som de allerede havde læst. Det var i denne forbindelse jeg læste om the Castle Doctrine. For at opgaven ikke skulle blive for omfattende valgte jeg ikke at redegøre for de forskellige state laws, men blot overordnet at opridse de muligheder folk har i tilfælde af at de føler sig nødsagte til at skyde for at forsvare sig selv.

Hæftede mig også ved, at man i Texas må åbne ild for at forsvare sine egendele, og læste om en episode hvor en mand havde dræbt en indbrudstyv mens denne var på vej ud af huset med mandens tv.

Jeg fandt en forholdsvis ny gennemgang af emnet, den handler dog ikke specifikt om hjemmerøverier eller indbrud, men om §13 stk2 generelt

https://www.djoef-forlag.dk/services/ju ... _14_18.pdf

Gunslinger skrev:

Universal 2.0 skrev:

Gunslinger skrev:

Universal 2.0 skrev: Your statement about the U.S. is not entirely correct. Yes, in some states this may be true but not in all, actually only in a few. Most states do not have such laws, thankfully. In most states one must meet the criteria for use of deadly force even in one's home.

Remember that we are the United States, 50 actual states, each with our own laws.

I wrote a thesis on gun control in the US 5 years ago. I had a section on the Castle Doctrine. I do not know whether the details have changed in the last 5 years but in 2008 the Castle Doctrine stated that if a person unlawfully enters your residence and you reasonably believe that the person did so to inflict you bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine contains a Duty-to-Retreat clause in which you are obligated to retreat as far back in your residence as possible, before the use of deadly force is allowed. In 2005, only 2 of 50 states had adopted a Duty-to-Retreat clause.

OK. I was on my phone before but have the full sized keyboard now. My main point is that it is common to refer to the United States and its laws as one entity. That is incorrect in most cases. When you mention the Castle Doctrine my question is which one? There are several. Just because one state's version is written a certain way does not mean they all are.

Regarding duty to retreat, that may very well mean different things depending on the context. I am best informed about Nebraska criminal law and there duty to retreat means that if one can get away to prevent the use of force, then one must do so. This does not apply in one's home or place of work. That, however, does not mean the use of deadly force may be used unless the likelihood of death or great bodily harm is present. Someone breaking into one's home with the intent to steal would not qualify and as far as I know, Texas is the only state in which deadly force may be used to protect property. Also, Nebraska law states that if one can prevent harm by giving up the item or items "requested" then one should do so. To the best of knowledge that is pretty standard across many states.

I personally think that laws that allow a person to kill someone without having a very good reason i.e. the threat of death or serious injury are a bad idea. To ask someone to run away if possible to prevent the use of force is correct. Of course, no one should have to run away from his/her home but being able to shoot someone just because that person is in one's home without permission is crazy.

What level of thesis was this? Undergrad or graduate? What is your degree in? I, myself, wrote a graduate thesis in history and teach the subject at the college level now.

P.S. No need to write in English. I can read Danish but normally write in English as it takes me forever to reply in Danish.

Det var mit Bachelor projekt fra Universitetet i Aarhus. Jeg undersøgte hvordan og hvorfor amerikanernes forhold til våben opstod, og hvordan NRA og The Brady Campaign profilere sig for at få støtte fra befolkningen. Til præsentationen blev vi opfordret til at komme med nyt materiale, for ikke at gengive dele af opgaven som de allerede havde læst. Det var i denne forbindelse jeg læste om the Castle Doctrine. For at opgaven ikke skulle blive for omfattende valgte jeg ikke at redegøre for de forskellige state laws, men blot overordnet at opridse de muligheder folk har i tilfælde af at de føler sig nødsagte til at skyde for at forsvare sig selv.

Hæftede mig også ved, at man i Texas må åbne ild for at forsvare sine egendele, og læste om en episode hvor en mand havde dræbt en indbrudstyv mens denne var på vej ud af huset med mandens tv.

Sounds like a very interesting thesis.

Politiet som hjemmerøvere er ikke interesseret i en bevæbnet borger. Dertil har de en sammenfalden interesse forhold..lidt pudsigt ikk' ?.

Rigbymauser skrev:Politiet som hjemmerøvere er ikke interesseret i en bevæbnet borger. Dertil har de en sammenfalden interesse forhold..lidt pudsigt ikk' ?.

If this was in response to anything I wrote, please explain as I have no clue what you are trying to say.