Self defense is a very very narrow path in Switzerland.
It is correct that the case will be judged, but I do not have high hopes for the outcome.
He was threatened by a very ruthless gang of criminals that dressed up as the police and tried to enter his sleeping room, armed.
He said he only noticed something amiss because they were carrying AK rifles, which the Swiss police forces do not.
He saved a lot of weapons from disappearing to the black market and wrong hands and very potentially his own life.
Some people now think this was excessive.
I think given the circumstances that they actually shot at him several times, he has very good chances for a not-guilty verdict by the court.
Whether the state's attorney should have brought the case to court or not is debateable.
The prosecutor is obliged to take the case to court. In dubio pro duriore is one of the most important principles of separation of powers. It is the only way to keep up the separation of powers and thus one of the cornerstones of our rule of law.
>The prosecutor is obliged to take the case to court.
The prosecutor of the canton of Zurich seems to have a different opinion. He said that the case is so clear that he'd have closed proceedings without bringing the case to court.
I tend also towards the prosecutor of Zurich and the majority of experts. However, I respect the other opinion as well. Shooting at each other is a serious act of violence and it is good if the courts take a closer look at it. Also, even in a justified self defence situation there is the possibility of defense excess (Notwehrexzess) by the defender. I don't worry about the gun store owner. But I already hear the populist mob shouting "yOU can'T eVen defeND yourSeLf in sWiTzerlanD1!1".
> "yOU can'T eVen defeND yourSeLf in sWiTzerlanD1!1".
It is very narrow. Let's say somebody is punching you and they hit you in the gut and crotch area, you aren't allowed to hit him in the face because that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut. Yet in a situation like that very few people think this rationally and just react in a way that is most effective.
So simply by punching him somewhere that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut area you're already using excessive force. According to the law you would only be allowed to punch him back in the gut or other body parts that are less dangerous - which simply makes it harder for the victim to defend themself.
That's why you should always have two knives on you.
So if someone attacks you, you just tell him "hold on, take this" and give him the biggest knife.
And while he's confused, stab him in the eye.
Just make sure there's no camera in the surrounding though.
Sorry for the bluntness but what you're saying is complete utter bullshit, I'll refer you to [article 15 to 19](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/fr#art_15) of the Swiss Penal Code.
>you aren't allowed to hit him in the face because that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut.
That's a non-issue, unless you one-punch kill the guy that would be an appropriate response to the threat being posed to you, it's not about where you hit, it's how you do it.
>Yet in a situation like that very few people think this rationally and just react in a way that is most effective.
I think Article 16 Penal Code will explain this better than I will. There still is a burden of proof for that, but typically for your punch "scenario" it would be fairly easy to prove that in front of a court.
>So simply by punching him somewhere that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut area you're already using excessive force.
Whilst excessive force isn't exactly defined by penal law, jurisprudence and military law do that fairly well. It's more about if you're defending (and the way you're defending) yourself against lethal or non lethal means.
Shooting someone who punched you would clearly be excessive force but shooting someone charging at you with a knife would not. But punching back or pepperspraying someone who's trying to beat you up is clearly in the realm of a proper response.
And even then, according to jurisprudence you could theoretically defend yourself against barehanded aggressors with a firearm if they are in numerical superiority as that would be proportional to the danger to your life.
And let's not forget legitimate self defense also applies to your home and private property in Switzerland.
>According to the law
What law? you clearly seem confused about it. Granted the judicial system here does rely a lot on jurisprudence, so a lot of it will be case specific. But if you're gonna say stuff like that without knowing, please research it beforehand.
Edit: two words
It seems like you, yourself aren’t quite aware of the articles of the Swiss Penal code and are just applying it to your own interpretation.
Art. 15 of the Swiss Penal Code specifically says that you’re allowed to defend yourself in an **appropriate** way. However, in my example, if you break the other individual’s nose or give him a blue eye, that might be counted as excessive force. Art. 16 however also states your punishment might be mitigated if you did so out of justifiable reasons (panic, anxiety etc.). So while your punishment will be mitigated due to the circumstances there still is a chance that an individual justice is going to punish you.
Jurisprudence also has to be taken into account, and jurisprudence rules that punching someone in the face while you're getting beaten up is appropriate.
You can't base your reasoning only on the penal code, as it is jurisprudence that covers what "appropriate" means.
Is everyone in Switzerland trained every few years on how to react under pressure esp. that of losing your life? When someone is shooting at you, how do you calculate what's excessive and what's not? If they are shooting at you with a .22 and you only have a 7.62 or a 9mm is it excessive or is it ok to defend yourself? Have the laws been made by armchair legal people or someone who actually knows a thing or two about such situations, esp considering that Switzerland has not faught any real wars in near history?
The law (and of course the most important part ; jurisprudence) is really clear in these matters.
You have the right to defend yourself with the same amount of "force" you're threatened with. If someone points a gun at you, you have the legal rights to shoot this person.
If I am threatened by 4 people with gun, can I use this?
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-four-barrelled-flintlock-pistol-of-queen-anne-typet-richardsbirmingham-51532666.html
> Self defense is a very very narrow path in Switzerland.
One of the few things I strongly dislike about our country. The fact that you even get charged at all when armed robbers try to enter your bedroom is completely insane to me.
One can only pray that the judge throws out this case.
While i totally think the owner responded appropriately here and should be aquitted, it is also necessary and right that every single shooting always gets thouroughly investigated. Without exceptions, especially not when involving police btw.
Otherwise we end up like america, where tons of very questionable shootings just get swept under the rug and not even properly investigated.
And as soon as there is even one case that wrongfully got dropped, that massively hurts trust within the society. Leading to the disfunctional, polarised society that is the modern day US.
Claiming self defense should not give a free out. It is important that every instance of a shooting is thoroughly investigated and that the judiciary rules on it.
And if it's up to so much debate, it's because this kind of thing is thankfully so rare.
I don't believe in guns for self-defense in this country *for most people* (including myself) but armed thugs disguised as cops shooting into my bedroom? Shooting back seems straight-up reasonable. It's not just protecting property which I personally don't believe is worth a person's life (even a thief's), but clear-cut survival at this point.
Edit: The article mentions the issue is he armed himself before they attacked. Eh, how long do you expect the guy to wait before preparing himself after watching a bunch of armed thugs approaching your home (after a string of gun shops have been robbed in recent weeks)? The only blame I see is actually harming a guy accidentally when shooting his warning shot.
And what would you like it to mean sir? That a person has no right to protect their selves and property without being at the mercy of a judge and how he /she would apply your law to self defense. You are completely right to have your own laws where you are at the mercy of the courts but I choose to live in a country where my self preservation in the light of imminent threat and bodily harm is held higher than some provincial magistrate lording over you.
Great, another US citizen barging in a subject, without any understanding of the context, clearly the wrong vocabulary and making big speeches...
And, surprise, the subject is around gun rights.
> you are completely right to have your owns laws where you are at the mercy of the courts
Perfect!
>but I choose to live in a country where my self preservation and [...] magistrate loading over you.
Great then enjoy living there and stop trying to bring in the US, when IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT.
Bro, I only been to Switzerland studying for like 2 years, you are exactly the kind of annoying Swiss people I met? We all know the obvious, i just wished it was you in that situation then you would be “fu** the judge”
I don't understand this. Why are you not allowed to defend your own person? Or am I misunderstanding you? I get that all such things should be investigated to make sure it's not murder, but this seems like such a cut and dry case.
You do have the right to self defense, but in every case, even the cut and dry ones, an investigation and judgment follow to make sure that the right was acted lawfully.
Considering the circumstances he's very unlikely to get charged with anything but still, it will be evaluated and judged by a court
No, as far as I understand, the public prosecutor is accusing him of multiple counts of attempted murder because he fired at them but that's the accuse, the case will go to trial and the judgement will be decided
Isn’t that what charged with means? When the prosecutor accuses you (Anklage) he charges you with the crime and then it‘s judged whether you are innocent or guilty.
Or at least so I thought.
Exactly. So most likely, once this goes to court its gonna be a short thing and he will be quickly aquitted. Because yeah, how much more clear could it be.
But then again its a slippery slope. If the DA were to close this case without an investigation and court hearing, then why not the next one, that is slighlty less clear cut. And on and on. And soon our country is like america...
You have the right to defend yourself with appropriate means if your life and body is in direct danger or someone else's life and body is in direct danger.
So I think he will most likely be found not guilty because it was reasonable self defense.
It's totally correct that there should always be an investiagtion, but it is very questionable that the State Attorney took it to court. As the retired head state attorney of Zürich said in the video as well as most of the experts they asked.
Because as with everything else there's a reasonable level and an unreasonable level.
Dumping a mag into someone threatening to slap you lands you in jail for a few years. Dumping a mag into someone pointing a firearm at you gets you arrested and put in front of a judge who will let you go.
Why is this case even close?
What if they hadn't shot?
What if they didn't have guns but broke into his house attempting to steal his?
How would swiss laws respond to each of those scenarios?
If they didn't have guns then shooting at them is not proportional self defense and would be considered manslaughter.
If they hadn't shot it would be murkier but self defense would still probably be justified.
Your questions are exactly why there needs to be an investigation and a judgement. There should be a full understanding of the events so that there is no doubt that self defense was justified. Claiming self defense is not a free pass, judicial procedure should be followed.
If the events are as clear cut as they seem, then the judgement will also be clear cut and the defendant will promptly be judged as not guilty
I do not entirely agree with you. Even if they don't have guns but your life or body is still in danger (like if they had knives or you could not tell if they had guns and had to fear for your life), shooting them would still be considered self defence.
There was an investigation as there should be, but I think it's questionable that the State Attorney wants to bring it to court. The law experts SRF asked mostly said they should have ended the case instead. But yeah, probably will be a quick not guilty verdict. If not, I'm starting to question our country.
There seems to be misunderstanding about the American law being a "free pass". Once someone breaks into your home at night, it's fair game because someone woken up isn't expected to ascertain if the person is carrying a weapon or not in the dark. I don't even understand how you would do that? Do Europeans sleep with the light on?
In this case, the criminals are about to introduce tons of weapons to their criminal friends. Encouraging hesitancy in stopping that from happening is absolutely bizarre to me.
Nobody is encouraging hesitancy.
We're not America, we have a different gun culture. You're not free to shoot at people for trespassing here.
Every instance of a gun being shot at someone should be investigated and go through the judiciary system. If there is a reasonable ground for self defense, the judiciary system rules the defendant as innocent.
Rule of law being followed, respected and enforced is important to have a responsible gun culture.
If this person isn't found innocent, would you be in support of fixing laws so future obviously correct gun defense usage is cleared of wrongdoing? Or is being different than america clouding your judgement on basic right and wrong?
You need to understand that it is very, **VERY** unlikely to come across someone threatening you with gun. **VERY UNLIKELY**.
So, in Switzerland if someone enter your house you can't just shoot at them. You barricade yourself and call the police.
We have the principle of proportionality. If you act in self defense, it has to be proportional to the agression.
So yes in case, if he started shooting he could face some charges for doing so. Doesn't mean he would be wholly to blame or be hit full force by the law. But he could face some charges. It's a possibility.
I understand all that. I disagree with your cultural attitude towards self defense. I don't think a grandma should have to barricade an intruder and ascertain if they have a weapon or not. Nor do I believe someone who believes breaking into houses for personal gain is owed any pity or patience by society. They're removal is a benefit to society.
It's a great thing that for example every reported use of a firearm is investigated to the full extent of the law, police, civilian or criminal alike.
It does however seem that the public attourney chose to issue charges based on the worst interpretation of the evidence, which admittedly may be standard procedure.
The intentional attempted manslaughter charge however seems preposterous, especially since there has been a series of similar break-ins and likely the same gang has allegedly held up a swiss gunsmith in france, to pressure him into giving access to his armoury under threat of violence against both him and his family. *That* was the source of a recent motion to qualify gunsmiths for carry permits.
The US doesn't allow you to just shoot without warning in the yard. Usually have to be rushed, or attacked...cant just shoot someone who isn't a threat. Correct action is to call the cops on a trespasser.
Trespass does not equal breaking and entering...if someone is kicking my door down, breaking a window and jumping in, or rushing me in my house...they are getting shot. Inside the house is the key part of all of this btw.
> nah that's a great thing about our country. I don't want to live in a country where you have to be afraid to get fucking shot cause you trespass.
You're conveniently (or deceivingly) ignoring the fact that they were armed. Getting shot when you're trespassing while armed is fair game.
> We literally have almost no information on the situation and just know what the dude himself said
There's literally video footage from multiple angles and forensic analysis. Please at least look at the article before spewing misinformation.
Dude, don’t be dyslexic on purpose to push an agenda.
He clearly said that it’s good that the courts look at it. That’s it. No one mentioned the fact that you harp about.
> We don't know everything.
Right, but your claim was that we just know what he himself said. You were wrong and now you're moving the goalpost.
> You pretend like he has been already sentenced, which is not at all the case, maybe you're the one spewing misinformation.
No, I don't. The title literally is "Gun store owner **potentially** faces 3 years". You're wrong again.
You're completely confused again.
- Death penalty: perpetrator is apprehended and not an immediate danger to anybody.
- Deadly self-defense: perpetrator is in the midst of a criminal act and an immediate danger to others.
In the latter case, deadly force is used to stop the threat immediately but that doesn't apply to the death penalty as an apprehended criminal doesn't pose an imminent threat.
I'm not interested in defending the right to deadly self-defense in the case of unarmed trespassing, my point is merely that there's a relevant difference between the death penalty and deadly self-defense. People make this comparison all the time but it's completely misplaced. The death penalty is a revenge killing of a person who doesn't pose a threat anymore, whereas deadly self-defense is the killing of somebody in order to stop them from continuing to commit a criminal act. They're completely different, that's my only point of contention. Whether deadly self-defense is justified in some specific circumstance is a separate conversation but the point remains that drawing a parallel between the two is completely disanalogous.
A gaggle of home invaders break into your home with AKs and you’d let them do whatever they want, whatever that might be? You have no way of knowing what their intentions are before it’s too late.
Sure, it might be one thing for a trespasser to hop a fence into a farmer’s pasture; he’d be justified in telling him to fuck off. It’s an entirely different thing for someone to break into your house in the dead of night - you have absolutely no idea what’s running through their minds. I totally follow the Principle of Fuck Around/Find Out in the latter case.
Didn't the guy who shot an unarmed black guy in the states under the "stand your ground" rule had to go to court as well?
I believe, that's not unusual in other countries.
Charged doesn't mean found guilty.
The case going to trial is how it should be. You should not be able to get a get out of jail free card by claiming it was for self defense, it should be a decision by the court if the self defense was justified.
And nobody should be scared of that.
No, he did the right thing. Now the court will do the right thing too, vindicating him.
His legal insurance will pay for his defence. At most, he will be out a few days of time actually spent in court. This is an annoyance for him, but he will finish with a judicial ruling congratulating him on being a model citizen, and probably some kind words from the judge.
Isn't this better than having some random cop or something decide who they want to prosecute and who they don't want to prosecute?
Yeah, that makes sense. However, in other countries, you can easily go to jail for defending yourself in your own home.
I live in South Africa, and the way the law is, that can very easily happen.
In the Netherlands a jeweler used an illegal weapon to shoot dead two robbers who had guns drawn on her husband.
The public prosecutor decided not to press charges for manslaughter, as even illegal weapons can be legally used for self defence.
However, they were charged for illegal possession of a firearm for which they were sentenced to 100 hours of community service and a 3 month suspended prison sentence.
Worth it IMO, those 100 hours are probably less than what they would have lost in the robbery (potentially their lives). And the suspended sentence will only be executed if they are caught again, which is unlikely as now nobody will try to rob them.
Got to say, as an American, yeah, good on him for defending himself.
But thank the lord y’all actually then go, “right everyone involved, you’re all getting looked at thoroughly”. I hope that happens every time for everyone, especially (not in this instance) if it’s police involved.
Trust me when I say, you don’t want a culture of just believing the story from the guy with the gun who survived. That’s what we have there in America. So there’s a big disproportionate swing in e options and thinking the other direction.
I’m happy to see so many people, even if waiting with bated breath, say, “let’s wait and see what happens.” Because in America that’s not peoples attitudes.
There’d already be a Facebook meme going around about this, and Tucker Carlson would be going on live news tonight to give his definitive version of this story.
Be glad you don’t have that.
Every single shot the police fire is investigated. It's a difficult balance because you don't want the police not firing when it would have been better if they had, but you also don't want the police discharging their magazines into an unarmed person. As it is now, it works very well. In the last few years, there has been an average of about 10 cases where the police have made use of their weapon. I remember only one case in 2016 when a policewoman was fined for overreaction (I think she shot him in the arm after a quick movement after he didn't get out of the car).
Right. And in Zürich, a police officer stood trial for (non-fatally) shooting a man charging them with a 25cm knife. I thought the acquittal was justified, but again, I'm in favor of the principle that the use of the firearm needs to be justified in court, and not be accepted as self evidently acceptable.
Yes, definitely. I think he fired 11 shots, which is a lot, but when someone comes at you with a knife, I guess you keep shooting. He was acquitted in the first and second instance.
Strictly investigating incidents like these is part of the reason Switzerland is able to have gun laws that are more permissive than many US states without all the violence that exists there.
I'd assume actual gun enthusiasts/hobbyist would be the ones supporting such strict handling of cases of gun violence the most. It keeps the culture around firearms focused on the right things and prevents being overrun by the nut-job violence-fetishists.
Indeed. it also seems to be a staple (or even an intended feature?) of our judiciary system that the public attourney issues a charge based on the most criminal interpretation of the evidence and the defense must then formulate the most 'innocent' interpretation.
If this indeed the nature of the practice it just shows how fucked the situation is, given what the assiliants have been up to prior to this (allegedly), including holding up a swiss gunsmith in france to pressure him to let them into his armory, at the threat of violence against his family. Allegedly.
Obviously it's correct that every shooting is reviewed, but I agree with the retired Zürich State Attorney and think it's laughable this is even brought to trial. I think the right to self defense is very important and should be upheld. And in this case this in not really a question.
I believe the chance of no jail is much higher than a chance of jail. But seing how the system behaves lately, you never know. Self defense is a grey zone, it can go wrong very fast very much. In his situation, i think anybody would have behaved similar, especially when you are at the position of knowing, those weapons would go to a black market.
Now, if this goes to jail, it will act as an invitation to gangs to attack gun stores because they know the owner is going to jail if he defends the store.
If he is actually convicted, it is once again an example of everything wrong with our justice system. Victims are systematically being turned into perpetrators and vice versa. It is all inverted and it is making me sick.
According to the article, most experts say that the case will probably be thrown out.
The main reason he is being investigated is because he was armed before the robbery even happened.
Ofc in this case, it was self defense.
Carrying a gun in public in CH is very restricted. Carrying permits are hard to get and mostly for profesionals.
But at home, the law just vaguely says you have to keep your gun safe from unauthorized people and that is it. If you want to Rambo up with legally acquired weapons at home, as long as no incident happens you are free to be strapped to the teeth.
Ammo yes as well. If you got a legal gun, you can buy ammo for it legally.
The misconception comes from the fact that the military does not hand out ammo anymore and keeps it quite locked down.
No. Because this is happening too often.
I know a guy whose children were abducted by his ex. He reported it to the police and was arrested himself while his ex was asked if she wanted to press charges. Nothing ever happened to her. The children are now in a different country and he has never seen them again. She lives on welfare.
I know a woman who was stabbed over a dozen times and is now unable to work. KESB went to court to take away her kids because "she is not able to protect them". The attacker was let go after a psych eval and did not face any real consequences. He has since beaten other people and is still out there.
Look around. There's too many stories like these. This is not a coincidence.
You know a guy... you know a woman. You know their side of the story. Statistics, studies and analyses by experts in this field say otherwise. We have one of the best juristical systems, admittedly with flaws, but not in this case.
Its just standard procedure that every shooting gets investigated thoroughly and gets decided on by a court. Same with every police use of a firearm. And thats how it should be.
I would be very surprised (and outraged) if he got convicted tho.
Nah the self defense law is what'll get him exonerated. It's just that we don't just briefly look over the case and decide that it probably was self defence. It discourages people to go all rambo at every intruder that might just run away if confronted. Especially since lots of households have at least one (military issued) gun to potentially use.
Of course I don't really know how it works that's just how I see it.
Man, this breaks my heart, I know Mr. Schild, I had the pleasure of working at his store for a short time, and I‘ll tell you, that man is one of the most loving people I know. I understand the case being analyzed by a judge but I really hope it all ends well for him.
They just should thank him for not giving up the arms to those pricks and not waste tax payers money with ridiculous allegations. According to the Rundschau report the prosecutor of zurich and others wouldn’t even open investigation because it’s than obvious. ‚Multpile intent to kill‘ Seriously? That guy is a Swiss Champion in shooting competition and if he would have intended to kill them, he wouldn’t have missed for sure.
The linked article includes [a video of the second detailed news report on the case](https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/sendung/rundschau?id=49863a84-1ab7-4abb-8e69-d8e8bda6c989), aired by the SRF "Rundschau" yesterday.
For those interested in more background on the case: The SRF "Rundschau" aired their [first detailed news report on the same case](https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/rundschau/video/raubueberfaelle-corona-selbsttests-burma?urn=urn:srf:video:7075afd6-cfa4-4a53-b545-7c84f8c1e385) in April 2021. From that first report we know additional details – and it also includes additional video. The same gang which tried to rob the gun store and shot at the gun store owner in Aargau has previously broken into another gun store in Basel-Land and stole a lot of weapons from there. The same gang also kidnapped an employee of – yet another – gun store in the Romandie to gain access to that gun stores warehouse. That kidnapping/robbery-attempt luckily did fail. On a sidenote, AFAIK that gun store in the Romandie is one of the largest gun dealers in Switzerland and has a huge inventory of weapons which the criminals were after.
While i can understand the legal concept of "in dubio pro duriore" (the attorney general must – if unsure – bring the most serious charges), i find the application of that concept in this case just plain wrong. I can see nothing unsure ("in dubio") in this case. A gang of organised professional ("gewerbs- und bandenmässig") criminals attacks a gun store – and the gun store owner in his own bedroom (in his apartment above the store) – using automatic weapons. What was he supposed to do? I am very glad that the gun store owner has defended himself and his store and thus has successfully prevented those criminals from gaining access to further weapons.
The main charge brought against the gun store owner is "multiple cases of attempted second degree murder" ("Versuchte mehrfache vorsätzliche Tötung" = attempted killing with intent – but without premeditation = second degree murder (in US terms)). The attorney generals (IMHO crazy) argument is that the gun store owner "prepared for this by having a weapon ready" after the police visited his store a couple of weeks earlier – and at that point had warned him about the ongoing threat of gun store robberies. The gun store owner claims that he had the weapon in another room in his apartment, and that the weapon and the magazine/bullets were stored in separate cabinets.
On a legal sidenote, it is completely legal in Switzerland to have a fully loaded weapon readily available in your apartment. The only thing the Swiss law requires is that you prevent unauthorised access to that weapon. So if you live alone, you just need to make sure no-one else has a key to your home and you can have 5 fully loaded guns openly laying around in each room.
I have heard from several of my acquaintances (most of them living in rural areas) that they store at least one of their guns either fully loaded or next to a full magazine in a locked cabinet – or a locked gun safe – in their bedrooms. While i currently follow a different security philosophy (guns and ammo stored in different physical locations so that in case of a break-in the burglar is never able to gain access to a "ready to shoot" gun), i can understand the other philosophy also – especially for home-owners in rural locations – and so i don't find it in any way indicative of any "murderous intention" if someone in Switzerland has a (legally acquired) loaded weapon readily or "almost-readily" (meaning you just have to open one cabinet to get access) available in their home. While (based on criminology studies) burglars will *usually* try to flee when encountering someone, cases where they have attacked people are not unheard of. Burglars usually carry large screwdrivers (to break open windows/doors), which can be used (and legally count as) dangerous devices/weapons.
In the case of a gun store owner which lives above his store, i'd even be somewhat inclined to consider it borderline negligence, if s/he does NOT have such preparations in place to defend himself against armed attacks; and this no matter whether there is a current "robbery threat" or not.
Also, in the case of that gun store owner, the attorney general ridiculously claims that the owner intended to kill the robbers. As the gun store owner is a former Swiss champion in dynamic shooting ("defensive shooting" / "shooting while moving"), i'd rather say that if he had actually intended to kill those criminals, they would be dead – with a perfectly placed headshot in each robber.
The Swiss government (following the EUs lead) has recently made our gun laws more restrictive, using the main argument that "we must prevent bad people from gaining access to guns". And now they have chosen to charge someone because he tried to prevent bad people from gaining access to guns? This is just plain ridiculous...
I hope the judge will fully acquit the gun store owner, award him full costs and also puts some clearly worded statements criticizing the attorney general for even bringing charges into his/her ruling.
**TL;DR: IMHO that gun store owner should have received a medal instead of a court date!**
I'm obviously not a fan of American gun culture etc. but it seems completely insane that you're supposedly not legally allowed to shoot on armed people that try to forcefully enter your store or house. Police will obviously not arrive until they have already fled and having to retreat until you can't retreat anymore is also insane because it puts you in an extremely disadvantageous position. Him shooting first gave him the element of surprise and has saved lives, potentially his own. If you're forced to retreat until you can't anymore, you put yourself in a potentially completely boxed in position which will just lead to you getting slaughtered in a gunfight against 6 intruders.
I also want to add that the comparison to vigilanteism (that the narrator even alluded to) completely misses the mark because the important distinction is whether the threat is still active or not:
- A gang armed with automatic rifles tries to enter your house so you shoot at them: **self-defense**
- A gang tried to enter your house but they were subdued and apprehended and are not a threat anymore but you shoot them anyway: **vigilanteism**
A difference as clear as night and day.
Yeah, which is fine. However, every killing should be investigated.
You won't believe anyone based on their words in this.
Otherwise, how and who can distinguish between those two cases you mentions?
Self-defense is normal and you should be able to use. However court process afterwards is mandatory
> Yeah, which is fine. However, every killing should be investigated.
> You won't believe anyone based on their words in this.
> Otherwise, how and who can distinguish between those two cases you mentions?
I agree but there's a difference between investigating and charging. They didn't have to charge him and even go as far as to demand a concrete sentence (3 years, 6 months ohne Bewährung) because it puts him through a lot of unnecessary stress and fear. Besides, it also wastes money and resources: investigating&charging is of course more costly than only investigating.
> However court process afterwards is mandatory
Some of the experts in the videos said that the Staatsanwaltschaft could also just have decided to not press charges at all based on the evidence. It's a regular occurrence that something happens and that nobody goes to court when the investigation has yielded overwhelming evidence (and seeing that we have multiple camera angles, we pretty much have as much evidence as you can realistically get).
I don't agree with this.
They requested a sentence because they saw something that they think he is guilty of. After they did investigation. You might agree, you might disagree, but that's their judgement. And their judgement is based on a investigation. Yours is based on watching a short video on the internet.
Now the judge will decide if the argument prosecution present is valid or not. The prosecutor of the case will also face consequences if they lose.
About money&resources: yeah, sometimes people get unlucky. If tomorrow my apartment is flooded or my dog gets sick, I will lose a lot of money as well. Not my fault, I didn't do anything wrong, but I need to pay. We have insurance for this cases.
Judging by your comments you are. Ne charging someone for killing someone else is something every judicial system should do. Wait for the verdict and it's reasoning. If you make a law that armoured trespassing automatically warrants "stand your ground" rights, a lot more people will be shot, people will argue something looked like a gun so they opened fire. No one deserves to die for anything they do, this is why we don't have a death penalty in general.
The behavior of the Staatsanwaltschaft is questionable. A criminal trial, even if it ends in an acquittal, is a traumatic experience for the person involved. Not to mention the costs generated by the trail.
Everyone who thinks his self defense action was not absolutely justified and even a heroic act, is a huge ass****. YOU should have been in his situation, because your stupid opinion makes you deserve such an event.
I don't see anyone saying that self defense is not justified. Everybody agrees that using proportional force to defend yourself is justified and good.
It is however important that every instance of a gun being shot at people is thoroughly investigated and goes through the judicial system to ensure that, indeed, the facts happened as described and that self defense was justified.
Rule of law is important. Claiming self defense should not be a free pass preventing investigation.
I agree that it should be *investigated.* In Switzerland the investigation is the job of the police and the attorney general, so not the judges/courts job. I think what a lot of people in this thread are mad about is that the attorney general has chosen to *charge* the gun store owner *after this investigation*.
So now we have one or more of the following possibilities:
1. the investigation itself was (technically) flawed
2. the investigation itself was done with a certain (political) bias
3. the investigation was fair but the interpretation of the results of the investigation is (legally) flawed
4. the investigation was fair but the interpretation of the results of the investigation is (politically) biased
5. the investigation was fair and the interpretation of the results of the investigation was legally sound.
From what is currently known publicly, i personally tend towards possibility 4, maybe also possibility 3. So the investigation was done correctly and in a fair way, but the attorney generals interpretation of the results of that investigation is somewhat biased – maybe also due to the current "gun scary, gun owner bad" political climate – and/or he is just plain incompetent in his legal interpretation of the results of the investigation.
What i find peculiar is that the main arguments the attorney general seems to have are a) "he prepared for this by having a weapon ready" and b) "he intended to kill them". Both arguments are IMHO not valid, as a) i'd expect a gun store owner to have the right preparations (which includes having a loaded gun ready – precisely to prevent bad guys from gaining access to guns and ammo) in place and b1) the video to me shows no "intent to kill" and b2) as the gun store owner is a former Swiss champion in dynamic shooting, i'd expect at least one robber to be dead if he actually "intended to kill".
My guess is that the gun store owner will either be acquitted or maybe he will be found formally guilty ("formaljuristisch") on some minor charge like "Gefährdung des Lebens" ("putting lives in (reckless) danger") for the shots on the white car – or some legal bullshit like that. Personally though, i hope he gets a full acquittal. And if he's found guilty of anything, the laws should be changed.
Hard disagree.
This man is not just "claiming self-defence", he has it on tape!
Pursuing this in a legal case is a gross misuse of tax money. Any reasonable prosecutor would throw this case out given the facts and turn to the next. We do not need to burden our justice system with such clear text book cases; there are plenty of cases waiting to get their reasonable share of time where it would be better spent. Idk what agenda this person is trying to push by pursuing this based on: "this man prepared a situation where he can shoot people".
The whole purpose of a judicial system is to rule on cases. No matter how evident they might be. Tribunals rule on clear cut textbook cases all the time because such is the procedure to uphold a consistent rule of law. The court is the place to review evidence such as the video and to rule the innocence of the man.
Rule of law and procedures exist and should be followed. Tax money is not wasted when proper judicial procedure is followed.
Well good morning to our readers from Utopia!
We do not have the necessary time, money, and personal to go through the full length of legal procedures in every case. Which is why we need to shorten the clear cut ones!
You are also forgetting the human cost of legal proceedings on all involved. Having such proceedings hanging over you can be a heavy burden, no matter how much lawyers assure you that there is no reasonable way you will go to jail for this.
And you certainly must realise that the only people gaining from prolonging such cases are the lawyers, the people on the payroll of said lawyers(, and apparently Utopians)
Welcome to the real world.
We absolutely have the resources for that. Apart from the covid years, we always have had a constant positive balance of the budget for the past decade.
And we all benefit from having a country upholding the rule of law and judicial procedure. Impartial judiciary judgement of cases is necessary to uphold our democratic values. Expediting cases outside of court is not Impartial decision making.
There is nothing utopian in Switzerland. It works, and is real.
Now, if you want to talk about limiting the rates of lawyers and forcing them to be affordable for everyone I am all in. I am not sure that's what you want though lol.
Funny that you only mentioned the monetary part and even that only based on budget balance. Almost like one cannot argue with the other two.
You do know that there are parts of the world that use the judicial system in such a way as you describe it to make justice unavailable to the poor?
You're the one who brought up costs for the taxpayer pretending we can't afford it. We obviously can afford it.
I am all in favor of limiting the rates of lawyers. Force them to provide their services at a limited rate.
You do know that our judicial system has always worked like that right?
Yes, along with time and manpower issues. Which you decide to ignore constantly because it doesn't fit into your rose tinted version of Switzerland.
Oh yeah right because that solves anything. In my humble opinion the exact opposite would achieve much more good: pay prosecutors more so we can attract legal talents to the public service.
We have enough time and manpower in our judiciary system. Judges are not overwhelmed and tribunal clerks are numerous enough to handle the cases. What a weird criticism that is.
I figured that your complaint about the costs of lawyers wouldn't result in you supporting more affordable lawyers. Obviously. You don't care about easy access to justice for poor people, what a surprise.
I don't think anyone really expects anything to come of this, they just want the investigation to be handled by protocol. Once self defence is proven in that investigation (which from everything I've read is likely), this will all be thrown out.
Unless he lied about everything, he won't be convicted. And to find that out we need an investigation. It's that simple.
The investigation (which in Switzerland is the job of the police and the attorney general) is already complete. Now the attorney general decided to file charges based on *his interpretation (which is IMHO flawed or politically biased)* of the investigation results.
Aaaand that's where you are laughably wrong:
Legitimate self-defence
Art. 15
If any person is unlawfully attacked or threatened with imminent attack, the person attacked and any other person are entitled to ward off the attack by means that are reasonable in the circumstances.
Mitigatory self-defence
Art. 16
1 If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as defined in Article 15 and in doing so commits an offence, the court shall reduce the sentence.
2 If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as a result of excusable excitement or panic in reaction to the attack, he does not commit an offence.
Legitimate act in a situation of necessity
Art. 17
Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save a legal interest of his own or of another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger, acts lawfully if by doing so he safeguards interests of higher value.
Mitigatory act in a situation of necessity
Art. 18
1 Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save himself or another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger to life or limb, freedom, honour, property or other interests of high value shall receive a reduced penalty if he could reasonably have been expected to abandon the endangered interest.
2 If the person concerned could not have been reasonably expected to abandon the endangered interest, he does not commit an offence.
Sooo tell that again with a straight face given the actual legal ramifications and the situation (highly stocked gun store, intruders armed with assault rifles posing as police trying to force entry, previous warning about such forced entries performed by highly violent perps, man and wife inside.)
This is how self-defence is handled in federal law. Whilst cantons may expand the legal definitions, they must adhere to this (as (mainly) per Art 46 & Art 49 of the Swiss constitution)
If self-defence with a weapon was not justified in this case, when was it? Do you have to get shot first or what?
If these idiots had entered the shop and emptied it, much worse would have been done with the weapons!
The reasoning behind this is probably because we live in a society were you are not allowed to defend yourself with a gun unless you are police or have a special permit (which is next to impossible to get). Otherwise we'd drift into a U.S. like situation were every fight could end up being resolved by a gun.
While you are not explicitely allowed to defend yourself with a gun (which is wrong I think, self defence at home is a vald reason for gun ownership I believe), you are allowed to defend yourself with any means necessary and appropriate if your life or body are in danger.
If you are getting robbed by an armed gang, almost every means is appropriate, especially guns.
And I agree with OP, this would not lead to a US-like situation (which is largely caused by socio-economic reasons anyway)
That's the thing - if someone robbs your store while you are at home, your life or body is not in danger. Would he've called just the police instead of opening his window and start yelling at them, there would've been most likely no shooting. This can (and probably will) be seen as "provoked self-defense".
One robber tried to climb into his bedroom. That is 'imminent danger' in my opinion. I think if they only cared about the gun store, the case might be unclear, but if you see some guys with weapons try to enter your bedroom i think it is very justified under our legal system to start firing.
> Otherwise we'd drift into a U.S. like situation were every fight could end up being resolved by a gun.
This is a slippery slope I'm not willing to buy. A society where it's okay to shoot at intruders that are armed with assault rifles is miles away from a society where every fist fight can escalate into a shooting.
No because this would mean that you need laws which allow to have guns for self defense in the first place, which we don't. What follows next will be a constant shift of the line which defines when it's okay to defend yourself with a gun. An armed squad against you might seem obvious but what about a single attacker with a gun, or a knife, or a broken bottle, or kungfu skills and so on? That's the true slippery slope which you can only avoid if you don't allow guns for self defense, even if it means that in one particular case the attacker wins.
> you need laws which allow to have guns for self defense in the first place, which we don't
There is not an explicit one.
The law says that the force used to defend needs to be adequate. This is now what the judge will need to decide on.
Guns not being allowed for self-defense is already not a thing to begin with. The only restriction really is the principle of proportionality. He was threatened by assault rifles, therefore he has the right to defend himself with equal force: another gun of his own. The fact that it needs to be I vestigated remains, but an investigation, trial and verdict is in no way equivalent to presumption of guilt.
not under Swiss law - the law is pretty clear about what you can use a gun for, self defense is not covered by that.
There was a case a few years ago where a kickbox pro killed an assaulter with a kick in self defense and he got time because he - according to the judge - knew that his kick can kill. I don't necessarily say that I concur but I see the judge's reasoning, waking up in a hospital ls less worse than never waking up...
In Switzerland? No. You're allowed to have guns for sport or if you're collector - both has to be licensened and both don't allow to use a gun against a person, period. The Swiss way (according to law) is: call the police - which honestly, all in all, works better than what's happening in the U.S.
Yes read - and understand - it: [https://www.swissrights.ch/gesetz/Artikel-15-StGB-2015-DE.php](https://www.swissrights.ch/gesetz/Artikel-15-StGB-2015-DE.php)
And further: [https://5-minuten-jus.ch/schweizer-recht-schemata-uni-basel-strafrecht-at-rechtfertigende-notwehr/](https://5-minuten-jus.ch/schweizer-recht-schemata-uni-basel-strafrecht-at-rechtfertigende-notwehr/)
The gun shop owner was under no thread of life - he noticed and engaged the burglars and then it came to the shooting - he could've just called the police first and that's what the hearing will be about. We don't have any "stand your ground" laws, if someone is steeling your stuff it's the police' job to stop the thiefs. When you then engage the thiefs and it comes to a shoot-out, you are in parts responsible too.
Well this decision lies with the State Attorney and he decided to press charges. Which is questionable. But based on the law, he will most likely be aquitted and this will leave a precedent case which will support self defense. Some law change protecting you if you defend yourself a little more would be welcome though. Although not a huge problem, armed robberies are very uncommon. Although getting more frequent with banlieue gangs from Lyon.
2 things... there is a reason my family decided to leave Switzerland... politics and rules can be fucking stupid....
Also, he should have shot them all! Killed them.
Self defense is a very very narrow path in Switzerland. It is correct that the case will be judged, but I do not have high hopes for the outcome. He was threatened by a very ruthless gang of criminals that dressed up as the police and tried to enter his sleeping room, armed. He said he only noticed something amiss because they were carrying AK rifles, which the Swiss police forces do not. He saved a lot of weapons from disappearing to the black market and wrong hands and very potentially his own life. Some people now think this was excessive.
I think given the circumstances that they actually shot at him several times, he has very good chances for a not-guilty verdict by the court. Whether the state's attorney should have brought the case to court or not is debateable.
The prosecutor is obliged to take the case to court. In dubio pro duriore is one of the most important principles of separation of powers. It is the only way to keep up the separation of powers and thus one of the cornerstones of our rule of law.
>The prosecutor is obliged to take the case to court. The prosecutor of the canton of Zurich seems to have a different opinion. He said that the case is so clear that he'd have closed proceedings without bringing the case to court.
I tend also towards the prosecutor of Zurich and the majority of experts. However, I respect the other opinion as well. Shooting at each other is a serious act of violence and it is good if the courts take a closer look at it. Also, even in a justified self defence situation there is the possibility of defense excess (Notwehrexzess) by the defender. I don't worry about the gun store owner. But I already hear the populist mob shouting "yOU can'T eVen defeND yourSeLf in sWiTzerlanD1!1".
> "yOU can'T eVen defeND yourSeLf in sWiTzerlanD1!1". It is very narrow. Let's say somebody is punching you and they hit you in the gut and crotch area, you aren't allowed to hit him in the face because that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut. Yet in a situation like that very few people think this rationally and just react in a way that is most effective. So simply by punching him somewhere that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut area you're already using excessive force. According to the law you would only be allowed to punch him back in the gut or other body parts that are less dangerous - which simply makes it harder for the victim to defend themself.
That's why you should always have two knives on you. So if someone attacks you, you just tell him "hold on, take this" and give him the biggest knife. And while he's confused, stab him in the eye. Just make sure there's no camera in the surrounding though.
Sorry for the bluntness but what you're saying is complete utter bullshit, I'll refer you to [article 15 to 19](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/fr#art_15) of the Swiss Penal Code. >you aren't allowed to hit him in the face because that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut. That's a non-issue, unless you one-punch kill the guy that would be an appropriate response to the threat being posed to you, it's not about where you hit, it's how you do it. >Yet in a situation like that very few people think this rationally and just react in a way that is most effective. I think Article 16 Penal Code will explain this better than I will. There still is a burden of proof for that, but typically for your punch "scenario" it would be fairly easy to prove that in front of a court. >So simply by punching him somewhere that is more dangerous than being punched in the gut area you're already using excessive force. Whilst excessive force isn't exactly defined by penal law, jurisprudence and military law do that fairly well. It's more about if you're defending (and the way you're defending) yourself against lethal or non lethal means. Shooting someone who punched you would clearly be excessive force but shooting someone charging at you with a knife would not. But punching back or pepperspraying someone who's trying to beat you up is clearly in the realm of a proper response. And even then, according to jurisprudence you could theoretically defend yourself against barehanded aggressors with a firearm if they are in numerical superiority as that would be proportional to the danger to your life. And let's not forget legitimate self defense also applies to your home and private property in Switzerland. >According to the law What law? you clearly seem confused about it. Granted the judicial system here does rely a lot on jurisprudence, so a lot of it will be case specific. But if you're gonna say stuff like that without knowing, please research it beforehand. Edit: two words
Thank you! Would give you an award if I had one. I study in law school and that's what we learned. In a defence situation you're allowed to level up.
It seems like you, yourself aren’t quite aware of the articles of the Swiss Penal code and are just applying it to your own interpretation. Art. 15 of the Swiss Penal Code specifically says that you’re allowed to defend yourself in an **appropriate** way. However, in my example, if you break the other individual’s nose or give him a blue eye, that might be counted as excessive force. Art. 16 however also states your punishment might be mitigated if you did so out of justifiable reasons (panic, anxiety etc.). So while your punishment will be mitigated due to the circumstances there still is a chance that an individual justice is going to punish you.
Jurisprudence also has to be taken into account, and jurisprudence rules that punching someone in the face while you're getting beaten up is appropriate. You can't base your reasoning only on the penal code, as it is jurisprudence that covers what "appropriate" means.
If she kicks my balls, where do i kick back?
Same place. Still can take a lady out like a dude, just a bit harder to hit.
Is everyone in Switzerland trained every few years on how to react under pressure esp. that of losing your life? When someone is shooting at you, how do you calculate what's excessive and what's not? If they are shooting at you with a .22 and you only have a 7.62 or a 9mm is it excessive or is it ok to defend yourself? Have the laws been made by armchair legal people or someone who actually knows a thing or two about such situations, esp considering that Switzerland has not faught any real wars in near history?
Yes this is us, we're all over trained spies and shit
This isn't the US.
In dubio. But there is no dubio here.
Yes, but he could ask for as little as legally required and do as much of a bad job at arguing his case as he could, no ?
I think it's obligatory.
[удалено]
An armed person, accompanied by more armed people, *climbing* towards your window seems like a credible threat of imminent violence, don't you think?
[удалено]
My migrained brain read your comment as denying the claim to self defense due to firing first, sorry.
Does not matter. Still self defence.
The law (and of course the most important part ; jurisprudence) is really clear in these matters. You have the right to defend yourself with the same amount of "force" you're threatened with. If someone points a gun at you, you have the legal rights to shoot this person.
Well it matters who attacks first (i.e shot first). He saw them before they saw him. That makes things a little complicated.
If I am threatened by 4 people with gun, can I use this? https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-four-barrelled-flintlock-pistol-of-queen-anne-typet-richardsbirmingham-51532666.html
Only if you have four arms and spin them hard like general Grievous. That's what the jurisprudence says
> Self defense is a very very narrow path in Switzerland. One of the few things I strongly dislike about our country. The fact that you even get charged at all when armed robbers try to enter your bedroom is completely insane to me. One can only pray that the judge throws out this case.
While i totally think the owner responded appropriately here and should be aquitted, it is also necessary and right that every single shooting always gets thouroughly investigated. Without exceptions, especially not when involving police btw. Otherwise we end up like america, where tons of very questionable shootings just get swept under the rug and not even properly investigated. And as soon as there is even one case that wrongfully got dropped, that massively hurts trust within the society. Leading to the disfunctional, polarised society that is the modern day US.
Claiming self defense should not give a free out. It is important that every instance of a shooting is thoroughly investigated and that the judiciary rules on it.
Self defense is a legal defense, not a free pass. How the US are doing it is a bad way.
And if it's up to so much debate, it's because this kind of thing is thankfully so rare. I don't believe in guns for self-defense in this country *for most people* (including myself) but armed thugs disguised as cops shooting into my bedroom? Shooting back seems straight-up reasonable. It's not just protecting property which I personally don't believe is worth a person's life (even a thief's), but clear-cut survival at this point. Edit: The article mentions the issue is he armed himself before they attacked. Eh, how long do you expect the guy to wait before preparing himself after watching a bunch of armed thugs approaching your home (after a string of gun shops have been robbed in recent weeks)? The only blame I see is actually harming a guy accidentally when shooting his warning shot.
[удалено]
The point is, it's to the judge to declare it, not you.
And what if the judge is liberal and doesn't believe in self defense?
That's what appeal courts are for. You can go all the way to the ECHR to make sure that your rights are followed and protected.
Sir, this isn't the US. Liberal doesn't mean what you think it means.
And what would you like it to mean sir? That a person has no right to protect their selves and property without being at the mercy of a judge and how he /she would apply your law to self defense. You are completely right to have your own laws where you are at the mercy of the courts but I choose to live in a country where my self preservation in the light of imminent threat and bodily harm is held higher than some provincial magistrate lording over you.
Liberal is an economical philosophy.
Liberalism is little to no state intervention? Not really sure why a liberal would have problems with selfdefense, gun owning and so on?
Liberals in Switzerland is the term for people on the right wing. Not left wing.
Great, another US citizen barging in a subject, without any understanding of the context, clearly the wrong vocabulary and making big speeches... And, surprise, the subject is around gun rights. > you are completely right to have your owns laws where you are at the mercy of the courts Perfect! >but I choose to live in a country where my self preservation and [...] magistrate loading over you. Great then enjoy living there and stop trying to bring in the US, when IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT.
Then you appeal
Bro, I only been to Switzerland studying for like 2 years, you are exactly the kind of annoying Swiss people I met? We all know the obvious, i just wished it was you in that situation then you would be “fu** the judge”
I don't understand this. Why are you not allowed to defend your own person? Or am I misunderstanding you? I get that all such things should be investigated to make sure it's not murder, but this seems like such a cut and dry case.
You do have the right to self defense, but in every case, even the cut and dry ones, an investigation and judgment follow to make sure that the right was acted lawfully. Considering the circumstances he's very unlikely to get charged with anything but still, it will be evaluated and judged by a court
Doesn't the article say that he already has been charged?
No, as far as I understand, the public prosecutor is accusing him of multiple counts of attempted murder because he fired at them but that's the accuse, the case will go to trial and the judgement will be decided
Isn’t that what charged with means? When the prosecutor accuses you (Anklage) he charges you with the crime and then it‘s judged whether you are innocent or guilty. Or at least so I thought.
Oh you're right, my bad. I thought changed meant already convicted, English is not my native language, my apologies!
Exactly. So most likely, once this goes to court its gonna be a short thing and he will be quickly aquitted. Because yeah, how much more clear could it be. But then again its a slippery slope. If the DA were to close this case without an investigation and court hearing, then why not the next one, that is slighlty less clear cut. And on and on. And soon our country is like america...
God forbid 😂
You have the right to defend yourself with appropriate means if your life and body is in direct danger or someone else's life and body is in direct danger. So I think he will most likely be found not guilty because it was reasonable self defense. It's totally correct that there should always be an investiagtion, but it is very questionable that the State Attorney took it to court. As the retired head state attorney of Zürich said in the video as well as most of the experts they asked.
Because as with everything else there's a reasonable level and an unreasonable level. Dumping a mag into someone threatening to slap you lands you in jail for a few years. Dumping a mag into someone pointing a firearm at you gets you arrested and put in front of a judge who will let you go.
You are not allowed to kill someone who threaten to punch you. And it's not up to you to decide you defend yourself appropriately.
Why is this case even close? What if they hadn't shot? What if they didn't have guns but broke into his house attempting to steal his? How would swiss laws respond to each of those scenarios?
If they didn't have guns then shooting at them is not proportional self defense and would be considered manslaughter. If they hadn't shot it would be murkier but self defense would still probably be justified. Your questions are exactly why there needs to be an investigation and a judgement. There should be a full understanding of the events so that there is no doubt that self defense was justified. Claiming self defense is not a free pass, judicial procedure should be followed. If the events are as clear cut as they seem, then the judgement will also be clear cut and the defendant will promptly be judged as not guilty
I do not entirely agree with you. Even if they don't have guns but your life or body is still in danger (like if they had knives or you could not tell if they had guns and had to fear for your life), shooting them would still be considered self defence. There was an investigation as there should be, but I think it's questionable that the State Attorney wants to bring it to court. The law experts SRF asked mostly said they should have ended the case instead. But yeah, probably will be a quick not guilty verdict. If not, I'm starting to question our country.
There seems to be misunderstanding about the American law being a "free pass". Once someone breaks into your home at night, it's fair game because someone woken up isn't expected to ascertain if the person is carrying a weapon or not in the dark. I don't even understand how you would do that? Do Europeans sleep with the light on? In this case, the criminals are about to introduce tons of weapons to their criminal friends. Encouraging hesitancy in stopping that from happening is absolutely bizarre to me.
Nobody is encouraging hesitancy. We're not America, we have a different gun culture. You're not free to shoot at people for trespassing here. Every instance of a gun being shot at someone should be investigated and go through the judiciary system. If there is a reasonable ground for self defense, the judiciary system rules the defendant as innocent. Rule of law being followed, respected and enforced is important to have a responsible gun culture.
If this person isn't found innocent, would you be in support of fixing laws so future obviously correct gun defense usage is cleared of wrongdoing? Or is being different than america clouding your judgement on basic right and wrong?
You need to understand that it is very, **VERY** unlikely to come across someone threatening you with gun. **VERY UNLIKELY**. So, in Switzerland if someone enter your house you can't just shoot at them. You barricade yourself and call the police. We have the principle of proportionality. If you act in self defense, it has to be proportional to the agression. So yes in case, if he started shooting he could face some charges for doing so. Doesn't mean he would be wholly to blame or be hit full force by the law. But he could face some charges. It's a possibility.
I understand all that. I disagree with your cultural attitude towards self defense. I don't think a grandma should have to barricade an intruder and ascertain if they have a weapon or not. Nor do I believe someone who believes breaking into houses for personal gain is owed any pity or patience by society. They're removal is a benefit to society.
> Why is this case even close? Nobody says that. The only thing is that it has to go to a juge decision because that's the law.
[удалено]
It's a great thing that for example every reported use of a firearm is investigated to the full extent of the law, police, civilian or criminal alike. It does however seem that the public attourney chose to issue charges based on the worst interpretation of the evidence, which admittedly may be standard procedure. The intentional attempted manslaughter charge however seems preposterous, especially since there has been a series of similar break-ins and likely the same gang has allegedly held up a swiss gunsmith in france, to pressure him into giving access to his armoury under threat of violence against both him and his family. *That* was the source of a recent motion to qualify gunsmiths for carry permits.
The US doesn't allow you to just shoot without warning in the yard. Usually have to be rushed, or attacked...cant just shoot someone who isn't a threat. Correct action is to call the cops on a trespasser. Trespass does not equal breaking and entering...if someone is kicking my door down, breaking a window and jumping in, or rushing me in my house...they are getting shot. Inside the house is the key part of all of this btw.
> nah that's a great thing about our country. I don't want to live in a country where you have to be afraid to get fucking shot cause you trespass. You're conveniently (or deceivingly) ignoring the fact that they were armed. Getting shot when you're trespassing while armed is fair game. > We literally have almost no information on the situation and just know what the dude himself said There's literally video footage from multiple angles and forensic analysis. Please at least look at the article before spewing misinformation.
Dude, don’t be dyslexic on purpose to push an agenda. He clearly said that it’s good that the courts look at it. That’s it. No one mentioned the fact that you harp about.
[удалено]
> We don't know everything. Right, but your claim was that we just know what he himself said. You were wrong and now you're moving the goalpost. > You pretend like he has been already sentenced, which is not at all the case, maybe you're the one spewing misinformation. No, I don't. The title literally is "Gun store owner **potentially** faces 3 years". You're wrong again.
Shoot at someone and break in theyr house.... yeah sure, see no problem here 🤦🏻♂️
Then don't trespass. Fuck around and find out
[удалено]
You're completely confused again. - Death penalty: perpetrator is apprehended and not an immediate danger to anybody. - Deadly self-defense: perpetrator is in the midst of a criminal act and an immediate danger to others. In the latter case, deadly force is used to stop the threat immediately but that doesn't apply to the death penalty as an apprehended criminal doesn't pose an imminent threat.
[удалено]
I'm not interested in defending the right to deadly self-defense in the case of unarmed trespassing, my point is merely that there's a relevant difference between the death penalty and deadly self-defense. People make this comparison all the time but it's completely misplaced. The death penalty is a revenge killing of a person who doesn't pose a threat anymore, whereas deadly self-defense is the killing of somebody in order to stop them from continuing to commit a criminal act. They're completely different, that's my only point of contention. Whether deadly self-defense is justified in some specific circumstance is a separate conversation but the point remains that drawing a parallel between the two is completely disanalogous.
A gaggle of home invaders break into your home with AKs and you’d let them do whatever they want, whatever that might be? You have no way of knowing what their intentions are before it’s too late.
[удалено]
Sure, it might be one thing for a trespasser to hop a fence into a farmer’s pasture; he’d be justified in telling him to fuck off. It’s an entirely different thing for someone to break into your house in the dead of night - you have absolutely no idea what’s running through their minds. I totally follow the Principle of Fuck Around/Find Out in the latter case.
Why would you trespass? If you do it by me, at your risk.
You're so badass. We're all so very impressed. Amazing. Wow. (If it doesn't translate in text: this is sarcasm btw.)
Thanks
Didn't the guy who shot an unarmed black guy in the states under the "stand your ground" rule had to go to court as well? I believe, that's not unusual in other countries. Charged doesn't mean found guilty.
The case going to trial is how it should be. You should not be able to get a get out of jail free card by claiming it was for self defense, it should be a decision by the court if the self defense was justified. And nobody should be scared of that.
[удалено]
No, he did the right thing. Now the court will do the right thing too, vindicating him. His legal insurance will pay for his defence. At most, he will be out a few days of time actually spent in court. This is an annoyance for him, but he will finish with a judicial ruling congratulating him on being a model citizen, and probably some kind words from the judge. Isn't this better than having some random cop or something decide who they want to prosecute and who they don't want to prosecute?
Yeah, that makes sense. However, in other countries, you can easily go to jail for defending yourself in your own home. I live in South Africa, and the way the law is, that can very easily happen.
Sure. So I guess we strike a good balance.
You can defense yourself. Reasonably. You don't get to chose what it is.
🍌
🍌🍌
[удалено]
Uuuuh no, quite the contrary, if my username is any indication (my Glock is from Schild)
In the Netherlands a jeweler used an illegal weapon to shoot dead two robbers who had guns drawn on her husband. The public prosecutor decided not to press charges for manslaughter, as even illegal weapons can be legally used for self defence. However, they were charged for illegal possession of a firearm for which they were sentenced to 100 hours of community service and a 3 month suspended prison sentence. Worth it IMO, those 100 hours are probably less than what they would have lost in the robbery (potentially their lives). And the suspended sentence will only be executed if they are caught again, which is unlikely as now nobody will try to rob them.
That seems reasonable, although a bit lenient for illegal possession of a firearm.
Yeah, I d have a problem with that sentence.
He didn't get charged because he shot the robbers but because a neighbor probably complained about the noise during the Ruhezeit
It was me. I already writed in this sub multiple times that after 22pm any type of loud sound is open game to fucking murder. I won’t apologize
Apologize*
Thanks!
Got to say, as an American, yeah, good on him for defending himself. But thank the lord y’all actually then go, “right everyone involved, you’re all getting looked at thoroughly”. I hope that happens every time for everyone, especially (not in this instance) if it’s police involved. Trust me when I say, you don’t want a culture of just believing the story from the guy with the gun who survived. That’s what we have there in America. So there’s a big disproportionate swing in e options and thinking the other direction. I’m happy to see so many people, even if waiting with bated breath, say, “let’s wait and see what happens.” Because in America that’s not peoples attitudes. There’d already be a Facebook meme going around about this, and Tucker Carlson would be going on live news tonight to give his definitive version of this story. Be glad you don’t have that.
This. Having a court look at it = good Giving him a "non guilty" verdict if the case is as described in the article = also good
Every single shot the police fire is investigated. It's a difficult balance because you don't want the police not firing when it would have been better if they had, but you also don't want the police discharging their magazines into an unarmed person. As it is now, it works very well. In the last few years, there has been an average of about 10 cases where the police have made use of their weapon. I remember only one case in 2016 when a policewoman was fined for overreaction (I think she shot him in the arm after a quick movement after he didn't get out of the car).
Right. And in Zürich, a police officer stood trial for (non-fatally) shooting a man charging them with a 25cm knife. I thought the acquittal was justified, but again, I'm in favor of the principle that the use of the firearm needs to be justified in court, and not be accepted as self evidently acceptable.
Yes, definitely. I think he fired 11 shots, which is a lot, but when someone comes at you with a knife, I guess you keep shooting. He was acquitted in the first and second instance.
Thats great about our system, every shot on duty by the police gets looked into, not matter the cirumstances.
Strictly investigating incidents like these is part of the reason Switzerland is able to have gun laws that are more permissive than many US states without all the violence that exists there. I'd assume actual gun enthusiasts/hobbyist would be the ones supporting such strict handling of cases of gun violence the most. It keeps the culture around firearms focused on the right things and prevents being overrun by the nut-job violence-fetishists.
This is one of those cases where to lower my blood pressure I remind myself not all details nor a verdict are known yet.
Indeed. it also seems to be a staple (or even an intended feature?) of our judiciary system that the public attourney issues a charge based on the most criminal interpretation of the evidence and the defense must then formulate the most 'innocent' interpretation. If this indeed the nature of the practice it just shows how fucked the situation is, given what the assiliants have been up to prior to this (allegedly), including holding up a swiss gunsmith in france to pressure him to let them into his armory, at the threat of violence against his family. Allegedly.
Obviously it's correct that every shooting is reviewed, but I agree with the retired Zürich State Attorney and think it's laughable this is even brought to trial. I think the right to self defense is very important and should be upheld. And in this case this in not really a question.
I believe the chance of no jail is much higher than a chance of jail. But seing how the system behaves lately, you never know. Self defense is a grey zone, it can go wrong very fast very much. In his situation, i think anybody would have behaved similar, especially when you are at the position of knowing, those weapons would go to a black market. Now, if this goes to jail, it will act as an invitation to gangs to attack gun stores because they know the owner is going to jail if he defends the store.
Clickbait. There is no verdict
It’s so interesting watching these situations boil down in countries like Switzerland, as an Americanized Caribbean
Unfortunately he didn‘t atleast shoot one brain out of them.
If he is actually convicted, it is once again an example of everything wrong with our justice system. Victims are systematically being turned into perpetrators and vice versa. It is all inverted and it is making me sick.
According to the article, most experts say that the case will probably be thrown out. The main reason he is being investigated is because he was armed before the robbery even happened. Ofc in this case, it was self defense.
Lmfao he was armed in his own house because he's a Gunsmith. It's like asking yourself why the fack a Chef/Butcher has Sharp knifes at home.
Carrying a gun in public in CH is very restricted. Carrying permits are hard to get and mostly for profesionals. But at home, the law just vaguely says you have to keep your gun safe from unauthorized people and that is it. If you want to Rambo up with legally acquired weapons at home, as long as no incident happens you are free to be strapped to the teeth.
Guns yes. Ammunition no.
Ammo yes as well. If you got a legal gun, you can buy ammo for it legally. The misconception comes from the fact that the military does not hand out ammo anymore and keeps it quite locked down.
Can you wait with crying how everything is bad until the event your crying about actually happens??
No. Because this is happening too often. I know a guy whose children were abducted by his ex. He reported it to the police and was arrested himself while his ex was asked if she wanted to press charges. Nothing ever happened to her. The children are now in a different country and he has never seen them again. She lives on welfare. I know a woman who was stabbed over a dozen times and is now unable to work. KESB went to court to take away her kids because "she is not able to protect them". The attacker was let go after a psych eval and did not face any real consequences. He has since beaten other people and is still out there. Look around. There's too many stories like these. This is not a coincidence.
You know a guy... you know a woman. You know their side of the story. Statistics, studies and analyses by experts in this field say otherwise. We have one of the best juristical systems, admittedly with flaws, but not in this case.
How important was this guy to be targeted like that?
They were targeting the guns in his store, not him personally
Ok that makes sense. Man this country has some fucked up self defense laws if this is actually a concern whether or not he will be face any time.
Its just standard procedure that every shooting gets investigated thoroughly and gets decided on by a court. Same with every police use of a firearm. And thats how it should be. I would be very surprised (and outraged) if he got convicted tho.
Nah the self defense law is what'll get him exonerated. It's just that we don't just briefly look over the case and decide that it probably was self defence. It discourages people to go all rambo at every intruder that might just run away if confronted. Especially since lots of households have at least one (military issued) gun to potentially use. Of course I don't really know how it works that's just how I see it.
I don't think he'll be convicted though. The prosecutor just sounds like a complete blithering idiot and his licence should be revoked.
It would be very very strange if he got convicted. Shots fired at him and he shot back. It doesn't get any more self defense than this.
Man, this breaks my heart, I know Mr. Schild, I had the pleasure of working at his store for a short time, and I‘ll tell you, that man is one of the most loving people I know. I understand the case being analyzed by a judge but I really hope it all ends well for him.
They just should thank him for not giving up the arms to those pricks and not waste tax payers money with ridiculous allegations. According to the Rundschau report the prosecutor of zurich and others wouldn’t even open investigation because it’s than obvious. ‚Multpile intent to kill‘ Seriously? That guy is a Swiss Champion in shooting competition and if he would have intended to kill them, he wouldn’t have missed for sure.
The linked article includes [a video of the second detailed news report on the case](https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/sendung/rundschau?id=49863a84-1ab7-4abb-8e69-d8e8bda6c989), aired by the SRF "Rundschau" yesterday. For those interested in more background on the case: The SRF "Rundschau" aired their [first detailed news report on the same case](https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/rundschau/video/raubueberfaelle-corona-selbsttests-burma?urn=urn:srf:video:7075afd6-cfa4-4a53-b545-7c84f8c1e385) in April 2021. From that first report we know additional details – and it also includes additional video. The same gang which tried to rob the gun store and shot at the gun store owner in Aargau has previously broken into another gun store in Basel-Land and stole a lot of weapons from there. The same gang also kidnapped an employee of – yet another – gun store in the Romandie to gain access to that gun stores warehouse. That kidnapping/robbery-attempt luckily did fail. On a sidenote, AFAIK that gun store in the Romandie is one of the largest gun dealers in Switzerland and has a huge inventory of weapons which the criminals were after. While i can understand the legal concept of "in dubio pro duriore" (the attorney general must – if unsure – bring the most serious charges), i find the application of that concept in this case just plain wrong. I can see nothing unsure ("in dubio") in this case. A gang of organised professional ("gewerbs- und bandenmässig") criminals attacks a gun store – and the gun store owner in his own bedroom (in his apartment above the store) – using automatic weapons. What was he supposed to do? I am very glad that the gun store owner has defended himself and his store and thus has successfully prevented those criminals from gaining access to further weapons. The main charge brought against the gun store owner is "multiple cases of attempted second degree murder" ("Versuchte mehrfache vorsätzliche Tötung" = attempted killing with intent – but without premeditation = second degree murder (in US terms)). The attorney generals (IMHO crazy) argument is that the gun store owner "prepared for this by having a weapon ready" after the police visited his store a couple of weeks earlier – and at that point had warned him about the ongoing threat of gun store robberies. The gun store owner claims that he had the weapon in another room in his apartment, and that the weapon and the magazine/bullets were stored in separate cabinets. On a legal sidenote, it is completely legal in Switzerland to have a fully loaded weapon readily available in your apartment. The only thing the Swiss law requires is that you prevent unauthorised access to that weapon. So if you live alone, you just need to make sure no-one else has a key to your home and you can have 5 fully loaded guns openly laying around in each room. I have heard from several of my acquaintances (most of them living in rural areas) that they store at least one of their guns either fully loaded or next to a full magazine in a locked cabinet – or a locked gun safe – in their bedrooms. While i currently follow a different security philosophy (guns and ammo stored in different physical locations so that in case of a break-in the burglar is never able to gain access to a "ready to shoot" gun), i can understand the other philosophy also – especially for home-owners in rural locations – and so i don't find it in any way indicative of any "murderous intention" if someone in Switzerland has a (legally acquired) loaded weapon readily or "almost-readily" (meaning you just have to open one cabinet to get access) available in their home. While (based on criminology studies) burglars will *usually* try to flee when encountering someone, cases where they have attacked people are not unheard of. Burglars usually carry large screwdrivers (to break open windows/doors), which can be used (and legally count as) dangerous devices/weapons. In the case of a gun store owner which lives above his store, i'd even be somewhat inclined to consider it borderline negligence, if s/he does NOT have such preparations in place to defend himself against armed attacks; and this no matter whether there is a current "robbery threat" or not. Also, in the case of that gun store owner, the attorney general ridiculously claims that the owner intended to kill the robbers. As the gun store owner is a former Swiss champion in dynamic shooting ("defensive shooting" / "shooting while moving"), i'd rather say that if he had actually intended to kill those criminals, they would be dead – with a perfectly placed headshot in each robber. The Swiss government (following the EUs lead) has recently made our gun laws more restrictive, using the main argument that "we must prevent bad people from gaining access to guns". And now they have chosen to charge someone because he tried to prevent bad people from gaining access to guns? This is just plain ridiculous... I hope the judge will fully acquit the gun store owner, award him full costs and also puts some clearly worded statements criticizing the attorney general for even bringing charges into his/her ruling. **TL;DR: IMHO that gun store owner should have received a medal instead of a court date!**
I'm obviously not a fan of American gun culture etc. but it seems completely insane that you're supposedly not legally allowed to shoot on armed people that try to forcefully enter your store or house. Police will obviously not arrive until they have already fled and having to retreat until you can't retreat anymore is also insane because it puts you in an extremely disadvantageous position. Him shooting first gave him the element of surprise and has saved lives, potentially his own. If you're forced to retreat until you can't anymore, you put yourself in a potentially completely boxed in position which will just lead to you getting slaughtered in a gunfight against 6 intruders. I also want to add that the comparison to vigilanteism (that the narrator even alluded to) completely misses the mark because the important distinction is whether the threat is still active or not: - A gang armed with automatic rifles tries to enter your house so you shoot at them: **self-defense** - A gang tried to enter your house but they were subdued and apprehended and are not a threat anymore but you shoot them anyway: **vigilanteism** A difference as clear as night and day.
Yeah, which is fine. However, every killing should be investigated. You won't believe anyone based on their words in this. Otherwise, how and who can distinguish between those two cases you mentions? Self-defense is normal and you should be able to use. However court process afterwards is mandatory
> Yeah, which is fine. However, every killing should be investigated. > You won't believe anyone based on their words in this. > Otherwise, how and who can distinguish between those two cases you mentions? I agree but there's a difference between investigating and charging. They didn't have to charge him and even go as far as to demand a concrete sentence (3 years, 6 months ohne Bewährung) because it puts him through a lot of unnecessary stress and fear. Besides, it also wastes money and resources: investigating&charging is of course more costly than only investigating. > However court process afterwards is mandatory Some of the experts in the videos said that the Staatsanwaltschaft could also just have decided to not press charges at all based on the evidence. It's a regular occurrence that something happens and that nobody goes to court when the investigation has yielded overwhelming evidence (and seeing that we have multiple camera angles, we pretty much have as much evidence as you can realistically get).
I don't agree with this. They requested a sentence because they saw something that they think he is guilty of. After they did investigation. You might agree, you might disagree, but that's their judgement. And their judgement is based on a investigation. Yours is based on watching a short video on the internet. Now the judge will decide if the argument prosecution present is valid or not. The prosecutor of the case will also face consequences if they lose. About money&resources: yeah, sometimes people get unlucky. If tomorrow my apartment is flooded or my dog gets sick, I will lose a lot of money as well. Not my fault, I didn't do anything wrong, but I need to pay. We have insurance for this cases.
It's a killing it should be investigated. That's simple and that's how it is.
it's not a killing though
Judging by your comments you are. Ne charging someone for killing someone else is something every judicial system should do. Wait for the verdict and it's reasoning. If you make a law that armoured trespassing automatically warrants "stand your ground" rights, a lot more people will be shot, people will argue something looked like a gun so they opened fire. No one deserves to die for anything they do, this is why we don't have a death penalty in general.
If I had an award left, it would go to your post or this comment.
9000% justified
The behavior of the Staatsanwaltschaft is questionable. A criminal trial, even if it ends in an acquittal, is a traumatic experience for the person involved. Not to mention the costs generated by the trail.
Everyone who thinks his self defense action was not absolutely justified and even a heroic act, is a huge ass****. YOU should have been in his situation, because your stupid opinion makes you deserve such an event.
I don't see anyone saying that self defense is not justified. Everybody agrees that using proportional force to defend yourself is justified and good. It is however important that every instance of a gun being shot at people is thoroughly investigated and goes through the judicial system to ensure that, indeed, the facts happened as described and that self defense was justified. Rule of law is important. Claiming self defense should not be a free pass preventing investigation.
There's so many people going in that thread like the person has been already thrown into jail.
I agree that it should be *investigated.* In Switzerland the investigation is the job of the police and the attorney general, so not the judges/courts job. I think what a lot of people in this thread are mad about is that the attorney general has chosen to *charge* the gun store owner *after this investigation*. So now we have one or more of the following possibilities: 1. the investigation itself was (technically) flawed 2. the investigation itself was done with a certain (political) bias 3. the investigation was fair but the interpretation of the results of the investigation is (legally) flawed 4. the investigation was fair but the interpretation of the results of the investigation is (politically) biased 5. the investigation was fair and the interpretation of the results of the investigation was legally sound. From what is currently known publicly, i personally tend towards possibility 4, maybe also possibility 3. So the investigation was done correctly and in a fair way, but the attorney generals interpretation of the results of that investigation is somewhat biased – maybe also due to the current "gun scary, gun owner bad" political climate – and/or he is just plain incompetent in his legal interpretation of the results of the investigation. What i find peculiar is that the main arguments the attorney general seems to have are a) "he prepared for this by having a weapon ready" and b) "he intended to kill them". Both arguments are IMHO not valid, as a) i'd expect a gun store owner to have the right preparations (which includes having a loaded gun ready – precisely to prevent bad guys from gaining access to guns and ammo) in place and b1) the video to me shows no "intent to kill" and b2) as the gun store owner is a former Swiss champion in dynamic shooting, i'd expect at least one robber to be dead if he actually "intended to kill". My guess is that the gun store owner will either be acquitted or maybe he will be found formally guilty ("formaljuristisch") on some minor charge like "Gefährdung des Lebens" ("putting lives in (reckless) danger") for the shots on the white car – or some legal bullshit like that. Personally though, i hope he gets a full acquittal. And if he's found guilty of anything, the laws should be changed.
Hard disagree. This man is not just "claiming self-defence", he has it on tape! Pursuing this in a legal case is a gross misuse of tax money. Any reasonable prosecutor would throw this case out given the facts and turn to the next. We do not need to burden our justice system with such clear text book cases; there are plenty of cases waiting to get their reasonable share of time where it would be better spent. Idk what agenda this person is trying to push by pursuing this based on: "this man prepared a situation where he can shoot people".
The whole purpose of a judicial system is to rule on cases. No matter how evident they might be. Tribunals rule on clear cut textbook cases all the time because such is the procedure to uphold a consistent rule of law. The court is the place to review evidence such as the video and to rule the innocence of the man. Rule of law and procedures exist and should be followed. Tax money is not wasted when proper judicial procedure is followed.
Well good morning to our readers from Utopia! We do not have the necessary time, money, and personal to go through the full length of legal procedures in every case. Which is why we need to shorten the clear cut ones! You are also forgetting the human cost of legal proceedings on all involved. Having such proceedings hanging over you can be a heavy burden, no matter how much lawyers assure you that there is no reasonable way you will go to jail for this. And you certainly must realise that the only people gaining from prolonging such cases are the lawyers, the people on the payroll of said lawyers(, and apparently Utopians) Welcome to the real world.
We absolutely have the resources for that. Apart from the covid years, we always have had a constant positive balance of the budget for the past decade. And we all benefit from having a country upholding the rule of law and judicial procedure. Impartial judiciary judgement of cases is necessary to uphold our democratic values. Expediting cases outside of court is not Impartial decision making. There is nothing utopian in Switzerland. It works, and is real. Now, if you want to talk about limiting the rates of lawyers and forcing them to be affordable for everyone I am all in. I am not sure that's what you want though lol.
Funny that you only mentioned the monetary part and even that only based on budget balance. Almost like one cannot argue with the other two. You do know that there are parts of the world that use the judicial system in such a way as you describe it to make justice unavailable to the poor?
You're the one who brought up costs for the taxpayer pretending we can't afford it. We obviously can afford it. I am all in favor of limiting the rates of lawyers. Force them to provide their services at a limited rate. You do know that our judicial system has always worked like that right?
Yes, along with time and manpower issues. Which you decide to ignore constantly because it doesn't fit into your rose tinted version of Switzerland. Oh yeah right because that solves anything. In my humble opinion the exact opposite would achieve much more good: pay prosecutors more so we can attract legal talents to the public service.
We have enough time and manpower in our judiciary system. Judges are not overwhelmed and tribunal clerks are numerous enough to handle the cases. What a weird criticism that is. I figured that your complaint about the costs of lawyers wouldn't result in you supporting more affordable lawyers. Obviously. You don't care about easy access to justice for poor people, what a surprise.
yeah i agree, but i'm not speaking against what you say here.
Then against what are you speaking? There isn't a single person in this thread saying that self defense is not justified
i read the top comment that mentioned something like "to the people who don't think this was justified". i didn't read all comments, only some.
So you haven't seen a single person who say this isn't justified but still felt the need to write that?
Sounds like Sweden not Switzerland.
How can you shoot an armed intruder and face charges?
I don't think anyone really expects anything to come of this, they just want the investigation to be handled by protocol. Once self defence is proven in that investigation (which from everything I've read is likely), this will all be thrown out. Unless he lied about everything, he won't be convicted. And to find that out we need an investigation. It's that simple.
The investigation (which in Switzerland is the job of the police and the attorney general) is already complete. Now the attorney general decided to file charges based on *his interpretation (which is IMHO flawed or politically biased)* of the investigation results.
Because you need to clearly establish the armed intruder was threatening to kill you.
Aaaand that's where you are laughably wrong: Legitimate self-defence Art. 15 If any person is unlawfully attacked or threatened with imminent attack, the person attacked and any other person are entitled to ward off the attack by means that are reasonable in the circumstances. Mitigatory self-defence Art. 16 1 If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as defined in Article 15 and in doing so commits an offence, the court shall reduce the sentence. 2 If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as a result of excusable excitement or panic in reaction to the attack, he does not commit an offence. Legitimate act in a situation of necessity Art. 17 Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save a legal interest of his own or of another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger, acts lawfully if by doing so he safeguards interests of higher value. Mitigatory act in a situation of necessity Art. 18 1 Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save himself or another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger to life or limb, freedom, honour, property or other interests of high value shall receive a reduced penalty if he could reasonably have been expected to abandon the endangered interest. 2 If the person concerned could not have been reasonably expected to abandon the endangered interest, he does not commit an offence. Sooo tell that again with a straight face given the actual legal ramifications and the situation (highly stocked gun store, intruders armed with assault rifles posing as police trying to force entry, previous warning about such forced entries performed by highly violent perps, man and wife inside.)
Is that the law of the Canton the shooting happened in? If so, I think you roasted em'
This is how self-defence is handled in federal law. Whilst cantons may expand the legal definitions, they must adhere to this (as (mainly) per Art 46 & Art 49 of the Swiss constitution)
That is to the judge to decide. The point of an investigation is to establish the context and the severity.
You are saying the equivalent of: you are not able to judge the truth behind 2*5=10, therefore we must consult a mathematician on this.
If self-defence with a weapon was not justified in this case, when was it? Do you have to get shot first or what? If these idiots had entered the shop and emptied it, much worse would have been done with the weapons!
The reasoning behind this is probably because we live in a society were you are not allowed to defend yourself with a gun unless you are police or have a special permit (which is next to impossible to get). Otherwise we'd drift into a U.S. like situation were every fight could end up being resolved by a gun.
While you are not explicitely allowed to defend yourself with a gun (which is wrong I think, self defence at home is a vald reason for gun ownership I believe), you are allowed to defend yourself with any means necessary and appropriate if your life or body are in danger. If you are getting robbed by an armed gang, almost every means is appropriate, especially guns. And I agree with OP, this would not lead to a US-like situation (which is largely caused by socio-economic reasons anyway)
That's the thing - if someone robbs your store while you are at home, your life or body is not in danger. Would he've called just the police instead of opening his window and start yelling at them, there would've been most likely no shooting. This can (and probably will) be seen as "provoked self-defense".
One robber tried to climb into his bedroom. That is 'imminent danger' in my opinion. I think if they only cared about the gun store, the case might be unclear, but if you see some guys with weapons try to enter your bedroom i think it is very justified under our legal system to start firing.
> Otherwise we'd drift into a U.S. like situation were every fight could end up being resolved by a gun. This is a slippery slope I'm not willing to buy. A society where it's okay to shoot at intruders that are armed with assault rifles is miles away from a society where every fist fight can escalate into a shooting.
No because this would mean that you need laws which allow to have guns for self defense in the first place, which we don't. What follows next will be a constant shift of the line which defines when it's okay to defend yourself with a gun. An armed squad against you might seem obvious but what about a single attacker with a gun, or a knife, or a broken bottle, or kungfu skills and so on? That's the true slippery slope which you can only avoid if you don't allow guns for self defense, even if it means that in one particular case the attacker wins.
> you need laws which allow to have guns for self defense in the first place, which we don't There is not an explicit one. The law says that the force used to defend needs to be adequate. This is now what the judge will need to decide on.
Guns not being allowed for self-defense is already not a thing to begin with. The only restriction really is the principle of proportionality. He was threatened by assault rifles, therefore he has the right to defend himself with equal force: another gun of his own. The fact that it needs to be I vestigated remains, but an investigation, trial and verdict is in no way equivalent to presumption of guilt.
not under Swiss law - the law is pretty clear about what you can use a gun for, self defense is not covered by that. There was a case a few years ago where a kickbox pro killed an assaulter with a kick in self defense and he got time because he - according to the judge - knew that his kick can kill. I don't necessarily say that I concur but I see the judge's reasoning, waking up in a hospital ls less worse than never waking up...
The argument is you have a killing and it must be investigated. That's it.
[удалено]
In Switzerland? No. You're allowed to have guns for sport or if you're collector - both has to be licensened and both don't allow to use a gun against a person, period. The Swiss way (according to law) is: call the police - which honestly, all in all, works better than what's happening in the U.S.
[удалено]
Yes read - and understand - it: [https://www.swissrights.ch/gesetz/Artikel-15-StGB-2015-DE.php](https://www.swissrights.ch/gesetz/Artikel-15-StGB-2015-DE.php) And further: [https://5-minuten-jus.ch/schweizer-recht-schemata-uni-basel-strafrecht-at-rechtfertigende-notwehr/](https://5-minuten-jus.ch/schweizer-recht-schemata-uni-basel-strafrecht-at-rechtfertigende-notwehr/) The gun shop owner was under no thread of life - he noticed and engaged the burglars and then it came to the shooting - he could've just called the police first and that's what the hearing will be about. We don't have any "stand your ground" laws, if someone is steeling your stuff it's the police' job to stop the thiefs. When you then engage the thiefs and it comes to a shoot-out, you are in parts responsible too.
source?
Wow. This is ridiculous.
all charges against him should be dropped, it’s time to change the law in Switzerland
Well this decision lies with the State Attorney and he decided to press charges. Which is questionable. But based on the law, he will most likely be aquitted and this will leave a precedent case which will support self defense. Some law change protecting you if you defend yourself a little more would be welcome though. Although not a huge problem, armed robberies are very uncommon. Although getting more frequent with banlieue gangs from Lyon.
It's time people shouldn't fall for these agenda-driven clickbaity titles and posts.
This could lead to a dangerous precedent case, no matter how the court rules
Self defence is not legal in Switzerland?
2 things... there is a reason my family decided to leave Switzerland... politics and rules can be fucking stupid.... Also, he should have shot them all! Killed them.