how should you claim SD/HD in a country with an accusatorial system and no such thing as stand your ground?
i read the court case in my country, it seems that a self defence incident involving only 1 shot fired is usually justified since the attacker seems to halt their attack for some reason.

>>63878396 (OP)
>couldn't retreat because they were already up in my face
never turn back to attacker, I stand so firmly on this I am even willing to beat up the prosecutor if he starts arguing with me

>>63878396 (OP)
>how should you claim SD/HD in a country with an accusatorial system and no such thing as stand your ground?
You should talk to a lawyer (or for free find any real lawyers discussing it or read case history or something) for your own country. I'm American like much of this board, there is fucking zero we can offer you about subjective legal details of some rando country you don't even name you stupid faggot. There's no point in even speculating because you give nothing.

I guess the only real universal generic guidance is "only shoot if you're ok going to prison for it because you were that sure you were going to die". That's probably going to give you the best legal foundation anywhere anyway, but also means that if you do get prosecuted for it you won't be regretful because better imprisoned for a few years then raped/dead. In places where you have a right to defend your personal property too all the better but if you don't then you probably just have to be cold eyed about personal self interest. Throw the robber your wallet and run, do everything possible to be a good sheep unless they chase you and corner you. Most importantly try HARD to exercise basic sense and avoid ever getting into such a situation in the first place. Situational awareness and thinking ahead is something more people should be doing anyway, whether you can SYG or not.

Or you know, move. Particularly if the above is impossible because it's that much of a crime ridden ghetto hellhole. Work your ass off to gtfo asap.

>>63878396 (OP)
Are Q-ships a legitimate anti-mugging tactic if your only response is lethal force?

It's premeditated in the sense that he's putting himself there and waiting for it to happen but if his behaviour is lawful and he's not targeting a specific individual, is it premeditated enough?

Put it another way, if a hot woman in skin-tight clothes walks down a dark alley each Friday night in the club district and blows away some guy trying to lay hands on her each time, does that remove self-defence by reason of being foreseeable?

I'm not sure where the law on premeditation sits on this, I assume it could be quite different by state?

you should just try not shooting people until its obvious they are trying to kill you. i know that isn't very fun but the reason why people get sentenced for 'defensive shootings' is because they acted like a retard.

>>63878404
>I am even willing to beat up the prosecutor if he starts arguing with me
Based Stand Your Ground provocateur.

Are you in South Africa? Only place where I've ever heard it called "accusatorial" and not "adversarial"

>>63878582
>Dude just don't be stressed in a potential life-or-death situation lol

>>63878593
no i just dont know jack shit about law in english so i searched up google and it called that

>>63878626
>Deliberately and repeatedly puts self in life-or-death situation to have the opportunity to legally shoot a man
I'd tell them to join the fucking army but I suspect they would get knocked back for being an actual fucking retard.

>>63878396 (OP)
Depends on location, some places like Canada have great systems that clearly define that you can respond equally to whatever threat comes your way, but fuck up spectacularly by making any act of preparing for a potential threat extremely criminal and banning carrying firearms for self defense.

>>63878564
Foreseeability is irrelevant to self-defense. In your example, that woman has every right to walk in that alley if she so chooses, and to protect her physical integrity at any cost. How many times she walks through that alley and why is irrelevant. Making self-defense relative to external circumstances like intent and/or personal freedoms (like freedom of movement) essentially voids it, because these circumstances can be subject to personal interpretation by judges.

>>63878727
>In your example, that woman has every right to walk in that alley if she so chooses, and to protect her physical integrity at any cost. How many times she walks through that alley and why is irrelevant
I wonder if there's a woman hot enough (feminists tell us you don't need to be very hot to get sexually assaulted) who's enough of a serial killer to do this and how would the police shut them down?
Which they must do because if this happened more than once or twice, I think I'd have heard of it.

>Making self-defense relative to external circumstances like intent and/or personal freedoms (like freedom of movement) essentially voids it, because these circumstances can be subject to personal interpretation by judges.
Self-defence has been abused both ways by judges and juries to both convict innocent people and acquit guilty ones and on flimsier pretexts than the intersection between predictability and premeditation.
It's possible the ambiguity is part of the system's defence against abusing this to become a legal serial killer.

>>63878404
based conditionally kafkaesque if accused man

>>63878727
>Foreseeability is irrelevant to self-defense
Yes, it is in the US for criminal defense as long as it's something you are in fact legally entitled to do and doesn't involve any incitement. Though that said, it's not irrelevant in civil issues like insurance. If you take foreseeable risks and incur any expenses (medical, property damage, legal) you may find your policy voided.
>I wonder if there's a woman hot enough (feminists tell us you don't need to be very hot to get sexually assaulted) who's enough of a serial killer to do this and how would the police shut them down?
Why would the police care? The real issue is that
a) nobody is perfect and has invincible advantage all the time IRL.
b) criminals aren't all completely retarded
c) predictability is a killer
Very rapidly people would recognize the pattern, and somebody would setup a trap/ambush with tasers or whatever. Then she'd be brutally gang raped and murdered.

>>63878785
>I wonder if there's a woman hot enough (feminists tell us you don't need to be very hot to get sexually assaulted) who's enough of a serial killer to do this and how would the police shut them down?

Possibly related, I saw a naked milf on the AT yesterday. She was alone. I told my gf about it and gf wondered if she was a serial killer. In any case there are people hiking the AT naked as we speak

>>63878396 (OP)
is this pic a joke or what?
im sure the reddest of states will call this premeditated murder

>>63878849
>I saw a naked milf on the AT yesterday
Presumably with shoes and a pack.

Naked hiking is a thing, the usual rules of nudity apply, it's not usually hot young girls doing this.

>>63878785
There would be no need to criminalize that woman. So long as her physical integrity is respected, she would not be a threat to anyone.

>It's possible the ambiguity is part of the system's defence against abusing this to become a legal serial killer.

This ambiguity is the source of the problem, and the reason most (realistically, all) justice systems are illegitimate. That ambiguity you speak of is entirely due to morality being unwarrantedly embroiled into delivering justice : without valid reasons, judges tend to make decisions based on what they believe should be done according to their own beliefs, but these decisions are constrained by legal framework. This ties in with the senseless idea of the supposed difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There is no difference : the letter of the law IS the spirit of the law.

This is also why speaking of "abuse" of the law is disingenuous : the law only means it's words. If they are not clearly defined, it's application is a personal interpretation by the judge and is immoral and antithetical to the idea of justice. An individual who respects the letter of the law and commits acts one could reasonably deem immoral is just as law-abiding as any other. Stopping the law-abiding individual from commiting these acts is simple : a properly written rewrite of the existing law or an addition to it will suffice.

Justice systems abuse the law because it is oftentimes poorly written, and a poorly written law is unapplicable. But the need to stop immoral acts remains, as a result the law is freely interpreted to punish those whose actions are personally perceived to be immoral acts. In the process, due to the personal nature of the interpretation, the objectivity of justice, which is one of it's condition of existence, is violated.

>>63878830
The only incitement that would void your right to protection of your self is assault as the cause of you being physically attacked in immediate response.

Unless the above is met, you are under no entitlement to any action of your own.

> If you take foreseeable risks and incur any expenses (medical, property damage, legal) you may find your policy voided.

A natural right, the one to self-preservation in this instance, cannot be voided by anyone other than you. Only if you decide not to respect someone else's natural rights are you subject to your own being voided. Your analogy of natural rights to a willingly contracted agreement subject to personal interpretation is infuriating and senseless.

>>63878396 (OP)
here's my master in law advise
a) go speak with a defense lawyer and pay them to give you the complete legal breakdown of self defense in the country you live in
b) the standard used is never if YOU thought you where in danger, had done enough to avoid the confrontation ect. it's what a reasonable/average person would have done.
So you been scared of a twink holding a dildo on the other side of the street isn't going to cut it (even in the US)
c) go see that lawyer now and don't skimp out and I'm not just saying that because I'm a law fag. But because a good lawyer isn't a cheap lawyer (not that an expensive one has to be good).
d) start setting aside some cash for legal costs because if it goes to court it is going to cost you and after you get charged isn't when you are going to save up for your defence

>>63878896
It is not premeditated murder in any way. The person in OP's pic has not killed anyone who hadn't threatened their lives. If those individuals hadn't done so, to an individual freely excercising their rights no less, they wouldn't have died.

>>63879012
>cannot be voided by anyone other than you
provocation would also void it then and what constitutes provocation have and will take up entire books of legal scholarship

>>63878634
>the opportunity to legally shoot a man
The kind of ”men” mugging people literally all deserve to be shot to death though. Shoot enough that the risk isn’t worth it and suddenly people will be thinking twice about mugging or otherwise assaulting others. Other than legality there’d be literally nothing at all wrong with sitting around waiting for it or walking through bad areas hoping for someone to try.
>b-but what if they a good boy simply tryin to steal baby formula
The kind of people mugging others don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves and drugs

How is this even allowed? That's psychopathy, that's homicidal behaviour. This guy is frothing at the mouth waiting for an excuse to clip someone. What if a guy walks to him asking for a lighter, and in his state of alert he shoots him?:

>>63878396 (OP)
>how do you legally defend yourself in a country where it's not legal to do so
You move where it is legal.

Isn't this basically vigilantism, aka illegal?

>>63879061
>>63879067
Probably bait and samefag but read >>63879057
>what if he shoots someone innocent???
Applies to all self defense. Just don’t shoot until it’s for sure a mugging/attempted assault etc

>>63879043
It is not premeditated murder in any way
the person in OP's pic is intentionally going out there with the express intent of killing someone.
that is the very definition of murder
that he didn't go out planning to kill this or that person makes it no less murder.
Nor does the self defense situation he has put him self in, even with stand your ground laws. Because it will be seen as provocation.
He is going out there and provoking action so he can kill people.
or in other words he goes out there with malign forethought to kill people.
Now the interesting part is that the prosecution has to go and prove that is what he is doing.
And if he where to post about it on social media and the account he is using gets linked to him that will be admissible evidence and he will get convicted

>>63879074
And how are you going to prove it was a mugging? It's a gas station, at night. A guy walks to you. The camera only sees the movement, it doesn't record whether he said "give me your wallet" or "spare a dime?", does it? What if the guy purposedly chose a camera free zone where he can forge all the bullshit excuses he wants? Regardless, the psychological profile of this man is troubling nonetheless

>>63879084
>Now the interesting part is that the prosecution has to go and prove that is what he is doing
But they don't, this idiot twitted his full intents to the public. The prosecution doesn't have to look for reasons, although 17 different shootouts in the same area would be suspicious indeed.

>>63879046
No, because answering to provocation is a choice made by the provoked. Besides, unless the provocation is a threat, criminalizing provocation infringes on the natural right of free speech.

There hasn't been anyone in this thread who has presented valid arguments against the moral legality of the actions taken by the individual in OP's pic.

Especially not >>63879084

Murder is unwarranted, willed killing. The individual in OP's pic is warranted in his killing by the fact these individuals threatened his life out of their own will.
See the first paragraph for why provocation isn't valid grounds for voiding his right to self-preservation.
"Malign forethought" is not a valid reason for any condemnation. The "malign" part is subject to personal interpretation, which makes its relevance null, and the "forethought" is impossible to prove. You can try to prove it all you want, you can't refute the countless arguments, whether in bad or good faith, that can be made to clear this individual.

>>63879101
Read the post again you actual fucking retard.
>Other than legality

>>63879108
well if he is making that statement under his own name and they can prove that it is his account with him posting.
if not, someone that would do the kind of think he claim to be doing isn't the kind of person to keep it to himself.
frequency isn't proof in and of it's self tough. There are any number of perfectly good reasons to be at a gas station late at night every night and lady luck can send her most crack addled niggers at you at any time.
but yea police will look into you if manage to rack up 17 self defense shootings never mind in a year

>>63879108
He can invoke parody. This nullifies any attempt to prove premeditation.

>>63879140
yea, my express legal advise is to defend yourself in and an all legal disputes you happen to find your self in. And to post the verdict here.

>>63878396 (OP)
All western countries (afaik) have blanket laws allowing self-defence up to killing the attacker, what matters is the actual legal practice, the US has very good and established SD/HD laws, in disarmed countries self-defence killings are rare and go on a case-by-case basis and then its up to how the law is interpreted.
>>63879101
Up to convincing the jury + the forensics. If cops find a gun or a knife on him that's good, if he is unarmed and you have no defence wounds (and the attacker doesn't look like a crackhead) it's going to be tougher.

Being involved in multiple SD shootings is probably something the prosecutor will bring up, but in general OP pic is not illegal as long as in all these cases you have been doing nothing illegal (just chilling out by the gas station) and have been subjected to an illegal attack that warrants lethal force in your state.

>>63879157
Anon, your advice is practical. I approach this situation from an entirely morally legal standpoint, in which only logic and vocabulary is required. I have zero legal knowledge, but that's not required by my approach.

>>63879150
assuming it is someone that has been involved in 17 self defense shooting outside of gas stations, not really.
plain reading is him bragging about shooting people if you claim it's parody you are going to have to convince the judge or jury of that and I don't think that's going to happen at least with what information is given in OP's post

>>63879140
Counterplay: send a large, threatening looking man to suddenly approach him in the parking lot to ask to borrow a cigarette lighter, and if he draws, a police sniper stationed nearby shoots him in the back. In this scenario, it was he who violated the NAP first, so shooting him is justified.

>>63879173
> entirely morally legal standpoint
nonononono
you standpoint isn't moral, legal or logical
I'm sure it is to you but troons also think that they are women

>>63879150
That's up to the judge to decide. Plenty of people get arrested for not putting "in minecraft " after they posted threats on the internet. This guy said he was in 17 different violent altercations, meaning there would be a record of it. The judge finds there are precedents and convicts him

>>63879180
>convince
You want to shift the judge's/jury's personal interpretation of his words, which only matters in an imperfect justice system.

Lucky for me, what I say only applies to an ideal justice system where laws are perfectly written.
And in that system parody is a perfectly applicable argument.

>>63879187
In that scenario, yes. But then anon would brandish a firearm unreasonably, which is illegal, but if we assume anon stays within the boundaries of the law that scenario doesn't happen.

>>63879194
My standpoint is all of that. You provided no arguments for your statement, so I will not consider it.

>>63879199
>That's up to the judge to decide
Personal interpretation, which again, I don't care for.
>precedents
Something that only exists in an imperfect legal system where judges get to interpret the law as they see fit.

>>63879234
look I'm paid to tard wrangle people like your trough the courts and I don't work on Sunday.
so glhf and be sure to post the verdict here if you ever run into legal trouble and end up representing your self.
because I will laugh with how retarded you are on a Sunday

>>63879264
If I had a problem with the law, I would just hire a lawyer and shut the fuck up. Because the justice system in my country is imperfect. Only in a perfect justice system would I not need a lawyer, because all of it would be perfectly logical and objective.

>>63879279
buy you aren't logical or objective
you aren't coming from principals but backtracking to principals from your personal preference
it's sophistry with the honesty of admitting it's sophistry

>>63878396 (OP)
Court, much like prison, is about establishing dominace early. Also remember the famous quote from Socrates - 9/10ths of everything on the internet is bullshit.

>>63879303
No faggot, it's philosophy. It looks like sophistry because I'm shortcutting the reasoning to only write the end of it. I'm just considering the reasoning in an ideal system, because it means I can have a conclusion that's not dependent on an infinity of variables.

If I was writing sophistry, I would rely on emotional engagement. But I rely solely on logic.

>not logical
You are either mad or a liar. (This is sophistry)
Every argument I've made was based solely on logic.
>not objective
Maybe a little, I'm lacking the time to think about every possibility so I only consider the most likely. This is a 4chan post, not an actual essay.
>you aren't coming from principals but backtracking to principals from your personal preference
That's not fucking true. I start from the definition and from there I get to the conclusion.

You need to learn logic and improve your philosophical knowledge nigga

>>63879140
>The "malign" part is subject to personal interpretation, which makes its relevance null
No, personal interpretation is relevant because every step of the way, the justice sausage machine is cranked by humans and they can decide to crank it or not crank it and they'll do so based on what freedom to decide they have and their personal interpretation.
Most obviously, juries can absolutely use personal interpretation and it's arguably what they're there to do.
Judges can find wiggle room here and there.
Prosecutors have discretion about whether to proceed and with what charges.
Police commanders have the discretion about whether to refer a case to prosecutors.
Police officers have discretion about whether to book a charge at all.

Personal Interpretation is everywhere.

>>63879417
nta but you're being a dense motherfucker in order to win an internet argument, rather than discuss the issue. either way, fuck off you pretentious nigger.

>>63878626
Yes, if you're going to carry a gun you're responsibility is to not be a violent retard with it. Do you think "stress" is a valid legal excuse?

>>63878593
He means inquisitorial, i.e. the roles of prosecutor and judge ae rolled into one official. As opposed to adversarial where the state and defendant hash it out in front of a nominally impartial judge.