The state has a monopoly on violence for a reason. Imho. this wasn't self defense, this was vigilantism and killing two people over money is a break with civilization.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago

You could argue that it was an excessive force during self defense. But vigilantism it was not.

You have to be entitled to think that 36000 euros is something you just shrug over.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In Germany this would definitely have been self-defence. Whether it was excessive self-defence would be up to the courts but 36k are a lot of money and the amount of force, well, it was the only suitable avenue he had available, doubly so because he got shot at (meaning that he can't be expected to catch up and bump them from the side or something). I would estimate that a German court would acquit him. Also for that whole reasoning to even start to apply he must not have been confused, scared, or startled that is there's huge allowances for affect.

But then, OTOH, Germany probably has the most hardcore self-defence laws in the world. You can literally deck someone in cold blood when being insulted (massively and incessantly) and walk free.