Guns and Shit

[mikeylikey]

Why, because Sweden?

And Sweden has legal personal firearm ownership with high firearm ownership rate per capita.

Yeah but isn't that kindof misleading because you can only own like, full size single shot hunting rifles and shotguns, and you have to keep them under lock and key at the local Constable's office or some such? I know that's how a lot of Europe works. You certainly can't keep a 1911 in the nightstand, which is what these people really needed.

[5hout]

I used google translate on this reviewhttps://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?fun ... Id=2199962 of Swedish self defense law, and from the chunks I read I'm going with my gut on this: If person pushes him off ladder at top and he dies or is seriously injured they are going to jail. pg 42 contains a lengthy discussion of is it appropriate to use lethal force in defense in a knife fight where both have knives and the analysis is longer than "lol, of course". The analysis is ~a page long, on whether you can stab to death someone who comes at you with a knife.

Let me go in further on that. MMZ vs DD. Court finds MMZ unlawfully attacks DD with knife. Court finds MMZ was significantly larger than DD. However, b/c DD delivered some blows while holding MMZ's knife arm (to stop himself from being stabbed more (he was already stabbed)), and b/c he was capable of walking a bit after the fight, the court found he didn't need to use lethal force to defend himself and he went away for murder. This is categorically worse analysis for the defender than anything in the US.

Here's another case from the article (I'm not fixing the formatting)

The district court accepted JH's account of the course of events. When he
was attacked with a knife, he was in a self-defense situation and had the
right to defend himself. Dealing blows with a hammer in response to a knife
attack does not in itself constitute an obviously unjustifiable act, but directing
these at the attacker's head is approaching the limits

So, when you are defending yourself with a hammer vs a knife attack you have to be careful about hitting them in the head. In every US jurisdiction I am aware of if someone comes at you with a knife at close range you are 100% justified shooting them in the head, let along delivering a hammer to the head.

Speaking on a 2nd round of combat knife vs hammer (same people) the court says "and JH could have parried the attack without using such gross
violence as he did." (this may be a machine translation issue and the original might not have the same insane read that he needs to be skilled enough to parry knife attacks with a hammer, but the idea is still insane to a US brain).

From pdf page 56 on this discuss the relative right to self defense, and the analysis there backed up my recollection and the above 2 vignettes: While the text may seem similar to US law, the application is wildly (forgive me the joke) soy/EU. Pushing guy off top of ladder leading to death or serious injury vs a taking a beating (when you could have locked/barred the door or pushed ladder at the start) seems very likely to lead to jail for the defender under the law as applied.

[mikeylikey]

Speaking on a 2nd round of combat knife vs hammer (same people) the court says "and JH could have parried the attack without using such gross
violence as he did." (this may be a machine translation issue and the original might not have the same insane read that he needs to be skilled enough to parry knife attacks with a hammer, but the idea is still insane to a US brain).

Interesting.

I think we could imagine a situation where A accosts B with a knife, and B responds so viciously with a hammer as to shock the conscience to the point even an American court would find B guilty of 1st-degree Overdoing It. Your summary of a translation of an anecdote does not obviously exclude such a situation. But I am picking nits. On its face what you have described above clearly supports your inference more than mine.

So, I guess TIL Sweden Sucks

[Philbert]

At first I was appalled at the stupidity/timidity of the roommate, but as the thread progressed I realized he correctly understood that the Swedish government was a bigger threat to his wellbeing than the unhinged man coming up the ladder with the knife and brick. So the best course of action for preserving his life was try to de-escalate and then take the beating.

[DoctorWho]

I do wonder if part of this is Sweden's self defense laws. AFAIK they are fairly favorable to the attacker.

Why, because Sweden?

Based on wikipedia, which is all the more I care to research the subject, it seems their self-defense laws would fall somewhere between New York and Texas, i.e. probably not to blame here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(Sweden)

My recollection, having reflected on it, is that in practice they fairly strictly apply the requirement to not have less damaging alternatives. I.e. in this case you might have someone say you baited him into it by not pushing the ladder immediately therefore pushing him off at the top (when risk of death/serious injury is extremely high) would be unjustifiable (putting it another way: if you have a low-violence way to stop it (quick push when he's setting the ladder up, you can't elect the high violence way).

I'm not saying the person was performing this calculus, just that this kind of background "what's reasonable" might have permeated some of the thought process. More likely is the person didn't think exBF would be serious and then once at the top didn't want to kill him.

This impression either came from CounterStrike podcasts talking about Swedish self defense laws* or following crazy news stories of violence in Sweden.

*Following Dreamhack 2015 everyone was suddenly an armchair expert in Swedish self defense laws. The short story is that a player was incited against a caster, and then allowed backstage into a non-player area to confront the caster. Player tried to assault caster, caster pushed him away. Scene went fucking berserk and everyone talked about Swedish law for a few months.

A tough case. Guy standing on the top rung of an extension ladder that looks too steep. Risky for the intruder if stopped (I mean, descending the ladder looks risky), so a lot depends on when the knife was known. But the intruder put himself in the dangerous position. Seems like a bar exam question.

Then I think it comes down to 'stand your ground' vs 'duty to retreat'. I remember when stand-your-ground was made out to be a view that only the worst people could hold.

[aurelius]

Then I think it comes down to 'stand your ground' vs 'duty to retreat'. I remember when stand-your-ground was made out to be a view that only the worst people could hold.

'Stand your ground' isa legal defense in some US States for the use of deadly force in public spaces where legal self-defense is not clear. How do 'stand your ground' laws apply to someone being attacked in their own home?
'Duty to retreat' is also a concept applied to public spaces. A person has a legal obligation to attempt to deescalate a situation or avoid violence. Do you know of a US State that has 'duty to retreat' laws that require someone to retreat from an intruder in their own home? Many US States have 'castle doctrine' laws which allow for the use of deadly force in one's home.

I don't know how any of that applies to this case in Sweden.

[5hout]

Then I think it comes down to 'stand your ground' vs 'duty to retreat'. I remember when stand-your-ground was made out to be a view that only the worst people could hold.

'Stand your ground' isa legal defense in some US States for the use of deadly force in public spaces where legal self-defense is not clear. How do 'stand your ground' laws apply to someone being attacked in their own home?
'Duty to retreat' is also a concept applied to public spaces. A person has a legal obligation to attempt to deescalate a situation or avoid violence. Do you know of a US State that has 'duty to retreat' laws that require someone to retreat from an intruder in their own home? Many US States have 'castle doctrine' laws which allow for the use of deadly force in one's home.

I don't know how any of that applies to this case in Sweden.

It's complicated, but basically:

Castle Doctrine states = no duty to retreat in home, regardless of situation so long as not a trap.

Stand your ground is castle doctrine (more or less) around your person in public, so long as you have a right to be in that place.

Duty to retreat is what happens in a non-stand your ground space/castle doctrine space in places following the branch of the common law that holds there is a duty to retreat.

Note that per the article on Sweden they claim to have "no duty to retreat", but then have made so many exceptions the claim is hilariously inaccurate. Essentially no duty to retreat, unless by not retreating you are forced to cause more harm to the other person than if you retreated. To an American Brain this is... not remotely no duty to retreat, but (sort-of-joke) you have to remember all the people left in Sweden are the descendants of those that weren't awesome and went off viking, so what do you expect.

[mikeylikey]

Castle Doctrine states = no duty to retreat in home, regardless of situation so long as not a trap.

Stand your ground is castle doctrine (more or less) around your person in public, so long as you have a right to be in that place.

Duty to retreat is what happens in a non-stand your ground space/castle doctrine space in places following the branch of the common law that holds there is a duty to retreat.

Pick apart whatever is wrong with this:

As far as I know in the US, even in states where there is a duty to retreat, it only applies if the retreat can be effected in complete safety to yourself and other innocent parties. I.E. you don't have to retreat from an attacker with a projectile weapon, or as I understand it, even from one who makes clear his intent to give chase and can reasonably be expected to catch you. In practice if applied as intended the 'duty to retreat' would really apply in a fairly small subset of encounters. Example might be you are accosted by a person on foot while you are in your car with a clear lane of egress. More ado gets made about the distinction than is probably warranted, because you have to be fairly creative to imagine a scenario where legit self-defense is called for AND ALSO a completely safe retreat is possible. In the 99% of real world confrontations where a completely safe retreat isn't feasible, a de facto SOG standard applies.

[aurelius]

It's complicated, but basically:

Castle Doctrine states = no duty to retreat in home, regardless of situation so long as not a trap.

Stand your ground is castle doctrine (more or less) around your person in public, so long as you have a right to be in that place.

Duty to retreat is what happens in a non-stand your ground space/castle doctrine space in places following the branch of the common law that holds there is a duty to retreat.

Note that per the article on Sweden they claim to have "no duty to retreat", but then have made so many exceptions the claim is hilariously inaccurate. Essentially no duty to retreat, unless by not retreating you are forced to cause more harm to the other person than if you retreated. To an American Brain this is... not remotely no duty to retreat, but (sort-of-joke) you have to remember all the people left in Sweden are the descendants of those that weren't awesome and went off viking, so what do you expect.

I think it is clear from my post I had a firm grasp of the concepts. I'm confident in every US State, anyone could simply push the attacker off the ladder and be just fine as far as the law is concerned. Maybe not California?

I disagree with your comparison of Castle Doctrine to Stand your Ground laws.
Castle Doctrine: if someone breaks into one's home while it is occupied, the occupant can assume the intruder presents a reasonable threat of serious harm/death to the occupant. The occupant does not have to demonstrate that the intruder was armed, or otherwise capable, and had intent to harm. The intruder trespass de facto provides justification for the occupant to use lethal force.
Stand your ground (no duty to retreat) laws: one must demonstrate a reasonable threat of serious harm/death existed when lethal force was used.

Both Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground laws have examples where they were applied to legally justify murder (IMO). That does not necessarily make them bad laws in concept. Maybe just need to be rewritten and focused better.

Sweden's laws are a mess if you couldn't just kill that guy. Any concept of self-defense that requires a person to actually have to be attacked before defending themselves is ridiculous.

[5hout]

I disagree with your comparison of Castle Doctrine to Stand your Ground laws.
Castle Doctrine: if someone breaks into one's home while it is occupied, the occupant can assume the intruder presents a reasonable threat of serious harm/death to the occupant. The occupant does not have to demonstrate that the intruder was armed, or otherwise capable, and had intent to harm. The intruder trespass de facto provides justification for the occupant to use lethal force.

I mostly agree, but would add a minor possible quibble: You still need the subjective belief (AFIAK) in most states to shoot. If you tell the cops/news "Well I thought it was just a lost drunk guy about to pass out" you're going to jail. Putting it another way, your stated belief of non-threat overcomes castle doctrine.

I would note a Minnesota case which OT'd a castle doctrine shoot where the homeowner had a stated belief that he was merely being stolen from and not under a risk of harm and he's rotting in jail for shooting a robbery.

Sweden's laws are a mess if you couldn't just kill that guy. Any concept of self-defense that requires a person to actually have to be attacked before defending themselves is ridiculous.

Strong agreement. Reading that linked document is f'ing wild. How wikipedia claims that Sweden has a decent right to self defense is... unfathomable I can only imagine it's people with 0 effort into checking beyond text of some laws or those who simply assumed "Nordic country therefore must have super reasonable law".

[5hout]

Castle Doctrine states = no duty to retreat in home, regardless of situation so long as not a trap.

Stand your ground is castle doctrine (more or less) around your person in public, so long as you have a right to be in that place.

Duty to retreat is what happens in a non-stand your ground space/castle doctrine space in places following the branch of the common law that holds there is a duty to retreat.

Pick apart whatever is wrong with this:

As far as I know in the US, even in states where there is a duty to retreat, it only applies if the retreat can be effected in complete safety to yourself and other innocent parties. I.E. you don't have to retreat from an attacker with a projectile weapon, or as I understand it, even from one who makes clear his intent to give chase and can reasonably be expected to catch you. In practice if applied as intended the 'duty to retreat' would really apply in a fairly small subset of encounters. Example might be you are accosted by a person on foot while you are in your car with a clear lane of egress. More ado gets made about the distinction than is probably warranted, because you have to be fairly creative to imagine a scenario where legit self-defense is called for AND ALSO a completely safe retreat is possible. In the 99% of real world confrontations where a completely safe retreat isn't feasible, a de facto SOG standard applies.

I neither agree nor disagree. Duty to retreat is a shitshow of conflicting cases and laws, you'd have to pick 1 jurisdiction and then have an expert in that area to really make any specific point. I'm thinking back to a case from law school (can't remember any useful details to find it) where someone was found to have a duty to retreat vs a gun, b/c they could duck around the corner of a brick wall or something like that.

[aurelius]

I mostly agree, but would add a minor possible quibble: You still need the subjective belief (AFIAK) in most states to shoot. If you tell the cops/news "Well I thought it was just a lost drunk guy about to pass out" you're going to jail. Putting it another way, your stated belief of non-threat overcomes castle doctrine.

I would note a Minnesota case which OT'd a castle doctrine shoot where the homeowner had a stated belief that he was merely being stolen from and not under a risk of harm and he's rotting in jail for shooting a robbery.

The example I remember is a homeowner shot an intruder in the back in their open garage while the intruder was leaving holding a TV. They decided Castle Doctrine did not cover that.

I want to say that was Texas. And it was key that the garage door was open and the language of the law meant the garage was no longer considered part of the home but outside. I don't really remember. Of course Texas is the State where it is legal to gun down a hooker in the street for taking $250 without providing services.

[mikeylikey]

Worth pointing out that in general, duty to retreat laws are actually quite old, and are not some recent reaction to somebody's perception that self-defense is too easily claimed to get out of an unjustified killing. These laws were written when dueling was a thing. This was less about Liberal Snowflake legislatures ruining America by protecting criminals, than about codifying the quite reasonable notion that you cannot actively engage in a fight and then claim self-defense.

Then later on liberal prosecutors and judges used it to ruin America by protecting criminals. That's how you get Stand Your Ground laws.

[Seafoam]

Worth pointing out that in general, duty to retreat laws are actually quite old, and are not some recent reaction to somebody's perception that self-defense is too easily claimed to get out of an unjustified killing. These laws were written when dueling was a thing. This was less about Liberal Snowflake legislatures ruining America by protecting criminals, than about codifying the quite reasonable notion that you cannot actively engage in a fight and then claim self-defense.

Then later on liberal prosecutors and judges used it to ruin America by protecting criminals. That's how you get Stand Your Ground laws.

A fair amount of heartache could be avoided if we thought half as much about retreat options as we do about lethal defense. Imagine escaping a fire with your family and apply that to an assailant. Not exactly the same, but we like to drool over guns but not over fire extinguishers.

[5hout]

Hmmm, interesting thought sparked from that. I have 3 fire extinguishers (kitchen, barn, living room) and two, umm, self defense objects rdy (quick locked of course). If I buy a 4th fire extinguisher can I persuade my wife it's k to get the next gun (another pistol likely), bc still more fire extinguishers than rdy self defense objects?

[mbasic]

Hmmm, interesting thought sparked from that. I have 3 fire extinguishers (kitchen, barn, living room) and two, umm, self defense objects rdy (quick locked of course). If I buy a 4th fire extinguisher can I persuade my wife it's k to get the next gun (another pistol likely), bc still more fire extinguishers than rdy self defense objects?

What is the result for going all in and installing a whole house automated fire suppression system?

[5hout]

Hmmm, interesting thought sparked from that. I have 3 fire extinguishers (kitchen, barn, living room) and two, umm, self defense objects rdy (quick locked of course). If I buy a 4th fire extinguisher can I persuade my wife it's k to get the next gun (another pistol likely), bc still more fire extinguishers than rdy self defense objects?

What is the result for going all in and installing a whole house automated fire suppression system?

That's a good question. I'll consider it as a boundary conditions problem and interpolate to answer. At the lowest level you own 1 fire extinguisher and 0 guns for home defense. Presumably at the highest level you own the USFS which enables you to own 1 level down, so a state national guard unit.

Solving for the middle I find owning a township sized fire department means you can have armed guards with SMGs at home and owning a full house suppression unit allows the purchase of a single NFA registered machine gun to be mounted in a quick access wall safe. Does limit the gun choice though, cuz idk if someone makes quick access NFA trust/access compliant quick access locks for Vickers guns.

[mbasic]

Weird segue from this^ convo .....

...seriously, my wife has kinda hinted at me getting a handgun/pistol. I guess for home defense and/or when we travel/camp/hike/etc.

So I put this to The Exodus Board: what should be my first handgun?

I have maybe 10 shotguns (most of them doubles for bird hunting) and one AR15.

I am not sure if she intends to use the new pistol? I assume so? She is dainty in stature

[5hout]

@mbasic I concealed carry a full frame .45 1911 b/c I am a mega nouveau-Boomer.

There is only 1 actual answer: A standard or compact Glock or well regarded Glock/wondernine clone with an added thumb/button safety.

A standard Glock/wondernine clone 100% always MUST be carried in a real, quality holster or it is an insane negligent discharge risk. Adding a thumb safety (ordering a clone that comes with one (many do) or getting a reputable shop to add one) greatly reduces the "oops" risk if this is used as a camp/hike gun where less than perfect holster discipline might be observed (i.e. tossing the gun into a glovebox for a few minutes). A S&W Shield with a manual safety would be another great choice in this vein.

9mm vs others: Easy of recoil, availability of ammo, 1 billion self defense round options, cost of operation.
single stack vs double stack: Double stack a little bigger, but not too much bigger so long as you stick to polymer framed 9mm. I'd go double b/c I think proper holster + garment still does perfectly good concealment, but you can go to a compact/subcompact. Personally, if you go that route you lose the mag capacity which starts to wear away at the reasons for 9mm in the first place BUT AS A 1ST PISTOL for those use cases, it'd be just fine.
Glock vs other brands: Glock has a dumb thing where they seem to enjoy negligent discharges of guns placed in purses. If you correct this issue, perfect. If you don't, I'd go with a manual safety other brand such as the S&W or a more straight up Glock clone + manual safety.
Revolvers: lol no, the cost for a good one is insanely higher than you need an even at short ranges accurate double action fire can be... tricky. Just no.

Unless you are planning on semi-concealed carry only in bear country or some other use case, it's too hard to no go with a polymer framed 9mm (either a small double stack mag one or a single stack).

Again: I love my .45, and I still think this is the way to go (especially if she ever wants to carry it properly concealed).

[Philbert]

@mbasic I concealed carry a full frame .45 1911 b/c I am a mega nouveau-Boomer.

There is only 1 actual answer: A standard or compact Glock or well regarded Glock/wondernine clone with an added thumb/button safety.

A standard Glock/wondernine clone 100% always MUST be carried in a real, quality holster or it is an insane negligent discharge risk. Adding a thumb safety (ordering a clone that comes with one (many do) or getting a reputable shop to add one) greatly reduces the "oops" risk if this is used as a camp/hike gun where less than perfect holster discipline might be observed (i.e. tossing the gun into a glovebox for a few minutes). A S&W Shield with a manual safety would be another great choice in this vein.

9mm vs others: Easy of recoil, availability of ammo, 1 billion self defense round options, cost of operation.
single stack vs double stack: Double stack a little bigger, but not too much bigger so long as you stick to polymer framed 9mm. I'd go double b/c I think proper holster + garment still does perfectly good concealment, but you can go to a compact/subcompact. Personally, if you go that route you lose the mag capacity which starts to wear away at the reasons for 9mm in the first place BUT AS A 1ST PISTOL for those use cases, it'd be just fine.
Glock vs other brands: Glock has a dumb thing where they seem to enjoy negligent discharges of guns placed in purses. If you correct this issue, perfect. If you don't, I'd go with a manual safety other brand such as the S&W or a more straight up Glock clone + manual safety.
Revolvers: lol no, the cost for a good one is insanely higher than you need an even at short ranges accurate double action fire can be... tricky. Just no.

Unless you are planning on semi-concealed carry only in bear country or some other use case, it's too hard to no go with a polymer framed 9mm (either a small double stack mag one or a single stack).

Again: I love my .45, and I still think this is the way to go (especially if she ever wants to carry it properly concealed).

Nothing to disagree with above, and absolutely agree with the Glock and holster part. Any firearm with a useable trigger and no other safety should be kept in a good holster. Even a Glock with a NY trigger is unacceptably easy to unintentionally discharge if carried in a pocket, bag, or waistband. I like the Springfield XD idea, grip safety but no safety lever. No steps to remember, but will not discharge with unintentional trigger pressure. The only model I have fired is the XDS in 45, which I do not recommend for a first handgun.