[DChambers]

(09-08-2014 03:28 AM)Pantheon Dweller Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 03:06 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 02:54 AM)Pantheon Dweller Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 01:37 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

This is not white knighting at all.

How would this guy have gotten a life sentence in the west?

Some of you forum newbies need your heads checked.

Self-defense laws are very strict, the reaction must be proportioned and you can't hit someone who's not an imminent threat (meaning if he kills your sister and start running away, if you hurt him you're now considered the attacker), etc.

Some of this guy's kukri strikes would have been self-defense, most wouldn't, and he would have been charged for those.

Maybe the media painting him as a hero helps in a trial, but he would be in deeper shit than most of the robbers if it happened in the west.

In all states in America, as far as I know, you're protected by law when defending yourself or others with lethal force from serious forcible felonies such as kidnapping, armed robbery, rape, murder, etc.

Given the coverage, the people and the themes involved (men protecting women) there's not a prosecutor in the US that would've been dumb enough to try to go after him.

Those forcible felonies must be a imminent threats, so it would have worked for the few guys who held her, not for the other guys he hurt or killed. Actually, if you follow the law, even the guys who held her must be left alone as soon as they try to leave.

In the west, the media coverage would be the only thing that could save him. Protecting the girl from villains sure sounds badass, but I wouldn't bet my freedom on the media. Of course, his country's self-defense laws are likely less strict than ours.

(09-08-2014 01:49 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Apart from that - frankly I might have done the same. The girl likely would have been not only raped, but killed afterwards. There is no shame in risking your life for someone. And yes - I would have done the same for a guy, if I knew they were about to drag him off and kill him for some bogus reason (because he belonged to some religious sect they were not fond of, they did not like his skin-color etc.)

That's very altruistic of you, but against a gang of robbers his chances were slim. He was far less likely to save her than to die for nothing (as they would still rape her after killing him) and you're not a Gurkha soldier so your chances are even slimmer.

It isn't so black and white, as long as he felt reasonable fear for his life or that of a passenger, he was justified in taking action both morally and within the bounds of the law.

In addition if the State has Stand Your Ground laws he doesn't have to retreat at all. If the armed robbers were within reach of him in the train or within lunging distance he could still legally engage as he is in reasonable fear of his life. It is when they retreated from the train and actually disengaged that he could not engage them, which he did not.

Besides, no jury would ever convict a soldier for defending the life and virtue of a young woman (or man for that matter) regardless of whether or not there was a storm of media coverage, and it would ruin the political career of any DA foolish enough to prosecute him.