• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

4+ hurt on a german train. Assailant with an axe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tragisch und wir hoffen für die Verletzten. Wieso konnte der Angreifer nicht angriffsunfähig geschossen werden???? Fragen!

I really can't see what might be wrong with that question. Twitters short messages tend to intensify the meaning of an opinion and she could have dropped two of the question marks, but the tweet as such is completely legitimate.
And I even don't like her personally tbh.
 
Yes, it has to be examined. That is why politicians should shut up about it and not start asking questions, least of all on Twitter. An investigation is normal procedure. If anything strange comes up then about the killing of the suspect, they can start asking questions.

No I think its right to ask these questions immediately to remind people that this is an important question to ask.
As I said, its important that we don't slip into a state of disregard for criminals lives, as its the case in other countries.

Its not like anyone could have tweeted anything worthwhile about this anyways.
Knee-jerk speculation about who the perpetrator might be, what his motives were or stuff like that is in my opinion way more out of place than asking whether or not the police didn't have the chance to solve this without killing the guy.
 
I cant't believe I'm even saying this:
If the CSU was running in my state I would vote for them. But since that's not an option I might for Mutti for the first time. Ugh.

I have trouble voting for Mutti too. Not sure, the next elections are a dilemma for myself.


No ties to ISIS have been found so far. DER SPIEGEL assumes self-radicalization. Based on that, I doubt this can be classified as a terror attack. Also, the medical history on the perpetrator has not been disclosed yet. He clearly sympathized with ISIS but whether that is enough to consider him a terrorist is something I'm not certain of.

A terror attack does not necessitate being a formal member of a terror organisation.
 
No I think its right to ask these questions immediately to remind people that this is an important question to ask.
As I said, its important that we don't slip into a state of disregard for criminals lives, as its the case in other countries.

Its not like anyone could have tweeted anything worthwhile about this anyways.
Knee-jerk speculation about who the perpetrator might be, what his motives were or stuff like that is in my opinion way more out of place than asking whether or not the police didn't have the chance to solve this without killing the guy.
So maybe politicians should learn to not tweet for a few seconds, instead of saying dumb things.

Don't they have faith in the German police to investigate this and wait for the reports then? If knee-jerk speculation about the perpetrator is not good, then that same behavior about the police actions should also be condemned.

Then police saved more people from becoming victims by stopping this criminal. He was caught in the act, trying to murder people. If your first reaction is then to jump on the police, that is not right.
 
A terror attack does not necessitate being a formal member of a terror organisation.

What are the boxes an attack has to tick to be considered a terror attack? I legitimately do not know. I would think verifiable ties to an acknowledged terrorist organisation are a prerequisite but apparently, they aren't.
 
No ties to ISIS have been found so far. DER SPIEGEL assumes self-radicalization. Based on that, I doubt this can be classified as a terror attack. Also, the medical history on the perpetrator has not been disclosed yet. He clearly sympathized with ISIS but whether that is enough to consider him a terrorist is something I'm not certain of.

Yes. That's the angle I'm seeing.

I'm not sure how it would not be classed as a terrorist attack though even if it was a lone act.
 
What are the boxes an attack has to tick to be considered a terror attack? I legitimately do not know. I would think verifiable ties to an acknowledged terrorist organisation are a prerequisite but apparently, they aren't.
Violence against civilians for a political, ideological or religious goal.
 
What are the boxes an attack has to tick to be considered a terror attack? I legitimately do not know. I would think verifiable ties to an acknowledged terrorist organisation are a prerequisite but apparently, they aren't.

I wouldn't imagine there's a nailed down definition, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc, but I guess it's an attack on the way of life of a people, generally aimed at civilians, with the intent of instilling fear as well as loss of life.
 
What are the boxes an attack has to tick to be considered a terror attack? I legitimately do not know. I would think verifiable ties to an acknowledged terrorist organisation are a prerequisite but apparently, they aren't.

I guess, twenty years ago, an axe-wielding madman simply would have called an 'amokläufer'. Of course it is a political act to label all individual acts of violence to 'terror', because that is the centre of discussion for the justification of all safety measures.
 
So maybe politicians should learn to not tweet for a few seconds, instead of saying dumb things.

Don't think what she tweeted was dumb. Its important to think of these things aswell, even right after tragedies like these happen. The loss of life should always be our main concern.

Its not about beeing suspicious of the police, its about the standard of work we expect from them.
 
What Herman says there is appalling.

Under that premise police should be allowed to kill any murderer on sight as the murderer might kill other people.

We have a legal system and rule of law people.

A criminal will get a trial and get his punishment but killing a criminal is allowed only in absolute exceptions (e.g. Policemen or other people were attacked abd there was no way to disarm him)
What the fuck? I want to see you react "appropriately" when someone flat out attacks you.

No one said anything about shooting murderers and other criminals left and right but if someone has a weapon and is attacking police officers with it despite warnings (which is what apparently happened here), the police has every right on this earth to use lethal force. And if it kills the attacker, too bad.
 
I have trouble voting for Mutti too. Not sure, the next elections are a dilemma for myself.




A terror attack does not necessitate being a formal member of a terror organisation.

Same here, Mutti can gtfo, so that leaves me with two options:
1. not voting
2. compromise solution: voting for fatty

I know, I know...not voting is bad, but voting just for the sake of avoiding not to vote is far from being an ideal.
 
Don't think what she tweeted was dumb. Its important to think of these things aswell, even right after tragedies like these happen. The loss of life should always be our main concern.

Its not about beeing suspicious of the police, its about the standard of work we expect from them.
I'd be more concerned about the wounded people from this attack then the guy who did it.

And the standard work is to do an investigation about this, instead of jumping on Twitter and starting to ask questions. Certainly if you are a politician.

Here we go again:

http://lci.tf1.fr/france/faits-divers/info-tf1-une-mere-et-ses-trois-filles-violemment-agressees-a-coups-8767302.html

A 37 year old Moroccan man attacked a woman and her three little girls with a knife at a French vacation resort in Garde-Colombe, because they were improperly dressed. The mother has been severely wounded.
How about everyone just lets other people decide how to dress. Hope this guy gets sent away to prison for a long time and the mother and kids will be alright.
 
What the fuck? I want to see you react "appropriately" when someone flat out attacks you.

No one said anything about shooting murderers and other criminals left and right but if someone has a weapon and is attacking police officers with it despite warnings (which is what apparently happened here), the police has every right on this earth to use lethal force. And if it kills the attacker, too bad.

Indeed, I would love to know how you're supposed to go about disarming a guy with fairly obvious murderous intentions who is wielding an axe. I'm sure it's quite difficult. Easy to be a do-gooder on the internet though.
 
Indeed, I would love to know how you're supposed to go about disarming a guy with fairly obvious murderous intentions who is wielding an axe. I'm sure it's quite difficult. Easy to be a do-gooder on the internet though.
Shooting in arms and legs is not as easy as in video games sadly. Certainly not when a missed shot has the chance to hit an innocent bystander. Better to hit for the largest area in the hope to stop a murderer on the run.
 
Guys, are we really going to discuss police procedure in this case? Really?
I'm a pacifist through and through, but this little mofo lost every ounce of goodwill from me, when he backstabbed those that were reaching out to him and those who came here with good intentions. This is unreal
 
Indeed, I would love to know how you're supposed to go about disarming a guy with fairly obvious murderous intentions who is wielding an axe. I'm sure it's quite difficult. Easy to be a do-gooder on the internet though.

As explained its what the law mandates. If a judge decides that there is a self defense case then the policemen have nothing to fear. The "normal" self defense justification is also applicable to policemen.
Guys, are we really going to discuss police procedure in this case? Really?
I'm a pacifist through and through, but this little mofo lost every ounce of goodwill from me, when he backstabbed those that were reaching out to him and those who came here with good intentions. This is unreal

Thats why he should be in jail
What the fuck? I want to see you react "appropriately" when someone flat out attacks you.

No one said anything about shooting murderers and other criminals left and right but if someone has a weapon and is attacking police officers with it despite warnings (which is what apparently happened here), the police has every right on this earth to use lethal force. And if it kills the attacker, too bad.

Once again not under bavarian police law

Art. 66 clearly says when you can use lethal force abd that you need to try to disarm first.
 
What Herman says there is appalling.

Under that premise police should be allowed to kill any murderer on sight as the murderer might kill other people.

We have a legal system and rule of law people.

A criminal will get a trial and get his punishment but killing a criminal is allowed only in absolute exceptions (e.g. Policemen or other people were attacked abd there was no way to disarm him)

I have a friend in the London Police force and hes been to Germany and worked with them. He said its the same system if someone attacks you in the UK.

Proportional Response. If a guy attacks you, as an officer you have the right to defend yourself anyway you see fit, as long as it is within proportion to the threat. An unarmed man, most officers will at most reach for a baton.

This guy was armed, attacked multiple people and by all accounts was going to attack the police officers with a deadly weapon. As far as I'm concerned and I'm pretty sure the official report, those officers responded within reason to the threat. You can argue all you wand about shooting to disarm, but officers, in fact anyone trained to use a gun, is taught you only bring out your weapon if you are ready to kill something with it. You do everything you can before you bring out the gun, but your safety and the safety of those around you is a higher priority. Likewise a taser is not an effective tool to stop someone. You can find videos of people dosed up on something shrugging off multiple tasers.
 
As explained its what the law mandates. If a judge decides that there is a self defense case then the policemen have nothing to fear. The "normal" self defense justification is also applicable to policemen.

Thats why he should be in jail

This is not about what should've been though. The guy being shot by the police is a simple fact - if someone participating in one of those street-races dies, how should I feel about this?
I don't fucking care! Because of obvious reasons! You play with fire, please get burnt.
 
Once again not under bavarian police law

Art. 66 clearly says when you can use lethal force abd that you need to try to disarm first.

Doesn't it actually say before you use lethal force you need to try other methods OR it's clear the other methods won't work?

Since you've declared this guy should be in jail (i.e. it was wrong to kill him), would you like to see the police involved prosecuted? Fired? Jailed?
 
As explained its what the law mandates. If a judge decides that there is a self defense case then the policemen have nothing to fear. The "normal" self defense justification is also applicable to policemen.

Thats why he should be in jail

Once again not under bavarian police law

Art. 66 clearly says when you can use lethal force abd that you need to try to disarm first.
They probably shouted "drop the fucking axe". That is you trying to disarm a mad men on a murder spree who already critically injured multiple people. If he doesn't comply and keeps coming, you shoot. If he dies, that is on him.
 
I really can't see what might be wrong with that question. Twitters short messages tend to intensify the meaning of an opinion and she could have dropped two of the question marks, but the tweet as such is completely legitimate.
And I even don't like her personally tbh.
The questionsmarks and ending it with "Fragen!" ("Questions!") does have a certain accusation implied if you ask me. Also kind of needless since police shootings will be investigated anyway.

Though it's also true that it's probably not that fruitful to harp on a single tweet.
 
This is not about what should've been though. The guy being shot by the police is a simple fact - if someone participating in one of those street-races dies, how should I feel about this?
I don't fucking care! Because of obvious reasons! You play with fire, please get burnt.

I mean, I do think the police will come out of this unscathed (rightfully or not, it's not up for me to decide; neither can I judge) but I seriously doubt your "pacifist through and through" stance. We'd be better off if this guy could offer an explanation for what he did.

Realistically, any judge will deem this situation as life-threatening enough to justify use of arms. Was killing him the only option? I doubt we'll find out.
 
If it's one of the cases where he has been perforated by dozens of bullets, as it often seems to happen in such cases, I think Künasts post makes some sense.

If they just tried to stop him from hurting anybody else (including themselves) and he was shot fatally as a result, that's a totally different story in my book.
 
I mean, I do think the police will come out of this unscathed (rightfully or not, it's not up for me to decide; neither can I judge) but I seriously doubt your "pacifist through and through" stance. We'd be better off if this guy could offer an explanation for what he did.

Realistically, any judge will deem this situation as life-threatening enough to justify use of arms. Was killing him the only option? I doubt we'll find out.

There's no contradiction between wanting to live a peaceful life and knowing that everyone can get into a "either him, or me" situation.

Oh, and please go through the news archives and tell me how Breivik's reasoning for his doing has helped us all to turn this world into a better place.
 
I have a friend in the London Police force and hes been to Germany and worked with them. He said its the same system if someone attacks you in the UK.

Proportional Response. If a guy attacks you, as an officer you have the right to defend yourself anyway you see fit, as long as it is within proportion to the threat. An unarmed man, most officers will at most reach for a baton.

This guy was armed, attacked multiple people and by all accounts was going to attack the police officers with a deadly weapon. As far as I'm concerned and I'm pretty sure the official report, those officers responded within reason to the threat. You can argue all you wand about shooting to disarm, but officers, in fact anyone trained to use a gun, is taught you only bring out your weapon if you are ready to kill something with it. You do everything you can before you bring out the gun, but your safety and the safety of those around you is a higher priority. Likewise a taser is not an effective tool to stop someone. You can find videos of people dosed up on something shrugging off multiple tasers.
Funny because it loks like bavarian police law says otherwise. I am pretty sure the bavarian parliament decides what is law and what isnt and not the police law in UK
Doesn't it actually say before you use lethal force you need to try other methods OR it's clear the other methods won't work?

Since you've declared this guy should be in jail (i.e. it was wrong to kill him), would you like to see the police involved prosecuted? Fired? Jailed?
thats the first section. We are talking about the second section (use of firearms against persons)
Prosecution is possible, if the self defense justification doesnt work.


I dont want anything. I am just commenting on the tweet of a german politician, who I think has a point. The question needs to be answered why the criminal was killed.
 
So maybe politicians should learn to not tweet for a few seconds, instead of saying dumb things.

Don't they have faith in the German police to investigate this and wait for the reports then? If knee-jerk speculation about the perpetrator is not good, then that same behavior about the police actions should also be condemned.

Then police saved more people from becoming victims by stopping this criminal. He was caught in the act, trying to murder people. If your first reaction is then to jump on the police, that is not right.

Thank you.

Somewhere in Wurzberg, a police officer was having a normal morning shift and then responded to an extreme situation, possibily involving terrorism, and had to make a life or death call in a few heartbeats. It's easy to fantasize about what should have happened in your head but try actually being there on the frontline.

Twitter and indignant politicans can STFU until the facts of the case are investigated, logged and reported. By all means, scutinize every second of the incident but at least hold your tongue until you have the complete picture in front of you.
 
They probably shouted "drop the fucking axe". That is you trying to disarm a mad men on a murder spree who already critically injured multiple people. If he doesn't comply and keeps coming, you shoot. If he dies, that is on him.

The police is actually required to do what they can to disarm.
For example run away to keep distance.
Since nobody knows exactly what the situation looked like it doesn't make sense to accuse the police of wrongdoing, nor does it make sense to conclude right away that killing the perpetrator was the only way of solving the situation.

The question Künast asked is valid. Police shouldn't act offended when people actually ask about the standards we wrote down as law.
 
Funny because it loks like bavarian police law says otherwise. I am pretty sure the bavarian parliament decides what is law and what isnt and not the police law in UK

Will you stop declaring the police were wrong here. You have no idea of the circumstance of the shooting. We do know the guy had an axe and had seriously hurt 5 people.
 
Will you stop declaring the police were wrong here. You have no idea of the circumstance of the shooting. We do know the guy had an axe and had seriously hurt 5 people.

There are newsreports that say that they had him cornered and that he attacked the policemen. Thats why they killed him. So the question is if the use of firearms was justified (question of police law) and if the self defense justification applied (question of criminal law)
The police is actually required to do what they can to disarm.
For example run away to keep distance.
Since nobody knows exactly what the situation looked like it doesn't make sense to accuse the police of wrongdoing, nor does it make sense to conclude right away that killing the perpetrator was the only way of solving the situation.

The question Künast asked is valid. Police shouldn't act offended when people actually ask about the standards we wrote down as law.

Fully agreed
 
The police is actually required to do what they can to disarm.
For example run away to keep distance.
Since nobody knows exactly what the situation looked like it doesn't make sense to accuse the police of wrongdoing, nor does it make sense to conclude right away that killing the perpetrator was the only way of solving the situation.

The question Künast asked is valid. Police shouldn't act offended when people actually ask about the standards we wrote down as law.

Her question may be valid, but the time she choose to ask it was definitly wrong.
So this police officer stopped a possible killing spree and the first thing you ask is if the person with the axe has been treated correctly? Really?
 
The police is actually required to do what they can to disarm.
For example run away to keep distance.
Since nobody knows exactly what the situation looked like it doesn't make sense to accuse the police of wrongdoing, nor does it make sense to conclude right away that killing the perpetrator was the only way of solving the situation.

The question Künast asked is valid. Police shouldn't act offended when people actually ask about the standards we wrote down as law.

It's a valid question and it's one that will certainly be asked in the pending investigation. This is however not the time to ask it and it shows a glimpse of the mindset of those people: completely out of touch. Those knee-jerk Twitter reactions help no one.
 
The police is actually required to do what they can to disarm.
For example run away to keep distance.
Since nobody knows exactly what the situation looked like it doesn't make sense to accuse the police of wrongdoing, nor does it make sense to conclude right away that killing the perpetrator was the only way of solving the situation.

The question Künast asked is valid. Police shouldn't act offended when people actually ask about the standards we wrote down as law.
Run away to keep your distance from a guy who just critically injured 4 people with an axe... If this was in some isolated place where the guy is closed in, sure, take your time and keep your distance. Not when the guy is on the run with every indication that he is going to hurt more people, or if he is a threat to the police officers trying to arrest him.

The question is not valid if that is the first thing you are jumping on. I feel it is very disrespectful towards the police officers in question who responded very quickly and prevented more people from being injured or even killed.

Like you said, how about these politicians wait until the picture is more clear before joining in on Twitter right away.
 
It's a valid question and it's one that will certainly be asked in the pending investigation. This is however not the time to ask it and it shows a glimpse of the mindset of those people: completely out of touch.

100% this. There's no reason for using social media in this kind of way. I doubt in many things, but I'm 100% sure that every incident in Germany will be examined appropriately.
Not always perfect, but better than in 90% of all places on earth. There was no need for Künast to do this, she could only fail by droping a one-liner on Twitter which is easy to misunderstand.
 
There are newsreports that say that they had him cornered and that he attacked the policemen. Thats why they killed him. So the question is if the use of firearms was justified (question of police law) and if the self defense justification applied (question of criminal law)

You've pretty much nailed your colours to the mast, you think the police shooting the guy was wrong. I don't mean to put words in your mouth but all your posts suggest that.

You posted the article 66 previously. I asked this question above, does it not state that firearms shouldn't be used before other methods are, OR it's clear the other methods won't work. Is that what it says? If so, are you ignoring the underlined bit?

If a guy is attacking you with an axe what method do you propose to stop him without putting yourself in severe danger?
 
Her question may be valid, but the time she choose to ask it was definitly wrong.
So this police officer stopped a possible killing spree and the first thing you ask is if the person with the axe has been treated correctly? Really?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it? This is like Stockholm syndrome taken to the next level.
 
Boggles the mind, doesn't it? This is like Stockholm syndrome taken to the next level.

Far too much empathy with the perpetrator and not with the victims. Der linke Gutmensch in optima forma.
 
ISIS has released a video featuring the ISIS 'soldier' responsible for the attack:

Cnuw3JOXEAEPDCD.jpg
Cnuw3DqXgAEDqCi.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom