Gun store owner potentially faces 3 years after shooting on a group of 6 armed robbers, one of which tried to enter his bedroom. His facade was hit 17 times, 7 bullets entered his bedroom.
Gun store owner potentially faces 3 years after shooting on a group of 6 armed robbers, one of which tried to enter his bedroom. His facade was hit 17 times, 7 bullets entered his bedroom.
28 comments
I’m obviously not a fan of American gun culture etc. but it seems completely insane that you’re supposedly not legally allowed to shoot on armed people that try to forcefully enter your store or house. Police will obviously not arrive until they have already fled and having to retreat until you can’t retreat anymore is also insane because it puts you in an extremely disadvantageous position. Him shooting first gave him the element of surprise and has saved lives, potentially his own. If you’re forced to retreat until you can’t anymore, you put yourself in a potentially completely boxed in position which will just lead to you getting slaughtered in a gunfight against 6 intruders.
I also want to add that the comparison to vigilanteism (that the narrator even alluded to) completely misses the mark because the important distinction is whether the threat is still active or not:
– A gang armed with automatic rifles tries to enter your house so you shoot at them: **self-defense**
– A gang tried to enter your house but they were subdued and apprehended and are not a threat anymore but you shoot them anyway: **vigilanteism**
A difference as clear as night and day.
Self defense is a very very narrow path in Switzerland.
It is correct that the case will be judged, but I do not have high hopes for the outcome.
He was threatened by a very ruthless gang of criminals that dressed up as the police and tried to enter his sleeping room, armed.
He said he only noticed something amiss because they were carrying AK rifles, which the Swiss police forces do not.
He saved a lot of weapons from disappearing to the black market and wrong hands and very potentially his own life.
Some people now think this was excessive.
Let’s wait for the verdict before we jump to conclusions…
Doch die meisten Experten sehen es wie der frühere leitende Oberstaatsanwalt von Zürich Andreas Brunner. Er sagt: «Für mich ist das nicht nachvollziehbar. Das ist – so wie es in der Anklage geschildert ist – ein Lehrbeispiel von gerechtfertigter Notwehr.»
He didn’t get charged because he shot the robbers but because a neighbor probably complained about the noise during the Ruhezeit
If he is actually convicted, it is once again an example of everything wrong with our justice system. Victims are systematically being turned into perpetrators and vice versa. It is all inverted and it is making me sick.
This is one of those cases where to lower my blood pressure I remind myself not all details nor a verdict are known yet.
Got to say, as an American, yeah, good on him for defending himself.
But thank the lord y’all actually then go, “right everyone involved, you’re all getting looked at thoroughly”. I hope that happens every time for everyone, especially (not in this instance) if it’s police involved.
Trust me when I say, you don’t want a culture of just believing the story from the guy with the gun who survived. That’s what we have there in America. So there’s a big disproportionate swing in e options and thinking the other direction.
I’m happy to see so many people, even if waiting with bated breath, say, “let’s wait and see what happens.” Because in America that’s not peoples attitudes.
There’d already be a Facebook meme going around about this, and Tucker Carlson would be going on live news tonight to give his definitive version of this story.
Be glad you don’t have that.
This could lead to a dangerous precedent case, no matter how the court rules
The reasoning behind this is probably because we live in a society were you are not allowed to defend yourself with a gun unless you are police or have a special permit (which is next to impossible to get). Otherwise we’d drift into a U.S. like situation were every fight could end up being resolved by a gun.
How important was this guy to be targeted like that?
In the Netherlands a jeweler used an illegal weapon to shoot dead two robbers who had guns drawn on her husband.
The public prosecutor decided not to press charges for manslaughter, as even illegal weapons can be legally used for self defence.
However, they were charged for illegal possession of a firearm for which they were sentenced to 100 hours of community service and a 3 month suspended prison sentence.
Worth it IMO, those 100 hours are probably less than what they would have lost in the robbery (potentially their lives). And the suspended sentence will only be executed if they are caught again, which is unlikely as now nobody will try to rob them.
How can you shoot an armed intruder and face charges?
I believe the chance of no jail is much higher than a chance of jail. But seing how the system behaves lately, you never know. Self defense is a grey zone, it can go wrong very fast very much. In his situation, i think anybody would have behaved similar, especially when you are at the position of knowing, those weapons would go to a black market.
Now, if this goes to jail, it will act as an invitation to gangs to attack gun stores because they know the owner is going to jail if he defends the store.
It would be very very strange if he got convicted. Shots fired at him and he shot back. It doesn’t get any more self defense than this.
Clickbait.
There is no verdict
9000% justified
Sounds like Sweden not Switzerland.
source?
The behavior of the Staatsanwaltschaft is questionable. A criminal trial, even if it ends in an acquittal, is a traumatic experience for the person involved. Not to mention the costs generated by the trail.
Everyone who thinks his self defense action was not absolutely justified and even a heroic act, is a huge ass****. YOU should have been in his situation, because your stupid opinion makes you deserve such an event.
The linked article includes [a video of the second detailed news report on the case](https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/sendung/rundschau?id=49863a84-1ab7-4abb-8e69-d8e8bda6c989), aired by the SRF “Rundschau” yesterday.
For those interested in more background on the case: The SRF “Rundschau” aired their [first detailed news report on the same case](https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/rundschau/video/raubueberfaelle-corona-selbsttests-burma?urn=urn:srf:video:7075afd6-cfa4-4a53-b545-7c84f8c1e385) in April 2021. From that first report we know additional details – and it also includes additional video. The same gang which tried to rob the gun store and shot at the gun store owner in Aargau has previously broken into another gun store in Basel-Land and stole a lot of weapons from there. The same gang also kidnapped an employee of – yet another – gun store in the Romandie to gain access to that gun stores warehouse. That kidnapping/robbery-attempt luckily did fail. On a sidenote, AFAIK that gun store in the Romandie is one of the largest gun dealers in Switzerland and has a huge inventory of weapons which the criminals were after.
While i can understand the legal concept of “in dubio pro duriore” (the attorney general must – if unsure – bring the most serious charges), i find the application of that concept in this case just plain wrong. I can see nothing unsure (“in dubio”) in this case. A gang of organised professional (“gewerbs- und bandenmässig”) criminals attacks a gun store – and the gun store owner in his own bedroom (in his apartment above the store) – using automatic weapons. What was he supposed to do? I am very glad that the gun store owner has defended himself and his store and thus has successfully prevented those criminals from gaining access to further weapons.
The main charge brought against the gun store owner is “multiple cases of attempted second degree murder” (“Versuchte mehrfache vorsätzliche Tötung” = attempted killing with intent – but without premeditation = second degree murder (in US terms)). The attorney generals (IMHO crazy) argument is that the gun store owner “prepared for this by having a weapon ready” after the police visited his store a couple of weeks earlier – and at that point had warned him about the ongoing threat of gun store robberies. The gun store owner claims that he had the weapon in another room in his apartment, and that the weapon and the magazine/bullets were stored in separate cabinets.
On a legal sidenote, it is completely legal in Switzerland to have a fully loaded weapon readily available in your apartment. The only thing the Swiss law requires is that you prevent unauthorised access to that weapon. So if you live alone, you just need to make sure no-one else has a key to your home and you can have 5 fully loaded guns openly laying around in each room.
I have heard from several of my acquaintances (most of them living in rural areas) that they store at least one of their guns either fully loaded or next to a full magazine in a locked cabinet – or a locked gun safe – in their bedrooms. While i currently follow a different security philosophy (guns and ammo stored in different physical locations so that in case of a break-in the burglar is never able to gain access to a “ready to shoot” gun), i can understand the other philosophy also – especially for home-owners in rural locations – and so i don’t find it in any way indicative of any “murderous intention” if someone in Switzerland has a (legally acquired) loaded weapon readily or “almost-readily” (meaning you just have to open one cabinet to get access) available in their home. While (based on criminology studies) burglars will *usually* try to flee when encountering someone, cases where they have attacked people are not unheard of. Burglars usually carry large screwdrivers (to break open windows/doors), which can be used (and legally count as) dangerous devices/weapons.
In the case of a gun store owner which lives above his store, i’d even be somewhat inclined to consider it borderline negligence, if s/he does NOT have such preparations in place to defend himself against armed attacks; and this no matter whether there is a current “robbery threat” or not.
Also, in the case of that gun store owner, the attorney general ridiculously claims that the owner intended to kill the robbers. As the gun store owner is a former Swiss champion in dynamic shooting (“defensive shooting” / “shooting while moving”), i’d rather say that if he had actually intended to kill those criminals, they would be dead – with a perfectly placed headshot in each robber.
The Swiss government (following the EUs lead) has recently made our gun laws more restrictive, using the main argument that “we must prevent bad people from gaining access to guns”. And now they have chosen to charge someone because he tried to prevent bad people from gaining access to guns? This is just plain ridiculous…
I hope the judge will fully acquit the gun store owner, award him full costs and also puts some clearly worded statements criticizing the attorney general for even bringing charges into his/her ruling.
**TL;DR: IMHO that gun store owner should have received a medal instead of a court date!**
all charges against him should be dropped, it’s time to change the law in Switzerland
It’s so interesting watching these situations boil down in countries like Switzerland, as an Americanized Caribbean
If self-defence with a weapon was not justified in this case, when was it? Do you have to get shot first or what?
If these idiots had entered the shop and emptied it, much worse would have been done with the weapons!
What about the 6 robbers? When is their trial date?
Obviously it’s correct that every shooting is reviewed, but I agree with the retired Zürich State Attorney and think it’s laughable this is even brought to trial. I think the right to self defense is very important and should be upheld. And in this case this in not really a question.
Unfortunately he didn‘t atleast shoot one brain out of them.
As an American, I am incredibly impressed and jealous with the logical and responsible take from the Swiss regarding self defense.
It was fascinating to read the responses from you guys. We (the US) have so much to learn… With no interest in learning… *sigh*