A shop owner shot with his rifle an aspiring thief in the village Agios Athanasios, Drama, North Greece. The victim died on the sport. The perpetrator is a 79-year-old silversmith.
The incident took place at 4:30 a.m. on Sunday, when the 30-year-old thief was trying to break in the shop.
The owner, who lives above the shop, got aware of the attempted burglary thief, took his rifle, targeted at him and shot him.
The perpetrator was arrested and the rifle confiscated.
According to a police statement, the thief was operating together with at least one accomplice.
Police investigation continues.
The shooter faces charges for murder and for violating the weapons law.
Meanwhile, media reveal that the silversmith had also shot and killed another thief in 1996. He had shot the thief form his home balcony. He was arrested but acquitted in court. He had declared he was in self-defense as the thief had directed a weapon against him.
Private ANT1 TV reported that the man declared for one more time he was in self-defense and the thief and his accomplince “had something like a gun”. the man shot form the balcony of his home. However, citing police sources, ANT1 and Alpha TV report that “from the evidence so far there is no indication that “the thieves were armed or threatened him in any way.”
After the shooting the accomplice fled running away.
Greek media describe the crime as a “copy” of the one in 1996, when the silversmith had also shot form his balcony.
PS such an incident is rather rare in Greece and media speak of “vigilantism”.
One more example of justice turned on its head. This man is a hero for protecting both himself and all of society from a thief, who is someone who has deliberately and unequivocally committed a criminal act against another person. He should be given a parade through his home town for having killed the thief. instead the corrupt state arrests him and confiscates his weapon. why? because a free citizen protecting himself is a threat to the domination of sleazy cowards in suits.
The law in most developed countries (but not the USA, of course) is that you are entitled to use an appropriate level of violence to defend yourself or your family. This means than an unarmed burglar cannot be shot with a gun, unless he is obviously very dangerous and violent. It also means that you are not allowed to kill somebody because he is committing a theft: this is disproportionate, and contrary to Judaeo-Christian beliefs as well as Islamic thought. If you use excessive violence against a person, which is not justified in law, then you will be prosecuted for physical assault or murder.
The problem is that many people are either innately violent and ignorant of the law (and of Christianity) or they have been influenced by the extreme American violence that has been shown across cinemas and television screens for more than half a century. It is a problem of lack of education of the public and I imagine that nothing about this is taught in schools either — not in Greece or other EU countries.
If Greeks want to claim to be Christian, then they should start following and practising the teachings of Christ. Everything else (like making strong smells in the church, lighting candles, or crossing yourself as you pass by in the street) is nothing other than a bureaucratic procedure invented by priests centuries after Christ for their own benefit and remuneration.
Trolls are hitting new lows. So now Greeks daring to exhibit signs of worship is phoney…according to this foreigner’s all-seeing eye and obvious Sorosian agenda. “If Greeks want to claim to be Christian”….oink. From an obscure robbery in northern Greece to randomly insulting greeks as uneducated and as fake christians: that was quick.
ενα κλικ δρομος
KTG: I thought you had banned personal attacks on this site. A lot of posts here are such and made by far right trolls, too.
To Martin Baldwin Edwards. In the USA, you are allowed to protect yourself against an armed robber as you say, but when it’s dark, it’s not always easy to know if the intruder is armed or not. The law in the US (and quite rational and justifiable in my eyes) is that if a person (whoever he is) attempts to break into your house when you are in it, this is in itself, a hostile act, and a person inside can rationally assume they are about to be harmed. The US laws need to be reformed on gun control for sure as there are too many guns. But, in your own home, guns should be allowed to protect yourself against intruders. I suppose that this Greek guy may have a problem since it has happened twice. But, let’s let the courts decide.
@Hecateus. The difference between US law and the rest of civilisation is that everywhere but the USA you are required to use “proportionate means” to defend yourself. If you can convince a court that that you genuinely feared for your life, you are unlikely to be convicted of a felony. The cases I recall in recent years in the EU involved deliberate acts of violence that were not needed — such as when the intruder was fleeing or was lying wounded on the ground.
Also, many people think that they have the legal right to kill someone simply because he has entered their property: they don’t. This sort of vicious aggression is part of US culture, and is not accepted by mainstream religions or legal systems. The USA is an outlier, which has a history of extreme violence and lack of rule of law. It is also notable that this is a country obsessed with peculiar Christian religions, but in reality is the least Christian country in the western world.
I think this 79 year old Silversmith from Drama had a right to defend his property from the thieves. Of course it’s always best to confront the thieves without shooting first and calling for help. The problem is if comparing two 30 year old men to one 79 year old (unarmed) man it is the 79 year old man at the huge disadvantage in terms of controlling the situation.
Martin Baldwin-Edwards I disagree with your statement that no other nations besides the USA are extremely violent. In Saudi Arabia they dismember your fingers and hands if you steal. Given this not much stealing of goods goes on. That’s not to say Saudi Arabia is a wonderful beacon of freedom
If I were the jury I’d let the Silversmith go free and return his weapon to him (maybe even award him something for the ordeal). If people are poor and needy there is always charity or charitable people who could help. What the thieves did is not something people do in a (just) society of volunteerism. The thieves committed an act of force. I’m all for the right to bear arms and in the case of the right to defend life, liberty and property it is morally justified. The only thing I would have done in this situation (regarding the article of events) was warn the thieves I would shoot unless they did as I asked before letting them go.
Again I love anon’s answer here. I totally agree.
I really despair when people start comparing western democracies with advanced human rights and welfare states to a countyr like Saudi Arabia — which is owned by a “royal family”, has no democracy or human rights, and support an extremist version of Islam which is openly violent. However, SA has a lot of oil money so all the western countries are friendly to it, sell weapons so that the “State” can oppress its people, its immigrant workers and also engage in war in Yemen.
Some people here need to learn that money and property are secondary things in life: human beings and other animals are what are important. This means that you do not have the right to injure or kill anyone or anything.