I’m back, and bang bang.

The reports of my drowning, it seems, are vastly exaggerated. And if you are Italian, believe me, it's good: I was in Italy for a few weeks of vacation.

The system I'm writing about is selfhosting at my home in Germany, so the point is that when the power went out, and it did it several times, my UPS did it right once, twice, then decided to fuck off the universe like any other bitch. Horns are forgiven once, maybe even twice, but then that's enough. How to blame him?

So now I'm back and restarted everything. Ok. There has been damage, but not at my house since I live in the hills surrounding Neandertal, (a nearby valley actually) and therefore it takes a lot more water to get here.

Having said that, since in Italy (at least, both at my home and at my parents 'house and at my in-laws' house) 4G is a joke (there is, but it is 19K / s and -110 Dbm when it's good) , I have not turned on any media. But this morning I took a ride and I find you the story of the Northern League who shoots the Moroccan.

Fedez has reduced everything to the problem of race because he is a traditionalist and the problem of race has been in vogue since the last century. Nothing is thrown away from the race.

But there is much more to understand here. And race isn't the only myth involved.

Let's start. It happened, at the time of American colonization and the gold rush near the Canadian border, that anyone could shoot anyone who entered the concession to extract gold (in Yukon), or for oil (also in Texas) and more. This was a time when many areas were not under state control, or were under militarily weak control.

Today this is no longer the case in Canada, nor in the USA. If you shoot a guy because he's in your house, you're going to go to trial, just like in Europe. Due to the fact that even if it were self-defense it would still be necessary to demonstrate that the conditions existed, that he was not fleeing (and then the conditions are missing), etc.

Someone who has seen too many shows will say that the police will investigate but then the prosecutor archives. And it's true that Starsky and Hutchy did. But if I don't call you Poncharello, for a third degree murder, no one is filing a fucking thing.

Obviously the Hollywood imaginary dominates the USA, made up of heroes policemen and judges as logical as a Vulcan and as objective as a Martian lander, and therefore Poncharello returns home.

Well, I'm sorry: but if you kill someone on your property the best thing to do is take them OUT of your property, and hope no one notices. You will find yourself having to pay an American lawyer. All of which are famous for their expensive clothes. Italians. That they can afford because YOU will pay for it. To defend yourself against a murder charge without yawning in court, start at $ 50,000.

I am so sorry to tell you that in the USA, TODAY, to kill someone ONLY because it is on your property and a harbinger of jail, often "chronic".

I know it. Is hard. Poncharello was cool. But there is nothing we can do about it, the good times of the 19th century are also over in the USA.

What about self defense? You can call it on the streets, of course. But it's going to take a trial to figure out what happened.

And it doesn't necessarily go as you think. (Based on the real case of Katko v. Briney, 183 NW2d 657 (Iowa 1971). In 1971, in fact, the precedent immediately arrives that force can only be used if the master is in the house. violation of property is also a danger to life, which must be demonstrated every time.

In a process.

But the Northern League was there. So?

People are going to start talking about Castle Doctrine now, and I have bad news.

And consider that it is an association that defends the use of weapons. But apparently, the dude can only shoot as long as the dude moves towards her. Since he starts going backwards, he faces life imprisonment if he shoots.

So when can you shoot in the US? In exactly the same conditions that occur in the EU and almost everywhere:

When there really is a real and imminent risk of death. If the thug is in front of you with a deadly weapon, and you can't escape, you can. If he's turned from the back, you can't. In case there are no weapons, there is no huge disproportion of forces (man / woman, five against one, etc), you cannot shoot first.

Exactly like here, but with MUCH higher legal costs. The same association, which sponsors the use of weapons, has other bad news for you:

But let's go to cases close to what happened to the Northern League. If someone attacks you with a war knife, you can apparently shoot.

And in the case of an attack with his bare hands, in the USA the Northern League adviser would have a bad end, and would fall ill with chronic prison.

Apparently, if the Northern League could escape immediately, he should have done so.

Having said that in the end, in all civilized countries, there must really be a real danger. It means you can't say "he could have killed me", but you have to prove "he started trying to kill me".

That said, let's move on to Salvini's second bluff. Amend the law to make it similar to his idea of ​​American laws, such as "self-defense is legitimate without other considerations – disproportion of strength, imminent or theoretical danger, etc" and that "in your property you can always shoot".

The Castle doctrine, which said these things, resembled Salvini's ideas more or less a century ago, about 1920. But then they had to adapt it.

Why did the US also have to adapt it? Simple: more and more sheriffs and policemen were killed, and the judge gave him wrong, giving reason to the owners of shops, houses and land: that policeman should not have been there, he had to announce himself, he had to announce himself better, he should not move stealthily, etc.

We are in the 1920s and the police are motorized. It means that instead of following the criminal and catching him after the crime (as he did before), he arrives on time. And it runs into two problems:

• Sometimes to get into X's property you have to sneak past Y's property. What a cold cop on the spot.
• Sometimes you don't have the mandate, but you intervene on direct call (you hear people shouting in the street, so to speak). But after the shooting the witnesses disappear, and only the fact remains that the policeman was in someone's house and someone was afraid and a gun. Not having been sent there, no one knew why he was there. We are in 1920, and there is a mafia for every ethnic group.
• The owner takes part in the shooting. It's night. There's a cow theft, the sheriff arrives with his men. The homeowner is already trading friendly shots with the thugs. The police arrive and get a friendly shot.

Obviously the problem is huge at night, when the policeman's black uniform is hard to see, and he comes into action, because the SWAT has not yet formed to have certain superiority over the criminals.

At that point, there's a problem. Serious. And it is the policemen, the firefighters and everyone else who are called to help others pay a heavy price.

So the law begins to change, and:

• you decide you can't just shoot point blank, but you should also scream.
• it is decided that if there is a reasonable distance and you do not see clearly a weapon (which you are called to identify in court) you cannot shoot but only threaten.
• it is established that if you could also escape and no one else was in danger, then you should not shoot.

and all of this happens for a reason: the cops die like flies.

And it is for this reason that Salvini will never change the laws making them so "black / white" as he says.

Suppose it makes it legal to kill in the situation of the Moroccan and the Northern League Councilor. Does this mean that if a police officer for any reason (which I don't understand) tries to block me, I can shoot him?

Sure, it might as well declare itself, but thanks to the new silent technology of Bose ™ headphones, I don't hear it. He might show his ID, but it's night and I don't see him. Of course, then I will be told that not having heard and not having seen only changes the type of murder, but if killing the plainclothes policeman becomes a matter of an accident when you arrive in court, the penalties drop a lot.

What about the houses? Digos & Co often break into homes and place microphones. They have an electric whip against any dogs, they go in and place the microphones. Bad stuff, if someone shoots him "I heard noises and I shot".

Even the two American boys who stabbed the carabiniere might have to say at that point: the officers weren't in uniform and didn't identify well, apparently. They also had no guns with them, which instilled reasonable doubt that they were really Carabinieri. Under the current law, the boy is guilty.

With the law that Salvini would like, removing the constraint of the proportionality of the reaction, the actual danger, the proportion of forces and other evaluations, if you don't understand who two guys are and put their hands on you, 11 stab wounds are all there. And they were all there when the castle doctrine had not yet been amended.

Then comes the "self-defense is also valid against law enforcement agents?". Here we open a mess: if I see that a celerino beats a person for no reason, when he turns towards me can I shoot him? Today I can't, but if we use a doctrine like Salvini's, the disproportionate use of force by a policeman becomes a reason for defense. To say: if I had had a gun inside the Diaz schools in Bolzaneto, while people were being raped and tortured, could I defend myself with lethal force if I had had a firearm? If Cucchi had a gun, could he shoot? If Aldrovandi had a gun, could he shoot to defend his life?

Do not worry. Salvini, who has many links with the police (especially those who commit abuses and crimes) will NEVER pass a law that says "self-defense is always and in any case".

The police themselves will plead with him.

The latest reform of the law has barely introduced a concept in Italy that is called "stay your ground" in the US, and nevertheless 151 policemen have died in the US in the last "normal" year. https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2019

Then came COVID, and they are already at 165 (mid 2021). https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2021

If we consider the proportion with the Italian population, more than thirty policemen / year should die. This year, with the current trend, about sixty. It happens?

No. They are about a third, that is 12 in 2019.

And you can well imagine how happy law enforcement officers would be at the idea of ​​increasing

Salvini is bluffing. The law he says he wants will never get passed, because the police world itself would stop him.

"Legitimate defense always valid" means being able to shoot cops in a "Diaz" situation, so to speak. It means transforming every raid into a mortal risk, it means that for an (illegal) grip on the neck I can always pull out a knife and defend myself, and then get convicted for carrying improper weapons without justification.

The cops themselves will stop him.