×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

Quoted from case law...

"In a case of self-defence, where self-defence or the prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury come to the conclusion that the defendant believed, or may have believed, that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed, and that force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not proved their case. If, however, the defendant's alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected. Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely on it."
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下家园 / 人到中年 / 面对入室抢劫者不能反抗吗? 有些不解
    西区屋主因刺伤入室抢劫者面临指控

    多伦多警方发布的消息说,昨晨4点左右,市西Keele 夹Lawrence附近发生事件,1名男子试图入室抢劫,结果被屋主刺伤。伤者拨打911报案,警方赶到现场,经调查后准备对起屋主提出指控。


    警方说,入室抢劫者伤势严重,被送往医院接受手术,目前情况稳定,可能不会危及生命,警方仍在调查案件。
    • 据说把入侵者干掉比打伤好,警察处理起来也方便。
      • 打伤都要被 charge,要是打死了不是更惨? 加拿大的法律怎么净保护罪犯?
        • 入侵者死了,也就没人请律师告你伤害了,虽然国家机器会查,但是总不如有个原告在那盯着上心,也没人跟你勾心斗角搜肠刮肚的要跟你找麻烦了。
          • 伤害需要请律师。。。。?检控官是干啥的。。。。?
            • 罪犯可以请律师找检控官没找到的漏洞,律师又不是管上诉的,他什么时候都是可以提供法律咨询的,你别想的这么简单。就算是检控官也完全是个人,如果跟罪犯没亲戚关系,一定比没有罪犯亲自监督的上心
              • 包子。。。。你想说啥。。。。?
                • 罪犯死了,也就不用咱们掏钱给他们养老了,怎么都觉得是个稳赚的买卖。
                  • 包子生意做得不小。。。。一切以稳赚为标准。。。。
        • 据说的啊,干掉就死无对证了,干净利索。其实这事也看当时情况吧。人家拿个小棍棍来打劫,你拿个大砍刀把人家给弄个半死,至少也算个防卫过当了。
          • 那你就说以为小棍是武器.
      • 貌似合理。。。。如果大街上发现一个小子贱得要命。。。。实在欠抽。。。。手痒忍不住。。。。不想被911.。。。。该咋办。。。。?
    • 恐怕伤者不会承认自己抢劫....
      • 不抢劫跑别人家去做啥捏。。。。?BBQ吗。。。。?
        • 盗窃和抢劫性质不一样
          • 好像家里有人就是抢劫,没人就是盗窃。要是没人怎么会有人伤害他呢?
            • 人家说找人误入,你有证据说他抢劫吗?在加拿大法律和律师都是保护罪犯的。
              • 加拿大有这么不堪吗。。。。?连误入跟入室抢劫都分不清。。。。
    • 这倒是希望有位懂法律的童鞋介绍一下,一直以为什么北美擅自闯入他人家里,被人毙了也活该的说法;08年看一部米国电影 Felon,里面的男主人,半夜听到响动起来,有人进他家偷窃,他拎着一支棒球棍从家里追到前院的草坪,小偷一边跑一边掏口袋,不知掏什么(电影也没交代),
      结果男主人从后面一棍子下去,小偷死了,男主人的律师和法庭达成协议,主动认罪(误杀),判入狱三年;据电影说,如果不认罪,坚持清白的话,就要按照谋杀来打官司,时间冗长,等待判决下来就不止3年了,所以男主人认罪误杀,直接节省时间去坐牢了。这么看来,也不是随便可以乱来的哦。
      • 这片子前天刚在pps上看了,小偷太差了,一球棍就死了........主人因为小偷已经跑出房子,对他们不再构成威胁,却对小偷穷追不舍并击出致命一棒犯了谋杀罪.......但难道就眼睁睁看着小偷偷走东西不管了么?
        • 所以。。。才有房屋保险啊,东西被偷可以报保险,没必要要人命
      • “北美” 不等于 “美国”!!!
    • 只有自卫情况下才允许用武器(刀)。如果是追出去把抢劫者刺死的话,性质就不一样。
      • 俺一直以为家里来了入侵者。。。。打911是正路。。。。警察之所以不赞成拿起武器自卫。。。。并不是自卫违法。。。。而是怕自己解决可能会受伤。。。。海子从妇女那边学了不少法律知识。。。。不知这个事懂不懂。。。。
        • 罪犯对警察就好比客户,客户永远是上帝,警察当然不允许任何有损客户的行为。
          • 蹲监狱==住宾馆。。。。?狱卒==宾馆服务员。。。。?
            • 那,去宾馆服务的小姐是女警?
              • YY有理。。。。YY无罪。。。。
    • 打死打伤有没有责任,关键在于是不是构成正当防卫。正当防卫是合法的,即使打死了人。但正当防卫也有很严格的界定,
      防卫的时间是你的人身安全正在收到威胁,威胁前或威胁后的防卫都不正当。比如人家已经逃逸,你还追出去打人,就不是防卫。另外是防卫的尺度,需要跟威胁尺度成比例,比如人家只是要偷你东西,不伤害你人身,你却把人打死,就是防卫过当。如果别人去你后院,没有武器,没有意图要入室,你却出门把人打伤或打死都是防卫过当了。
      • 你的昵称很招人哦~~~~~
        • 招好人还是坏人?。。恩。。。
          • “流氓”招好人~~~~~~“妹妹”招坏人~~~~~~lol~~~~~~
          • 招好人还是坏人我不知道,但我知道肯定招男人
            • 就是~~~~~~这不,把你招来了?~~~~~:DDD~~~~~
        • 哦也,跟美女名id 合影!
      • 问题是,这是你的私人定义还是法律定义? 这个很重要
        • 法律定义。各国法律对此问题的原则都大同小异。关键看律师怎么解释个案的情形。
          • Self-Defense or Unjustified Shooting?
            本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛On December 22, 1984, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Troy Canty, Darryl Cabey, James Ramseur, and Barry Allen boarded an express subway train in the Bronx borough of New York City. The young black men sat in the rear section of their car. A short time later, Bernhard Goetz boarded the same car and took a seat near the youths. Goetz, a white computer technician, had been mugged some two years earlier.

            Canty and Allen approached Goetz, and Canty said, "Give me five dollars." Goetz responded by standing up and firing at the youths with a handgun. Goetz fired four shots before pausing. He then walked up to Cabey and reportedly said, "You seem to be all right, here's another," whereupon he fired his fifth and final bullet into Cabey's spinal cord. Goetz had shot two of the youths in the back. Ramseur and Cabey each had a screwdriver, which they said they used to break into coin boxes and video machines.

            Goetz fled the scene and traveled north to New Hampshire. On December 31, 1984, he turned himself in to police in Concord, New Hampshire. Goetz was returned to New York where he was indicted on a charge of criminal possession of a weapon. The state fought for a second Grand Jury, and Goetz was eventually indicted a second time on charges of attempted murder, assault, criminal possession of a weapon, and reckless endangerment. At trial Goetz argued that he had acted in self-defense, and a jury convicted him only of illegal gun possession. Ultimately Goetz was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $5,000.

            Goetz's shooting of Darryl Cabey left Cabey with brain damage and paralyzed from the chest down. Cabey sued Goetz, and in April 1996, a Bronx jury found Goetz liable for Cabey's injuries and awarded Cabey $43 million.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
            • 这个是jury decision, not judge's decision. 民事和刑事判决很不一样,因为民事是法官裁决的。case law 也会evolve,禁不住时间考验的判例会最终被negatively treated.
          • The same values that underpin self-defense support the defense of property...
            本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property. In most jurisdictions deadly force is justified if a person unlawfully enters onto property and the property owner reasonably believes that the trespasser is about to commit a felony or do harm to a person on the premises. Deadly force may also be justified to prevent a Burglary if the property owner reasonably believes the burglar intends to kill or seriously injure a person on the premises. However, a person may not, for example, rig a door handle so that any person who enters the dwelling is automatically shot by a gun. (Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 [Iowa 1971]).

            Use of deadly force is never justified to protect Personal Property other than a dwelling. For example, a person would not be justified in shooting a person who is taking an automobile, no matter how expensive. Reasonable nondeadly force may be used to protect such personal property.

            A person may use force to defend a third person from attack. If the defender is mistaken, however, and the third party does not need assistance, most jurisdictions hold that the defender may be held liable in civil court for injuries inflicted on the supposed attacker. In criminal cases a defendant would be relieved of liability if she proved she had made a reasonable mistake.

            A defendant who successfully invokes self-defense may be found not guilty or not liable. If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a Good Faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to Manslaughter. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
          • 武力自卫的法律定义,看似很复杂和confusing, 但只要你用你的common sense,界定起来并不十分困难。
            • Quoted from case law...
              "In a case of self-defence, where self-defence or the prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury come to the conclusion that the defendant believed, or may have believed, that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed, and that force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not proved their case. If, however, the defendant's alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected. Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely on it."
        • 加拿大刑法规定
          本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛17. A person who commits an offence under compulsion by threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who is present when the offence is committed is excused for committing the offence if the person believes that the threats will be carried out and if the person is not a party to a conspiracy or association whereby the person is subject to compulsion, but this section does not apply where the offence that is committed is high treason or treason, murder, piracy, attempted murder, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, aggravated sexual assault, forcible abduction, hostage taking, robbery, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, arson or an offence under sections 280 to 283 (abduction and detention of young persons).

          R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 17; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 40.

          Defence of personal property

          38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

          (a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

          (b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

          if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

          Assault by trespasser

          (2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 这事情真是难办。不反抗,谁知道劫完财是否还会劫色或者害命?反抗吧,拳脚没眼,万一将对方打至重伤,又要进牢子。大家多想想,看看有什么万全之策?