d********e
发帖数: 2221 | |
n****e
发帖数: 6292 | 2 感觉小毛贼还是胆小
另外问个法律问题，如果贼在公共场所持枪打劫，但是没有威胁到我的生命，我可不可
以掏枪将他击毙？会承担什么样的法律责任？ |
t***r
发帖数: 121 | 3 胆子天生的
【在 n****e 的大作中提到】
: 感觉小毛贼还是胆小
: 另外问个法律问题，如果贼在公共场所持枪打劫，但是没有威胁到我的生命，我可不可
: 以掏枪将他击毙？会承担什么样的法律责任？
|
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 4 it depends on which state you are in. knowing your state law helps.
in where i live, you can defend another's life just like your own.
【在 n****e 的大作中提到】
: 感觉小毛贼还是胆小
: 另外问个法律问题，如果贼在公共场所持枪打劫，但是没有威胁到我的生命，我可不可
: 以掏枪将他击毙？会承担什么样的法律责任？
|
f*******r
发帖数: 5301 | |
l*****e
发帖数: 16384 | 6 万一老头误伤了吧台里的工作人员怎么办？
感觉开第一枪的时候，那个毛贼和吧台里的工作人员好近。 |
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 7 in some states, no civil or criminal liability if you injured a bystander
during self defense. |
a***a
发帖数: 8941 | 8 真的么？
这么宽松？
【在 d********e 的大作中提到】
: in some states, no civil or criminal liability if you injured a bystander
: during self defense.
|
k**0
发帖数: 19737 | |
o****n
发帖数: 1520 | 10 看上去很镇静。拔枪很快，没有看到上膛的动作，
双手持枪的姿势很专业。 |
|
|
G******U
发帖数: 4211 | 11 这就是同胞都应该拥枪的原因。我们都坐在桌子边工作，体力
现在和禽兽们比也不过啊。拥枪即使耄耋之年也不妨。
【在 d********e 的大作中提到】
: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-
|
P****D
发帖数: 11146 | 12 我去上CCW课的时候说是最好不要管，你自身没受到威胁就不算self-defense。虽然说
理论上你看到有第三人生命受到威胁也可以开枪打人，但是法庭上很难说得清楚。如果
你看贼拿枪对着大家扫射了你再打他，名正言顺self-defense。
科州。
【在 n****e 的大作中提到】
: 感觉小毛贼还是胆小
: 另外问个法律问题，如果贼在公共场所持枪打劫，但是没有威胁到我的生命，我可不可
: 以掏枪将他击毙？会承担什么样的法律责任？
|
G******U
发帖数: 4211 | 13 如果你不在场，你说的对。比如说楼下在抢劫，你在三楼楼上。
如果你也在公共场所，你自身当然受到了威胁。
原帖里老头和老太太都在网吧里，当然都受到了威胁。
不用等到先挨一枪才能self-defense。 defense的意思是
好人先开枪，好人先挨枪还得挺着不死然后后开枪叫revenge
【在 P****D 的大作中提到】
: 我去上CCW课的时候说是最好不要管，你自身没受到威胁就不算self-defense。虽然说
: 理论上你看到有第三人生命受到威胁也可以开枪打人，但是法庭上很难说得清楚。如果
: 你看贼拿枪对着大家扫射了你再打他，名正言顺self-defense。
: 科州。
|
P****D
发帖数: 11146 | 14 你说的跟CCW老师说的不一样。他举的例子是抢银行，贼用枪指着银行clerk，你也在银
行大厅里且ccw，老师的观点是这种情况下不要逞英雄，因为说不清楚。
【在 G******U 的大作中提到】
: 如果你不在场，你说的对。比如说楼下在抢劫，你在三楼楼上。
: 如果你也在公共场所，你自身当然受到了威胁。
: 原帖里老头和老太太都在网吧里，当然都受到了威胁。
: 不用等到先挨一枪才能self-defense。 defense的意思是
: 好人先开枪，好人先挨枪还得挺着不死然后后开枪叫revenge
|
G******U
发帖数: 4211 | 15 倒也不完全矛盾。
指着银行clerk的时候不打可以。但是如果到了劫持所有员工和顾客作为人质的阶段
或者挨个抢劫顾客的东西，我认为就到了self-defense的时候了。
【在 P****D 的大作中提到】
: 你说的跟CCW老师说的不一样。他举的例子是抢银行，贼用枪指着银行clerk，你也在银
: 行大厅里且ccw，老师的观点是这种情况下不要逞英雄，因为说不清楚。
|
S*******T
发帖数: 5156 | |
g******n
发帖数: 53185 | 17 大家都有枪，黑鬼就会老实了，因为别人能比他们枪更好打的准。 |
P****D
发帖数: 11146 | 18 总之就是贼人一定要先有危害你个人安全的行为，然后你才可以开枪打。像这个抢网吧
的用枪指着所有顾客（One of the masked men, identified as Duwayne Henderson,
19, comes in pointing a handgun at customers.），你就可以打了。
另外在抢劫案里，自卫的程度也很难说。按理说，你只有在贼可能会杀死你或进行非常
严重的身体伤害（比如强奸）的时候才能下死手，否则的话你打死了人就是防卫过当。
你要是半夜一个人被抢然后你打死了人那好说，你可以跟警察说对方想杀你灭口什么的
。挨个抢劫顾客，其他顾客都是证人，可以证明贼并不想杀死你，可怎么好？
【在 G******U 的大作中提到】
: 倒也不完全矛盾。
: 指着银行clerk的时候不打可以。但是如果到了劫持所有员工和顾客作为人质的阶段
: 或者挨个抢劫顾客的东西，我认为就到了self-defense的时候了。
|
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 19 Not sure whether you are familiar with criminal law. See the provisions of
the Model Penal Code. Of course, not all states adopted the model penal
code.
According to 3.04(1), as long as YOU believe that force is immediately
necessary for the purpose of protecting yourself against the use of unlawful
force, your use of force is justified. Use of deadly force is further
limited, 3.04(2).
Defense of others is in 3.05.
Model Penal Code
§ 3.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection.
(1) Use of Force Justifiable for Protection of the Person. Subject to the
provisions of this Section and of Section 3.09, the use of force upon or
toward another person is justifiable when the ***actor believes*** that such
force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself
against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present
occasion.
...
(2)...(b) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this Section
unless the actor
believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death,
serious
bodily injury, kidnaping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat;
nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury,
provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force
with
complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a
person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that
he abstain from any action that he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of
work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of
work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be;
and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his
duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person
justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is
not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such
arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened
resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is
directed.
(c) Except as required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection, a
person
employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the
circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without
retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act that he has no
legal
duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
§ 3.05. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section and of Section 3.09, the use
of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a
third person when:
(a) the actor would be justified under Section 3.04 in using such force to
protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the
person whom he seeks to protect; and
(b) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person
whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force;
and
(c) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection
of such other person. |
s**********1
发帖数: 497 | 20 歹徒进来以后，那个大妈竟然自己主动走到歹徒面前。。。老者射击一个歹徒的时候，
站在他前方偏右的这个大妈竟然很悠闲的去捂耳朵而不是尽快离开哪个可能对射的位置
；只要两个歹徒中间的一个还击，这个大妈很可能中枪。。。命大阿！
遇到这种事情而自己有枪在手实在很郁闷，出手把，自己有很大生命风险，更郁闷的是
见义勇为以后可能还有很多法律风险；不出手，丢脸不说，万一后来被歹徒搜身见到枪
说不定有各种严重后果。
为什么老者向已经逃跑的歹徒追击并且开枪打伤歹徒没一点法律风险？看来法律也是要
看人的。 |
|
|
H******S
发帖数: 6011 | 21 71岁了，就算有罪，打个官司2，3年，等定罪都75了，真要坐牢的话，还省了养老院的
钱，换我我也愿意啊。 |
k*******n
发帖数: 5546 | |
d****d
发帖数: 699 | |
