|
PLEASE ONLY ANSWER THIS LAW QUESTION IF YOU KNOW IT.
By law, you may remove and intruder from you house by all means necessary, what if that results in murder, (involuntary or voluntary manslaughter)would get fully punished or just punished if you even would get punished?
What if that results in Assault and battery, would you pay the fines, or the hospital bill? or what in this case? What does "all means" really imply and where does it cross the line? Why?
What if the man is drunk comes into your house and thinks it is his and that is his family he is defending? would he also get the fines and hospital bill (if there would be one,) or the murder sentence? (if there would be one?
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Work & School category?
Maybe give some free advice about: School?
It's just not that simple.
Certainly not in the states, where the laws on breaking and entry vary from state to state, and sometimes from county to county as well.
For instance, in Vermont the idea the courts keep upholding is you should use the MINUMUM necessary force. If you kill someone, in self-defence, even in your own home, you better not have fired more shots then you needed too, have had no available escape and been in very real danger. Anything less, and they courts might deam that you're behavoir was unlawful.
Florida keeps ruling the exact opposite way and passed a law in 2005 to that effect. They seem to think that if you need to defend yourself, shit, go all out and use all the force you can muster.
These questions you are asking are the reason we have courts, judges and juries, rather than just a book of rules. If the world was a very simple, cut and dry sort of place, a book of rules would be sufficient for all situations. The rules might states something like "Any person breaking and entering can be harmed or killed by the people living there without any legal penalties." Many people think the law says just that (and very, very few states have laws that actually go nearly that far). Most gun safety courses, which are required pretty much anywhere if someone wants to own a firearm legally, will encourage people to shoot to 'stop' an intruder, not to riddle them with bullets or to try to kill them, and even then, only as a last resource. ANY self-defence case where a person used deadly force or even potentially deadly force can be subject to examination by a court. Your property or not, they can look at whether it was actually necessary to use deadly force and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.
So, all of your questions might have different answers, depending on the state and country, and depending all many different factors during the incident.
A bit of a tangent but: There was an interesting case a few months ago about an adult woman who assisted teenage girls in making a fake MySpace page to harass and lie to another young teen. The victim ended up killing herself. Most people would agree that what this adult did in helping to push this young woman to suicide was immoral and wrong, however, there was NO law that covered it. There were cyber-bulling laws but because she was not a sexual predator, it was not a crime under them. They had to take her to the state where MySpace was run in order to charge her from breaking MySpace’s terms of use. Not necessarily a good a solution, but a good example of the law finding a way to address what people perceive as an injustice, despite the actually words in the law books.
]
well if theyre in your house. as a last resort killing them may be neccasary but if your trying to defend your self then it is only self defense. they wont give the murder sentence if you were defending yourself.
]
More Questions: |