WA老汉枪杀偷车贼被判无罪

aerostar · 发表于 2014-5-9 17:58

本帖最后由 aerostar 于 2014-5-9 18:01 编辑

1. for me? no.
2. If I pull the trigger, I will let God take the aim.
It is 21st centery now. Don't warm a car, for Paul's sake.

Laou168 · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:06

俺每周练一百发.45ACP打五十英尺的靶,准头不是问题。
只要车上没有俺家人并且不开我的车撞我,我肯定不会要贼的命。
各州法律不同,要小心谨慎。

FJC · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:07

aerostar 发表于 2014-5-9 17:58
1. for me? no.
2. If I pull the trigger, I will let God take the aim.
It is 21st centery now. Don't ...

这个站上的人可能经济状况都比较好，也有保险，估计没什么人会因为一辆车开枪。

但是很多人经济情况可能没这么好－－－车可能是他们财产的一大部分，也不一定有保险来赔。冬天也未必有不热车就能开的条件。

xushihuai · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:35

SemperFortis 发表于 2014-5-9 20:40
In California, no.

In Texas, my biggest concern is how will I get rid of all the blood inside the c ...

不支持這種做法，千萬不能學，不管你在哪個州

You may sit behind the bars for 10 years for a car.

xushihuai · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:39

FJC 发表于 2014-5-9 21:07
这个站上的人可能经济状况都比较好，也有保险，估计没什么人会因为一辆车开枪。

但是很多人经济情况可能 ...

哪怕那輛車是你全部家當，也不值得冒這個險。

SemperFortis · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:46

xushihuai 发表于 2014-5-9 18:35
不支持這種做法，千萬不能學，不管你在哪個州

You may sit behind the bars for 10 years for a car. ...

Read up on Texas' laws on the defense of property.

brucewayne · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:47

FJC 发表于 2014-5-9 20:52
显然就跟地区有关了。。如楼上所说，这老头在加州可能就完了，在德州，恐怕根本不会被起诉 ...

I see...

FJC · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:50

brucewayne 发表于 2014-5-9 18:47
I see...

又研究了一下，这个案子除了可能是有证据显示对于故意杀人的"reasonable doubt"，也可能是"Jury nullification"，就是说jury虽然认为按照法律应该定罪，但是jury如果一致认为现有法律在这种情况下不合理，不应该适用，那么也可以选择抗拒法律，判定无罪。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

xushihuai · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:53

SemperFortis 发表于 2014-5-9 21:46
Read up on Texas' laws on the defense of property.

law can be interpreted in different way, even if you are an attorney you dont have 100% confidence to win a case, so I'd say don't take the stupid risk at first place, as the stake is simply too high

brucewayne · 发表于 2014-5-9 18:57

FJC 发表于 2014-5-9 21:50
又研究了一下，这个案子除了可能是有证据显示对于故意杀人的"reasonable doubt"，也可能是"Jury nullifica ...

这就更悬了，凭着感觉走啊

FJC · 发表于 2014-5-9 19:02

brucewayne 发表于 2014-5-9 18:57
这就更悬了，凭着感觉走啊

jury也是当地普通人，如果他们认为当地偷车猖獗是因为政府打击控诉犯罪不力（比如那个偷车贼就进出好几次了），逼迫老百姓不得不自己拿枪对付偷车贼，那么政府专门捡软柿子捏，起诉无辜的受害者，就是不合理的。

TFollowerII · 发表于 2014-5-9 19:05

SemperFortis 发表于 2014-5-9 21:46
Read up on Texas' laws on the defense of property.

德州还有个很好的法律就是（粗略地说）如果死人了，侵犯者负责。比如家被两个坏蛋入侵。好人打死一个坏蛋。另一个跑了。

在这个情况下，那个跑了的要背负死人的责任。

deedee · 发表于 2014-5-9 19:31

alex 发表于 2014-5-9 16:16
我的问题是如何筹万一官司输了的话的30万。。。。

那你只好出来卖肉乐，欠债肉偿之意。

SemperFortis · 发表于 2014-5-9 19:42

xushihuai 发表于 2014-5-9 18:53
law can be interpreted in different way, even if you are an attorney you dont have 100% confidence ...

If it happened in a scenario just like above mentioned, there won't be a "case".

bigbore · 发表于 2014-5-9 20:05

TFollowerII 发表于 2014-5-9 22:05
德州还有个很好的法律就是（粗略地说）如果死人了，侵犯者负责。比如家被两个坏蛋入侵。好人打死一个坏蛋 ...

这felony murder罪名美国绝大部分州都有。
所以干坏事要么一个人上，要么找个神一样的队友。找了个猪一样的给报销了，自己也一并玩完了。

xushihuai · 发表于 2014-5-9 21:02

SemperFortis 发表于 2014-5-9 22:42
If it happened in a scenario just like above mentioned, there won't be a "case".

It's not up to you, but the DA to decide whether there will be a case.

lalirui · 发表于 2014-5-9 21:05

TFollowerII 发表于 2014-5-9 16:35
打车不可能是for protection of life或者serious bodily injury。

为什么不是呢？？可以说罪犯开车撞我，我想把车打坏不行啊。。

GoMustang · 发表于 2014-5-9 21:55

本帖最后由 GoMustang 于 2014-5-9 23:35 编辑

FJC 发表于 2014-5-9 17:52
显然就跟地区有关了。。如楼上所说，这老头在加州可能就完了，在德州，恐怕根本不会被起诉 ...

德州规定, 个人财物被盗窃后发生立即追击 (fresh pursuit)的过程中，开枪是合法的．

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

SemperFortis · 发表于 2014-5-9 22:17

xushihuai 发表于 2014-5-9 21:02
It's not up to you, but the DA to decide whether there will be a case.

I wouldn't be the first or the last to have done that.

Where in some states it's perfectly legal to use deadly force in protection of your own life, Texas extends this to your property.

SemperFortis · 发表于 2014-5-9 22:21

忘了说，好枪法。

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			立即注册

WA老汉枪杀偷车贼被判无罪

NRA终身会员

开坛元勋

三枪客

认证教员

携枪执照