倍可親

劉龍珠律師法律評論:不能防衛過當,各州正當防衛法大比較

作者:劉龍珠律師  於 2016-12-14 11:46 發表於 最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

通用分類:法律相關

劉龍珠律師法律評論:不能防衛過當,各州正當防衛法大比較

說到正當防衛的事例,近幾年引起廣泛爭議的莫過於特雷沃恩·馬丁(Trayvon Martin)命案。案件發生於2012226日,在佛羅里達州的桑德福,社區看守人喬治·齊默曼 (George Zimmerman) 報警稱看到一名行蹤可疑的黑人男孩(即馬丁),儘管警察說不需要跟蹤,但是齊默曼還是繼續跟蹤馬丁,隨後兩人發生了口角,馬丁用拳頭打齊默曼的頭,齊默曼出於自衛開槍擊斃了馬丁。齊默曼被以二級謀殺罪起訴,2013713日,法院依陪審團決議宣布齊默曼無罪,因為其開槍行為屬正當防衛。

今年還有一則華裔女子勇敢擊退劫匪的事例。2016923日凌晨,在喬治亞州格威內特郡,三名劫匪闖入一民宅,屋主一華裔女子被驚醒后持槍與劫匪展開了激烈的槍戰,並將其中一人擊斃,其餘兩名劫匪潛逃。警方稱這位女士的行為屬於正當防衛,因此並未對這名女子提出指控。

這兩個案件中,齊默曼和華裔女子都以正當防衛為由開槍捍衛自己的生命安全,雖然造成了他人的死亡,但並沒有受到法律的制裁。那麼問題就來了,是不是在美國所有的州都可以以正當防衛為由開槍給他人帶來致命傷害?如果不是,那麼那些對正當防衛權利有限制的州法是如何規定的?

2005年,佛羅里達州率先在其法律中規定了絕不退讓法 (Stand Your Ground Laws),允許個人在遭受自己認為能夠導致嚴重後果的人身攻擊之前運用致命武器來對自身或者他人進行防衛,無需退讓,且此法律適用於包括住宅和公共場所在內的任何場所。隨後,其他的州也相繼制定了類似的正當防衛法,但並不是所有州的正當防衛法都相同,總體來說,美國的正當防衛法可以分為三類:絕不退讓法、城堡法 (Castle Doctrine)、有義務退讓法 (Duty to Retreat)。以下將分別講述這三類正當防衛法以及相應的州。

(一)任何場所都沒有義務退讓——絕不退讓法 (Stand Your Ground Laws)

絕不退讓法規定,在任何場所,受害人都有權運用致命武器來對抗來自加害人的致死或者重傷的攻擊,無需退讓。

採用絕不退讓法的州有:

1、華裔聚集州

加利福尼亞州

關於加州是採取絕不退讓法還是城堡法,在不同資源上可能有不同說法,但根據加州刑事訴訟法第505條對自衛殺人的規定——當受害人感到自己或他人的生命安全受到了即刻的威脅時,即使本可以逃跑,卻仍然可以選擇留在犯罪現場運用適當的武力來進行自衛,甚至可以在必要的時候追擊罪犯直至危險解除,受害人無需退讓——因為這條法律明確規定了受害人無需退讓,且並未作出場所限制,因此,加州採納的應當是絕不退讓法,即在任何場所都沒有義務退讓。

法律原文如下:

CALCRIM 505 – Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another. (「[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ {insert forcible and atrocious crime}) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]」)

佛羅里達州

法律原文如下:

Florida Statutes Section 776.012 

Use or threatened use of force in defense of person

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other』s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

 

賓夕法尼亞州

法律原文如下:

§          Pennsylvania Code Section 505

       (2.3)  An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

(i)  the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii)  the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii)  the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A)  a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B)  any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.

(2.4)  The exception to the duty to retreat set forth under paragraph (2.3) does not apply if the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

 

德克薩斯州

法律原文如下:

Texas Penal Code § 9.31. Self-Defense

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

2、其他州

阿拉巴馬州、阿拉斯加州、亞利桑那州、喬治亞州、愛達荷州、印第安納州、堪薩斯州、肯塔基州、路易斯安那州、密歇根州、密西西比州、蒙塔納州、內華達州、新罕布希爾州、北卡羅來納州、奧克拉荷馬州、南卡羅來納州、南達科塔州、田納西州、猶他州、西弗吉尼亞州

一些州的立法並沒有規定絕不退讓法,但司法解釋中採納了與絕不退讓法相似的司法原則,在此不作列舉。

(二)特定場所才可以不退讓——城堡法 (Castle Doctrine)

城堡法,又稱個人住所防衛權 (Defense of Habitation),也同樣認可了受害人的正當防衛權利,但做出了一定限制,即受害人只有在特定場所(譬如家中或者辦公場所)才可以不退讓。

採用城堡法的州有:

1、華裔聚集州

伊利諾伊州

法律原文如下:

Illinois Criminal Code 720 ILCS 5/7-2

Section 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other』s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

華盛頓州

法律原文如下:

RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

2、其他州

愛荷華州、俄勒岡州

(三)任何場所都有義務退讓 (Duty to Retreat)

在任何場合都有義務退讓也就是說,如果可以通過逃跑等方式來避免傷害或者死亡,那麼受害人就不能在正當防衛中使用致命武器。只有在別無選擇的情況下,譬如受害人被困在死角處或者行動受到了限制,並且有生命危險,受害人才可以用致命武器來自衛。

規定了在任何場所都有義務退讓的州有:

1、華裔聚集州

紐約州

法律原文如下:

New York Penal Law § 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person  

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person;  or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force;  or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force.  Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;  except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;  or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30;  or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery;  or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

新澤西州

法律原文如下:

New Jersey Statutes 2C-3-4(a)

The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

馬里蘭州

法律原文如下:

Self-defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)

Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:

The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.

The defendant's belief was reasonable.

The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatened or actual harm.

"Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response."

"In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in <his> <her> home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat."

 

馬薩諸塞州

法律原文如下:

Section 8A: Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

2、其他州

阿肯色州、康涅狄格州、特拉華州、夏威夷州、緬因州、密蘇里州、明尼蘇達州、內布拉斯加州、北達科塔州、俄亥俄州、羅德島、威斯康辛州、懷俄明州


高興

感動

同情

搞笑

難過

拍磚

支持

鮮花

評論 (0 個評論)

facelist doodle 塗鴉板

您需要登錄后才可以評論 登錄 | 註冊

劉龍珠律師最受歡迎的博文
  1. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:章瑩穎家人獅子大開口要50萬,涉嫌違法,可能坐牢20年! 文/劉龍 [2017/08]
  2. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:郭文貴的房產照片 [2017/04]
  3. 熱辣點評:華人大鬧瑞典旅館被丟墓地事件 [2018/09]
  4. 劉強東案女主微信聊天記錄曝光:床單——東哥的救命稻草? [2018/09]
  5. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:何潔還是留了一手,看看沒她老公名字的美國房子 [2016/12]
  6. 告馬雲證券欺詐的劉龍珠律師評馬雲、孫正義頻拋股票行為 [2017/01]
  7. 劉龍珠律師特別提醒:不是假新聞!美國海關有權檢查手機 [2016/03]
  8. 劉龍珠律師提醒: 全美移民檢查站在哪裡,被攔下來要如何處理 [2017/02]
  9. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:王寶強、張紀中、張靚穎、何潔的美國房子大對比 [2016/12]
  10. 孟晚舟凶多吉少!明天會被引渡 [2018/12]
  11. 劉龍珠律師:梁案中Glock 19手槍很難走火 [2016/02]
  12. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:赴美產婦濫用福利、現在拿不到簽證 [2017/03]
  13. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:忠言逆耳,挺梁遊行可能害梁彼得、應給非裔受害人捐款 [2016/02]
  14. 「一哭二鬧三上吊」 中美皆違法 - 霸座男女 攜手去瑞典 [2018/09]
  15. 如果網傳事件記錄屬實,劉強東罪名會成立嗎? [2018/09]
  16. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:UCLA槍擊案的啟示——憲法第二修正案應廢除 [2016/06]
  17. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:華裔踹飛白人老太,可能涉嫌種族歧視,最高坐牢10年! [2018/03]
  18. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:賣狗肉,中國罰款5萬,美國坐牢40年,玉林狗肉節必須廢止! [2018/02]
其它[法律相關]博文更多

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2019-8-22 08:46

返回頂部