Forum: Author Hangout

Your life has to be in physical danger like if he attacks you or points the gun at you. I think one exception is if he breaks into your house, but not sure about that.

In the US, this is a state law issue and it varies considerably from state to state.

There are only a handful of states where the use of lethal force to protect property is legal.

However, contrary to your suggestion that your own life has to be in immediate danger, the majority of state allow the use of lethal force to defend against threats to another person.

However, contrary to your suggestion that your own life has to be in immediate danger, the majority of state allow the use of lethal force to defend against threats to another person.

In German law, there is a distinction between self-defense and emergency relief.

Germany has a 'Naked In School' program?

Certainly, it's called communal showers.

In German law, there is a distinction between self-defense and emergency relief.

There generally isn't in US law. In the US, the legal term is justifiable homicide, not self defense.

In the majority of states, justifiable homicide covers protecting any human life, and a very small number of states extend justifiable homicide to protecting personal property against theft or destruction.

German self-defense is much wider. You're justified to defend your property by force if no other opportunity exists. There is a famous case of a wheelchair user who used his hunting rifle to shoot a boy out of his apple tree. He killed the boy but was justified by self-defense.

The example I was given was, the act of leaving something valuable in plain sight within a locked car.

I don't know who gave you that example but I can assure you the implication is wrong. Something stolen out of a car, visible or not, is a case of theft. If the car is locked, it's a case of theft and additional a qualification with a higher penalty. What you called 'incitement' is only a question asked for the individualized sentencing.

The way it was explained to me was the person who left the valuable item in sight could be charge because they tempted the thief to steal.

In German criminal law, incitement is one specific form of perpetration. Sole perpetration, complicity, abetment, and independent perpetration are the others. Incitement as a form of perpetration requires intention. That's the main reason the explanation given to you is wrong. There are others as well but we don't need to go any deeper into the structure of German law.

You're justified to defend your property by force if no other opportunity exists.

You can in most US states as well, but the US states mostly don't extend the force allowed to defend property to the point of allowing lethal force.

In my novel, as well as in my first novel, many of the killings are in fact murder.

I think this whole question boils down to one simple one -- just because it is illegal, is it also unjust? I think that is the question that the whole genre seeks to answer.

Using justice as a yardstick, i.e. you are responsible for your actions, Charles Bronson's character in "Death Wish" becomes a unjust killer once he takes the revenge beyond the perpetrators of his wife and daughter's death and rape.

But, then again, Kate Steinle's family would be well within justice's borders if they took out the architects of San Franciso's Sanctuary City policy.

Imbalances like this is what makes the genre so lively.

While I enjoy several of that genre, I've always felt, if arrested, the 'honorable' thing is to stand up and take your punishment like a man, and not try all kinds of strange legal maneuvers to get off, since you knowing assassinated someone.

I agree. No wimping out.

The ideal story of setting right the murder/violation of your family is the movie "Gladiator." In my mind, there is no greater boon to be granted a person than to stare into the eyes of your family's violator as you slowly push a blade into his throat. And Maximus' death was nothing more than the exclamation point. The ending of that movie still gives me chills every time I see it.

That's a revenge movie, not a vigilante movie. I love revenge movies.

What I was getting at was the justification for the actions of the respective protagonists in both movies. As an aside, its been a while since I've seen "Death Wish" and don't really remember whether or not he got the murderer/rapists of his family. Even now, though, it feels like he did. But I accept your correction.

What I was trying to say in my post is that Bronson's character was not justified while Crowe's character was very much justified. Which is the point I tried to make in my original post here as to the distinction between law and justice.

Frankly, I don't really care about the law. I do, however, care about justice. When the two coincide, as they most often times do, all is well with the world. When they don't, justice rules. IMHO.

If the others carrying weapons kill you then all of those there will have committed murder

The law in England seems to have changed. There was a case of a group who killed a policeman and one of them - who took no direct part - was found guilty of murder and executed. I think he has recently been exonerated (or whatever the right words is) because he took no direct part. ISTR that he was unarmed and the killing was not premeditated

There was a case of a group who killed a policeman and one of them - who took no direct part - was found guilty of murder and executed.

The US states have what is called the "felony murder rule".

Any death that occurs during the commission of a felony crime, even one not directly caused by the felonious act, is murder and everyone who participated in any way in committing the underlying felony is guilty of that murder.

Four guys decide to hold up a bank.

During the robbery one of the bank tellers dies of a heart attack and one of the robbers is shot and killed by a bank guard.

The three surviving robbers and their get-away driver who never entered the bank are all guilty of two counts of murder under the felony murder rule, one for the teller and one for their accomplice killed by the guard.

exonerated {because} not premeditated

That I could understand. The reversal of a verdict, even posthumously, suggests it was concluded the original verdict was incorrect - so it would not suggest the law has changed.
The question REP posed was very different. The unarmed man would already have committed at least a conspiracy to murder.

Whether that is relevant to the case sejintenej mentioned I have no eye deer.

I'm sure it is not relevant. Retrospective acquittals would be as abhorrent to Rule of Law as retrospective convictions.

Retrospective acquittals would be as abhorrent to Rule of Law as retrospective convictions.

Then how would you rate a guilty verdict being overturned in the appeal court (which is really what happened in the case I was thinking of)?
As to retrospective convictions we have the concept of no double jeopardy BUT a case can be heard a second time if based on evidence not available in the original trial.

Retrospective acquittals would be as abhorrent to Rule of Law as retrospective convictions.

Wrong.

Wrong.

I may have written my last comment poorly.

I meant that new laws being enforced retrospectively, for actions before the laws existed, is abhorrent to Rule of Law. Actions should always be judged against the laws in existence at that time.

I meant that new laws being enforced retrospectively, for actions before the laws existed is abhorrent to Rule of Law.

A guilty verdict requires an action illegal at the time it was committed as well as at the time of the trial. Keeping someone legally imprisoned requires a legal justification during the entire time of the imprisonment. A relevant change of law would make a continued punishment illegal, even if the law later would be reversed to its previous state.

A relevant change of law would make a continued punishment illegal

I'm not sure, but I doubt that is so for Westminster-style governments.
My guess is that Parliaments are entitled to pass laws that explicitly quashed past convictions. If they do not, then past convictions for something that is no longer a crime would stand.
I doubt, in such circumstances, any government would resist the political pressure to set free anyone imprisoned for something that was no longer a crime, but I don't think there would be any legal obligation to do so. I'd expect a government to choose a form of release which did not constitute an admission of a wrongful conviction, which would then make it liable to pay compensation.
It would be different if a law was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. I expect a government would then be obligated to release anyone and be liable for compensation.

I'd expect a government to choose a form of release which did not constitute an admission of a wrongful conviction, which would then make it liable to pay compensation.

A relevant change of law doesn't make a previous conviction illegal, it makes a continued punishment illegal. A verdict based on a no longer existent law has to be revoked, it isn't nullified from the time it was rendered.

A verdict based on a no longer existent law has to be revoked

I don't think that is so in Westminster systems. For them, Parliament may do anything the courts do not rule unconstitutional.

I can think of an example of a retrospective law in Australia ...

I believe these are the relevant details. A man named Ivan Milat was convicted of multiple murders. At the time of his conviction he would have been eligible for parole after many years, about 30 years. While in prison he vowed that he would commit more murders after be was eventually released. The State Parliament passed a law that only affected him. It made him ineligible for parole, ever. He could only be released if he was granted parole by the Crown.

If a Parliament is entitled to do that, I don't think it could ever be obligated to release someone who was correctly convicted of what was a crime at the time a person committed an offense.

However, in practical terms, I cannot imagine any government keeping someone in prison for something that is no longer a crime.

I believe these are the relevant details. A man named Ivan Milat was convicted of multiple murders. At the time of his conviction he would have been eligible for parole after many years, about 30 years. While in prison he vowed that he would commit more murders after be was eventually released. The State Parliament passed a law that only affected him. It made him ineligible for parole, ever. He could only be released if he was granted parole by the Crown.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Parole isn't an enforceable right. The parole decision falls on state officials, usually a commission or a judge, and it's based on a danger prognosis of the convict. A convict's believable statement to commit more murders would make him 'ineligible' for parole.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

But, it was the law at the time he was convicted.
Parliament had to pass a new law to keep him in prison.
There must be a Wiki entry about him if you doubt me.

There must be a Wiki entry about him if you doubt me.

That's what I found on Wiki:

Milat was convicted of the murders 27 July 1996 and is currently serving seven consecutive life sentences, as well as 18 years without parole, at the maximum-security Goulburn Correctional Centre.

That's what I found on Wiki:

I may have got the facts wrong. He is now serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. I think I recall a political controversy because of the possibility he could someday be released - but I'm not certain, and I can't find anything suggesting what I thought happened is correct.
Sorry, if I have misled you.
Can I drop this subject now, please?

Thud!

Did you hear about the dyslexic man who was arrested for mounting machine guns on the wildlife in Yellowstone National Park?

He thought he had the right to arm bears. :)

Can I drop this subject now, please?

You didn't need my permission to make a comment and you don't need it to drop the subject, either.

That's a controversial issue in the UK. Our laws allow for whole of life sentences without parole, but they're been superseded by Human Rights Legislation which guarantees the right to be considered for parole.

True but in cases where they want "whole life" they are now simply fixing the number of years at a high figure so that parole becomes unlikely. Also I understand that the original judge is quietly consulted by the Parole Board. I suspect they are also aware of any public pressure

That's a controversial issue in the UK. Our laws allow for whole of life sentences without parole, but they're been superseded by Human Rights Legislation which guarantees the right to be considered for parole.

That's a different matter than the question I commented and you used as a quote. Parole as an enforceable right would mean if a convict proves he fulfills the requirements to receive parole, then he has to get parole. Parole isn't an enforceable right, though. It's a decision of administrative discretion, which means the parole board, or whoever is in charge of the decision, is basically free to decide.

I meant that new laws being enforced retrospectively, for actions before the laws existed, is abhorrent to Rule of Law. Actions should always be judged against the laws in existence at that time.

I would like to agree with you but ....
I have just received an electricity bill; the French government has decreed that their set prices three years ago were too low and is demanding payment of the excess.

In other words a situation where the MC would not be able to tell who was trying to do the hit. In that situation definitely kill the one paying for the hit. No money means no hit man/woman will bother to do the job. Does not matter if the person wanting the hit done has a gun or not in my opinion, its still self-defense. Just make sure the jury knows he was putting a bounty on the MC's life.

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

I pleaded self-defense. I lost because he was … wait for it …
unarmed.

nah, ya lost because ya disarmed him before it went off.

Yea he was hARMless