I come home, the door stands wide open and I hear rumbling.
I step inside and see a young man in the living room.
I say loud ‘ Do you need Help or you can find it without me. ‘
He walks red, looks at the balcony.
‘ The stairs down is easier than jumping ‘
He runs down the stairs.
I call the police.
Why do you think about killing a burglar in Heaven’s name?
Self-defense is something other than ‘ attacks ‘.
If the young man had attacked me instead of running away, I would have defended my body, but I am not going to beat him because he strewn a drawer of a closet over the ground.And even then, an attacker holding you off is something other than the intention of having to kill him.
What are we talking about.
1) You killed someone.This is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life.
2) Legally speaking, which was probably the intention of the questioner, you are on slippery ice.
Many people will now say, “and distress again then?”
A logical remark, but the ice is no less slippery.
Emergency weather is incorporated in article 41 Penal Code (SR) and embraces in abstracto the following: an instantaneous unlawful assault of your or someone else’s body, honorability or good against which an offered defence is necessary.
This is a mouth full.A mouth full of vague, abstract terms.
In this case, I am addressing the important aspects, as otherwise I will make a gigantic speech that is most likely to cause migraine headaches.
The burglar in question must have raised your body, honorability or good.Body seems logical to me and well its short by the bend all your stuff. Honorability is a matter of sexual honorability. If someone insults you on the street, that does not give you a free letter to work that person to the ground skillfully because you feel affected with respect to your honor (your good name).
A burglar, of course, has the unpleasant hobby to break into, with which he is shaking your belongings.He might be wrecked a door, a window or other stuff. This may not be legal, so it is also fulfilled the requisite unlawful (against the law).
Destruction is punishable.
Now the idea of distress is that you can defend yourself against crimes committed against you (or other people).This is a well-known picture of emergency weather, but this comes with the necessary restrictions. Also emergency weather has limits. Hence the idea “commandments” and “necessary”.
There are two particularly beautiful legal words that apply here, namely “subsidiarity” and “proportionality”.Subsidiarity means that you should have no choice but to defend yourself. A classic example of this is the following two extremes.
Situation 1: You are standing on a large lawn, a meadow, together with another person.This person strikes you in the face. You don’t have to beat him back, you can walk away, you have all the space and time.
Situation 2: You are standing in a bus shelter with three other people who surround you.One of the people starts beating you while the others block the way out. You have no option to get away.
The question you have to ask about subsidiarity is the following: Is there a less intrusive way to protect myself?Can I run away?
In addition to subsidiarity, there is proportionality.In This word you can unravel “proportionally”.
This looks at the severity of your response.Imagine the situation that someone beats you in the face. It is not proportional, not reasonable, if you then grab your bazooka and blow that person. I can hope that that sounds logical.
Both aspects may be problematic in the present case.
If you have seen that the burglar breaks in with you, he probably has already molest all your goods.If you see that he has broken your door and is now trying to find the cabinets, then there is a unlawful assault of your goods.
This assault is also instantaneous, yet another of the many requirements of emergency weather.This means that the defence must take place at the time of the assault. If someone struck you on Tuesday, there will be no emergency weather if you “return” that man on Sunday.
In terms of subsidiarity, there are great questions about the idea of killing this burglar in response.You definitely had other choices.
First, you could have the police call.Now I understand that it is possible that by the time the police arrive, the burglar may have fled with your beautiful new laptop, but there are other alternatives that are also better than the burglar killing.
You are allowed to use violence to protect your belongings, but killing goes very far.That is not proportional (see proportionality). Here we are in a border area of subsidiarity and proportionality. You have better choices, which are also more proportional.
Think of it to the groundwork of the suspect and hold him down until the police is there.
Killing him is not reasonable, for example, until you are in a situation where you may fear for your life and in which you can not go.
If you kill this burglar, without a similar situation, you will most likely be prosecuted for death by guilt or for manslaughter.
You really can’t invent the ‘ disadvantages ‘ of killing a human being?
Then I have nothing to offer you at all.
The advantage is, of course, that this thief can never order anyone and therefore causes a lot of misery.A medal is therefore perhaps in place. In any case a thank you.