Hot answers tagged

77

You are not reading a law book here and you should not interpret a driving test so literally. It's quite clear that the question implies you should follow all of their instructions regarding how to proceed through traffic. Sometimes those instructions do involve "breaking laws" such as driving on the wrong side of the road or proceeding through a traffic ...


58

I would just like to clarify, in addition to the other answers and what Dale M alluded to, one important detail: Unless you are carrying out the death penalty, no one under any circumstances is allowed to kill anyone else. What you are sometimes authorized to do, is to use deadly force. There is an important distinction between the two. When using deadly ...


30

The simple answer to the question you asked is that they are not mutually exclusive. Self-defense and “castle doctrine” are defenses. A person can be charged and tried for murder, and one or both of those can be their defense. But shooting someone in self defense does not guarantee immunity from a charge or trial. In the first place, you need to show that it ...


26

Although abortion is legal in the US, not everyone is allowed to perform an abortion. In Washington, the law allows a physician to terminate a pregnancy, and recognizes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. An abortion performed by anyone else is not legal, and performing an illegal abortion is a class C felony. There are "plan B" pills which are ...


16

According to California Penal Code Section 187 (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Penal Code section 197 and 198: Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, ...


16

According to Wikipedia's article Diplomatic Mission: Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special ...


16

A charge of murder means that the government are accusing someone of intentionally and unlawfully killing someone else. A charge is an accusation, not a conviction. A conviction is when you are found guilty of a crime. You aren't a murderer until you've been convicted, since innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law. Self defence is a defence to ...


11

If you have a reasonable belief you or someone else is in imminent danger you have the right, under California law, to defend yourself with "no more force than was necessary to stop the threat." Which means that yes, in that situation you would be acquitted of murder and assault charges. However, if the knife falls afoul of local weapon laws, you could ...


11

Murder is one of the few cases where the intention and not just the act is relevant. The act – killing a person – is the same for Mord and Totschlag, whereas fahrlässige Tötung covers acts that have caused the death of a person. The language of the Stgb labels the perpetrator who killed someone as a murderer or manslaughterer depending on their intention. ...


10

I said this in a comment, but I'll put it in an answer. When France forcibly confines an American, the United States is entitled to ask France, "what the hell do you think you're doing, trying to confine our citizen in your country?" There are really just six basic answers that the United States will accept, and nothing in this scenario is specific to France ...


10

The doctrine of self defence makes it legal to use reasonable force to defend yourself and others against the threat of unlawful and immediate violence. There is no question there is a threat of violence, there is no question it is unlawful, it would be legal if it could be demonstrated the threat was immediate or that a reasonable person would believe it ...


10

The answer is going to depend on what jurisdiction you're talking about. But I can give you some general principles that apply, in most cases, in the U.S. at least. "Homicide" is a general term for the killing of one person by another. If someone died, and another person caused it, it's homicide. "Murder" and "manslaughter" are specific crimes, usually now ...


10

In the situation described, the defender is unlikely to get out alive. In most such cases the police will be very proactive in trying to kill the shooter. They have radios and if a "man down" alert occurs, they will be out for blood. If the shooter survives, the odds in court are against him, but not impossible. In one cases the defendant survived and ...


10

The first line is “who kills a person”. That is clearly doing something. And the last three lines describe the motivation, not what you are. That’s very similar to “first degree” and “second degree” murder in the USA although the exact criteria are different - “planning” is not part of the German definition although any German murder is likely planned. ...


9

This area of law is dependent on affirmative defenses that states may choose to provide. I found two law review articles that present the situations in Georgia and Indiana.1, 2 Georgia Georgia Code 16-3-23 provides a defense for the occupant in this situation. Epstein argues that this statute is somewhat ambiguous but it most likely even applies when the ...


9

You have no reponsibility to save someone (unless you put them in that position / were responsible for his safety, this is called owing a "duty of care", e.g doctor to patient, road user to road user etc) Legally you are not a murderer. But morally, you are an asshole.


8

In general it is illegal to gamble on life. However, you might not even need to go to a bookmaker: A contract that pays money upon the death of a specific person is known commercially as "life insurance." In order to avoid the moral hazard (or reality) of creating a contract killing market, it has long been illegal to trade life insurance with any person ...


8

The answer of @David Siegel is correct as far as it goes. I would further venture the opinion that it is very likely that even though the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the territory of Saudi Arabia, that diplomatic immunity would very likely pose a bar to the prosecution of at least some of the defendants in a case if one was brought in Turkish courts and ...


8

While trials don't have a set time, generally the length of a trial is based on its complexity (and to a certain degree, also the gravity of the charge). Simpler cases (e.g. breaking and entering) will generally take less time to hear than more complex cases (e.g. a violation of proper calculation procedure of an SEC mandated income report concerning ...


7

This question is meant to be within the scope of "using the road" - Option (B) is wrong where, for example, there is a traffic light stuck on red for all sides, and someone directing traffic. If you were to kill someone because a person - even if a "signal person" (which is really just a person in some slightly special clothing) told you to, you would be ...


7

The "felony murder" doctrine, which applies in most of the U.S. (including California), holds criminals engaged in "dangerous felonies" responsible for any deaths that occur during the commission of such crimes. In the given example, the hostage taker and anyone who is an accessory to that aggravated assault would, if convicted, also be guilty of murder for ...


7

In the U.S., this would be attempted murder. While Scotland and the U.S. have laws that differ in many respects, this is not an issue upon which I would anticipate that there would be difference between Scottish law and U.S. law. And what punishment would she face? According to Wikipedia: Attempted murder is a crime at common law in Scotland. ...


7

It is not as simple as the witness just making the assertion that they are the killer. They will be subject to grueling cross examination to break their story. If the victim was killed at a specific time, perhaps the prosecution can prove the witness was somewhere else at that time, and therefore lying. (No Opportunity) If the victim was killed with a ...


6

(Note: this is not a treatise on traffic law, but a general guideline, covered by the general spirit of traffic regulations like hinted at in Section 23103(a) quoted below. It should help the OP to sort his thoughts, not be used as base for a court case. It is meant to help the OP answer the question of whether a traffic rule can *make him kill a human*, not ...


6

In the US, it depends on the jurisdiction because each state has its own homicide statutes: but, the defining elements don't differ a lot. Drawing on Washington state law, the first question is whether you intended to kill a person (it doesn't have to be a specific person). If you did, you have committed first-degree murder. It is first-degree murder, ...


6

Modern legal systems frown on individual retribution. A victim of a crime is not allowed to punish the perpetrator of the crime; that falls to the state. The answer is therefore yes; the person could be arrested, tried, and punished, including by imprisonment.


5

In short, it is doubtful that France would arrest an executioner vacationing abroad. The concept of functional immunity relies on mutual respect of sovereigns and applies to government officials acting in their official capacities. From Wikipedia: Functional immunity arises from customary international law and treaty law and confers immunities on those ...


5

See jury-nullification. I'm not a legal historian, so I can't say for sure what the laws on jury acquittals were at that time in that jurisdiction. However, when a jury has final discretion to acquit a defendant of a crime that's it: They can effectively ignore laws if they want to acquit someone. Such acquittals do not set a precedent or have any bearing ...


5

On April 30, 1790 (during the 1st Congress) a statute was passed (An Act for the Punishment of certain Crimes against the United States, pp. 112-113 of the entire acts), the third section of which reads ...And be it [further]enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible