49

It appears you want to go for a defense strategy based on a self-defense argument. This won't work in many jurisdictions, because self-defense usually doesn't apply when you intentionally caused a situation where you knew you would have to harm someone in self-defense. Similar case: Bob regularly mugs old women in the park by threatening them with a gun. ...


34

Applying the Model Penal Code, which is the law in most of the United States: By requesting that A kill B, you are guilty of soliciting murder. By reaching an agreement with A to pay to kill B, you are guilty of criminal conspiracy. Because A attempted to kill B, he is guilty of attempted murder. Because you solicited that attempt, you are an accomplice ...


32

Generally, no. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is the law that generally forbids breaking into or damaging computer systems, does not have any exceptions for "hacking back." Congress has considered amending the law on multiple occasions (in 2017 and 2019) to add limited exceptions for so-called "active cyber defense," but ...


26

Laws on self-defense vary greatly from nation to nation. Generally, one cannot hunt down a hypothetical threat but one can defend against an actual threat or even a mistakenly assumed actual threat where no actual threat exists. Alice set it up so that Bob would feel threatened. In many jurisdictions, the self-defense defense for homicide rests on the state ...


11

Engaging in unlawful conduct does not completely preclude a claim of self-defense under Wisconsin law ...but it does raise the bar in some circumstances: Criminal conduct by the defendant removes the presumption that "force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" when defending against unlawful forced entry to one's own ...


11

Illinois has a "Castle Doctrine" which includes dwellings and other qualified buildings, but not a general "Stand your Ground" doctrine. Normally, to claim self-defense one has to show that they were not able to retreat and had to use force, but in Illinois you do not have a duty to retreat if you are preventing criminal interference ...


8

Something like this? Darren organised a situation where he knew a fight or flight situation was likely - it is his responsibility to ensure the safety of all involved. This would also include a debrief afterwards to ensure no lasting mental damage to Bob. The setting would need to be safe. If Darren had left a dangerous weapon for Bob to get hold of then it ...


7

The non-cougher committed an unjustified assault, and could be arrested or sued for his actions. The actions were clearly not the minimal level of force needed to prevent continued assault or to effect an arrest (the dude who entered and coughed clearly is guilty of assault). This is regardless of covid. Instead, the other guy decided to beat on the first ...


7

defend myself by killing the hit man. What crime(s) have I committed? Generally it would be manslaughter or [1st or 2nd-degree] murder, depending on whether premeditation can be proved. Justifiable homicide is ruled out because the client had the alternative of rescinding the agreement—perhaps subject to agreed constraints on reimbursement—as soon as he ...


6

Is there a law against carrying items with an intent to use them in such a way? england-and-wales Yes The offence is possession of an offence weapon in a public place contrary s.1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (1) Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any ...


6

No Section 18-1-704.5. (1) says that : The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (*emphasis added) Subsections (2), (3), and (4) all refer to "any occupant of a dwelling" as the class authorized to use force by this section. An offie is not a dwelling. ...


5

Of course not. That would be equivalent to mugging a mugger back, or stealing from a thief. Your one defence might be that you set booby-traps in your firewalls, which automatically slapped the hacker down. Failing that, you would be committing a separate offence. In true self defence and the heat of the moment, you'd be entitled to kill a mugger. Mugging ...


4

Yes, police have special permission to use force For example, from s230 of the new-south-wales LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002: It is lawful for a police officer exercising a function under this Act or any other Act or law in relation to an individual or a thing, and anyone helping the police officer, to use such  force  as is ...


4

Rules about self-defense in the US vary from state to state, but generally a person can raise a defense that they legally used deadly self-defense if they had a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, with some exceptions (exactly how these are worded changes from state to state): A person often cannot claim self defense if they are already ...


4

None of this affects a claim of self-defense I've described elsewhere the things that do affect a self-defense claim in Wisconsin. These do not affect it. Protesters I'm not sure what you mean by this: the existence of protesters has nothing to do with a claim of self-defense. The standard for lethal self-defense is much higher than could be satisfied by ...


4

In California, you may use reasonable force to protect property from imminent harm. The jury instruction on that point is here. The instruction regarding justifiable homicide and defense of property is more restricted, because it only applies to protection of property when the deceased enters a home. If a stranger attacks your dog on a walk, you can use ...


4

To provide an initial answer, without getting to the specific of the 51 statutory standards for self-defense in U.S. states and the exact Canadian standard, as applied to your examples, I'll make some general observations: Self-defense is a justification for doing something that would otherwise be illegal (intentionally using force against someone else). ...


4

It is premature to judge the particular case because the facts are not all available. But we can address the general principles. The Model Penal Code 3.04(2)(a) sets out the general principles clearly. A person has the right to self-defense against unlawful force. But, the use of force is not justifiable to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being ...


4

What they teach in self-defense courses is legally irrelevant, though has a practical basis. Under the law, options 1 and 2 are "preferred" because those actions cannot be considered criminal. Shooting a person is potentially a crime (assault or homicide): but it can be legally excused under those circumstances deemed to be "self defense"....


3

Well, others have covered conspiracy and incitement to murder, I’d like to touch on another angle. So, ignoring those charges, you still aren’t home free. So, let’s give a little hypothetical background to take away some of confusion. You meet someone who shares the fact that he is a hitman looking for his next job, you say you have been out of a job for ...


2

You have to pick a jurisdiction: I pick California. Cal. Penal 22810 says that Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person may purchase, possess, or use tear gas or any tear gas weapon for the projection or release of tear gas if the tear gas or tear gas weapon is used solely for self-defense purposes, subject to the following ...


2

Anyone can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from thier home, and anyone can use reasonable force to in self defence if they have an honestly held belief that they, or someone else, is in fear of imminent violence. There is no precise legal definition of what is reasonable and each case will be considered in light of its particular circumstances ...


1

In German law, Notwehr is the (minimum required) defense against a present unlawful attack. B did not attack A, so A could not use Notwehr as a justification for shoving B.


1

It depends as proving your intention to provoke them into this can be non-protected speech under fighting words doctrine if Bob knew it would specifically provoke Dave to violence. If Bob instigated the altercation under these circumstance (both knowing and intending to provoke Dave to violence) he may be looking at his own assault charge. This would be ...


1

Generally, yes. Castle doctrine generally applies to anyone who is not trespassing on the property, not just the property owner. So long as you have permission from the property owner to be there, you can invoke Castle Doctrine. It should be noted that Castle Doctrine is not a law, but rather a legal theory of a narrow self-defense claim. In general, ...


1

Where is the threat of imminent harm? Self-defence in English law requires a reasonable (subjective) belief that an attack is imminent or actually underway. If you reasonably believe that this is a genuine prelude to imminent attack and not, as described, someone just being a prick then reasonable (objective) force can be used.


1

Since there is already an answer regarding the use of deadly force, I'll only address the other part of the question. Namely, Is the violent entry that police may use when serving a warrant different than violent entry that a criminal uses when breaking in? Given that the police were executing a warrant, they were within their legal right to break down any ...


1

If you pushed her back after she slapped you and it is not clear that a second slapping would occur (or she slapped you, because you pushed her) then it is not self-defence you (or she) did not prevent a present unlawful attack If it is clear that you are going to be slapped then pushing her away, in a reasonable manor, is self-defence you prevented a ...


1

Yes. if this then makes person C feel threatened, if then A and C end up in a standoff aiming their gun at the other, would then both people have a legitimate case if they claim self-defense for shooting the other, or not? For a legitimate self-defense case one needs to "reasonably believe that he or she is ... in imminent danger of death or serious ...


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