狮城律师：邓玉娇如果在新加坡不可能被免刑

jshi6210

两枚针:

我已说过,不再给你辩了. 骂人是不对的,会被禁言的!

我去年在网上,为捍卫祖国的尊严,被骂的很厉害,他们比你骂的还凶狠,经过那样的洗礼,我已经有很强的免疫力了,你出出气就行了. 通过骂人把自己的观点强加给别人,能成功吗?


提个小问题:我猜你是个女的,五六十年代出生的?

accountant

这里有你问题的答案,劝你好好看看,absolutely 免费.
http://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-law.html
jshi6210 发表于 2009-6-20 23:18

从你提供的http://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-law.html, 你可以看到这些东西:


佛州法律: 当你合理地相信需要阻止暴力罪行时, 可以把对方杀死.  
"合理地相信" 是很有意思的, 主要目的是为了防止受到暴力罪行的侵害.

暴力罪行指的是: "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful placing, throwing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

---------------------------------------
The state of Florida became the first to enact such a self defense law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful placing, throwing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

The Florida law authorizes the use of defensive force by anyone "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be." Furthermore, under the law, such a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief.

Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, South Dakota, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Indiana have adopted similar statutes, and 15 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" self defense laws of their own.

小莲

= = 这么就骂上了........................

jshi6210

从你提供的http://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-law.html, 你可以看到这些东西:


佛州法律: 当你合理地相信需要阻止暴力罪行时, 可以把对方杀死.  
"合理地相信" 是很有意思的, 主要目的是为了防止受到暴力罪 ...
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 04:17

我原来对正当防卫和无限防卫也不是很清楚, 我过去的正当防卫的认识有点象那里所说的 Mutual Combat.

其实,它一开始就说了,根据实际情况和对法律的理解,只有在法院能判决是否是正当防卫.

正当防卫的法律在不同的州有不同,过去和现在也有不同,将来的可能还会变.

从我的理解来看,如果玉娇案,不是强奸或强奸未遂,她肯定是有罪的. 但要证明是强奸或强奸未遂,好象并没有足够的证据.

accountant

我原来对正当防卫和无限防卫也不是很清楚, 我过去的正当防卫的认识有点象那里所说的 Mutual Combat.

其实,它一开始就说了,根据实际情况和对法律的理解,只有在法院能判决是否是正当防卫.

正当防卫的法律在不同的州有不同,过去和现在也有不同,将来的可能还会变.

从我的理解来看,如果玉娇案,不是强奸或强奸未遂,她肯定是有罪的. 但要证明是强奸或强奸未遂,好象并没有足够的证据.

jshi6210 发表于 2009-6-21 09:14

但很明显, 此案不是互相殴打案件, 而是一方对另一方施行暴力犯罪.

美国各州法律不同, 但基本上邓并不需要证明对方事实上是否为强奸或强奸未遂. 她只需要"合理地相信"必须使用致命暴力来制止正在受到强奸犯罪的威胁, 即使她的判断是错误的. 根据警方报告, 在当时的情形下, 三个男人正在用暴力对付她一个女孩, 她有理由合理地相信她正处于立即受到强奸犯罪侵犯的危险.

能否证明邓不是"合理地相信", 那是控方的问题. 控方要说服陪审团相信邓不是"合理地相信", 不是一件容易的事情, 除非控方绝顶聪明, 而辩护律师是个大草包.

如果邓是在对方已经停止了犯罪后才出手, 例如报复行为, 那不算防卫, 邓肯定有罪. 但此案邓出手杀人时是对方的犯罪正在进行当中.


一般来说, 美国刑法对于防卫的规定基本上是:

1. Self-Defense. If a prson has a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, such as RAPE, he may use that amount of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm, unless he is the aggressor. Deadly force is that which threatens death or serious bodily harm.

2. Rights of the Aggressor. An aggressor is one who strikes the first blow or commits a crime against the victim. The
aggressor can regain the right of self-defense in either of two ways: a)upon complete withdrawal perceived by the other party, or b)escalation of force by the victim of the initial aggression.

3. Duty to Retreat. a)Majority view is that there is no duty to retreat. b)Minority view. In jurisdictions that do follow a retreat rule, one need not retreat unless it can be done in complete safety, and retreat need not be made in one's home.

4. Defense of Others. You are "standing in the shoes of others".

5. Defense of property: usually only non-deadly force is allowed.

jshi6210

但很明显, 此案不是互相殴打案件, 而是一方对另一方施行暴力犯罪.

美国各州法律不同, 但基本上邓并不需要证明对方事实上是否为强奸或强奸未遂. 她只需要"合理地相信"必须使用致命暴力来制止正在受到强奸犯罪的威 ...
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 12:26

谢谢你的回贴。


对不起，我觉得不能先加个条件：是强奸或强奸未遂，然后再讨论案子。这是不符合逻辑的，所以你讲的“必须使用致命暴力来制止”在这不适合。还有，对方用的是暴力？什么暴力？说是道德暴力还行，说是身体伤害的暴力,恐怕难说。

我觉得就是一个sexual harassment 的案例，不是强奸或强奸未遂案。跟本不存在imminent danger，她的喉咙没有被卡住，（举例：卡住喉咙或肯定要卡住的时候，才也许可叫imminent danger，因为离断气还要有臆断时间），她完全可以喊救命，就这一点，就不满足"合理地相信"她处在imminent danger，要知道，这种合理地相信是不能有doubt的。而且正相反，应该是合理地相信她没有imminent danger，要不早叫了。

就叫这一点，只是许多疑点之一，还有如:环境-是在公众服务场所；死者有没有犯罪前科；....

accountant

"treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful placing, throwing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

jshi6210

但很明显, 此案不是互相殴打案件, 而是一方对另一方施行暴力犯罪.

美国各州法律不同, 但基本上邓并不需要证明对方事实上是否为强奸或强奸未遂. 她只需要"合理地相信"必须使用致命暴力来制止正在受到强奸犯罪的威 ...
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 12:26

你说：“美国各州法律不同, 但基本上邓并不需要证明对方事实上是否为强奸或强奸未遂. 她只需要"合理地相信"必须使用致命暴力来制止正在受到强奸犯罪的威胁, 即使她的判断是错误的.”

请给出英文原话？不太明白前半句说“不需要证明。。。是否为强奸或强奸未遂”，后半句又说“受到强奸犯罪的威胁”，好象自相矛盾吗？

accountant

Battery: Under criminal law, battery is an act with intent to cause and does cause a harmful or offensive touching.

accountant

我觉得就是一个sexual harassment 的案例，不是强奸或强奸未遂案。跟本不存在imminent danger，她的喉咙没有被卡住，（举例：卡住喉咙或肯定要卡住的时候，才也许可叫imminent danger，因为离断气还要有臆断时间），她完全可以喊救命，就这一点，就不满足"合理地相信"她处在imminent danger，要知道，这种合理地相信是不能有doubt的。而且正相反，应该是合理地相信她没有imminent danger，要不早叫了。
--------------------------------------
是属于bettery NOT harassment.
她没有叫, 但想逃离危险境地, 只是不成功.

jshi6210

"treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy;  ...
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 13:11

哦,你是说sexual battery,这其实就类似强奸,很显然你不能假设这这个案子是sexual battery案子.

谢谢交流!

jshi6210

Battery: Under criminal law, battery is an act with intent to cause and does cause a harmful or offensive touching.
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 13:15

OK!

jshi6210

是属于bettery NOT harassment.
她没有叫, 但想逃离危险境地, 只是不成功.


Again, that's your assumption, not reality! Come on! There is no imminent danger, either.

I knew that "bettery" is NOT equal to"harassment". That's why I think it's a sexual harassment case.

accountant

你说：“美国各州法律不同, 但基本上邓并不需要证明对方事实上是否为强奸或强奸未遂. 她只需要"合理地相信"必须使用致命暴力来制止正在受到强奸犯罪的威胁, 即使她的判断是错误的.”

请给出英文原话？不太明白前半句说“不需要证明。。。是否为强奸或强奸未遂”，后半句又说“受到强奸犯罪的威胁”，好象自相矛盾吗？

jshi6210 发表于 2009-6-21 13:13

在美国, 举证的责任在控方.

我使用 http://www.lexisnexis.com 查联邦和各州的案例.

你在哪个州? 我可以把你们州的有关案例找出来.

jshi6210

在美国, 举证的责任在控方.

我使用 http://www.lexisnexis.com 查联邦和各州的案例.

你在哪个州? 我可以把你们州的有关案例找出来.
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 13:36

我这里有个案例，这个17岁的弱女子被认为是防卫过当，因此而成为一个杀人犯。按你的逻辑，你也可以想象它是个强奸未遂案。

大意:男方追打一17岁的弱女子,并威胁把她从楼上扔下去,女子就跑。 后男子抓到打女子,女子顺手抄起边上的一把刀,向男子猛刺两刀,后男子死亡,检方认为女子防卫过度,是杀人犯,要求她坐牢30年.她后来认罪！


Unequal Justice: Self-defense or murder?
(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/longterm/stories/111407dnproujday4main.3ad3fee.html)


The 17-year-old is trying to escape her ex-boyfriend, a career criminal twice her age. He hits her and tries to throw her over the second-floor railing.

She breaks free and takes refuge in a relative's apartment. But later, when she tries to leave, he is waiting with a handgun.

"Bitch, I told you, every time I see you I'm gonna kick your ass," a witness recalls him saying. He hands the gun to a buddy, hits her again and grabs a 2-by-4 from a truck bed.

What would you do? She runs. He chases her down and hits her with the board.

What would you do? She stumbles toward her mother's door and screams for help. He pounds her so hard that the board breaks.

What would you do? She stabs him twice with a kitchen knife, as her mother tries to intervene.

What prosecutors did was persuade a grand jury to indict Jacqueline Fox and her mom on murder charges. They told the teen she could avoid the risks of trial if she agreed to a 30-year prison sentence.

Ms. Fox refused. Too poor to afford bail, she spent 4 ½ months in a Dallas County jail awaiting trial.

As jury selection was about to start in early 2001, she got a surprise offer: Plead guilty, get probation.

She was mad. But given how much muscle the state had already shown, she was also afraid.

She took the deal.

jshi6210

accountant：

我还有别的案例，我明天发给你。我需要睡觉了。 BYE-BYE

accountant

As jury selection was about to start in early 2001, she got a surprise offer: Plead guilty, get probation.

She was mad. But given how much muscle the state had already shown, she was also afraid.

She took the deal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
此案并没有经过审判. 控方提出的认罪协议也可以解释为控方没有十足把握把她定罪.

Dennis.Tw.Cn

總有得說的…怎麼判都可以挑刺

jshi6210

As jury selection was about to start in early 2001, she got a surprise offer: Plead guilty, get probation.

She was mad. But given how much muscle the state had already shown, she was also afraid.

...
accountant 发表于 2009-6-21 13:54

不管怎么说，最终结果是她认罪了，而且这还必要法院审核批准宣判，入档定罪。开玩笑，杀人放火能不通过法院，这就是审判！很多重罪，你承认了，当然不需要陪审团，陪审团的功用，就是决定是否给你定罪！