Have a gun and shoot the dead. No offense It is a shot to protect your rights or others. To be free from the dangers of a violent offense against the law and the imminent danger. If you have done enough to cause. The act is a legitimate defense. He is not guilty According to the Penal Code Section 68, the law allows you to write a legal text to explain the details of the protection of the members know as knowledge, because it is important to people with guns to know and take. To practice properly
The Law of Self-Defense (4)
1. There are dangers caused by the abuse of the law, such as someone to rob, to kill, to hurt, etc., if he has the right to hurt us. For example, if a father has the right to repent / strike the child when we make mistakes, our parents punish us / strike us as not being a danger under section 1. We retaliate and claim no defense. There is a petition at 429/2505 that the disciple beat the pupil. Disciples of retaliation to kill monks are not considered self-defense. The case of seeing a woman lying hugging a man. It is a violation that violates Article 1, but it is separated. If the spouse registers with us, we kill the adulterer (cf. 378/2479). But if the wife is not registered. Not considered as protection But the claim to anger under the Penal Code Section 72 to the court to punish less (Supreme Court 249/2515), despite the dangers of Article 1, but those who can be prevented. There must be no wrong in causing such danger.
– not the cause at first, such as the petition of 2514/1976, the defendant punched first and ran away, he pursued continuity, not broke. Defendant shot him dead
Insurmountable
– Not a volunteer in a fight, such as the petition 2322/2522 defendants argued the dead. And then challenge each other Voluntary fighting against each other even death.
Will shoot first, then the defendant fired the garden, it can not be claimed.
– It is not voluntary for someone else to consent to such action. Give him a try, then kill the Invasion, and then go to angry reply after the defense.
– not to provoke others, he was angry, like to go to the parents. Damn rude to him first. When he was angry with us, we responded.
We can not prevent it.
2. The danger is approaching like he was going to shoot us. We have to shoot the garden.
Supreme Court 2285/2528 defendant with the dead talked about the cow split. The defendant invited to talk to the village home. The dead do not go To pull the gun out of the waist, the defendant will understand that the shot to shoot a garden is a defense.
The petition 1732/2509 death to draw a knife from the waist hold. Then came to the defendant, the defendant close range, the defendant shot the park 1 dead man also went on again, then shot another garden to fall to death is a reasonable defense.
Petition 1741/2509 dead man arrested mobile arm fiancée defendant When the defendant came to see the dead bent, picked up the implant placed near 12 inches long, longer handle 12 inches, indicating that the dead will attack immediately when the knife. The defendant used a knife to kill one dead, which is considered sufficient protection.
169/2504 Supreme People petitioned drunkenly challenged the defendant to fight the defendant did not fight. Dead man holds a knife with a sharp sword crossing a canal. Will defend the teeth in the house. The defendants did not escape because of their own home. And shoot a garden shot to one shot, while the dead is 6 to 2 waist is reasonable enough.
This petition placed that principle. Recipients do not need to escape danger. It can be prevented.
3. Doers need to be done to protect their rights or others. To be free from that danger As described above
4. Must act to protect the right not to exceed the boundaries. Otherwise, it would be unreasonable. Or beyond the case of taking action to prevent According to the Criminal Code, Section 69 goes, which also makes it an offense.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
Which is not much more difficult than the circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court ruled that 822/2510 people were dead. To attack the defendant, the defendant took a gun shot down the ground to a shot to frighten the dead. But the dead did not stop back, hugging and hugging their arms. The defendant shot at the melee was a dead match is a reasonable defense for no fault.
Petition 943/2508 buffalo out of the house. There is a shotgun with the defendant. The villain turned the gun to defend the defendant immediately. The Supreme Court says the villains turn their guns and then shoot them. And if the defendant did not shoot The villain may take the buffalo. Is a reasonable defense
The Supreme Court ruled in 1256/2530 that the child was in the house of the accused. Then pull the daughter to the defendant shot home immediately shot 4 shots is reasonable enough.
The Supreme Court ruled that 606/2510 people died in the defendant’s accusation of falling to the dead, the knife would hit the defendant’s shot.
The 2717/2528 Supreme Court held that the dead man held the knife 2 miles away, not yet ready to attack the defendant. The defendant expressly shot the dead before the real defense. But unreasonably
Supreme Court 4544/2531 dead man rushed into the defendant’s guard when the defendant heard the noise. Grab your gun and see. Dead man shoots defendant immediately, shoots garden Is a reasonable defense
Petition 182/2532 A. Hold the stick to the defendant’s home. Challenge the defendant to fight. A. Approached the defendant The defendant was frightened that he would come to the attack. So run to the gun and aim to shoot at the leg. A total of 3 shots when I knew that the bullet was in the leg. One shot, the defendant did not shoot again. This is a reasonable protection for this time to see the case is considered beyond reasonable.
Supreme Court ruling 2983/1988 killed motorbike driving home Found the defendant on the way to defend the dead. Dead man angry that the defendant. Go to the defendant with a bare hand to hurt. The distance of about 1 a defendant fired a shot to protect himself from being attacked. But beyond the reason of the naked dead.
A. 64/2515 a. And b. Bare hands Into the accused, the defendant used guns. In the interval, it combines 3-4-5 shots until death is a real defense. But beyond the petition 405/2490 defendants planted vegetable crops. Dead man in the farm Daytime to be vegetarian The defendant used a shotgun. Is a real defense But beyond
The Supreme Court ruled that 1343/2495 shot the villain while running away, and took away the burglar’s pack, and the villain did nothing to protect him. But unreasonable
Supreme Petition 294/2500 shot the villain who carried the buffalo at night. It was very dark by the villains, not the fight. It is unreasonable protection over the cause of the 2717/2528 dead man who illegally cut the corn on the defendant’s farm at night. By a gangster with a knife. But while the defendant came to see. The dead man holding the knife about 2 waist is not yet ready to attack teeth. Accused expeditionary shot, so it is overprotective.
The 1895/1983 Supreme Court ruled that the dead man was drunk, carrying his gun straight to his father, and the accused said to kill his father. The defendant intercepted the shot dead before the first shot and jumped into the dead. But the gun was dead, then shot dead three times more than the cause.
The Supreme Court ruled that 620/3232 dead man holding a kitchen knife invaded the defendant’s room, but the defendant used a shotgun to kill more than 5 dead. The reason is a bit of legal knowledge. To leave it offline
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
Who likes to sneak into someone else’s house late at night, be careful.
3869/2003 The dead man climbed into the defendant’s house at night without knowing the reason for the climb. When the defendant wakes up, it is important to make sure that the dead is a criminal, and at that time, the defendant can not know that the dead will have weapons. Because the room in the scene is very dark. And suddenly If the defendant is waiting for the verb to show the verb, then it may be hurt. The defendant used a gun to shoot only one dead and fallen. And the defendant did not shoot in any way. It is a reasonable defense to the cause.
The ones who like to eat dog food (dogs) are careful.
The Supreme Court ruled that 6077/2546 was very late at night. The defendant alone to stop the death of three men drinking alcohol and singing loudly within the temple. Then controversy, the defendant was attacked by three men continuously attacked without any chance of retaliation. And do not know whether the 3 people have any weapons or not, the defendant to take a gun with only one gun shot to death is considered reasonable enough not guilty.
The Supreme Court ruled that 1396/2514 a spade hit the defendant by the defendant was not the cause of the accident before the elbow lifted up. down Then there are two of us. The other two hold the ax and the knife ran in. The verb indicates that it will help a player defend. The defendant used a shotgun to shoot a shot immediately. It is a reasonable self-defense.
Those who like to pretend to threaten others like to tease others must be careful.
Supreme Court ruling that 5758/2537 dead with guns (not guns), went to defendants in the defendant’s shrimp field at night. The defendant is not allowed to place such items. But the dead and the attackers approaching approximately 2 – 3 meters will cause the defendant in the understanding that the dead and the attackers will be attacked and regarded as a danger near. The defendant used a shotgun to the dead with the guys. It is a reasonable defense for then. No offense, be careful. If the danger is over, then it is over.
The Supreme Court 454/2537, first person dead, lifted the gun aiming to defend the defendant without guns. So he took a gun with the dead. Guns fired 1 shot, and guns fell from the dead. The defendant also took the knife to kill the dead again at that moment. Not protected Because of the dangers that the defendant will be shot to shoot it. Defendant has no other defenses to protect. The defendant also used the knife to die again. It is a deliberate murder. But it is done by anger under the Penal Code. Section 72. The court shall exercise discretion in any penalty.
Supreme Court 1048 – 1049/2514, the defendant was a local police officer, found dead with many of them holding wood and steel rods. Swarmed in the night Then the inquirer to the dead with the crowd to attack the defendant collapsed. The defendant seized the gun and the deceased, so they ran away. The defendant shot towards the dead, the dead were shot dead in the rear, the defendant’s actions were not protected. Because the danger to the defendant has passed. But as a punishment by the wrath of the Article 72 of the Supreme Court 1011/2533 to defend the two defendants and then come out does not appear to be going to hurt again. The dangers to protect are gone. The defendant took a knife to stab. After being punched to break up. It is not protected under Section 68, but is guilty of an offense under Section 72.
If someone yells at us. Be careful yourself
Supreme Court 3089/2541, when a defendant challenged the defendant (you came out to punch him face to face if true), even if the defendant has no obligation to escape. But if the defendant does not voluntarily fight or fight with the defendant, then the defendant would not retaliate or go out to see A. / But the defendant went out to find a gun carrying with him to indicate that the defendant voluntarily entered. Brawl and fight with A. And into the disaster without the law to power, even a knife to pull out the defendant, it is an incident while striking. The defendant using a shotgun or a counter strike can not claim legal protection.
Compared to the 3 below.
Supreme Petition 106/2504, who died drunk, challenged the defendant to fight, but the defendant did not fight. The deceased holds a sword at the tip of the canal across the canal to reach the teeth of the accused in the house. Even the defendant will see the deceased before and may escape. However, it is not necessary for the person who has the right to control his dwelling place to escape the offender. So the defendant used a gun to shoot the dead 1. Appointment of the dead from the chambers of the defendant 6 to 2 waist is considered to be sufficient to protect life under Section 68, then the defendant is not guilty.
Petition 182/2532 A. Hold the weapon to the defendant’s home and challenge the defendant to defend the defendant did not go out the challenge. He went to the defendant. The defendant was frightened that he would be attacked. I ran to get my husband’s gun and stored in the hose and shot to the hock. A total of 3 shots when the bullet was hitting 1 shot, the defendant did not shoot. The shooting of the defendant just to stop him from attacking the defendant in the home. It is a lawful and reasonable defense for no fault.
Supreme Petition 1136/2525 A. They are drinking in the alley. The defendant came to see that the defendant took off the t-shirt and called the defendant to attack and assault. The defendant ran away to 3 separate escape. He turned back and raised his gun and stared at him for fear that he would not come in. But he did not believe he was going to run into another defendant. The defendant is using a shotgun a shot to protect himself by reason of no fault, I began to see the difference. So, be careful of yourself. Good control When others are in danger, do not be silent. The truth is that according to the Criminal Code Section 68, protection can protect the rights of others who are about to be harmed. Not only about myself, but if we find someone else in danger. We can find fault with the face of the people we have the right to help by claiming another person under Section 68 or to help by claiming that they found the offense and then arrested. The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 79, Section 80 and Section 83 are also available.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2353/2530 that the case was not a misdemeanor. The people have no power.
According to the law, to seize the offender. When it comes back, it will be. If that is the fault of the page. The people were arrested. Section 79/80/83 here, and the arrest is not required to report the crime to the first.
(According to the petitions 512/2480 and 319-320 / 2521), and when it came to arrest the villain. If the villagers are persistent, such as guns, guns to shoot, we shot the villain by the defendant under Section 68 again because under Section 83, the end of the power to the people who caught the wrongdoer.
Can be used to counter the villains in proportion to the threat. Let’s see the Supreme Court verdict 8534/2544, a group of teenagers are assaulting the road to the defendant, so they used firearms to fire the sky to threaten the youths to aggravate. Rd. When the defendant shot the third shot of the sky, there was a group of teenagers smashing the back of the defendant, causing the defendant to fall down, and the bullets from the defendant’s gun fired to the dead. Defendant is not guilty
Do not leave it to us. Because of the fact that there is a law he protects.
Good citizens like us Do not worry about the law ….
There are other facts. Otherwise, answer the same.
The robbers entered the house 5 people into the house at day or night.
What is the behavior of the gangster behavior?
Assuming that at night, there are guns in the hands of homeowners may claim to have fired the Supreme Court ruling 3869/2003 above.
But if it comes home enough to see. All the villains have guns. Everyone turned away running away from home. If the owner of the house also shot again, it may be based on the supreme above. That dangers to the homeowners. It’s over Because the villain has run out of defense. But beyond that. Even if the day comes. If the villains see the owner of the house and then turn the gun to stare at this gun, but if you see run away the owner. If still shooting, it may be more than the original. When a criminal is found guilty. The people we live in. Criminal jurisdiction, Section 79, Section 80, and Section 83 are subject to arrest.
Is not guilty When a criminal is hindered by arrest, he or she is subject to the provisions of section 83 paragraph at the end of the sentence.
(If a person is caught or prevented from arresting or escaping. Or try to escape. The captors have the power to use methods or safeguards as appropriate to the circumstances of their capture. By virtue of the preceding paragraph of this section, defend /
Fighting or hindering arrest So it’s back to the original. Is a criminal defense under the Penal Code.
Section 68 is another villain pretending to shoot us. We shot self-defense gardens. According to the principle of the Supreme Court sentence above. Is dangerous
The closest it will be to the arrest. Arrested by law under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
When the villains die We can claim to have the right to get help. The result is no murder / attempted murder / assault. The charge of carrying a gun without a carry handle will fall because it is considered in this case. There is an urgent need for the circumstances. To use a gun then. Because if we do not have guns. We will not help / arrest and may harm the victim of the criminal. I will not be able to survive. For example, to see the villains are shooting gun salesmen in the gold shop, the villains are 2-3 villagers all have guns to cover everyone’s face in this case can be believed. If we call the villains turn to meet us. We must not shoot it and the scene where the villains are shooting guns. Go to the owner of the gold shop. It is a violation of the law that is close to the owner of the gold. We shot right away. The protection of the owner of the gold shop in accordance with Section 68 was offline.
Another example Let’s say we go to see a villain shooting people, this is a case where the threat of violating the law is near or up.
To the victim, the unlucky ones We have shot this thief. It protects the rights of the victim in accordance with Section 68
Because if we do not shoot. The villain was shot dead. The same principle applies to cases where a gunner is aiming to shoot us, we shoot a counterattack. If we do not shoot, we die. If we do not shoot, the victim will die. Same protection Whether protect their rights or
The rights of others As explained by the law and the Supreme Court sentence, I do not like to disagree. I’m willing to listen.
Because when did the lawsuit happen? The court must be the judge. The court must use the same principles or principles as described here.
Including references based on Supreme Court ruling calibrated offline. The shooting of the villains, if it is sufficient protection under Section 68, then do not be afraid. Even the bullet will miss anyone. It’s deliberate protection, it’s transferred to offline. This has always been a judgment. The Supreme Court decided it was the norm.
Supreme Court in 205/2516, the deceased, the defendant and the defendant joined the drink together until drunk, the defendant and the dead quarrel. The victim then invited the defendant to return home. The deceased hit and kicked the defendant until he fell. Rising up, it was kicked again when the dead kicked the defendant with a knife to the tip. Two to three dead trees were killed. During this time, the injured person was intercepted forbidding the knife to be injured. The dead are dead The action of the defendant against the deceased is done by Adequate protection Even though the victim was missing According to the Penal Code Section 60, the defendant intended to stab the victim, but the action of the defendant was the result of the defendant stabbed the dead. To protect the right to reason. Not guilty The defendant is not guilty of hurting the victim.
Supreme Court at 8534/2544, the defendant used a shotgun. In order to threaten the youth to attack when the defendant shot a gun in the sky. Hit the back of the defendant Until the defendant falls and shoots. From the gun that the defendant held up a shot was injured victim. Motorcycles passed through were physically harmed and killed by the dead. The death of the accused. It is a continuation of the incident. It can be considered as. Actions to protect their rights and others. Be free from danger This is caused by a violation of the law and a danger that is approaching. Both the case and the defendant fairly reasonable cause. Even the defendant’s actions. To cause harm to the victim and the deceased by mistake under the Penal Code Section 60, the defendant was not guilty. Because the defendant’s actions prevented.
By lawfulness under Section 68
The problem is that ordinary people have the right to arrest the wrongdoer in the face. Have a Supreme Court Judgment is already held.
At 1348/2496, the people have the right to arrest the person who shot the wounded person. When a person is arrested, the knife will attack the owner (the people) to wrestle the knife, then stabbed the detainees.
The Supreme Court ruled that 575/2487 dead were criminals who steal others to the accused.
Will arrest the dead, resist the knife stabbed. The defendant used his knife to kill the villain. Then arrested and sent to the village headman. But later died Is a reasonable defense for no fault.