is it just for a victim to deliberately use deadly force as a response to repeated domestic violence?
951985
There are, of course, arguments for and arguments against.\n\nThe main argument against is that it is never just to use deliberate deadly force to respond to a non-deadly threat.  In other words, if you are flicking me on the ear, I can't shoot you, but I might be allowed to hit your hand away.  Non-deliberate deadly force, of course, is okay.  If you come after me with your fists and I punch you, and you fall back and hit your head and die, the force was deadly but it was non-deliberate, so it is justified.  However, if you hit your wife with your hand, and she shoots you, it can be argued that it is similarly non-justified because the force she used (deadly force) is out of proportion with the force you used (non-deadly).\n\nThe biggest argument in favor is that domestic violence is simply different.  The law takes as it's model basically two guys that don't know each other, who are of equal strength, that get into a fight (say, at a bar).  With domestic violence, the woman almost always knows the man and is nearly 100% of the time dependent on him (for money, shelter, etc.).  As a result, she is unable to leave the situation and a condition transpires known as "learned helplessness."  The woman is not making "choices" in the usual sense.  The argument runs that this psychological state of dominance and control is an excuse for the woman's actions, and therefore, deliberate deadly force is acceptable.\n\nA feminist reply is that this is another way to belittle women: there should not be one set of rules for men (no deadly force) and another for women (deadly force okay) simply because we think women are weak.
924427
First off, I am a police officer, so consider that when you read this.\n\nI believe that the authority to shoot at a vehicle and its occupants is a necessary evil in modern law enforcement.  Of course, very few situations truly require deadly force.  i have been a police officer for 11 years and have never fired my weapon in the line of duty.  I have had several close calls, several situations where deadly force could have been used, but I have always found a way to resolve the situation without deadly force.  \n\nThat being said, if a vehicle is truly being used as a weapon, deadly force may be required to prevent injury to the officer(s) or the public.  Every situation should be considered on its own merits and, not knowing exactly what happened in the NY shooting, I don't know if the shooting was justified.\n\nI have long had the opinion that some police shootings are justified and others are only justifiable.  \n\nIn my opinion, a justified shooting is one that is a clear cut, clean shooting - such as when the police shoot a man who is armed with a gun, firing rounds at them or the public.  One where deadly force is truly the ONLY good option.  The best example I think of is the bank robbery that occurred in LA five or so years ago - the one when the two suspects were walking down the street firing automatic weapons at police and passers by. \n\nOn the other hand, once again in my opinion only, a justifiable shooting is one that, when viewed by the public, is questionable but that the police department says in justified.  Let's say a shooting when the suspect reaches for something and the police fire only to find out that the suspect was reaching for a phone.  The state of mind of the officer that the suspect was reaching for a gun, and depending on the totality of the circumstances, likely makes this a shooting that the police department will say was a good shooting even though it will appear to the outside world that the shooting was not justified.\n\nIt always sounds bad when the police shoot 30, 40, 50 or more rounds at an unarmed person, but I suppose we should wait to hear the whole story until we form an opinion as the legality of this shooting.
350361
A woman can be punished by custodial sentence in the exact same way a man can although it will depend entirely on the circumstances leading up to the alleged assault. If it can be proved that the woman was abused prior to the attack than this would provide justifiable motive the problem is you need witness's to verify they saw the "abuse" take place, and remember also that the man must provide two points of law i.e.witness testimony, camera evidence, DNA evidence, in order to secure a conviction. failure on his part to provide such evidence will allow for "reasonable doubt" to be placed on the original case go and see a decent Criminal Solicitor and he will explain it better to you as he will be able to check witness statements and prepare you better for the impending court date Good luck.
519044
I don't know...my friend had her bf in a couple of times and he kept going back to her and she kept taking him back, for the domestic violence he got 2 years.
90134
Yes. It happens frequently in murder cases. It's more of a memorial though.
959669
I don't know for sure, but I am sure that every community (unfortunately there's a need) has a telephone # under Domestic Violence~under the services part of phone book. Or you could call your local D.A.
1009269
Call the police it's doesn't sound like a very good relationship if there's physical violence, just ask Nicole Brown Simpson, whoops she's dead because of Domestic Violence. Get the picture!
198273
As I understand it, you can use equal force to defend yourself. This does not mean if someone comes at you with a knife, you cannot use a gun. Someone attacking you with a knife is using deadly force, and you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself. But, another issue is can you easily subdue that person without using deadly force. The drunk swinging the bottle at you is a good example. Sure, it can kill you, and could be considered deadly force, but can you avoid his attacks easily and disarm him?
860134
I beleive that once you have commited a heinous crime against another human being, not petty thfts, but say theft with an agrivated assault thrown in, that you automatically lose all rights as being treated like a human being. You shoot a criminal in your house after he or she has just brutalized your family, and now he can sue you for assault ? Screw that, I will shoot him dead and let him try to sue me for that ?\n\nBefore someone tries to say that me killing a criminal in my own house is just as wrong, I will tell you that defending your family and property to an uninvited guest is NOT criminal, and would most likely be considered justifiable homicide.
246424
Of course there are male victims of domestic violence.  Many male victims are children being abused by parents.  Some are men being abused by other men, living in a domestic or romantic partnership.  Most male victims of domestic violence, however, are husbands being abused by their wives- frequently because of drug or alcohol addiction.  Seldom is domestic violence toward men reported- but the same holds true of violence against anyone.  People just have a tendency to resist reporting their loved ones to the police- and admitting that there is  a serious, possibly criminal, problem.
587142
It would depend upon many factors.  Anything from a community order for a youthful offender where no weapon was shown and little violence was involved to 12 or more years custody where serious injury to the victim occurred is possible.
846082
it all depends on the circumstances.\n\nDid the victim feel that he or she was in imminent threat of danger or harm? Was the fear reasonable?\n\nHas there been a history of assault either by your fiance or the victim?\n\nDid your fiance have the means to carry out the perceived threat?\n\nPeople need to keep their tempers in check. The answers to these questions will determine whether there is a simple assault. \n\nApparently, since charges have been filed, the prosecuter thinks there is enough evidence to constitute a simple assault. \n\nGenerally speaking, verbal assault CAN be simple assault. Being convicted is a different question.\n\nBe forewarned, too, that the victim can file a civil suit alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. \n\nYour fiance really needs to think before he flies off the handle.
834587
Actually, this IS considered murder in several states who have changed their laws in the last few years. Read the information provided in the following link:\nhttp://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/MarciniakTestimony.htm\n\nTracy Marciniak was a friend of mine for the short time she lived here in Florida, and I became familiar with this issue through her. She was directly responsible for getting the law changed in her home state (Wisconsin) after her unborn baby died as a direct result of the brutal beating she received from her own husband.\n\nAs the "best friend" of a woman who has been assaulted as you have described, I URGE you to contact the police on her behalf, if she won't do it herself. She should have an order of protection in place immediately, and, despite her grief, be willing to press charges against the person who assaulted her. Your friend may have used poor judgement in getting involved with someone she didn't know all that well, but that is no excuse for what has happened to her. She is a victim, in every sense of the word, and needs help to get through her ordeal and loss. She should speak with a grief counselor and also someone who is a victim's rights advocate. These professionals will help guide her through the difficult days ahead. By no means should this crime go unpunished. Even if the guy can't be charged with murder (because of the laws in your state), he can most certainly be charged with aggravated assault and battery, and possibly other domestic violence crimes as well. He should NOT be allowed to go off on his merry way, as surely another woman will bear the brunt of his dangerous behavior down the road. I wish you and your friend much strength and luck in this difficult and sad time. I think that she will heal more quickly if she is able to do something that makes her feel as if she has some control again - and pressing charges against this animal is a good place to start.
48337
I think it depends on the crime.  If it was premeditated and gruesome, then by all means yes; however, if it was accidental, and unplanned, i.e. like that boy who accidently killed that little girl by performing a wrestleing move on her, then no, but they would need some form of hospitalization.
637122
It all depends on the person. Any martial art can be deadly in the hands of the right person.
261542
you're allowed to defend yourself from an attack or the threat of an attack.  but the defence must be proportional to the threat.\n\nthe prosecution must prove that the intended victim used excessive force\n\nso it begs the question how was the attacker struck in the head?  did he fall?  did the intended victim land a lucky punch?  did he get the bat and hit the attacker in the heat of the moment?  or did he knock his attacker downa nd then clobber him with a 25 pound sledgehammer?\n\nhe cuold also try and prove that the intended victim could have gotten away, and avoided the confrontation.  i mean if you can run and avoid a fight, then any force is excessive right?  but that wouldn't make it murder in a canadian court without the additional excessive force.
537024
Not entirely sure what your question is.\n\nCalifornia Penal Code section 273.5 has to do with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or other person with whom you have that kind of relationship.\n\nSection 243(e)(1) has to with with a battery committed against a person you're in the same kind of relationship with.\n\nHope that helps, was there something specific you were wondering about?  There are plenty of other crimes that can be applied to domestic situations as well, but are not necessarily domestic-related in nature.