What kind of defence is acceptable when one is attacked

What kind of defence is acceptable when one is attacked
I read an article about a man who was attacked and was so skillful to defence oneself and even hurt the attacker, although not intentionally. The court decided that the attacked man was in the end the culprit because the attacker suffered and sustained more damage and health problems than the formerly attacked man. I think that this outcome of the court is ridiculous. I understand and accept the postulate that defence must be adequate to the intensity of the attack, not more. On the other hand, how can one measure it? if one ones to stab me, then breaking his hand in order to defend myself is inadequate? of when I suffere a stab into my hand, then a stab into his leg is inadequate? or belly to neck? This discussion is in my view pointless. If one is attacked, then the defence can be virtually subjectively perceived. I even dare to say that if one is attacked and is in the danger of life, then it is possible and should not be considered a criminal act when the attacker is killed by the victim. There is easy logic in it. The victim would not show any kind of violence should the attacker not pursue his action. Here we see that the behaviour of the victim is caused by the attacker and the attacker must then count with even the worst scenario ever- because the attacker is the impulse for this behaviour. it is not possible to say that the attacker this to himself that he tries to rob someone and if the victim manages to defend then it cannot hurt the attacker because he did not want to hurt only rob. even more true is that the victim cannot know that the aim of the attacker is not to hurt but only rob. I think that such paradigm is ridiculous. In my view if one decides to do something unlawful then one should be ready to accept any kind of retaliation because it is everything caused the attacker. Take for example a rape. Imagine a woman being raped and during the intercourse she manages somehow to stab the rapist and untimately kill him. Should she be viewed as guilty? I do not think so. Naturally, a court would not plead guilty the man with a life imprisonment or death penalty-capital punishment. nevertheless, the woman raped does not think about killing the man. did not think about it but the incentive was on the side of the man. she only responded as best as she could. even if got so angry as to kill him although she could only cause him unconscious, even then I would not consider it a homicide because although she did use inadequate defence, all she did was to respond to his action. should he not do it, then she would not use (in this case inadequate) defence.

—
Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisement