crime defense can go both ways... in my opinion, one should not be punished or in trouble for killing another person if they feel threated or being hurt. say your at home at midnight and someone breaks in and has a gun, you should have every right to shoot that person, because in my opinion, your in danger and so is your family. it shouldnt matter if you catch that person in your yard or in the house you can defend yourself. defense of property says its excused in your own home, what if youre at another persons home and something happens? can you take it into your own hands or will you get charged with murder?
i agree that if a criminal breaks in to your own home with intentions of robbery with a deadly weapon then, yes you should be able to kill that law breaker because they did indeed forcefully enter your house with a weapon and you feel threatened so you shoot the person. Now if you were at a friends house and the same situation occurs then i would think that you would get charged with not only murder but also with the deadly weapon. what if you brought over your new pistol and wanted to show it off to your buddy and had the clip out and full of ammo. that criminal breaks in a short time after you arrive and you load your gun and lay waste to him and when the police come and question you why you shot him and you say "it was self-defense" but you would still get charged with murder because you shot the person on someone elses property, not your own property.
I understand where you are coming from about being at your friends house wrestler123. However i see things a little bit differently. If you are legally allowed to carry a firearm or have ccw or whatever and someone breaks into the house and you shoot him there are different circumstances to what you can and can not do. If someone breaks in and knows someone is home they are more than likely ready for a fight. if you try to intervene and they guy comes at you or has a weapon i believe you have every right to "lay waste" to that individual. You are not just protecting yourself, but protecting everyone else in that home. Its not just the property you are protecting, its everyone else thats there. Thats my opinion and you never know what you will be charged with and like i said it all depends on circumstance.USA123
I think personally if your at your friends house and somebody breaks in, you have the right to shoot them because your life is in danger and everyone else in the house. I do not think the own property has anything to do with this. If you are staying the night at your friends it would be considered your home for the night since that is where you are sleeping and you have every right to stop someone from harming everyone. HRT123
I totally agree, noone will wait for authorities to come when you or others lifes are in danger, its for us to take matter into our own hands and keep who we love safe or others around. If the criminal has a gun and we have nothing then we will have to use whats close. its our buisness to keep ourselves from harm. wether its our property or someone we care for it still belongs to us and it shouldnt be taken just because somebody doesnt have their head on straight. Hoopz123
i do agree with some of the points made by the speaker on self-defense and the justification on that subject but yet crime could go many ways in todays world and yet some regular citizens make it to where they would want to take it into their own hands and some situations may be reasonable to an extent but if it is in the hands on the law and by the lord above it should stay in the hands of the law, not the citizens. wrestler123
Once the law is involved, it is no longer self-defense but is revenge. I agree that once something has been filed, it needs to let the courts handle it. rogir123
This speaker did a good job explaining a few things. She says that you have the right to self defense which is pretty much common sense. The caveat to that is you can only use deadly force if you feel like your life is threatened. I guess it comes down to someone you are arguing with pushes you and you shoot him in the face... yes you have the right to self defense, however you took it a few steps to far. You could have walked away and called the police or fought back and shooting that individual was a little bit excessive. You have the right to defend your own property which is also a given. If someone comes into my house I have every right to kill that person because they dont have permission coming inside and i have a wife and two kids in the house that i am also defending. I also agree with the fact that you can defend someone else if they are in danger. What i mean by that is if you see someone getting raped or beaten you should have the right to defend that person. The right way to go about that in my opinion is to call 911 and then intervene. Why on earth should you let this act go on for 5 minutes or more waiting for police to show up. Yes it is the police's job to stop this from happening but if you are there willing and able then it should be your duty as a human being to do what you can to stop these evil acts from happening.USA123
The speaker said a lot of valuable information that I did not know about. I knew that if someone broke into my house I could shoot them and nothing would happen. She explained how you cannot get in trouble when it came to self-defense. I always wondered if you would get in trouble if you saw someone getting mugged or beat up and you went over there and stopped them. I think a good way to look at it is in that person’s shoes if you are defending them. If you see someone attacking you, you have full right to fight back. One thing I disagree with is you may only use deadly force if you’re in a life or death situation. I think personally it would be hard to tell if you are going to die or not... Just like in a fight, there are moves people can do to kill the other person, you do not know whether or not they know that and if your life is in danger. I would personally harm them till they can’t move but maybe that's just me. HRT123
exactly, if someone broke into my house, i should have every right to defend myself as long as theyre a threat to me or my family. i think its perfectly fair to defend youself if you feel in danger or threatened.
I agree with snakebite123 that I would defend my property, only if me or my family have been threatened. Especially since I am a girl, I know that I am more vulnerable to becoming a victim such as being mugged, raped or kidnapped, I need to take the proper steps to be capable of defending myself. BadWolf123
I agree with you completely. If someone broke into my house I should have the right to shoot them. Especially if I fealty my wife and kids were in danger. You brought up a good point about self defense. When someone attacks you, how are you supposed to know weather they plan on killing you or severely harming you. I'm not saying use deadly force, but if you get the opportunity to break their arm, then you should be able to break it. It is a very fine line that is easy to cross. vhammer123
I agree with what your saying about life or death situation. some people may feel as if they are going to get seriously hurt but not killed. unfortunately we cannot read minds but if someone came to me and I didn't feel comfortable I would let them know and if they tried anything else they would definitely leave hurt honestly. Scorpio 123.
This video focused on the 5 justification defenses to crimes: necessity, self-defense, defense of others, prevention of crime, and defense of property. The speaker provided good explanations of each and provided decent examples. I would have liked if she had gone just a little further with her rock climbing example. As it was stated, that losing one life to save two was reasonable but, what if it was climber A that had to cut both B & C away? I'm sure this should still fall under necessity but could have been clearer. I also noticed how she was careful to distinguish between common law and MPC throughout the lecture so her students would apply the correct theories to the proper school of thought. This reminded me that the justice system has many different approaches it can take during a criminal trial. Check123
There are three defenses after crimes are committed, but the most important are justification and excuse. In the justification the defenses are necessity, self-defense, defense of others, prevention of crime, and defense of property. Necessity means that the defendant may commit crime in order to save many people. Self-defense is justified if used for protection and preventing bodily harm. Defense of others is justified if someone is in danger and needs rescued. I find it interesting that you are allowed a reasonable mistake if you are attacking someone because you thought you was rescuing someone, but they were not in danger at all. In prevention of a crime, you are allowed to use deadly force in order to prevent a felony of being committed, ONLY the police and not regular citizens. A regular citizen can only use deadly force to protect your own home. For example, if there is a drunk person trying to break into your home, you will not be held accountable if you were to shoot them in fear of your life or family. The eight types of excuses are insanity, diminished capacity, infancy, intoxication, mistake, duress, consent, and entrapment. BadWolf123
Just likt the other video, she explaines the steps and parts for 3 major defenses of crime. All the exapmles she used made a clearer undersatnding of the word. i agree with the facts of self defense and what one should and shouldnt not do Hoopz123
I really liked this video. The speaker concentrated on justification more than anything and I would have liked it if she had gone into greater detail on the other 2. However she did a fantastic job of explaining what she did go over. She made it easy to understand and she had good examples to drive her points home. I though the climbing example was interesting. I didn't ever think that something like that would be a justified action. I can see why it is now but it just wasn't something that ever crossed my mind. Most of the other things that she talked about were pretty common sense. If someone breaks into your house you have the right to use deadly force to stop them, or if someone is attacking you, you should only apply the force needed to stop them and should try not to exceed it. All in all I think that this was a very educational video and was easy to understand and follow.
In Criminal Justice there are a lot of rules you have to live by or you will get arrested for thinking you did the right thing but thankfully there are defenses to crime that can help back you up if you ever do the right thing and cant get away with it. 1. justification is important you will not be charged as long as it was justified. 2. Excuses, some people have health problems and cannot control what they do which are put in a category called "insanity", dim capacity, infancy, intoxicated, a mistake, duress, consent to do so, entrapment. If you are a law abiding citizen and you help people because you believe that's the right thing to do then you shouldn't get in trouble for it. I also believe that Defense of property is a good law to stand by some people take their property serious and try to hurt people because they invade your privacy by stepping on your lawn or letting their dog go to the bathroom on your grass but you cannot do anything unless they step foot in your house which is the way it should be. Scorpio 123.
I agree with you, I think that defense of property is a very good law, I completely agree with the exception of your home but I don't think it would be necessary to kill someone from damaging your car, or something else that is valuable to you. Let the police deal with that, it's their job. Fruitloop123
I’ve always been under the impression that shooting someone just because they are in your house, could leave you in dangerous water. Obviously it varies from state to state, but I know in some more liberal states like California, just because someone is in your house, doesn’t mean you can shoot them; you have to actually be reasonably in fear for your life. ISP123
I agree with you that there is alot of rules you have to live by and follow. I also agree about it being people that have health issues and cant control what they do and have to prove insanity. I agree that you shouldnt be able to use a weapon or cause bodily harm to people unless theya ctually step on your property or cause you harm. Love456
I agree this is so true and real but I understand you have to live and follow by the rules but everybody then broke a rule before nobody's perfect. And I agree with FRUITLOOP123 if your property gets damage then let the police handle it I don't think its that serious enough to kill and do some serious time over. T456
This video was very informative and went into a lot of detail about the defenses of crime. The three main categories to defenses of crime are justification, excuse, and mitigation. She then goes into great detail about justification and how someone cannot be held accountable for an act that is justified. It is considered justified if it was a necessity, self defense, defense of others, prevention of crime, or defense of property. She does a good job of explaining each of these. I really enjoyed hearing about defense of property because I really do agree that your crime cannot be justified if you harm someone else defending your property unless you are in your home. I feel like people would abuse this if it was anything you owned such as your car, phone, anything else that holds value to you. I am glad I got to watch this video and learn more about justification and excuses to crime Fruitloop123
I feel like self-defense is basically the, "Eye for an eye and a hand for a hand," approach. I think that it does justify violence in given circumstances such as robbery or assault. I know in my home, we have taken the time to make sure we all know what to do in certain situations. If someone breaks in we accept that as a threat to our lives and of course we will act upon that with the necessary means to control the situation. It is understood that no one should use force that isn't necessary. I do think there are limits to what could be considered justified. If someone burlarizes a home and makes no attempt to harm the homeowner physically, it does not qualify as self-defense by killing the intruder. Although some could argue that you should wait until the police arrive, I think it's okay to act on your own behalf but within reason.
In this video, the lady went on to explain legal defenses to crimes. In the last video, the gentleman briefly mentioned them and I commented that it would have been nice if he explained them. However, this lady explained these defenses much more in depth. She advised that there were three legal defenses which are justification, excuse, and mitigation.
When explaining the justification defense, she said that the only valid form of justification is for protective reasons. These reasons are out of necessity, self-defense, prevention of crime, and defense of property. While discussing necessity, she gave the example of the rock climbers which I thought was excellent – to prevent greater harm. She also mentioned prevention of a crime which can only be exercised by the police. Defense of property was listed and she said that deadly force is not authorized except for when you are in your own home. It was somewhat confusing though because she made it seem like you are protecting yourself in your own home, not your property. This could probably use a little more clarification. Lastly was self-defense. For the most part, this goes without saying but one noteworthy thing is that it must be reasonable. Who decides the definition of reasonable though?
The video was cut short but she briefly got into excuses as legal defenses. She listed insanity, diminished capacity, infancy, intoxication, mistake, duress, consent, and entrapment.
I was happy to see that legal defenses were better explained in this video, especially since it was lacking in the last video. ISP123
. I thought it was just four types of defenses to a crime I didnt know it was five defenses to a crime, which are Necessity, Duress, Self-defense, Insanity, Prevention of a crime, and Defense of others. She did go more depth than the guy did. She had good points that had me interested and informed me alot about the different defenses to crimes. I can see why under the justification defense why a defendant would not be liable for conduct that is justified for protective reasons. Harming somebody for breaking into your house or stealing your car is a good example of the crime being justified. I wouldn’t even consider it a actually crime because self defense and necessity were being used. Killing somebody just because they stepped on your shoe would be insanity and just plain crazy. Normal people don’t just walk around earth killing people for stepping on their shoes. I agree that that crime shouldn’t be justified. Love456
I liked how she explained the different types of defenses from the defense of others and property to prevention of crime etc. Also the 3 main defenses of crime justification, excuse, and mitigation. She had some good point of views when she was explaining everything. I liked how she explained about the how people were held accountable for the action that took and was justified and about the burglary's and thefts. I also agree that crime shouldn't be justified because people aren't going to go around killing over anything that's stupid. T123
I think the speaker did a good job at describing the three defenses of crimes. I know have a better understanding on the three defense of crimes and the general rules. I'm not sure I agree with the necessity general rule. Maybe if she did an different example it would've been different story. SECRET'A'123
crime defense can go both ways... in my opinion, one should not be punished or in trouble for killing another person if they feel threated or being hurt. say your at home at midnight and someone breaks in and has a gun, you should have every right to shoot that person, because in my opinion, your in danger and so is your family. it shouldnt matter if you catch that person in your yard or in the house you can defend yourself. defense of property says its excused in your own home, what if youre at another persons home and something happens? can you take it into your own hands or will you get charged with murder?
ReplyDeletesnakebite123
i agree that if a criminal breaks in to your own home with intentions of robbery with a deadly weapon then, yes you should be able to kill that law breaker because they did indeed forcefully enter your house with a weapon and you feel threatened so you shoot the person. Now if you were at a friends house and the same situation occurs then i would think that you would get charged with not only murder but also with the deadly weapon. what if you brought over your new pistol and wanted to show it off to your buddy and had the clip out and full of ammo. that criminal breaks in a short time after you arrive and you load your gun and lay waste to him and when the police come and question you why you shot him and you say "it was self-defense" but you would still get charged with murder because you shot the person on someone elses property, not your own property.
Deletewrestler123
I understand where you are coming from about being at your friends house wrestler123. However i see things a little bit differently. If you are legally allowed to carry a firearm or have ccw or whatever and someone breaks into the house and you shoot him there are different circumstances to what you can and can not do. If someone breaks in and knows someone is home they are more than likely ready for a fight. if you try to intervene and they guy comes at you or has a weapon i believe you have every right to "lay waste" to that individual. You are not just protecting yourself, but protecting everyone else in that home. Its not just the property you are protecting, its everyone else thats there. Thats my opinion and you never know what you will be charged with and like i said it all depends on circumstance.USA123
DeleteI think personally if your at your friends house and somebody breaks in, you have the right to shoot them because your life is in danger and everyone else in the house. I do not think the own property has anything to do with this. If you are staying the night at your friends it would be considered your home for the night since that is where you are sleeping and you have every right to stop someone from harming everyone. HRT123
DeleteI totally agree, noone will wait for authorities to come when you or others lifes are in danger, its for us to take matter into our own hands and keep who we love safe or others around. If the criminal has a gun and we have nothing then we will have to use whats close. its our buisness to keep ourselves from harm. wether its our property or someone we care for it still belongs to us and it shouldnt be taken just because somebody doesnt have their head on straight. Hoopz123
Deletei do agree with some of the points made by the speaker on self-defense and the justification on that subject but yet crime could go many ways in todays world and yet some regular citizens make it to where they would want to take it into their own hands and some situations may be reasonable to an extent but if it is in the hands on the law and by the lord above it should stay in the hands of the law, not the citizens.
ReplyDeletewrestler123
Once the law is involved, it is no longer self-defense but is revenge. I agree that once something has been filed, it needs to let the courts handle it.
Deleterogir123
This speaker did a good job explaining a few things. She says that you have the right to self defense which is pretty much common sense. The caveat to that is you can only use deadly force if you feel like your life is threatened. I guess it comes down to someone you are arguing with pushes you and you shoot him in the face... yes you have the right to self defense, however you took it a few steps to far. You could have walked away and called the police or fought back and shooting that individual was a little bit excessive. You have the right to defend your own property which is also a given. If someone comes into my house I have every right to kill that person because they dont have permission coming inside and i have a wife and two kids in the house that i am also defending. I also agree with the fact that you can defend someone else if they are in danger. What i mean by that is if you see someone getting raped or beaten you should have the right to defend that person. The right way to go about that in my opinion is to call 911 and then intervene. Why on earth should you let this act go on for 5 minutes or more waiting for police to show up. Yes it is the police's job to stop this from happening but if you are there willing and able then it should be your duty as a human being to do what you can to stop these evil acts from happening.USA123
ReplyDeleteThe speaker said a lot of valuable information that I did not know about. I knew that if someone broke into my house I could shoot them and nothing would happen. She explained how you cannot get in trouble when it came to self-defense. I always wondered if you would get in trouble if you saw someone getting mugged or beat up and you went over there and stopped them. I think a good way to look at it is in that person’s shoes if you are defending them. If you see someone attacking you, you have full right to fight back. One thing I disagree with is you may only use deadly force if you’re in a life or death situation. I think personally it would be hard to tell if you are going to die or not... Just like in a fight, there are moves people can do to kill the other person, you do not know whether or not they know that and if your life is in danger. I would personally harm them till they can’t move but maybe that's just me. HRT123
ReplyDeleteexactly, if someone broke into my house, i should have every right to defend myself as long as theyre a threat to me or my family. i think its perfectly fair to defend youself if you feel in danger or threatened.
Deletesnakebite123
I agree with snakebite123 that I would defend my property, only if me or my family have been threatened. Especially since I am a girl, I know that I am more vulnerable to becoming a victim such as being mugged, raped or kidnapped, I need to take the proper steps to be capable of defending myself. BadWolf123
DeleteI agree with you completely. If someone broke into my house I should have the right to shoot them. Especially if I fealty my wife and kids were in danger. You brought up a good point about self defense. When someone attacks you, how are you supposed to know weather they plan on killing you or severely harming you. I'm not saying use deadly force, but if you get the opportunity to break their arm, then you should be able to break it. It is a very fine line that is easy to cross. vhammer123
DeleteI agree with what your saying about life or death situation. some people may feel as if they are going to get seriously hurt but not killed. unfortunately we cannot read minds but if someone came to me and I didn't feel comfortable I would let them know and if they tried anything else they would definitely leave hurt honestly. Scorpio 123.
DeleteThis video focused on the 5 justification defenses to crimes: necessity, self-defense, defense of others, prevention of crime, and defense of property. The speaker provided good explanations of each and provided decent examples. I would have liked if she had gone just a little further with her rock climbing example. As it was stated, that losing one life to save two was reasonable but, what if it was climber A that had to cut both B & C away? I'm sure this should still fall under necessity but could have been clearer. I also noticed how she was careful to distinguish between common law and MPC throughout the lecture so her students would apply the correct theories to the proper school of thought. This reminded me that the justice system has many different approaches it can take during a criminal trial. Check123
ReplyDeleteThere are three defenses after crimes are committed, but the most important are justification and excuse. In the justification the defenses are necessity, self-defense, defense of others, prevention of crime, and defense of property. Necessity means that the defendant may commit crime in order to save many people. Self-defense is justified if used for protection and preventing bodily harm. Defense of others is justified if someone is in danger and needs rescued. I find it interesting that you are allowed a reasonable mistake if you are attacking someone because you thought you was rescuing someone, but they were not in danger at all. In prevention of a crime, you are allowed to use deadly force in order to prevent a felony of being committed, ONLY the police and not regular citizens. A regular citizen can only use deadly force to protect your own home. For example, if there is a drunk person trying to break into your home, you will not be held accountable if you were to shoot them in fear of your life or family. The eight types of excuses are insanity, diminished capacity, infancy, intoxication, mistake, duress, consent, and entrapment. BadWolf123
ReplyDeleteJust likt the other video, she explaines the steps and parts for 3 major defenses of crime. All the exapmles she used made a clearer undersatnding of the word. i agree with the facts of self defense and what one should and shouldnt not do Hoopz123
ReplyDeleteI really liked this video. The speaker concentrated on justification more than anything and I would have liked it if she had gone into greater detail on the other 2. However she did a fantastic job of explaining what she did go over. She made it easy to understand and she had good examples to drive her points home. I though the climbing example was interesting. I didn't ever think that something like that would be a justified action. I can see why it is now but it just wasn't something that ever crossed my mind. Most of the other things that she talked about were pretty common sense. If someone breaks into your house you have the right to use deadly force to stop them, or if someone is attacking you, you should only apply the force needed to stop them and should try not to exceed it. All in all I think that this was a very educational video and was easy to understand and follow.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to put my name. vhammer123
DeleteIn Criminal Justice there are a lot of rules you have to live by or you will get arrested for thinking you did the right thing but thankfully there are defenses to crime that can help back you up if you ever do the right thing and cant get away with it. 1. justification is important you will not be charged as long as it was justified. 2. Excuses, some people have health problems and cannot control what they do which are put in a category called "insanity", dim capacity, infancy, intoxicated, a mistake, duress, consent to do so, entrapment. If you are a law abiding citizen and you help people because you believe that's the right thing to do then you shouldn't get in trouble for it. I also believe that Defense of property is a good law to stand by some people take their property serious and try to hurt people because they invade your privacy by stepping on your lawn or letting their dog go to the bathroom on your grass but you cannot do anything unless they step foot in your house which is the way it should be. Scorpio 123.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I think that defense of property is a very good law, I completely agree with the exception of your home but I don't think it would be necessary to kill someone from damaging your car, or something else that is valuable to you. Let the police deal with that, it's their job.
DeleteFruitloop123
I’ve always been under the impression that shooting someone just because they are in your house, could leave you in dangerous water. Obviously it varies from state to state, but I know in some more liberal states like California, just because someone is in your house, doesn’t mean you can shoot them; you have to actually be reasonably in fear for your life.
DeleteISP123
I agree with you that there is alot of rules you have to live by and follow. I also agree about it being people that have health issues and cant control what they do and have to prove insanity. I agree that you shouldnt be able to use a weapon or cause bodily harm to people unless theya ctually step on your property or cause you harm. Love456
DeleteI agree this is so true and real but I understand you have to live and follow by the rules but everybody then broke a rule before nobody's perfect. And I agree with FRUITLOOP123 if your property gets damage then let the police handle it I don't think its that serious enough to kill and do some serious time over. T456
DeleteThis video was very informative and went into a lot of detail about the defenses of crime. The three main categories to defenses of crime are justification, excuse, and mitigation. She then goes into great detail about justification and how someone cannot be held accountable for an act that is justified. It is considered justified if it was a necessity, self defense, defense of others, prevention of crime, or defense of property. She does a good job of explaining each of these. I really enjoyed hearing about defense of property because I really do agree that your crime cannot be justified if you harm someone else defending your property unless you are in your home. I feel like people would abuse this if it was anything you owned such as your car, phone, anything else that holds value to you. I am glad I got to watch this video and learn more about justification and excuses to crime
ReplyDeleteFruitloop123
I feel like self-defense is basically the, "Eye for an eye and a hand for a hand," approach. I think that it does justify violence in given circumstances such as robbery or assault. I know in my home, we have taken the time to make sure we all know what to do in certain situations. If someone breaks in we accept that as a threat to our lives and of course we will act upon that with the necessary means to control the situation. It is understood that no one should use force that isn't necessary. I do think there are limits to what could be considered justified. If someone burlarizes a home and makes no attempt to harm the homeowner physically, it does not qualify as self-defense by killing the intruder. Although some could argue that you should wait until the police arrive, I think it's okay to act on your own behalf but within reason.
ReplyDeleterogir123
DeleteIn this video, the lady went on to explain legal defenses to crimes. In the last video, the gentleman briefly mentioned them and I commented that it would have been nice if he explained them. However, this lady explained these defenses much more in depth. She advised that there were three legal defenses which are justification, excuse, and mitigation.
ReplyDeleteWhen explaining the justification defense, she said that the only valid form of justification is for protective reasons. These reasons are out of necessity, self-defense, prevention of crime, and defense of property. While discussing necessity, she gave the example of the rock climbers which I thought was excellent – to prevent greater harm. She also mentioned prevention of a crime which can only be exercised by the police. Defense of property was listed and she said that deadly force is not authorized except for when you are in your own home. It was somewhat confusing though because she made it seem like you are protecting yourself in your own home, not your property. This could probably use a little more clarification. Lastly was self-defense. For the most part, this goes without saying but one noteworthy thing is that it must be reasonable. Who decides the definition of reasonable though?
The video was cut short but she briefly got into excuses as legal defenses. She listed insanity, diminished capacity, infancy, intoxication, mistake, duress, consent, and entrapment.
I was happy to see that legal defenses were better explained in this video, especially since it was lacking in the last video.
ISP123
. I thought it was just four types of defenses to a crime I didnt know it was five defenses to a crime, which are Necessity, Duress, Self-defense, Insanity, Prevention of a crime, and Defense of others. She did go more depth than the guy did. She had good points that had me interested and informed me alot about the different defenses to crimes. I can see why under the justification defense why a defendant would not be liable for conduct that is justified for protective reasons. Harming somebody for breaking into your house or stealing your car is a good example of the crime being justified. I wouldn’t even consider it a actually crime because self defense and necessity were being used. Killing somebody just because they stepped on your shoe would be insanity and just plain crazy. Normal people don’t just walk around earth killing people for stepping on their shoes. I agree that that crime shouldn’t be justified. Love456
ReplyDeleteI liked how she explained the different types of defenses from the defense of others and property to prevention of crime etc. Also the 3 main defenses of crime justification, excuse, and mitigation. She had some good point of views when she was explaining everything. I liked how she explained about the how people were held accountable for the action that took and was justified and about the burglary's and thefts. I also agree that crime shouldn't be justified because people aren't going to go around killing over anything that's stupid. T123
ReplyDeleteI think the speaker did a good job at describing the three defenses of crimes. I know have a better understanding on the three defense of crimes and the general rules. I'm not sure I agree with the necessity general rule. Maybe if she did an different example it would've been different story. SECRET'A'123
ReplyDelete