Stand Your Ground 被威胁者也可以选择不逃离，而是自卫。 这点和上点矛盾。各州规定不同
Castle Doctrine 可以对在家里破门而入的威胁者使用致命手段
Is the Threat Imminent?
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.
Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.
Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “ reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.
To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!
Imperfect Self-defense
Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self- defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.
For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.
Proportional Response
The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self- defense will fail.
Duty to Retreat
The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self- defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a “duty to retreat.” While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force.
Stand Your Ground
In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called “ stand your ground” laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. As mentioned above, this is the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force. States are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.
Castle Doctrine
Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their home. This rule, also known as “the castle doctrine,” allows people to defend their homes against intruder through lethal force. Like most of these rules, the exact result will vary according to the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case, so it’s always a good idea to consult an attorney to learn more. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
【 在 skybluewei (weilan) 的大作中提到: 】 I am telling you the truth. 不要没事儿老意淫，伤身体。做为老爸，你给你小孩一 个嘴巴，叫人看见了，中国会有人管么？在美国叫人告了官，这就叫child abuse。在 中国，父母离异了，父母一方或爷爷奶奶姥姥姥爷，未经同意把小孩接走了，在中国屁 事儿都不是，在美国就算kidnapping。所以说，没事别老意淫，对事情没有任何帮助。
因为就算是卖淫，也是基于双方自愿。一旦一方不自愿立刻构成强奸，当然可以行使无限自卫权啊。。。。
警察不管你家里打麻将，所以暴力收赌债也不该管？
不使用凶器就不是绑架？
我把你十岁儿子绑架了，没使用凶器，就不是绑架了？
法盲也太多了。
这就是对绑架，受害人有无限防御权的原因。
只要有人绑架你，这个绑架正在进行，你可以以任何形式反抗，杀死绑匪没有任何责任。
杀人，抢劫，强奸，绑架，受害人都具有无限防御权。
下边是对防卫的解释
要点
Is the Threat Imminent?
威胁是否是当即面对的。
Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
对威胁的恐惧是否是合理的。
Imperfect Self-defense
不完美的自卫。 被攻击者认为有立即的威胁而采取了自卫。
Proportional Response
自卫手段要和攻击手段相对应。 自卫手段只能足以对抗危机即可。
Duty to Retreat
被威胁者如果有机会逃离威胁，就必须逃离而不是使用暴力自卫。
Stand Your Ground
被威胁者也可以选择不逃离，而是自卫。 这点和上点矛盾。各州规定不同
Castle Doctrine
可以对在家里破门而入的威胁者使用致命手段
Is the Threat Imminent?
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is
used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long
as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm.
Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm,
however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.
Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification
once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim
but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat
of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the
victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory
and not self-defense.
Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these
situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would
have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “
reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing
interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to
determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the
use of protective force.
To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other
person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the
other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other
person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in
danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a
justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually
trying to help!
Imperfect Self-defense
Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves
from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-
defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not
every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.
For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the
friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In
order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the
face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it
could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense
provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person
creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the
charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.
Proportional Response
The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to
remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses
force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-
defense will fail.
Duty to Retreat
The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-
defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force.
This is also known as a “duty to retreat.” While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states
still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before
applying lethal force.
Stand Your Ground
In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called “
stand your ground” laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow
for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from
the threat of violence. As mentioned above, this is the more common rule
when situations involve nonlethal force. States are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.
Castle Doctrine
Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force
against someone who unlawfully enters their home. This rule, also known as
“the castle doctrine,” allows people to defend their homes against
intruder through lethal force. Like most of these rules, the exact result
will vary according to the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case, so it’s always a good idea to consult an attorney to learn more.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
我再次强调，他不是有意杀人，是不得已而伤人。
杀人，抢劫，强奸，绑架，受害人都具有无限防御权。
按你那逻辑，强奸也没有生命危险，抢劫也没有生命危险，你反抗杀人了都是犯罪？
没人说他是故意杀人，否则就不是这个判罚了。他的罪名是故意伤害，导致一人死亡，二人重伤，即便是不得已，也是过当。
很明显，歹徒们受伤，是因为看到于欢拿起刀，还要围堵，这是不要命了，怪谁呢？我说的处处有道理，到了你嘴里成了胡搅蛮缠。
事后的司法鉴定显示，于欢未构成轻微伤，造成的伤势是：在其左项部可见一横行表皮剥落1.1cm，结痂；右肩部可见多处皮下出血。
按照催债者么传行的说法，他们当时把于欢“摁在了一个长沙发上”。
你还贼喊捉贼，问我看了没有，我现在问你看了新闻没有？ http://www.mitbbs.com/news_wenzhang/Headline/31844431.html
来不接下来的，警察都来了，还有啥接下来？法律不是靠想象，也不是靠你定义。这事儿，话放在这儿了，最多就是防卫过当（还是故意伤害罪），少判几年。
人家一群人扑上来要继续限制你的自由，换成你，你怎么做？
那种大街上把正在走路受害人推进车里的绑架行为，绑匪用手把你往车里推，没用刀，而你包里正好有把刚买的水果刀。因为绑匪没用刀，所以你用刀反抗就是防卫过当？
你就是绑匪吧？
合法的选择和正确的选择还不是一个概念。合法的选择也不止一个。你的选择当然合法，但你如果真的拿刀去捅，也合法。
防卫程度是否恰当，可以法庭讨论。
因为讨债绑架，受害人就不能反抗？
你能更不要脸一点吗？
按你这逻辑，那收赎金的绑架受害人也不能暴力用刀反抗了？因为绑匪不过是要钱？
那什么绑架可以暴力反抗呢？绑匪很多也不过就是要钱而已。
按你的逻辑，绑匪绑架你了，给你送饭吃的时候，你不可以反抗，因为绑匪给你饭吃的时候，你没有生命危险，所以就不能用刀捅绑匪？
绑匪都不好意思用这个逻辑。
你懂不懂？
标 题: Re: 傻逼们对绑架这种犯罪有多恶劣根本没概念
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Mar 27 16:34:09 2017, 美东)
绑架，是一种犯罪行为，跟绑架的动机是为了什么没关系。绑架，到底是为了赎金，为了讨债，为了泄愤，为了开玩笑都没有任何关系。
傻逼们懂不懂？
傻逼们说：绑架，如果是为了讨债，受害人就不能用刀反抗！因为讨债吗，受害人哪有生命危险，为什么要用刀反抗呢？这不是防卫过当吗？
那我因为开玩笑，觉得绑架很好玩儿，把你绑架了行不行？因为我只是为了好玩儿绑架你，你都不能用刀反抗？
你们知道自己有多傻逼吗？
警察的都在场了，绑匪也没有终止绑架这种严重暴力犯罪行为。就是说，警察在，绑匪都在持续绑架受害人，可见当时绑架这种犯罪行为已经严重到了什么地步！
就这样，傻逼们还在说受害人不能用刀反抗，你们这傻逼到了极点了！
紧迫性”
下面是，网上关于这个的分析：
“法院的判决是“不存在防卫的紧迫性”。实际上法律并没有“紧迫性”这个限定，只是明文规定：为使国家、公共利益、本人或者他人的人身、财产和其他权利免受正在进行中的不法侵害，而采取的制止不法侵害的行为，对不法侵害人造成损害的，属于正当防卫，不负刑事责任。――法律强调的是“正在进行中”，而法官却偷换为“紧迫性”，是对正当防卫权的主观剪裁。“不法侵害是不是正在进行中”是可以客观认定的标准，而“是不是有防卫的紧迫性”却是主观的，不设身处地，没有身份和情感的代入，不考虑到10多个壮汉长时间对一对母子的不堪入目的侮辱、殴打和限制人身自由，可能就体会不到“防卫的紧迫性”。
这次绑架动机是为了讨债
讨债就没有什么生命危险
所以受害人就不能用刀反抗。
否则就是防卫过当。
绑架，是一种犯罪行为，这跟你绑架的动机没有关系。实施绑架，可能有各种动机，可能因为赎金，因为讨债，因为报复，因为好玩儿。
绑架，是极为严重的暴力犯罪（限制人身自由）。绑架的严重性，跟犯罪动机无关。
只要绑架这种犯罪正在进行中，受害人有权以任何方式反抗，没有防卫过当。
按你那逻辑，绑架要赎金，绑匪也不过是要钱，所以受害人就不应该用刀反抗？
这有多荒谬你明白吗。
刑事犯罪，现在在你嘴里成民事纠纷了？
你能更不要脸一点吗？
你始终不明白，你强调的讨债，只是犯罪动机的一种。绑架你，是一种犯罪行为。
绑架这种犯罪行为，可能有不同动机，比如赎金，比如讨债，比如报复，比如开玩笑。定罪，是根据犯罪行为。难道同一个绑架行为，因为赎金，就算绑架，因为讨债，就不算绑架了？算民事纠纷了？
到底是谁在意淫？
不管是绑架还是非法拘禁（土鳖增加的的傻逼罪名），都是刑事犯罪。不需要受害人起诉，要公诉，属于刑事案件。
还民事纠纷？你懂什么叫民事纠纷吗？
这案子里那些犯罪分子的行为，相当于你爸给你一嘴巴？
你爸还挺多的
非法拘禁行为，只有达到相当严重的程度，才构成犯罪。因此，应当根据情节轻重、危害大小、动机为私为公、拘禁时间长短等因素，综合分析，来确定非法拘禁行为的性质。《治安管理处罚条例》第22条规定：非法限制他人人身自由，尚不够刑事处罚的、处15日以下拘留，200元以下罚款或者警告。
一笔是一笔。十几个人被抓和此案有关么？
洗地的都已经不说话了，就剩你一个还后知后觉。连个五毛你都当得不合格。
考虑学历够低，年龄合适，还要考虑到长相，身高，酒量等多种因素，雇佣门槛奇高，除此之
外还要有本金，自己数学还要好，会开次方，会excel，数据库管理，讨债人才还要经
过各类培训，格斗训练，谈判技巧等，俗话说得好，流氓学武术，谁都挡不住。
这如何定义？
Aforethought
一帮人拿起美国法律说事，这都那和那呀？法律上讲法院是对的，放贷的明显比这帮逢啥必反的懂法律，走在法律的边缘，但没有犯法，这是他们的生存之道。即使网上说的警察放贷啥的是真的，如果没有法律规定（政策规定都不算）公职人员不得私下借钱给别人人家也不违法。这世界就是这样的，合情不见得合法，合法不见得合情，大家都是尽量利用自己的地位和现有规则为自己的利益服务而已。
但现实是事情闹大了，风向在反对放贷的，所以法院可能受到了不必要的压力，如果又是舆论压倒法律，才是真的可悲。
逼债的“正常行为”，你别告诉我那家人在借钱的时候没有这方面的心理准备，其实就是图侥幸而已。至于你说得凌辱和非法拘禁，你也别拿美国法律条款说事，在中国充其量就是行政拘留，这个算是放贷人准备好的代价，进去住几天，出来接着要钱。你一定要说放贷人会绑架甚至杀人，那只是你的看法，“正常”的收贷的都不会这么做。
说起受辱杀人，就想起武汉面馆里，老板多要一块钱，还语言侮辱，是不是该把老板的头剁下来
意气用事，后果很严重。除非记者和律师们踊跃捐款，给她老妈还银行债。
除非记者，律师，围观群众，踊跃捐款。
警察可以不管发放，收取高利贷，但是这不等于他们可以选择不管以非法手段收债的行为。这最起码也是渎职。
刑法里的正当防卫也根本没有说必须在有生命危险的时候才适用。只要是侵犯正在进行，受害者就有权力进行正当防卫。至于把人刺死是否过激，那也只是是否防卫过当的问题
常在河边走，哪有不失蹄，本来就是高风险高回报的行业，被捅也是预料中的事件，比做挖煤工不小心被炸死的概率要小很多，要安全别讨债，去做马工千老，家里打魂斗罗阿
而已。他们家还背着几千万银行的债务，你觉得他们家会为十几万拼命么？所以一定是这帮讨债的做了什么让人家不能忍的事了。
是你说的“去哪跟哪儿”？难道那些刀伤都是讨债人自己跟上去，跟到刀上受的伤？
说什么人身威胁 没有迫切性。这个标准太低了。一大帮外人未经允许到私人地盘，限
制别人行动自由。这还不迫切？
讨债的可以去家门口堵人，跟踪，大声吵吵闹闹要钱。这些虽然看上去很难看，我觉得都可以接受。但是不被允许，一踏入别人私人地盘，这已经违法了。
法官，就是要在人证，物证，专家鉴定，等等证据中，排除谎言，找出真相。
还有专门保证程序正义的刑事诉讼法。法律，不是一个“辱母”推断，就可以解释一切。那也要心理学家来坚定，是否有别的情节。我觉得，法律党要想给这孩子无罪推定，最好从精神病学角度找理由。
备，但他们没有绑架或者杀害的动机和行为，也没有该杀的理由，所以法院判决没有问题。
而且一些人反复强调的非法拘禁和有生命危险并没有道理。那帮人采取的是盯人的方法，只是后来谈判的短时间限制了行动，不允许欠债的人随意离开。在周围有人围观，放贷的也没有阻拦任何人报警的情况下，人身伤害甚至杀害是不可能的。这个行为并没有产生法律上的非法拘禁，到场的警察也没认为有什么问题。再说一遍，放贷的懂法，一切从法律角度上讲最重也就是行政拘留。
于氏母子借这笔钱，时间很短，比起他们在银行的贷款，是很小的数目。135万比数千
万。
我分析，事实是，苏女士需要更新银行贷款，还旧账，借新账，差这么一百来万。利息高一点，对她来说并不是大问题。只要银行那里能借来两三千万，这点利息，无所谓。十天半个月的事情。
和银行谈的利息高点低点，就折了这点利息。所谓的高利贷，是对平民而言，对苏女士，不是。是解一时之困。送礼的钱也可能高过这些利息。
问题出在高利贷老板正在这时候被捉了（网上消息说）。于是她赶紧的还了这比债务，主要还是帕被牵连进去。于是，还差十几万。十几万对她是问题吗，一辆汽车的钱。她没有？亲戚朋友都不差这点钱。
问题来了，高利贷老办被捉了，他手下那邦喽啰怎么办，吃谁喝谁。里面就出来个牛二。他们平时就干这种要债的“工作”，老板不在，自己就擅作主张，来要这十几万块钱。
苏女士和他儿子也是“体面人”，哪里受过这种气。于是便质气。你算个屁，越要越不给你。除非你老板来了。就僵持起来。
于是，就越闹越大，辱骂，侮辱。直到出了人命。
带有一定暴力，不任人摆布，都不是杀人的理由。
我只能说，原来没有杀人的动机。也没想致人死地。
伤害人身完整，误致死。
观，有警察在不远处的情况下，有生命危险的可能性是微乎其微的。要按你的逻辑，你在美国和任何人冲突的危险都比这个大，因为对方有持枪的可能，而且冲动杀人的案例比比皆是，你难道还能一直以觉得生命受威胁为理由而自卫杀人？