Srecom, ovoga ima samo u Srbiji.

Crowz ... ja samo kažem da je ovo ipak nešto čime ne treba da se dičimo i ovo je samo čisti dokaz koliko Srbija ' napreduje ' kao zemlja

izgleda da jeste cim ga je pogodio u glavu. od dvocevke bi bio obezglavljen.

добро је што си ти побегаао да те случајно неки зли србин не убије + што каже чика кровзец

jos kada bi pobegli svi koji mrze ovu drzavu ... pa nama bi procvetalo 

Jedna od stvari koje poštujem u Americi jeste zaštita privatne svojine. Na svom imanju, ako ti neko neovlašćeno upadne pa makar samo da nabere tvoju jabuku, a kamoli sa namerom da te ubije, pa da je i predsednik lično, imaš pravo da ga ubiješ bez upozorenja i ne dobijaš ni dan zatvora. Ovde je to malo drugačije.

To nije tacno.

506. Justifiable Homicide: Defending Against Harm to Person Within Home or on Property
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) (killed/attempted to kill) to defend (himself/herself) [or any other person] in the defendant's home. Such (a/an) [attempted] killing is justified, and therefore not unlawful, if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she) was defending a home against <insert name of decedent>, who (intended to or tried to commit <insert forcible and atrocious crime> / [or] violently[[,] [or] riotously[,]/ [or] tumultuously] tried to enter that home intending to commit an act of violence against someone inside);

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the danger was imminent;

3. The defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;

AND

4. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/ herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant's belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, then the [attempted] killing was not justified.

When deciding whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of [attempted] (murder/ [or] manslaughter).

Ovaj slučaj upravo potpada pod "opravdano ubistvo" kako ga oni definišu. Primer sa jabukom je više figurativno, naravno da nije bukvalno tako, mada sa dobrom odbranom uvek možete tvrditi da ste mislili da ima pištolj ili pušku sa snajperom. Ako vam komšija dođe da vas pozove na roštilj, nenaoružan, odgovaraćete ako ga upucate bez obzira gde se to dogodilo.
 Druga stvar, budući da se zna da je ovakav zakon, niko ni ne upada neovlašćeno na tuđa imanja bez neke loše namere, tako da u realnosti na sudu kazne su najčešće oslobađajuće ili simbolične.

Posebno bih istakao.
[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]
Dakle, zakon čak preporučuje da se čovek na svom imanju odbrani što je veoma bitno za mentalitet naroda. Sa zakonom koji vam kaže da ćutite i trpite dok vam ne repetiraju pištolj iznad glave, narod stiče jedan kilavi mentalitet što dugoročno dovodi do gubljenja teritorija i nacionalnog integriteta.

Heh.. pa vidis da si pogresio...

Kao i u kontinentalnom pravu, zahteva se da je postojala ozbiljna opasnost ili namera da se izazove opasnost po osobu, njegove bliznje ili imovinu...
Znaci, mora da postoji reciprocitet izmedju stete i odbrane od stete..

U slucaju da ne postoji reciprocite, ide se na klasicno sudjenje i osoba koja je npr. pucala... ne bude oslobodjena optuznice...

Iliti.. ako bi neko usao da uzme jabuku i utvrdi se da je to uradio samo da bi uzeo jabuku, a ne da bi pricinio znacajnu stetu ili predstavljao vecu opasnost, onome ko je pucao, radi se o umisljajnom ranjavanju ... Iliti, onaj ko je pucao ima svako pravo da puca, ali i da snosi posledice za izazvanu povredju ili smrt...

Znaci, nikada se to ne radi po automatizmu, kako ti predstavljas, vec se ide na sudjenje za nanesenje lakih\teskih povreda\ubistvo ili ubistvo iz nehata, pa se utvrdjuje da li se radi o tresspassingu...

Upravo zbog tih bukvalnih tumacenja tog instituta koji potice jos iz starog engleskog prava, dolazi do poostravanja pravila trespassinga i priblizavanja institutima kontinentalnog prava - nuzna odbrana i krajnja nuzda...

A i naveo si primer iz jednog zakonika.. Kalifornijskog... U Americi je krivicno pravo regulisano na nivou drzave... i federacije..

Sve u svemu, ovaj u Americi, od Aljaske do Filadelfije, Njujorka do Havaja ne bi video ni dana zatvora. Ovde će da guli ko zna koliko godina u zatvoru.