Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 22:37:45 GMT -5
Legal sources point out that it cannot be understood “lightly that a situation of legitimate defense or a state of necessity exists.” We do not have a relationship with weapons like the one they have in the United States, where it would be much easier for self-defense to be understood. In our system “ very specific requirements are required .”
An act may fit into a criminal offense, but not be illegal. This will happen if the situation of legitimate defense, a state of necessity or acting in compliance with a duty or exercise of a DJ USA right occurs. In order to speak of self-defense, it is required that an illegitimate aggression has occurred, that there is a rational need for the means used to prevent or repel it, and that the aggression has not been provoked by the perpetrator.
In a case like this, entry into the home or its premises, without permission and against the will of the residents, improper entry into the home will be considered an illegitimate attack . The defense must be limited to individual legal assets and there must be a rational need for the means used for the defense. If from an abstract point of view there is no legitimate defense, there is no incomplete defense. If, on the other hand, the problem is abuse due to the use of harmful means, self-defense could be applied.
Third, there must be sufficient provocation to require a defense. In this sense, the Provincial Court of Navarra has recently recalled that "it is not possible to appreciate the existence of an illegitimate aggression in cases of mutually accepted quarrel because in this scenario of consensual reciprocal fight the contenders are placed outside of criminal protection by being provocative actors, each one of them of the confrontation, so that when a harmful result occurs as an effect of a fight caused by an accepted challenge launched that gives rise to de facto routes, it is not possible to appeal to legitimate defense.
An act may fit into a criminal offense, but not be illegal. This will happen if the situation of legitimate defense, a state of necessity or acting in compliance with a duty or exercise of a DJ USA right occurs. In order to speak of self-defense, it is required that an illegitimate aggression has occurred, that there is a rational need for the means used to prevent or repel it, and that the aggression has not been provoked by the perpetrator.
In a case like this, entry into the home or its premises, without permission and against the will of the residents, improper entry into the home will be considered an illegitimate attack . The defense must be limited to individual legal assets and there must be a rational need for the means used for the defense. If from an abstract point of view there is no legitimate defense, there is no incomplete defense. If, on the other hand, the problem is abuse due to the use of harmful means, self-defense could be applied.
Third, there must be sufficient provocation to require a defense. In this sense, the Provincial Court of Navarra has recently recalled that "it is not possible to appreciate the existence of an illegitimate aggression in cases of mutually accepted quarrel because in this scenario of consensual reciprocal fight the contenders are placed outside of criminal protection by being provocative actors, each one of them of the confrontation, so that when a harmful result occurs as an effect of a fight caused by an accepted challenge launched that gives rise to de facto routes, it is not possible to appeal to legitimate defense.