Good afternoon everyone, in connection with the trial on the crime of "the suspenders" that is taking place these days in Zaragoza, and given the version of both Lanza and his companion about the fact that the victim carried a knife on On the day in question, it is clear what the defense strategy is: legitimate defense. Article 20 of the Penal Code in point 4 includes this exemption from criminal responsibility, that is, that the accused will go unpunished if the court considers that there is a legitimate defense.
The aforementioned article says that “whoever acts in defense of the person or their rights or that of others will be exempt from criminal responsibility, provided that the following requirements are met:
SUGGESTION:
Ride sharing in LA isn't that easy as we think so for any wrong action I suggest you hire a lyft accident lawyer in Los Angeles, car accident lawyer los angeles if you use LYFT Ride Sharing Cab Service.
First. Illegitimate assault. In the case of the defense of the assets, the attack on them that constitutes a crime and puts them in danger of imminent deterioration or loss will be considered illegitimate aggression. In the case of defense of the dwelling or its dependencies, improper entry into the dwelling or its premises will be deemed illegitimate.
Second. Need rational means employed to prevent or repel.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation by the defender.
These requirements are those that jurisprudence has been demanding so that legitimate defense is taken into account and all three must be met, not one or two.
An example in which the three requirements would not be met would be someone trying to push you and you stick a knife (not proportional).
Nor when you are "provoking" someone because you want to hit him but you want him to do it first and then claim legitimate defense.
I hope once again that you have learned a little more about law from this reading
