What is excess of self-defense? Article of the CC

It turns out that some legal terms are not entirely corrected by the public. Such a notion as "excess of self-defense" is shrouded in myths and legends. People believe that the law prohibits protection from criminals. If you oppose them, they will definitely put you in jail. To understand, we need more than one article of the Criminal Code. Excess of self-defense is described in a number of documents. Let's try to figure it out.

Open the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

About counteraction to criminals the article 37 speaks. In it actions of the person which will not be pursued under the law are described. These include causing harm to a person from whom an immediate threat to life and health has occurred. That is, if you are attacked by a bandit with a knife, the injury will not qualify as an excess of self-defense. There remains only one small nuance: how to prove that the threat really was, but did not seem. Such circumstances are explained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of September 27, 12, No. 19.

The immediate threat in the document are the situations in which the victim of the attack has already received a serious injury, the attacker had a weapon that makes it possible to damage life and health. That is, if a person is just using your fists on you, you should answer it carefully, so as not to cripple severely. Otherwise, the court will decide that there was an excess of self-defense. However, if threats are addressed to a person, the circumstances are treated differently. The intention to kill, expressed verbally, is considered a mortal danger. It is important that the witnesses of the incident also hear it.

Is it possible to protect another person?

Many believe that once the concept of "excess of self-defense" appears in legislation, it refers only to a direct personal threat. In fact, this is not so. These articles contain the phrase "defender or another person," that is, they refer to cases when one has to stand up for the protection of another person. It is important to correctly assess the situation and calculate your strength. If the attacker, for example, wields a knife, wags a gun, sends a gun to a potential victim, accompanying his actions with threats, then any actions will not be excessive.

However, when a criminal is selected a weapon, it is already unjustifiable to harm him. That is, it is necessary to clearly separate the threat of real and fear. In court, the situation is considered in seconds. Protection is only legitimate until the moment when the perpetrator still has the potential to seriously damage the victim. Once it is lost, protection needs to be stopped. Otherwise, any damage will be regarded not as self-defense, but as a real crime.

A responsibility

The defender, who failed to correctly distribute forces and assess the situation, will be judged. And on how much damage the criminal has, it depends which article of the Criminal Code will be applied. So, according to 108, they consider the murder committed in conditions when there was an excess of self-defense. Article 114 speaks of causing serious and moderate harm. Both paragraphs of the law regulate the charge against those who unsuccessfully tried to prevent the crime. Such actions are also considered an excess of self-defense.

Experienced lawyers recommend referring that they were in a state of affect (severe fright) and could not assess the situation. However, the evidence of such circumstances requires serious work.

Dangerous jokes

Sometimes the notion of "excess of self-defense" arises when considering cases of erroneous harm. That is, a person did not have the opportunity to correctly assess the situation and took the risk of a rally. In fact, the attacker did not have any criminal intentions, he joked. Here it is necessary to prove that the "victim" perceived the threat as real, therefore reacted in accordance with the situation. This ruling recommends that the court distinguish between the state of real and imaginary defense in favor of the accused, who had no reason not to believe the threats.