雖然刑事沒事，可是65萬美金的民事賠償金對一般老美而言還是承受不起的.

我本來也不想說的，唉..........
聽人家說的，網路上看到的，呵呵。
一堆人-人云亦云，自己也不查證。




你有看到後面民事賠償65萬美金嗎?
你可以順便查一下Adam Provencal 案，刑事民事判決是怎樣。
-----分隔線-----
順便講一下好了，不要再講美國警察開槍無罪好嗎，
很多都是認罪協商或是賠錢和解好嗎
現在住美國的pcdvd網友很多，都不出來澄清一下嗎

台灣人都堡壘原則都有普遍的誤解，以為入侵就可以擊斃。堡壘原則只保障你可以用致命武器防衛，並沒有讓你可以隨意殺人。（以台灣人的觀點，入侵就是殺，這是錯的）

堡壘原則各州都有不同的限制，在美國也常在討論。

很多人都會拿幾個案例來說，但一兩個案例，並不代表就適用美國每個州，再者有些案例本身也有爭議。例如老夫婦射殺日本人案，很多人質疑因為死的是日本人，陪審團才會判兇手無罪，如果是白人，相信判決會不同。

以加州為例，你要合理射殺入侵者，必須舉證對方有嚴重暴力行為，足以對你或家人人身造成嚴重傷害。以本案來說，顯然不成立。

再者一槍打死人是一回事，你把人打到無行為能力，再繼續打死他，在美國恐怕也很難擺脫刑事責任。

參考以下連結：
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ad.php?t=449181

No, the California Castle Doctrine doesn't give you the benefit of the doubt. Characterizing it thus is woefully imprecise and misleading. "Benefit of the doubt" is not a legal concept and not the way things will work.

[1] Self defense is an affirmative defense. If you shoot someone you have committed, prima facie, the elements of a crime. Your defense is that you shot in self defense thus legally justifying your act of violence. But it's your burden to put forth evidence establishing the you met the legal standard justifying your act.

[2] In California, Penal Code 197 describes the legal standard that must be met to justify a your committing a homicide:

"197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, ..."

[3] So in order to establish that shooting the guy in your home was justified you will have to demonstrate that the requirements of Penal Code 197 were satisfied. Penal Code 198.5, California's Castle Doctrine, creates a presumption that can make it easier for you to establish, as your affirmative defense, that your act of violence was justified.

[4] A presumption is a rule that affects evidence and burden of proof in court. Ordinarily, one who asserts something in court will have the burden of proving, by presenting good evidence, that certain facts supporting that assertion are true. But sometimes the law might allow one of those facts to be accepted as true without specific evidence of that fact if the party with the burden of proof shows that certain other facts are true. So the party might be entitled under a rule of law to have fact A presumed to be true if facts B, C, and D are shown to be true, even if the party produces no direct evidence that fact A is true.

[5] So with the presumption of Penal Code 198.5, you would not have to show specifically that you, "...held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household..." if you can show both that (1) the person you shot "...unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence...."; and (2) you "...knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred...."

[6] But note that any legally available presumption is rebuttable. That means that even though one may be entitled to the benefit of a presumption as to a certain fact, the other side may try to prove that fact is not actually true. So, for example, even if you might have been entitled to a presumption that you were reasonably in fear for your life, the prosecutor could put on evidence and try to show that under the particular circumstances, a reasonable person could not have been reasonably in fear for his life.

65萬美金就破產阿
不然怎麼樣？
台灣破產的管道更多
不然也不會發生之前我家被酒駕撞我開15萬和解砍半還給對方分期分期兩次對方人間蒸發的慘事
而且台灣是還有刑事責任

我懂你的意思
你是要說過失仍有撤銷緩刑的可能
不過我是針對網友假設的狀況
既然法官不是白痴
引75-1的意義在哪裡?

不是被判民事賠償...屋主一直上訴到路易斯安那州最高法院。最高法院維持原判。
而且都上維基了...這案子是特例...而且引發很大的爭議性

你提供的連結下面有另一案例
-----------------------
服部事件發生後兩個禮拜，另一起類似的萬聖節槍擊事件發生，在密西根州的格蘭德港，屋主Todd Vriesenga向一個17歲青年Adam Provencal開槍並導致該青年死亡；Vriesenga只是想嚇走青年，而且他以為短槍內沒子彈，該槍突然走火，並打中青年的臉部；結果屋主被判16到24個月刑期。如此類似的案件卻有不同的結果，使得美國的日裔和亞裔社團懷疑服部事件有種族歧視或外國人歧視的嫌疑[6]。


另一個案例


喬治亞州。屋主開槍打死侵入者，被判重罪謀殺，終身監禁。
2005年。被害人Epp是房子原來的主人，9月將尚未完全完工的房子賣給了被告人McNeil。12月某日被害人來到房子完成“要求的工作”（required work，判決書中僅僅用了這兩個詞，沒有更多解釋）。但被害人進來顯然是沒有經過允許的。因為被告人的15歲兒子La'Ron完全不知道有人進來，直到他發現院子裡有個人。La'Ron認為被害人是非法侵入（就算是預約了上門修水管的工人也得先敲門打招呼，怎能自說自話直接進來？）要求他離開。被害人不肯。雙方起了爭執。La'Ron打電話讓被告人McNeil回來，並說Epp用刀指著他。McNeil回來後，與Epp爭執。這時McNeil和Epp分別站在McNeil的地產與McNeil鄰居的地產上。爭執中，Epp向McNeil走來，穿過了兩份地產的邊界線，到達了McNeil的地上。McNeil用槍指著Epp大聲要他退後。Epp沒有退後，反而繼續向McNeil靠近。McNeil於是對準Epp的頭部開槍。Epp當場身亡。

在法庭上，McNeil聲稱開槍是自衛，因為當時被害人用刀指著他。但是警方證據顯示：被害人死亡的時候，褲兜裡的刀是折疊好的。因此被告人開槍時並不存在被刀刺傷的危險，不能構成自衛。最後McNeil被判重罪謀殺和終身監禁。McNeil不服，上訴到喬治亞州最高法院。州最高法院維持原判。

一直拿一個案例來強調沒意義，那案件發生在加州屋主一樣有罪。
你可以想想為何美國各州對堡壘原則會有那麼大的差異，因為堡壘原則本身就不是讓你可以隨意射殺入侵者。而是因為美國槍枝泛濫，入侵者很有可能持有致命武器，所以才允許屋主使用致命武器防衛，但這和「可隨意射殺」意義完全不同。

破產-----X
脫產-----O

最後當事人不用賠，受害人家屬只有從保險費中拿到一些，其中將近一半要給律師

其實槍打到手或腳就會痛到不能動了，所以那些直接瞄準致死部位射擊的，如果讓這些人無罪，法律才真的有問題。（除非對方也拿槍或遭到攻擊中無法描準。）