Paper代写：过度自卫和极端挑衅的概念
过度自卫可以适用于使用武力导致他人死亡的情况，如果这种行为与实际情况不符。215 215(1883)解释了自卫的条件以及理性的人如何使用武力来保护自己。弗兰克必须证明他想保护自己不受他人行为的影响，并防止他人的非法行为。这个人必须被判谋杀罪不成立和过失杀人罪成立，才能考虑这个概念。正当防卫的解释不能建立在任何情况下。Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645的案例被用来理解这个案例的细微差别。
Paper代写：过度自卫和极端挑衅的概念
使用极端挑衅和过度自卫的字眼将成为司法评注的重点。然而，它确实指出了在最严重的情况下会发生的确切行为。对行为的审查将基于事件的主观性质和个人的反应。这些观念引起了对受害者辩护的限制的关注。这种区别是有争议的。有许多区别是不能从一个普遍的观点作出的。自我控制的行为和自我控制的丧失需要被考虑在内。新法律和修正案的制定是基于这些极端挑衅或自卫的概念。
Paper代写：过度自卫和极端挑衅的概念
Excessive self-defense can be applied in cases where the person uses force that involved the death of the other person and if the conduct is not in lieu with the circumstances. Com V Barnacle, 134 Mass 215 215 (1883) explains about the condition of self-defense and how the reasonable person would use the force to protect themselves. Frank must prove that he wanted to defend himself against the act of the other persona and prevent the unlawful action of the person. The person must have been acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter to be considered for this notion. The explanation of the self-defense cannot be structured into any set of circumstances. The case of Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645 is used to understand the nuances of this case.
Paper代写：过度自卫和极端挑衅的概念
The use of the words extreme provocation and excessive self-defense will be a point of judicial commentary. It does however point towards the exact conduct that would occur in the most serious circumstances. The review of the conduct will be based on the subjective nature of the events and the response by the person. These notions raise concerns about the restriction of the defense of the victims. The distinction is a matter of debate. There are many distinctions that cannot be made from a generalized viewpoint. The act of self-control and the loss of self-control need to be factored. The formulation of the newer laws and amendments is based on these notions of extreme provocation or the notions of self-defense.
