Question

Помогите решить задачу по праву!!! Очень срочно..... Обвинувачуваний у здійсненні особливо тяжких злочинів Удоєв під час допиту переконався, що старшому слідчого прокуратури Меньшикову удалося зібрати прямі докази, що викривають його в здійсненні злочину. Вирішивши, що утрачати вже нічого. Удоєв різко вихопив з-під себе табуретку і замахнувся нею для нанесення удару Меньшикову по голові. Меньшиков, сидячи за столом у куті, зрозумів, що ухилитися від удару практично неможливо, вихопивши пістолет, вистрілив в Удоєва й убив його. У відношенні слідчого була порушена кримінальна справа за убивство при перевищенні меж необхідної оборони. Оцінити обґрунтованість цього рішення.

Answer 1

Капец, даже не знаю.... трудно однако

Answer 2

Background Information

The situation described involves an accusation of a serious crime and the subsequent actions taken by the individuals involved. The accused, Udoev, was interrogated and believed that the senior investigator, Menshikov, had gathered direct evidence incriminating him in the crime. Udoev then attempted to strike Menshikov with a stool, but Menshikov, realizing he couldn't avoid the blow, shot and killed Udoev in self-defense. A criminal case was initiated against Menshikov for exceeding the limits of necessary defense.

Evaluation of the Decision

To evaluate the justification of this decision, we need to consider the legal principles surrounding self-defense and the use of force.

1. Self-Defense: In many legal systems, including Ukrainian law, individuals have the right to defend themselves when facing an imminent threat of harm. The use of force in self-defense is generally allowed if it is necessary and proportionate to the threat faced.

2. Exceeding the Limits of Necessary Defense: However, if the person defending themselves uses force that goes beyond what is necessary to repel the threat, they may be held accountable for exceeding the limits of necessary defense. The assessment of whether the force used was excessive depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

In the situation described, Menshikov, while being attacked by Udoev, shot and killed him. The key question is whether Menshikov's use of lethal force was necessary and proportionate to the threat he faced.

Analysis of the Situation

To determine the reasonableness of Menshikov's actions, we need to consider the following factors:

1. Imminent Threat: Menshikov was facing an imminent threat of harm when Udoev attempted to strike him with a stool. The fact that Udoev was in close proximity and had already demonstrated violent intent by attempting to strike Menshikov supports the argument that Menshikov was in immediate danger.

2. Proportionality: The use of force in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat faced. In this case, Menshikov responded to the imminent threat with lethal force by shooting Udoev. The question is whether shooting Udoev was a proportionate response to the attack with a stool. This assessment depends on various factors, such as the severity of the threat, the availability of alternative means of defense, and the possibility of using non-lethal force.

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, it appears that Menshikov's decision to use lethal force in self-defense against Udoev's attack with a stool could be considered justifiable. However, a thorough investigation and legal analysis would be necessary to fully evaluate the circumstances and determine the legality of Menshikov's actions.

Please note that this analysis is based on the information provided and does not constitute legal advice. It is always recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance in such matters.

[[1]]