Comparison of self-defense in Republic of Slovenia and USA, with analysis of Rittenhouse case

Silobran je v Republiki Sloveniji opredeljen v 2. odstavku 22. členu KZ-1 kot obramba, ki je nujno potrebna, da storilec odvrne od sebe ali koga drugega istočasen protipraven napad. Dejanje, ki je storjeno v silobranu, ni protipravno. Protipravnost je zraven ravnanja, izpolnjenosti biti inkriminacije in krivde, eden izmed elementov splošnega pojma kaznivega dejanja. Storilec bo odgovarjal za konkretno kaznivo dejanje, če so podani vsi štirje oz. trije elementi (nekateri pojmujejo ravnanje in izpolnjenosti biti inkriminacije, kot en element) kaznivega dejanja. Na čisto osnovnem nivoju je protipravno tisto dejanje, ki je v nasprotju s pravom. Protipravnost je pomembna, ker kaže na določenost kaznivega dejanja v zakonu, to dejanje pa mora biti v nasprotju s temeljnimi družbenimi vrednotami. Temeljna instituta, ki izključujeta protipravnost sta silobran in upravičljiva skrajna sila. Ravnanje storilca lahko podredimo pravilom silobrana, v kolikor sta izpolnjena elementa obrambe in napada. Napad je človekovo voljno ravnanje, mora biti protipraven ter resničen. Napad mora biti istočasen z obrambo. Le-ta pomeni odziv, s katerim želi branitelj odvrniti ali preprečiti protipraven napad. Obramba pa mora biti v smislu silobrana, neizogibno potrebna in sorazmerna z napadom. V Republiki Sloveniji je s silobranom možno zaščititi katerokoli pravno dobrino, tudi dobrino nižjega ranga (npr. čast). Prav tako, je dopustno s silobranom zaščititi dobrine tretjih oseb. Prekoračeni silobran je urejen v 3. odstavku 22. člena, ki določa, da se sme storilca, ki je prekoračil meje silobrana, kaznovati mileje ali se mu kazen odpusti, če je prekoračil silobran zaradi močne razdraženosti ali prestrašenosti. Za razliko od silobrana, prekoračeni silobran ne izključuje protipravnosti. Institut silobrana oz. »Self-defense« je v ZDA na splošni ravni urejen v Model Penal Code. MPC sicer ni zavezujoč akt, vendar predstavlja dober pravni okvir kazenskopravne zakonodaje na podlagi katere zvezne države ZDA snujejo svoje kazenske zakonike. Ureditev silobrana v ZDA je dokaj podobna slovenski ureditvi, vendar je moč opaziti določene razlike. Te se kažejo predvsem pri standardu razumnega prepričanja branitelja, da mu grozi napad ter v zahtevi po umiku. V Sloveniji se zahteva, da je napad objektivno resničen in zgolj subjektivno prepričanje branitelja, da se je napad odvijal ne zadostuje. Med tem, pa je pri sklicevanju na silobran v ZDA, dovolj razumno prepričanje posameznika, da mu grozi napad. Prav tako, se v Republiki Sloveniji od napadenega praviloma ne zahteva, da pred napadom zbeži, kar ne velja za zvezne države ZDA, ki so pristašinje doktrine »Duty to retreat«. V zadevi Rittenhouse, je bil Kyle Rittenhouse uspešen pri sklicevanju na silobran. Porota ga je spoznala za nedolžnega umora Josepha Rosenbauma ter Anthonya Huberja, in poskusa umora Gaiga Grosskreutza. Menimo, da odločitev porote temelji predvsem na ugotovitvi, da je Rittenhouse s smrtonosno silo deloval, saj bil razumno prepričan, da je taka sila potrebna, da prepreči svojo smrt ali hudo telesno poškodbo.Self-defense in the Republic of Slovenia is defined in paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Criminal Code as a defense that is absolutely necessary for the actor to repel a simultaneous illegal attack from himself or someone else. An act done in Self-defense is not illegal. Illegality is one of the elements of the general concept of a criminal act, along with conduct, the fulfillment of incrimination and guilt. The actor will be liable for a specific crime if all four or three elements (some consider conduct and fulfillment of incrimination as one element) of a criminal act are fullfiled. In general an act that is against the law is illegal. Illegality is important because it indicates the definiteness of the criminal act in the law, and such act must be contrary to fundamental social values. The fundamental institutes that exclude illegality are Self-defense and justifiable extreme force. The actor\u27s behavior can be subject to the rules of Self-defense as long as the elements of defense and attack are met. Assault is a voluntary act of a person, it must be illegal and real. Attack must be simultaneous with defense. The latter means a reaction with which the defender wants to repel or prevent an illegal attack. The defense in the sense of Self.defense must be unavoidably necessary and proportionate to the attack. In the Republic of Slovenia it is possible to protect any legal good, even a good of a lower rank (e.g. honor). Also, it is permissible to protect the property of third parties with a Self-defense. Exceeded Self-defense is regulated in paragraph 3 of Article 22, which stipulates that the offender who has exceeded the Self-defense may be punished more leniently or his sentence may be waived if he crossed the force barrier due to strong irritation or fear. Unlike a Self-defense, an exceeded Self-defense does not preclude illegality. Institute of Self-defense is generally determined in the USA in the Model Penal Code. Although the MPC is not a binding act, it represents a good legal framework for criminal law on the basis of which U.S. states developed their criminal codes. The regulation of Self-defense in the USA is quite similar to the Slovenian regulation, but certain differences can be detected. These are manifested mainly in the standard of the defender\u27s reasonable belief that he is threatened with attack and in the request for withdrawal. In Slovenia it is required that the attack is objectively real and the mere subjective belief of the defender that the attack took place is not sufficient. Meanwhile, when referring to Self-defense in the USA, the individual\u27s reasonable belief that he is threatened with attack is sufficient. Also, in the Republic of Slovenia the attacked party is not required to flee before the attack, which is not the case for the states of the USA which support the "Duty to retreat" doctrine. In the Rittenhouse case was Kyle Rittenhouse successful in invoking the Self-defense claims. A jury found him innocent of the murders of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the attempted murder of Gaig Grosskreutz. We hold that the jury\u27s decision rests primarily on a finding that Rittenhouse used deadly force because he reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent his own death or serious bodily injury