Mistake in Knowing Whether Killing Animals as Humans Is an Object or an Object 10

I think it's a mistake to kill animals first. Animals are also alive. Killing it is tantamount to killing someone, although I don't understand any object or object, in short, killing an animal is equivalent to killing one's grandfather, killing one's own ancestors, you kill it

Issue. 1. Why can't you commit it if you don't belong to the object?

The situation you described is a bit general. But generally speaking, this is not a subject that cannot be committed. The point of discussing the impossibility of committing a crime is to analyze the patterns of crime.

The subject cannot commit an attempt to commit a crime that objectively has the objective risk of causing a harmful result, but the harmful result does not occur because of the object.

Just as you say, "Intentionally killing, but killing animals." "It should be an error in the understanding of abstract facts, which is divided into two situations: first, with the intention of killing, without seeing clearly, killing animals as human beings; Second, with the intention of killing, he did not hit the accuracy and killed the animal next to him by mistake. Case one is the wrong object; The second case is to combat mistakes.

Issue. Second, it was the panda that was killed, did it produce imaginary competition?

Answer: As above, the subject cannot commit no harmful result, and killing the panda is not the subject cannot commit.

Because it was with the intention of killing, the rare animal was killed by negligence, and the imaginary competition was from one to the other, and the intentional homicide attempt was attempted.

In the case of an error in the recognition of abstract facts, there is no need to consider the statutory conformity.

Objectively recognize mistakes.

You're going to kill Passerby A.

Slash through with a knife.

Hacking to death is actually just cutting down a tree.

Subject misperceived.

Chopped the stand-in.

You belong to the crime of possession of a gun, manslaughter, and the punishment for both crimes.

I've heard that there was manslaughter.

Normally, the young pigeons start laying eggs at six months of age, all year round, and about six to ten times a year, two at a time, except for the annual moult. According to what you said, you should buy a pair of adult pigeons, the pigeon has just been stressed in the new environment, he will stop laying eggs, and when he adapts to the new environment, he can lay eggs.

Most of the youngsters hatch in May and June.

The unclear boundaries between the two in the theoretical circles do not actually mean that their definitions or extensions are unclear, but that different factual errors are "competing" in the infringement committed by the same actor.

For example, if actor A wants to kill B, but mistakenly thinks C is the target of B, and if A shoots C to death at this time, then there is no doubt that A's act is a mistake of the target; However, if A mistakenly takes a fake gun at this time, mistakes C for B, and shoots at C, but does not kill C, then A's behavior at this time has two factual errors at the same time - the wrong means and the wrong object. This is the coexistence of different factual errors in the same tortious act, which we will call "factual error competition".

In the same way, in terms of object error and object error, when the perpetrator commits an act of violation, he will have two kinds of cognition in his subjective consciousness at the same time, one is who he wants to violate, which is the object of the crime he knows, and the other is the object of the crime that he will violate, both of which have a very clear understanding before the perpetrator commits the criminal act.

In the case of homicide, if a person wants to commit a murderous act, he knows very well who he wants to kill before committing the act, and he also knows very well that what he wants to infringe on is the object of the right to life of others. At this time, if he kills the other person as the person he originally wanted to kill, the object that the actor subjectively perceives is inconsistent with the object that he objectively actually infringes upon -- the object is wrong, but in this case, the object that the actor subjectively perceives as the object that he wants to infringe is the same as the object that he objectively actually infringes upon -- is the right to life of others, so there is no object error, only object error.

But if at this time, he mistakenly kills other people's livestock as the object of crime, then his behavior has both object error and object error, that is, the object of subjective cognition is human beings, and the actual object of infringement is not human - object error; The subjective understanding is that the object to be violated is the right to life of others, but in fact it is the property rights of others that are infringed upon.

To sum up, the object error and the object error can be regarded as a competition in the same infringement, and there is no ambiguity in the conceptual boundary between the object error and the object error.

There are two situations: 1. If C harms B, then C is an attempt to commit a crime, and although B has died, C has committed harm to B, and C has subjective intent, so he commits an attempt to commit intentional homicide. 2 If C does not cause harm to B, C does not commit a crime despite his subjective intent.

In this case, there is no question of whether an attempt is not an attempt. C is not a crime.

We should pay attention to reality and logic, and don't get caught up in theoretical analysis.

Of course, if C does something bad with the corpse, it may constitute the crime of insulting the corpse.

A wanted to kill B, but in the end he mistakenly killed C, and A was found guilty of intentional homicide.

A wanted to send a bag of food that would make B sick but not life-threatening, and C inadvertently ate it, causing the death of C, who was suffering from a serious illness.

That's the difference between what a mistake can be made and what a mistake can't be made.

This issue is an erroneous understanding of facts in criminal law, and specifically an error in the object. In the first place, if hunting is legally permissible, then if a may realize that the object of his hunting is a person, or that the place where he hunts is a place that is more easily accessible to people, he should be liable for the crime of negligent death;If he cannot and cannot realize that the object he is targeting is a person, it is an accident and he does not bear criminal responsibility. Of course, if the hunting is illegal, or if the animal he intends to hunt is a rare wild animal, he should be punished according to the crime of illegal hunting or the crime of attempted hunting and killing of rare and endangered wild animals, and the crime mentioned above.

Because animals are animals, people are people, people have people, people have people, animals have not.