English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92604/122928 (75%)
Visitors : 26794349      Online Users : 452
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/127732
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/127732


    Title: 住所內正當防衛之探究—以美國法堡壘原則為中心
    Self-Defense from the angle of the Castle Doctrine
    Authors: 劉宜昇
    Liu, Yi-Sheng
    Contributors: 許恒達
    Hsu, Heng-Da
    劉宜昇
    Liu, Yi-Sheng
    Keywords: 正當防衛
    過當防衛
    住所神聖性
    居住安寧
    堡壘原則
    不退讓法
    Self-Defense
    Excessive Force in Self-Defense
    Sanctity of one’s home
    Peace of one’s home
    The Castle Doctrine
    The Stand Your Ground Law
    Date: 2019
    Issue Date: 2019-12-06 09:22:36 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 一個人的住所神聖性正是其生活隱私與不可剝奪的人身安全、自由與私有財產權的結合、以及其對居住安寧之依賴等,在在彰顯了住所的特殊性。在這樣的特殊領域內發生之侵入伴隨潛在侵害行為,對於住所內之人遠較一般情形所造成之急迫性與威脅性更劇,亦因此使得住所內之人為之防衛行為通常程度將大於一般情況,在現行通說標準下多將成立過當防衛,而有重新檢視之必要。
    是以對於住所內之正當防衛行為之判斷標準欲重新審酌,本文於第二章先就我國法之正當防衛進行簡介,分別從理論發展與實務見解分析,並將住所內正當防衛類型之特殊性提出;於第三章就比較法美國法之正當防衛亦分別從理論發展與法院見解進行說明,並將美國法之「堡壘原則」與近代「不退讓法」詳細分析、介紹與反思;再於第四章就堡壘原則嘗試於我國刑法中借鏡,提出相關理論之應用與例外情形,並以論理說明本文欲將正當防衛對於「侵害是否存在」在住所內正當防衛類型中改採客觀事中判斷;最終於第五章就本文緣起之勇夫護妻案進行應用,並提出研究成果之回顧與未來展望。
    The sanctity of one's home is the privacies of life and indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, and the dependency on the peace of one’s home. These highlight the particularity of Home. In this particular place, invasion is accompanied by potential violation. The proposed urgency and threat are far more severe to the person in one’s home than regular places. Therefore, one’s defensive actions are more aggressive than usual. Under current standards, they are often categorized as excessive force in self-defense.
    Considering the particularity of one’s home, the current criteria of self-defense need to be re-examined. In Chapter Two, self-defense in our Criminal Law was introduced and analyzed from the aspects of theory and practice. The particularity of self-defense in one’s home was then proposed. In Chapter Three, self-defense in Anglo-American law was also analyzed from the aspects of theory development and the practice in the court. The Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground Law in American law were also analyzed, introduced, and reviewed in detail. In Chapter Four, the Castle Doctrine was referenced to our Criminal Law, and applications and exceptions were suggested. The study proposed that when judging “self-defense in one’s home” cases, whether danger exists should be considered by a reasonable prudent person in one’s shoes instead of in hindsight. Finally, the applications were applied to the original case discussed in the beginning of the study in Chapter Five, and the results and indications were concluded.
    Reference: 中文文獻
    (一) 論著
    王皇玉,刑法總則,新學林,2016年9月2版。
    王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕,刑事訴訟法(上),新學林,2018年8月4版。
    余振華,刑法違法性理論,瑞興圖書,2001年10月1版。
    林山田,刑法通論(上),自版,2008年1月10版。
    林東茂,刑法綜覽,一品,2015年8月8版。
    林鈺雄,新刑法總則,元照,2014年9月4版。
    林書楷,刑法總則,五南,2016年9月3版。
    黃榮堅,基礎刑法學(上),元照,2006年9月3版。
    黃榮堅,刑罰的極限,元照,1998年12月初版。
    蔡墩銘,刑法精義,漢蘆圖書,2007年3月2版。
    蘇俊雄,刑法特論Ⅱ,元照,1998年12月2版。
    刘士心,美国刑法中的犯罪论原理,人民出版社,2010年6月1版。
    李立峰,美国刑法犯意研究,中国政法大学出版社,2009年3月1版。
    储槐植,美国刑法,北京大学出版社, 1996年3月2版。
    (二) 期刊論文
    古承宗,正當防衛的法釋義結構與流變—法制史面向的考察,月旦裁判時報,2018年12月78期,頁58-75。
    古承宗,正當防衛之「為達(防衛)目的所需」要件,月旦法學教室第190期,2018年8月,頁21-24。
    甘添貴,正當防衛之防衛意思,月旦法學雜誌第29期,1997年9月,頁16-17。
    李建良,正當防衛、比例原則與特別犧牲—刑法與憲法的思維方法與理路比較,月旦法學雜誌第291期,2019年8月,頁26-47。
    余振華,口角互毆之正當防衛界限—評最高法院98年台上字第6558號刑事判決,月旦裁判時報第3期,2010年6月,頁95-101。
    周漾沂,正當防衛之法理基礎與成立界限:以法權原則為論述起點,國立臺灣大學法學論叢第48卷第3期,2019年9月,頁1223-1278。
    柯耀程,正當防衛界線之認定,月旦法學雜誌第60期,2000年4月,頁85-97。
    桂齊遜,唐律與現行法關於「正當防衛」規定之比較研究,法制史研究:中國法制史學會會刊,2003年12月第4期,頁47-94。
    許恒達,退避義務與防衛手段的必要性,月旦法學教室第193期,2018年11月,頁22-24。
    許恒達,員警槍擊拒捕通緝犯的正當防衛爭議—評最高法院105年度台非字第88號刑事判決與其歷審裁判,月旦法學雜誌第276期,2018年5月,頁22-42。
    許恒達,正當防衛與不法侵害的現在性,月旦法學教室第185期,2018年3月,頁23-25。
    許恒達,正當防衛與挑唆前行為,月旦刑事法評論第2期,2016年9月,頁101-127。
    許恒達,從個人保護原則重構正當防衛,臺大法學論叢,2016年3月第45卷第1期,頁315-393。
    許恒達,論誤想防衛,中研院法學期刊,2016年3月第18期,頁111-193。
    許恒達,屋主的逆襲──再論延展型過當防衛,月旦裁判時報第41期,2015年11月,頁49-59。
    許恒達,延展型過當防衛,月旦法學教室第114期,2012年4月,頁33-35。
    許哲涵,打若還手,防衛過當,月旦法學教室第188期,2018年6月,頁139-140。
    許哲涵,護孕妻殺賊,男子改判2月徒刑定讞,月旦法學教室第170期,2016年12月,頁128-130。
    張弘昌,勇夫護孕妻的代價--正當防衛與防衛過當及實務見解簡要研究(下),司法周刊,2018年與3月30日,頁2-3。
    張弘昌,勇夫護孕妻的代價--正當防衛與防衛過當及實務見解簡要研究(上),司法周刊,2018年3月23日,頁3。
    張天一,由「勒斃竊賊案」判決論過當防衛之判斷──評臺灣高等法院105年度上易字第1232號判決,月旦刑事法評論第3期,2016年12月,頁94-109。
    張天一,「法律認知」與「法感情」間的落差—從「竊賊遭勒斃案」談起,台灣法學雜誌第260期,2014年11月,頁1-4。
    張群,「夜無故入人家」–不應忽略的那一面,法制史研究:中國法制史學會會刊,2011年6月第19期,頁247-263。
    黃士軒,初探「量的過當防衛」—評最高法院101年度台上字第2356號刑事判決,月旦裁判時報第69期,2018年3月,頁67-89。
    黃國瑞,口角互毆之正當防衛權限,真理財經法學第13期,2014年9月,頁25-62。
    蔡墩銘,正當防衛行為之過當,軍法專刊第7卷第12期,1961年12月,頁18-20。
    薛智仁,正當防衛與比例原則,月旦法學雜誌第23期,2019年8月,頁49-71。
    薛智仁,傷害致死罪之防衛過當──評士林地方法院104年度易字第628號刑事判決,月旦裁判時報第49期,2016年7月,頁38-48。
    石家慧,德国刑法中的正当防卫制度,中国应用法学,2018年第6期,頁173-196。
    龙正凤,德国正当防卫制度及其对我国的启示,凯里学院学报,2015年4月第33卷第2期,頁80-84。
    刘宗珍,我国法治史上的正当防卫,法律文化周刊,人民法院報,2018年11月16日,頁1-3。
    闵冬芳,唐律”夜无故入人家”条源流考,法学研究,2010年第6期,頁183-189。
    陈璇,正当防卫中的”误判特权”及其边界,《中國法學》,2019年第2期,頁49-72。
    陈璇,正当防卫中风险分担原则之提倡,法学评论第153期,2009年第1期,頁102-110。
    劳东燕,正当防卫制度的背后,《清华法学》第7辑,清华大学出版社,2006年1月,頁150-164。
    裴毅然,当血亲复仇遇上国家法制:史上的法礼之辩,《同舟共进》,2015年11期,頁88-89。
    谢雨彤,刑法上正当防卫制度之”不法侵害”研究,法治博览,2018年10月(下),頁208-210。
    (三) 譯著與譯文
    Ekirch A.Roger著,路旦俊、赵奇译,黑夜史,湖南文艺出版社,2006年10月1版。
    George P. Fletcher著,蔡爱慧、陈巧燕、江溯译,刑法的基本概念,中国政法大学出版社,2004年8月1版。
    Luís Greco著,鐘宏彬譯,正當防衛與比例原則,月旦法學雜誌第291期,2019年8月,頁5-25。
    American Law Institute著,刘仁文、王袆等译,美国模范刑法典及其评注,法律出版社,2005年11月1版,頁35-62。
    Rollin M. Perkins著,孙潇洁、刘仁文译,犯罪意图的理论基础,收錄於刑法学精粹,法律出版社,2005年12月1版。
    [德]约翰内斯·卡斯帕著,陈璇译,德国正当防卫权的”法维护”原则,人民检察第10期,2016年,頁30-34。
    [德]亨宁‧罗泽瑙著、蔡桂生译,论德国刑法中的紧急防卫过当,月旦刑事法評論第34期,2014年8月,頁236-247。
    (四) 碩士論文
    李孤雲,正義與法益之侷限—法益、正義論與正當防衛,玄奘大學法律學系碩士論文,2017年。
    林耀琳,論受暴婦女殺害施暴者之正當防衛—以幾個美國刑事實務的判決為例,國防管理學院法律研究所碩士論文,2001年。
    莊鵬興,「住所」正當防衛權之比較法研究,中央警察大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2010年。
    張旭龍,正當防衛之限制,中央警察大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2000年。
    鐘乃皓,美國法上堡壘原則對我國正當防衛法的啟示,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律研究所,2019年7月。
    (五) 網路資源
    司法院網站,中譯外國法規,美利堅合眾國憲法,https://www.judicial.gov.tw/db/db04/%E7%BE%8E%E5%88%A9%E5%A0%85%E5%90%88%E7%9C%BE%E5%9C%8B%E6%86%B2%E6%B3%95.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2019年6月1日。)
    李佳玟,投書:風險社會下的勇夫護妻殺賊,上報,2016年9月,https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=3828(最後瀏覽日:2019年9月11日。)
    彭振宣,屋主勒死竊賊是「防衛過當」?這種論點根本是「紙上談兵的書生之見」,The News Lens 關鍵評論,2014年10月,https://www.thenewslens.com/article/8823(最後瀏覽日:2019年9月11日。)
    葉耀元,正當防衛、防衛過當、堡壘原則?,觀測站,2016年9月,https://www.viewpointtaiwan.com/columnist/正當防衛、防衛過當、堡壘原則?(最後瀏覽日:2019年9月11日。)
    《大清律例》–《刑律-賊盜下之二》,中國哲學書電子化計劃,https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=816633(最後瀏覽日:2019年3月25日)

    英文文獻
    (一) 論著
    American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries: (official draft and revised comments) (May 1962).
    Bill Neal, Getting Away with Murder on the Texas Frontier: Notorious Killing and Celebrated Trials (2006).
    Catherine Palo, Defense Against a Prima Facie Case (Callaghan 2019).
    Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law (15th Vol.2 ed. 1994).
    Donald A. Dripps, Ronald N. Boyce & Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Law and Procedure Cases and Materials (13th ed. 2016).
    Markus Dubber & Mark Kelman, American Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes and Comments (2d ed. 2009).
    Richard Maxwell Brown, No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society (1991).
    Richard J. Bonnie, Anne M. Coughlin, Jeffries, John C., Jr. & Peter W. Low, Criminal Law (3d ed. 2010).
    Richard Maxwell Brown, No Duty to Retreat (1991).
    Seth A. Fine, 1 Criminal Jury Instruction Handbook (Vol.11B ed. 2011-2012).
    Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, (6th ed. 2017).
    Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (3d Vol.2 ed. 2017).
    William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769).
    (二) 期刊論文
    Andrea A. Amoa, Texas Issues a Formidable License to Kill: A Critical Analysis of the Joe Horn Shootings and the Castle Doctrine, 33 T. Marshall L. Rev. 293 (2008).
    Ahmad Abuznaid, Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, Charlotte Cassel & Meena Jagannath, Stand Your Ground Laws: International Human Rights Law Implications, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 1129 (2014).
    Alexis M. Haddox, The Ohio Castle Doctrine: Shielding Criminals with a Presumption of Self-Defense, 41 Cap. U. L. Rev. 1105 (2013).
    Ann Marie Cavazos, Unintended Lawlessness of Stand Your Ground: Justitia Fiat Coelum Ruat, 61 Wayne L. Rev. 221 (2016).
    Anthony Hall, A Stand for Justice – Examining Why Stand Your Ground Laws Negatively Impact African Americans, 7 S. Region Black Student’s Ass’n L.J. 95 (2013).
    Aya Gruber, Race to Incarcerate: Punitive Impulse and the Bid to Repeal Stand Your Ground, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 961 (2014).
    Beale, Jr., Retreat from a Murderous Assault, 16 Harv. L. Rev. 567 (1903).
    Benjamin Levin, A Defensible Defense: Rexamining Castle Doctrine Statutes, 47 Harv. J. on Legis. 523 (2010).
    Benjamin M. Boylston, Immune Disorder: Uncertainty Regarding the Application of Stand Your Ground Laws, 20 Barry L. Rev. [i] (2014).
    Catherine L. Carpenter, Of the Enemy Within, the Castle Doctrine, and Self-Defense, 86 Marq. L. Rev. 653 (2003).
    Christine Catalfamo, Stand Your Ground: Florida’s Castle Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century, 4 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 504 (2007).
    Christy S. Etheredge, The Castle Doctrine: Extension of the Rule to Co-Inhabitants, 52 Fla. L. Rev. 695 (2000).
    Cristina Georgiana Messerschmidt, A Victim of Abuse Should Still Have a Castle: The Applicability of the Castle Doctrine to Instances of Domestic Violence, 106 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 593 (2016).
    Cynthia V. Ward, Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense, 42 Am. J. Crim. L. 89 (2015).
    Daniel Breen, Parson’s Charge: The Strange Origins of Stand Your Ground, 16 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 41 (2017).
    Daniel Michael, Florida’s Protection of Persons Bill, 43 Harv. J. on Legis. 199 (2006).
    David I. Caplan & Sue Wimmershoff-Caplan, Postmodernism and the Model Penal Code v. the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments - and the Castle Privacy Doctrine in the Twenty-First Century, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 1073 (2005).
    Denise M. Drake, The Castle Doctrine: An Expanding Right to Stand Your Ground, 39 St. Mary’s L.J. 573 (2008).
    E. Dimitri Hasandras, On the Effects and History of Stand-Your-Ground Laws, 3 Crim. L. Prac. 5 (2016).
    Elizabeth Megale, A Call for Change: A Contextual-Configurative Analysis of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Laws, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 1051 (2014).
    Evelyn Reyes, Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law: How to Get Away with Murder, 12 Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 147 (2017).
    G. Todd Butler, Recipe for Disaster: Analyzing the Interplay between the Castle Doctrine and the Knock-and-Announce Rule after Hudson v. Michigan, 27 Miss. C. L. Rev. 435 (2007).
    J. P. Neyland, A Man’s Car Is His Castle: The Expansion of Texas Castle Doctrine Eliminating the Duty to Retreat in Areas outside the Home, 60 Baylor L. Rev. 719 (2008).
    Jason W. Bobo, Comment, Following the Trend: Alabama Abandons the Duty to Retreat and Encourages Citizens to Stand Their Ground, 38 Cumb. L. Rev. 339 (2008).
    Jeannie C. Suk, The True Woman: Scenes from the Law of Self-Defense, 31 Harv. J. L.& Gender 237 (2008).
    Jon Laramore, Indiana Constitutional Developments: Debtors, Placements, and the Castle Doctrine, 45 Ind. L. Rev. 1043 (2012).
    Joshua G. Light, The Castle Doctrine – The Lobby is My Dwelling, 22 Widener L.J. 219 (2012).
    Joshua Prince & Allen Thompson, The Inalienable Right to Stand Your Ground, 27 St. Thomas L. Rev. 32 (2015).
    Keedy, Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harv. L. Rev. 75 (1908).
    Kolby K. Reddish, A Clash of Doctrines: The Castle Doctrine and the Knock-and-Announce Rule, 25 Widener L.J. 171 (2016).
    Madison Fair, Dare Defend: Standing for Stand Your Ground, 38 Law & Psychol. Rev. 153 (2014).
    Michelle Jaffe, Up in Arms over Florida’s New Stand Your Ground Law, 30 Nova L. Rev. 155 (2005).
    Pamela Cole Bell, Stand Your Ground Laws: Mischaracterized, Misconstrued, and Misunderstood, 46 U. Mem. L. Rev. 383 (2015).
    Philip Bogdanoff, Ohio’s Castle Doctrine: Presuming Self-Defense, 25 Ohio Law. 21 (2011).
    R. Christopher Cambell, Unlawful/Criminal Activity: The Ill-Defined and Inadequate Provision for a Stand Your Ground Defense, 20 Barry L. Rev. 42 (2014).
    Rachel A. Mattie, Another Bizarre Twist in Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, 20 Barry L. Rev. [i] (2014).
    Rebekah Skiba, Returning to the Roots of the Castle Doctrine: Why Recent Stand Your Ground Laws Are in Line with the Natural Law, 10 S. J. Pol’y & Just. 71 (2016).
    Sara L. Ochs, Can Louisiana’s Self-Defense Law Stand Its Ground: Improving the Stand Your Ground Law in the Murder Capital of America, 59 Loy. L. Rev. 673 (2013).
    Schulze Louis N. Jr., Of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and Legal Expressivism: Why Massachusetts Should Stand Its Ground on Stand Your Ground, 47 New Eng. L. Rev. On Remand 34 (2012).
    Shahabudeen K. Khan, One Decade Later: Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law Alive and Well, 12 Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 115 (2017).
    Steven P. Aggergaard, Criminal Law-Retreat from Reason: How Minnesota’s New No-Retreat Rule Confuses the Law and Cries for Alteration- State v. Glowacki, 29 William Mitchell Law Review 657 (2002).
    Tamara Rice Lave, Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws, 67 U. Miami L. Rev. 827 (2013).
    Tyler Younts, North Carolina’s New Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Other Firearms Laws Changes, 5 Charlotte L. Rev. 267 (2014).
    Zachary L. Weaver, Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 395 (2008).
    (三) 研究報告
    John K. Roman, Race, Justifiable Homicide, and Stand Your Ground Laws: Analysis of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data, Urban Institute (2013).
    Tamara F. Lawson, National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws, Report and Recommendations, American Bar Association (2015).
    (四) 法院資料
    Angela B. Corey, State Attorney, Affidavit of Probable Cause - Second Degree Murder of the case State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman, https://famous-trials.com/images/ftrials/zimmerman/documents/zimprobablecausedoc.pdf (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2012 CF 1083 AXXX STATE OF FLORIDA vs. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, at 12. https://famous-trials.com/images/ftrials/zimmerman/documents/Zimjuryinstructions.pdf (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    (五) 網路資源
    Alyssa Newcomb, George Zimmerman Juror Says ‘In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty’, ABC News (July 25, 2013). https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659 (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    Dana Ford, Juror: ‘No doubt’ that George Zimmerman feared for his life, CNN. Retrieved (July 16, 2013), https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    Democracy and the Second Amendment: Cicero, sortition.com, http://sortition.com/Second%20Amendment/Cicero/cicero.html (last visited Sep. 12, 2019).
    Garrett Epps, The History of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law, American Prospect (Mar. 21, 2012) https://prospect.org/article/history-floridas-stand-your-ground-law (last visited Sep. 9, 2019).
    Geographic Boundaries of United States Courts of Appeal and United States District Courts, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/US_Court_of_Appe als_and_District_Court_map.svg (last visited: Sep. 24, 2019).
    Jana Winter, Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer, Fox News (Jan. 6, 2013), https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-the-job-easier-safer (last visited Sep. 17, 2019).
    Professor Douglas O. Linder, The George Zimmerman Trial: An Account, Famous Trials, https://famous-trials.com/zimmerman1 (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    The White House President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin (July, 2013), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    Ryan J. Winter & Stephen W. Joy, Is Florida’s self-defense law defensible?,43 Monitor on Psychol. 29 (2012), https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/09/jn (last visited Sep. 17, 2019).
    “’Stand Your Ground’ Laws”, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/stand-your-ground-laws (last visited Sep. 11, 2019).
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/ (last visited: Sep. 24, 2019).
    Vaughn Glinton Jr, Southern Honor: An Analysis of Stand Your Ground Law in Southern Jurisdictions (2013). HIM 1990-2015.1528, available at ttps://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/1528.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    105651020
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105651020
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU201901250
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    102001.pdf3986KbAdobe PDF199View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback