How To Make A Ultrasonic Insecticide

WARNING! DATE CHANGE: Extra hour 20:07:10 - 9-11h

For organizational reasons, I put together both AGs next Tuesday. The Bonus Hour will be held from 9 cents to 11h. We meet in the cooler AM 03! I have to note that there is an unscheduled hour.

With the request for your understanding
TB

No Gifts Please, Money

Another case of recurrence

"helmet law"

A and B work in pairs on a small site of her boss (C). A working on scaffolding and B will throw a stone from the top on the head. First and foremost he wants to B so miss a lesson. For B A friend has the spread. A look from above the new helmet with the B constant, since C has bought this reluctantly after a visit to the building inspection. Because of this industrial safety helmet does A, that B will die by the falling stone. B if at least one concussion, bruises or Head will win, not looking A safe, but it is not matter. Assume that the helmet be discarded after the impact of the stone because of the pressure load must go from A. A missed but for himself unexpectedly because of the height of 5 meters of its target. The stone falls in the sand. "B" seems to have noticed anything because of his ear plugs and does not move from the spot. Since A has no more stone available, he grabs after some hesitation, a lying next to him randomly tiles of approximately equal weight to B but to take yet.

is at this moment by C and A cry from below, it's better to watch that A is probably gone mad. A makes his decision B throw to fall and finally lays the bricks immediately to help because he does not want to hurt B in front of witnesses and would get no case more trouble with his strict boss. C would fire him determined in a second litter. When A is still wiping the cold sweat and want to leave the framework, C takes the helm of the B and goes back to the trailer. Only now also see A, that the helmet was associated with a work jacket on a pole and raised up from above the appearance of a person. A extremely angry and frustrated going into the lunch break.


Check the criminality of A in a legal opinion!
Editors note: qualifying events, such as § § 211, 224, 226, 227, 304 of the Penal Code, and negligent offenses are not to be examined. Check so only basic facts!

opinions proposal

A. § § 223 para 1, Alt. 1 and para 2, 22, 23 StGB attempted assault of the A to B by the expense of the stone throwing

A made liable to prosecution for assault if he has not completed (I) the crime and the attempt the assault is punishable (II) by the Assen case of the stone (a) after its introduction (b) direct damage to health or physical Ill-treatment of B had set, (III) illegal and (IV) acted negligently, and (V) is not withdrawn voluntarily.

I. preliminary

a) No completion

The offense is § 223 of the Criminal Code was not completed because no one injured.

a) criminality of the attempt

The test of § 223 of the Penal Code is under § § 23 para 1, 22 Section 1, 223 para 2 of the Criminal Code punishable as for this offense (§ 12) express the criminality of the experiment is arranged.

II fact.

a) intent / Tatentschluss

A has Tatentschluss if he wanted to reach a health risk under § 223 para 1 of the Criminal Code of B by his action. An adequate idea is already available, if A recognizes only the possibility of violating B. A turned a concussion and bruises as to the relevant medical categories morbid conditions Although not present in certain consequence of his dropping of the stone, but a natural option.

If, as here there is no certain knowledge, is the Tatentschluss to affirm any case where a detailed contentious positive element of will is the decision of the offender (so called dolus eventualis). The indifference of the A to the health damage of B shows that the injury although he does not arrive, but she is quite appropriate. This is an equitable take into account in the legal sense and therefore sufficient for all theories voluntative intent element.

A is therefore determined to act.

b) prepare just

A has the offense of attempted assault achieved when tested immediately after his presentation to the point I Tatausführung approach instead, as it the stone on the helmet the B cast. His idea is based on the Tatausführung of injury to B, although the stone throwing is a disabled object of the crime "Tatausführung" within the meaning of § 22 StGB.

first Tatausführung arguments against the disabled object

is nothing to prevent an execution can be disabled at the object under no circumstances lead to completion. Therefore, one can doubt that here at all an act is present, which could be executed. It is also at risk for a preparation on the disabled object not a victim, so that no protected right to be defended examined by the punishment of the experiment.

second arguments for the attempt on disabled object

The textual argument does not convince because the word "Tatausführung" must not be taken out of context, but together with the phrase "after the performance" of the offender to be read needs. In his mind, the offender is no limit as long as he means it seriously to achieve the success somehow by its actual plot. But the decisive factor is a systematic argument from the law: in § 23 para 3 of the Criminal Code, even the grossly ignorant attempt at fundamentally unfit object of the crime is punishable made. Only the final decision on whether and how the punishment is set at the level of sentencing in the judicial discretion. Moreover, is logically the unsuitability of the experiment considered imperative as the completion has failed to show any cause.

third intermediate result

Therefore, it is imperative that can be rolled over to action on disabled object can.

4th subjective-objective theory

A is in accordance with this in § § 22, 23 Criminal Code law enshrined subjective-objective theory any event immediately recognized when he is to his idea of fact, the course of events from the hands, so he already believes everything on its part for the success achievement required to have done. However, this is necessarily only with extremely short causal curves, eg shot, blow, throw and is controversial with time extended causal curves.

Here we have the stone throwing an act that leads to the idea of A if necessary to readily in fractions of a second success, the head injury in B,. A has therefore prepared immediately with the execution of the actual offense.

III. illegality

justifications are not, therefore, did unlawfully.

IV debt

standards are speaking against the debt is not being met. A therefore acted with guilt.

V. resignation acc. § 24 para 1, 1st Alt. Criminal Code as a personal criminal pleas based

A is the attempt of killing the A retired amnesty if he voluntarily gave up the execution of the deed, as he put the tile back.

a) No attempt failed, giving up possible or failure?

A is indeed just abandoned him when an abandonment of Tatausführung literally at all possible and the deed was not already failed (sg failure). The act has not failed when completing the the Tatausführung the offender still poses as possible.

first Einzelaktstheorie

The proposed Tatausführung A is no longer subjectively possible if the "Tatausführung "already completed, with the throwing of the stone was and is the throwing of a brick, not as the continuation of the same act, but as a new action (execution), a new dock-is (sg Einzelaktstheorie [1] ).

second overall view doctrine

we understand the Tatbegriff and thus further the "Tatausführung" and considering all available adapted devices, there is in any case before the same Tatausführung if A success and without the essential spatial and temporal caesura after his performance still can make the relevant date of the decision (to leave the "withdrawal horizon" after the so called total consideration doctrine [2] ). A stand here known by him within range of roof tiles available and he could throw again and within a few seconds. Therefore, would still make the same act.

third Sets Tatplantheorie

the emphasis on subjective Tatplanung of the perpetrator, the act failed rücktrittsausschließend when the initial Tatplan fails the offender and this plan provided no alternative off (on the "planning horizon" after the sg Tatplantheorie [3] ). Here A had only planned to make the first throw. The tiles came as randomly stopgap used. Therefore, after the Tatplantheorie would also already have a different, new Tatausführung.

As the total consideration to another theory about possibilities ^[4] different result comes, it must be decided which option to follow.

4th arguments against the Einzelaktstheorie

Einzelakttheorie is called Against the objection that they pull apart quixotic life processes common to a fractalisation of Tatbegriffs out and a narrowing of the cancellation option out.

5th arguments against the so-called Tatplantheorie

speaks against this theory that they privileged those offenders have thought through the increased use of criminal energy to multiple Tatablaufvarianten. The spontaneous or simple-minded and thus are also less dangerous offender under this theory does not benefit from the cancellation option.

6th arguments for the so-called total consideration doctrine

is preferable in the above mentioned reasons and to the victims as much as possible through wide withdrawal options as an incentive to adjust the perpetrator of the attack to protect the overall view of teaching.

7th intermediate result:

would then attempt the A withdrawal in principle capable.

(Moves to the problem of the so called failure acceptable results in the voluntariness of the resignation in that respect no different result [5] .)

b)

A cancellation action was thus a further embodiment just begun to give up the deed. This he did, as he lay back on the tile instead of the supposed B to throw.

c) Voluntarily

The resignation, however, leads only to the penalty waiver if it was voluntary.

The resignation is voluntary, if it is made up of autonomous subjects, ie, from a motivation that may well be influenced from outside, which is from a psychological point of view but also for the perpetrators than their own decision and he is not strange feeling. The resignation is involuntary if the offender is exposed to such strong psychological pressure from other people or circumstances, that he no longer feels free, but his decision is virtually forced upon them. This should apply in the case group the subsequent increase in risk. If fear of discovery by third parties such as offender need to meet him from the consequences so severe that the possible continuation would indeed bring considerable disadvantages MI, [6] .

Here, A decides to resign because he by the occurrence of C determines to stop him from asking real fear of discovery has indeed. This concerns not only the criminal consequences, but also the negative consequences for his employment by trouble with the boss. These factors are mentally so strong that it the sweat breaks out. Therefore, A is not resigned voluntarily [7] .

Interim Results: A has thus Alt to § § 223 para 1. 1, para 2, 22, 23 of the Criminal Code criminalized.

VI. regard to the sentence: A rough

foolish attempt to § 23 para 3 of the Criminal Code was not available, for a confusion of the helmet and the jacket with the real B was not from a height of 5 meters, completely absurd.

B. Attempted criminal damage to the helmet by A at the expense of C according to § 303 para 1, para 3, 22, 23

(I.) The helmet was not damaged and attempted criminal damage is also a crime, § § 303 Section 1, paragraph 3, 22, 23 StGB.

(II) (a) the C belonging So for A strange helmet that would be after the performance of the A on hit damage certainly was, because he can no longer be used as intended as Headgear, when he received a severe blow . A had also in this respect because Tatentschluss but in the form of certain knowledge. To (b) direct preparation

(III) is unlawful,
(IV) debt and

(V) Withdrawal applies the above in accordance with A. II b) to V written as B and the helmet after the presentation of A is a necessary unity of form as object of the crime.

intermediate result: A has therefore committed an offense also for attempted criminal damage.

C. final

A has made it illegal for attempted assault at the expense of B in coincidence with attempted criminal damage at the expense of C, § § 223, 303, 22, 23, 52 StGB.

---

[1] cooling, JuS 1981, p. .195; James, AT, 26/15 f.

[2] Since BGHSt 31, 17, NStZ 93, 399 "newer now-established consistent holdings" (Sch / Sch / Eser, § 24 Rnd. 18 with further references)

[3] so still BGHSt 14, 75, 22 176th

[4] The fourth possible solution nor the sg of Hillenkamp purpose of punishment theory, including SK-Rudolphi, § 24 is marginal. 14 represented that directly relates to the general criminal policy or special preventive need for punishment. The presentation of this the methodological and constitutional aspects of concern and few remaining minority opinion is not expected.

[5] Who's going this route, but should explain above why an abandonment literally to fail, despite the possible. The agent should therefore invalidate the argument text.

[6] Sch / Sch / Eser, § 24 Rnd. 49ff.

[7] Another view is only a long and well-reasoned argument acceptable to the view shown here.

In My Throat When I Swallow

case to repeat

"Whoever digs a pit for others ..."

The poacher (W) want to ask the Ranger (R) on his morning spot speed trap. Given on a forest trail near the lodge digs about 1, 40-meter deep hole, which he expertly covered with branches, a network and leaves. W firmly believes that F is at least the ankle sprain or break. Because of the depth of the hole but that W expects that F climb out themselves anyway and can crawl or hobble home.

W proof that F is always the same Time this approach with the district uses gears. W will control the next morning one hour prior to the transition area of the F case. The road looks very natural and W away satisfied. Since animals at night but the highlight of mine have moved, W is wrong but has the exact location of the trap and fall into it himself after the next bend.

W sprained his foot slightly and therefore the whole thing sorry. Condemn the fallen in the hole coverage of the case so not restore, although it would be easy. W frustrated sneaking home. He believes that the case is now open no longer a risk to a person. In fact, F is also an hour later in the open grave, because he observed woodpeckers in the trees and does not on its way. injured by a miracle and it is not F with the terror. He can then fill in the pit by forest workers.

Editors note: Check the criminality of the W in a legal opinion!

§ § 239, 240, 224 of the Penal Code are not to be examined.

A. § § 223, 22, 23 attempted assault of W is at the expense of the F

W by digging and camouflaging the trap (and the removal of the supposed location of the event after the patrol [1] ) for attempted injury to § 223 para 1 Alt 1, section 2 of the Criminal Code punishable made if
(I) the act is not completed and attempted assault is generally punishable (§ 23 I StGB) and he

(II) to (a) of its performance (b) directly to any physical abuse or damage to health attaches (§ 22 StGB) and

(III) to be unlawful and

(IV) guilty of acting and

(V.) not resigned amnesty from the trial (§ 24 para 1 Alt 1 or 3 of the Criminal Code)

I. Preliminary

a) The crime is not completed, because the infringement of the W self-injury is non-punishable.

b) The test is a simple assault after old § § 223 para 1. 1 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 23 para 1 of the Criminal Code is a criminal offense (§ 12 StGB).

II event

a) intent / Tatentschluss (+)

first W had Tatentschluss if he idea of a physical abuse or damage to health by his success that the F wanted to achieve action. W has Tatentschluss if he wanted to achieve in a physical idea of the damage to health or ill-treatment F on this achievement by his action. W, presented a sprain or a broken ankle and wanted to observe. Treatment immediately as these are conditions under the relevant categories of medical health. W wanted the F this injury just tightens the fact that he would fall into their own by the action of W excavated pit. After W's idea of success is, therefore, identifiable and causally attributable to his action.

second That here the act of the victim must come to, is itself if you were to ask the essential cooperation of indirect perpetration [2] problems. For the F has as a tool against itself, "no quality, and W by the perpetrators known to him only camouflage the mine over the infringement force of superior knowledge.

third If you as the victim in almost every action necessary with the person acting in figure holding the indirect perpetrator is needless, it is also attributable to the present certainly. F Whether the event approaches or whether the risk of moving towards him, can not make a difference (The court is working so far with "the principles" of indirect perpetration [3] without further explanation.).

W therefore had intent to commit bodily injury.

b) The immediate setting (objectively on a subjective basis)

If the perpetrator has done everything for his idea of the commission of the act required, the test is thus given if already completed, is already in principle before a trial of the offense. In dispute is whether an exception has to do it, if not the success will follow directly from the plot.

Then one could in fact be the general to § § 22, 23 Criminal Code according to principles developed back and ask if lie to the notion of the perpetrator of the act no time and no significant break between the acts between his conduct and the success, the victim would be endangered by concrete after objective evaluation of his performance and the perpetrator subjectively on the eve of the Citizens on is going on.

first "Run in" key of F as an interlude or break time? If you walk up to

I. a) 2 assume that the intent is focused on indirect commission by another (§ 25 StGB [4] ), could "walk into the the F to be attributable W, essential intermission.

second Concrete threat to the protected right? is attributed to

But already, regardless of whether the action (preparation of the Tatmittler must immediately) the victim of indirect perpetration or only similar principles [5] (the victim must be in actual danger to be), It comes after an opinion on whether a specific threat based on the idea of the W is still missing. The Supreme Court explicitly required in a decision that the victim "in the immediate Scope of these traps reached "must be, even if it is clear that it will be released in the near future [6] . Although W was sure that F would occur in the foreseeable future in the trap. However, with a waiting time of about an hour ago, where no time-local aggravation. Then W would have on the way back from patrol still not recognized immediately.

third Extended threat to the established case law

missing but any uncertainty in the mind of the perpetrator, it could be due to the security of the successful entry points already in the trap and even more so an hour before show of F assume the control response of a concrete danger. The lack of temporal and physical proximity would be offset by the increased risk probability [7] . W expects thus establishes that F appears in about one hour. After that would be here even before a direct preparation.

4th All insignificant, though some action already completed?

According to another view it is the occurrence of a specific risk only when an unfinished attempt to [8] . W makes his own act he has been so recognized immediately when it is independent of the imaginary security of the successful entry " after the creation of risk is the action of the hand, so he uses his powers stripped [9] " regardless of whether the victim had to participate even unconsciously or not specifically appeared at risk. Under the camouflage of the case W must do nothing further. He had his mind after the trap unattended and left to itself, and thus his powers stripped to the planned admission success, as he supposed to control the scene already a curved road had left behind. Then W would have immediately recognized

5th Subjectively, on the eve of the "now goes off you?"

If one focuses on the subjective tense feeling of the offender, then it crosses is the threshold to " now let's [10] "and only did so when he says the victim had F in space and time the event is already within sight or earshot of the approximated W. W calculated until an hour later with F. Hence W stands subjectively not yet on the threshold of the let's go. If one but from the actions of W, the threshold is already exceeded, because he has done everything necessary. The subjective theory can yield inconclusive results because in their framework is not clear "what " for now is to go off.

6th Decision and Interim Results:

Because of the different results is a decision for or against any case, the solution required, which calls for spatial-temporal subjective deterioration in terms of a concrete danger.

For the theories that a subjective real risk speaks to require additional action completed execution and the loss of influence, that the legislature not only the " preparation" but also a "directness requirement" introduced [11] and thus has at least subjectively set up a real danger in the event. Moreover, does the proximity of the indirect perpetrator [12] lead, which is due to arrive after many views on the action of the Tatmittlers and not the background man.

The worthlessness of the experiment, but is generally in the dangerous actions of the perpetrator and not in danger of success, § 23 para 3 of the Criminal Code. The law also requires an immediacy of piecing , not the danger. If the quality of the perpetrators Done controlling agent is serious, he puts on his act and not the victim by his final performance. Therefore, it is senseless to attempt, if only subjectively, for specific hazards and explain to the success of crime. A necessary and sufficient to carry out the dangerous act, at least when the offender enters its influence on the situation. The theories that demand the idea of a real danger to convince, not so. (AA reasonably good).

III. illegality

lack of justification the Open he was acting unlawfully.

IV debt

He was culpable and not excused.

V. resignation acc. § 24 para 1 1 Alt. Criminal Code as a personal aside basic criminal abandonment of the W?

B of attempted homicide of the A retired amnesty if he desisted from A as he left the room and the execution of the deed voluntarily abandoned.

a) No failed attempt (giving up possible or failure?)

B has to give up the execution of the deed, when he stopped not only the acts of aggression, but the achievement of success as part of his act was still possible and not failed . On the circumstances be defeated is giving up her sense of the word something other than. Surrender implies a choice.

first Total consideration doctrine

we understand the Tatbegriff and thus the "Tatausführung" further and considering all available adapted devices, there is in any case before the same Tatausführung when the A success and without significant spatial and temporal caesura after his performance can still cause the relevant date of the decision (to leave the "withdrawal horizon" after the so called total consideration doctrine [13] ). A was here easily renewed camouflage the trap possible .. As A left the trap and went home, he was not hurt so badly that a renewed camouflage the trap would have been impossible. Therefore, would still make the same fact, if W is the case would again conceal, rather than withdraw.

second Einzelaktstheorie

The proposed Tatausführung would W no longer subjectively possible if the "Tatausführung" was already completed, with the camouflage the trap and the new camouflage rather than a continuation of the same acts, but as a new fact (design), therefore represents a new dock-(sg Einzelaktstheorie [14] ).

third Tatplantheorie

If one focuses on the subjective Tatplanung of the perpetrator, the act failed rücktrittsausschließend when the initial Tatplan fails because of the offender and this plan provided no alternatives park (on the "planning horizon" after the sg Tatplantheorie [ 15] ). Here A had only planned with the first dressing of the trap to reach the success already. Therefore, after the Tatplantheorie would also already have a different, new Tatausführung.

As the total consideration to another theory about possibilities [16] different result comes, it must be decided which option to follow.

4th Arguments against the so-called Einzelaktstheorie

Einzelakttheorie Against the objection is that it tears apart unrealistic uniform processes of life leads to the fractalisation Tatbegriffs and leads to a narrowing of the cancellation option.

5th Arguments against the so-called Tatplantheorie

speaks against this theory that they privileged those offenders who thought through the increased use of criminal energy to multiple Tatablaufvarianten have. The spontaneous or simple-minded and thus are also less dangerous offender under this theory does not benefit from the cancellation option.

6th Arguments for the so-called total consideration doctrine

is preferable in the above mentioned reasons and to protect the victim as much as possible through wide withdrawal options as an incentive to adjust to the perpetrator of the attack, the total consideration doctrine.

7th Interim Results:

then would be the attempt of the A principle capable resignation. (Moves to the problem of so called acceptable failure in the voluntary resignation results so far no other result [17] .)

b) applying sufficient?

A did the deed but only gave up when success was not prevented as without his help. Then would have had to make a serious effort to § 24 I, p. 2 of the Criminal Code, such as by example the case zuschüttete.

first Unterminated attempt?

For the simple surrender would first have to be some unfinished experiment. W here was first assume to have done everything necessary for violation of the F. When the decision to go home, he held a successful entry but no longer possible, since the case was revealed. Following this overall assessment favored theory of established case law (see above) it also depends on the classification of the trial ended in / unfinished on the so called "withdrawal horizon" at. Then, a transformation of the ended in the unfinished attempt is possible and correct, if the offender acknowledges that the victim was still not placed in danger by his actions. For otherwise the offender would cut the pointless resignation.

Abandoning the W in the sense of § 24 para 1 Alt. 1 StGB (unfinished experiment) is only given if it is a subjective suitability of giving up on the success avoidance sufficient is. For objectively F has fallen into the trap anyway. (Another view, that is giving up enough, because it is sufficient for W would be acceptable here, then you would have to leave more to the subjective nature of the experiment.)

second Or non-completion without the assistance of the perpetrator?

The success ultimately failed not because W is not the case again camouflaged, but remained at random from, because even in the case of F fell, but not injured. Not much was the lack of camouflage, but the happy case of F.

Then W would not give up, but the Random success prevented. That would be a non-full ends without the assistance of the offender W. It follows that a serious effort necessary to prevent them. This requires the text of the third alternative of § 24 paragraph 1 StGB.

(aa) Mere passivity generally not sufficient

Such must always go beyond the purely passive giving up, if that is not the only exception and meaningful way is turning away. Otherwise, the offender would also like here relieved by the accidental lack of success. W here could have been more than that fill up the trap. Then he would not so resigned.

(bb) exception if the offender also may rely on inaction to a lack of success

But it would be on the to require subjective test basis, § 22 StGB, inconsistent, the offender an objective risk aversion, for he sees no reason and that was not really necessary even [18] . If the subjective creation of a sufficient threat to make use of, the conscious decision to not play enough risk to justify if the risk is for offenders idea already ceased to exist and in fact not realized in the success. A pure stand up is therefore a serious concern if the offender " can safely assume the act would not run without his involvement [19] " . Here it is therefore only on the subjective danger of the disappearance case, when W was allowed to rely at least according to his notion of objective rating [20] . That was already the case as W the place of the event left, he felt justified even found out that the trap is safe now. The fact that a large hole on the way is not seen is rather unlikely. Then W would have either given up the act when he is not the case further camouflaged or so in any case seriously committed to the prevention of success.

c) Voluntary withdrawal

The abandonment or serious work are to M. h. voluntarily if the offender without a strong psychological coercion of autonomous motives on the further execution of the deed distance increases. Here, W A slight injury, but this did not prevent them mentally to put the case back into state. The risk of discovery or ernuten miscarriage was not extremely elevated. W is rather disappointed with the first failure and was simply tired. Therefore, he acted voluntarily.

W has resigned from the attempted assault of amnesty to the detriment of the F.

B. result

W has not made punishable.

---

[1] not absolutely necessary, will look to how we classifies the immediate preparation.

[2] BGHSt 43, 177 "poison case of a pharmacist," BGH NStZ 1998, 294 "booby trap". The addressing of the indirect perpetrator sheep t can only be expected from good to very good students. Sometimes it makes no difference whether the adapted devices moved to the victim or the victim of the adapted devices.

[3] BGHSt 43, 177

[4] only to be expected of good students, Indirect perpetration as part of the lecture yet.

[5] BGHSt 43, 177 "poison case of a pharmacist"

[6] BGH NStZ 1998, 294 "booby trap".

[7] So well BGHSt 43, 177 "poison case of a pharmacist": Is "established for the offender, the victim will appear and be cause for Taterfolgf planned behavior, there is immediate danger (after the Tatplan) already completed before the criminal act .... "Agreeing NStZ Altvater 1998, 345

[8] Sch / Sch / Eser, § 22, Rnd. 42.

[9] Herzberg Jus 99, 225 f., Roxin JZ 1998, 210

[10] BGHSt 26, 203

[11] BGHSt 43, 177 "poison case of a pharmacist."

[12] See footnote 3

[13] Since BGHSt 31, 17, NStZ 93, 399 "is now well-established case law later." (Sch / Sch / Eser, § 24 Rnd. 18 with further references)

[14] cooling, JuS 1981, p. .195; James, AT, 26/15 f.

[15] so still BGHSt 14 , 75, 22 176th

[16] The fourth possible solution nor the sg of Hillenkamp purpose of punishment theory, including SK-Rudolphi, § 24 is marginal. 14 represented that relates directly to the general criminal policy or special preventive need for punishment. The presentation of this the methodological and constitutional aspects of concern and few remaining minority opinion is not expected.

[17] Who's going this route, but should explain above, why is a surrender in the literal sense, despite the possible failure. The agent should therefore invalidate the argument text.

[18] HM to § 24 para 1, Herzberg, JZ 1989, 115: " common ground" (AA justifiable offender must earn withdrawal episodes).. The problem is treated without dogmatic classification under the index, maximum withdrawal efforts "in the consistent holdings of the Supreme Court, but usually in preventing and not when placing or serious effort.

[19] BGH GA, 1974, p. 243

[20] This is my interpretation the above Supreme Court decision, there is demanded of the Penitent assume " can" without its participation would indeed not complete. Can be here "may rely " as interpreted, as the perpetrator in his imagination as a master of his thoughts can take everything as safe as they please. Whether this objectification of the test is accurate is another question to be here but not to be resolved.

Can Pregnat Wommen Use Anbasol

Another practice exam

"drinking contest"

in the bar "Eye T" called the regular guest host out the A (W) to the drinking contest.

W said on the condition that A is charged. It should be drunk tequila glasses of water (0.3 liters), the W should take each case on the request of the A to the table. W but secretly exchanged his glass with a chance of standing on the table glass with water so that only A first drank tequila with 40% alcohol content. When A saw that with W showed no effect of the alcohol, he thought to himself: "That can not be, that I already as bad off" At this time, although A tipsy already, but still fully responsible for his actions because of some.. previously enjoyed beers and tequilas was his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for about 1.5 per thousand. A so ordered a second round of tequila, this time with really drank W. A called W, the glass - as A - "in Ex", so drink up on a train to W "to break". After A had emptied the second glass so he was very drunk and was still ongoing because of the burst effect phase of the first tequilas significant deficits. This meant that A fell from the chair. He got up again, however, and ordered W babbling with a third round of tequila. At this time, the BAC at A about 3 per thousand. The third glass drank A in a train. W was of the recently enjoyed drinking so fast nor bad, so he left them his glass.

W held the first two tequila glasses, the A has been emptied, for health risk, especially alcohol-A was used to. As W is recognized before the third round of the fully drunken state of A, he has not ruled out a slight alcohol poisoning in A.

lost after the third round A but with 4.8 per thousand BAK consciousness, and fell again by the chair to the floor. The dishonest winner W, however, had only 1.3 per thousand BAK. When W leaned over the supine A, he realized that A rolled his eyes and now Vomit threatened to suffocate.

W was A, however, in joyful expectation of his death are, because he could never stand still. A actually died within a short time.

he had - which would easily have been possible - A shot to the side and called a doctor, A would have been saved with a probability bordering on certainty. The see through and the only drunken W.

Editors note: Check the criminality of the W in a legal opinion!

qualifying events (also § 227 and § 211 StGB) or privileges no need to examine. § 221 StGB either.

Extract from Licensing Act:
§ 20 GastG General prohibitions
is prohibited ...
second in pursuit of a trade alcoholic drinks to be seen to give drunks ....


solution:

advice

A. § 223 para 1 Alt. 1 - first round - bringing the glasses and drinking water by W

W has made him guilty of an offense if he

(I) A by bringing the tequila and their own drinking glass of water at the Health damaged and in this regard has deliberately

(II) unlawfully and

(III) acted negligently.

I. offense

A suffered by the drink up the tequila glasses severe alcohol poisoning, which proves his BAC of 4.8 per mille. A fact Success is, therefore.

was not in bringing the glass and the water drinking in the first round for the noise of the A and all subsequent episodes until death, which includes any event, as a transitional stage of alcohol poisoning, but damage to the health, contributed to this situation, because A is not alone wanted to drink.

This action is only a "health harming " if the success of this action is objectively attributable W. This is the case when W has created with his conduct was unlawful threat, the typical risk currently achieved in the concrete success. For some groups of cases is recognized that they do not meet these general criteria unclear. One is the "responsible self-endangerment free 'based on the idea that the responsibility of others as ends where the parties begin. A successful implementation promoting the factual review is not illegal then, if he only makes another, directly harmful act to make itself over the infringement and to threaten the liberty itself responsible. Not the one who supports the decision of the person concerned or allow harm to health, but the person harms himself voluntarily

The voluntary self-Get drunk of the A is basically a free and responsible self-injury breaks, therefore, the attribution of the patrons - the W - from, no matter who provides the alcoholic beverages or otherwise promote the motivation of the drinker. Therefore, the mid Rinken and serving is basically no damage to the health of another.

One could but think, but shift the responsibility back on the W, because it pretends to be A mid Rinken behaves, in its broadest sense unfair. Legal anchor point would be § 25 para 1 2 Alt. Criminal Code or at least its principles: committing a crime by the victim as " another "within the meaning of that provision. That would be the case if indirect perpetration EXIST by energizing and taking advantage of a mistake.

The motivations alone does not change the responsibility, if it is not enforced. An illusion, in contrast to coercion, therefore, only considered if it is legal expert based [1] so only if the risk transferee the potential hazard is not obvious or if it does not without Another obvious danger is deceived [2] . Here, W is not the A deceived about what and how much drink A. A rather knew exactly what he did to himself. That he drank only because W communicates rank does not change anything because this was his free choice, and even his own idea [3] .

II result

therefore separates a personal injury through the drinking water by W and bringing the glass of tequila to the A [4] .

B. § 223 para 1 Alt. 1 - second round - bringing the glasses and Tequila Drinking by W

W has made him guilty of criminal when he damaged

(I) A by bringing two of his glasses and drinking tequila in health and in this respect with intent,

(II) unlawfully and

(III) acted negligently.

I.

event that W is the second round brought and drank his glass is possibly mitkausal for success, since A may have only because of the further competition for a second glass and drank it a third glass. But even that is not safe, as A in the third round without W drank. In any case, but the cause of the alcohol poisoning, W that brought the second round. But this is irrelevant if this voluntary exposure cancels the allocation. In fact, the A and W is deceptive not even and A is also not the time for action irresponsible drunk. Therefore breaks in the second round of the allocation for drinking water free from self-endangerment charge [5] .

II result

Therefore, W is due to the bringing of the two glasses of tequila and the consumption of which one in the second round of any wrongdoing.

C. § § 223 para 1, 25, Section 1, Alt. 2, by W in the third round

W, but made him guilty of an offense under § § 223 para 1, 25 para 1 in conjunction with Alt 1, Alt 2 of the Criminal Code if he

(I) by the be the third glass of tequila brought damage to the health, and in this regard intentional

(II) unlawfully and

(III) acted negligently.

I. offense

a) health damage

The necessary success is available, see above AI W unfolds here physical activity, as it has the A, the third glass of tequila [6] . The focus of culpability is therefore on doing, but the omission.

After an attribution to the top W retired because of their own responsibility of the A at the first two rounds, could be here in the third round of the health damage of A - that is, the alcohol poisoning - are attributable to the W.

The transfer of goods - by sale or rental, by their nature, bring threats to themselves or dangerous undertakings can be used such as automotive, medical, chainsaws, is only a legally disapproved of risk creation, if for the transferee of those goods, the potential hazards not readily apparent is [7] . As A drank the last glass, was then only against a still-free self-endangerment charge, if A was still able to make a will. That is definitely not the case if he is very drunk. This is supported by § § 20, 21 of the Criminal Code, the offender from responsibility in any case partially exempt. A is already very drunk. It shows significant deficits by the fall from the chair and the difficult language. So ruled the objective of non-attribution.

But is supported by the statutory provision of § 20 para 2 GastG which prohibit the landlord just auszuschenken to intoxicated persons. A itself has not recognized the danger since he is already drunk and was not capable of discernment. However, took the A harmful act immediately in front of himself.

The attribution of the behavior of A to the W via § 25 Abs 1 StGB (" by another " indirect guilt), if one understands this standard as a constitutive attribution rule. Otherwise, they make the attribution of ontological result in strange behavior made clear when the standard is interpreted as merely declaratory [8] .

There is therefore a legally disapproved of risk creation. W is the fall following the last drink of alcohol poisoning as a health damage attributable.

b) intent

The intent of the W differs according to § 16 paragraph 1 StGB from when W did not know the circumstances that belong to the legal facts. The actually performed act not presented and intended. After the concrete theory and the "Wesentlichkeitstheorie" of the BGH that is the case when the presented causal process and success far from the actual events differ, so that despite fulfill the legal criteria equivalence a different legal assessment of the act is justified. The drama develops much more dramatic than initially assumed W. The alcohol poisoning is fatal. The W has at the relevant time not act intentionally. Nevertheless, in the fatal alcohol poisoning is the "normal" poisoning mentioned as a transitional stage and the death of W is not exactly allocated under § 223 paragraph 1 StGB.

W also for the other objective characteristics acted intentionally because he recognized the state of A and it still operated. His win was more important to him than the health of A. So he had all the conditional intent, even if it did not mattered A to poison and he may have known this and not sure.

II result

W acted negligently and therefore A has been damaged by the operation in round three on health.

D. § § 212 para 1, 13 paragraph 1 StGB omission of W by leaving behind the unconscious A?

W has made it illegal for premeditated murder when he

(I) was unconscious as A refrain, to avert the death of A as a success, which is part of the offense of § 212 para 1 of the Criminal Code, and if he had legally responsible for ensuring that the death occurred and if so not the failure to Implementation of § 212 para 1 of the Criminal Code by a corresponding action and intent in this regard,

(II) unlawfully and

(III) acted negligently.

I. offense

a) success, quasi-causal, physically real action available

W has failed here, A to turn the page and call a doctor. These actions would have prevented even with the high probability of success. He was also physically easy to execute these actions because it was bad, but no noise-related behavioral limitation had occurred.

b) guarantee for the return

B but only legally responsible for ensuring that nothing happens A click through this self-injury, when he had a general duty on the alternative of § 323c beyond duty to prevent the death of the A at this point.

first Risk community

Such a requirement can watch as a duty to protect (protector Garant), on A, resulting from a special trust. This is believed to trust and risk communities, such as close, joint planning or consultation incurred risk community among mountaineers [9] . There is a serious deal taken to assist each other, which is also supported by a certain moral integrity of the sport.

such a loose and devoid of any moral significance compound, as is the Zechgemeinschaft, lacks the social and ethical relationship [10] . A mandatory Füreinandersorgen stand up and gives this not from the Zechgemeinschaft. The mere Zechgemeinschaft is no special agreement is not a risk community.

moral misconduct relating to the human relationship in the Zechgemeinschaft are therefore generally irrelevant. A regular on the standby duty increase Responsibility for the Mitzecher is from this idea, rejected. Then W would have no guarantee of A's position to control drinking behavior.

favor of this last view and that is to be feared otherwise a limitless expansion of the offense to false criminal omission. If any more or less random encounter or acquaintance may lead to a guaranteed position is that with the principle of certainty from Article 103, paragraph 2 GG hardly compatible and it is contrary to the legal concept leaves little room for real criminal omission as § 323c StGB.

There could be souvenirs here that a guarantee for the return community from danger would arise, as W was unconscious after the last drink. For the non-binding Zecherverhältnis is not the consciousness a mine is now a completely different closer relationship.

second Ingerenz

W but has a guarantee for the return of Inge Renz, if earlier conduct in breach of duty exists, the A has just launched into the death threat, before W was able to save the A. is now recognized that a mere causal earlier conduct is not constitutive Ingerenz [11] . If you can already be sufficient merely a socially inadequate earlier conduct, is already a guarantee for the return is due if the dishonest Mitt Rinken is considered inadequate. Even this is problematic because there is no undisputed rules of the common drinking contest. If you come here, but a socially deviant behavior in the broadest sense, this would lead to this solution possible, a guarantee for the return. Against this very broad interpretation of § 13 paragraph 1 but the talk already Zechgemeinschaft arguments for indeterminacy and Article 103, paragraph 2 GG accordingly. are rules about socially inadequate behavior in a pluralistic society it any more. Legally, the handle may be unconscionable, which occurs at least in § 228 of the Criminal Code, which describes a related problem. A drinking game is not in itself morally already, so that a Deception here is not immoral. The dispute may be left open, however, if W wrongful another reason for the A helplessness contributed.

Here W not only as non-binding fellow drinkers Sponsors of the event, but he has special duties from his position as host, resulting from the law.

The previous activity does not cause a guarantor for the diversion of success, if the landlord keeps within the limits imposed by GastG [12] . If he fails, however, that he makes a contrario garant liable for the resulting resulting at least in typical hazards [13] .

C violated here, but just against the GastG by the recognizable and from himself so fully recognized nor drunken W set before a large glass of high-proof tequila. be given

between this breach of duty and the success must also search for a specific view of the danger context (Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang). The ban on alcohol to intoxicated auszuschenken is just the drunks from the health hazards protected by excessive alcohol consumption. M. h. After the Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang but by free responsible action of the victim are locked, such as when the victim drug are given in the fasting state and thereafter assumes its own responsibility, even the drug [14] . But here A is on the relevant Put the last glass tequila already insane, so there are any disputes between BGH and literature.

c) intent

W A has also deliberately let down, because he recognized the danger of death and took his death approvingly accepted.

II illegality

justifications are not available. Therefore W acted illegally.

III. Debt

a) reasonableness

C would have had to threaten not have their own legal interests, to save A. Him a deal was therefore reasonable. That he would eventually rescued by the help of a witness for the previously committed assault and promotes its own burden is irrelevant, since the expected penalty in consideration of the life of A is negligible, but the offense can be even lower, arg. § 211 StGB "masking intention" (which is not necessary to consider here).

b) debt exclusion

debt exclusion are not before. W acted so fully at fault.

IV matching clause

The failure must follow according to § 13 paragraph 1, in fine, the killing of the Criminal Code within the meaning of § 212 paragraph 1 StGB. Except for handwritten offenses is the only exception in the case not so. For such an exceptional case here is no evidence.

V. result

Therefore W has made a criminal offense under § § 212 para 1, 13 StGB.

E. end result / competitions

One possibility is that § 212 para 1, 13 StGB the previous injury displaced by doing already in the way of competition laws as mitbestrafte predicate offense because the injury only a transitional stage to the next was on her death [15] . However, it also held that the offenses are Tatmehrheit [16] , because otherwise it would not clarify the cause of the injury by doing compared to a mere omission with regard to the killing.

absence of different results, the dispute will be decided. speaks for the latter view, the concealment of murder in the form of an omission is hardly possible would be if the perpetrators can be damaged by the injury victim to die in order to cover this assault.

If the injury merely pass offense to killing in any single action will displace the previous injury completed by the murder but even in the way of competition laws. The latter view would thus from the Ingerenz because § 223-related murder under § § 212, para 1, 13 Criminal Code in the compared to manslaughter and assault in the commission of guilt by an act increasing the total penalty under § § 53, 54 StGB result.

help here However, a legal comparison further: anyone who violates a person first and then kills by a second act, shall be punished as a rule because of two actions. Taking the equality of action and omission by § 13 StGB seriously, the failure after injury is also another fact, which is why there are no concerns at Tatmehrheit, especially if the perpetrator as here, two different Tatentschlüsse fast.

W has therefore to § § 212 para 1 in conjunction with 13 paragraph 1, 2, § 223 para 1 Alt. 1, 53 of the Criminal Code criminalized.

---

[1] that regard is the sole responsibility Self-endangerment treated differently from the justifying consent, according to the HM all based on deception causal error is considerable. Consent is necessary but only at the level of illegality, after it is already clear that it was the perpetrator of the factual basis and had control over the infringement, so perpetrators.

[2] BGHSt 37, 106, 114

[3] Even if one ignores for extremely conservative view of the doctrine of objective attribution, W here has any event have no intention, as it had not think of alcohol poisoning A.

[4] also negligent inspection will not be granted because the allocation is subject to the same rules as for intentional tort.

[5] Again, W also does not have any idea about the health of the A, so that another solution would be no intent .

[6] After the design is represented at the display of physical activity generally Action. Even the conception of the Criminal Code § 24 shows that the focus of culpability only in the exceptional case of failure, although it is traded. Such is the case here.

[7] BGHSt 37, 106, 114

[8] This would be consistent if one starts from the principle objective of formal doctrine and that under § § 25 et seq modified. After Tatherrschaftslehre and the subjective approaches of the offender is likely to be on a law offshore rating level. § § 25 ff StGB draw that conclusion only after then.

[9] BayObLG 98, 97

[10] BGH NJW 1954, 1047, 1048th

[11] Lackner / cooling § 13 Rnd. 11.

[12] BGHSt 19, 152; Roxin NStZ 1985, 320

[13] See OLG Saarbrücken (4th Civil Chamber), NJW-RR 1995, 986: § 20 para 2 GastG only triggers a ban auszuschenken alcohol to a guest if "the influence of alcohol has obviously achieved such a degree that the person in question after reasonable assessment does not behave more responsibly can ". Significant, but in terms of § 221 StGB, BGHSt. 26, 35: When the drunk reaches a guest host for the guest clearly such a degree that he is no longer master of his decisions and can not take responsibility for themselves is to start from a position of guarantor of the innkeeper.

[14] Stree, JuS 1985, p. 179, 184

[15] Schönke / Schroeder / Stree Prep § § 52 ff

[16] BGHSt 35, 116; Joecks § 211 Rnd. 58 ff, 60 mw N.