جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "shooting" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The subject of this study is the analysis of the three legal systems of Iran, Russia, and Common Law regarding the regulations of shooting by armed officers towards accused and escaped convicts. It is necessary to deal with this issue because every year many accused and convicted are killed by officers' shooting. On this basis, the aim of this research is to reduce the cases of fatal shootings with a comparative look at the laws of some countries. This article uses analytical-comparative method to express the contents in two discourses of the principles governing shooting (the first discourse) and the cases of shooting towards accused and escaped convicts (the second discourse). In some cases, the armed officers have provided extensive powers that increase the number of fatal shootings. By studying some common law countries, it becomes clear that the shooting regulations in these countries are more advanced and have a more acceptable level than the previous two legal systems; In such a way that shooting is only prescribed to protect oneself and the available statistics also indicate a decrease in shootings and cases leading to death. This last-mentioned procedure is more compatible with the approach of human rights and human dignity, which is also suggested for Iran's legal system.

 The "Law on the Use of Weapons by the Armed Forces in Cases of Necessity", which dates back to 1995, has always been evaluated by legal scholars and has created challenges. In the meantime, the need to pay special attention to shooting at moving targets due to its special conditions and results, has led to the study of this issue. The objectives of this article are to identify gaps, shortcomings and ambiguities in the law of use of weapons in relation to shooting at vehicles and then reduce casualties and financial losses and increase the power of detection in the use of weapons to stop vehicles and count problems and achieve legal challenges. Enforcement is the use of weapons to seize vehicles. The method selected in this article is descriptive-analytical method and library method (documentary review). An attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive and complete analysis by studying written sources, including articles, books, dissertations, and related research, and by evaluating, comparing, and selecting preferred opinions. In this article, the method of analyzing the collected information is basically inferential and we will try to argue with the necessary reasoning and using the opinions and views of legal scholars and theories, as well as citing the existing problems and findings. Through documentary reviews, the answers to the questions raised and the hypotheses of the article can be critiqued. The results of this article show that officers use weapons in a specific objective and subjective framework and this objective and subjective framework is influenced by factors such as age, education, grade and marriage. Also, the views of different authorities regarding the necessity or non-necessity of shooting are different, which has led to ambiguities in the shooting attempt. Other results in this article include differences in service type, geographical location, training method and shooting time, which have significant effects on the use of weapons in shooting at vehicles.

Nowadays, in most of legal systems »contributory negligence« is a one of the factors that entirely or partially divested injured from compensation with cut the causation between loss and harmful act. This article is seeking to analyzing Iranian and English legal systems, regarding to Acts and judicial precedent in police civil liability, about this subject (contributory negligence). In this regard, Iranian legal system in encountering police with guilty or accused people, requires Innocence of injured people as one of elements of police civil liability.
Additionally the approach of police and injured in creation of loss, has various Assumptions that contribute both of them in creation of loss, is the most complex among them. judicial precedent, also, don’t follow the one opinion and consider different issues like legal standards, wasted blood person etc; in terms of approach and negligence of injured and police.