本案中甲的行为应怎么定性
甲外出时在自己的住宅内安放了防卫装置。某日晚，乙盗窃进入甲的住宅后，被防卫装置击中，当场死亡。甲的行为是什么性质？A．故意伤害罪
B．正当防卫
C．过失致人死亡罪
D．故意杀人罪
E．民事侵权行为，不构成犯罪
My proposition(系本人原创非首发):
According to the status quo accredited point of view, concerning the man's actus reus and mens rea, his conduct is neither justifiable homicide, nor unpremeditated manslaughter(negligence or imprudence), nor mayhem, nor tort, but indirect intentional homicide.
His premeditation to set up a so-called defensing device in his apartment to prevent burglary is deliberate, which cannot be exempted from penal punishment in that he abandon the probability of the death of the nonviolent perpetrator(i.e. the thief). Furthermore, self-defense must be directed against a specific malefactor whom the victim is confronted with just on time, to the extent that is commensurate with the intensity of the encroaching criminal deed.
Consequently, he bears penal liability instead of civil tort liability, and is culpable in the light of PRC's penal code. He may be sentenced to few years of imprisonment, plus some punitive damages. He might be respited by the adjudication in respect of the relatively slender criminal context. He can be paroled during prison time if he is not a recidivist.
根据目前的通说，考虑到该男子的犯罪客观方面和犯罪主观方面，他的行为既不是特别防卫，也不是过失致人死亡(包括疏忽大意的过失和过于自信的过失)，也不是故意伤害，更不是民事侵权行为，而是间接故意杀人。
他为了阻止入室盗窃而在自己的住宅内安置了“防卫装置”，是出于故意的预谋，这种行为不能被免于刑事处罚，因为他放任了非暴力的犯罪者(即小偷)的死亡。还有，正当防卫行为必须适时指向受害人正在面对的特定的不法侵害者，其程度必须与正在进行的不法侵害的行为相称。既不能进行事前防卫，也不能进行事后防卫。
因此，该男子应承担的是刑事责任，而不是民事侵权责任，依据中国的刑法典应受到追究。它可能会被判处几年有期徒刑和一些惩罚性的赔偿金。由于犯罪情节较轻，他有可能被判缓刑。如果他不是累犯的话，在服刑期间有可能被假释。 关键看其“防卫装置”是否违法，是否超过防盗的必要限度。
如果被防盗装置击中，竟然当场死亡。显然该装置是不适当的。
同意作者的观点，是放任他人死亡，间接故意。
其实，这题我国律考和司考都出现过，只不过题目更明确。 使用“防卫过当”定论或许合适？
页:
[1]