Under what circumstances is homicide "justifiable"? If found "justifiable" does the murderer get any jail time at all?
Legal question
- Thread starter triedit
- Start date
You should really ask a lawyer that one if you want to get it officially right, but you'll probably get a long, complex statement beginning with, "It depends..." And it does. In Canadian law, homicide is the general term for killing another person. If you plan it beforehand, it's murder. If it's not planned, the worst it can be is manslaughter, which is also a crime but it's not treated as seriously as murder. For a homicide to be considered justifiable, it has to be done in self defense, in the defense of others, or to prevent another crime, but that won't always get you off the hook. If, for instance, somebody attacks you and you manage to get control of the situation, then kill your attacker, the court may pin manslaughter on you, on the grounds that killing the attacker was no longer necessary to save yourself. Justifiable homicide is not a crime, it's really an exoneration equivalent to not guilty. You'll do no time for it, but you will for manslaughter and murder.
Most civilized jurisdictions recognize the same distinctions, but might call them different things. U.S. law, for instance, recognizes first and second degree murder rather than calling them murder and manslaughter.
Most civilized jurisdictions recognize the same distinctions, but might call them different things. U.S. law, for instance, recognizes first and second degree murder rather than calling them murder and manslaughter.
Last edited:
With "intent" carefully defined, yes. For it to be murder, you have to have intended to do it before the situation arose that led to the homicide. I don't think Canadian law distinguishes the crime of passion from something like a fight where somebody gets killed, they'd both be manslaughter, but as I said, you really need a lawyer for this one.
Having posted this shows premeditation and malice aforethought which puts you away for life without parole for 25. So don't even think about trying to kill me. 8O
Heh, good thing there is strict gun control in Canada weeee
At least I can fight back with my OWN knife
Better if a sword
At least I can fight back with my OWN knife
Better if a sword
I'm not a lawyer, and quite frankly I don't think that an actual lawyer would know. A lawyer can offer an interpretation, just as I can offer an interpretation, or you can offer an interpretation. The actual decision is up to the prosecutor first, and the judge or jury second. There's very little for a lwayer to do in such a case but to make a compelling argument. And that's only if the prosecutor decides to pursue the matter as a criminal case.
Generally, I would guess, the Crown would not pursue a case where they believe it likely that they will not succeed with a conviction. So if the Crown elects to pursue the homicide as a criminal matter, and the defense attorney chooses to make the argument that the homicide was justified, you essentially have two dynamically differing legal opinions. So that begs the question: Would a lawyer really know what is and isn't justified?
I would tend to think that any matter brought to trial under such hypothetical circumstances would be appealed -- by both sides. So ultimately, it is theoretically possible that the matter could end up before the Supreme Court of Canada. The panel of Justices hearing the matter there, would provide the definitive answer -- if they haven't already.
Getting back to layman's interpretation of the Criminal Code, you are permitted to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend yourself or another. So I suppose you would have to determine what was meant by "reasonable". I think that a court would probably decide that for homicide to be justifiable, there would have to be the expectation that one or more parties would have died irrespective of the circumstances. That is, killing someone who punched you in the nose would not be justifiable. Shooting someone who was running at you with a knife, however, might make for an interesting case. Clearly, anyone running at you with a knife would illicit genuine fears for one's life.
In a nutshell, I really don't know. But I do so love debating it. :lol:
Generally, I would guess, the Crown would not pursue a case where they believe it likely that they will not succeed with a conviction. So if the Crown elects to pursue the homicide as a criminal matter, and the defense attorney chooses to make the argument that the homicide was justified, you essentially have two dynamically differing legal opinions. So that begs the question: Would a lawyer really know what is and isn't justified?
I would tend to think that any matter brought to trial under such hypothetical circumstances would be appealed -- by both sides. So ultimately, it is theoretically possible that the matter could end up before the Supreme Court of Canada. The panel of Justices hearing the matter there, would provide the definitive answer -- if they haven't already.
Getting back to layman's interpretation of the Criminal Code, you are permitted to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend yourself or another. So I suppose you would have to determine what was meant by "reasonable". I think that a court would probably decide that for homicide to be justifiable, there would have to be the expectation that one or more parties would have died irrespective of the circumstances. That is, killing someone who punched you in the nose would not be justifiable. Shooting someone who was running at you with a knife, however, might make for an interesting case. Clearly, anyone running at you with a knife would illicit genuine fears for one's life.
In a nutshell, I really don't know. But I do so love debating it. :lol:
Like many of the foreskinning, I think the matter is open for intrappatation, just so's the lawyers can glean a few more pennies, eh:angry3:
Like you an another dude is goin at it right in the street in front of the bar, in full view of many witnessess who see nothin.
The cops can't come cause it's Timmy time, so you got no choice and use the ol Kung Foo move; ........kikka in nuts.......and put the guy on the ground, and proceed to choke the sh!t outa him, to the point where he's nearly gone.
Then, he reaches into his boot, comes up with a knife and slashes yer troat, and you die. Ok, so he was in danger of losin his life, and you lost yers instead, BUT a shifty shyster crown dick will argue, he coulda stabbed you in the eye and made you let go; and hence he'll go for murder one. You gotta prove you ain't guilty, eh.
Dis has many phillysofikal condemnations to offer eh, and why you shuda gone to Queens U and then laws school so you could become a slippery shyster instead of a dead thug, and made a lot of money so doing.
Best thing to do is ensure that , if you really plan on offing someone, don't ask the beginning question of the thread, cause now, no one will believe you, not that they would anyways.
:read2:
Like you an another dude is goin at it right in the street in front of the bar, in full view of many witnessess who see nothin.
The cops can't come cause it's Timmy time, so you got no choice and use the ol Kung Foo move; ........kikka in nuts.......and put the guy on the ground, and proceed to choke the sh!t outa him, to the point where he's nearly gone.
Then, he reaches into his boot, comes up with a knife and slashes yer troat, and you die. Ok, so he was in danger of losin his life, and you lost yers instead, BUT a shifty shyster crown dick will argue, he coulda stabbed you in the eye and made you let go; and hence he'll go for murder one. You gotta prove you ain't guilty, eh.
Dis has many phillysofikal condemnations to offer eh, and why you shuda gone to Queens U and then laws school so you could become a slippery shyster instead of a dead thug, and made a lot of money so doing.
Best thing to do is ensure that , if you really plan on offing someone, don't ask the beginning question of the thread, cause now, no one will believe you, not that they would anyways.
:read2:
Probably the safest way to kill someone and get away with murder is to run them down with your car:smile:
Homicide is "justifiable" only in defense of yourself or another.
In Canada, the use of lethal force is justified only if you or someone else is in immediate danger of death or greivous bodily harm.
I teach this to armoured car guards, we say it until they can repeat it word for word........
If one of my guards shoots someone on the street, that is a homicide......whether it is justified or not depends on how it fits the requirements above........
In Canada, the use of lethal force is justified only if you or someone else is in immediate danger of death or greivous bodily harm.
I teach this to armoured car guards, we say it until they can repeat it word for word........
If one of my guards shoots someone on the street, that is a homicide......whether it is justified or not depends on how it fits the requirements above........
Homicide can be justifiable when it's children sleeping in their beds while mother and father watch as napalm falls down around them in Japan or Iraq or Viet Nam or anywhere where homicide is made acceptable under the rubric of "war".....
If we can kill innocent people while they sleep ....when it's "war" of course, isn't the line between "justifiable" and "unjustified" the real point of focus?
Colpy's remarks are closest to the truth, but we've all watched as goons with guns (tasers) commit homicide in the name of "security"...while people starve and freeze to death on our streets....while pharmaceutical corporations and toy companies poison and kill.
Where is the "intent" behind state-sanctioned greed and state-sanctioned "pre-emptive aggression"....
It's in our hearts.
If we can kill innocent people while they sleep ....when it's "war" of course, isn't the line between "justifiable" and "unjustified" the real point of focus?
Colpy's remarks are closest to the truth, but we've all watched as goons with guns (tasers) commit homicide in the name of "security"...while people starve and freeze to death on our streets....while pharmaceutical corporations and toy companies poison and kill.
Where is the "intent" behind state-sanctioned greed and state-sanctioned "pre-emptive aggression"....
It's in our hearts.
I could have looked this up on the Internet for more up-to-date information, but I, instead, chose to consult Martin's Annual Criminal Code - 1979, with annotations by Edward L. Greenspan.
In 1979, it was section 34 of the Criminal Code that dealt with the use of force in instances of unprovoked attacks. Section 35 dealt with the use of force in self-defence where the assault was provoked. Things may have, and probably have, changed since 1979.
Anyway, Section 34 of the C.C.C states:
34. (1) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes, and
(b) he believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
So the law, at least back in 1979, allowed people to use a proportionate amount of force to ward off an attack on their person. Subsection (1) allows that homicide is justified in self-defense if there was not the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily injury. It does not matter if the attacker subsequently dies as a result of the repelling force. All that matters is that there was not the "intent" to kill, and that the force used was "proportional" to that of the force applied by the assailant.
Subsection (2) does allow for the justification of homicide in self-defence where there was the "intent" to kill. However, there must be a "reasonable" and "probable" belief that the assailant has the intent of killing or causing grievous injury to your person.
For purposes of Subsection (1) the Judge is not to consider whether the assailant suffered death or grievous injury as a result of the defense, but instead should consider the amount of force that was applied and the circumstances surrounding the application of force.
Subsections (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive. A Judge or Jury must first determine whether there was intent to cause death or grievous injury. If they are satisfied that there was in intent, they can consider Subsection (2). Was there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that causing death or grievous injury was the only manner for one to defend themselves?
In 1979, it was section 34 of the Criminal Code that dealt with the use of force in instances of unprovoked attacks. Section 35 dealt with the use of force in self-defence where the assault was provoked. Things may have, and probably have, changed since 1979.
Anyway, Section 34 of the C.C.C states:
34. (1) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes, and
(b) he believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
So the law, at least back in 1979, allowed people to use a proportionate amount of force to ward off an attack on their person. Subsection (1) allows that homicide is justified in self-defense if there was not the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily injury. It does not matter if the attacker subsequently dies as a result of the repelling force. All that matters is that there was not the "intent" to kill, and that the force used was "proportional" to that of the force applied by the assailant.
Subsection (2) does allow for the justification of homicide in self-defence where there was the "intent" to kill. However, there must be a "reasonable" and "probable" belief that the assailant has the intent of killing or causing grievous injury to your person.
For purposes of Subsection (1) the Judge is not to consider whether the assailant suffered death or grievous injury as a result of the defense, but instead should consider the amount of force that was applied and the circumstances surrounding the application of force.
Subsections (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive. A Judge or Jury must first determine whether there was intent to cause death or grievous injury. If they are satisfied that there was in intent, they can consider Subsection (2). Was there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that causing death or grievous injury was the only manner for one to defend themselves?
Canada has made a passtime out of housing, clothing feeding and lending medical care to murderers and assassins because many believe that "state-sponsored" homicide is less prudent...or somehow epitomizes the Canadian valuation of life.
Meanwhile, a million Canadians depend on food banks and support for the elderly the disabled and the infirm is warranted less important than (in Ontario) a million dollars handed to cricket-teams.....
What do you call 500 lawyers and politicians at the bottom of the ocean.....?
Meanwhile, a million Canadians depend on food banks and support for the elderly the disabled and the infirm is warranted less important than (in Ontario) a million dollars handed to cricket-teams.....
What do you call 500 lawyers and politicians at the bottom of the ocean.....?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but tasers are designed to allow people (law enforcement in Canada) to defend themselves without causing death or grievous injury. So there would be no "intent" to kill or cause grievous injury on the part of the alleged "goons". The fact that the person subsequently died as a result of being tasered is not a matter for consideration.
What needs to be considered is whether there was intent to kill or cause grievous harm, and whether the circumstances warranted the use of force. In choosing to use a taser as opposed to a gun, I would tend to think that one could conclude that there was no "intent" to kill or cause grievous harm. So you then need to ask the second question. Did the circumstances warrant the use of force, and was the force applied proportional to that of the force applied by the assailant? If you are satisfied that the force was proportional and warranted under the circumstances, the death was justifiable.