The fact you asked the question blows justifiable all to hell for now it's become premeditated and anyone giving advice on "how to" is a co-conspirator.
Woof!
Woof!
Legal question
- Thread starter triedit
- Start date
A/ Water pollution....
B/ Space for lots more....
C/ You don't. They might hear you....
D/ Treasure hunters....
Any close Mick?
Woof!
Not so. If one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that his life is in danger, one can justifiably have the "intent" to kill or cause grievous harm to an assailant. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
Someone contracts a hitman to end your life. Through some bizarre quirk of fate, you become aware of the fact that someone has ordered your death, or done something that would cause you to believe that an attack on your person was imminent, and that the intent was to kill or cause grievous harm to your person. Are you justified in making your self-defense intentions clear?
I believe so. You wouldn't be justified in committing a preemptive defensive kill, but you are certainly permitted to be prepared for an eventual attack.
I believe that the contract on your life would give you reasonable and probable apprehension of the fact that your life was in danger, and that there was the intent to take your life.
I believe that under the circumstances, you would be justified in taking the assailants life once the contracted "hit" had commenced. Premeditated self-defense is not a crime. I mean, think about it. Besides, this discussion is purely academic.
Wrong! Premeditated self-defense is what colpy does when he instructs armoured car drivers on when they can use deadly force. Premeditated self-defense is what the Parliament of Canada did when they considered what would and would not be deemed justifiable, and codified it in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Premeditated self-defense is what police officers do when they enter a situation they know to be dangerous. Premeditated self-defense is not an offense. It is done everyday by people who have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that they will be assaulted, and that that assault will lead to death or grievous injury.
Good luck in arguing that before a system that has faith in itself. Under CCC, they have effectively taken the right of self-defence away from the citizen and placed it into the hands of the police.
To tell the truth, I'd act outside the Law (I've no faith in it) and face the eventualities - but know I would be the subject of criminal investigation afterward. Chances are, it would never go beyond a Coroner's Inquest anyhow.
Woof!
I don't expect it will be a tough sell. Not when it can be demonstrated that one took every reasonable step possible to defend himself within the system. i.e. The person contacted the police, but the police for some strange and self-serving reason refused to act.
So I think you could make the argument that the police were negligent in their duties. Negligent at the very least. If the reason for the inaction was due to corruption (i.e. the police were allowing the assault to occur... Or even, if the police were permitting conditions to materialize that would ultimately lead to an assault) than the argument would become that much easier.
I mean, it's one thing to have knowledge that your life was in danger. It's quite another to live with the knowledge that the police are unwilling to intervene. What are your options? Sue someone? You'd probably be dead or in a hospital bed before you ever got your day in court. What other options would you have? Make yourself an open target by becoming high profile? That would just make it easier for the contracted hit to be carried out. No, the only option you have is to establish a defense strategy. And if that defense strategy includes killing the person that is set on killing you, that's appropriate.
Excuse me, but haven't we just destroyed a nation with premeditated self-defence. I'v always had a problem differentiateing between the two. So we should logically commit the act and decide the finer points after the fact. Maybe there's no solution.:smile:
What lawyer is going to argue in your favour against the police? Are you aware that it is unethical for an Officer of the Court (your lawyer) to expose the wrongs of Her Majesty's laws enforcers - and no judge is ever going to believe cops are derelict in their duties.
Likely, the investigation to prove that argument would be well beyond the means of most people. You-lie-and-I'll-swear-to-it is the hallmark of Police Accociations and the Church - and NO private individual is ever going to peek beneath Her Majesty's skirts. Justice? It doesn't live here any more.
Quite frankly, the one requirement to proove justifiable homicide is spontanaity - the spur of the moment. Self defence CANNOT be premeditated. That is likened to setting a trap. You'd better have a huge paper trail to back yourself to prove the police knew and didn't act (and evidence DOES go missing to protect the Law)
Woof!
Tell that to the Supreme Court who recently affirmed that police officers may be sued for negligence.
Who is to say that there would be an investigation? We're dealing with a hypothetical homicide where the Crown has elected to pursue a criminal prosecution. In such a circumstance, it would be part of the defence strategy to argue that the homicide was justified. There would be no investigation of the police at that time.
Instead, the defense would produce evidence to show that the accused had reasonable and probable grounds on which to believe that his safety were in danger. This would not be difficult.
The defense would then have to show that the accused made his concerns known to the police. If the police refused to take the complainant seriously, and the complainant was in legitimate danger, the police are negligent. It has yet to be determined whether the conduct of the police goes beyond the threshold of negligence.
Self-defense CAN be premeditated to a certain extent. It is perfectly within your right to take the position that you will kill anyone that attempts to kill you. The spantanaity element is lost once you become aware that your life is threatened. You then need only the attempt on your life before you can respond with force.
It is in no way similar to "setting a trap". Someone places a price on your head. You become aware of this. You make your concerns known to the police, but they ignore you. Are you expected to sit around and wait to die? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. No one is obligated to live in fear.
If you're referring to Iraq, that was an alleged "preemptive" strike. Not a "premeditated" self-defense. There's a difference.
Premeditated self-defense would be giving forethought to how you would respond in the event of an actual attack.
Preemptive self-defense would be attacking the assailant before he had an opportunity to attack you.
In the former, you are preparing for an aggressor to actually hit you. In the latter, you are the aggressor.
So are you saying that preemptive acts of self defence are spontaneous requiring no meditation. :lol:
You know the theory. I hope reality proves in kind. Truth is a very harsh lesson to learn.
Woof!
Try looking some cases,sentancing judgementas and appeals at the provincial courts. You can see how the law is interpreted, case by case - province by province. I could read that stuff for hours.
Index: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/index.html
Sentancing Judgement; Ontario Superior Court of Justice: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...doc/2007/2007canlii13933/2007canlii13933.html
Index: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/index.html
Sentancing Judgement; Ontario Superior Court of Justice: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...doc/2007/2007canlii13933/2007canlii13933.html
No, I am saying that a preemptive strike is NOT self-defense.
One can build an army and prepare for an attack, without actually launching an attack. To launch an unprovoked attack could certainly be spontaneous or premeditated, but definitely not self-defense.
This can be tricky. In cases where extreme domestic violenc is evendent and reported, self-defense wasn't/isn't always applicable given that the victim wasn't threatening their spouses life at the time of the killing. But again, that depends, too. :smile:
What exactly is the truth?
He pulled out a knife and lunged at me. I grabbed his arm and forced the knife back into his own chest. He died hours later as a result of internal injuries and profuse bleeding.
There was no premiditated intent to kill. The weapon belonged to the assailant. The assailant was in the process of attempting to inflict death or grievous harm upon my person when I responded. The ensuing struggle caused the assailant's knife to become lodged in his chest.
If I had not responded in the manner I had, it is quite probable that I would have been the person with a knife in my chest. It is probable that I would have been the one who subsequently died of internal injuries and excessive bleeding.
In this scenario, it's kill or be killed. This is precisely what section 34 of the C.C.C. is meant to address.
Let me offer some "premeditation" now by saying that I would respond to such a situation in exactly the manner described above. Am I entrapping anyone? No! Am I committing an offense? No! I'm merely asserting my right to defend myself. I'm also stating that my defensive actions are contingent on the actions of a would be assailant. Is there a lack of truth here? No! Am I in the wrong for thinking that my personal obligation is in the preservation of my own life? Absolutely not!
I dunno, let the courts decide.
The idea is that force can be countered with force. If you slap me across the face, I cannot slap you back. The retaliation would not be justifiable. In such a circumstance my option would be to call the police and make a criminal assault complaint.
If you slap me in the face and continue to slap me in the face repeatedly, I am permitted to respond with force. The idea being that you will not stop slapping me in the face as long as I remain defenseless. It is not a legitimate option for me to call the police.
In the former, I would not be permitted to use force should the police not respond in a timely manner -- or even not at all.
In the latter, my choices are to be whipped silly or to fight back. I cannot accept waiting for police as an option. I am under no obligation to endure the assault.
Does that make sense?
Domestic violence is a bizarre phenomenon anyway. In most cases of domestic violence, the victim does not want to be removed from the situation. Nor does the victim choose to fight back, or have the law intervene. This is the choice of the victim -- not the obligation of the victim.
So would a victim be justified in killing his/her partner while they slept? The law says no! The law says that doing so would not be reasonable. The victim would have other lawful remedies that he/she would be expected to pursue. So, what can I say...