Legal question
- Thread starter triedit
- Start date
The people who interpret and apply the law have said yes, it was resonable to shoot/stab/beat to death a spouse you lived in fear of while they slept or were peacefully eating their dinner. So, what can I say.....
In a spontaneous attack - like your scenario - there is no dispute that you were clearly in the right. Should you be attacked in your kitchen, a knife MAY be justified if you felt your life was in jeopardy. Now, if the assailant was in another room, you might have a tough time of it because a knife is not normally found elsewhere. If the attacker has no other weapon but his bare hands, a knife may NOT be used in your own defense because that excedes "like force". If you were attacked on the street and had a weapon at your disposal, there could be a strong argument made that you were carrying a concealed weapon. Then, the "self defence" may become premeditated - manslaughter.
I have been in the situation where the end (had it been a bit different) would have been determined to be justifiable homicide. Had my wife not screamed and jarred me back into the real world.... Really, I'm not prepared to discuss it in a public forum. It's one of those gray areas - like the laws of pursuit across a jurisdictional boundary.
What is the truth? It's the one thing you can't second guess in those thousand-and-one questions you live the rest of your life. Once it's happened, you'll never go back.
Are you talking about Canada or the United States? Who are the "people who interpret and apply the law"? Can you corroborate your claims with actual court decisions? Links to decisions on the CII would suffice. So don't know what you can say, but I know what you can do. Back it up!
Why so touchy? All of a sudden you need EVERYTHING clarified? :lol:
If you're as familiar with the law as you would like those reading your posts to think, I'm quite certain you have come across an aquital or two where extreme domestic violence was present and the 'battered women defense' was successfully used, in Canada.
Anyway, this is getting somewhat redundant. If you honestly expect me to believe you need everything explained ie: those who interpret the law, I'm not wasting my time.
Oh, and good luck with your exams! You have section 34 down pat! :lol:
Not clarified, verified. And it's not "all of a sudden," it's been my nature for as long as I can remember.
I'm not as familiar with the law as you suggest I purport to be. I have made it very clear in several of my posts that I am not a lawyer. I've also stated explicitly that I simply "do not know" some things.
I'm not familiar with any instances of "battered woman defense" being successful in Canada. As a matter of fact, I'm all too keenly aware of the difficulties women face in getting convictions against men alleged to be abusive. I can't, for the life of me, think of a reason for a Canadian court to rule that homicide is a legitimate alternative to simply packing up and leaving. Of course, most battered women don't want to leave.
Redundant? Hardly! You're making a claim and looking for excuses when you're called on your claim. And it's not unreasonable to ask for clarification on a statement like, "Those who interpret and apply the laws say yes." Everybody interprets the laws. Every vigilante on the planet applies the law. Do the courts agree with all of these people? Absolutely not! The courts, more often than not, say, "think again."
What exams? I'm neither a student nor a lawyer wannabe. I'm a private citizen that enjoys intellectually stimulating debate.
How would I know that? And yes, it was all of a sudden. You started out ok, though.
I've only read two of your posts. I know you're not a lawyer. But neither am I.
Not all cases that come before the courts are listed and I haven't searched for R V Ferguson and R V Whynot. Both used the the battered women's syndorom, although Whynot was convicted on appeal and sentanced to six months. There is another more recent although I can't remember the women's last name - happened in small Ontario/Quebec boarder town, very close to Gatineau. That's three off the top of my head. I know two of them personally. One is a violent criminal, the other is not.
Yes, you were being redundant. Just call them how I see them.
I didn't claim the courts do not say 'think again' more often than not.
And, if you honestly think I'm referring to YOU or some vigilante group when speaking about those who interpret and apply the law, I would have to say you are being purposely obtuse. Actually, you probably aren't. I should apologize for that. We'll see.
What exams? I'm neither a student nor a lawyer wannabe. I'm a private citizen that enjoys intellectually stimulating debate.
Well, you kind of remind me of a student. They like to quote charters and junk.
What do you do for a living, help batter women?
Last edited:
You're ignorance is showing here. Ive never met a woman who didnt want to leave. I was a battered wife for 8 years. I COULDNT leave. I had no means. And I knew if I did he'd hunt me down and kill me. Yes, I involved the law, no they didnt do anything.
"Picking up and leaving" isnt at all simple.
Im not planning to kill anyone. I saw a tv show where they allowed a murderer to go free because the victim had raped the doer's sister.
It wasn't all of a sudden. I always ask for verification when people introduce what they purport to be facts. Facts require verification. Academic debate does not require verification. The debate is focused on merit.
So what are you? What qualifies you to speak with authority on the subject of abuse, particularly with respect to domestic abuse?
What's the 'R' mean? Were they 'R' rated cases? :lol:
How so? What did I say or do that was redundant?
That's where it gets interesting. Why you ask? Because of precedent. If a majority of courts say no, then there is precedent. Courts are generally reluctant to go against the grain under those circumstances. Especially if the precedent was set by a higher court.
You mentioned that one woman was convicted on appeal by the crown. That to me would suggest that a precedent was set in a higher court. Lower courts almost never rule contrary to a precedent established in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Canada. Why you ask? Because leave to appeal would be damn near guaranteed. And the decision of the lower court would be overturned or set aside and a new trial ordered.
I made no suggestion that I was somehow involved with vigilanteism. So why on Earth would I think that you were speaking of me?
I asked because there are many people who interpret and apply the laws. These people include the Crown prosecutors, private practice lawyers, law enforcement (police), and judges, among others. All of them get told that they are wrong from time to time. With police officers being wrong most frequently, followed by the crown, followed by private practice lawyers, followed by lower court justices.
You don't have to be a student to expect accuracy.
No, I don't batter women. My modus operandi is to remain as far away from women as humanly possible. And I'm not exagerating one iota here. You should read some of the letters I've written and faxed. I make myself very clear.
I've actually never "hit" a female in my entire life. And by "hit", I mean in the literal sense. I do not mean the slang. i.e. fu-cked a female.
There's a case in the States right now that is dealing with this, justifiable homicide. It's what I thought of when I read the OP.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3517564
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3517564
I have no "real world" experience with domestic assault. I've grown up and live in an environment that is pretty much free of domestic violence. I have read a considerable amount of material that was published by women's advocacy groups. What I was able to garner from that, most women are reluctant to press charges against their abusive partners. The majority of battered women who do press charges, subsequently withdraw the charges or refuse to testify against their abusive partners. In almost all circumstances, the battered partner claims that the parties have reconciled.
I suppose I will never know any other "reality" as far as domestic violence is concerned. Because I will never experience it -- as a victim or a perpetrator.
If the bad guy/girl has his/her gun two inches into your ear, just cocked the hammer, and is increasing pressure on the trigger, it is probably a bit passed a good time to push a knife into him/her to save yourself. Might I suggest a few drops of cyanide under his tongue five minutes ago.
Pure fiction. But it made me think. I believe that some people really do deserve to die. Some slowly and painfully, preferably with much humiliation.
warrior--the women don't leave because they are either afraid, unable to support themselves and thier kids, or have been convinced they deserve it. Nobody chooses to be abused.
I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation. Men get abused too. But if you are still dating, you might want to give this some more thought. Many women have been abused and you might find yourself dating a survivor.
I think you'd have to go to case law for precedents to get an idea of what a court might decide in any particular circumstances, but some things seem clear to me. If someone comes after you with a knife, for instance, and in the ensuing struggle for your life you manage to deflect the knife and it ends up between your assailant's ribs, that would almost certainly be justifiable homicide. But if you learn that there's a hit planned on you and who the hit man is, and arrange a hit on him first, that's murder. If a burglar enters your home and you manage to knock him down, that would be a justifiable use of force in self defence, but if while he's down you kick him in the head, you're guilty of assault and battery, and manslaughter if he dies as a result. If a guy pulls a gun on you and you manage to wrestle it away from him, then shoot him with it, you're probably guilty of manslaughter; once you've got the gun he's no longer an immediate danger to you. The law can lay out only the general circumstances to be considered, it can't specify the judgment a priori in every case.
I once asked a police officer about things like this after my home had been burgled, and he was pleasantly honest and direct. "What if," I asked him, "I'd been home when this scumbag entered the premises and I went after him?" He told me that it's not recommended to try to attack such people, the safest thing to do is go along with whatever they want, but if you do manage to take them down no police officer would suggest charges be laid against you, that's legitimate self defense, and very few officers would inquire closely about the nature of the burglar's injuries. In other words, you could probably get away with giving the bastard a few extra whacks when he's down, just don't kill him.
I once asked a police officer about things like this after my home had been burgled, and he was pleasantly honest and direct. "What if," I asked him, "I'd been home when this scumbag entered the premises and I went after him?" He told me that it's not recommended to try to attack such people, the safest thing to do is go along with whatever they want, but if you do manage to take them down no police officer would suggest charges be laid against you, that's legitimate self defense, and very few officers would inquire closely about the nature of the burglar's injuries. In other words, you could probably get away with giving the bastard a few extra whacks when he's down, just don't kill him.