Tracy
I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that when the Supreme Court rules that access to abortion is immoral... and strikes down that law...so that statute that previously allowed that access as a "right" is removed.... does that decision affect the reality of the experience of Canadian women or is it merely a thought experiment?
If we're satisfied to have the members of the Supreme Courts of Canada decide on legislation that represents the will of the majority that we're entering difficult waters. That we must preserve the right to question the utility and the genesis of these decisions.
The question was asked that if person "A" was threatened by someone claiming to have a gun and that person "A" then took out their own gun and shot person "B" would I have any difficulty in exonerating that person "A" for killing someone who claimed they had a gun...?
That person "A" is guilty of murder.
No that person "A" is guilty of manslaughter. If they felt threatened, then they have all the options available to them that was reasonably available to them. Not to mention that they have to convince a judge and probably a jury that they felt their life was in immediate peril. If they brandish their weapon, without seeing the person threatening them brandish clearly a weapon of their own, then they are in fact guilty of second degree manslaughter.
You can't just say someone tells you they have a gun to shoot you with and then kill them.
But if you happen to be committing a crime, and say that you have a gun, then when you are charged for that crime it is considered that you committed the act as though you had a gun. Which carries a heavier penalty than if you did not use any weapon nor intimate that you might have one.
Huge difference.
