Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Its the "necessary" part which disqualifies Canada from having a true self-defense/justifiable homocide clause.
|
I don't know. I think it's the "necessary" part that means "do what's necessary, don't do what is unnecessary" when protecting yourself. Seems reasonable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
If someone is attacking me bare fisted, but happen to be significantly bigger than me... but I give him a couple good cracks with a baseball bat... that would not be considered "necessary", but "excessive" and I could easily be charged with manslaughter... especially if he dies from the head trauma. Or if a guy has a knife, and I defend myself with a rifle. Then I'd be on the hook for manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon, despite the fact that if I didn't shoot the guy, I would either be cut up like a Christmas turkey, or attempt to disarm the guy with my bare hands. (both scenarios likely leading to my death, rather than his).
|
See, now this is what I don't get. How do you know this? This kind of thing very rarely (I can't think of another off the top of my head) happens but you make it sound like it'll be a case of the same old same old -- yet another law-abiding citizen sent up the creek for protecting himself.
Like the scenario you describe of a guy shooting someone who attacked him with a knife being on the hook for manslaughter -- has this actually happened? Sure sounds like it, but I've never heard of that. Is it just a theory, or does this kind of thing happen?