Introduction
The right of defending yourself or defending your property is one of the major themes in the case between Daniel and other parties like Ron, Jason, Tyron, and Ali and these people tried to attack Daniel ,which Daniel has an idea of these kinds of assault and Daniel knew one of the victims who was Jason and the charges are discussed below in the real case conviction between the defendant and the plaintiff.
1.Charges that will capture Daniel’s action.
The charges that would be imposed to Daniel the accused will be homicide which is the killing of one another for self-defense for instant Daniel kill Ron for self-defense which killing him with a firearm (gun) the self-defense which causes the death of Ron was being considered as a result justifiable killing and the corresponding provision of the CRIMINAL CODE, 1960 (ACT 29) which is in chapter 2 general explanations that are being explained by provision relating to intent( Patterson et al., 2015). That is Daniel was intent to harm someone (DON) because of the threat he got from the four friends that is Ron, Jason, Tyrant, and Ali. The actus reus of this murder which consists of unlawful killing of human being in the queen’s peace and men’s rule is malice aforethought that is being explained by court with the of intention to kill and this is subjective mens rea killing, and subjective is an acted which is based on personal beliefs, rather than based on facts( Barré‐Sinoussi, Abdool ,Karim, Albert, Bekker, Beyrer, Cahn … & Kumarasamy,2018). That is Daniel case was subjective because we believe that he was intending to harm these four people, because he turns and started shouting the same direction that Ron, Tron, Jason and Ali were (Amirault, Bouchard, Farrell & Andresen,2016). The decision of these charges is based on the defendant was having the intention of harming the plaintiff this is shown that Daniel was intending to harm those four people because after he was threatened by Jason, they said that they have friends with gun who will take care of people like Daniel, this left Daniel with no otherwise but forced him to acquired gun for self-defense. And due to the fact that Daniel was attacked for the first time of which he was shot by someone as he was coming home from work though he was not injured but frightened which believed that it was Jason because it was dark so he did not see the shooter well so he prepared himself for any impromptu attack which made the shooting to be intentional (Coburn, Connolly & Roesch,2015).
2.Elements of the offence identified in question one
It is shown that Daniel feared that made him violent and acting purposely and acting negligently due to the first attack. Due to that fear he acquired firearm so that he can defend himself and this made him act purposely because he knew that Jason, Tyron, Ron and Ali will send their friends to attack him again and he acted recklessly by shooting the same direction they were in that lead to unlawful killing of Ron( Chan, & Chunn, 2014).
Standard
Physical: Daniel was physically armed when he was being attacked.
Mentally: Daniel had information that he would be attacked any time.
Acting purposely: when he shot the gun in the same direction that those four people where it showed that he had purpose to shoot.
Knowingly: Daniel knew that he will be attacked any time and when he shot the gun, he knew that they will scare them away.
Reckless: his actions were not based on consequences that lead to loss of life.
Negligence: when he shoots, he did not care about the outcome
The rules, test, and standard were met when he acted purposely, knowingly, negligently and recklessly and also what he had in his mind and weapon he was having shown that rule, test, and standard were met.
3.Defences raised by Daniel
The act that Daniel raised defense was okay but he did it in a wrong way, he was supposed to raise defenses by using his gun to shoot on the air to scare Ron, Tyron, Jason and Ali away in that there could be no death occurred than shooting them directly but he knew he will kill one or two of them but since he acted recklessly he did not mind the consequences. His act was good but he did it in a wrong way, it was a self-defense measure which was okay according to BILL C-26 S.C 2012 c.9) Reform to self-defense or defense property (Knoops, (2014).
Defending himself was very important because his life was in danger but unfortunately, he was using an unlicensed and unregistered gun which is bad on his side it can be convicted that he is the one who attacked Tyran, Jason, Ron, and Ali because those four people did not have any weapon they only had basket bat which you cannot compare with a gun this will makes Daniel to be convicted to be a robber (McNeil,Cooper,Small & Kerr,2015).
Daniel act of defending himself was okay due to he was already been attacked and he was attacked with a gun so because he was having fear so having a gun was okay but the mistake he made was not registering this gun and also when he got this threat he was supposed to report these people to the authorized person like police or attorney this could have helped him (Chandler,2016).
The defendant to be successful in the case is hard because of the challenges of not reporting these people and also having an unlicensed gun in his pocket it means he was harmful to the society that was a big crime, and also he had the intention of shooting due to he shot directly towards Tyran, Jason, Ron, and Ali it was bad even if your protecting yourself there should lawfully precaution one should take not shooting another people (Stark,2016).
Conclusion
In the conclusion Daniel will not be jailed because of, he killed Ron because that was a self-defense and he should not be arrested but he will have 2 cases due to the way having a gun which is not registered so he will be arrested for having that gun but not for killing because it was self-defense and people like Jason should be arrested everyone will kill someone coming to act of defending himself/herself so the court should not convict Daniel because he is innocent and he has just a right like any other person according to section 34.
References.
Amirault, J., Bouchard, M., Farrell, G., & Andresen, M. A. (2016). Criminalizing terrorism in Canada: investigating the sentencing outcomes of terrorist offenders from 1963 to 2010. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 769-810.
Barré‐Sinoussi, F., Abdool Karim, S. S., Albert, J., Bekker, L. G., Beyrer, C., Cahn, P., … & Kumarasamy, N. (2018). Expert consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law.
Chan, W., & Chunn, D. (2014). Racialization, crime, and criminal justice in Canada. University of Toronto Press.
Chandler, J. A. (2016). The use of neuroscientific evidence in Canadian criminal proceedings. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 550-579.
Coburn, P. I., Connolly, D. A., & Roesch, R. (2015). Cyberbullying: Is federal criminal legislation the solution? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57(4), 566-579.
Knoops, G. J. (2014). An introduction to the law of international criminal tribunals: a comparative study. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
McNeil, R., Cooper, H., Small, W., & Kerr, T. (2015). Area restrictions, risk, harm, and health care access among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada: A spatially oriented qualitative study. Health & place, 35, 70-78.
Patterson, S. E., Milloy, M. J., Ogilvie, G., Greene, S., Nicholson, V., Vonn, M., … & Kaida, A. (2015). The impact of criminalization of HIV non‐disclosure on the healthcare engagement of women living with HIV in Canada: a comprehensive review of the evidence. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 18(1), 20572.
Stark, F. (2016). Culpable carelessness: Recklessness and negligence in criminal law. Cambridge University Press.
