Scotteq
Diamond Member
Umm...show me where any state which has a Disparity of Force law, or one in Canada where the incident took place? This seems to be an argument for use when defending yourself when you kill or maim someone else. I dunno, it seems only people who carry guns even reference this argument. But for the sake of discussion lets look at it anyways.
Ability - The man she hit did not attack her, she attacked him. Yes there were two young men against a woman, but she attacked him. The other guy attacked her via groping, which is assault. But she did not attack him. She demanded an apology and he apologized. It also appears that the original groper did not attack her afterwards when she began fighting with the other guy.
Opportunity - If she said she tried to leave and he stopped her, that would be one thing. There was no attempt to flee.
Jeopardy - Simple fear is not enough to prove jeopardy. And from all indications, she exhibited anything but fear until after she beat the guy up and he brought out the knife. Again, I would prefer a lawyer to chime in here, but he might even be able to claim jeopardy because she was kicking his ass! He would bring out the disparity of force argument because she demonstrated clear martial arts ability which he lacked.
An interesting aspect to this is other people called the police. That could prove that she felt she was in jeopardy, as others felt the same say. But when did they call? Was it when she was groped? Was it when he was cussing at her? Was it when she started punching the guy? Was it when the knife came out?
You're an idiot. Since when is looking at all the facts and asking a question a bad thing? I tend default to the law of the streets philosophy. You start sh1t, dont cry when you get your ass kicked. But I'm also aware that the ass kickers often get in just as much trouble for seemingly doing the right thing. You might think my question is outrageous, but I dont assume the court system is infallible. When the law is involved nothing is black and white.
Riiight - 2 Guys go after a woman - the older of whom gets carted off to prison - and you somehow think she's responsible because she chose to fight. What - she's supposed to just lay on her back and spread. 🙄
Moron... 🙄
p.s.: She's entitled to fight under Canadian Law
Criminal Code, Sections 34-37
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
( b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
Last edited: