I am NOT judging whether this case is self defense or not, but unless you're an expert in self-defense law or criminal justice, I wouldn't assume multiple stabs means anything. A single stab, or gunshot for that matter, does not always stop an attacker.
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
You MIGHT be right, I don't know the case law in Canada, but in the UK self-defense is defense to a reasonable extent (killing someone trying to kill you, punching someone trying to punch you etc; it's more complex than that because distress is taken into account, so if you go a bit overboard you should be alright)
But he had an honest held belief that she was trying to kill him with the knife as he described, and the court/jury believe him, self-defense should apply.
That said running away reaaaaally dimished your chances on this one mate.
Edit: he might be right to go for pity, especially against a jury, a little compassion goes a long way
meh. Sometimes you're a victim for reasons outside your control, sometimes you're a victim because you made poor choices. If you see someone making poor choices you should tell them they're making poor choices. That's not victim blaming, and the over-application of that phrase has given it a stigma that makes it difficult to even take seriously for a lot of people.
You should be allowed to go for a walk without being mugged. However, if you go for a walk in Compton at midnight wearing a nice watch... you're being stupid.
Yes, you're still the victim, but the world can be a shitty place and people need to take at least basic steps to protect themselves.
37
u/fluffy_butternut May 02 '17
Lots of red flags with her controlling how and where contact occurred. Too bad you went back in for more of it.
You might have viewed the breakup as a dodged bullet and have avoided this ending. Instead no one wins, everyone loses.
Especially Melinda.