Native American is
charged with manslaughter in Northern Canada. The Native American was thought
to believe that the man he killed was an evil spirit clothed in human form. In
the Native American tribe, they believed to eat human beings and felt that the
best way to save his tribe was to kill the evil spirit
My defendant has no intention of killing a human being. What
will my defendant get out of by killing an unknown human being? Nothing. My defendant
has no reason to kill a man. If my defendant wanted to kill this man, would he
still be here on this trial? Wouldn't he just escape and avoid this? The reason
my defendant did kill this man is because he was believed that the man was an
evil spirit. He was protecting his people and himself. My defendant, in his
thought does not believe that it is a human. His thought is that this will harm
others and he believed that the right choice was to kill this evil spirit.
In my defense, my defendant was protecting himself. He felt
threaten. My defendant had been feed various stories and tales about the evil
spirit. His tribe believe in such things. Is it his fault for believing this
part of his culture? My defendant was protecting himself and the other Native
American because in my defendant’s mind, he was not seen as human but rather an
evil spirit.
I understand that your client did not intend to kill a human being. Although the tragic outcome is that he did. That is why we manslaughter, although he did not have to intend or want to kill the the victim. He killed the victim, which is manslaughter anyway you look at it.
ReplyDeleteYou make good point by pointing out that the defendant did not have a motive to kill the victim, or any human being. Lexa says that this fits the description of manslaughter, and that is the charge. There are two different types of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary – which do you think applies?
ReplyDelete