I am defending a man who is part of
a Native American tribe in Northern Canada. In this tribe they believe in an
evil sprit clothed in human form. Which they
called a “Wendigo” My defendant killed a man. Assuming this human
was the evil spirit who is known for eating humans and not aware that this was
in fact an actual human being he shot and fired. My defendant has a valid
excuse for his actions. Being in his tribe he has been taught him that they
must defend and protect one another. I do not see reason as to why my defendant
should be convicted for a murder charge. His intensions were to protect others
from harm. Killing a human is not something that should be taken lightly but my
defendant made an accident. The Native Americans in this tribe believe that
evil sprits do exist and if they come encounter with one they must kill it or
they will be eaten. Anyone with natural human instincts would most likely
defend themselves and their families in a moment of need if felt threatened or
in danger. My defendant saw the “Wendigo” and acted as he was taught. He acted
in defense. He acted out of nature, fear and he acted on what he believed in. I
am positively sure that if my defendant would have known that this was no an
evil spirit but a regular human instead, he would have never done any harm. With
this being said I believe my defendant has justification for his actions, which
should lead to a lesser sentence or even have his murder charge dropped.
The defendant has no valid excuse for his actions. What he thought was a "Wendigo" was an actual human being. He did not take proper measures to make sure what he was seeing was real. This so called "Wendigo" did not attack him or give chase towards him it was the other way around. If a "wendigo" is real how can he tell the difference between an actual human and a "wendigo" in human form? Would it not attack him or at least try to? He would have known it was not an evil spirit had he taken the time to make sure what he was seeing was real. Instead his wrongful assumptions led to someones death. How could he have felt threatened if he was not attacked physically or mentally? Has anyone in his tribe been eaten by an actual " wendigo"?
ReplyDeleteKaren, your defense rests on the Native American’s actions from his point of view, and that is a good point. Except if you claim that the defendant is justified (i.e., did the right thing) in his eyes, then he should not get a lesser charge, but should be acquitted altogether. Gelicia emphasizes that there was no actual threat to the victim and that there are, after all, no Wendigos.
ReplyDelete