Actus Reus Should Not Be Allowed In School

Words: 845
Pages: 4

Ken, a 6 year old boy, was pretending to be a cowboy while playing with his father's pistol. He loaded the pistol as he had seen his father do in the past. He then took the pistol and shot his brother.
A crime has not been committed because the 6 year old boy did not intend to create harm to his brother in a serious way,. The boy had neither actus reus or mens rea for the offence. He did intentionally point the gun to his brother without knowing the consequences like any 6 year old. If any one should be held responsible, it should be his father for leaving behind a gun where his son could get a hold of it. He should have also been more cautious at not using the gun in front of the child.
Jeremy, while in the boys' washroom at school, set fire to a roll of hand towel. As a consequence of his actions serious fire and smoke damage occurred in the school
Although, jeremy did intentionally set a roll of hand towel on fire in the boys washroom. I do not believe his intentions were to hurt someone. He committed an Actus Reus but did not actus reus, therefor no intention to cause so much damage to the school from only lighting a roll of hand towel. Jeremy is probably a minor and may
…show more content…
She shot him for self defence which is legal here in canada under section 40 of the Criminal Code; “every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.” Moreover, she might have not had the intention to kill the thought intruder, but injure him so he wouldn't harm her. She did intend to harm him and did carry out the action of hurting him which seems like there Actus Reus and Mens Rea committed , but she did it under self defense and her own