criminal-law
Can one commit a crime to prevent a crime based on past history, without a proof of intention for future events?
<p>In a hypothetical scenario, everytime in the past, when Mr. Peter went from city A to a city B on a road C, his car got stolen about in the middle of the road C. It happened say 100 times. There are only options roads C and D and to use a road D one has to steal a car. There are no indications of anyone having an intention to steal his car on the road C, there is only the 100 cases in which such a robbery took place everytime he went on the road C. Can Mr. Peter steal a car to use a different road D to get from A to B, in order to prevent another car theft on the road C from happening? Thank you.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="canada-container">canada</a></p>
<p>The closest possible defence in Canadian law would be the defence of necessity. But for this defence to be available, &quot;the situation must be so emergent and the peril must be so pressing that normal human instincts cry out for action and make a counsel of patience unreasonable.&quot; There must also be &quot;no reasonable legal alternative&quot; to avoid the imminent peril. See generally, <em>Perka v. The Queen</em>, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1lpfj" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[1984] 2 S.C.R. 232</a>.</p>
<p>The scenario you describe lacks imminent peril. There are also reasonable legal alternatives.</p>

<p>No.</p>
<p>If you steal a car you are not preventing a crime, you are committing a crime.</p>
<p>You are merely switching roles:  You are now the perpetrator, and someone else is the victim.</p>
