In R v. Pommel, what was claimed as the reason for possessing a machine gun?

In the case of R v. Pommel, the defendant claimed that the reason for possessing a machine gun was that he had taken it from someone who was intent on causing harm. This assertion highlights a defense strategy known as "necessity" or "immediacy of danger," where the defendant argues that they had no choice but to take possession of a dangerous item to prevent a greater harm. The court considered this claim seriously, as it speaks to the motivations behind the possession of such a weapon, emphasizing the context surrounding the act. The rationale behind this defense is that one might act out of a sense of duty or moral obligation to prevent a potential crime or to safeguard others from harm.

The context of the other options reveals potential misinterpretations of possession or motives that would not have the same legal or moral weight in a court of law. Claims of simply finding an abandoned weapon or receiving it as a gift do not engage with the immediate threat posed by the original owner or the potential for harm, whereas claiming the item was taken from someone intent on harm directly addresses the nexus of intent, danger, and the rationale for taking possession in that moment.