In R v. Willer, what action did the accused take to evade a perceived threat?

In the case of R v. Willer, the accused took the action of driving recklessly as a response to a perceived threat. This decision was central to the court's examination of the defense of necessity. The accused felt that he was confronted with imminent danger from a group of individuals and believed that his only way to escape that threat was to drive at speed to get away from them.

The court assessed whether the reckless driving constituted a justified action given the circumstances. In instances of necessity, the law recognizes that individuals may act in a manner that typically would be considered unlawful if their actions are taken in an effort to protect themselves from immediate harm. The ruling emphasized the context of the threat, noting that the action taken must be viewed in light of the urgency and immediacy of the danger perceived by the accused.

In contrast, the other options such as calling for help, fleeing on foot, or negotiating with the attackers do not reflect the particular circumstances of the case where the accused chose to evade the threat by operating a vehicle in a reckless and urgent manner, which was significant to the legal analysis of necessity in the context of self-defense.