In the context of criminal liability, which situation can lead to liability through 'omission'?

Liability through 'omission' arises when an individual has a legal duty to act and fails to do so. In this context, failing to act when legally required is the clearest illustration of an omission that can result in criminal liability.

Certain responsibilities, like those held by parents to care for their children or by individuals to provide assistance to those in peril in specific circumstances, create a legal obligation to take action. If a person who has such an obligation neglects to act, they can be held accountable for the negative outcomes that result from their inaction.

In contrast, being unaware of legal obligations does not typically result in liability, as ignorance of the law is generally not an acceptable defense. Engaging in self-defense involves taking action to protect oneself, thus it does not qualify as an omission. Finally, expressing intent without action lacks the element of inaction that is necessary for an omission to result in liability; it merely denotes intent rather than an obligation to act that was unmet. By focusing on the failure to act when obligated, we see how the law seeks to ensure that individuals fulfill their responsibilities to prevent harm to others.