Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
That is not correct.
The crown argued that Stanley's actions were "exceedingly reckless", which is why they focused on the higher charge of 2nd degree murder.
|
Yes of course! Because, at the very least, he had a gun pointed to the back of the head of a person trying to leave the situation.
The Crown's argument was that he intentionally shot him, that he knew the gun had only fired 2 when he put in 3 bullets, that a hangfire is extremely rare and doesn't last the way that Stanley claimed, and that Stanley lied about believing his wife was under the car at the time of the shooting.
They did not claim that Stanley should not have had the gun in the first place, or that he was unable to defend himself. Everything leading up to the actual shooting, there was no argument about it being excessive or unwarranted.
From another discussion:
Quote:
Criminal conviction requires both the act being done AND a guilty state of mind. In this case the guilty state of mind required is either intention to kill (for murder) or carelessness (for manslaughter). Stanley went into the trial presumed innocent and the entire burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was on the Crown. This is a high bar to meet and it must be because we don't hold people responsible for crimes like murder unless we are absolutely sure that they are guilty.
With that in mind, for a murder conviction the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley intended to kill Boushie. He claims he believed his gun was empty and that his gun malfunctioned. The fact that the jury found him not guilty of murder does not necessarily mean they accepted this as the truth; it only means that they were not convinced BARD that he intended to kill. The jury then moves on to consider manslaughter.
The Crown's case for manslaughter was that Stanley caused Boushie's death unlawfully by careless use of a firearm. The Crown argued he was careless with his firearm in that he didn't know how many rounds he loaded in, didn't know how to make his gun safe, and was careless about where his gun was pointing at the time it went off. The legal test for carelessness the jury had to apply was whether what Stanley did was a "marked departure from what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances". Can't say for sure what the jury's reasons were but it seems likely they considered the intensity of the situation and determined that his actions were not drastically different from what a reasonable person would do.
Hope this clears up some confusion.
|
This all came down to the intention and handling of the handgun at the time of the shooting.
Gerald Stanley was really not on trial for anything prior to that. Had the gun not gone off, no one would have batted an eye at his actions. There's no need for self-defense law reforms because of this case.