Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
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.
|
Had the Crown actually vetted their witnesses, the chances that charges would have been brought in the first case is probably very slim. None of their evidence supported anything they claimed during the trial.
Luckily they can only appeal if there was an issue with the judge's instructions to the jury, which is doubtful considering how long he took to prepare them.