Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Well, yes, I suppose those facts could be relevant to the issue of intent and therefore to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should be guilty of murder or manslaughter. But I don’t think they are relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should have been acquitted of all charges. Firing a gun, even as a warning shot, at people who are not causing you to reasonably fear for your own safety (ie in self defence) is an unlawful act and in this case that unlawful act cases the death of another person. Therefore Mr. Stanley should have been guilty of at least manslaughter (if this had been his story). However, as I understand it, his story was that he had the rifle for the purpose of firing warning shots (presumably safely aimed away from any persons) but the rifle accidentally went off at the precise moment when it was pointed at the victim (or the vehicle he was in). So that was the issue for the jury: is that evidence sufficient to rise a reasonable doubt in your mind?
Two caveats: I don’t practice criminal law so MBates may well chime in to correct me on my feeble understanding of murder and manslaughter; and I don’t know with any precision what the evidence at trial was but this is what I have gleaned so far (I definitely could Ben wrong).
|
He testified at trial that he feared for the life of his wife and son. He also thought that his wife may have been run over by the vehicle and was potentially trapped under the car because they hit the mower (she was out mowing the lawn at the time) and she was nowhere to be seen, hence why he ran and grabbed his gun.