Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
That's not how the law works. A person's response has to be in proportion to the threat. You can't just shoot someone who comes on your property to try to steal something. There's a reason Stanley's lawyers didn't even try to argue that he was defending himself. The victim was shot in the back of the head while in a vehicle that was trying to flee the scene.
|
By his own testimony, that the court and jury accepted, Stanley was of the belief that his wife had just been struck and run over by the people who were trespassing on his property and attempting to commit a theft. Canadian law allows for lethal force in that kind of situation.
They didn't argue self-defense because he didn't fire in self-defense. He fired warning shots and tried to remove the keys from the vehicle he thought had just injured/killed his wife. Even the Crown never said his use of the pistol was illegal, their case was to show his use of it was reckless enough to warrant a manslaughter or murder conviction. Even the upcoming firearms charges don't deal with the use of the pistol, they deal with storage.