Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
Nope.
I'm not sure of the action on that handgun, but if he didn't pull the receiver back and personally check inside, the gun should be considered loaded. Whether there is a clip in or not, without checking there could be a bullet in a position where it could be fired and should have been considered lethal.
That was part of the practical exam in my FAC course and I would have failed if I ever took a gun and didn't check, and I would have failed if the muzzle was ever pointed at anyone. Stanley failed on both counts and someone died.
|
All these "my PAL course taught me xyz" posts are hilarious. You're comparing a classroom situation where the biggest threat is a paper cut to being in the middle of a life or death situation and expecting someone's actions to be identical between the two.
And I wouldn't hold up the PAL course as the be all to end all on gun safety, it's the same course that tells students to look down the barrel of the gun they are proving safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
What's the basis for that chronology though? From what I understand the only person who can attest to what happened with the gun is the defendant, who obviously has a huge motivation to keep himself out of prison. Can you really take a defendant's defense of himself at face value and treat it as the truth?
Perhaps it happened exactly as he says and it was a freak accident. But without any witnesses to corroborate that, anything could've happened and we'd never know. He could've just as easily deliberately shot him in the head and made up the story about removing the clip and the gun going off by accident in order to cover himself.
|
The physical evidence shows there was a malfunction of some type while Stanley was by the SUV window, the bulged casing inside the vent. The RCMP expert also testified that he experienced malfunctions while testing it.
At the end of the day though, it is not the defendant's burden to prove his innocence, it is the Crown's burden to prove guilt.