Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?
Lol
The jury believed he acted reasonably and that when the gun fired it was an accident. I think that was generous considering you are always supposed to treat a gun as if loaded and never point it at anyone. I think they were generous because of the circumstances and that is where it gets messy. Most of the defenders of Stanley still cling to him defending his family etc, but that was never a justifiable defense for shooting. His only chance of being acquitted was the belief it was an accident.
|
This seems to be a tough point to grasp. You're never supposed to point a gun at someone
without lawful reason.
Quote:
|
Pointing a firearm87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.
|
I think in this situation there was a lawful reason. Stanley wasn't target shooting with his buddies or shooting at a range with an instructor. I'd be hard pressed to figure out when you could point a gun at someone if not in this one.
Quote:
Both of the situations you describe here are clearly accidents. If they weren’t accidents, they would be murder. But just because something was an accident doesn’t mean it can’t be a criminal offence. Manslaughter in the Criminal Code explicitly contemplates conviction for accidental deaths.
Perhaps I’m missing your point
|
No they are not both accidents. One has a negligent aspect to it. The other does not because any reasonable person would have assumed the gun Stanley fired was void of live rounds after several trigger pulls. That's normal. As well, given the situation it would not have been illegal to point the gun at someone threatening you.
One guy had no idea how to use his gun and shot someone in a situation that any other responsible person would have been able to avoid with due care and attention.