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.
|
What are you talking about?
Of course he
could have used that as a defense, but chose not to.