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.
|
The first part gets a big huh from me.
Of course not in training, but we're not even talking similar levels or training or situations.
Stanley was not a soldier, he was not trained daily to exist in a generally shytty and stressful environment that involved guns.
When he talked about believing that the weapon was safe after firing two warning shots and essentially dry firing, that combined with the misshapen round, pretty much killed the murder charge, and almost certainly put the pin in a chance of a manslaughter conviction.
What was testified to certainly painted it as an accident and the Crown had nothing to counter it with. The most compelling testimony was from the shooter, and the Crown was stuck with a lousy set of witnesses, a misshapen round, physical evidence that indicated that his finger was not on the trigger. all of that points to the possibility of a accident, and if there's a possibility that can't be countered, you now how reasonable doubt.
At the end of the day, the defense was smart in staying away from a self defense errr defense. They might have lost on that one, even though, again the Crown would have had a lousy set of facts and witnesses to fall back on.
And yeah, I can certainly tell you that in the military, gun safety is a relentless pursuit, with extreme circumstances for mistakes.