Quote:
Originally Posted by stang
Can you point me to the section where it says its only applicable if its intentional pointing?
|
It may well be that intention is the men’s tea of the offence so this section may not apply at all to Mr. Stanley’s account. Indeed, it seems doubtful that the pointing of the firearm at Mr. Boushie was even voluntary (just a product of trying to reach into the vehicle) according to Mr. Stanley’s account (in which case this section definitely has no application)
But if I’m wrong about those two things, then the only two “lawful excuses” of which I am aware are self defence and perhaps defence of property. Both of those excuses would, as a matter of logic I think, require the person to be intentionally pointing the firearm in order to protect themselves or their property.
I don’t know for certain but those are my thoughts.