[Envitro]

Hmmm, let's ramp this down a bit, clearly I'm not a lawyer and you are.

I don't think I was advocating for hanging the kid, so context is king.

Just saying that sometimes the crown can get a little aggressive on law-abiding people who make a simple clerical mistake or forget a piece of paper when their kid takes it out of the range bag or the dog goes rummaging through and get punished for it to make an example of them. Sure, 7 or 8 times out of 10 no charges are laid and a simple warning goes, but when it doesn't it gets ugly and expensive real quick for a simple paperwork crime.

Yet sometimes we see instances of "suspected" criminals, although still to be proven in court, who were alleged to have committed a heinous and extremely violent crime that ends up costing someone their life/quality of life get all the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe I'm a little sensitive these days with the talk of gun bans for no good reason, LOL.

I'm not advocating against prosecution under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I wouldn't have it any other way. Just saying that maybe we should be giving the extremely vetted firearms license holders the same benefit of the doubt.
This kid is accused of being in possession of a prohibited firearm, and shooting someone in the head while in possession of said firearm. I don't think I'd be treated too kindly if I was in the possession of a prohibited firearm if I wasn't properly licensed for it, just saying.

I have heard plenty of first-hand stories from police officers and prison guards that our justice system leaves a lot to be desired as far as actual punishment for violent criminals goes. This is just another potential example. We'll see how it shakes out but it's not looking too great for actual "justice" for the victims here, even if he gets convicted.

Didn't mean to offend, sorry.