Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
Yes, he was justified in firing in the air. Where it went wrong was not maintaining control over the weapon and having it fire when pointed at another person. This is why I think manslaughter was an appropriate verdict.
But he was not justified in shooting at anyone in self defense. Mainly because they weren't armed.
|
They didn't have the evidence to he acted with wanton or reckless disregard for others though or that he committed a crime which resulted in the death, both of which can be used to reach a manslaughter finding.
I think a key part of the reason the jury found that his actions were not reckless was Stanley's belief that he had only loaded two rounds and after he had fired, he took steps to render the firearm safe before approaching the car to turn it off.
And before people jump on me for believing Stanley's testimony, it's up to the Crown to show guilt, there is no burden on the accused to prove their innocence. Stanley testified as to what transpired and the Crown had no evidence that showed otherwise.
To the final point, a vehicle can be used as a weapon.