Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
I completely disagree. Intent must (nearly) always be inferred from one’s actions. Mr. Stanley shot someone in the head at short range. A jury or judge could easily have inferred that this was intentional (especially because there was evidence to suggest a potential motive as well). Now, there were some unusual circumstances. Mr. Stanley provided an innocent explanation of the whole thing. It apparently raised a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind. So be it.
But I would guess that the accidental misfire explanation would not succeed in the vast majority of similar situations (say, for example, a young black man shooting someone in the head at close range in a mall in Scarborough.)
Every case is unique. I’m not saying the jury got it wrong (I didn’t hear the evidence). But I don’t know how anyone could have been surprised if the verdict was guilty of murder either.
|
Second Degree murder made no sense.
Manslaughter yes. I honestly thought he would get this. But as you said I didn't hear the evidence