[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Very much agree.

I've been trying to be open minded during our discussions, but some posters seem to think that the jury was wrong because they don't agree with their decision.

That's not how this works. We didn't see the evidence they did, we didn't have the discussions they did. We don't get to second guess their decision or deem them all racists to justify our vitriol.

The crown failed to make their case. The jury was left with reasonable doubt at to whether Stanley committed murder or manslaughter.

Be glad we live in a country that doesn't allow people to be railroaded in sham courts or convicted without proving their culpability. Don't yearn for it when a case doesn't go the way you want it to.

Just for fun, here is noted misunderstander-of-the-criminal-justice-system Kent Roach’s two cents:

The compromise charge was there. The jury was instructed that if the accused was not guilty of murder that they should consider whether he was guilty of manslaughter. I was very surprised that the jury did not come in with at least a manslaughter verdict. And that’s because the defence that Mr. Stanley mounted is a defence of accident, and the way it works in Canadian law is that if you believe that the discharge was accidental, then that means there’s at least a reasonable doubt that he didn't have the intent to kill.

So therefore you get an acquittal on murder, but the way it works is we have an extremely broad manslaughter offense in Canada. And it applies whenever someone is doing an unlawful act like careless use of a firearm, which seems to have been present here, pointing a gun at a person’s head.

As an academic lawyer, the vast majority of cases that I see where there’s a defence of accident raised to murder results in a manslaughter conviction. Of course, if there had been a manslaughter conviction, rightly or wrong, Mr. Stanley would have, subject to a successful appeal, been looking at at least four years in jail because of our mandatory minimum sentences.