Quote:
|
Even Mr. Stanley’s evidence was that the vehicle wasn’t moving at this point. Why would he need to point a gun at the driver? Indeed, as I understand it, his evidence was that he was reaching into the vehicle to hrab the keys when the gun fired. He wasn’t training it on the driver out of any sort of fear. He wasn’t paying attention to where it was pointed.
|
That's why I think the malfunctioning gun is the important fact here. But also, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to point a gun at anyone during a highly stressful threatening situation. I wouldn't expect anyone to make perfect choices during that sort of scenario. A trained military expert maybe but an unsuspecting farmer, no. And I think that after pulling the trigger several times it's reasonable to assume the gun isn't loaded.
Of course you have to believe Stanley's testimony. And this is where I'm unclear. It seems obvious that the prosecution's testimony was unbelievable. But does that automatically make the defense testimony valid? Do you have to believe one or the other?
I think what makes sense is a careless storage of a firearm charge.