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.
|
Like you say, intent is key. Stanley never intended to shoot anyone, that can be inferred from both his testimony and his actions.
If people are going to demand that the villificationnof the deceased stop, then they should also be demanding that the constant attempts to turn this into a race issue should stop as well. No evidence was ever submitted to allege that this was race based, but portions of the public are trying to make the entire cae about race. And they are not stopping there, we now have opportunistic meddling by politicians trying to drum up votes and demands to implement measures that would change the legal system to make it even more race based