Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Yeah I was trying to say that because he didn't claim self defense doesn't mean he was not lawfully defending himself under the circumstances.
Like there has to be a reason to have the guns out. Target shooting for example. If Stanley was target shooting with friends he might be guilty because pointing a gun at someone's head would be negligent.
In this case, the air of self defense has to considered or it would be a negligent event. Maybe not self defense but the over all circumstances.
|
The Crown agreed that he had a lawful reason to have the gun and even to fire the gun in the air as warning shots (if that is what he did) (the concession regarding the warning shots is a bit surprising to me but whatever.) No one argued that merely having the gun out was an unlawful or negligent act. Similarly, no one would argue that the act of pulling out a firearm at a gun range is in itself unlawful or negligent.
The issue in both circumstances is what the accused person does with the firearm in the moments before the fatal shot is fired. Are those actions unlawful or negligent? He didn’t pay attention to where his firearm was pointed when he reached into the car. Mr. Boushie was in close proximity. But it was a stressful, chaotic situation. Was he careless in the circumstances? Was he negligent? It’s not an easy answer (for me).