So after reading the instructions to the jury I still believe manslaughter is the correct finding. Essentially the crown lists 7 or 8 careless actions that a reasonable person would have taken to ensure the firearm was secure and anyone would have prevented his death.
That said, and I was wrong arguing this point earlier in the thread, I understand how a person could acquit him
Quote:
You should consider all the circumstances including any personal characteristics of Mr. Stanley that deprived him of the capacity necessary to have the mental state of care required in the circumstances.
Careless use of a firearm involves conduct that shows a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances.
|
I disagree that the circumstances would excuse him from the responsibility of always knowing where is gun was pointed and therefore did not meet the standard of care in those circumstances.