Unfortunately if the firearms are in the same residence, Constructive Possession Law would still apply to Gerald.

Was it the pistol or a unrestricted firearm that he was charged for unsafe storage?

I fnd this amusing. There are well known lawyers out there who have many issues with the prosecutor and the judge. These lawyers will all be studying the case together and will be reporting their findings. I think the most important issue i read was how the judge shouldnt have allowed hear say evidence from 2 random gun owners who shot guns that were different then stanleys in different conditions that were unrelated to the trial.

They submitted hear say evidence and the judge allowed it. Thats a massive mistake that the judge and prosecution should have prevented.

So to counter any expert in any field all we need in a court of law are 2 random dudes to take the stand and say otherwise.

Your cop friend presses charges for a crime not defends someone from it. Their job isnt to determine whos guilty or not.. hes got an opinion just like everyone else. Thats about it.

How is that hear say? If they shot the guns it is not hear say. Hear say means you are repeating what you are told by someone else.

I'm confused now what grounds there is to not allow their testimony?

I find you amusing. Quite often actually. You appear anti-gun, and that's okay, it's just that you are on a gun friendly forum. Lots of other forums out there that would adhere to your worldview. This one is probably not your huckleberry though.

I'd also suggest you refrain from smart aleck comebacks which you are want to take part in.

I was under the impression that, according the AOF forum rules, there was no "seniority" regarding a member's post count or when he joined the forum.
In that respect, ALL members opinions do have value.

If, as you say, my theories are nonsense, then I would be pleased to here you quote them and refute them with specific arguments, instead of making unfounded and unsupported accusations simply proclaiming my arguments to be nonsense and limited in knowledge.

If you believe that I have misreprented verifiable facts, and that my opinions are inconsistent, and that I possess limited knowledge, then please prove it with specific examples.

And AOF is very much a firearms forum, as much as it is a hunting forum, and a trapping forum, and a fishing forum, as evidenced by the fact that
these discussion groups all exist here.

However, perhaps I did get a little carried away in describing you as pro-Crown and questioning your agenda. You're right. I haven't been here long enough to really know you enough to make that claim.

Hello! And welcome to the forum newcomer!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Thank you for your warm welcome.

And, thank you for agreeing that my opinions are as valid as any other member, regardless of post count or seniority. :)

Your welcome. You are correct. Opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s. Only after the opinion is stated does validity diminish or increase. But in the end, validity is in the eyes of the jury.

Such as the Stanley jury.

In this, I am in full agreement.

Perhaps hear say isnt the right word. The lawyers took issue with a random guy shooting a different gun in different conditions with different ammo, 40 yrs previous when it had nothing to do with the trial.

It was flawed evidence that the judge and prosecution should not have allowed. Who needs experts when you have a dude whos shot a gopher 40 yrs ago....

David tanovich is one of the lawyers amongst many others who have dived into this topic.

It is not flawed evidence at all.

The crown firearms expert had argued that the hangfire would have lasted at most 2-3 seconds, and the defence produced two witnesses to counter that argument with their own testimony regarding their experience with hangfires that lasted significantly longer than 3 seconds.

Maybe you don't like it - but that is exactly how evidence and counter evidence works. Don't tell the world that hang fires last "up to three seconds" and then bitch when people come forward and counter your theory with first hand experience to the contrary.

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Time to buy a crossbow, compound bow, throwing knives, and bear spray or wasp and hornet spray etc etc.

How does a police officer loose a patrol carbine and nothing happened to him?

That was at least stolen, the loaded RCMP pistol was just left on the B.C. ferry, for anyone to find.

I didn’t like the crown’s expert testimony either. When I heard that I was thinking the CFSC insistence you wait 60 secs after a hangfire would be great to introduce to evidence.

I don’t see why the evidence of lay people couldn’t be presented. The expert testimony presented an unclear picture at best I felt. I felt he was leading with his chin, and counter evidence was easy to provide. You don't have to take "expert" testimony as fact, as it often isn't.

I agree with your cop friend's opinion. I do not agree with the crown piling on those extra charges. The crown went with their best bet and the jury did not buy their case.

It may be just me, but to go with the other charges just seems vindictive after the crown's loss. In my mind the crown had an opportunity to do the right thing but failed.

As far as politics goes, it is obvious that the governing party took sides and would not let the jury have the final word.

Unsubstantiated? They decided not to pursue charges for one reason or another, I saw one brief comment in an article saying due to lack of evidence.

I am perhaps jumping to a conclusion that he improperly stored restricted firearms but things point to that being the case. I also doubt the Tokarev was stored properly out in his shed.

One of the other laws he admitted to breaking(but was never charged for) is improperly using that Tokarev, a restricted firearm, to chase off coyotes. What is the chances of him storing it properly if he uses it improperly and doesn't store any of his other firearms properly?

Breaking the law, being charged for breaking the law and being found guilty of breaking the law are 3 very different things. Stanley clearly broke multiple laws and had a severe disregard for the proper storage of firearms(look at the photos, firearms laying around the house with ammo beside them etc).

I have no issue with Stanley receiving the support he did, instances like what happened at his farm need to stop and he was in a tough place. If there truly was a mysterious 1 in millions chance hang fire that caused this whole issue I feel very sorry for the guy.

I am just saying considering everything that happened he did very well. It is not very often that you can admit to accidentally killing a man and breaking multiple firearm related laws and walk away with only one minimal firearms related charge and a bunch of financial support.

The gov't was going to try to nail him for something after the trial, one way or another, nature of the beast that is our legal system.

Unfortunately for him, he gave them that opportunity on a silver platter, so, he only has himself to blame for it in that regard. If the non-restricted guns had been stored properly, and his restricted lockbox was open still, he may possibly have beat that, due to circumstances at the time. But, he still most likely would have had to go to court over that, even if he had locked up everything else.

It is a good illustration of the way things are, like it or not.

But....
 

That's what unsubstantiated means.


un·sub·stan·ti·at·ed

adjective

adjective: unsubstantiated

not supported or proven by evidence



Looper

I agree that he is very lucky to have come out of this with as little penalty as this, I thought they would go after him for careless use of a firearm at the very least.

The Crown did NOT charge him with unsafe storage of a restricted weapon, so he obviously did not break that law. There was a lock box for it.

I am also unaware of a law described as "Using a Tokarev to chase away coyotes." What law are you actually referring to?

Also, since we have dealt with the unsafe storage of unrestricted firearms as well, what are the rest of these "multiple firearms laws" that you vaguely claim that he violated?

And, surely police would have charged Mr. Stanley with all of these other violations of "multiple firearms laws" if they could.

So, again, could you clarify what all of these other "multiple firearms laws" were that you claim Mr. Stanley violated?

I don’t understand why he could not have chosen the healing circle or is that only a one way station. Is that not what the guys who raided his place get. Tragic That some one died but should not both sides use the same justice system

[QUOTE=pistolero1860;3772320]That is not obvious! The only thing that is obvious is the fact that they did not charge him with that.

That is not a sure thing either! Police do not always charge an offender with absolutely every single thing they can!

I do not think it unusual that he was not charged with careless use!
They did charge him with murder which requires proof of deliberate intent.

The jury was also instructed that if they did not feel there was deliberate intent that he may be convicted of manslaughter.

To charge careless use would raise the question, Was it deliberate intent or carless use? The careless use is included in the evidence required to prove manslaughter.

The crown wanted a conviction of murder and the idea of careless use thrown in might push the jury in a way that the crown did not want.

Hmmm... you noticed that too?

Well, flag'em and tag'em in your memory.

If nothing else, this thread has floated them to the surface.



And Pistolero, welcome to the site..


Here... take Rug's chair. Perhaps you can fill that huge void.

I thought he was charged for the restricted one.The crown dropped that charge when he plead guilty to the non restricted. So global news says he was and other ones say he wasn't .

Please tag me as a pro Crown guy. I have nothing against the Crown. They have a job to do. That also goes for defense lawyers.

What I have a problem with is politicians that try to steer an agenda. What I also have a problem with is those who do not honor the decision of the jury.
The jury who have the unpopular duty of rendering a decision should not have to see the leaders of our country cozy up to those to those on the other side of their decision.

He was charged. Then the charges were dropped. I am guessing he was charged because the pistol didn't have a trigger lock on it. There are reports that say none of his firearms had trigger locks and the court photo of the ruger blackhawk did not have a trigger lock on it(so either the RCMP/court took the lock off which seems unlikely or it didn't have one).

I am also guessing the charges were dropped because the crown was happy with the results of him pleading guilty to the first charge. He already had a fine, firearms ban and had given up his firearms. Going through the proceedings for the second charge would have only resulted in a small fine and would have been a waste of time for everyone involved.

Going back to using the Tokarev for scaring coyotes. Criminal code section 95 (1). Obviously there is no evidence to support such a case hence why he wasn't charged... Go tell a police officer you have sped in the past, you won't get charged for that either, doesn't mean you didn't break the law...