Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2
I spoke with a cop I know last week, he says he has studied the evidence very closely and he feels the jury totally made the right decision regardless of any goof-ups from Crown witnesses. Says the evidence for it being an accidental shooting was very strong. I hope the man comes out with a fat bank account for all he has been through. He and his wife went to bed as normal that night, not knowing their lives would be forever altered. Ironically, this cop grew up on a farm 6 miles away. His dad is still on the farm and the stories of the crime they are subjected to is ridiculous. With everything I heard, I can understand why his guns were not locked up. He does not deserve to lose firearm privileges for 10 years. The law may say otherwise, and he will have to live with that, but he doesn't deserve it. There is a difference. That's my two cents.
|
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.