Gerald stanley firearms fines today

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by RavYak

He broke multiple firearm laws and accidentally killed a person with a firearm.

A 10 year firearm ban seems very reasonable especially considering that it sounds like it is a common ban for much lesser cases.

Stanley did very well to walk from this whole situation with only one minor fine. He likely made money considering the financial support he received.

I hope that the Go fund me does cover the families expenses, but I sincerely doubt that they will cover all financial losses that resulted from this incident. As for the fine and prohibition, they were supposedly for the illegal storage of firearms, not to punish him for the accidental shooting.

[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.

[elkhunter11]

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.

We have a legal system, not a justice system, there is a difference.

[silverdoctor]

And people are going to beat this to death, round and round she goes.

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.

This is truth. Stanley probably got the best possible outcome of a bad situation. He should never have been in that situation, but it's in the past now.

Stanley killed a man, doesn't matter what the reasons are now, it's something he's going to have to live with for the rest of his life. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, he probably doesn't either. Give the man a break.

[R3illy]

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.

[riden]

Originally Posted by R3illy

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?

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by riden

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?

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.

[jef612]

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.

[riden]

Originally Posted by jef612

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.

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.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by R3illy

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.

[Norwest Alta]

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

[sns2]

Originally Posted by R3illy

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.

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.

[covey ridge]

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 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.

[roper1]

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.

Well said. Thanks!

[Peter Abelard]

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. .

You're trying to sell the accidental angle to a site of marksmen and hunters?

We all know what happened here: He killed an unarmed boy in anger. He got off on a subterfuge. But we all know it's BS.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

You're trying to sell the accidental angle to a site of marksmen and hunters?

We all know what happened here: He killed an unarmed boy in anger. He got off on a subterfuge. But we all know it's BS.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

You're trying to sell the accidental angle to a site of marksmen and hunters?

We all know what happened here: He killed an unarmed boy in anger. He got off on a subterfuge. But we all know it's BS.

The guy who got shot was neither innocent nor was he a kid. He was a thug up to no good. Unfortunately for him things didn't go as planned. Remember where he was when he got shot and why he was there.

[Peter Abelard]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The guy who got shot was neither innocent nor was he a kid. He was a thug up to no good. Unfortunately for him things didn't go as planned. Remember where he was when he got shot and why he was there.

One of us is unfamiliar with this case. My understanding is that he had passed out in the back of a car, and woke up amidst all the commotion.

The bar has to be set pretty low to determine that he was a threat.

At worst, he was guilty of bad company.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

One of us is unfamiliar with this case. My understanding is that he had passed out in the back of a car, and woke up amidst all the commotion.

The bar has to be set pretty low to determine that he was a threat.

At worst, he was guilty of bad company.

He was one occupant of a vehicle full of impaired individuals, out committing criminal offenses and they had a loaded firearm in the vehicle. That makes him and the people with him a threat. They weren't prohibited from possessing firearms for no reason.

[Hogie135]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

One of us is unfamiliar with this case. My understanding is that he had passed out in the back of a car, and woke up amidst all the commotion.

The bar has to be set pretty low to determine that he was a threat.

At worst, he was guilty of bad company.

Except he was in the drivers seat.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

One of us is unfamiliar with this case. My understanding is that he had passed out in the back of a car, and woke up amidst all the commotion.

The bar has to be set pretty low to determine that he was a threat.

At worst, he was guilty of bad company.

Then obviously this is his "companies" fault, they should be the ones in the news getting their names smeared by the media and their families should be going through the hell that the Stanley's are going through.

Do yourself a favor and look up his Facebook posts, you'll get a real glimpse at your innocent angel. I guarantee that one of the people involved in this incident was a stand up citizen who didn't pride himself on being a menace to society, the other one did.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Then obviously this is his "companies" fault, they should be the ones in the news getting their names smeared by the media and their families should be going through the hell that the Stanley l's are going through.

Do yourself a favor and look up his Facebook posts, you'll get a real glimpse at your innocent angel. I guarantee that one of the people involved in this incident was a stand up citizen who didn't pride himself on being a menace to society, the other one did.

And not one of those occupants in the vehicle was charged with a single offence, despite the multiple criminal acts that they committed.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

You're trying to sell the accidental angle to a site of marksmen and hunters?

We all know what happened here: He killed an unarmed boy in anger. He got off on a subterfuge. But we all know it's BS.

Quite frankly, I'm not trying to sell anything, nor do I care what you or any other apologists think because a jury has spoken. They quickly found that he accidentally killed a drunk criminal who was trespassing on his property, and posed a risk to the safety of his wife. As a moderator, I try and stay out of this stuff, but not on this one. I wish we had Castle Law.

Don't get drunk and trespass for the purpose of stealing and you will likely live a long life.

[Peter Abelard]

Originally Posted by sns2

I wish we had Castle Law.

Myself as well. It's lack causes complication.

Originally Posted by sns2

Don't get drunk and trespass for the purpose of stealing and you will likely live a long life.

He was passed out in the back of his friend's car. While not a healthy lifestyle choice, I don't know it was punishable by death.

(I for one would be dead 5 times over if that were the case!)

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

Myself as well. It's lack causes complication.



He was passed out in the back of his friend's car. While not a healthy lifestyle choice, I don't know it was punishable by death.

(I for one would be dead 5 times over if that were the case!)

I passed out in cars many times. However, none of those cars were filled with my friends bent on committing crimes with loaded firearms.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

I passed out in cars many times. However, none of those cars were filled with my friends bent on committing crimes with loaded firearms.

And he wasn't passed out when he was shot, he was in control of the vehicle, with a loaded firearm within reach, so he had access to two possible lethal weapons

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

You're trying to sell the accidental angle to a site of marksmen and hunters?

We all know what happened here: He killed an unarmed boy in anger. He got off on a subterfuge. But we all know it's BS.

There was no boy involved, the adult that died as a result of the accidental shooting did have a loaded firearm in the vehicle , the occupants of the vehicle were driving around drunk, were prohibited from possessing firearms, and they had previously tried to break into a vehicle at another property, before arriving at Stanley's property. Impaired driving, and possessing a firearm while prohibited, and possessing a firearm while impaired, and armed robbery are all criminal offenses, so the occupants of the vehicle were certainly not innocent.

[Peter Abelard]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There was no boy involved, the adult that died as a result of the accidental shooting did have a loaded firearm in the vehicle , the occupants of the vehicle were driving around drunk, were prohibited from possessing firearms, and they had previously tried to break into a vehicle at another property, before arriving at Stanley's property. Impaired driving, and possessing a firearm while prohibited, and possessing a firearm while impaired, and armed robbery are all criminal offenses, so the occupants of the vehicle were certainly not innocent.

You talk a lot about the people in the car, but don't mention what Bouchie himsef did.

And that's because he did nothing, except get shot.

Is keeping bad company an offense punishable by death?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Peter Abelard

You talk a lot about the people in the car, but don't mention what Bouchie himsef did.

And that's because he did nothing, except get shot.

Is keeping bad company an offense punishable by death?

He was one of a group of armed thieves out committing robbery. Just because he passed out for a time doesn't mean that he was not just as guilty as the rest of the occupants. A loaded firearm being present make the entire group a threat to the public. And he was in control of the vehicle when he was shot. The vehicle itself was the second potential lethal weapon.

[Peter Abelard]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

He was one of a group of armed thieves out committing robbery. Just because he passed out for a time doesn't mean that he was not just as guilty as the rest of the occupants.

Sine Mens Rea...