Do you agree with Matt Gurney's opinion (in the article below) that Mr. Thomson should never have been charged
I am looking for three articulate reasons. ( Examples fromt he article )
I definitely agree with Gurney's opinion as stated in this article.
First, it seems unreasonable that the Crown would prosecute the person who is clearly the aggrieved party in this case. Simply from the point of view of equity, it does not seem right to charge someone for having the means to protect themselves when, obviously, they had a reason to be afraid.
Second, there seems to be a clear reason to doubt the Crown's contention that the guns were stored illegally. If Thomson could demonstrate that he was able to get legally stored guns into action in the time needed, that seems to be compelling evidence that he could have had the stored legally.
Finally, the Crown is unreasonable to expect that Thomson would have put his guns back in storage at that point. First of all, it is not reasonable that he would want to store his guns before putting out the fire that his assailants had set. Second, he would be well justified in keeping a gun for self-defense at that point.