[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Something about this case doesn't add up. I'm glad no one else has been hurt, and hopefully we'll be told what has actually happened here.

Agree with the first sentence. Let's hope for the second.

[Freakinoldguy]

Hopefully you're right and we will find out what actually caused this whole situation. If it's just about the gun being illegal then I'd be very suprised that this kind of disasterous outcome would result from the police going to retrieve the weapon.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Something about this case doesn't add up. I'm glad no one else has been hurt, and hopefully we'll be told what has actually happened here.

Agree with the first sentence. Let's hope for the second.

This.

[Regina]

I still think someone was getting boinked.

[DrCaleb]

Story Update:

$1:

Crown prosecutor dropped second-degree murder charges against Robison last week

The lawyer for a man once accused of second-degree murder is blaming 'malicious prosecution' for the charge being made in the first place.

Sawyer Robison, who is accused of trying to kill two RCMP officers in a February 2012 standoff, made headlines last week after the RCMP dropped a second-degree murder charge for allegedly killing his uncle Bradford Clark.

“We’re very pleased with the decision that was finally made this morning, although we are disappointed that it took so long for the prosecution to realize this,” said Robison’s lawyer Brian Beresh, speaking outside of the Camrose courthouse on Monday.

While Beresh said his client is relieved he is no longer accused of killing his uncle, he said questions still remain about why it took eight months for RCMP lay the charge and almost a year before it was officially dropped.

Calling the murder charge an act of malicious prosecution, Beresh said, "In our view, there was never reasonable grounds for that charge to be laid,” he said.

Instead, he said it was based on “a convoluted view of some so-called police expert, [whose] view was subsequently changed when the defence provided information and which was subsequently confirmed by US experts that were hired in the case.”

“There is a view held by my client’s family that the charge was simply a reaction to protect the reputation of the RCMP and that it was not based upon any solid evidence,” he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.1929073

[BartSimpson]

$1:

“There is a view held by my client’s family that the charge was simply a reaction to protect the reputation of the RCMP and that it was not based upon any solid evidence,” he added.

Sorry I was right.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

$1:

“There is a view held by my client’s family that the charge was simply a reaction to protect the reputation of the RCMP and that it was not based upon any solid evidence,” he added.

Sorry I was right.

Me too. The more I get into this story, the more it looks like the Uncle shot the police, then turned the gun on himself. For some reason they want to pin it on the nephew.

But the preliminary trial is underway, so we'll see how that goes.