When someone shoots and kill's someone and no charges have been layed, you would expect the citizens are entitled to an explanation as to who and why.
Are charges being considered or has the case been closed?

I agree...where ARE the details?

Indeed. If the 'man who fired the shot' was released after a police interogation with no charges, then the public should be told why. Interesting how some media stories never leave the public, and others get buried as quickly as possible. Who is this 54 year old resident, and why is 'his' name not being released?

Considering the shooters past of related activities... I think more details are in order... I also think it is the duty of the RCMP to keep the public informed, and not the media to have to chase after these kinds of details for those kinds of crimes.

I find it amazing a person can shot a person by mistake and get away with it... I find even more amazing when it happens twice in less then a decade....

Aside from satisfying 250 readers sense of curiousity, I see no reason to identify a person who has not been charged with a crime. If you haven't been charged, you have the right to have folk keep their noses out of your business. If the person has not been charged or convicted of a crime, he doesnt necessarily deserve to suffer the scandal and microscopic examination people seem to insist upon these days.
Eagleone, I dont find it amazing that a person can kill someone in a car accident and get away with it. Tats why it is called an accident. Aside from the general prejudice people have about gun ownership, I see little reason why we would destinguish between cars and guns as causes of mortality, unless it is the fact that cars kill a lot more people.

"Tats why it is called an accident."

No such thing as an accident. Nothing happens by accident.

Caranmacil the guy was shot with a firearm. He did not die in a car accident. The one doing the shooting also shot his daughters boyfriend during a hunting 'accident' ten years ago (another accident?)... and around the same time he shot at his contractors (including my brother) for his music festival when he refused to pay them for services and wanted them off his land when the festival was over.

If we are not going to call him by name at least I think the guy should not have guns anymore even if his occupation is guide outfitting.

At least if he was charged he would have the trouble of a trial even if he was acquitted. Thats what our court system is for.

Well, if the guy has a history of gun crime then the law should be pressed into play. I didnt have (and still dont, technically) any info regarding past nehaviour. I do stand by my point, however, that accidents with guns are not more worthy of prosecutions than accidents involving cars. I uas the term accident intentionally. It is a real word for a real world. Yes, yes, I know 'find fault, assess blame, prosecute/sue and go to bed feeling superior'. If you dont believe in accidents lostfaith, you are gonna be in trouble when you have to deal with your insurance company.

By the way, Eagle, I agree completely that he should be charged if there is evidence of wrong doing. I also understand how hard it can be to have charges laid. I have been 'shot at' myself.