It shouldnt really be that way IMO. This charging people for fun that the Crown/Police engage in because their are no consequences to them shouldnt be the default position and it really shouldnt when its clear that this individual was being attacked. I dont think prior history should limit or even enter into the discussion of your self defence claims or ability. This guy will likely get off like most do but at what cost and to what purpose? What public good is being served by the charges?The accused killed someone with a firearm during a spontaneous confrontation. That's the basis of the 2nd degree murder charge. Self-defence is something that can be raised at trial by the defence. Then, the Crown has to prove the contrary.
Remember, too, that there is a clear political bent against firearms use for self defence against people. In the days and months following the May 2020 OIC and both iterations of Bill C-21, the PM and Ministers Blair and Mendicino have all said that "we don't arm ourselves for defence against our fellow citizens" or words to that effect. So, my guess is that this isn't as clear-cut as initial reports make it out to be. So, yes, it's possible the Crown thought "let's err on the side of politics, lay the charge and let the courts decide". A lateral pass of a political football.
I'm going to postulate that it's unlikely, as a PAL holder, that the accused was a sh!trat, But there is definitely a lot more to this that we don't know yet.
I think the guy has a RPAL(?) Im not sure what that means exactly if you get charged with a crime you dont lose your PAL do you lose your RPAL? One can be a criminal and have a license as long as you dont need to get caught. Is there any information out there on how many PAL/RPAL's are refused and/or taken away and why?