Let's just hope it doesn't morph into including jurors because of their race...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Printable View
Let's just hope it doesn't morph into including jurors because of their race...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Or excluding! Oh ya we already had-have that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
You do realize that in the previous trial you spoke of (i am assuming it’s Bouchie...so if its not I apologize) that there were peers selected of the person whom was shot. However they were removed after making several statements that they were going to hang the farmer before the trial began!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
You failed to mention this important fact.
How do you get a fair trial by having peers of the perpetrator as the jury? Where is the justice in that??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well the court would argue, that the First Nations young man, was the victim, not the perpetrator. The trial was for the shooting ,not the supposed attempted theft. The perpetrator , had a jury stacked in his favour. No First Nations were on the jury. To Kill a Mockingbird , or A time To Kill, comes to mind. The jury should be made up of members of the entire community. No one should be excluded because of race.
They were not excluded because of race! They were excluded because they were overheard by court officers, openly discussing how they wanted to “hang” the so called accused, even before hearing any evidence....Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
That might be because it's not a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTurk
Prospective indigenous jurors were rejected by peremptory challenge, that is, without giving any reason at all. People may have been rejected from the jury pool for comments overheard, but it is not true that every prospective indigenous juror was removed for this reason.
You seem confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTurk
The idea of a jury of one's peers in English common law originates in the feudal era, and probably with the Norman Conquest in 1066, and it develops alongside the idea of social class. The common man is to be tried by a jury of his fellow common men, and not by his landlords. This is supposed to help to shield the subject from the power of the state.
Guess what, skippy! A thousand years later, things have changed. You are no longer a serf, owned by a baron and tied to his manor. Social class is no longer recognized as a shield from the law. We have this neat thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees in section 15 equal treatment before the law. Your peers are the people in the area in which you live.
The idea you advance here, that indigenous people are not the equals of whites, is both wrong as a point of law, and deeply racist. On the first of those points, you ought to withdraw your remarks and stop propagating lies; on the second, you ought to be ashamed, though I doubt you ever can be.
I am not referring to a race!!!! Our legal system should be blind to race!! When did I mention race????Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
When the hell did I ever mention what your implying? Who the hell is the racist????
You have no ing right to accuse me of racism ! You don’t event know me!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You know what Welsh! Throwing around accusations like that should have you turfed from this message board! That was totally unjust and it fu$&@@ing warrants an apology!Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTurk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, it does not.
Your meaning in referring to "peers of the person who was shot" being removed from the jury pool in the Boushie trial is quite clear.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
I agree, Welsh's comments are totally uncalled for. Nothing racists was intended in the context of the discussion...Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTurk