Mr. Stanley has been acquitted of first degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie in a jury verdict released 20 minutes ago. Watch the defecation hit the oscillating rotator,now.
Printable View
Mr. Stanley has been acquitted of first degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie in a jury verdict released 20 minutes ago. Watch the defecation hit the oscillating rotator,now.
I believe he was charged with second degree. Sounds to me like the Crown May have screwed up. Why would they not have considered manslaughter ???
After reading just a few clips it would appear someone made the intent to steal a truck and ATV. Maybe they should have gone about it in a different manner.
Yep,instead of showing half hammered with a gun looking to steal a truck. That tends to lead to Darwin Awards. Play stupid games,win stupid prizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
Did sound to me like a hang fire disaster based on very old ammo he had : 1953 military surplus cartridges from Czechoslovakia . He shot in the air several times as a warning, then lowered the gun and then it went off. jmo
Very sad for the young native though.
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local...-boushie-death
Can someone keep tabs on the ones that were with him and let me know if they steal again.
Ask yourself if you'd be saying that about a group of white kids in your neighbourhood, or someone else you might have known.Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
Yes they were on his property, intoxicated and likely looking to steal, but I still don't understand the verdict. I read that the pistol was examined and found to be mechanically sound. And pointed at the kids head ?
certainly seems to be a game changer if a valid defence for murder is that the gun went off by itself while pointed at someone
Stealing anything should not be a death sentence.
Did he get shot because he wasn’t white.
That's why you have so much stealing go on up there -someone is stealing something from you and you can't do anything about it - that doesn't happen down here - if someone is in a car and the police stop the car - if the driver drives the car in the direction of the cop - the cop will shoot him in self defense - likewise if someone is stealing you car and you stand in front of the car - if the thief aims the car at you - you can shoot the thief in self defense - same thing would happen if someone aims a ATV at you - down here the moral of the story is - don't go around stealing things -
I know some of you will say that killing someone over some property is not right - I am not advocating that you do - only that you could down here under certain circumstances - as far as I am concerned it would depend on what they are attempting to steal and how I felt at the time - where do you draw the line -
Tell me Fish" - at what point would you shoot someone - what would they have to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
No one ever brings up that the kids were there to steal from the farmer, it's not like he was innocent in any of this. Now Mr. Stanley should have received some sort of firearm charge and some jail time. This wasn't a hate crime though like the indigenous groups like to think it is.
With the jury issue of there not being any visible native members. How do you know their wasn't and Metis or actual natives on the jury? don't you only need to be 1/8th native to claim your status?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
I understand where you are coming from Joe ( American :) ) , but I would never shoot anyone over property - not even stealing my dog.
If they were about to shoot or stab me or another person, then I would shoot, and only then.
The attackers had a loaded firearm in the vehicle, tried to run over the farmers wife and kid. They were all drunk , trespassing and there to steal property. What I find appalling is how anybody could side against someone protecting his family and property. Of course Trudough is shedding tears, but not for the honest man protecting those he loved.
It's hard to feel sorry for the young lad. They were all piss drunk,armed with a rifle and tried to run down the man's family when they tried to stop them. Honestly,if it was me,there wouldn't have been any doubt why I shot him. Apparently,this has been an ongoing problem with FN kids all pissed up running the roads,B&E'ing and stealing property whenever it strikes their fancy from "whitey" because they think they're on "stolen" native land and they get away with it. RCMP won't answer complaints and even when they do,charges get tossed. Now,maybe it's just me,but,sooner or later,this was going to happen. Our village idiot PM says we have to do more for FN,but,after billions of dollars poured in with bugger-all results,how's it worked out,so far?
Rick, I had heard a report when the jury went out that the judge informed them that that had 3 choices. 2nd degree, manslaughter, or not guilty. I don't think the crown screwed up? I do think the punks who had their butt handed to them, did.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Joe are you really suggesting there is more theft here in Canada than in the States even for any given reason? Only a seriously brainwashed American could believe such nonsense.
Play with fire. Ya get burned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That makes more sense !Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
In Canada our standard of proof requires the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the accused needs only to raise reasonable doubt in the evidence. When one looks at what has been reported as the agreed upon statement of facts, there seem to be details that would cast reasonable doubt.
The deceased's supporters are claiming jury bias, but anyone familiar with our our juror vetting process knows that it is virtually impossible to stack a jury, unless the judge him/herself presiding over the selection process is biased. If in fact there were FN members in the jury panel who the were eventually dropped, the more likely scenario is that their answers to challenge questions showed bias, plain and simple.
The system seems to have worked correctly. The part I find most troubling now is the political intervention in the judicial process that seems to be underway.
Immediate risk of death to self or someone else, holding my TV would not be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Sorry Joe, not shooting someone for standing on my porch.
Trying to run me over or my family, that is risk of death.
You need to educate yourself on the particulars of the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
They weren't "likely looking to steal". They were drunk on booze procured from previous B&Es. They had already tried to steal a truck from a neighboring farm. They tried to steal a truck from the Stanley farm, as well as an ATV. They had a loaded rifle in the SUV with them.
The argument was that it was a hang fire. Police did recover a casing from the SUV which was bulged abnormally. ( anyone who's seen their share of hang fire conditions will attest to the fact that this is one of the defining characteristics).
Stanley never quavered from his statement that the gun just went off.
He had the ACE card of saying that it was self defense, but didn't use it. He in fact fired two warning shots.
The Crown could have preferred the lesser charge of manslaughter, or Crim Negligence Causing Death, but did not. As the Crown was not a novice, one must wonder why he stuck with a 2nd degree murder charge, knowing he had to prove intent to kill.
The fact is, that it is likely that the crown was pressured to "hang" Stanley with the murder charge. The same people who pressured him, are likely the same ones who are now crying foul. The Crown was then forced to play his hand, with witnesses that perjured themselves, provided inconsistent testimony, and in one case, had to have a subpoena and a warrant issued, because he couldn't be bothered to attend.
Meanwhile Stanley's account did not change, and that of his family did not change.....for the jury, I'm sure it wasn't a tough call.
From a member of the Red Pheasant First Nation...
The best written description of the events posted on another thread by Les Hidebrandt from someone who lives on the reservation.
A lot of what has been going on around this Stanley trial makes me sick for whats its doing to our community. My niece Nadine La Greca said it best. We need prayers.
Additionally there are so many unanswered questions. Regardless of the verdict when it comes our community is sorely wounded mainly due to people, groups and posts with race based agendas.
Following I take issue with a couple of points raised by Rob Feist. He's a lawyer so like him its kind of long winded and not intended
to be conclusive in anyway. Just a couple of observations.
Your epistle on the events of that day raises some questions Rob.
(1) Your implication that Gerald Stanley is lying raises one question. I too was inclined to believe that given the complexities and unlikelihood of this whole “hang fire” defense that he was not telling the truth. Its takes more than a bit of stretch to believe this. I can’t help but think that if this man, Gerald Stanley is choosing to lie for his defense he missed a far more glaring opportunity to seize a credible plea of “self-defense”.
The fact that Stanley only loaded three rounds in the clip tells me he was under some duress or he would have loaded the whole clip. Most pistol clips hold more than three rounds. When you load a clip under duress might you fumble, might you miscount? Does someone under duress always count the exact # of rounds? (I know of course most lawyers would catalog the exact # of rounds in a ledger somewhere but most ordinary people under stress probably don’t). Still I find it a stretch to buy this “hang fire” theory. However if this man was going to lie to fabricate a defense he left the most glaringly obvious ACE he could have played on the table and he didn’t use it. If he is indeed a lair all he had to do, was say he saw the rifle between Boushies legs when he reached through the window and he instantly had a justifiable self defense motive. But Gerald Stanley doesn’t do that? He says he didn’t see the gun and goes with this highly unlikely “hang fire” defense even taking the stand (which he didn’t have too) thereby exposing himself to cross examination. Either this man is incredibly honest, or incredibly stupid or both. If this man is indeed a liar this was his most unassailable ticket out of jail and he didn’t play it.
(2) “Setting the scene” as you describe it Rob. Allow me to add some context to your version of events that balmy sunny summer afternoon which I find might be somewhat lacking in your version of “setting the scene”.
So lets look at what have we got here?
Well as you point out Rob,“on the day in question, an SUV carrying Colten Boushie and four other young people came on to the Stanley farm”.
That’s it? Nothing more than that? Like, were these "young people” just skipping down the road carrying baskets of wild flowers or what? Where’s the context here? What a beautiful platonic summer scene in rural Saskatchewan.
According to eye witness testimony at the trial (some of whom were companions of Bushies in the vehicle) the group had been drunk for days, drinking from a “60 pounder” (stolen in a previous break in) and shooting from a gun they had in the car (one occupant has previous firearms convictions and is prohibited). They leave the swimming hole and head for home. On the way this innocuous “SUV” is noticed by a staff member as it passes by a bible camp with a hundred fifty children in attendance. The staff member notices the vehicle because its not quite as non-descript as your description would lead one to believe. Its loud, the muffler is missing, the tail pipe is dragging underneath the car spewing gravel and its completely missing one front tire driving on the rim.
A little further down the road this noisy vehicle and its occupants pulls into a neighboring farm where a 74 year old woman watches in terror (her words) as an armed man exits the vehicle and attempts to break into a pickup in her yard. Breaking the
rifle gun stock he’s wielding in the process. (the gun turns out to be loaded). They fail to steal the truck (witness admits).
So how might we describe the developing “scene” now? Would it be completely inaccurate to say we have a carload of armed drunks displaying slightly aggressive and maybe even violent behavior ? Or does it suffice to merely, as you say Rob, describe them as just a group of “young people”?
They now head on down the road to the Stanly farm ostensibly to ask for “help”. (this testimony is from witness’s who have already admitted lying under oath and now give contradictory testimony).Except upon entering the Stanly yard no one asks for help and instead they proceed directly to a gold colored pick-up in the yard which they enter, then they attempt to start a nearby ATV (still no verbal request for “help”) but by now the Stanley's, father and son, are on the scene hollering. The dilapidated vehicle (SUV) now swerves towards the Stanley's (close enough that Sheldon Stanley is able to smash the windshield with a hammer) and careens across the yard, where is smashes into another of the Stanley families vehicles in the direction of where Mrs Stanley, ( who’s safety Stanley says he’s concerned about at this point) is mowing the lawn.
Two males exit the vehicle and Gerald Stanley, having gone into the shop at some point to retrieve his gun during this melee, fires two warning shots in the air. Somehow Bushie (who you say is sleeping through all this?) gets from the back seat to the drivers seat where he is killed by bullet from Stanley's gun. I’ll stay out of the contortionist hang fire debate and how did Colton get into three different seats before he was shot in the drivers seat. Lots of unanswered questions.
Here’s my question for you Rob. Do you think context is relative or important at all here? Does “an SUV carrying Colten Boushie and four other young people came on to the Stanley farm” accurately illustrate the context of the rapidly escalating and dangerous situation as it unfolded that day? Does this maybe sound like a nightmarish scene out of a “Mad Max” movie? Do you think given this context there might some potential for harm for anyone present in these circumstances at the time? Do you think context is important?
There is a lot more at stake here than the fate of Gerald Stanly and the horrible impact on all the families involved in this tragedy. At stake is the peace and harmony between everyone in our community. At stake is the path to a future of equal opportunity, social harmony and happiness for our children and grandchildren.
Agenda driven biased assessments, agenda driven opinions and posts won’t heal the wounds this trial has brought to our community. They serve instead to widen the divide and serve only to advance the cause of the ugly specter of racism. We must be honest and unrelenting in a comprehensive assessment of what happened that day, honestly weighing all the contributing factors, without prejudice, that contributed to the tragic outcome of that day. Finally we must all accept the truth whatever it is.
To succeed in this we must come together! All of us. Both sides without prejudice or bias, to heal our community.
Bluebulldog, this is why nobody here can have any valid opinion on the result and neither can people like Trudeau unless they were in the court room listening to the evidence laid out.
I agree that it makes no sense that a jury in a case like this is 100% white and that the defense may have removed people who were visibly aboriginal, but saying that he was acquitted simply because the jury was all white also assumes that every single white person is a racist and that an Aboriginal member being on the jury would also be unbiased. The Prosecution would have the same right to remove jury members who they would consider as bias, so they would be weeding out those considered blatantly racist.
The key here is the facts of the case, not the opinions of those reading bias articles on either side and voicing their opinion.
Here you have a young man who was killed and a farmer that killed him, both lives were changed forever and that will never change, a very sad event.
There were FN people in the pool of over 700 potential jurors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Each and every one was removed and disqualified because they made statements that indicated they couldn't remain impartial. An inconvenient fact that gets little play by those crying foul.
And our village idiot and some of his clan come out and publicly denounce our judicial system !!!!! Amazing !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Share the heck out of it Rick.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
More folks need to know...
That was my expectation as well, but I am not privy to that information so I could not comment along that line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
I do believe that in Canada the Crown can appeal if they feel that the jury did not make a proper decision based on their biased views. I somehow doubt this will happen unless done by Ottawa. In this case, if they do appeal I think they should move the trial away from the area and have a jury that is mixed race and sex outside of the community involved.
The Crown can appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
However, in this case. The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution are a large part of what sunk the case. They lied, and were caught.
On the merits of the 2nd degree murder charge, the Crown did not present a case that couldn't produce reasonable doubt. On appeal, that would be reviewed, and it wouldn't succeed.
Sadly, the same people who are crying foul really need to examine why the prosecution of these charges failed, and realize that they played a hand in it.
This is what I was eluding to in my original post. We had something similar years ago. The Crown, for whatever reason pushed the second degree murder charge and refused the manslaughter charge. The results were the same....an acquittal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Well Mr. Sawbill - straight from google - property offenses - "Canada has 30% more break ins and motor vehicle thefts than the U. S. - so yes I am not only suggesting I am stating - brainwashed American?Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
Good post, Blue.
Unfortunately there are people, some of them meeting with Federal Ministers at this very moment, who are trying to turn this into a true life Canadian version of "To Kill a Mockingbird".
You nailed it right there, if the case was as you have stated (I do not know, I did not sit in the court room) then there would be no reason to review the case. If the Crown did believe this was simply based on bias then it could be appealed, I doubt it will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
So, 30% more B&Es in Canada but yet Canadians as a whole do not feel that they need to keep loaded firearms all over their home to defend themselves against this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
So I will chime now. The simple fact is causation, if they had not trespassed on the property, tried to steal, and endanger the family members Stanley would have no defence. Defence of property is illegal in CANADA, SC ruled on this in 1985. The weighted value of life, was more than property possessions. Now in this case because his wife was there one minute and after he came out with the pistol, she was gone and they had smashed into the family car and thought his wife was trapped. That raised the issue of self-defence and justified the "accidental" shooting when he reached into the car.
Joe PA, is correct and absolutely right about Property and the relation to property crimes since 1985. Since 1985, because of the SC ruling it has become illegal (SC Ruling), to defend or protect property in Canada, now what did this do over the next 2.5 generations since then, it signalled property owners have no rights to stop criminals from taking your property. The kids know there is no consequences for property crimes. It is also down the point where your whole house can be cleaned...all you get is a police report #...no investigation. Heck most of you are thinking this is OK, but, have posted on stolen cameras, tree stands and frustrations with trespassers. It's those same people that trespass who know little or nothing can be done and they know the courts have almost chance to prosecute these crimes, or those that are caught have little effect.
The other point that came from this ruling, it also allowed criminals to then sue homeowners over excessive force when protecting property. Happens all the time, and is legal because if you defend your (property), you are breaking the law and SC ruling. You know what I am saying, because you all have seen and commented on these cases.
This is the problem with perception of property crimes in the eyes of criminals and lawyers.
Property owners have no rights. You only have limited rights to self-defence, and only with certain limits you must comply law during any events that occur and it must be reasonable, which are usually fast moving and reactionary in nature. Anyone fighting for your life, does not take the time to think what is reasonable in these situations.
All these rights we think we have, and those that say….just try and steal my TV..I will beat the #### out them. If you do, you will go to jail, and more than likely be sued as well.
So, Yes Joe Pa, I agree 100% with your view. Why, because of how limited or non-existent our rights are in Canada. Yes I believe we should have the right to defend up to and including deadly force to protect your property and life. Does that mean any single one of you in Canada on this forum...would pull out a gun and shoot someone for stepping on your property..NO. I believe 100% would not and neither would I. However, if you pull out a gun and do this now...good chance you will be charged if no "threat to life" is present and you admit to police you did bye-bye guns. Even if the criminal states this...you could be in trouble as a licenced firearms owner.
I had more rights to self-defence in actions overseas, then I do at home. What the heck was defending..when we don't have the same rights at home..we are sent to defend..Freedoms...Democracy.
If the laws changed overnight and people had this right, the overnight perceptions would over property crimes and it would have an impact..if the criminals believed everyone had a legal right to defend property.
The crux of this case ( and its failure) was nothing to do with defense. It was the inability of the prosecution to make a case for conviction without reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
Ironically, the host of other charges that could have been laid with respect to firearms weren't.
While Castle Doctrine is not a pillar in Canadian Law. In rural areas like Sask, and AB, where police response times are a matter of hours, not minutes, it is becoming a factor in property crime cases. This case and it's ruling have highlighted that fact as well.
Take a life, to save a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Fish' let me know where you live and I'll come up with a trailer truck and clean out your home - I'll bring a couple buddies to drive you vehicles away - boy when I hear what goes on up there I am truly grateful that I live in a country where you can defend yourself, family and property - how in the world did it ever get that way - you have to stand around and watch someone taking your stuff - you can't even beat the crap out of the crook - that's one thing I always worry about when I go up there fishing - someone stealing my things - terrible -Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I think you're mistaken in your post? I believe most Canadians do in fact feel the need to have a way to protect themselves. Unfortunately for us, the law prevents it. There's a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Do you honestly feel that you need a loaded gun beside your bed because someone will come through the door?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
I want honesty here, do you NEED a LOADED gun beside your bed because someone WILL come through the door?
If you do then maybe you need to find a new place to live. I have lived in some sketchy areas in Ottawa and never once felt that I had to worry about a home invasion. I was never involved in any criminal activity and never had any inkling that someone was going to come into my home in the dark to hurt me and my family.
I have family in the US and the Canadians are not in fear but the Americans they married or are friends with seem to live in fear 100% of the time, similar to Joe's opinion. The suburbs of small town Florida is no more dangerous than the suburbs in any SW Ontario town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
Mark, it sounds like you have made a very good case for emigration.
I live in Canada where life is more valuable than property. Those that believe otherwise are welcome to find jurisdiction better suited to their beliefs!
If you think its worth it to kill someone for trying to take your stuff, you should google "insurance". Lots of peace of mind without all the trouble and court costs. Sure, you pay up front, but knowing I don't have to get in a gun fight if someone wants my stuff is a lot of peace of mind. Look into it - you'll be surprised what you learn. Lots of people already have it!
I guess things must be different in Manitoba , The Gerald Stanley Trial , which is the original Topic of Discussion , they are also "Canadians "Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Fox, in my post I mentioned nothing about a "loaded firearm" beside the bed? I merely pointed out that I believe most Canadians would prefer to have the option to defend themselves, but are unable to legally? You're jumping to conclusions of what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
You always have the option to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
It is the consequences of your actions that you have to deal with, as with every decision in life.
If you are at the point where you actually feel that you need to kill someone to save your life or someone in your family then going to court is now minimal.
I hate that comment about right to defend, you look at places like Florida and they kill old men standing on their lawn unarmed and it is considered justified.
Bushmoose, you never answered my question, do you NEED a LOADED gun beside your bed because someone WILL come through the door?
This is what I have been told in the US where they have these types of laws.
If you just say that Canadians would prefer to have the option to defend themselves, what in your opinion does this actually entail? Are you allowed to go and get your gun and shoot someone coming into your home with a gun? Are you allowed to go get your gun and shoot someone breaking into your truck? Are you allowed to go get your gun and shoot someone standing in your yard?
I love that I do not fear for my life on a daily basis.
I like the quote "Everybody is scared of being called a racist, but we don’t have a race problem — we have a crime problem here."
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...men-enter-land
Even in 2016, the witnesses for the Crown couldn't get their stories straight....
Any wonder why he was acquitted? The lies, and perjury went far worse from there.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...rald-1.4520214
Fox maybe you have lived a sheltered life and that is why you think the way you do - if it was that safe up there why do cops and game wardens carry firearms - a lot depends where you live and how much you travel around - I'm sure most people go through life and never experience an incident where they need a gun but some have - it only takes that one time - I would much rather carry a gun and never need it than to need one and not have one - in my lifetime I have had two occasions when I was glad that I had a gun - what is the big deal of letting law abiding citizens from carry a gun anyway -
Nope, I didn't. My original post didn't bring that up, you did. Besides, you didn't pay the $10 to have the argument, so I'm not going argue?😆Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Just to be clear,it is NOT illegal to defend yourself or loved ones. Canadians are absolutely justified in using deadly force to do so,too. The only difference is that all responses to aggression must be proportional to the threat level. Positions that self-defense is illegal is extremely inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
I just read up more on this case. It's worse than I thought. The entire crew should have been charged and jailed. The fact they weren't actually shows a racist bias. If it had been 5 black or white kids pulling off an attack like this they would have all been charged.
As for the two imbeciles The PM and the Minister of justice, it only emphasizes how much Trudough doesn't understand our constitution and judiciary. He is such a narcissist poseur he truly believes he rules over the courts. Then again he did tell a bunch of students last week that he taught pre law before entering politics.
Fox I don't know where you got the idea that we can shoot a guy standing on your lawn - we only can shoot someone if you feel that your life is in danger - that includes when someone breaks into your home especially when it is at night - you can't chase a crook down the street shooting at him because at that point you are no longer in danger - if a cop does something clearly illegal and your life is in danger because of his actions you can shoot a cop - if you do that you better be sure that you are standing on firm ground and hope other cops don't shoot you before you get a chance to explain what happened
There is a difference between having the right, and exercising the right. You use or brandish a firearm in Canada even defence of your property without a threat to yours of families live...you are going to jail.
You don't have that right to threaten, hold at bay anyone during a property crime.
...and Trudeau's not done with this yet, he hasn't even cried in front of the cameras. Seriously though, the potential political meddling with the court that we are now seeing is troubling.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
This reminds me of the outcry following the Jian Ghomeshi verdict. The mob was outraged, but the flaw was not in the legal system.
Guilty by declaration of emotional response, a new Canadian crime .... (evidence is Justin Crying, sort of like North Korean dictator not liking your smile...) ..... 14 declared guilty all in 1 fell sweep (judge, Stanley and jury) by a drama teacher... must make all involved a bit ticked ... after that for anyone to think that Justin is fit to even be a drama teacher ..... well .... I'd get banned for what I would like to say and the language I would use is usually fit only for tyrants (think North Korea that has 250,000 in labour camps and executes people for watching a western video or owning a Bible etc) and mix that with my comments for someone like Charles Manson or Jim Jones
But back in the real world....take 5 super drunks, that are running around crashing into stuff, had a loaded rifle and that for a minute Gerald thought they had run over his wife apparently, an accidental shooting and innocent based on evidence ..... then the justice minister and Justin Trudeau declare the 14 guilty (charges TBD, may include racism or making PM cry ....) this is so pathetic, in Canada we may have to change the "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" to add something that includes something like "declared guilty by 1 and persecuted by the mob" it seems.... Brian Lilley covered it in more detail than I can put here and his view so far seems the best I have seen so far as far as actually covering the detail and what was probably a political choice of how to charge him ....
https://www.facebook.com/brianlilley...6509411749440/
Justin Trudeau is truly an enemy of our legal system .... and anything with an intellectual or real justice base! The comments that our courts and "leaders" are making is pathetic, race based justice will just breed hate and prejudice and that seems to be what the leftatics want!
https://www.facebook.com/brianlilley...7487864984928/
Fair post, you're correct in that I had only read two of the CBC articles and by now we should all know they lean left. However I don't believe that Stanley would have been aware of most of the facts you stated as those details of their day came out after the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
No doubt it would be nearly impossible for most of us to remain calm in a situation like that and I absolutely agree that people have the right to defend themselves and family from perceived danger.
With all of the above said, a young life is lost, partly because of the choices he and his friends made and partly because a loaded gun was pointed at his head. I believe manslaughter would have been tough to defend.
Indeed. Or criminal negligence causing death.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
However white farmer, native man dead. One has to wonder why an experienced litigator pressed the Murder 2 charge knowing it would be difficult to achieve a conviction.
Likely they were pressured to make an example of Stanley by the same folks who are now crying foul.
Oh, another small fact that has come out by the race baiters? Several FN in the jury pool were eliminated, mainly due to the fact they couldn’t be impartial.
.....guess who else got eliminated? Most of the middle aged white men.....
I totally believe the Second Degree murder charge was set up, for one of two reasons.
First the Crown was trying to make a name for himself in hopes to show the strong arm of the law and further the feathers (no pun), in hat and resume.
Second, it was political interference and an expectation of outrage over a not guilty verdict to further the Anti Gun Agenda still yet to be released by Trudeau.
Last, is the Crown is white supremacist, land owner and farmer....
I go with #1, with a career path perception and projection for #2.
Bluebulldog that is exactly what I read about this case that he stuck to the gun going off accidentally and that is what the jury had to determine, if he was correct or not. tough call either way that is for sure and very unfortunate incident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
I'm reading all this but ain't saying anything - don't need to because you all know how I feel about something like this and how it would have been handled down here -
Yes, JP. an all white jury, in a place that has 40% minorities. How is that working out for you?........ ' To Kill A Mockingbird'.
my problem is JP being involved; it should be left to the Crown and judicial system. he's creating it as his own political show, he himself is not above the law
It’s very easy for someone to stick to the “truth”.......lies and deception, not so much! The defence must have had an easy time of discrediting crown witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG MAC
Not too hard when their story keeps changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Based on what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
You know this was Biggar Saskatchewan right?
https://townfolio.co/sk/biggar/demographics
"Half of prospective Boushie jurors were Aboriginal, says member of jury pool"
The defense challenged (made illegible) any white male, about half of the aboriginal population asked to get let out and were and another bunch were openly hostile...
“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”
“The thing that was the most shocking to me was the fact that they were so audible from where I was sitting (across the room) and there were police scattered throughout the room. No one stopped them.”
http://torontosun.com/news/national/...r-of-jury-pool
The whole Indian act and reserve system needs to be thrown back into the 19th century where it belong right beside apartheid and segregation but the Lib's always love the us vs them to get votes. Sadly some in the system like the handouts and power it gives them over the rest of the reserve (there are some very good chiefs just to be clear) but those that need the most help get none it seems. When you see people being kicked off reserves because they don't have enough of the right race and people exploiting it for hatred, hundreds of millions yet people in terrible poverty or boil water... it is time to go... but who will have enough backbone to stand up to the 6+ billion dollar industry is the next question.
Castro failed to deliver on his campaign promises to first nations. This case is like a lottery win for him. He can now pretend to care and dupe them into voting liberal again next time. I'm no constitutional scholar but the claims being made about changing jury selection procedures seem like something that wouldn't make it past the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Where is Welsh when we need him.....
So,are you suggesting the jury should have been stacked with hostile jurors to guarantee a conviction? Yeah,we'll set up a jury,give him a fair trial,then,we'll hang 'em. Welcome to the Banana Republic of Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Funny, isn't that what Trudeau and Singh have suggested by getting rid of peremptory challenges.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I don't think the people who want to change the challenges have thought that the pendulum will swing both ways and a jury can be stacked with people who have unreasonable bias against an accused skin colour.
To those who would eliminate the jury peremptory challenges in our legal system,I have only this..............think O.J.Simpson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Where was Trudeau's outrage when Peter Kosid's justice was never found? Oh wait.......
Well fisher' - I'll tell you something - it would be a very very unusual for this incident to happen down here - right from the start - drunk or not people would not be so brazen as to attempt to steal vehicles from a home in broad daylight while the owner is at home - no doubt these characters have done this before and got away with it so they figure lets go we have nothing to fear - If that happened down here there wouldn't have been a trail in the first place - the shooter would have got a metal - well on second thought there might have been a trail - to convict the survivors from the shooting - and hey both the crown and the defense had their shot in picking the jury - so being all white doesn't bother me one bit - the moral of the story is - don't get drunk and don't steal somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I expect he was talking about 40% minorities in the US, as Joe had referenced "down there"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Picked up this interesting tidbit about Boushies background;
" Funny no one has brought up the 1994 shooting when Bouchies uncle and another man executed 2 farmers in their home, when is the chief and his family going to take ownership for the environment he was raised in? "
The above just shows the environment he, [Boushie ] was raised in.
They can kill someone, but there is hell to pay when one of theirs is killed.
Oh the injustice of it all!
Absolutely horrible reporting by the National Post.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
1. Stanley did not testify he loaded 3 cartridges. He testified that he thought he loaded 2, but under duress he couldn't be sure.
2. Hangfires are in fact a common occurrence depending on the nature of what you're shooting. Shooting mil-surp Soviet bloc stuff of questionable origin? Sure, they're rare in modern guns and ammo.
Of course...whatever suits the narrative. It wasn't the hangfire that necessarily saw Stanley acquitted, it was the lying criminals that the Crown chose to put on the stand.
This is one of the better written pieces I've seen. http://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/c...ial-1.23171591
There was a good piece on the jury selection as well. Seems as fair as could ever have been. Changing just means allowing very biased people to stay on that can't be impartial.
http://torontosun.com/news/national/...r-of-jury-pool
Ultimately it was an unfortunate loss of life that would have been prevented had they not been carrying out a drunk armed robbery. Trying to steal someone's truck is just not worth risking your life over, so stay off private properly and don't steal.
It will only get worse. Trudough is announcing sweeping changes for First Nations today. It will likely mean more money for band chiefs, less accountability for that money and likely increases powers to obstruct justice and block resource exploitation. The mining, oil and forestry industries in this country have just been mortally wounded. If you are employed in them or anything connected well...too bad.
Why all the fuss over one dead bum - thousands of innocent people are killed every day on our highways, in the military and from diseases - Stanley did society a favor - who knows what other crimes this guy would have done throughout his life time - he should get the Stanley Steamer award
JP sometimes your posts cross the line, this is one of them. What about the innocents killed at school yesterday are they just collateral damage? Where is your outrage over their loss of lives?
It has been said before but here it goes again, GO AWAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
This was someones child, no matter what he did have some respect for the dead and for the family of another misguided and dead youth.
Can’t agree. Play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Drunk, modified gun, on rampage to steal. He had to know the risks. The odds of something going awry are very high. If you can’t afford the loss you shouldn’t play in stock market. How about buying the items you seek instead of stealing. It not a great thing he is dead and am sure his family are hurting. But man up and take responsibility. Play with fire, get burned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually his post does not cross the line, it is his opinion. He was referring to the criminals who trespassed onto his (Stanley)property, tried to steal his ATV, smashed into car and endangered and threatened the lives on his property. You have now introduced the tragic and horrible shooting into the mix, again the actions of another criminal, just like the 5 in the vehicle on Stanleys property.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
He was not a child, he was a grown man that knew better, or at least should have know better, but apparently not knowing better , he paid for his actions drastically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.[1][2] The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1]
Fox! what would your reactions be if he had killed one of Gerald Stanleys family, think about that before you spout off.
My thoughts are with the Stanley family. Their lives have been turned inside out by a group of armed thugs, having no regard for anyone! The results are tragic, but for the Stanleys.....
Boushie's death should have been tagged on the Coroner's Report as "D.B.M.....death by misadventure". As mentioned before,Darwin Award rules supreme,there. That's why I believe equating that incident with yesterday's Florida tragedy is comparing apples and oranges,one mutually exclusive of the other.
Same defence , it is my opinion he crossed the line , just like yours is only an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
I can't believe all the people jumping on this case as injustice for the indigenous people. I think if the majority of these people took a good look at the facts of the case they would quickly realize these guys weren't there too borrow an air hose for their flat tire. It was the actions of these young men that directly contributed to the death of Colten Bushie. Would Gerald Stanley react any differently if it was a car full of white kids? Absolutely not. He feared for his family's safety and did what he thought was right in protecting them. I think the injustice to all Canadians is pulling the race card in this case and a prime minister and justice minister making comments that discredit the jury. I agree the Stanley family are the victims in this case and should be the ones getting an offer of support.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by warpipe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
X2, I can't see how any sane person would relate this to racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goosesniper
It's from the "politically correct" crowd never missing an opportunity to create a problem where none existed before. They're very easily offended,the poor little snowflakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
Watched the National tonight which I hardly ever do anymore. What a bunch of barking liberal seals the At Issue panel is. Make no mistake, Trudough is going to use this case to define his first mandate. He will use aboriginal relations as cover for larger deficits. Convenient little bait & switch.
Unfortunately, you are correct, along with M103, and Citizenship changes. People cannot see that this government is not for the people, it is about securing blocks of votes for continuance of power. If you look at every action of this government it is/what ever works to appease the popular vote. Not a single thing has been done for the benefit of people of Canada, but has been virtue signaling to ensure people retain a warm and fuzzy to keep them voting for him. It is starting crack and has been for months. Not sure it will be enough to remove the Lieberals from power...but at least people are seeing through the looking glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
..............................
Line052 - that's what is happening down here - the democrats keep want to allow illegal immigrants into the country and give them citizenship so they can build up their voting block - they have no regard for the country - only to stay in office at the expense of the country -
JP , they are already in the country , some for a generation or more, working , paying taxes, in the military. They just want to make them legal after 10-20-30 years of 'being American' in everything, but that piece of paper.
Post #88 from Warpipe is the only one you have to read to know how the majority of Canadians feel about this tragic event. Stanley is the biggest victim in this case.
John
It's not to late to send them back.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann