Gerald Stanley Trial

[JoePa]

Stealing anything should not be a death sentence.

Tell me Fish" - at what point would you shoot someone - what would they have to do?

[Bonkers]

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?

[Sharon]

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 -

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.

[terrym]

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.

[trimmer21]

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?

[Bushmoose]

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 ???

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.

[sawbill]

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.

[Goosesniper]

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.

Play with fire. Ya get burned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rick_iles]

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.

That makes more sense !

[ninepointer]

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.