Gerald Stanley Trial

[Fox]

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

Immediate risk of death to self or someone else, holding my TV would not be enough.

Sorry Joe, not shooting someone for standing on my porch.

Trying to run me over or my family, that is risk of death.

[Bluebulldog]

Ask yourself if you'd be saying that about a group of white kids in your neighbourhood, or someone else you might have known.

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

You need to educate yourself on the particulars of the case.

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).

[Bluebulldog]

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.

[Bluebulldog]

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.

[Fox]

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.

[Bluebulldog]

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.

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.

[rick_iles]

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.

And our village idiot and some of his clan come out and publicly denounce our judicial system !!!!! Amazing !!

[Bluebulldog]

And our village idiot and some of his clan come out and publicly denounce our judicial system !!!!! Amazing !!

Share the heck out of it Rick.

More folks need to know...

[Fox]

There were FN people in the pool of over 700 potential jurors.

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.

That was my expectation as well, but I am not privy to that information so I could not comment along that line.

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.

[Bluebulldog]

That was my expectation as well, but I am not privy to that information so I could not comment along that line.

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.

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.