Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 98

Thread: Gerald Stanley Trial

  1. #31
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebulldog View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #32
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sawbill View Post
    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.
    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?

  4. #33
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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".
    "What calm deer hunter's heart has not skipped a beat when the stillness of a cold November morning is broken by the echoes of hounds tonguing yonder?" -Anonymous-

  5. #34
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebulldog View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #35
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoePa View Post
    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?
    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.

  7. #36
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.
    Mark Snow, Leader Of The, Ontario Libertarian Party

  8. #37
    Mod Squad

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by line052 View Post

    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.

    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.
    "Camo" is perfectly acceptable as a favorite colour.

    Proud member - Delta Waterfowl, CSSA, and OFAH

  9. #38
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoePa View Post
    Tell me Fish" - at what point would you shoot someone - what would they have to do?
    Take a life, to save a life.

  10. #39
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishermccann View Post
    Take a life, to save a life.
    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 -

  11. #40
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    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.
    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?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •