RCMP charge Okotoks homeowner after shots fired

[welsh]

peer1
[peer]

Wrong dictionary. "Jury of one's peers" is a legal term of art, and as such it carries an idiomatic meaning that can't be constructed by defining the individual words.

This is a US definition, but the principle belongs to a shared English common law heritage, so it applies here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_of_ones_peers

The principle is that the jury ought to reflect a broad cross-section of society. This apparent reversal of the meaning of "peer" derives from the principle of equality before the law: we are all equals.

Once a certain segment of a jury pool exhibits a distinct prejudicial bias ... all members of that specific demographic need to be eliminated from participation? I don't see anything the least bit racist about it.

So, based on the crowds of people who supported Stanley before any evidence was heard (and who have gathered outside the courthouse to support Edouard Maurice, in his case), we ought to exclude a "certain demographic," i.e. white people, from the jury pool.

Right?

The assumption that every member of a racial group shares certain views is racist, period.

Half of prospective Boushie jurors were Aboriginal, says member of jury pool

This Sun story is the only source for the claim that indigenous jury candidates spoke openly of "hanging" Stanley.

It is based on a single anonymous source.

In journalism, the standard for anonymous sources is that their claims must be corroborated by other sources or by documents. The Sun did not do this. So we have one person who declines to stand behind his/her words, making an unsupported claim. A responsible reporter would look to the credibility of that person.

So....

This person also claims knowledge that each of the five indigenous people dismissed by peremptory challenge had individually made prejudiced remarks, which is unlikely to say the least.

But the kicker here is that person's remark that indigenous candidates could not have been rejected on racial grounds, because whites were also rejected. That's obviously motivated reasoning.

Not credible. And notably, only the Sun reported this.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[onelessarrow]

[QUOTE=welsh;1057448]

The assumption that every member of a racial group shares certain views is racist, period.

And boy did that ever show up after the verdict was read.

[trimmer21]

[QUOTE=onelessarrow;1057481]

The assumption that every member of a racial group shares certain views is racist, period.

And boy did that ever show up after the verdict was read.

Yep,for sure. It reminded of the OJ Simpson jury's "not guilty" verdict. The shyte hit the fan there,too,exactly the same way.

[Jerryklimczuk]

Again, the jury was chosen by both sides as per Canadian law. They did not break any rules with the jury that was chosen, the fact that you argue this point after the verdict is bullshyte. Why the f@*k did this trial start? According to all your ambulance chasing, google searching, no facts opinions someone should have objected to this trial even beginning. You cant bring your arguments now that you dont like the verdict. Why didnt anyone oppose this jury selection?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk