Toronto Escorts

Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
What is "reasonable force" when you are besieged by 3 or 4 aggressive, drunk rowdies who invade your farm, harass your wife and ignore two warning shots??!! And Stanley has to react quickly when the poor fucker is probably scared to death and angry and humiliated at the same time. The jury gave him the benefit of the doubt and I think we should as well.



Have you not read about the case? The defense never claimed self defense or "reasonable force".

The explanation that was given was that it was an accident. The defendant's gun went of accidentally when it was pointing at the head of the unarmed native guy, sitting quietly in a car.

Please explain why anybody should point a gun at the head of another person (even if he though it was not loaded?). That is not behavior I learned when I took my Gun Licence.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Interesting take on JT's comments.

Danielle Smith: Lawyer says Justin Trudeau’s comments on Gerald Stanley trial akin to jury tampering.

When I last wrote on the Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie, I said the case should not centre on race but on whether a person has the right to use lethal force to defend their property.

I expressed doubt that, if it had been fought on these grounds, Stanley would have been acquitted. Two similar cases I looked at in Alberta seemed to suggest that using a firearm to injure and stop a thief is considered excessive or negligent use of a firearm.

But the defence went in a different direction altogether. Instead of claiming a right to self defence, Stanley claimed the shooting was an accident. In his testimony, he said he fired off two warning shots and a third to empty the chamber.

He said he thought the gun was empty when he reached across the passenger seat where Boushie was sitting to grab the car keys. A delayed shot, called a “hang fire,” went off accidently, hitting Boushie in the head.

The jury clearly felt this was the most credible account of what happened and found Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

I asked defence lawyer Ari Goldkind for his thoughts on the case. In particular, I wondered if the jury had made a mistake and if a trial by judge would have led to a different result. He suggested a judge may have found Stanley guilty of mishandling his firearm, but he is loath to second-guess a jury.

The jury is there; the rest of us are not. They hear all the evidence. They weigh expert evidence. They hear conflicting accounts. They have to decide which scenario has the most credibility. And they believed Stanley.

What shocked Goldkind was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response.

“I’m not going to comment on the process that led us to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times…Indigenous people across this country are angry, they’re heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better.”

Goldkind says Trudeau’s comments are akin to jury tampering. If this case goes to appeal, how is the next jury supposed to be impartial knowing the prime minister may call them a pack of racists if they don’t convict?

Justice Minister Jodi Wilson-Raybould said she’d meet with Boushie’s family “to make some serious, positive change to meet the recommendations of the family.” You have to wonder what recommendations are supposed to come out of this.

Much was made of the fact that it was an all-white jury. Goldkind told us this is not uncommon because members of First Nations communities overwhelmingly ignore jury summons. Should we start fining or jailing Indigenous people who don’t show up for jury duty? I wonder how that would go over.

It should be noted that, as the Toronto Star reported, several visible minorities and middle-aged white men were rejected during jury selection with peremptory challenges.

In addition, one of the reasons this trial became so polarized is because Boushie’s friends lied to the police and contradicted each other in court.

The story they initially told was they went to Stanley’s property to get help with a flat tire. In court it was revealed that they actually had been drinking all day, may have had a gun, may have committed other crimes at a neighbouring property and tried to steal Stanley’s truck and ATV.

That is the saddest part of Boushie’s death. The confrontation was entirely avoidable.

Blaming the jury won’t prevent something like this from happening again. There are many difficult conversations we need to be having about challenges in some aboriginal communities in Canada. Is that something the prime minister is prepared to talk about?

https://globalnews.ca/news/4021508/danielle-smith-lawyer-says-justin-trudeaus-comments-on-gerald-stanley-trial-akin-to-jury-tampering/
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
^^ Related to Mr. Goldkind's remarks there have been several posts reflecting upon the inappropriateness of these comments by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. As he adds, which I don't believe any of us addressed. This is even more serious in a system which allows appeals by the prosecution. Frankly it would serve the Government right if the courts disallowed any such appeal based upon these comments.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
Interesting take on JT's comments.
Unfortunately, instead of seeking to bring the country together, or refraining from interfering in what is still an ongoing judicial matter (because of potential appeals), Justin Trudeau and some of his ministers have inserted themselves into the situation, in what is a very dangerous move.

The more serious comment – and potential problem – was made by Justice Minister Jody-Wilson Raybould:

Jody Wilson-Raybould
Verified account
Thank you PM @JustinTrudeau. My thoughts are with the family of Colton Boushie tonight. I truly feel your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians.

First, the case is still before the courts, as the government could appeal the verdict. By weighing in on the verdict, Wilson-Raybould casts doubt on whether any appeal could be heard fairly, as she is the top justice official in the country.

Second, she casts doubt on the entire justice system, and even threatens judicial independence. After all, by saying the system needs to “do better,” she is really saying that the jury was wrong to find Gerald Stanley not guilty, and she is saying that she – and by extension the power of the entire federal government – would have liked to see a guilty verdict.

This is very dangerous, as it raises the serious possibility that the government is seeking to make the system “better,” by skewing it to their own personal and political sense of what rulings should be made, and who should, and shouldn’t be found guilty.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
Historically there's been a low number of native jurors even in a community that has 22% natives. DEPENDING on the reasons why there is an under representation of natives in the jury box they MAY have a point that the system is biased.

It would be interesting to see if Canada has similar biases as in the US where blacks get convicted more often and for longer periods for the same crimes as non whites.

If that's the case then there's a possibility of bias.

I think this is a tragic case of idiots meeting and an excellent defence lawyer. He sidestepped the onus of proving a self defence case and created reasonable doubt that it was an accident.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,911
68,405
113
^^ Related to Mr. Goldkind's remarks there have been several posts reflecting upon the inappropriateness of these comments by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. As he adds, which I don't believe any of us addressed. This is even more serious in a system which allows appeals by the prosecution. Frankly it would serve the Government right if the courts disallowed any such appeal based upon these comments.
Criminal appeals are the prerogative of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, not the Federal government. So whether anyone in SK takes Justin's rants seriously is a moot point. As it stands, I don't believe the Liberal Party has any MP's from SK.

The quandary for the SK A-G is what to do when the media is framing this as an incident of racism without a whole lot of evidence for that PoV and where the jury clearly sympathized with Stanley.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
Historically there's been a low number of native jurors even in a community that has 22% natives. DEPENDING on the reasons why there is an under representation of natives in the jury box they MAY have a point that the system is biased.

.
Because they refuse to show up for Jury Duty that's why.. Next you'll be asking for alcoholics to sit on the jury of a drunk driving case, or a rape case suggesting there were no registered sexual offenders on the jury. Come on, 12 people decided fairly based on evidence that none of us is privy to.

That's how this country works!
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
Because they don't show up for Jury Duty. Next you'll be asking for alcoholics to sit on the jury of a drunk driving case, or a rape case suggesting there were no registered sexual offenders on the jury. Come on, 12 people decided fairly based on evidence that none of us is privy to.

That's how this country works!
I think you need to prove that. I thought there were a few native jurors that the defence opted to have removed.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
I think you need to prove that. I thought there were a few native jurors that the defence opted to have removed.
You're the one claiming the jury was somehow tainted because there were no Native's on it. The onus is on YOU to prove the jury was tainted and Identity politics is not a defense.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
On August 11, 2011, the Honourable Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario, appointed Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, to review the process for including individuals living in First Nations reserve communities on the province’s jury rolls.

http://www.firstnationsandjuriesreview.ca/about.html

It would seem at one point it was tough to show up if you don't appear on the list

Furthermore, the practice of being allowed to excluded a juror without explanation allows for bias. In other words there is a mechanism that allows for excluding people.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
They rejected 30 potential First Nations jurors, they were all too biased and wanted to hang the farmer before the trial started. Let's know the facts here please.

The community is rural central Saskatchewan. The fact is, the jury was made up of his peers. How your suggestion that diversity would of made this a more just trial baffles me. More just for who? The First Nations? The eastern media? Stanley? No he doesn’t matter...


On August 11, 2011, the Honourable Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario, appointed Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, to review the process for including individuals living in First Nations reserve communities on the province’s jury rolls.


 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
You're the one claiming the jury was somehow tainted because there were no Native's on it. The onus is on YOU to prove the jury was tainted and Identity politics is not a defense.
At not point did I say what you claimed.

However you claim natives don't show up. That data should be easy to find.
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,929
7
38
I think you need to prove that. I thought there were a few native jurors that the defence opted to have removed.
Possibly.

And that's the problem with juries. It's bad enough there's 12 and it can be comprised of idiots.

I didn't even think about lawyers trying to influence the make-up of a jury because they know juries have biases.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63


http://www.firstnationsandjuriesreview.ca/about.html




They rejected 30 potential First Nations jurors, they were all too biased and wanted to hang the farmer before the trial started. Let's know the facts here please.
The community is rural central Saskatchewan. The fact is, the jury was made up of his peers. How your suggestion that diversity would of made this a more just trial baffles me. More just for who? The First Nations? The eastern media? Stanley? No he doesn’t matter...
Again you missed my point.

There seems to be signs of bias in the system. I'm not referring to just this single case.

I read that the community is 22% native so was it really a group of his peers?
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
Possibly.

And that's the problem with juries. It's bad enough there's 12 and it can be comprised of idiots.

I didn't even think about lawyers trying to influence the make-up of a jury because they know juries have biases.
"As long as peremptories exist, defence lawyers and prosecutors will use them to exclude potential jurors because of their race, class or gender. We all know that. It's wrong."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/stanley-verdict-1.4532212
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
Again you missed my point.

There seems to be signs of bias in the system. I'm not referring to just this single case.
Again, they had 30 potential first nation jurors so your article means nothing as they were on the list of potential. Both sides could reject a certain number of potential jurors they thought might be biased. Apparently the Defense rejected Indigenous people & the Crown rejected men similar in age & background to Stanley. So it works both ways.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
Again, they had 30 potential first nation jurors so your article means nothing as they were on the list of potential. Both sides could reject a certain number of potential jurors they thought might be biased. Apparently the Defense rejected Indigenous people & the Crown rejected men similar in age & background to Stanley. So it works both ways.
In other words the lawyers are able to create a non random group of 12 which is the definition of statistical bias.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
In other words the lawyers are able to create a non random group of 12 which is the definition of statistical bias.
That's not even remotely close to what I said. This trial wasn’t about First Nations relationship with the justice system. It was a trial for a rural farmer who shot one of a group of five trespassers on his land. The only person who deserves a fair trial was the only person on trial.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Can you provide a reference to this from the court reporters?
Why would I? You would just call it BS if it did not fit your view of the case.
 
Toronto Escorts