Toronto Escorts

Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
As already said what in many ways is worse in that not only the Minister of Justice but the Prime Minister thought it appropriate to wade in to criticize the verdict and imply that they want to do something to change the jury system in Canada.
That is his job as Prime Minister.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,929
68,417
113
When do statistics matter to you and when are they considered irrelevant or even racist? There was a thread about a month ago where I presented you with a metric fuckton of scientific data and statistics and your response to it was: You're racist.

What gives, counselor?
You refer to a thread where you blathered on for 500 posts "proving" that Blacks were genetically inferior and quoting "scientific studies" funded by Far Right racist groups.

Need I say more??
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
You refer to a thread where you blathered on for 500 posts "proving" that Blacks were genetically inferior and quoting "scientific studies" funded by Far Right racist groups.

Need I say more??
You're part lawyer, and part deranged liar.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
My bad... your exact words were "they have no choice".
Let me clarify. They had no choice in being genetically disposed to violence and desiring children. But even so we cannot permit them to threaten the rest of us and our children.

If you want get philosophical, none of us have free will. We will do whatever our aggregate genes and cells tell us to in reaction to external stimuli. We have absolutely zero control since free will is an illusion.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
As already said what in many ways is worse in that not only the Minister of Justice but the Prime Minister thought it appropriate to wade in to criticize the verdict and imply that they want to do something to change the jury system in Canada.
He didn't learn even after commenting on the fake hijab attack from just last month. He needs to embarrass himself and bash his own country at every turn.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
This is a case of a bunch of bad ideas.....

-They should not have been trespassing
-You should not approach a bunch of men with your family in tow
-When you see they are unresponsive to your requests to leave back off and call the cops
-don't have a gun pointed at someone's head.... otherwise if it "accidentally" goes off you are going to remove someone's head.

This guy was lucky. When you pull a gun even in "self defence" you run the risk of being behind bars.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,344
113
Room 112
It's easy for us to sit back and say it has to be murder you can't pull a trigger accidentally etc etc. But the fact of the matter is we aren't privy to what the jury was told over the course of the trial. We have no choice but to believe that the jury of 12 men and women acted impartially in weighing all the evidence before coming to its conclusion. Our system demands that.

What troubles me is that our PM and Justice Minister has openly questioned the verdict. This undermines the integrity of our justice system. Shame on them.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
He didn't learn even after commenting on the fake hijab attack from just last month. He needs to embarrass himself and bash his own country at every turn.
Not a fan of his but in fairness.... a lot of people "assumed" the child was telling the truth.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
It's easy for us to sit back and say it has to be murder you can't pull a trigger accidentally etc etc. But the fact of the matter is we aren't privy to what the jury was told over the course of the trial. We have no choice but to believe that the jury of 12 men and women acted impartially in weighing all the evidence before coming to its conclusion. Our system demands that.

What troubles me is that our PM and Justice Minister has openly questioned the verdict. This undermines the integrity of our justice system. Shame on them.
True we don't know all the facts.

Curious why manslaughter was not on the table?
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
This is a case of a bunch of bad ideas.....

-They should not have been trespassing
-You should not approach a bunch of men with your family in tow
-When you see they are unresponsive to your requests to leave back off and call the cops
-don't have a gun pointed at someone's head.... otherwise if it "accidentally" goes off you are going to remove someone's head.

This guy was lucky. When you pull a gun even in "self defence" you run the risk of being behind bars.

Better being judged by 12 than being carried by 6.
 

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
True we don't know all the facts.

Curious why manslaughter was not on the table?
It was frank. The jury could convict on Murder2, Manslaughter or findNot Guilty.

The Crown didn't convince them. Or they believed there was reasonable doubt to convict. Take your pick.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,886
236
63
It was frank. The jury could convict on Murder2, Manslaughter or findNot Guilty.

The Crown didn't convince them. Or they believed there was reasonable doubt to convict. Take your pick.
Thanks.

I read trudeaus comments and it seems he is saying the system could do better..... i think it is valid to point out that in a cummunity that is 22 per cent native that
A..... there shoyld be at least one native on thr jury
B..... isnt the system biased if the defence can have potential jurors removed with no explanation..... seems it is saying that a native cant be impartial
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,929
68,417
113
Thanks.

I read trudeaus comments and it seems he is saying the system could do better..... i think it is valid to point out that in a cummunity that is 22 per cent native that
A..... there shoyld be at least one native on thr jury
B..... isnt the system biased if the defence can have potential jurors removed with no explanation..... seems it is saying that a native cant be impartial
But see my comment above.

You are proceeding on the assumption that the whites in that county are such racist fiends that not one white jurymember on that jury would vote to convict - of ANY crime.

I am going on the assumption that at least a few of the white jury members were reasonable people who simply tried to do what they felt was the just and fair thing. A couple of jury members may have been bigots and haters, but surely all 12 were not like that. The jury wasn't hung. The jury didn't vote to convict for manslaughter. The jury acquitted.

It's my suggestion that the jury members were so appalled at the actions of the deceased which led to his shooting death that they said to themselves "In Stanley's shoes, I would have done the same." and they voted to acquit him. Unanimously.

Now is this a race issue?? Or would a Native jury member have done exactly the same as the white jury members?
 

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
Thanks.

I read trudeaus comments and it seems he is saying the system could do better..... i think it is valid to point out that in a cummunity that is 22 per cent native that
A..... there shoyld be at least one native on thr jury
B..... isnt the system biased if the defence can have potential jurors removed with no explanation..... seems it is saying that a native cant be impartial
I have posted on the reports that of 750 called to duty only 200 showed up.
Of the 200 how many were native? If 20% were, that would be 40 right. They peremptory challenges of both counsel are 14 according to reports. If defence used 14 there should be 26 Natives left to draw from. Are prospective jurors called to the stand and in what order? How many challenges did the Crown use up?

Peremptory Challenges of both counsel do not require an explanation. Challenges for Cause do.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Rob Feist
February 9 at 2:05am · North Battleford, SK ·
As I have been asked by a couple people, I wanted to provide a few thoughts on the evidence at the Gerald Stanley trial. I have kept on top of the trial, as it is of historic importance to our community; have followed the evidence closely in person, in media, and on Twitter; and attended to watch summations of the Crown and Defence cases this morning.

Before talking about the key issues, it is worth talking about what the key issues aren't.

First, there is no debate about basic who, what, when, and where questions. Gerald Stanley held the gun that discharged and killed Colten Boushie and the resultant injury was the cause of death. No debate there was a homicide or that Gerald Stanley caused that homicide. All of that is admitted.

Second, the case is not about self-defence. All the internet yapping about “castle law” and “property rights” came to nothing at trial, and Mr. Stanley did not make a self-defence argument - because the Defence lawyer, knowing his job, knew that Gerald Stanley was not under threat when the gun was fired. In Canadian law, lethal force in self-defence is only justified in the face of threat of serious injury or death to you or another person. That threat did not exist in this case, and, wisely, the Defence did not grasp at that straw. This case changes nothing about the right to self-defence, and those nonsense arguments should stop.

The issue the jury is forced to decide on - the defence put to the jury - is limited only to the defence of accident. And here is where the evidence put forward by Gerald Stanley is exceptionally interesting.

To set the scene (and you will likely know much of this, so skip this paragraph if you like) on the day in question, an SUV carrying Colten Boushie and four other young people came on to the Stanley farm, and was located at various points on the Stanley driveway. Gerald Stanley and his son Sheldon formed the opinion that the young people had come to the farm to steal, and Mr. Stanley and Sheldon Stanley decided to give some form of chase or response. Sheldon ran toward the vehicle and smashed the windshield with a hammer he was carrying. Mr. Stanley kicked out the tail light. After the windshield was smashed, the vehicle carrying Boushie took a hard turn into an SUV owned by the Stanleys, and the Stanleys felt the crash was deliberate and potentially a run at Sheldon. Gerald Stanley ran back to his shed and got a Tokarev pistol. Sheldon went to the house, where there were several other firearms. One of the witnesses in the vehicle claimed that Gerald yelled at Sheldon to go to the house to get a firearm, but Sheldon’s evidence was that he went to the house to retrieve his keys. At that point, Boushie’s vehicle appeared to have been immobilized in the Stanleys’ driveway, and two male occupants exited the vehicle. Two female occupants and Boushie, who was likely passed out or asleep, stayed inside.

Now, here is the crux of Mr. Stanley’s evidence on his defence of accident - and where Mr. Stanley’s evidence becomes truly amazing.

Stanley claimed while in the shed, he loaded the Tokarev with three shells. He claimed he thought he loaded two, but later realized there were three - the same number the RCMP found had been discharged.

Stanley then claimed he pointed the semi-automatic Tokarev up in the air, and began pulling the trigger, to fire “warning shots”. He claimed he fired two warning shots, and after that believed the firearm was empty. After the shots were fired, the two males who exited the vehicle ran from the scene, leaving only Boushie and two female occupants in the vehicle.

Gerald Stanley then claimed, even though he believed he had only put two rounds in the Tokarev, that he pulled the trigger several more times after the warning shots to make the firearm safe, and nothing happened. He then claimed he opened the slide and removed the magazine, also to ensure the firearm was made safe.

Gerald Stanley then claimed he saw the riding lawnmower his wife had been driving parked on the lawn, with his wife no longer driving, and somehow formed the belief that she may have been run over by the vehicle containing Boushie.

Gerald Stanley then claimed he ran to the Boushie vehicle, and wanted to look underneath it to ensure his wife was not there. He claimed as he was going to look under the vehicle, the vehicle revved its engine, and he decided he needed to turn the vehicle off.

Gerald Stanley then claimed, holding the Tokarev in his right hand, he reached through the Boushie SUV’s driver side window with his left hand to try to turn off the ignition. (I encourage you to actually try this, on a vehicle, and think about why you would use your left hand to turn off a vehicle as opposed to switching hands and putting the firearm in your left. Motion it out. Using your left hand makes no sense, and is incredibly awkward.)

Gerald Stanley then claimed that, as he was trying to turn the ignition off, the Tokarev was in his right hand pointed at Colten Boushie’s skull. And Stanley claimed at that moment, a hang-fire occurred - there was still a shell in the Chamber, and the firearm discharged spontaneously without a trigger pull, killing Colten. Despite the fact Stanley had opened the action, pulled the magazine out, and repeatedly dry-fired it. And despite the fact hang-fires are extremely rare, and normally last less than half-a-second.

Gerald Stanley’s defence is the defence of accident. If you believe it, his defence explains all of the physical evidence, and most particularly a Tokarev casing found on the SUV dash and Colten’s DNA found on the Tokarev itself. But to believe it completely, you have to accept the following:

A. Gerald Stanley did not know how many rounds he put into the Tokarev;

B. Gerald Stanley, who believed he or his family were under threat, loaded his firearm with two shells, and then fired both shells in the air, leaving his firearm empty and useless for self-defence;

C. Gerald Stanley tried to make the Tokarev safe by repeatedly pulling its trigger into the air;

D. Gerald Stanley took the time, in this situation, to make the Tokarev safe before proceeding to the vehicle he believed had run over his wife;

E. Gerald Stanley believed the Boushie SUV had run over his wife, even though there was no explanation for his belief, other than his wife not being on the lawnmower;

F. Gerald Stanley went to the window of the vehicle to turn the vehicle off to immobilize it, even though the driver had exited the vehicle, and Colten Boushie, the person nearest the steering wheel, was asleep or passed out;

G. Gerald Stanley used his left hand to attempt to turn off the vehicle ignition, keeping the firearm in his right hand, even though he claimed the firearm was made safe, and using your left hand through a driver’s side window to turn off an ignition is incredibly awkward; and

H. Gerald Stanley experienced a hang-fire - an extremely rare occurrence in itself - with a duration of many seconds - an almost impossible length of time for a hang-fire - at the precise second his Tokarev was aimed at close range at Colten Boushie’s skull.

Points A, C, D, E, and F make Mr. Stanley’s story hard to believe. Points B and G simply make no logical sense whatsoever. Point H is beyond reason, and is a submission somewhere along the lines of the magic bullet that shot JFK. While the story raised by Mr. Stanley is not impossible - in the way that suggesting Colten Boushie having died of a heart attack ten seconds before he was shot is not, by way of example, impossible - in my opinion, it is an extreme stretch to suggest that a story of this level of credibility should raise a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Stanley’s intentions.

This is, from what I have reviewed, a fair synopsis of Mr. Stanley’s evidence that the homicide of Colten Boushie was accidental. If you read it, and catch any errors, feel free to point them out, and I may revise. I have included a link to the CBC synopsis below.

I am not sharing this information to tell you that Mr. Stanley is guilty - whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is for the jury to decide. Rather, I hope it assists folks in understanding what the trial has been about, what it is clearly not about, and the extremely specific chain of unlikely events the jury will have to believe occurred to accept Mr. Stanley’s incredible version of events.

My thoughts continue to be with the mother and family of Colten through this difficult time.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts