In Canada you can basically stand your ground. There is no obligation to run and hide while your property is stolen or your family is assaulted. You are not allowed to shoot people if they surrender or run away.
Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Conservative MP Lisa Raitt tweeted that she was “concerned” about the prime minister’s and justice minister’s decisions to weigh in.
Mr Selfie sent a condolence PM to family,
Really a PM gets involved in a local rural robber attempt and a killing took place in self defense .
WHY, because there playing the race card ,
all organized indigenous groups are at court and after for the news cameras , voicing injustice ,
they made no mention of 22 rifle loaded in SUV ,this poor indigenous lad ,truly missed understood, why he and his gang where on private property, etc.
, Mr Selfie , former part time drama teacher and snow board coach , has spoken out again . He is either handing out billions of taxpayers borrowed money when traveling world wide , OR writing big checks here in Canada,
hell we have to even pay for his 200 k plus family vacation .
Cant wait till the Fed Elections ,then I'm spending a lot of my cash, to help rid this country of this narcissistic jerk , God only knows , what our long term Debt will be before this socialist is gone.
Mr Selfie sent a condolence PM to family,
Really a PM gets involved in a local rural robber attempt and a killing took place in self defense .
WHY, because there playing the race card ,
all organized indigenous groups are at court and after for the news cameras , voicing injustice ,
they made no mention of 22 rifle loaded in SUV ,this poor indigenous lad ,truly missed understood, why he and his gang where on private property, etc.
, Mr Selfie , former part time drama teacher and snow board coach , has spoken out again . He is either handing out billions of taxpayers borrowed money when traveling world wide , OR writing big checks here in Canada,
hell we have to even pay for his 200 k plus family vacation .
Cant wait till the Fed Elections ,then I'm spending a lot of my cash, to help rid this country of this narcissistic jerk , God only knows , what our long term Debt will be before this socialist is gone.
You are definitely wrong about this. You are not allowed to use force (shoot somebody) unless your or your family's life is in imminent danger.
There was a famous case from Hamilton where some idiots were harassing somebody's house. He shot one of them and was convicted of manslaughter.
Dude I own a lot of guns, and a Country Property, I'm putting it in print, the same will happen if any Dudes of any race , trespass and attempt to steal from me, I have my rights to.
yes let the courts decide, I'm good with that . Imminent danger ,but not excessive force .
bullet in the front ,just one , if he is running away nope cant shoot him in the back , he is leaving so no IMMINENT DANGER , then ,
LT56 , your quite the armchair Judge and Jury,
Do you understand what a not guilty verdict means?
Only downside was him leaving witnesses.
if I remember correct there was no imminent danger there,they were running away so no force needed
WELL Dudes it was interesting for a while , Im going to get ready for a dinner out tonight,
carry on
Don't do it, you will end up in jail (I also own lots of guns and a country property)
Jaime Stephenson, president of the Hamilton Criminal Lawyers Association, said that to prove self-defence one must prove the response was proportional to the threat of personal harm or loss of property.
"The issue that will have to be determined is No. 1, was there a potential threat of harm to the person? Was the threat imminent and was the response proportional to the threat," Stephenson said.
I read one time about a cop telling someone that at a crime scene. Tips you can do at a crime scene before cops arrive. Throw a knife down etc.
Yes I was struck by this as well.
The PM
"Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US."
The Minister of Justice
" 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."
Note absolutely no mention that Gerald Stanley and his family are very likely also suffering.
I was also struck by the fact that had the President or the Attorney General jumped aboard about a controversial jury decision like this, the howls of it being inappropriate to basically criticize a Jury would have been long and loud on TERB
I don't know anything about this case... Don't know if it was justified or not... Not sure if the jury was made up of 12 people racist towards first Nations peoples...
I am also a liberal... I voted for Justin Trudeau... For the most part I am happy with him, although sometimes he goes a little too lefty...
However, I can't believe a sitting prime minister would actually criticize a jury verdict no matter how wrong it may be.
It really sends a message that courts can't really be trusted. As a private citizen everyone has the right to second guess, but as the leader of the country I think he needs to stop with the selfies, self aggrandizing and giving everyone a hug and support our legal system. He needs to remember one of the basis for our freedom that our legal system is built on is that its better to let 100 guilty people go free than put one innocent person away. Obviously the latter occasionally happens... But it's the best system we have.. #rantover
I am also a liberal... I voted for Justin Trudeau... For the most part I am happy with him, although sometimes he goes a little too lefty...
However, I can't believe a sitting prime minister would actually criticize a jury verdict no matter how wrong it may be.
It really sends a message that courts can't really be trusted. As a private citizen everyone has the right to second guess, but as the leader of the country I think he needs to stop with the selfies, self aggrandizing and giving everyone a hug and support our legal system. He needs to remember one of the basis for our freedom that our legal system is built on is that its better to let 100 guilty people go free than put one innocent person away. Obviously the latter occasionally happens... But it's the best system we have.. #rantover
A few thoughts
1) I read about the outrage that the jury was made up of all white members. If anyone has seen A Time to Kill, black guy kills two white guys that raped his daughter (she's like 10) and left her for dead. During jury selection the prosecution is trying to remove anybody who might be sympathetic to him (black people, women, minorities) and the defense team is trying to get rid of people that will not be sympathetic (white guys). So I never understood the argument that the jury in this case didn't have any indigenous people on it. Isn't it a potential bias against the defendant? So right off the bat I thought this got off to a weird start
2) Everyone keeps talking about how an indigenous person was killed asking for help for a flat tire. As the trial went on, we get a much clearer picture of the many factors that were not made clear when we first heard about this
a) alcohol
b) thievery
c) the kids had a weapon
d) didn't know about the wife or the son and their involvement in the story
3) I don't know what these particular kids know about the environment but clearly them attempting to steal was a huge factor. Why? Because a bunch of farmers have complained about theft. And for people who don't get it, most of us live in situations where everything is insured, police are close by, and the general non-confrontational approach works best for the victim. Now you are a continuous victim, police won't be by anytime soon, chances are losses will not be recovered, etc. That becomes a huge issue for some people who may feel defending their property is the better approach versus non-confrontation which just costs them at the end of the day.
This all said, I don't know how Stanley was let off. As far as I'm concerned, he brought a weapon into a situation and somebody died so he's guilty of manslaughter or endangerment or something. He is NOT arguing self-defense therefore he did not need to protect himself. I don't think we'll ever know if he's guilty of 2nd degree murder - he could be a cold-hearted killer who just decided to kill someone because he's had enough. But his intent is unknown. But he approached a vehicle with a weapon and now someone is dead. He should be in jail for something. Similarly, Boushie's friends who were trying to steal should also be put in jail as their actions likely resulted in their friend's death.
1) I read about the outrage that the jury was made up of all white members. If anyone has seen A Time to Kill, black guy kills two white guys that raped his daughter (she's like 10) and left her for dead. During jury selection the prosecution is trying to remove anybody who might be sympathetic to him (black people, women, minorities) and the defense team is trying to get rid of people that will not be sympathetic (white guys). So I never understood the argument that the jury in this case didn't have any indigenous people on it. Isn't it a potential bias against the defendant? So right off the bat I thought this got off to a weird start
2) Everyone keeps talking about how an indigenous person was killed asking for help for a flat tire. As the trial went on, we get a much clearer picture of the many factors that were not made clear when we first heard about this
a) alcohol
b) thievery
c) the kids had a weapon
d) didn't know about the wife or the son and their involvement in the story
3) I don't know what these particular kids know about the environment but clearly them attempting to steal was a huge factor. Why? Because a bunch of farmers have complained about theft. And for people who don't get it, most of us live in situations where everything is insured, police are close by, and the general non-confrontational approach works best for the victim. Now you are a continuous victim, police won't be by anytime soon, chances are losses will not be recovered, etc. That becomes a huge issue for some people who may feel defending their property is the better approach versus non-confrontation which just costs them at the end of the day.
This all said, I don't know how Stanley was let off. As far as I'm concerned, he brought a weapon into a situation and somebody died so he's guilty of manslaughter or endangerment or something. He is NOT arguing self-defense therefore he did not need to protect himself. I don't think we'll ever know if he's guilty of 2nd degree murder - he could be a cold-hearted killer who just decided to kill someone because he's had enough. But his intent is unknown. But he approached a vehicle with a weapon and now someone is dead. He should be in jail for something. Similarly, Boushie's friends who were trying to steal should also be put in jail as their actions likely resulted in their friend's death.
The defense did not use the 'self-defence' provision. Primarily because Defence could not make the imminent threat stick in court.
Jury couldn't convict on 2nd Murder because of Crowns ability to convince jury that there was intent.
Manslaughter possibly but the Crown did not make their case in summation to the Jury that convinced them it was not just an accident.
There was evidence that Stanley removed the clip from the gun after firing the 2 warning shots and that it was a hang fire.
Jury chose to believe that and found Not Guilty.
What is reprehensible is PM and Justice Minister and other politicians making statements that undermone the judicial Process trying to score points.
Justice Minister has NO business making statements that'we need to do better' implying that Crown was incompetent or corrupt, that the judge was incompetent or that the jury was wrong in their findings.
Now there is going to be immense pressure on the Crown to Appeal. But on what grounds? If there are no ground based on the trial error or Judges instructions to the Jury how can they appeal with any hope of success? Not to mention poisoning any future trial should the appeal go though and another trial granted.
But they will go ahead anyway to satisfy political pressure.
Still lots of shit to fallout over this in the months ahead.
Jury couldn't convict on 2nd Murder because of Crowns ability to convince jury that there was intent.
Manslaughter possibly but the Crown did not make their case in summation to the Jury that convinced them it was not just an accident.
There was evidence that Stanley removed the clip from the gun after firing the 2 warning shots and that it was a hang fire.
Jury chose to believe that and found Not Guilty.
What is reprehensible is PM and Justice Minister and other politicians making statements that undermone the judicial Process trying to score points.
Justice Minister has NO business making statements that'we need to do better' implying that Crown was incompetent or corrupt, that the judge was incompetent or that the jury was wrong in their findings.
Now there is going to be immense pressure on the Crown to Appeal. But on what grounds? If there are no ground based on the trial error or Judges instructions to the Jury how can they appeal with any hope of success? Not to mention poisoning any future trial should the appeal go though and another trial granted.
But they will go ahead anyway to satisfy political pressure.
Still lots of shit to fallout over this in the months ahead.
I agree, inappropriate. I don't know the whole story either, but Trudeau's comments are uncalled for.
Re: jury
Apparently 750 notices went out to members of the public to come to jury duty and 250 responded. How does jury selection go? Need a lawyer tospeak to this. How many refusals do Crown and Defense get? Hpw many of the 250 were FN? Where were they situated in the call to examination? Maybe there were some in the 250 but none were called before Crown use up all there refusals?
