All I know is that compared to other Prime Ministers, I sure see and hear a lot of Trudeau. It seems every week he's in the media saying something. How about just stick to Parliament Hill and try not to be "too out there" like Trump.I agree, inappropriate. I don't know the whole story either, but Trudeau's comments are uncalled for.
But you just said that people like you make the rules.If I was the Decider things would be better.
The whole idea of a jury makes zero sense to me. Find 12 random people, education level unknown, present a bunch of scientific and legal information and expect them to make a decision. Seems like a failing concept from the get go. I know some of the legalese used makes my head spin and sometimes I'm confused by what the wording is or what it means.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?
Never understood juries either.The whole idea of a jury makes zero sense to me. Find 12 random people, education level unknown, present a bunch of scientific and legal information and expect them to make a decision. Seems like a failing concept from the get go. I know some of the legalese used makes my head spin and sometimes I'm confused by what the wording is or what it means.
People must be educated and have some form of legal training. I personally would be frightened to put my fate in the hands of 12 randoms especially after seeing things like election results as an example of how people think/act.
Doesn't know when to stop, friends from all over the globe email me apologizing for calling him the Cretin PM. He's got a Huge Peter Pan ego.All I know is that compared to other Prime Ministers, I sure see and hear a lot of Trudeau. It seems every week he's in the media saying something. How about just stick to Parliament Hill and try not to be "too out there" like Trump.
Like a typical CEO, sometimes it's best just to sit in the office and quietly run the business with the door closed.
I'll tell you something about Jury Selection and Peremptory Challenges - with which I'm sure Oagre and others of my Learned Friends on the Board will agree.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.
'That this defendant was acquitted, is a travesty,' is but a variation on the time honoured I hate Lawyers they are bums.But you just said that people like you make the rules.
So if the rules that led to an acquittal are wrong... change them.
Lol. It seems you kind of agree with my thinking which is (1) it shouldn't matter and (2) what favors one side automatically screws the other side. Had the jury been made up of all indigenous people, I'm sure the Stanley side would have cried foul saying there's no way he could get a fair trial. Truth is we'll never know unless we get the info from the jury about why they voted the way they voted i.e. jury poll. I'd be very curious to know how he didn't get convicted of manslaughter. If I toss knives unsafely and someone dies as a result, I'm not guilty of murder but I'm guilty of something since I am somewhat responsible for the death by playing with knives. There was a CSI episode where a person was killed by a bullet in his backyard. In the end, they realized some guy had fired into the air a few houses away, the bullet eventually came down and gravity did the rest. Cops led the suspect away.I'll tell you something about Jury Selection and Peremptory Challenges - with which I'm sure Oagre and others of my Learned Friends on the Board will agree.
You can never tell with juries, there is someone about whom you have grave doubts, but you only have one challenge left and you let them in fully expecting them to be against the government or your client and yet when the jury is polled you find out that they were firmly for you. Extrapolating you would find a jury pool in Saskatchewan with Whites perfectly willing to have convicted in this case had it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and a First Nations Member who says that could have been me when that pickup truck pulled up.
I recall a member of a jury pool who arrived in a tee shirt with a pot leaf on it (back when this was firmly illegal) and had to be loaned a old Bailiff's Blazer to appear in court, yet turned out to have been firmly for a conviction in an Armed Robbery case.
Perhaps in Canada not in other Common Law Jurisdictions. In the U.S. it is considered a fundamental right in major cases to be able to request a trial by jury.Never understood juries either.
To me, have court cases decided by a judge. Civil cases are done by judges, so why not important crime cases?
Because those "numbnuts" understand what it is like to be a Wheat Farmer, or a Forester with a licence from the Provence, or a Commercial Salmon Fisherman, or the owner of a independent Garage. Far better than I do -- or the vast majority of those elevated to the Bench. That is not to say that Judges are unable to understand those groups, rather that most people prefer a Jury of people like themselves.Why the hell anyone wants cases decided by 12 potential numbnuts is beyond belief. And even 12 is a weird number.
A judge is smarter, knows the law better and should be able to provide a better decision. That's why he or she is a judge.Perhaps in Canada not in other Common Law Jurisdictions. In the U.S. it is considered a fundamental right in major cases to be able to request a trial by jury.
Because those "numbnuts" understand what it is like to be a Wheat Farmer, or a Forester with a licence from the Provence, or a Commercial Salmon Fisherman, or the owner of a independent Garage. Far better than I do -- or the vast majority of those elevated to the Bench. That is not to say that Judges are unable to understand those groups, rather that most people prefer a Jury of people like themselves.
This is our tradition in the Common Law Word of Jurisdictions descended from England and Wales. You on the other hand would be more conformable in the Civil Law World descended from France and Spain and they from Rome. Do note that even in Québec and Louisiana in which civil law (small "c") is basically Civil Law (capital "C") criminal law is still Common Law.
If your waiter gives you shitty service try not to shoot him.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
Sometimes true sometimes not. Further than that it is my policy even on TERB not to go.A judge is smarter, knows the law better and should be able to provide a better decision. That's why he or she is a judge.
It's been working in legal systems the world over, for centuries.A judge is smarter, knows the law better and should be able to provide a better decision. That's why he or she is a judge.
A jury of 12 people of unknown smarts and biases should not be determining the fate of a trial. Doesn't matter if these 12 people are closer in money or lifestyle than a high paid judge. Laws that should be followed regardless of someone's status in life, and having 12 people making the decision when they aren't knowledgeable in law in the first place, and can get intimidated or influenced by lawyers, gives me the opinion that should not be the decision makers.
It's like getting a car fixed. Do you want the mechanics from various shops to recommend what to fix? Or would you want to ask 12 people who don't know much about cars to determine what is wrong with it and decide what to do?
Who cares if it's been around. Doesn't mean it's right.It's been working in legal systems the world over, for centuries.
It’s called Jury Nullification.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.
Proof is in the verdict.You must have proof to back up that accusation...
