Well your Excellency, that is a presumption seemingly based upon your disagreeing with the verdict.
Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
If it's so unjust, rally the troops and have it changed. Don't just complain about it on an anonymous message board. Be the change!
This is what I see in the verdict:
A jury examined the facts presented to them, and made the correct decision.
The difference between what you see in the verdict and what I see in the verdict is this: my observation is backed by fact, yours is backed by personal dissatisfaction.
As previously said deeply, deeply ironic. If the President of the United States had commented like this about a jury verdict you would without the shadow of a doubt have been outraged.
Completely inappropriate on the part of the Prime Minister Trudeau fils.
Not complaining. Just stating my opinion how things should be run.
In reality, I like reading this kind of stuff. It's so wacky, it makes news interesting.
- Thieves trespass looking to steal
- Guys goes nuts, grabs a gun
- Guy shoots kid in the head
- Guy gets acquitted
- Clash of races... Native vs Whites... and people suspecting a jury of dickish racists
- Trudeau chimes in adding fuel to the fire by kind of siding with the Native side, basically brushing off the law and decision
What's not to like? Sounds entertaining to me!
The guy in the CSI episode was shooting carelessly for entertainment. The farmer was minding his own business fixing his fence line, when he was put into this situation by an armed group who trespassed onto his land and tried to steal his property, and when confronted they drove around smashing into things.
Would think the farmer could be charged with careless use of a firearm or something, but maybe they thought there was little hope to get a conviction, and little point.
*ahem*
https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1DV3CR
POTUS is one step ahead of you.
Doubtless you have a thread from two and a half months ago here on TERB expressing your support of the President about this you care to point us to?
For sure! That's what makes life interesting.
Looking at myself, people can say I've got a pretty standard boring life.... university, job, car, masters, better jobs, make money doing investments and real estate, occasional trips here and there with friends, etc..... Pretty boring career path stuff. Buy hey, it works and I'm content. No drugs, never arrested or anything stupid. Some people have even said to me... "I've never seen you mad before". And for that once every 5 years I get angry at work at a numbnut, someone may say "Wow, that's the first time I've ever seen you mad". Hey, that's me.
So when I read stuff like this, it amazes me at the stupidity people do in life.
You don't have to be billionaire Bill Gates to enjoy life. And you don't have to be Einstein to get good grades and a good job. It's not hard to do.
So I find it peculiar, but interesting when people go ape shit and do dumb things.
Nope all good, still having dinner , food and service is great , no reason to shoot him ....YET
Mr Selfie is a closet Dick Smoker, unfortunately he like his Dickie smoking daddy , he will leave a mega mountain of debt , before the real voters in this country will kick his Narcissistic ass out,
why o why did this happen
yep he had a last name, an a TRUST Fund , ( has anyone noticed how the fund is growing , just like Hillary foundation ) !!!!!!!!!
Credentials :: part time drama teacher ( which explains a lot ) Snow board coach, , whom has smoked more weed then most of the druggies in the Colorado
Um, UM UM (DRAMA teacher yep ) will leave a lasting legacy , he will pay the Indian land claims a shit load of cash in the 100s of Billions , (check out the one around Ottawa for starters )
Your point was that Trump would NEVER question the outcome of the judicial system. I proved you wrong.
You shall now bow before me.
No that wasn't my point at all. My point was that you would be happy to criticize President Trump for the same thing for which you are happy to give the Prime Minister a pass.
If in fact you decided to give President Trump a pass for such behavior in the past, as well as in the future. At least I will not see this as hypocrisy, I will, however, see it as wrong headed.
Just found reported that Crown and Defence have 14 peremptory challenges and that the Judge has unlimited challenges. Would need to have that confirmed by Lawyer though.
All 12 jurors were racist? And the Crown on examination couldn't tell? I guess Selfie Sock Boy was right about us Canadians. The entire society is racist. Give me a fucking break!
All 12 jurors were racist? And the Crown on examination couldn't tell? I guess Selfie Sock Boy was right about us Canadians. The entire society is racist. Give me a fucking break!
Come talk to me when Trump EVER speaks up on behalf of minorities. It will never happen.
Smooth60 Peremptory Challenges are standard practice throughout the Common Law World although you are limited in how you can use them -- for instance one can't challenge women because they are women, or Members of First Nations because they are.
Yes I knew they were but was not sure how many we in Canada were allowed when I first posted here. Positing why there were no FN on the jury. I saw a report that the Defence had used some of theirs on FN individuals.
Also someone here made a remark regarding talking to jury members to find ut what went on in deliberation. I may be wrong but I believe that it is illegal to do that in Canada.
Pretty certain you can't do that (i.e. where I am you can't), but as in other jurisdictions believe that you can likely ask the judge to poll the jury, (i.e. how did you vote) now in controversial cases such as this it is highly likely that the Judge will clear the courtroom before doing so.
As to the Defence challenging FN individuals of course they can, it is just that you just can't attempt to block all FN or all men.
native shmative, had he not messed with the guy's vehicle he could still be happily drinking or sniffing his glue today
Proportional to the threat does not mean that you can't use a weapon that is superior or more lethal than the aggressor; he says 'proportional to the threat of personal harm', and that threat is DEATH. Being run over by a car often does cause death, so he was reasonable in acquiring a weapon that may cause death.
In any case, for example, if you are confronted by a person with a knife, you are not limited to a knife yourself, as a knife in the hand of an aggressor can kill you. You may use reasonable force to save your life. If you are attacked by an aggressor with a knife, then using a gun is perfectly reasonable. Queensberry rules do not apply.
In this case, this guy had a reasonable threat of him or his family being run over by a car. They were indeed intent on ramming anything around them, most likely because of drunken anger. He was not obliged to match their weaponized car with another car, especially if he thought they were going to run over his wife.
The Criminal Code of Canada permits you to defend yourself, and allows the use of reasonable force in doing so. It does not limit you to calling 911 and waiting 45 minutes for the police to arrive. You are the first person responsible for defending yourself or you protecting others from an aggressor, not the police.
The police's job is to catch perpetrators and hand them over to the judiciary for prosecution, in order to provide a deterrence to further crimes..... not to seek revenge for the plaintiffs, which is what a lot of people are asking for.
