I meant post trial, jurors speaking to the press. I know in some jurisdictions in the states that it is permitted having seen jurors doing so, but in Canada? I think it is forbidden. But I may be wrong on that point. I am not aware of a Judge in Canada polling jury members either, but have seen that done in again some jurisdictions in the states with people and press in the court. Or maybe I am thinking of a movie. lol
Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
I think it's about capital convictions, when they want to ascertain that the verdict was unanimous, with no doubt from any of the jurors.
In most U.S. jurisdictions in such cases it is mandatory. You can, however, ask for the jury to be polled in non-capital cases, although it isn't commonly done.
Late in this thread, but yes. We all have stories about that jury member who scares the shit out of us and who subsequently turns out to be our best friend.
My own 0.02 - the farmer was entitled to shoot the kid and the jury agreed. I'm not sure how that dresses up as self defence or "stand your ground" and maybe it doesn't, which is why the accused made up the crock about the gun going off accidentally and the jury decided to believe him.
Been years since I did a jury trial, but I sure as hell was challenging jury candidates because they didn't please my sterotypical view of how they would vote based on gender and ethnic grounds and damned if the Crown didn't appear to be doing the same. Since the challenges were peremptory, no one was asking for our reasons. The law may have changed in the intervening years.
As previously posted - I'm quite certain that 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.
Yes and no, in these parts, if on appeal it can be shown that you were deliberately excluding a particular group from the jury it is grounds for the verdict to be set aside and a new trial to be ordered. Now in the U.S. in criminal trials this applies only if the defendant was convicted. So in practical terms it only applies to the prosecution -- see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Last edited:
I have a question.
Why is it that bullies are not dealt with only victims who retaliate?
The newspaper articles clearing indicate that Boushie and friends were there to intimidate the Stanleys and probably take the ATV without permission. They had already tried to steal a truck from another farm.
Why wasn't team Boushie charged with gun offences (they had a rifle) and attempted robbery?
Why is it that bullies are not dealt with only victims who retaliate?
The newspaper articles clearing indicate that Boushie and friends were there to intimidate the Stanleys and probably take the ATV without permission. They had already tried to steal a truck from another farm.
Why wasn't team Boushie charged with gun offences (they had a rifle) and attempted robbery?
ALL Good Questions
Im waiting for Castro's Canadian son , to say more about Indigenous rights and make comments about a rural farm local crime in a western province . Whom I certain has had there fair share of indigenous brothers stealing from them just like Ontario .
How many ATVs have disappeared in Caledonia Ontario for a starter loll
I just read Castor ( son whom died ) , wrote he was always compared to his half brother in Canada
damn u cant get a better read going .
maybe little fact but fake news always good
we all knew mommy Margret enjoyed play time ,the best rumor was when she spent 3 day in the GTA with the rolling stones harbor suites
Im getting some beers now
let the crap flow
HA HA
Does the government send requests for jurors to native people who live on a reserve, and are native people required to appear for jury duty? There may have been few or no natives to select or reject for this trial.
edit: Sort of found the answer to my question.
Aboriginal people not deliberately excluded from juries, Crown says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ely-excluded-from-juries-crown-says-1.3366601
Further to this:
In post 60, someone states that 750 jury duty notices went out, and 250 responded. Not sure how accurate that is, as no source was cited.
But let's go with it. I am curious how many of those 750 were FN, and how many of the 250 responses were FN.
I'm thinking if a gang of trash white kids got high and drunk and invaded a farm and bullied and harassed the man and his family and stole his stuff and he shot one, verdict would have been the same.
Fuck the media! I'm not seeing this a race issue.
You ask my native friends if they stood in that farmer's shoes, would they have shot someone trying the same shit - be he white or FN - betcha my native friends are saying "Yes!"
Race is the media angle here. I don't think it mattered to the man and his jury. Maybe they don't like natives. Betcha they don't like gangs of rowdy, high white kids either,
I don't blame Trudeau for siding with the Indians, he really has no choice but to pander to them. It's a lot like the problems with blacks in America, if they kill each other, that's Ok, but a white folk don't dare stand up to them, yawn.
This will all be forgotten in a week.
This will all be forgotten in a week.
You might do dumb things too if you were born in some squalid Indian reservation, grew up in a dysfunctional, alcohol abusing culture, poorly educated, malnourished. And if you are afflicted by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, you are destined for stupidity.
Good points and a decent argument that the kid who got shot deserved some sympathy.
Too bad.
Just because someone grows up in a crappy environment doesn't mean they are "destined for stupidity". You make life how you want. And just because millions of people around the world (more like a billion) are brought up in lousy situations, doesn't mean you go around drinking, looking for trouble and stealing people's property.
Some people do it. Some people are law abiding and don't cause trouble.
Unfortunately for this kid, he ran into the wrong home and the guy grabbed a gun and started shooting. What could have happened is that nobody was home and they stole shit (which is what they admitted to be focused on that day).
Hey, my parents (like millions of others) came to Canada long time ago. Broke, didn't know English, got placed in high school knowing nobody or English and graduated when they were something like 20, which a few years behind everyone else who grew up in Canada. My dad got his degree doing night classes for who knows how long, while he worked the day.
They were broke , but didn't cause trouble and my dad didn't buy the family's first car until he was about FORTY years old. Yes, 40. The family took the bus everywhere rain or shine since there was no subway where they lived for the first 20 years until they moved.
See? Not everyone is "destined for stupidity".
26 Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.
Marginal note:Use of force to prevent commission of offence
27 Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence
(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and
(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).
Extracts from Criminal Code. If Stanley didn't claim the rifle discharged accidentally, would he have a defence under 2.27 of the Code??
The problem with the "racism" argument is that Stanley was acquitted by 12 jurors. The jury wasn't hung by 2 or 3 racists. Now think: - A rural jury is going to be a mixed batch. A couple of racists? - Maybe. But also a few conscientious, decent people who just wanted to make a fair decision.
Unless you accept that SK is a cesspool of racism, you have to believe that at least some of those jurors who voted for acquittal felt that Stanley acted in an acceptable and reasonable way.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.
Marginal note:Use of force to prevent commission of offence
27 Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence
(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and
(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).
Extracts from Criminal Code. If Stanley didn't claim the rifle discharged accidentally, would he have a defence under 2.27 of the Code??
The problem with the "racism" argument is that Stanley was acquitted by 12 jurors. The jury wasn't hung by 2 or 3 racists. Now think: - A rural jury is going to be a mixed batch. A couple of racists? - Maybe. But also a few conscientious, decent people who just wanted to make a fair decision.
Unless you accept that SK is a cesspool of racism, you have to believe that at least some of those jurors who voted for acquittal felt that Stanley acted in an acceptable and reasonable way.
Much as I sympathize with Stanley, Fluffy makes a good point. If you suffer from FAS, your ability to choose your course of action and "do the right thing" is severely compromised. It's not a matter of "smartening up". A FAS sufferer's brain chemistry is screwed. Every judge and lawyer in this province knows this for a fact.
So your family history isn't relevant here.
