Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie

[frankcastle]

But GZ was neighbourhood watch and had no idea that TM would try and ambush him. And Stanley was defending his property.

TM and Boushie died because they made choices which were even worse than Zimmerman and Stanley. TM was trying - arguably - to kill GZ. Boushie was invading Stanley's property.

GZ went beyond "watching."

As for defending property is it legal to go get a gun and point it at people stealing your ATV?

Yes the dead boys made bad choices but it didn't mean they needed to die. BOTH sides were wrong. As I stated in an earlier post if TM and CB survived they too should be charged (obviously for different offences).

IF GZ backed off when he was told.... both would be alive.

IF Stanley took pics with his phone and backed off the cops would follow the plates of the car to one of the natvie's home and they recover the ATV. If damaged Stanley would be getting insurance money and Boushie would be charged with theft.

 

[frankcastle]

From the Boushie's family point of view there is more to the issue than jury selection. Is a difficult and sad situation all around.

The long list of problems Colten Boushie's family says marred the case
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...y-list-problems-gerald-stanley-case-1.4532214

Add to that you have Sask RCMP with facebook posts saying things like CB got what he deserved and race card is played too often.

I think it's important to distinguish this case and the way natives are treated. The case brought the way natives are treated to the forefront but that's not to say all the problems of natives in general link back to this case.

 

[mandrill]

GZ went beyond "watching."

As for defending property is it legal to go get a gun and point it at people stealing your ATV?

Yes the dead boys made bad choices but it didn't mean they needed to die. BOTH sides were wrong. As I stated in an earlier post if TM and CB survived they too should be charged (obviously for different offences).

IF GZ backed off when he was told.... both would be alive.

IF Stanley took pics with his phone and backed off the cops would follow the plates of the car to one of the natvie's home and they recover the ATV. If damaged Stanley would be getting insurance money and Boushie would be charged with theft.

Aren't you blaming the victims here?

 

[Smooth60]

More family connections. Check the names of these guys. Notice the m/o.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crim...ng-robbing-two-women-who-stopped-to-help-them

 

[sempel]

Lethal force is allowed if you think you or those around you you want to protect, are in mortal danger. I would automatically assume so if people trespass with an obvious intent to cause damage, because I'm not going to wait there for them to start shooting at me for me to decide that it's deadly force. The CCC allows you to prevent your property being taken away. Any physical resistance they put up against you is automatically an assault on you, a Criminal Code offense.

Even if a person has no visible weapon, but walks towards me in a challenging and agressive manner, I'm not going to stand there and wait to get beaten to death before I decide to arm myself. I have a reasonable expectation that a person younger, stronger than me may cause my death, even with his bare hands. The fact that an aggressor shows a knife doesn't mean that I'm limited to using a knife to defend myself because I have an expectation that a knife will kill me. So I'm justified in stopping an agressor with a gun. However, as soon as he turns around, then I have to stand down.

Defense and accidents are unrelated to each other. If you shoot someone in the back and claim it was an accident, you will go to jail if you can't prove that it was an accident.

IMO, he's not going to walk on the firearms storage charge. What was a handgun doing in his shed? Your restricted firearm must be securely stored in a locked safe or cabinet with a trigger lock at the address on your Authorisation to Transport (now part of your license), and that's normally your house, not your shed. You are not allowed to go plinking with a handgun on your property, even on a Saskatchewan farm, unless you happen to have a proper gun range that's been approved by the Chief Firearms Officer of your Province.

Self-defense was not argued therefore it is an irrelevant point. Now, that doesn't mean the jury will have considered it self-defense and acquitted even though they shouldn't be thinking that. It's one of the reasons the jury might not be the good option because they don't think from a pure legal perspective.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" applies to Crown and police misconduct involved with finding the contraband - i.e. a search without a warrant, or obtaining a warrant under false pretences. Where there is no police or Crown misconduct, the doctrine does not apply. Here the police behaved quite properly.

If Boushie was the only intruder, you have a point about Stanley not needing the pistol. But there were 3 or 4 (?) aggressors. He could not hope to defend himself without a weapon of some sort.

If you say so - I don't know. But I guess my point is that nobody would know anything about GS having a gun if Boushie and Co. hadn't come to his place and tried to steal. I wonder what the legality is if I try and rob someone, police catch me, and discover a meth lab in the home I tried robbing. They wouldn't have been allowed in there to search for it otherwise. So it seems weird to be able to charge GS for gun violations given he pulled it out to deal with thieves.

Aren't you blaming the victims here?

Yes but the victim caused death. He's less a victim since it wasn't self defense. If I shoplift a candy bar and get shot by the owner, who's the victim?

 

[wilbur]

Self-defense was not argued therefore it is an irrelevant point. Now, that doesn't mean the jury will have considered it self-defense and acquitted even though they shouldn't be thinking that. It's one of the reasons the jury might not be the good option because they don't think from a pure legal perspective.



If you say so - I don't know. But I guess my point is that nobody would know anything about GS having a gun if Boushie and Co. hadn't come to his place and tried to steal. I wonder what the legality is if I try and rob someone, police catch me, and discover a meth lab in the home I tried robbing. They wouldn't have been allowed in there to search for it otherwise. So it seems weird to be able to charge GS for gun violations given he pulled it out to deal with thieves.



Yes but the victim caused death. He's less a victim since it wasn't self defense. If I shoplift a candy bar and get shot by the owner, who's the victim?

I wasn't arguing that it was self defense; he was acquitted based on an accident. Only that the previous poster seems to assume that you're not allowed to defend yourself, or that you cannot show more force than the aggressor. Totally wrong.

In any case, knowing or not knowing they had a gun is irrelevant. 5 aggressive and drunken individuals showing up on your doorstep, with the reputation they had in the region, I would be fearful of my life and of my loved ones. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume the worst when this lot showed up.

This is definitely not the case where callign 911 will get you instantaneous response. The police are at least 45 minutes away, assuming that they even have someone available at the time. Individuals are the first line of defense for protecting themselves. Not the police.

 

[latinboy]

More family connections. Check the names of these guys. Notice the m/o.

Yeah I saw this a few days ago...it appears that terrorizing and stealing/damaging vehicles from farmers runs in the family. And what this particular group of punks did to the two good samaritans is despicable. Two women trying to help them ffs.

It's not been widely reported but "Wuttunee" (same as mentioned in above incident) is not only the name of one of the females involved in the Stanley case, it's also Cassidy "Cross-Whitstone's" REAL LAST NAME as well. Obviously siblings or cousins. Guess that family has a lot to be proud of.

The other thing downplayed in most of the media is their BAC levels. For example after lying to police and once under oath, saying they were "not really drunk", Meechance and "Cross-Whitstone" admitted to consuming upwards of 30 shots. Boushie's BAC was 0.303. Kiora Wuttunee said she was on a week-long bender. All that by 5pm when they rip-roared onto the Stanley property.

I really feel for the Boushie family. However some of these parents have to step up and own what's happening to their kids. Sure they're out in full force now as they should be, but where are they when their kids are getting shitfaced every day, then driving around out of their minds terrorizing the rural communities.

Other incidentals not really reported: the farm they hit beforehand (where they broke the rifle stock smashing a truck window), it was a 76 year old lady, terrified and traumatized!

And the Stanley's? They had to sell their cherished farm long ago to cover legal fees. An innocent hardworking family now has to resort to a "gofundme" for financial assistance. Tragic all around.

 

[mandrill]

Self-defense was not argued therefore it is an irrelevant point. Now, that doesn't mean the jury will have considered it self-defense and acquitted even though they shouldn't be thinking that. It's one of the reasons the jury might not be the good option because they don't think from a pure legal perspective.



If you say so - I don't know. But I guess my point is that nobody would know anything about GS having a gun if Boushie and Co. hadn't come to his place and tried to steal. I wonder what the legality is if I try and rob someone, police catch me, and discover a meth lab in the home I tried robbing. They wouldn't have been allowed in there to search for it otherwise. So it seems weird to be able to charge GS for gun violations given he pulled it out to deal with thieves.

Yes but the victim caused death. He's less a victim since it wasn't self defense. If I shoplift a candy bar and get shot by the owner, who's the victim?

Let me tell you about the "plain view doctrine".

If the cops are performing their duties and they spot contraband, it's a righteous bust. All they have to have is a legit reason to be in the home and the contraband is readily on view without them having to search for it. For example, 30 years ago, I was the victim of a prank 911 call. An asshole called a random address into the cops and said that a kidnapping / rape was occurring there. The address happened to be mine. 14 Division showed up at my door with drawn sidearms and busted in. I was chilling with my then gf. We were killing a bottle of wine. Luckily we weren't smoking anything. Because if we were, someone would be in front of a judge and doing a lot of explaining to the Law Society.

It would have been a classic case of the "plain view doctrine". Hopefully that makes it clear.

 

[Aardvark154]

Self-defense was not argued therefore it is an irrelevant point. Now, that doesn't mean the jury will have considered it self-defense and acquitted even though they shouldn't be thinking that. It's one of the reasons the jury might not be the good option because they don't think from a pure legal perspective.

Which to most people in the Common Law world is one of the advantages of juries.

I remind you again of Justice Blackstone's famous formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Further I point you to the famous Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006 and its related case Rex v. Penn and Mead, (1670) 6 How. 951 for why juries are preferable to mindless automatons of the law.

 

[guelph]

GZ went beyond "watching."

As for defending property is it legal to go get a gun and point it at people stealing your ATV?

Yes the dead boys made bad choices but it didn't mean they needed to die. BOTH sides were wrong. As I stated in an earlier post if TM and CB survived they too should be charged (obviously for different offences).

IF GZ backed off when he was told.... both would be alive.

IF Stanley took pics with his phone and backed off the cops would follow the plates of the car to one of the natvie's home and they recover the ATV. If damaged Stanley would be getting insurance money and Boushie would be charged with theft.

My brother had a motorcycle stolen, reported to police and told them who had it -- response they couldn't just go onto someone's property to check it out. Took almost two years until the thief was on the bike and stopped for a traffic stop. Thief ran away then the bike was recovered.


Getting your property back is not always easy

 

[mandrill]

My brother had a motorcycle stolen, reported to police and told them who had it -- response they couldn't just go onto someone's property to check it out. Took almost two years until the thief was on the bike and stopped for a traffic stop. Thief ran away then the bike was recovered.


Getting your property back is not always easy

The cops have to have reasonable cause to get a warrant. The rightful owner saying to the cops "I think that guy is probably the one who maybe took it and perhaps it's possible that it's even still over in his garage maybe." is not solid enough for reasonable cause.

 

[Darts]

Stan Jonathan also shot a man to death. All charges were dropped. No trial.
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/...-star-stan-jonathan-kill-peter-kosid-in-2012/

Karman Willis also shot to death. No charges ever laid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/charges-unlikely-in-ludwig-shooting-case-rcmp-say-1.171860

 

[Aardvark154]

The cops have to have reasonable cause to get a warrant. The rightful owner saying to the cops "I think that guy is probably the one who maybe took it and perhaps it's possible that it's even still over in his garage maybe." is not solid enough for reasonable cause.

Even as you posted it boils down to what did the brother actually say "I think that guy is the one" or did he say "that guy is the one who took it I saw him and I'm willing to sign a witness statement to that effect." If the later then indeed there should have been probable cause.

 

[frankcastle]

Aren't you blaming the victims here?

No in both cases both people involved were wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't steal an ATV.... don't shoot someone for stealing your ATV.

 

[frankcastle]

My brother had a motorcycle stolen, reported to police and told them who had it -- response they couldn't just go onto someone's property to check it out. Took almost two years until the thief was on the bike and stopped for a traffic stop. Thief ran away then the bike was recovered.


Getting your property back is not always easy

Potentially serving a prison term over an ATV is also not easy.

 

[frankcastle]

Yeah I saw this a few days ago...it appears that terrorizing and stealing/damaging vehicles from farmers runs in the family. And what this particular group of punks did to the two good samaritans is despicable. Two women trying to help them ffs.

It's not been widely reported but "Wuttunee" (same as mentioned in above incident) is not only the name of one of the females involved in the Stanley case, it's also Cassidy "Cross-Whitstone's" REAL LAST NAME as well. Obviously siblings or cousins. Guess that family has a lot to be proud of.

The other thing downplayed in most of the media is their BAC levels. For example after lying to police and once under oath, saying they were "not really drunk", Meechance and "Cross-Whitstone" admitted to consuming upwards of 30 shots. Boushie's BAC was 0.303. Kiora Wuttunee said she was on a week-long bender. All that by 5pm when they rip-roared onto the Stanley property.

I really feel for the Boushie family. However some of these parents have to step up and own what's happening to their kids. Sure they're out in full force now as they should be, but where are they when their kids are getting shitfaced every day, then driving around out of their minds terrorizing the rural communities.

Other incidentals not really reported: the farm they hit beforehand (where they broke the rifle stock smashing a truck window), it was a 76 year old lady, terrified and traumatized!

And the Stanley's? They had to sell their cherished farm long ago to cover legal fees. An innocent hardworking family now has to resort to a "gofundme" for financial assistance. Tragic all around.

So which law states that if a person has a history of being a drunk and a theif that they can be shot?

It is terrible that Stanley has to sell his farm but he made a bad decision. Lose an ATV vs your farm and possible jail time..... hmmmm.

 

[guelph]

Even as you posted it boils down to what did the brother actually say "I think that guy is the one" or did he say "that guy is the one who took it I saw him and I'm willing to sign a witness statement to that effect." If the later then indeed there should have been probable cause.

What was said was my bike serial number xxxxx is on that property and John Doe has been seen driving it

 

[mandrill]

So which law states that if a person has a history of being a drunk and a theif that they can be shot?

It is terrible that Stanley has to sell his farm but he made a bad decision. Lose an ATV vs your farm and possible jail time..... hmmmm.

s. 37 and s. 27 of the criminal code. And the common law jury system that provides some common sense in what would otherwise be a rigid system.

 

[KBear]

So which law states that if a person has a history of being a drunk and a theif that they can be shot?

It is terrible that Stanley has to sell his farm but he made a bad decision. Lose an ATV vs your farm and possible jail time..... hmmmm.

If you were sitting in the park with your lady. and another young lady came up and took your lady's purse and walked off, would you take pictures and explain to your lady it is not worth the risk a confrontation where an accident could happen and the thief dies, or give pursuit?

 

[sempel]

So which law states that if a person has a history of being a drunk and a theif that they can be shot?

It is terrible that Stanley has to sell his farm but he made a bad decision. Lose an ATV vs your farm and possible jail time..... hmmmm.

It's not about laws or who can or cannot be shot. It's about people playing with fire and unfortunately in this case getting burnt badly.

I'll start by saying that I think the police and the system are not good towards indigenous people. In many cases the treatment has been substandard and in other cases appalling. However, at some point indigenous people also have to step forward and take accountability for some of the behaviors being portrayed by some members of the community that result in bad things. This case highlights the fact that there is a lot of tension between farmers and the indigenous. Why is that? Is this some bad perception based on a couple of farmers crying foul? Or is it a continual occurrence? Was this the first time that GS has been accosted/robbed or has it happened before?

A lot of your comments are made in hindsight. Suppose some drunk people came to your farm and started to trash your stuff? First there's the damage and I don't think we are aware how that works - does insurance cover it? Are these farmers SOL and forced to eat the loss? Then there's the fear of what COULD happen. Drunk people steal a motor vehicle. Do they crash it and hurt themselves? Do they crash it and cause major damage and/or possibly hurt/kill others?

I don't blame GS for confronting these people. I think most of us would if we were put in the same situation. What I don't condone is (1) the introduction of a gun and (2) I personally found something fishy about a guy getting shot in the head from very close.

And to anyone who IS a drunk and a thief - beware the consequences of your actions. As they say, don't poke a sleeping bear. You make your bed you lie in it. There are clearly some people who may react badly to your actions. No different than a guy who hits a bar often, gets wasted, and starts spewing hate. At some point, someone else who's had a few will probably fight him.