Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie

[Smooth60]

Historically there's been a low number of native jurors even in a community that has 22% natives. DEPENDING on the reasons why there is an under representation of natives in the jury box they MAY have a point that the system is biased.

It would be interesting to see if Canada has similar biases as in the US where blacks get convicted more often and for longer periods for the same crimes as non whites.

If that's the case then there's a possibility of bias.

I think this is a tragic case of idiots meeting and an excellent defence lawyer. He sidestepped the onus of proving a self defence case and created reasonable doubt that it was an accident.

Because they refuse to show up for Jury Duty that's why.. Next you'll be asking for alcoholics to sit on the jury of a drunk driving case, or a rape case suggesting there were no registered sexual offenders on the jury. Come on, 12 people decided fairly based on evidence that none of us is privy to.

That's how this country works!

I think you need to prove that. I thought there were a few native jurors that the defence opted to have removed.

http://www.thecourt.ca/r-v-kokopenace-missed-opportunity-for-action/

"The right to be tried by a jury of one’s peers is enshrined in the Charter in two provisions: s. 11(d), right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal; and s. 11(f), right to a trial by a jury. However, courts have consistently determined that there is no right to a jury of a particular composition, or one that is proportionate to the diverse groups in Canadian society (Kokopenace, para 39). "

"For the majority, representativeness is not about targeting a particular group for inclusion. The implication is that Ontario met its Charter obligations if it had made reasonable efforts at inclusion, and it could not be blamed if certain groups refused to answer the questionnaire."

This from an Ontario case where the appeal was based on the accused, a NP, not having any Natives on the jury. I am pretty sure it would work the other way as well, ie like in the Stanley case. According to the SCC it is only an obligation that the province had done what is necessary to ensure that they could be on the roll. The province does not need to make sure the jury itself is comprised of representative members of any group, or even that any show up.

 

[Smooth60]

Historically there's been a low number of native jurors even in a community that has 22% natives. DEPENDING on the reasons why there is an under representation of natives in the jury box they MAY have a point that the system is biased.

It would be interesting to see if Canada has similar biases as in the US where blacks get convicted more often and for longer periods for the same crimes as non whites.

If that's the case then there's a possibility of bias.

I think this is a tragic case of idiots meeting and an excellent defence lawyer. He sidestepped the onus of proving a self defence case and created reasonable doubt that it was an accident.

Because they refuse to show up for Jury Duty that's why.. Next you'll be asking for alcoholics to sit on the jury of a drunk driving case, or a rape case suggesting there were no registered sexual offenders on the jury. Come on, 12 people decided fairly based on evidence that none of us is privy to.

That's how this country works!

Has no one posted this yet?

http://torontosun.com/news/national...rors-were-aboriginal-says-member-of-jury-pool

estimating that approximately 85-100 of the initial 200 prospective jurors were Aboriginal.

The person estimates that more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.

some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury. "You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

But according to the prospective juror, the selection process was random and seemed fair. Of the remaining potential jurors, “everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,” the person said, whose own number was not selected.

The prospective juror also dismissed that idea, suggesting the defence council challenged individuals who had made openly biased comments. Besides, the person added, “they were challenging white people too.”

 

[Smooth60]

Just found this.
Reddit I know but the very first post is interesting to describe the culture of the area. Not really germane to the case as far as evidence goes but certainly says a lot about 'character' and role models.

https://np.reddit.com/r/canada/comm...ay_political/du37b4q/?st=jdknf2vu&sh=0388a084

 

[SuperCharge]

​

Has no one posted this yet?

http://torontosun.com/news/national...rors-were-aboriginal-says-member-of-jury-pool

estimating that approximately 85-100 of the initial 200 prospective jurors were Aboriginal.

The person estimates that more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.

some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury. "You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

But according to the prospective juror, the selection process was random and seemed fair. Of the remaining potential jurors, “everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,” the person said, whose own number was not selected.

The prospective juror also dismissed that idea, suggesting the defence council challenged individuals who had made openly biased comments. Besides, the person added, “they were challenging white people too.”

Thanks. That settles that!

 

[Aardvark154]

"As long as peremptories exist, defence lawyers and prosecutors will use them to exclude potential jurors because of their race, class or gender. We all know that. It's wrong."

As Justice Sir William Blackstone, famously wrote in his seminal 1765 work: Commentaries on the Laws of England "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

The problem as addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court is when the prosecution attempts to impanel a jury more likely to convict.

So no, you are full of soup.

 

[Smooth60]

This is the woman who is posting the names of the people who donated to Stanley's Defeence Fund. One of them anyway,I believe she was the first and thena few others also started posting the list.
Federal Employee, Senior Analyst

http://www.goc411.ca/en/75922/Miranda-Dyck

Check out her twitter, lists names and where people work. One person thanks her because the person is a nurse and they want to contact the College of Nurses to have the person disciplined. Outrageous!!!

https://twitter.com/mldyck/with_replies

She also posts on FB. But I don't use it so look for yourself.

Federal Senior Policy Analyst for Health Canada!!! Reprehensible!!!

 

[mandrill]

In other words the lawyers are able to create a non random group of 12 which is the definition of statistical bias.

In actual fact, you run through those peremptory challenges pretty quickly and there's still going to be a big pool of jurors you don't like coming at you. You only have a very limited number of peremptories.

So your actual ability to skew the jury is pretty limited. And bear in mind, the Crown also has peremptory challenges and can knock out their own choice of ethnic / age group / education level not-favourite jurors.

 

[mandrill]

This is the woman who is posting the names of the people who donated to Stanley's Defeence Fund. One of them anyway,I believe she was the first and thena few others also started posting the list.
Federal Employee, Senior Analyst

http://www.goc411.ca/en/75922/Miranda-Dyck

Check out her twitter, lists names and where people work. One person thanks her because the person is a nurse and they want to contact the College of Nurses to have the person disciplined. Outrageous!!!

https://twitter.com/mldyck/with_replies

She also posts on FB. But I don't use it so look for yourself.

Federal Senior Policy Analyst for Health Canada!!! Reprehensible!!!

Emotions run pretty high. But still, "outing" people who have opinions you don't like is pretty nasty. Not that the College of Nurses is going to give a shit about Stanley's Defence Fund.

 

[wilbur]

Have you not read about the case? The defense never claimed self defense or "reasonable force".

The explanation that was given was that it was an accident. The defendant's gun went of accidentally when it was pointing at the head of the unarmed native guy, sitting quietly in a car.

Please explain why anybody should point a gun at the head of another person (even if he though it was not loaded?). That is not behavior I learned when I took my Gun Licence.

He was saying that, if he hadn't claimed that it was an accident, he could have successfully claimed self defense (I don't agree BTW). You need to real a little slower.

Yes, it could very well be an accident. If you took your gun license training (non or restricted), you would know that it's very easy to point a handgun the wrong way through distraction. Handgun clubs are very strict on this matter (you will be asked to leave if you should point your handgun away from the target direction -- breaking your 90), because it can happen very easily through distraction. Now in the scenario here, Stanley was reaching for the ignition key with his left hand, which is very awkward. Do you think he was paying particular attention to what his right hand was doing when he was intent on going for the ignition key with his left hand in a high stress environment with the car about to speed away with him partly inside it? The right arm was on autopilot. The brain doesn't conscientiously control all muscle movements. Try playing the piano while thinking of what every finger is doing.... impossible unless you're doing it extremely slow; you play the tune fast because of the training you have given yourself playing the piece: the fingers play automatically on general command. There was no rehearsal in this case. He also probably had his finger on the trigger (see next).

His performance with the handgun was poor, as he seemed to have little training with handguns in a tactical environment. Nobody seemed to realise that the Tokarev is a single-action pistol. The trigger itself does not cock the hammer (double-action does). It only releases the hammer after the hammer is cocked manually or after the action cycles after a round is shot: the slide racking aft cocks the hammer. So his claim that pulling the trigger 3 times to make sure that, if there is a round in the chamber, it will go off, doesn't make any sense. He claims that he removed the magazine and racked the slide and then pulled the trigger 3 times. I think he racked the slide (ejecting a round and loanding another one), removed the magazine and pulled the trigger 3 times. The first pull released the hammer striking the case's primer (and nothing happened, maybe resulting in a misfire) but pulling the trigger 2 more times would not have caused the hammer to strike the case again. A hang fire (contrary to the 'expert' lawyer opining on this matter) can last over 30 seconds. This would be especially true if he was using cheap old surplus Eastern Block (Commie) 7.62 x 25 ammo, that's a bit unreliable. If you remember your firearms training, you have to wait at least 30 seconds before ejecting a misfire round in case it's a hangfire.

The Crown would have had a better chance of conviction with a manslaughter charge. He may have been negligent in not controlling where the muzzle was pointing; but was that unreasonable given the high stress and rapidly escalating situation at hand?

 

[mandrill]

Just found this.
Reddit I know but the very first post is interesting to describe the culture of the area. Not really germane to the case as far as evidence goes but certainly says a lot about 'character' and role models.

https://np.reddit.com/r/canada/comm...ay_political/du37b4q/?st=jdknf2vu&sh=0388a084

Holy shit! That's some reading!

 

[Smooth60]

Holy shit! That's some reading!

IKR
Would make anyone want to buy a gun.
Says a lot about the Thug Life that Colten was so into.
Role models smh Indigenous Organized Crime

Too bad Sock Boy ended the Auditing of Native Funding.
Seem Conservative Senator Beyak had a point.

 

[richaceg]

Thanks.

I read trudeaus comments and it seems he is saying the system could do better..... i think it is valid to point out that in a cummunity that is 22 per cent native that
A..... there shoyld be at least one native on thr jury
B..... isnt the system biased if the defence can have potential jurors removed with no explanation..... seems it is saying that a native cant be impartial

let's reverse the situation and have 12 natives as jurors and vote unanimously to convict....is that going to appease you?

 

[mandrill]

He was saying that, if he hadn't claimed that it was an accident, he could have successfully claimed self defense (I don't agree BTW). You need to real a little slower.

Yes, it could very well be an accident. If you took your gun license training (non or restricted), you would know that it's very easy to point a handgun the wrong way through distraction. Handgun clubs are very strict on this matter (you will be asked to leave if you should point your handgun away from the target direction -- breaking your 90), because it can happen very easily through distraction. Now in the scenario here, Stanley was reaching for the ignition key with his left hand, which is very awkward. Do you think he was paying particular attention to what his right hand was doing when he was intent on going for the ignition key with his left hand in a high stress environment with the car about to speed away with him partly inside it? The right arm was on autopilot. The brain doesn't conscientiously control all muscle movements. Try playing the piano while thinking of what every finger is doing.... impossible unless you're doing it extremely slow; you play the tune fast because of the training you have given yourself playing the piece: the fingers play automatically on general command. There was no rehearsal in this case. He also probably had his finger on the trigger (see next).

His performance with the handgun was poor, as he seemed to have little training with handguns in a tactical environment. Nobody seemed to realise that the Tokarev is a single-action pistol. The trigger itself does not cock the hammer (double-action does). It only releases the hammer after the hammer is cocked manually or after the action cycles after a round is shot: the slide racking aft cocks the hammer. So his claim that pulling the trigger 3 times to make sure that, if there is a round in the chamber, it will go off, doesn't make any sense. He claims that he removed the magazine and racked the slide and then pulled the trigger 3 times. I think he racked the slide (ejecting a round and loanding another one), removed the magazine and pulled the trigger 3 times. The first pull released the hammer striking the case's primer (and nothing happened, maybe resulting in a misfire) but pulling the trigger 2 more times would not have caused the hammer to strike the case again. A hang fire (contrary to the 'expert' lawyer opining on this matter) can last over 30 seconds. This would be especially true if he was using cheap old surplus Eastern Block (Commie) 7.62 x 25 ammo, that's a bit unreliable. If you remember your firearms training, you have to wait at least 30 seconds before ejecting a misfire round in case it's a hangfire.

The Crown would have had a better chance of conviction with a manslaughter charge. He may have been negligent in not controlling where the muzzle was pointing; but was that unreasonable given the high stress and rapidly escalating situation at hand?

Manslaughter is an included offence to murder IIRC. So every murder charge automatically includes the possibility of being convicted for manslaughter.

Aardy can check me on this as he has done more criminal law.

 

[Smooth60]

Manslaughter is an included offence to murder IIRC. So every murder charge automatically includes the possibility of being convicted for manslaughter.

Aardy can check me on this as he has done more criminal law.

Yes that was the case in this instance as well. The jury had the choice of Murder 2, Manslaughter or Not guilty.
Crown pressed for Murder 2 hoping that if the jury didn't buy it they would automatically convict on Manslaughter. Unfortunately the Crown apparently on summation did not reinforce the Manslaughter angle, did not impress upon jury enough how the evidence would support that. The Jury then had Reasonable Doubt as the Defence did address the Manslaughter as inappropriate stressing Accident.

 

[Smooth60]

More on Miranda Dyck.

Was harassing the duaghter of a Union Official she was posting activist messages on .
Apparently Dyck was harassing the Daughter and other family members.
Union official complains to a higher up to get her to cease and desist the family harassment and Dyck sues him for 250k for defamation!
This woman is a menace!

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/author/...le-for-defamation-by-replying-to-email-13122/

 

[frankcastle]

In actual fact, you run through those peremptory challenges pretty quickly and there's still going to be a big pool of jurors you don't like coming at you. You only have a very limited number of peremptories.

So your actual ability to skew the jury is pretty limited. And bear in mind, the Crown also has peremptory challenges and can knock out their own choice of ethnic / age group / education level not-favourite jurors.

Is there a limit on the number of premptory challenges?

 

[frankcastle]

let's reverse the situation and have 12 natives as jurors and vote unanimously to convict....is that going to appease you?

Flipping to the polar opposite was not my suggestion.

IF the community is about 20% native I find it hard to believe that they can't find 2 or 3 natives capable of being impartial.

Even if they lied an wanted to hang the guy they'd never get a unanimous decision. It may be the same net result but at least you remove the appearance of bias.

 

[mandrill]

Is there a limit on the number of premptory challenges?

12 each for the Crown and Defence, in most cases and 20 each for Murder in the First. Plus any number of "challenges for cause", but you have to convince 2 prior selected jury members that the challenged candidate is inappropriate / biased to challenge for cause.

If Stanley was arraigned on Murder in the Second, then just 12 each. You can blow through 12 peremptories in the first 15 minutes of jury selection. So you use them carefully as fuck, in case someone you REALLY don't like comes in and you've blown them all already.

 

[frankcastle]

12 each for the Crown and Defence, in most cases and 20 each for Murder in the First. Plus any number of "challenges for cause", but you have to convince 2 prior selected jury members that the challenged candidate is inappropriate / biased to challenge for cause.

If Stanley was arraigned on Murder in the Second, then just 12 each. You can blow through 12 peremptories in the first 15 minutes of jury selection. So you use them carefully as fuck, in case someone you REALLY don't like comes in and you've blown them all already.

Thanks.

In your estimation should he have walked? Just curious as you seem a lot more knowledgeable on the law.

 

[KBear]

Is there a limit on the number of premptory challenges?

Curious about that also. Could have charged Stanley with careless use of a firearm.