Colten Boushie Decision

[Cock Throppled]

The furor over the Colten Boushie court case seems unnecessarily inflamed to me, fanned by politicians wishing to score points, and an aggrieved family trying to remove responsibility from their son and his friends.

No doubt there is racism in Canada, but most of the people calling for “justice for Colten” weren’t in the courtroom, didn’t hear the evidence or hear the witnesses.

For Trudeau and Jody Wilson-Reybould to infer the jury was racist, is just wrong, and divisive. Would they have made the same comments if an all-indigenous jury had convicted Stanley? There are many eggregious examples of apparent injustices in decisions, but most are judge trials. These were particularly inappropriate comments given juries aren't allowed to comment, or explain their decisions in Canada.

Gerald Stanley was minding his own business on his own property when he was invaded by a group of five drunks. He didn’t go looking for trouble, it came to him.

If some feel there was an unfair verdict, there is the avenue of appeal the decision.

 

[thodisipagal]

Defence attorney Scott Spencer argued that Colton Boushie's death was a tragic accident and "there is no evidence [defendant] Gerald Stanley pulled the trigger".

Looks like this will set a legal precedence. Any defence attorney can now claim that a gun death is accidental and that there is no evidence that the defendant pulled the trigger.

And the Crown prosecutor and the Canadian public will have to accept that the triggers are now automatically pulled, without anyone pulling it.

 

[Cock Throppled]

That's not a legal precedant. It was one part of his argument in this particular case, but accidental discharge of a firearm has been argued in many cases. Any gun handled with the safety off can be accidentally discharged.

 

[westwoody]

For Trudeau and Jody Wilson-Reybould to infer the jury was racist

Shameless political pandering to the lefties. I'm leftist myself but this was not just disgusting, it is wrong.
The PM and the Minister of Justice have no business criticising a decision reached by a jury.
If there is an appeal, Stanley's lawyer can say there is no chance of a fair trial because the PM and Minister of Justice have influenced the public. So there might be no re-trial, no appeal possible.
For two shrewd politicians, this was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

 

[thodisipagal]

The furor over the Colten Boushie court case seems unnecessarily inflamed to me, fanned by politicians wishing to score points, and an aggrieved family trying to remove responsibility from their son and his friends.

No doubt there is racism in Canada, but most of the people calling for “justice for Colten” weren’t in the courtroom, didn’t hear the evidence or hear the witnesses.

For Trudeau and Jody Wilson-Reybould to infer the jury was racist, is just wrong, and divisive. Would they have made the same comments if an all-indigenous jury had convicted Stanley? There are many eggregious examples of apparent injustices in decisions, but most are judge trials. These were particularly inappropriate comments given juries aren't allowed to comment, or explain their decisions in Canada.

Gerald Stanley was minding his own business on his own property when he was invaded by a group of five drunks. He didn’t go looking for trouble, it came to him.

If some feel there was an unfair verdict, there is the avenue of appeal the decision.

Neither were the members of the jury present on the site of the "accident".

I don't think that avenue exists. You can appeal against guilty verdicts (if you pleaded not guilty) and sentence harshness. The Crown (the provincial or federal government) can't appeal a jury's verdict of not guilty, but can appeal sentence leniency. But I could be wrong on this.

 

[westwoody]

And the Crown prosecutor and the Canadian public will have to accept that the triggers are now automatically pulled, without anyone pulling it.

Do you have a lot of experience handling firearms?

When I was in the Army, guys with years of experience handling and firing weapons on an almost daily basis occasionally had accidents.
Trigger discipline is a big problem, hence the cliche "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!"
Gerald Stanley was in a very high stress situation, unlike us sitting behind our keyboards.

 

[badbadboy]

Initially when I heard on the radio that Colten Boushie had been shot in the back of the head and that Stanley had been found Not Guilty; I thought, here we go. The media is going to frenzy on this one. Reading a bit more, I found an interesting CBC articles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/rcmp-search-warrant-early-colten-boushie-1.3820632

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4520214

Clearly the politicians have pandered to those who believe this was a racist decision without going through the judiciary first. I am interested to hear how the Attorney General of Saskatchewan stick handles this mess now the PM is involved.

 

[jgg]

Shells will cook off in the chamber.

Given the history of the area he will likely come home to ashes or worse.

This case has never been solved.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...nce-may-have-claimed-two-lives/article972144/

 

[thodisipagal]

Do you have a lot of experience handling firearms?

When I was in the Army, guys with years of experience handling and firing weapons on an almost daily basis occasionally had accidents.
Trigger discipline is a big problem, hence the cliche "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!"
Gerald Stanley was in a very high stress situation, unlike us sitting behind our keyboards.

I don't know about you, but if I were in a very high stress situation, I would not go near a bunch of drunk youth, reach inside their SUV and try to turn off the ignition, and then have my gun "accidentally discharged". Not unless I had the intention of harming them. Otherwise, I'd keep myself at a safe distance.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Neither were the members of the jury present on the site of the "accident".

I don't think that avenue exists. You can appeal against guilty verdicts (if you pleaded not guilty) and sentence harshness. The Crown (the provincial or federal government) can't appeal a jury's verdict of not guilty, but can appeal sentence leniency. But I could be wrong on this.

There would never be a case where juries were present at the scene of the incident they are supposed to judge.

That's why they hear evidence, and don't decide cases based on news stories, or social media posts.

As for an appeal - I'm also not an expert, but I believe the Crown can appeal jury decisions.

 

[jamasianman]

I was listening to some radio stuff today. There was a lot of other details that weren't said. For example, the jurors were not allowed to be indigenous, as to not put bias on the decision. But it was the prosecution that blocked them. If that was the case, in order to make it fair then you'd have to move the trial to another district as to not allow bias to enter the jury box. The same would happen if the defense tried to include a few indigenous peoples into the jury box in order to sway the decision.

But you can argue the youths and their vehicle should not have been on the property. And they found parts of a rifle in the vehicle that they stole from a neighbouring farmhouse. Also they lied and kept changing their story, they said they were swimming and drinking, but then some of them confessed to breaking and entering a neighbour's house first before getting a flat. Indeed the vehicle they were in had a missing tire. But for a farmer to pull out a Tokarev and start blasting seems a bit crazy. How do you shoot someone in an SUV with a killshot by accident? The least the guy could have got charged with was mishandling a weapon charge, but he got off scott free.

 

[Sporting]

CBC radio hourly news fanned the flames of controversy all day yesterday. Annoying. Thanks for links above. These men do not seem like killers, and did have reason to be thoroughly stressed and panicked by events. They'll never remember exactly what happened.

 

[thodisipagal]

I was listening to some radio stuff today. There was a lot of other details that weren't said. For example, the jurors were not allowed to be indigenous, as to not put bias on the decision. But it was the prosecution that blocked them. If that was the case, in order to make it fair then you'd have to move the trial to another district as to not allow bias to enter the jury box. The same would happen if the defense tried to include a few indigenous peoples into the jury box in order to sway the decision.

But you can argue the youths and their vehicle should not have been on the property. And they found parts of a rifle in the vehicle that they stole from a neighbouring farmhouse. Also they lied and kept changing their story, they said they were swimming and drinking, but then some of them confessed to breaking and entering a neighbour's house first before getting a flat. Indeed the vehicle they were in had a missing tire. But for a farmer to pull out a Tokarev and start blasting seems a bit crazy. How do you shoot someone in an SUV with a killshot by accident? The least the guy could have got charged with was mishandling a weapon charge, but he got off scott free.

The jury can only render verdict on the charge brought before the court. In this case, the defendant was charged by the Crown for murder, not for mishsndling a firearm.

 

[clu]

The jury can only render verdict on the charge brought before the court. In this case, the defendant was charged by the Crown for murder, not for mishsndling a firearm.

That's inaccurate. They were given the option of finding him guilty of manslaughter, which unlike murder requires only wreckless disregard for another's safety, leading to death. Mishandling of a firearm because he was too stressed could qualify. I'm honestly surprised that he wasn't found guilty on that count. I've seen guilty manslaughter verdicts for less.

 

[thodisipagal]

That's inaccurate. They were given the option of finding him guilty of manslaughter, which unlike murder requires only wreckless disregard for another's safety, leading to death. Mishandling of a firearm because he was too stressed could qualify. I'm honestly surprised that he wasn't found guilty on that count. I've seen guilty manslaughter verdicts for less.

Wasn't Stanley charged of second-degree murder?

 

[hankmoody]

Shells will cook off in the chamber.

Given the history of the area he will likely come home to ashes or worse.

This case has never been solved.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...nce-may-have-claimed-two-lives/article972144/

I knew Grant in that link. Nicest guy.
Horrible horrible story.
My blood is boiling just reading that again. :mad-new:

 

[westwoody]

I'd keep myself at a safe distance.

I would protect my property, as is my right.

These thugs were in the middle of a thieving and vandalising party.
There is no police presence. That is an established fact. If he did call 911, the cops will come around a day later and take a report, tell you to file insurance claims, blah blah blah. Meanwhile his car has been stolen, fuel stolen, tools stolen.
That is the reality.
If you live in the middle of nowhere and your vehicle is stolen you are fucked.
So what do you expect the farmer to do?
Is he supposed to let the trespassers take whatever they want? Destroy whatever they want?
Bear in mind if a farmer's equipment is damaged he might wait months for insurance and repairs. He NEEDS his tools.

If you let assholes walk all over you that's your choice.
I have other ideas.

 

[westwoody]

CBC are assholes for turning this into a race issue.

I used to support the CBC but listening to them spin this bullshit made me puke.

Fuck the CBC.

 

[clu]

Wasn't Stanley charged of second-degree murder?

He was charged with both second degree murder and manslaughter. This is common practice. The jury had the option of finding him guilty on either count. It was mentioned in most of the articles I read about it on Friday. e.g.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...rmer-charged-with-killing-colten-boushie.html

Popescul said it comes down to whether Stanley had a “lawful excuse.” He said the jury could find Stanley guilty of second-degree murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter.

I honestly don't know how he got off on a manslaughter charge. I remember reading about a guy who was convicted of manslaughter because he pushed a guy while trying to break up a fight.

 

[thodisipagal]

I would protect my property, as is my right.

These thugs were in the middle of a thieving and vandalising party.
There is no police presence. That is an established fact. If he did call 911, the cops will come around a day later and take a report, tell you to file insurance claims, blah blah blah. Meanwhile his car has been stolen, fuel stolen, tools stolen.
That is the reality.
If you live in the middle of nowhere and your vehicle is stolen you are fucked.
So what do you expect the farmer to do?
Is he supposed to let the trespassers take whatever they want? Destroy whatever they want?
Bear in mind if a farmer's equipment is damaged he might wait months for insurance and repairs. He NEEDS his tools.

If you let assholes walk all over you that's your choice.
I have other ideas.

There you go, Westwoody. You just contradicted your previous post.

In your previous post you invoked your knowledhe and experience with firearms to argue in favor of accidental discharge of the defendsnt's gun.

Now you are assigning the defendant intent to kill -- to protect property.

Which is it?