Colten Boushie Decision

[thodisipagal]

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



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.

Thsnks. I learn.

 

[storm rider]

This was a court decision rendered by a jury.The jury heard the facts and evidence and made their decision.The family of Boushie did not like the decision and have played the "race" card.No Government officials either elected or appointed should have HAD an opinion on this court case.

Right now it is a Lieberal Government with a punch drunk idiot on the ropes as the leader hoping to score political points with First Nations.....same thing Justine did on the last hustings when he promised to get rid of the First Nations Accountability Act enacted by the Conservatives......so that ALL members of ALL First Nations from coast to coast could actually SEE where the money they get from the Federal Government goes to.....as in seeing how the Cheifs and band council STEAL from their own people.The Lieberals promised to strike it down and they DID.....just so the people at the top of the First Nations food chain could continue to fuck over their own people.....and of course BLAME it on the Government whilst enriching themselves.

IMO the whole fiasco about it is being flamed up by the socialist media in Canada and the Lieberals are lapping it up like a cat getting a saucer of cream.

SR

 

[Tugela]

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?

In the city, shooting someone like that would be unacceptable, but I can understand how it might happen in a rural area. Remember, this farmer was living out in the middle of nowhere when confronted by a group of drunk youth apparently up to no good. He would probably have been afraid no matter what they claimed their purpose for being there was, rightly so and with good reason. The racial origins of the youths would have had nothing to do with it, the same thing would have happened if they were European or Asian. There would have been no one to help him or to call. Who the hell knows what might happen if he did not defend himself, those are the thoughts that would have been going through his head. The standard you would need to use in that situation is different from that in an urban area. The jury that acquitted him likely asked themselves how they would have felt and reacted in that situation, and that probably determined the verdict. They understood just how vulnerable a farmer is alone on his farm. The security we in the city take for granted in the form of the police force largely does not exist out in rural areas.

What would you do in those circumstances? Run away and hide?

 

[clu]

In the city, shooting someone like that would be unacceptable, but I can understand how it might happen in a rural area. Remember, this farmer was living out in the middle of nowhere when confronted by a group of drunk youth apparently up to no good. He would probably have been afraid no matter what they claimed their purpose for being there was, rightly so and with good reason. The racial origins of the youths would have had nothing to do with it, the same thing would have happened if they were European or Asian. There would have been no one to help him or to call. Who the hell knows what might happen if he did not defend himself, those are the thoughts that would have been going through his head. The standard you would need to use in that situation is different from that in an urban area. The jury that acquitted him likely asked themselves how they would have felt and reacted in that situation, and that probably determined the verdict. They understood just how vulnerable a farmer is alone on his farm. The security we in the city take for granted in the form of the police force largely does not exist out in rural areas.

What would you do in those circumstances? Run away and hide?

His defence for actually shooting the guy was not fear but that he thought the gun was out of bullets and it went off by itself, so I'm not sure that this is relevant. He evaded the murder charge not by claiming justifiable homocide, but that it was an accident. I just don't see, based on his chosen defence, how he evaded the manslaughter charge.

 

[westwoody]

In the city, shooting someone like that would be unacceptable, but I can understand how it might happen in a rural area. Remember, this farmer was living out in the middle of nowhere when confronted by a group of drunk youth apparently up to no good..... There would have been no one to help him or to call.....The security we in the city take for granted in the form of the police force largely does not exist out in rural areas.

Total disconnect between the Toronto based CBC stirring the pot and rural farmers in western Canada.

If you understand his predicament you can understand the decision. City dwellers will not understand. End of story.

 

[clu]

Total disconnect between the Toronto based CBC stirring the pot and rural farmers in western Canada.

If you understand his predicament you can understand the decision. City dwellers will not understand. End of story.

As a "city dweller" I don't contest what's being said here about rural living, but this argument is a "total disconnect" from the actual defence that the jury had to base their decision on. Whether you realise it or not, saying that his acquittal was based on cultural preconceptions of rural living and not the prosecution and defence's actual case would be saying the jury was biased.

To be clear, he explicitly said he did not shoot the guy out of fear for his safety. He said he shot him because the gun went off by itself and that he "thought" there were no bullets left in it so was no longer treating the gun with the due care owed a loaded weapon. How did he escape culpable negligence in that regard?

Edit to add: point is, everyone defending Stanley here is arguing he would be justified in shooting the guy on purpose, for fear of his own safety. If that had been his defence, I might just be persuaded to agree with you (if you could explain why shooting the passenger when you feared the driver made sense). But that wasn't his defence, and if the jury based their decision on an argument he never made, then that's wrong.

 

[marsvolta]

great argument for why the personal possession of firearms should be outlawed.

judge + jury + executioner is such a common attitude with hand gun owners.

 

[ddcanz]

I would protect my property, as is my right.....If you let assholes walk all over you that's your choice.
I have other ideas.

Everybody has to decide for themselves with the time and place of a given set of circumstances, but I like to think I also live by this standard.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know some of you smarter and more sophisticated members may feel that i am oversimplifying things but this entire situation and a lot of pain of both sides could have been avoided if those boys would have not trespassed onto that man's property.
Like I was raised and as I raised my daughter, one can argue til the cows come home about all the collateral events that occur as a result of an initial action and or decision but in the end the way to avoid those events, is to make better initial choices.
I have a friend who is Metis. We were talking about this yesterday. As much as he talks about systemic racism against indigenous Canadians when we brought the argument back to the initial act by these boys even he admitted that they had no business on that man's farm.
Now for me the question is should someone have to pay for a really dumb decision with their life?

Cheers
J

 

[overdone]

Edit to add: point is, everyone defending Stanley here is arguing he would be justified in shooting the guy on purpose, for fear of his own safety. If that had been his defence, I might just be persuaded to agree with you (if you could explain why shooting the passenger when you feared the driver made sense). But that wasn't his defence, and if the jury based their decision on an argument he never made, then that's wrong.

he was a passenger, then after the other 2 fled, after trying to steal the atv, smashing into another vehicle on the property

he got into the drivers seat to try to drive it, that's when Stanley says he tried to reach in and grab the keys

and the gun went off

so fearing someone on your property trying to steal your stuff, slamming into cars, understandable

waiting for cops in that area, isn't



bottomline, they lied, changed their stories over time, 2 fled, were committing crimes on another property, one was drunk to the point of unconsciousness, 4X legal limit

little wonder why there was reasonable doubt


do you think a judge alone would have convicted?

I don't

 

[westwoody]

As a "city dweller" I don't contest what's being said here about rural living, but this argument is a "total disconnect" from the actual defence that the jury had to base their decision on

Sorry, to be clear I was not referring that as a reason for the jury decision.
I was referring to people who think he should have called the police instead of taking action himself.
That was mentioned a few times on CBC, hence my annoyance at that broadcaster.

 

[bagilson]

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



I honestly don't know how he got off on a manslaughter charge.

There was very compelling evidence (both testimony and the bulged shell casing) that the shot was not intentional. Google "Slam Fire"

 

[bagilson]

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.

Google "Slam Fire"

 

[sybian]

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 wasn't going to chime in on this thread....but....Lets just say I have an awful lot of experience with a firearm, both inside and outside of a theatre of War.
I've had many firearms mis-fire.....both with the safety on, and occasionally when removing that safety into fire position.
If there's one in the pipe, it's freaking loaded, and even when there isn't, should be handled the same way.
The only time I consider a firearm safe ....is when it's broken down into a dozen pieces.
They are simply a machine with a design to rapidly throw a projectile towards any given object it's pointed at, without prejudice .....I have no romance with them, but I do own many, due to my occupation.
In a high stress situation, involving conflict, a person can forget the position of the safety, or their finger, they can forget to breathe. Their muscle sensitivity can be compromised by amino acid build up.....their sight and hearing can be reduced to 40% from adrenaline ......and he can forget about that trigger job he had the gunsmith do on that firearm just last year.
In combat training, the first thing they teach you is, to enter a conflict with your mouth open....so you don't forget to breathe, and make stupid choices....seems pretty basic, but it's the foundation of a good soldier.

 

[clu]

There was very compelling evidence (both testimony and the bulged shell casing) that the shot was not intentional. Google "Slam Fire"

I may not have a lot of experience with firearms, but the first thing I was told was treat it as if it's loaded at all times, even when you're sure it's not. Nowhere was I even contesting his claim it was an accident. He was nonetheless sloppy. The standard for being found guilty of manslaughter is not a particularly high bar to reach.

Edit to add: Sybian, I had been interested to hear your thoughts but suspected you wouldn't want to get into it here. I'm glad I was wrong. Thanks for the perspective.

Westwoody, I agree "wait for the police" is a stupid and naive position for rural living. I'm approaching it from the perspective of "what if this happened in the city and he was the police?" In that perspective I expect the outcome would be largely the same: acquitted to much outrage. Only difference would be paid administrative leave.

I wonder if this will go the O.J. Simpson route though of a successful civil wrongful death claim?

 

[sybian]

I may not have a lot of experience with firearms, but the first thing I was told was treat it as if it's loaded at all times, even when you're sure it's not. Nowhere was I even contesting his claim it was an accident. He was nonetheless sloppy. The standard for being found guilty of manslaughter is not a particularly high bar to reach.

Edit to add: Sybian, I had been interested to hear your thoughts but suspected you wouldn't want to get into it here. I'm glad I was wrong. Thanks for the perspective.

Westwoody, I agree "wait for the police" is a stupid and naive position for rural living. I'm approaching it from the perspective of "what if this happened in the city and he was the police?" In that perspective I expect the outcome would be largely the same: acquitted to much outrage. Only difference would be paid administrative leave.

I wonder if this will go the O.J. Simpson route though of a successful civil wrongful death claim?

Without googling I assume slam fire is when the weapon discharges when struck...if that's correct, it can in fact happen, some models easier than others....Mossberg is notorious for it.
Clu, thank you for the side note about me chiming in, but I'm a little careful lately when it comes to this kind of subject.
Living in a rural environment ,there are some decisions that must be made, as LE can be an hour away,...if at all available to assist....Government gun laws allows for a shotgun to be present in a home...unloaded but unlocked if you are 30 minutes away from a police detachment , driving the speed limit.
This grey area was after several bear attacks...in my area I might add, that had firearms in the home, but relatives couldn't unlock the weapon, and ammunition fast enough to save lives...so a sidebar law was passed.
I know from personal experience that there have been times when the weapon will discharge, and you'd give almost anything to have that split second back....they will go off, but in this instance we may never really know what happened, as the person wielding the weapon ,may not remember accurately himself....or just forgot as a convenience.
It's not my place to judge.

 

[westwoody]

I wonder if this will go the O.J. Simpson route though of a successful civil wrongful death claim?

The ultimate cause of his death was Boushie trespassing and committing a crime while doing so.
Not many civil courts would consider him an innocent victim.

 

[storm rider]

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.

Why on earth would you "support" the CBC?Why on earth would you believe ANYTHING reported by the CBC?The CBC is the state sponsored left wing media.One of the first acts under the Trudeau government was to restore 650 million in funding for the CBC.

As of this afternoon after the Boushie family met with Prime Minister selfie and other government officials the Trudeau government came out with a statement that things will change as the Canadian Justice System is rife with "systemic racism"....what a fucking joke.....this is nothing but political opportunism that is being hyped by the leftist media.

SR

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

Here's what I keep asking myself.

Why did have a hand gun? Why did he NEED a handgun for? What's a handgun good for? Killing people. I understand why a rural farmer needs a shotgun on hand. Why did he have a hadgun?

 

[sybian]

Here's what I keep asking myself.

Why did have a hand gun? Why did he NEED a handgun for? What's a handgun good for? Killing people. I understand why a rural farmer needs a shotgun on hand. Why did he have a hadgun?

Many have them.....they are legal with the correct permits, but under normal circumstances cannot leave the property, unless accompanied by a conveyance permit, issued by the Government or RCMP.
They do fall very quickly under prohibited weapons class for various reasons......they are much less common here than in the US....and rightly so.
Handguns have their place in the working class, like prospectors, placer miners, trappers,Law Enforcement, various security personnel ....and ummm....some ranchers.
They are far more dangerous than a long gun in my opinion ,if the correct training isn't dealt with, they find their target in a quarter the time, and are pretty much operated in one hand, making them deadly in the right hands, usually under 50 yards......FYI, I am a full fledged supporter of the current handgun- prohibited weapons act of Canada.
They are not easy to obtain, and even harder to own, due to the laws set forth by our Governments.....If you fuck up with one, and get a judge who wants to prove a point....your life may be over as you know it.
A law abiding citizen, that has jumped through all the hoops can buy and own one, under various permits, and without a criminal record, and passes a course, and makes it through a inquiry through CSIS, and the FBI....ie target shooter, competition, collector, occupation, etc.

It doesn't answer your question why he had a handgun...but perhaps how he had one.