How important is a unanimous verdict?
That's a fair question. If I understand correctly, in some jurisdictions, a jury that cannot unanimously say "guilty" == "acquitted". The system not unreasonably advantages the accused rather than the State... should the defendant enjoy that advantage? Don't forget the case we're discussing here and who's the accused.
I am just saying if there is an obvious juror whose easily demonstrates that he/she will undermine the process through bias or such then there needs to be ways to take them off. However the system needs to be protected from lawyers (defence or prosecution) creating issues just to remove a juror that does not fit their demographic for winning the case.
The murderer most likely reached into the vehicle like he was on TV and the gun went off while he had it pointed at the head of the young man in the car. He lied on the stand because he knew he was guilty of killing an unarmed man. I am not a criminal lawyer but I am pretty sure that would be enough to convict him of second degree murder or at least some sort of criminal negligence. The Prosecutor and Judge seem to have not been on their A games but the jury are the people that believed a story that was beyond reasonable, apparently so they would not have to jail a neighbour that they had empathy with. The deep racism is exposed by the lack of empathy for the man murdered because if even one of them had any empathy for Colten they would not have swallowed such a cock and bull story.
The Tokarev TT33 semi-auto pistol's are usually pretty beat up and old. Even "new" they're not manufactured to high standards. They run between $200 and $300. They're also known for jamming issues and misfires but even still that wouldn't explain a hangfire as hangfires are 100% ammo dependant.
Magazine fed semi-automatic handguns (and rifles) are designed to keep the slide or bolt to the rear (or open) when the ammunition runs out. The slide would ideally catch on the lip of the empty magazine denoting the gun is empty and making reloading faster. I say ideally because if the catch on the slide or the magazine is worn down or broken then the slide won't stay to the rear when the gun is empty.
Semi-auto handguns operate on the force of the bullet pushing the slide to the rear (ejecting a used bullet casing and picking up another bullet) so that won't happen unless a bullet is fired or the operator manually moves it. And if there is a hangfire in the barrel waiting to go off and someone manually moved the slide to the rear then the extractor would have grabbed the bullet casing and ejected it- unless that was miraclously broken too.
Just to touch a little on psychology and questions about why he might have did something or not have did something - if he was scared and his body was in fight or flight mode that would explain why he made some weird decisions such as not knowing how many bullets are left, why load only 3. In the FoF mode people simply don't think straight, it's why people will say "whats the number for 911". Or why a parent might momentairly run away from a burning car if their kids are in it. We all like to think we would heroically spring in to action but that takes overcoming thousands of years of evolution (fire -RUN). Not always the case but sometimes.
I'm not suggesting that's an excuse for anything in this case per say but FoF and how it physically and mentally effects someone is researched and noted. Anyone who's been really scared may say their eye sight narrowed and it's like looking through a toiletpaper roll, or their hearing was affected and everything sounded like it was under water. Short term memory loss is also something that's noted. When someone is suddenly scared or starteled their is a tendency to make a fist and squeeze. I think it's been seen up to 15lbs or 50lbs of force, I'd have to research. This is one of the reasons why you police and soldiers are taught to keep their finger off the trigger unless they're ready to shoot.
It's illegal to store a firearm loaded with ammunition (inside) unless the person has explicit permission from the Chief Firearms Office and that's usually requested by and sometimes given to people in remote areas who have to deal with wild animals. I find it weird that his pistol magazine wasn't loaded and just stored with the gun, which is legal.
[http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm]
The choice of a pistol instead of rifle for dealing with wildlife is strange. Rifles have longer range, heavier bullets, easier to shoot, better accuracy and more striking power. All important things when dealing with hungry animals. Owning a pistol requires a different, more expensive liscence and the owner must belong to a gun club, which can cost in the hundreds per year too.
According to expert testimony, the gun was in good working order. They couldn't find any flaw with the mechanisms.
Even if you can accept there was a hangfire, what Stanley describes is damned near impossible. Certainly highly improbable. Trying to reproduce it amounted to a unicorn hunt.
Basically, it created a barely-there hook for the jury to cling to in giving the verdict they wanted to give.
Even if you can accept there was a hangfire, what Stanley describes is damned near impossible. Certainly highly improbable. Trying to reproduce it amounted to a unicorn hunt.
If, as it seems, a hangfire is about the ammo, not the mechanism, and if, as it seems, a hangfire is a rare occurrance, how did they set about to reproduce it? With the same ammo Stanley used? If a hangfire is a (let's say) one in 10,000 occurance, did they fire 20,000 rounds, just to be sure?
I'm not saying this makes his story true. But just logically, I can't see how they expected to reproduce it. It's like saying that someone's claim of a 29 hand in cribbage is impossible, because I've just dealt 1000 hands of cribbage and none of them was a 29.
To be sure there are questions in there, Magoo. Are you sure you are asking all of them?
I mean, if your job is playing devil's advocate, it doesn't look good on you to be discriminatory about where you direct your skepticism.
To be sure there are questions in there, Magoo. Are you sure you are asking all of them?
There are plenty of us here. Do I have to ask all the questions?
Not at all, but you seem to be putting an impossible burden on those who rightly point out how improbable this hangfire explanation is, rather than considering the more likely argument - considering the other inconsistency that he didn't know there was a bullet in the chamber - that Stanley was lying.
For that matter, all your skepticism seems to be directed at the arguments of the prosecution, and of the Boushie family. Which is fine, but it is also in order to point out an apparent bias.
Not at all, but you seem to be putting an impossible burden on those who rightly point out how improbable this hangfire explanation is
It's really that improbability that's the burden, to itself.
I was just pointing out that trying to reproduce an improbable thing -- by testing the wrong thing? -- isn't a good measure of whether an improbable thing did or didn't happen. If some rare occurance is easily reproduced, it's probably not a particularly rare occurrance.
Did they test the gun? Or ammunition from the same batch that Stanley used?
If the statistical probability of a hangfire is "one in X" did they test at least "X" rounds from Stanley's supply? Or else what is "authorities could not reproduce the hangfire" actually supposed to mean?
For that matter, all your skepticism seems to be directed at the arguments of the prosecution, and of the Boushie family. Which is fine, but it is also in order to point out an apparent bias.For that matter, all your skepticism seems to be directed at the arguments of the prosecution, and of the Boushie family. Which is fine, but it is also in order to point out an apparent bias.
"And the Boushie family"?
Can you please elaborate on where I called "the Boushie family" to account for anything?
I don't need to ask the questions of the defense that have already been asked. But if some cop firing a few hundred rounds out of Stanley's gun with no hangfires is supposed to mean something, I'm asking what it means.
I don't recall Boushie's family being any part of this testimony. If I questioned their testimony, can you remind me where?
IMO Stanley is a liar and a murderer and only someone with a deeply engrained bias could belief his bullshit. The Crown and RCMP seemed to be sleepwalking in their attempt at prosecution and the ex-RCMP Judge didn't deliver a thorough dissertation on the difference between reasonable doubt and highly improbable stories.
That is the Canadian criminal "justice" system for a family whose son was shot dead at point blank range, for joyriding.
The whole line of questioning, and your ultimatum about who is in and who is out, around peremptory challenges, Magoo.
One doesn't have to take a hard line on the issue to recognize that every Indigenous person who stepped up was challenged and sent away.
IMO Stanley is a liar and a murderer and only someone with a deeply engrained bias could belief his bullshit.
Sorry to keep being the logic guy, but jurors didn't have to believe his story 100%. They just had to NOT disbelieve it 100%.
Reasonable doubt doesn't mean "the defendant's story was totally and completely true and we believe that was the reality".
And this is as good a time as any to say that I'm not claiming that Stanley's story is 100% true. But we can't just stop questioning the Crown, nor stop giving the benefit of any doubt to the defendant, because we feel something in our gut.
Politicians are already talking about the possibility of abolishing the peremptory challenge. I know some U.S. States have, and the U.K. has, but I have my doubts that if we do, we'll overall be happier with the makeup of Canadian juries, or the verdicts they produce.
And I'm not disputing that you are the logic guy. Just pointing out that some of your tests range into the highly theoretical and improbable, and they all seem to be directed at one side of this case.
Not that that isn't allowed. I'm just calling it. After all, you asked my opinion and I ante'd up with it.
Though the test for reasonable doubt isn't 100 percent. Even the judge pointed that one out.
[Trying again to get some information and have a conversation without insults and provocation.]
Just pointing out that some of your tests range into the highly theoretical and improbable
Again, I'm only asking how they tried to reproduce the unquestionably rare case of a hangfire, and what it should mean if they gave it a try and couldn't.
and they all seem to be directed at one side of this case.
The other side doesn't need my help. If we're moving a sofa, I'm not going to try to carry both ends.
Thank you for the confirmation, tacit as it is. So it isn't strictly a case of being the logic guy, but rather an advocate. Fair enough.
So it isn't strictly a case of being the logic guy, but rather an advocate. Fair enough.
Really?
An "advocate" for what, specifically? The idea that Stanley is clearly and plainly innocent?
Or an "advocate" for the idea that dealing 1000 cribbage hands to try to reproduce a "29" hand isn't a particularly meaningful test of whether someone ever got dealt a "29" hand?
If all you can contribute now is the suggestion that I'm biased against Boushie (or his family -- I'd still like to hear more about that one) then that's kind of gross, Smith.
I'm not "playing on your (or Boushie's) team" because this shouldn't be about teams. Why should it be about "teams"?
I'm late to all this speculation, and I confess I haven't followed the events very well. I have two preliminary questions:
1. Did Gerald Stanley testify? If he did, what did he say? If he didn't (which seems more likely to me), why are we attributing explanations to him for what he did?
2. The jury found him not guilty. How, exactly, do we know why the jury did that? How do we know that it was because of the extremely dubious "hangfire" thesis pushed by the defence lawyers?
Let me confess again my biases. I think that Indigenous people are Canada's worst blemish when it comes to oppressing, exploiting, abusing, and disenfranchising people. And I think the worst thing that happened in this case is that Colten Boushie was killed - not the acquittal of his killer, because I don't know yet why that happened. And I think (as you know) that tweaking the jury selection process will never ever prevent tragedies of this nature, nor bring justice to Indigenous people, without radical changes in our society.
Stanley did testify. He said a number of things, including that he thought his wife was trapped under a car, that he thought the gun was empty, and that it just went off by accident. There are a number of news stories that go into it in greater detail.
Juries do not give explanations for their verdicts
Stanley did testify. He said a number of things, including that he thought his wife was trapped under a car, that he thought the gun was empty, and that it just went off by accident. There are a number of news stories that go into it in greater detail.
Thanks. I'll have to find that information I guess.
Juries do not give explanations for their verdicts
I'm aware of that. Which is why I'm impressed at how many people seem to know why the jury decided as they did. If Stanley said what you just paraphrased above, is it possible that they believed him?
He didn't testify that long, but yes, you might want to look at a detailed version of what he and his son said. I've told you the three main points I thought were noteworthy.
And I have also said what I think of the jury's decision. I'm not surprised some of them might have thought it acceptible. Personally I find it astonishing given the evidence, in particular the fact that Stanley walked up behind a sleeping man, put a gun to his head, claimed he wasn't aware it was loaded, and shot him, and didn't even get convicted of manslaughter for the negligent way he handled that gun.
Really, I am most surprised that they came to the unanimous decision that he was not guilty.
Colton Boushie was not sleeping. He got into the drivers seat and tried to flea the scene with the SUV. Gerald Stanley was trying to stop the vehicle when the gun went off. Colton Boushie was driving when he got shot.
Stanley did testify. He said a number of things, including that he thought his wife was trapped under a car, that he thought the gun was empty, and that it just went off by accident. There are a number of news stories that go into it in greater detail.
Thanks. I'll have to find that information I guess.
Juries do not give explanations for their verdictsI'm aware of that. Which is why I'm impressed at how many people seem to know why the jury decided as they did. If Stanley said what you just paraphrased above, is it possible that they believed him?
Assuming the jury was not engaging in nullification of what they perceived to be an unjust proceeding, and that the jury honestly tried to follow the judge's instructions, there is only one explanation for the acquittal on manslaughter: they formed a reasonable doubt that the third bullet discharged as the result of a freak accident that did not involve careless use of a firearm.
It is possible they relied on self-defence, but they weren't instructed on it so they wouldn't have known how it works.
Colton Boushie was not sleeping. He got into the drivers seat and tried to flea the scene with the SUV. Gerald Stanley was trying to stop the vehicle when the gun went off. Colton Boushie was driving when he got shot.
Where did you read that? The window had been broken, the car had already smashed into another vehicle, the radiator had blown, and the driver had run away. There are conflicting stories about where he was in the car, but the vehicle was not going anywhere.
Colton Boushie was not sleeping. He got into the drivers seat and tried to flea the scene with the SUV. Gerald Stanley was trying to stop the vehicle when the gun went off. Colton Boushie was driving when he got shot.
!
And Unionist, the systemic racism in the justice system is a major part of why Indigenous people continue to be killed and abused in our society. Not sure what "radical change" you are talking about, if you don't consider that central to it. It is one of the first things that the family and Indigenous groups are calling for.
Not only has this trial let someone who shot someone in the back of the head go free, it sends the clear message that white people can continue to kill Indigenous people and get away with it, and another immediate result has been a firearms group taking centre stage in presenting themselves as the victims here, even though the evidence is that crime rates are dropping.
It is also why the victim and his family were targetted and treated like criminals on the night of the killing. Cops barged into his mother's home, accused her of drinking, and they left the crime scene, including the body of the victim, in the rain so there is a good chance evidence was lost or obscured.
And the fact Indigenous people are themselves targetted by police and the courts and social services and the medical system and corrections perpetuates that racism and tells Indigenous people that they should keep their heads down and not complain. Our own premier stepped up a bit after the trial, but the first and only thing he said on the night of the verdict is that people should be careful what they do and say in response.
We are even seeing the influence of that rhetoric in this thread - that trespassing and presumed theft is something that justifies killing someone, so long as they are not white.
The presumption of fairness and truth on the part of white people, and the presumption of lies and bias on the part of Indigenous people.
If you are white there is a fair chance that if the killing is even noticed you will either get away with it, or not be held to full account. It sends the clear message that not only are their lives are not worth the same as ours, their lives aren't even worth as much as our inconvenience and our property. In short, it is exactly why white people continue to abuse and kill Indigenous people. Because we know we can get away with it, and even be treated as if we are the victims.
I expect you are alluding to your own position on gun control, which is fine. But it is not the most central radical change that needs to happen here. Neil Stonechild was not killed with a gun. Tina Fontaine was not killed with a gun. Helen Betty Osborne was not killed with a gun. Barbara Kentner was not killed with a gun. Nor were countless others.
Pamela George was not killed with a gun. This trial was s total disgrace.
"Boushie died instantly from a single bullet to the back of the head as he sat in the driver’s seat of an SUV."
Other people said he was in the passenger seat. More importantly, the car was not moving, and he was not trying to drive away. Even Stanley's son said that Stanley walked up to the car. Stanley was reaching in to take the keys out of the ignition when he shot Boushie.
Not that trying to drive away would have been justification for killing someone. It isn't.
Do we need to question some of the testimony?
"Jackson said Thursday that Boushie was in the front passenger seat of the SUV when he was shot (though she told police earlier that he might have been shot when he was outside the vehicle). Cross-Whitstone said Boushie was in the back seat when he last saw him. Forensic evidence suggests Boushie was in the driver’s seat of the SUV when he was shot."
From that same article, Belinda Jackson admitted that she was passed out from consuming too much alcohol. She said that things started coming back to her after she saw Gerald Stanley's photo.
She is the ONLY one to testify that he was in the front passenger seat yet forensic evidence placed him in driver's seat. She also told police that Colton could have been outside the vehicle when he was shot as well.
She also said that Colton was shot in the head twice but forensic evidence shows one gun shot wound and one bullet.
The person who drove the vehicle onto the property said that Colton was in the back seat of the SUV when he last saw him.
So what exactly was Colton Boushie's motive for leaving the back seat and getting into the driver's seat if his motive was not to drive away?
Not that trying to drive away would have been justification for killing someone. It isn't.
I don't believe it was mentioned or explored but if Stanly believed that his wife was trapped under the car he could legally use deadly force to prevent the vehicle from driving away.
I haven't seen this article posted yet.
http://torontosun.com/news/national/malcolm-half-of-prospective-boushie-...
Almost half of the prospective jurors in the Colten Boushie case were Aboriginal persons, according to one member of the jury pool.
However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun.
I haven't came across any colaberating articles or stories.
I heard, so for what it is worth, some of the aboriginal juror prospects came into the court for jury selection wearing "Justice for Colton" shirts. This is why they were rejected from sitting on the jury. And why they were rejected without questioning.
so if this is true, then they were not rejected on sight alone for being indigenous but for being outwardly and overtly biased.
And Unionist, the systemic racism in the justice system is a major part of why Indigenous people continue to be killed and abused in our society.
Systemic racism, yes - in the economy, in disenfranchisement of Indigenous people on every level, in re-victimizing the victims of an oppressive society as shown in the rate of Indigenous persons in our prison system, in the abuse and murder of Indigenous people by RCMP and police, in their indifference to the fate of Indigenous victims (like MMIW).
But not the jury selection system. Especially not in criminal matters involving non-Indigenous defendants. This is rare as hen's teeth. That's a symptom. And it doesn't even begin to address the question of what can be done to prevent violent deaths like that of Colten Boushie. Finding someone to punish afterwards is important, but it's cold comfort, as the deaths continue.
Not sure what "radical change" you are talking about, if you don't consider that central to it. It is one of the first things that the family and Indigenous groups are calling for.
Decolonization and self-government on all levels of the economy, resources, land ownership, social services, policing, and the justice system of course. That's what I mean. Getting rid of peremptory juror challenges? This is closing the barn door. It has taken over the entire conversation. And it will fade away with the next news cycle.
It is also why the victim and his family were targetted and treated like criminals on the night of the killing. Cops barged into his mother's home, accused her of drinking, and they left the crime scene, including the body of the victim, in the rain so there is a good chance evidence was lost or obscured.
Exactly correct. And where are the charges laid against police, the public exposures and denunciations? There are some, but they have been overwhelmed by the questionable thesis that if there had been some Indigenous jurors, the verdict would have been different. I have serious problems with that notion. It is very different from the position that Indigenous defendants should be tried by those who understand and share their social, cultural, and economic situation - a position I fully share. Am I allowed to make that distinction?
And the fact Indigenous people are themselves targetted by police and the courts and social services and the medical system and corrections perpetuates that racism and tells Indigenous people that they should keep their heads down and not complain. Our own premier stepped up a bit after the trial, but the first and only thing he said on the night of the verdict is that people should be careful what they do and say in response.
Yes, I think you're approaching what I consider the real problems and the real need for radical change.
I expect you are alluding to your own position on gun control, which is fine.
You couldn't be more mistaken. Gun control is an entirely separate issue from the "radical change" I'm talking about, as I've explained above. And I have strong views on gun control, as I've expressed here over the years. To resume:
1. No firearms within appropriately defined urban limits.
2. No individual sale and purchase of firearms. Those who don't have 'em can rent 'em. That means transitioning to a system of no private ownership.
3. Firearm use by civilians is for hunting and sport shooting only.
4. None of the above applies to Indigenous peoples, who have hereditary rights in this respect.
I could add - "no handguns" - but someone in this thread lectured me about how it's valid to have a semi-automatic handgun around the farmhouse to deal with coyotes and foxes. I'm no expert, but I'm still laughing/weeping about that one.
Unionist, it isn't the thesis that there would have necessarily been a different ruling had every Indigenous person not been refused. And white juries have convicted white people in crimes against Indigenous people before.
http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/starlight-tour-brings-offi...
I have already pointed this out, but we wouldn't make the argument that women should not have their right to vote recognized because it won't necessarily make any difference in the outcome. It is because their exclusion is an injustice. This is why these kinds of challenges have been done away with in the UK, and why when they have been ruled illegal in the U.S. when they are used against an identifiable group.
It is also not the only concern the Boushie family and Indigenous groups have with the justice system in this case. They also pointed out that the judge and lawyers were all white, and since you ask where the charges against police are, the family are are taking renewed action on their treatment by police after the killing. I also mentioned that already.
You might not think it is important, or that it is closing the barn door. But we are already seeing the results of this trial here in Saskatchewan in laying the groundwork for the next injustice. It is both shocking and scary how this trial about "an accident" is all about honest white people's fears for their property and thieving untrustworthy Indigenous people now that Stanley is free. And not just from these cops:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/colten-boushie-allegations-facebook-rcmp...
Or this councillor who said after the shooting that Stanley made a mistake in leaving witnesses:
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/it-was-a-stupid-thing-to-say-rm-cou...
So we will have to disagree on the importance of these changes. This discussion page from Idle No More connects these specific concerns, and others to the wider context.
http://www.idlenomore.ca/discussion_guide_justice_for_colten_boushie
Misfit, the car was not moving. Whatever you assume might have been going on there is no indication he was trying to flee when Stanley walked up to the car and shot him in the head.
Not that that would have justified killing him. But he was not.
Paladin, there was no argument made in this trial for justification of deadly force. The only argument made by the defense was that it was an accident. In addition, there are inconsistencies that call into question his claim about his wife. At no time did he call for her, or bother to look under the vehicle to see if she was there.
The story seems to have worked, though.
Smith, I don't know why you are doing this. Colton Boushie was in the back seat of the SUV. Then forwnsic evidence shows him in the driver's seat.
Gerald Stanley tries to disengage the vehicle (putting vehicle in park and shutting off the ignition and taking the keys so that he cannot flea) and while doing so shoots him on the back of the head.
colton Boushie moved into the driver's seat in order to drive away. Whether the vehicle was moving at that point or not is not an issue. Gerald Stanley claims to have gone to the vehicle to stop it from moving anymore. And Colton Boushie did not run from the back seat and into the drivers seat just to humour people. He did it to flea the scene.
and if they backed into Gerald Stanley's wife's car, the fact that the front end of their SUV was smashed in and the radiator was steaming meant that they did a lot of other damage elsewhere on their lot. Colton running to the driver's seat meant that there would likely be even more damage if the vehicle moved and that further explains why Gerald Stanley would want to shut the vehicle off
I'm doing it because your speculation isn't backed up by testimony. The car wasn't moving. Stanley didn't say anything about putting the car in park, just that he wanted to turn off the ignition and remove the keys. He said he heard the engine rev, which probably means it was not in gear. And he has no one to corroborate his statement.
No one said anything about Boushie "running" to the driver's seat.
In fact, if this is going to turn into trying the actions of the victim and speculating about why there might have been a good reason to kill him perhaps it should be in another thread in another forum on this site.
How about "prairie news" rather than "indigenous issues and culture"?
Who said that Colton deserved to be shot aside from you just now? You have been spouting a trail of positions which defy forensic evidence and you have quoted as fact the testimony of one person who was passed out and gave two different statements of where Colton Boushie was when he was shot and then you pluralized it as saying many people gave that testimony which wasn't the case.
if you say that Colton Boushie moving from the passenger seat and into the driver's seat to flea the scene is racist then you are the expert on that too.
What I said was that there isn't evidence that he was trying to flee, and it has no bearing on the case because it is no defense for killing him, so I am not sure why you raise it.
And I am saying that this line of discussion, if you really want to continue it, is probably done in a regular news thread.
There was a rally held last night to mark one week since the end of the trial:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/colten-boushie-rally-one-week...
No one said that it was a defence for killing him. You just said that Colton Boushie was revving the engine but the vehicle wasn't going anywhere and in the same breath maintain that Colton was in the passenger seat of the car coming from the testimony of Belinda Jackson who also said that he was out of the vehicle when he was shot and that Gerald Stanley shot him in the head twice.
if Colton jumped into the driver's seat and revved the engine as you now say, it would explain why Gerald Stanley went to the driver's side window and tried to turn the SUV off.
I didn't say that. Gerald Stanley claimed he heard the engine rev. If that is true, it is highly unlikely it was in gear.
But it does get back to the question of who we tend to believe and who we tend to doubt, to the point that we extrapolate on it and make up things that no one said, and aren't relevant to the trial. Stanley claimed he heard the engine rev. He also claimed he thought his wife was under the car, even though he never called or looked for her. And he made claims about the gun which made no sense.
He didn't say the car was in gear, and no one said Boushie was trying to drive away. Yet some leap to that conclusion, and there are plenty of people who automatically assume Stanley was telling the truth. And assume the worst about the victim who was killed.
Why is that?
And my take on it is that if Gerald Stanley reached in to try to turn off the SUV and inexplicably accidentally shot Colton Boushie then Gerald Stanley was careless and negligent with the use of the firearm and is therefore guilty of manslaughter.
you don't shoot people over personal property.
and regarding the jury selection, I want to see a full inquiry into the matter. In Saskatchewan, the word on the grapevine travels fast. And the word on the street which is not substantiated in any way is that the aboriginal jurors who were rejected had a major bias. There were reports of some wearing "Justice for Colton" shirts and that they were not rejected simply because they were aboriginal.
like many other people, I want the truth.
it concerns me that politicians are talking about reform of the jury selection process before finding out what really did happen.
these rumours of aboriginal bias could be bogus, so I would rather see an in depth inquiry first rather than impulsive judicial reform because of political pressure to do so.
And Smith, I take the testimony of any passed out drunk people with multiple stories to suit their needs on a whim with a grain of salt. That is not being racist.
one witness admitted to lying. He admitted to drinking 24 shots. He lied to the police. He admitted that he lied during the preliminary hearing. Then he claimed that shots were fired at his head. Even the crown prosecutor maintained that the first two shots were not in question.
so we are supposed to belueve these witnesses only and if we don't then we are racist.
hmmmm!
And the word on the street which is not substantiated in any way is that the aboriginal jurors who were rejected had a major bias. There were reports of some wearing "Justice for Colton" shirts and that they were not rejected simply because they were aboriginal.
That is a bold claim. Is there a source for it? I have heard a lot of things, but not that one.
Honestly, I would appreciate if you would let me know, because I will be forwarding that claim to people who should know about it. Frankly it seems like a smear to me, as I can't imagine that anyone wearing something like that would even get to the front of the courtroom (or in this case a community hall).
But do let me know, thanks. It is important to sort out if these things are true or not.
At this point it is a rumour. And I heard it twice. It is definitely something to look into. I work in the public and deal regularly with people I do not know. I am unable to source my rumours.
why is it that we can see aboriginal people as biased but we don't see white people as having any bias.
white people are far too comfortable in feeling that they need to be in control of things. The crown is not able to disclose the identities of the jurors and the jurors are not allowed to speak to the media about the case. If it was an all white jury, then that is problematic.
they could have held the court proceedings in Regina, some place far away from the Battleford area.
they could have had an indigenous crown prosecutor.
there are many things that could have been done differently.
The Boushie family did ask for an out of province prosecutor, back in 2016. It seems to me that this was a reasonable request, given what we know happened in the aftermath of the killing. Even the premier at the time called for a stop to racist comments on social media.
I wish that we had the facts, there is so much stuff on social media, one wonders if anyone knows the truth or even wants to know the truth. Was Colten Bushie asleep in the SUV as some have said? Was there a gun being used by one of the trespassers to threaten the Stanley family? Why would Gerald Stanley think his wife was being run over. If she was, wouldn't she have been screaming? Surely in a situation so fraught with danger, she would have taken cover. If he wanted to scare them off by firing bullets in the air, why would he try and turn off the ignition. Wouldn't it have made more sense to see if they would just leave? Two of the young men ran off. Why didn't Colten Bushie run off, too? Why would Gerald Stanley say he emptied his gun, if he wanted to scare them off. Why didn't they just call the police? As it has been said, they were drunk, they would not have gotten far before the police arrived. Why did the son smash the windshield with a hammer? Why would the son go into the house for his keys? Why didn't Gerald Stanley use the defense of property line, like so many commentators have done, to justify this killing? Why would he go with this business that the gun just went off, and why did the gun just happen to be pointing at Colten Boushie's head? If Colten Boushie was awake, and saw an enraged man heading toward him with a gun in his hand, wouldn't he have made an attempt to escape to save his life? If it is true that Colten Bushie had a gun, too, would he not have tried to use it?
This whole thing just makes me sick. Because I believe that Gerald Stanley deliberately intended to shoot someone. He went and loaded his firearm, with this intent in his mind. It would have made more sense to go into his house and wait for the police to take care of this. This is why we have police services in the first place.
And what makes me even more sick is that 12 jurors believed that this was a possible explanation for what happened, that a gun would hang fire, and hang fire at the exact moment it was pointing at Colten Boushie’s head. I would accept one of these as possible, but it is impossible for me to accept both. In my family, it was drilled into anyone who handled guns that you never, ever point a gun at someone, because you never know what might happen.
And this is what scares me most of all, that people who leave their comments on various websites think it is ok to defend your property even to taking someone's life and the fact that people could think this way is simply appalling and shows a lack of common humanity that is beyond understanding. And the other thing that makes me sad, is the fact that I was not surprised by this verdict. Outraged, but not surprised.
But I do want to feel that the majority of Canadians feel that justice was not served on that day, and there have been many affirmations from those who can make change happen, that we must do better. I hope these words are not just hollow words, and that action follows these words. But if history is anything to go by, we might be waiting a long time.
Most of the time, I don’t say anything, but now I feel the need to speak out and to take some kind of action so that such tragedies do not continue to happen.
zazzo,
Also revealed was the abyssmal response time for emergency services in that area so that people were generally afraid they would not get help in time which could have affected Stanleys decisions
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/stanley-verdict-again-raising-co...
Because I believe that Gerald Stanley deliberately intended to shoot someone. He went and loaded his firearm, with this intent in his mind.
Why do you suppose he loaded a magazine that holds eight rounds with only three, and then proceeded to fire two of those three into the air?
"World's most confident murderer ever"?
It would have made more sense to go into his house and wait for the police to take care of this. This is why we have police services in the first place.
Do you mean that it would have made more sense to go back to his house and wait for the police to take a statement the next day?
Or were they on their way? Mere moments from his house?
