Stanley - Not Guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is it that Stanley did not get at least manslaughter? Why is it that these details are not discussed in the media?

Yeah it’s very odd that there was not a charge of involuntary manslaughter

But that’s what u get when you have a jury.
 
Trudeau is a ‘gun hater’. His comments stir up the anti gun lobby. He was looking for reasons to tighten gun laws and he may have found something now.
 
After Stanley verdict, lawyers say political commentary risks justice system independence
Michael Lacy of law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto said politicians 'have no business at all' in commenting on trial outcomes
The Canadian Press
Linda Givetash

February 11, 2018
9:33 AM EST
VANCOUVER — The public perception of political interference in criminal trials places the independence of Canada’s judiciary system at risk, lawyers say.

Concerns have been raised following federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould’s comments on the acquittal of a white farmer charged in the death of an Indigenous man in Saskatchewan.

Edmonton-based criminal lawyer Tom Engel said when politicians, especially the justice minister, appear to criticize verdicts, the public may believe that future decisions by the courts are influenced by the remarks.

Wilson-Raybould said in a tweet that Canada “can and must do better,” after a jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also weighed in at a news conference Saturday, saying Canada has “come to this point as a country far too many times.”

Engel said if the case is appealed, he doesn’t believe the politicians’ comments would colour the decisions made by the appeal courts or Supreme Court of Canada.

You can't have even that kind of appearance in our justice system

The problem, he said, is that the public may perceive that there is an influence.

“You can’t have even that kind of appearance in our justice system,” he said.

Michael Lacy, a partner in the criminal law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto, also said politicians “have no business at all” in commenting on the outcome of a trial.

“It undermines the independence of the judicial branch,” he said in an email.

“Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” Lacy said, adding public figures should stick to offering sympathies over the tragic loss of life.

Rallies were held across the country Saturday to show support for, and solidarity with, the Boushie family.

mbs101-the-canadian-press.jpg

Colten Boushie’s mother Debbie Baptiste addresses demonstrators gathered outside of the courthouse in North Battleford, Sask., on Saturday, February 10, 2018. Matt Smith / THE CANADIAN PRESS
The trial heard that Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in an SUV that had been driven onto Stanley’s farm near Biggar, Sask. Stanley testified that he was trying to scare off Boushie and the others in the vehicle. He said the fatal shot occurred when he reached into the SUV to grab the keys out of the ignition and his gun “just went off.”

The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations and Boushie’s family have raised concerns about the trial because there were no visibly Indigenous jurors selected.

Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said Saturday that the courts are rife with systemic racism and the justice system is in need of an overhaul.

Engel said the case does raise questions about the diversity of a jury and how members are selected. He said politicians could use this an opportunity to look at how legislative changes can improve those processes, while steering clear of discussing the verdict.

The use of peremptory challenges to eliminate certain people from juries is a procedure that needs to be reconsidered, he said, adding it’s understandable that people are questioning the apparent whiteness of the jury in this case.

“You can’t go from that fact to say the verdict was wrong. Nobody knows that,” Engel said. “I think the perception that’s been created here is just awful in terms of the integrity of that trial and whether racism played a part.”
 
The false indignation is both large, and unsurprising.
No real surprise either that Justine's choice for justice minister immediately joined the scramble to smear.
grumpy.png

I guess even less so with Justine himself, although I will admit I was a little taken off guard when he did not cry...

Uncalled for.

All the bloody way around.

Nog
 
Well-- seems I am in disagreement with many here-- so be it. If the drunk idiots were trying to leave-- let them go! No one should have died .... Posted this on Facebook and it gives my opinion....... Can perhaps someone explain this statement : The trial heard that Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in an SUV that had been driven onto Stanley’s farm near Biggar, Sask. Stanley testified that he was trying to scare off Boushie and the others in the vehicle. He said the fatal shot occurred when he reached into the SUV to grab the keys out of the ignition and his gun “just went off.” Remember the old saying... Justice must not only be done but it also must be SEEN to be done.... Trying to grab the keys while he was scaring him off the property ? Really ? Too many questions IMO to give the jury a pass without analyzing how they came up with a "not guilty" And when do the other charges get laid?? Dangerous use of a firearm, etc etc. This NOT the US where anyone can just say.. "He scared me so I shot him !"
 
Well-- seems I am in disagreement with many here-- so be it. If the drunk idiots were trying to leave-- let them go! No one should have died .... Posted this on Facebook and it gives my opinion....... Can perhaps someone explain this statement : The trial heard that Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in an SUV that had been driven onto Stanley’s farm near Biggar, Sask. Stanley testified that he was trying to scare off Boushie and the others in the vehicle. He said the fatal shot occurred when he reached into the SUV to grab the keys out of the ignition and his gun “just went off.” Remember the old saying... Justice must not only be done but it also must be SEEN to be done.... Trying to grab the keys while he was scaring him off the property ? Really ? Too many questions IMO to give the jury a pass without analyzing how they came up with a "not guilty" And when do the other charges get laid?? Dangerous use of a firearm, etc etc. This NOT the US where anyone can just say.. "He scared me so I shot him !"
I have the same thoughts. Scaring him off the property and reaching into the suv to grab the keys and killing him with a shot in the back of the head don't seem to add up as he had already fired two shots to scare them off.
 
As I’ve shared, I don’t defend his actions nor assume his guilt.

I have to consider simply that the jury found him ‘not guilty’ which means it was unanimous of the 12. It wasn’t a hung jury where there was dissension among one or some the jurors. There must be a reason for this decision. It could simply be that the prosecution did a horrible job presenting their case.

In time, we’ll learn more and if the decision is appealed, we will see if it is upheld. Until there is something to prove otherwise, I will trust the justice system performed as was intended. I won’t subscribe to fear mongering, conjecture, the race card, or association fallacies.
 
Haven't seen many comments on the fact that all of those in the vehicle mixed up their stories through processing and trial?

Armchair jurors as usual towards the charged...
Condolences to all involved on all sides of the story.
 
Obviously there is more to the story here for a panel of jurors to find a not guilty verdict. The media is presenting a completely different picture on the news with almost no facts to the entire events prior and during the incident. It’s a shame that society believes everything on tv social media etc without the common sense to see through it.
 
Well-- seems I am in disagreement with many here-- so be it. If the drunk idiots were trying to leave-- let them go! No one should have died .... Posted this on Facebook and it gives my opinion....... Can perhaps someone explain this statement : The trial heard that Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in an SUV that had been driven onto Stanley’s farm near Biggar, Sask. Stanley testified that he was trying to scare off Boushie and the others in the vehicle. He said the fatal shot occurred when he reached into the SUV to grab the keys out of the ignition and his gun “just went off.” Remember the old saying... Justice must not only be done but it also must be SEEN to be done.... Trying to grab the keys while he was scaring him off the property ? Really ? Too many questions IMO to give the jury a pass without analyzing how they came up with a "not guilty" And when do the other charges get laid?? Dangerous use of a firearm, etc etc. This NOT the US where anyone can just say.. "He scared me so I shot him !"

It is my understanding that he actually went into vehicle to turn it off because the SUV driven by Boushie hit one of his own vehicles where he believed his wife to be and thought she could be underneath it or trapped. To me that seems pretty reasonable to make sure the SUV and drivers did no more damage. He initially tried to scare them off but then they hit the parked vehicle on his property...at that point if you believe your wife to potentially be hurt due to this I'd make sure the vehicle did not go anywhere and call the police.
 
Interesting and potentially important question, OBD. Juries are picked using voters lists. I doubt if the percentage of FN on reserve vote as often as non-FN. and are there substantial FN communities in and around where the trial was held?

Secondly, one is blocked from jury duty if one has any criminal record. I'm pretty sure the rates of incarnation and criminal records are higher in FN communities than non-FN communities. However, where the potential bias is clear and obvious, or where it can be shown that there is reason to suspect that members of a jury may possess bias that cannot be set aside, then the jury can be screened by a challenge for cause - such as being related to the accused and/or the victim.

Yet, the jury is supposed to consist of "a representative cross-section of Canadian society".

So, how many jurors were FN as compared to the population around the area where the incident took place?
 
“Secondly, one is blocked from jury duty if one has any criminal record. I'm pretty sure the rates of incarnation andcriminal records are higher in FN communities than non-FN communities.”
That’s a pretty bold statement. Not trying to stir the pot but like I say pretty bold statement.
 
“Secondly, one is blocked from jury duty if one has any criminal record. I'm pretty sure the rates of incarnation andcriminal records are higher in FN communities than non-FN communities.”
That’s a pretty bold statement. Not trying to stir the pot but like I say pretty bold statement.
It's a sad reality that is also a fact. Either they don't fall in line like others or there is a racial bias you can decide for yourself.
 
http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspx
While Aboriginal people make up about 4% of the Canadian population, as of February 2013, 23.2% of the federal inmate population is Aboriginal (First Nation, Métis or Inuit). There are approximately 3,400 Aboriginal offenders in federal penitentiaries, approximately 71% are First Nation, 24% Métis and 5% Inuit.

In 2010-11, Canada’s overall incarceration rate was 140 per 100,000 adults. The incarceration rate for Aboriginal adults in Canada is estimated to be 10 times higher than the incarceration rate of non-Aboriginal adults.
 
Since you have backed up your claims I will take it as fact. But my personal experience growing up with First Nations and marrying a First Nation is not the case. Not one of any First Nation that I know of have ever been in trouble with the law.
 
Since you have backed up your claims I will take it as fact. But my personal experience growing up with First Nations and marrying a First Nation is not the case. Not one of any First Nation that I know of have ever been in trouble with the law.

I don’t doubt that at all Casper. Again, part of the problem with many people is the guilty by association clause (or as I like to loosely call it, an ‘association fallacy’).

The good of any ‘people’ are too often thrown in with the ‘bad’. Bad cops with black lives matter greatly damages the majority of cops who are good, etc. I have no doubt there are crooked cops, but the fallacy is just as rampant assuming every black criminal is ‘good’.

What ever happened to good people being good and bad people being bad, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top