Stanley - Not Guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking at individual incidents as microcosms of mass-scale social trends is senseless...you can't strip something as complicated as an eight man, two gun, multi-vehicle improvised rodeo down to simplistic statements like "this is a reflection of our colonial history".

That's the equivalent of watching a master snooker player shoot a perfect game and saying "well, statistically, a professional will sink 3 red balls between each colour, so we're basically just looking at someone doing a bit of math".

The trend that occurs at the global level has almost nothing to do with the decisions being made by the snooker player. Gerald Stanley wasn't shooting people against which he had a racist agenda, he was dealing with an unfolding melee in real time. It went awry. That doesn't make him anything but a victim of a carload of drunken, dangerous criminals.
 
I beleive the problem is he openly claimed he shot soneone in the head by accident.

When you kill someone by accident you typically get charged with involuntary man slaughter.

He never claimed that he shot him out of self defence witch most of you are
Claiming you should be aloud to do of thieves who show up on your property.wich also is not the law in Canada. We do not have castle law.

And when a verdict is decided by a jury all the internet gets a say beaucse we could be on the jury next time. So thoes saying we are arm chair and we’re not their ether was the jury.

This is more a case of the prosecution dropping the ball and the defence doing a better job.

As for JT selfie face he’s sure doing a good job at dividing us so he can shove his reconciliation agenda down our throats and what ever other agenda he can in th the name of reconciliation.

And as for the people in North Battleford being racest. I don’t think the colour of their skin has anything to do with it but more so what the people that live on the res are known for. the local First Nations are poor and have a high rate of incarceration and known for corruption.

It’s like living next door to a homeless camp. Where they break into your house and steel your **** or from your car on a daily basis. If someone from the homeless camp is arrested brought in front a jury, people are going to come to the same conclusion especially If the jury is made up of people that live next door to the homeless camp.
 
I think several posters hit the nail on the head using the word - accountability.

Bouchie was accountable for his actions - and Stanley his.

If Bouchie had not been killed - he should of faced numerous charges including, but not limited to: Theft, theft over $5K, trespass, firearms offenses, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and whatever else. I feel for Stanley and the predicament that Bouchie & his gang obviously put Stanley and his family in - along with the associated costs for legal defense, and the fall-out of the negative media coverage.

If however, Bouchie was threatening Stanley and his family w their personal safety - like breaking into his house w a weapon - that's self defense on Stanley's side. But as far as the reporting goes - Bouchie was instead trying to run away w Stanley's property. He was killed for this action - not held or arrested.

If may/may not be that Stanley did not intend to shoot Bouchie in the head - but w/o a video or other evidence of intent - I agree it would be hard for the jury to convict Stanley on the murder charge. BUT - why didn't the manslaughter charge pass? That's the correct charge for when you kill someone by "accident".

Ligert on the Queen of the North got 6 years for not paying attention and inadvertently killing 2 people - and he didn't accidentally shoot them in the head. I can't understand why Stanley did not get a similar sentence - except to feel that jury selection may have played a factor - along w potential poor evidence collecting and lack of interest in prosecuting Stanley fully by the RCMP and the Crown Attorney. - as WMY posted already.

I also don't blame the defense attorney for taking advantage of the system to favour his client - that's what lawyers get paid to do. He obviously was allowed to (as far as I am concerned)- by the system - to cream-off non-aboriginal jurors by rejecting potential aboriginal jurors w/o any justification. I find that a fatal flaw in the system - to reject jurors w/o just cause (i.e. peremptory challenge) - other than the colour of their skin. Sorry - this procedure within the so-called "justice" system does NOT get a pass from me.

Would 2 aboriginal jurors make a difference in the verdict - if we were following the intent of the jury law that the jury should consist as "a representative cross-section of Canadian society"? I guess we will never know - but this is certainly a message to the aboriginal community across Canada that the system doesn't work for them for inherent, systemic reasons - not based on the fact Bouchie is or is not related to past or present elected Chief Councillors in Red Pheasant reserve. That's the take home message here for aboriginals.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, CR - I don't get how it is "lawful" to shoot someone in the head...
 
Don't know what I would do in that situation. I would prefer they just leave and if not, probably shoot them!
Isn't it a criminal act to point a firearm at someone? And then we get into restricted weapons.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-87.html
So what is a lawful excuse?
https://policeguide.jibc.ca/legal-issues/self-defence-section-34-ccc/
https://policeguide.jibc.ca/legal-issues/defence-of-property-section-35-ccc/


I love shooting pistols however I feel owning one is pointless because farmers are the only ones that get away with shooting them without going to the range.
 
Last edited:
Don't know what I would do in that situation. I would prefer they just leave and if not, probably shoot them!
Isn't it a criminal act to point a firearm at someone? And then we get into restricted weapons.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-87.html
So what is a lawful excuse?
https://policeguide.jibc.ca/legal-issues/self-defence-section-34-ccc/
https://policeguide.jibc.ca/legal-issues/defence-of-property-section-35-ccc/


I love shooting pistols however I feel owning one is pointless because farmers are the only ones that get away with shooting them without going to the range.
Good read so far guys. I convinced my wife last night that being on this forum so often had much to do with all the intriguing debate... she bought it after I read some of this aloud.

I wanted to agree with Wild Bill's point on owning a hand gun. ****IN MY OPINION**** (please don't rip my head off!!!) I think it's pointless to own a hand gun. I own many guns and specifically don't own a hand gun because I know it would be all to easy for me to use it in a situation just like this. Had his gun been a shotgun or a rifle things may have ended up different. Maybe not. Just my two cents.
 
Well said capilano,the exploitation by lawyers seeking to gain fame and fortune and politicians using FN’s as pawns ( both FN and non FN) is defeating any attempt at reconciliation. The average FN and non FN people can see through this scam, but their political masters have far too much to gain by keeping the system adversarial , so change will be difficult.We all need to get along, none of us are leaving!
 
Thanks, CR - I don't get how it is "lawful" to shoot someone in the head...
Really? There's a whole lot of reasons that could be legal, lawful and right.

Even if you just start with "I intentionally shot this man in the head with a firearm I knew was loaded" there are still valid explanations. Defense of self, defense of others...absolutely valid. If he is forcing entry into your home with intent to harm you...no duty to retreat in your own home. Think of the R. v Parasiris acquittal: police raid, guy didn't know it was the police, thought the attackers might be there to harm his family. Killed a Laval cop. Charged with first degree murder; acquitted.

But that's just valid reasons for intentionally killing a person.

You get into cases with no mens rea, you're looking at all kinds of ways that it's lawful to shoot someone in the head. If you actually don't get it, look it up. It's important stuff. They should be teaching it in school.
 
...I also don't blame the defense attorney for taking advantage of the system to favour his client - that's what lawyers get paid to do. He obviously was allowed to (as far as I am concerned)- by the system - to cream-off non-aboriginal jurors by rejecting potential aboriginal jurors w/o any justification...

Well. to date that has been both the FN's and mainstream media version of events.
I'd suggest caution whenever buying into such though.
The way the system is set up, no judge would nor should stand for such shenanigans...

Here is an entirely different explanation with at least as much plausibility:

"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."

“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,”


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

Personally I tend to believe what the potential juror (who was after all present) has to say over charges of inherent racism within the selection process posed by those who do not like the verdict, and the madhouse media scramble to support them. You are obviously free to differ...

but this is certainly a message to the aboriginal community across Canada that the system doesn't work for them for inherent, systemic reasons - not based on the fact Bouchie is or is not related to past or present elected Chief Councillors in Red Pheasant reserve.

No actually, that is the message the FN's involved want you to take home.
In fact, the justice system is flawed for all, not simply natives.
Countless cases can easily be identified that well indicate just that.
On the FN front, even with the oft required kid glove handling, Gladue etc etc they continue to have issues with the system overall. In many cases there are indeed problems. In just as many, or more perhaps, they have simply brought the problems they face unto themselves by their very own actions.

In this matter, I honestly believe the latter transpired.

More in a moment...
Nog
 
Quoted from a Facebook Post by Tamara Woroschuk:

"Tamara Woroschuk
February 12 at 7:09pm ·

Chief Bobby Cameron, former Chief Wuttunee and current Chief Wuttunee, I am disappointed at the example you are setting for our people - the people of Saskatchewan.

Not once have I heard either one of you acknowledge the trouble and situation that these young people got themselves into, that day. I do not agree that it’s right to take someone’s life - regardless of their skin colour. I also think it is very dishonourable that neither one of you has called a spade a spade but instead, pulled the racism card. They had a gun and this was a kill or be killed situation... no other way to spin it really. They had attempted to rob another farm yard earlier that day. Half the witnesses were not thinking straight at the time, add into that copious amounts of alcohol and you can’t say they wouldn’t have killed Gerald or his family in a split second.

It’s a sad, sad day for Canadians when our elected leaders, instead of remaining un-bias, take sides. Not once has anyone acknowledged that Gerald Stanley and his family did not ask to be put in the middle of this witch hunt yet their lives are changed forever. No one has apologized to Gerald Stanley and his family for the situation that they found themselves in the middle of that day. Both Colten and Gerald are the victims here. To have Trudeau Tweet his love and sympathy to the Boushie family, after the verdict, completely undermines our democratic society and leaves me with even less respect for our Prime Minister. We already know you have little use for our farmers but this was a low blow Mr. Trudeau.

What you’ve asked Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada to do, is turn a blind eye to the facts and the pattern that has developed over decades here in Saskatchewan. To hear that a dozen officers went to inform Ms. Baptiste of her son’s passing, does not surprise me. Farmer’s have had to arm their property for years against theft... this is not something that we can ignore yet it continually gets swept under the rug and is something we’re not supposed to talk about because it’s politically incorrect.

Was Gerald Stanley racist? Did he have prior incidents? Was he known to go looking for trouble? My guess is “no”, because if he was, the media would have been all over it. If Stanley’s character was brought up in court, the media didn’t report on it. Unfortunately, patterns play a role in our day to day lives. Patterns play a role and opinions are formed.

I really wish it was different as I have taught my children not to see the colour of skin but rather, how you treat people. You make it very hard to mend hurt feelings Chief Cameron when instead of empowering people, you continue to keep them in the victim mentality and dependent on you.

In a Globe and Mail article, Ms. Baptiste (Colten’s Mom), describes a field of raw sewage beneath her trailer because their sewer system hadn’t been hooked up for years and they had no running water. Because of broken windows in the trailer, during harsh winter weather they have to huddle together in the living room with the oven door open. I ask you this Chiefs Cameron and Wuttunee, since that article was written in October 2016, have you helped this grieving mother? Have you made her life a little easier? Is her sewage and water hooked up or her windows fixed? Or do you just talk the talk and wait until you’re in the media spotlight to make your pleas for justice and equality? No one should have to live like this, add on top of that, lose a child.

I would feel like a victim too if the people that were elected to take care of me and my family, haven’t. But this anger that everyone is feeling, should be equally shared amongst our people. No amount of money or justice is going to fix this issue if you are not willing to be part of the equation. When you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Not once have I heard one of the Chiefs say, “we have our work cut out for us, when it comes to working with our young people and in teaching them right from wrong while also becoming productive members of the community.” This is very disheartening to me because I used to work with Bobby. He had such a passion for his work and the people he worked with, as a facilitator for the Ready to Work program, teaching those on assistance the skills to obtain employment in the tourism industry. Tell me, how have our Reserves benefitted from having you as the FSIN Leader?

In a news conference in North Battleford, after the verdict, Chief Bobby Cameron asked, “What would you do if it was your child? Someone needs to pay the consequences for their actions.” Those are pretty harsh words Bobby, considering the other side of this coin was not innocent. Then he goes on to talk about karma and how Gerald Stanley’s children and grandchildren will pay for this... “you’re gonna pay”. So he turns a blind eye on the facts and then threatens the Stanley family? You Chief Cameron, are part of the problem and the divide. And need I remind you that karma swings both ways? While everyone else is trying to be politically correct, because that would be racist or hate based speech, you can say whatever you want without being called out? If Premier Moe had said something like this, there would have been an outright rebellion.

Should a leader not have a level head and not get caught up in his emotions? Especially when he is the head of something as important as our FSIN. And what would I do if this was my son... I would grieve. But long before an outcome like this, I would have done EVERYTHING IN MY POWER, to help my son and put him on the right path. Can you say the same thing? Chiefs, what have you done to prevent this from happening again? Has anyone manned up and acknowledged responsibility for what happened that day?

Everyone is up in arms because they think Gerald Stanley lied about the gun going off accidentally and that he didn’t pull the trigger. However, we can’t ignore the evidence of the cartridge found in the SUV that had a bulge in it, that no one could explain. Why is no one up in arms over the fact that the 4 witnesses stories don’t match or that the stories changed from the time it happened to the time on the stand... add to that, one of them didn’t show up. Chief Cameron has made a big deal about how the focus was on how much they had drank or events of that day. No, they weren’t the ones on trial however, their actions alone, is what caused this fatal outcome. There’s no denying that their sequence of events that day is what set this roller coaster in motion. This is important and relevant information.

Gerald Stanley was a mechanic and who’s to say that if they had gone to his farm yard and asked for help, he wouldn’t have willingly helped them? Instead, these adults made a conscious decision to jump on the Stanley’s quad and in a truck that Gerald had fixed, and then tried to run over him and his son. And if they were too drunk to make a conscious decision, well Chief Wuttunee, we have a bigger problem here and ultimately, that responsibility falls on you as you were elected to take care of the people from Red Pheasant First Nation and make it a better place.

“This is the racism that exists within the justice system," Chief Cameron said. To make such a bold statement, you’d better be educated in the Justice system of our province when it comes to all aspects. It’s an old boys club through and through. You don’t have to go far to find a single mother in this province who has had to fight this system, for years. My point is, it’s not just about you... and it’s certainly not a racism issue. Our Justice system is broken. How many Aboriginal Judges do we have in the province? In trials by jury, what is the ratio of nationalities that match that of the accused? The point I’m trying make is that if we care about these issues, then we have to care about them LONG BEFORE it will benefit us.

Continued...
 
I’m not saying that “not guilty” was the right decision in this case but I am tired of the racism comments when it is in fact you, Chief Cameron, who continually flips the coin to white and causes the divide. Empower the people you were elected to speak for instead of keeping them in this mindset. Encourage them to become Lawyers and Judges so that they can make a difference, when it matters, in situations like this.

And then to hear former Chief of Red Pheasant, Sheldon Wuttnuee, at the press conference say that there has been a lot of animosity and racism for years in the area. What have you done former Chief Wuttunee or current Chief Wuttunee, to make the relations better and foster peace? And then to have former Chief Wuttunee say, “I drive those back roads too... and I can tell you since the shooting happened, I don’t want to break down now.” This wasn’t some random, unprovoked ghetto shooting targeting people with dark skin so please, stop the ignorance. But thank you for the fear mongering and your work in uniting this province.

Former Chief Wuttunee also made reference to the 8 First Nations men, from Battleford, who were hung in 1885, “for trying to protect and feed their families” and how Chief Poundmaker is being exonerated because NOW, “they” understand that “he was trying to feed and protect his family.” “Not criminals but it’s the non-First Nations narrative that wins, and that’s gotta change...” Correct me if I’m wrong but was Gerald Stanley not trying to protect his family... and he was found not guilty, but you’re calling for his head? The word hypocrite comes to mind. Does this make you any better than Judge Rouleau who sentenced those 8 men to hang in 1885? Or is Gerald Stanley’s skin the wrong colour for it to be the “right” verdict? In this case, Gerald Stanley was an innocent bystander, not looking for any type of trouble that day... he did not make the decision to hang those 8 men, he was not responsible for the 60’s scoop or residential schools, he did not take away Treaty Land or sign one of the 6 treaties in Saskatchewan. So why are we trying to make an example of him and make him pay for all the wrong doings that our people, all people have suffered? In hearing everyone speak, I think this has little to do with Gerald Stanley and is more about making him pay for all the past hurts, regardless of the facts and events. There was no winner or loser in this case as all of Saskatchewan has lost.

And because many people think it’s important; I am not First Nations. I am a Canadian and from Saskatchewan, trying to remain objective and united in this madness.
..............................................................................................

VERY WELL SPOKEN!

Nog
 
The incessant bantering over this one continues...

Trudeau’s further “Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better” is also smug PC gibberish or worse. Does he mean Stanley should have been convicted, despite the evidence, because of his race? That Boushie and his friends should have been allowed to break laws because of theirs? Should race trump an individual’s behaviour?

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/joh...ie-verdict-doesnt-show-you-care#comments-area

Trudeau insists he is not commenting specifically about the Stanley case, but he has met with Boushie’s family and promised them reforms. That sounds like a political threat for the justice system: Give us the verdicts we want or we’ll change the law so cases must come to the conclusions we want.

So, then, are we headed for Gladue 2.0?

http://calgarysun.com/opinion/colum...acb52e4c-4289-4c6d-ba66-ffb11365c1b6#comments

Clearly not interested in facts, Justin Trudeau, your Prime Minister has hit a new and dangerous low in his attempt to become the ultimate superhero for the Indigenous and First Nations. In doing so, he is segmenting this country, siding with fringe radical elements, and showing no concern about trying to interfere with the Justice system. Rational, clear thought is being pushed to the side by blatant political opportunism.

https://behindtheyellowtapeca.wordp...r-courts-to-further-indigenous-cry-of-racism/

And The Cruncher next...
 
Heaven Help Us... :(

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is promising a fundamental rethink of how the federal government recognizes Indigenous rights and title, vowing to work with Indigenous partners to develop a new legal framework to better foster a spirit of self governance.


In a 15-minute speech in the House of Commons — an address short on concrete details — Trudeau said he wants to give new life to Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights
.

And... tasked with making this come about is the idiotic Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett who helped spearhead, and drive into complete disarray, the equally foolish Inquiry involving just why FN women get snuffed so often by their own. It has been directly due to her running interference that so many have quit in frustration, and that the Inquiry is now widely recognized as little more than a *****-fest money pit...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-speech-indigenous-rights-1.4534679

Disgusting
Nog
 
I believe that as long as special interest groups get special treatment racism and the bigger issue will never end. One rule, law, and Canada with everyone treated equal could help but that's not happening.

HM

I agree but it’s never gonna happen. Started with Quebec and their special treatment. And now the precedents been set. Any special interest group with a cause has the same right to be heard as the Frenchmen.

Just sayin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top