Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

[Canucks_fan18]

What?s the groups opinion on this case? I am having a real tough time swallowing the backlash that is occurring in our country and the media. I live in a rural part of our country and have personally experienced theft on my property. Now that sucks but no harm occurred and minor items were stolen. However now that I am a father if I heard anyone breaking into my house in the middle of the night I would be assuming harm to my family first and asking questions second.

Now do I think Colton in this case should of died? No. Do I think the criminal courts got it wrong? Yes. Manslaughter at the very least. However him and his friends are certainly not innocent and he should not be treated like a martyr. Heck, there are paintings and memorials being put up in his honor. At the end of the day if him and his friends were not up to no good then this wouldn?t of happened. To throw more gas on the fire they were driving well intoxicated, they could of very well killed somebody driving home but that would of not made national news as it would of just been another drunk driver on the road.

Much like goal review calls in the NHL, Society in its attempt to get things right are getting things all so wrong.

[COLT.45]

I agree with your sentiment. you hit most my feelings on the head.
I am a bit ignorant of the details and didnt follow the story up until the verdict was delivered. Was there much protesting etc after it happened (but prior to the verdict)?
Were his friends charged with anything?

[agentzero]

As a lawyer (don't mean that in any authoritative way, just in a helpful/understand the criminal process way) and someone who followed the case very closely, I will say this:

In order to conclude 2nd degree murder, the jury would have needed to conclude Stanley's intent to kill (with no premeditation). The evidence didn't seem to support intent to kill. So far, so good.

In order to conclude manslaughter, they needed to conclude that Stanley was reckless with his pistol when he approached Boushie and turned off the ignition, after which he said the gun went off by itself and the lone bullet in the chamber killed Boushie (after Stanley had removed the magazine). They concluded he was not reckless and I think he was. I think they got that wrong.

Considerations:

Stanley lives in a rural area, jury made up of like-minded people who could easily sympathize with his reality.
Gun expert for the Crown was very credible; the gun could only fire if trigger pulled.
It was a very fast situation, total a few minutes, from when the SUV arrived to the Stanley's and when Boushie was shot.

I do believe Stanley did not intentionally pull the trigger. I do believe Stanley himself thinks he didn't squeeze the trigger. I do believe he squeezed it when reaching to turn off the ignition. That conclusion is manslaughter.

Also consider that any appeal won't be on the facts unless there is a gross error. The Jury believed Stanley's account. He was a credible witness vs the teens from the SUV who were all drunk and attempting to steal an ATV when this went down.

Political comments:

Grossly inappropriate for PM to comment as he did.
RIDICULOUSLY inappropriate for Attorney General to comment, and to comment more extensively than PM. Undermines the entire justice system.

There are racist undertones in the entire justice system. It is far from perfect and needs help. However Twitter is not the way to fix it.

[PrairieDog]

From what I can tell the guy was defending his property - I am not up on the laws around that. ie: exactly what is permissible under the law in the process of defending your family and property when a group of people trespasses on your land and attempts to steal a vehicle? IMO at most it's manslaughter (but I'm not a lawyer).

Try asking that question and you'll get screamed at.

[PrairieDog]

I'm also not on board with the PM remarks. That is blatant political manipulation and it only sparks further emotions.

At the end of the day, people can argue back and forth forever about the jury selection process, about whether manslaughter was more appropriate etc. etc., but Trudeau's comments are self-serving, and not an attempt to jump-start meaningful change in the system.

Yeah, not impressed. He's pandering to the PC/SJW crowd (and it looks like it's working).

[agentzero]

From what I can tell the guy was defending his property - I am not up on the laws around that. ie: exactly what is permissible under the law in the process of defending your family and property when a group of people trespasses on your land and attempts to steal a vehicle? IMO at most it's manslaughter (but I'm not a lawyer).

Try asking that question and you'll get screamed at.

Quick answer is: You can't exactly harm them (certainly not kill them) unless you are defending yourself or another from physical harm; then it's self-defence. Otherwise, you're in trouble. There is a grey area when it comes to property, one of reasonable force etc., but it gets way less grey when firearms are involved.

The problem with this case is that by all accounts, the teens, including Boushie, didn't really show much threat of harm to the Stanleys' physical safety. Property yes, and there was some evidence about the SUV charging at one of them or backing into one of them slowly, but nothing in the form of any attack that would require physical force to defend. Not before the shooting anyway (one of the teens attacked the Stanley mother, but only after Boushie was shot).

[PrairieDog]

Quick answer is: You can't exactly harm them (certainly not kill them) unless you are defending yourself or another from physical harm; then it's self-defence. Otherwise, you're in trouble. There is a grey area when it comes to property, one of reasonable force etc., but it gets way less grey when firearms are involved.

The problem with this case is that by all accounts, the teens, including Boushie, didn't really show much threat of harm to the Stanleys' physical safety. Property yes, and there was some evidence about the SUV charging at one of them or backing into one of them slowly, but nothing in the form of any attack that would require physical force to defend. Not before the shooting anyway (one of the teens attacked the Stanley mother, but only after Boushie was shot).

OK thanks for the info.

It does look like manslaughter would be the right call (in my layman's opinion).

[COLT.45]

It's probably not legally relevant... but if I'm one of those 4 teens and I decide to come on to someone else's private property and the owner of the property comes out with a firearm & fires 2 warning shots in the air instructing me to leave... well... I'm going to leave. Quickly.

And if I refuse to leave, even after 2 warning shots, am I not signalling to the farmer that his safety might be in jeopardy ?
It's an honest question, I don't know the legal answer so tapping into your experience here...

I think the take away is that he held the gun to the head. There is no reason to think that pressing the gun into the back of the shoulder would not have been equally convincing to the teens. As mentioned above, this is reckless behavior with a firearm (manslaughter). There are very few situations where I think it is OK to hold a gun to someones head. Given that this is in Canada and not the US, we know that the owner of the weapon has not only taken a firearms safety course, he has taken an additional one for restricted firearms. He is familiar and comfortable with guns based on how quickly it was retrieved and loaded etc. It would easily take me 5 minutes to access my rifle from standing in the yard. holding the gun to someones head is something I would expect from someone uninformed about firearms...

[agentzero]

It's probably not legally relevant... but if I'm one of those 4 teens and I decide to come on to someone else's private property and the owner of the property comes out with a firearm & fires 2 warning shots in the air instructing me to leave... well... I'm going to leave. Quickly.

And if I refuse to leave, even after 2 warning shots, am I not signalling to the farmer that his safety might be in jeopardy ?
It's an honest question, I don't know the legal answer so tapping into your experience here...

There isn't much of a legal answer to give, really. Being in Canada, things with firearms are viewed so differently (and my personal views on the matter differ immensely... as in.... why the hell do you need a semi-automatic pistol exactly? He said is was to scare wildlife... really?... IMO, no guns, please.).

To get back to your question, it all kind of happened so fast. By his evidence (and the evidence in total, on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt) Stanley had no intent to harm (certainly not kill) Boushie or the others in the vehicle. He wanted to scare them, probably did. Their SUV couldn't really go anywhere anymore, since they'd been driving on a rim for many kilometers following a flat tire. Two of the teens did run away, three didn't including the driver Boushie. So they were scared for sure. The shooting is by all accounts an accident, but I believe Stanley should still have been responsible for that accident; which is manslaughter, really.

The circumstances didn't really signal one where the farmer felt his safety was in jeopardy because of their presence, though in his evidence he stated that he was thinking about the time when a van ploughed into a crowd recently and another recent murder not far away in recent past (about 15km or something). So he says he had that on his mind... I mean, relevance of that evidence is pretty low.. mostly because of the circumstances. If there had been more evidence of threat from the teens, then I could see that thought being more relevant.

Stanley himself admitted to all of the useful evidence needed and coupled with the Crown's gun expert, a conviction of manslaughter was a very logical one. The Jury had to believe he absolutely didn't pull the trigger. They believed the good guy farmer Gerry. However if you ask me, the good guy farmer Gerry probably did pull the trigger accidentally and he either doesn't remember or was very convincing in his disbelief, which won him the day with the jury, who could extremely easily identify with his reality.

It's not that controversial of a case, really, but the racial undertones are heavy. That said, as his defense counsel, I would have used as many exclusions as I could to gain a favourable jury. It's what they do. It's part of the system and so there is your result.

[agentzero]

I think the take away is that he held the gun to the head. There is no reason to think that pressing the gun into the back of the shoulder would not have been equally convincing to the teens. As mentioned above, this is reckless behavior with a firearm (manslaughter). There are very few situations where I think it is OK to hold a gun to someones head. Given that this is in Canada and not the US, we know that the owner of the weapon has not only taken a firearms safety course, he has taken an additional one for restricted firearms. He is familiar and comfortable with guns based on how quickly it was retrieved and loaded etc. It would easily take me 5 minutes to access my rifle from standing in the yard. holding the gun to someones head is something I would expect from someone uninformed about firearms...

I didn't see any conclusive evidence able to show the gun was held to the head. The bullet (sorry guys) entered the lower part of the head, near the neck and exited on the other same side, at downward angle. He could have had it pointing at Boushie (and I think it was) without exactly holding it at his head, so to speak. Boushie was definitely at gun-point, though, which to me was enough to conclude manslaughter. Because as you say, that is reckless use of a firearm.

[Canucks_fan18]

What a breath of fresh air your responses are. With all the rhetoric in the media I was starting to think I was on island by myself with this case. I’m sick of people and politicians using these bleeding heart cases for their own gain. I read the #metoo post on here as well but it was closed before I could respond. I agree with the positive aspects of it but if you make a false accusation you should be charged damages to the full extent that the accused had to suffer. So if a somebody lost their job, social life, emotional stress etc it could be millions.

[Wonko]

Wonderful to find so many like minded individuals on this site. I too waded in on social media against the overwhelming consensus that the trial was some sort of miscarriage of justice to a massive backlash. Crazy thing is, many of those posters still believed the Boushie group showed up at the Stanley farm simply looking for some assistance with a flat tire. Incredible how many people are willing to hazard an opinion without even the scantest notion of the actual facts.

Thank you for your in depth thoughts on the case agent zero. I agree there was no way the facts in this case could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gerald Stanley was guilty of 2nd degree murder. There is an argument that could be made for a manslaughter charge, but even that in my mind would have been a stretch.

Further, I would like to applaud the 12 brave jurors for their integrity in upholding the letter of the law. 7 women and 5 men who would not be swayed by the aggressive court of public opinion and had the courage to deliver the verdict based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing. Courage, my word.

The response by Trudeau and the Justice Minister to this case has been absolutely tragic. Saying that we must 'do better' is akin to saying the jurors got the verdict wrong. Or that the justice system is corrupt. This type of rhetoric only further undermines the integrity of of our justice system and emboldens the hate and anger on both sides of the racial divide. In my mind the most disappointing thing the Trudeau government has done to date.

[agentzero]

In my mind the most disappointing thing the Trudeau government has done to date.

I completely agree. It only incites rage and hatred. Nothing good can come of that kind of short, ill-thought public reaction on a social media site. From the democratically elected leader of this country, I expect better. He can do better. The AG too.

I think it's come to the point where most of the populace doesn't view the PM as a leader. Same goes for the Prez of the USA, and many other heads of state. They are political talking heads but people are looking elsewhere for leaders.. Actually, I believe people aren't looking for leaders at all anymore.

[Nehithaw]

Shit, I had hoped to stay away from this kind of commentary because all of this is meant to separate people further than they already are. There are always two sides to a story, so, since there is nobody else here that can speak from the other side, so to speak, I will try my best. I have seen too many times, on many sites like the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, CBC Saskatchewan, Reddit, or any site that has a comment section - people comment that they have the right to protect their hard-earned property from any would-be thieves that deserve to be shot if they get caught trying to steal.

I am a member of the Woodland Cree - Nitha ooma Nehithaw. I have property also that I worked hard for, I pay income tax (contrary to popular belief), I have no ill-will towards anyone that doesn't try to harm me - if it is none of my business I do not go out of my way to make it mine. I was taught not to steal at a young age - not because of what some book tries to tell me, because it is not right to take what is not yours. This is something I have passed on to my children.

The Boushie family has every right to be disappointed that their brother/son/cousin/uncle/relative has been killed and the person who did it was free for a time immediately after the killing happened and has now been found to be innocent after taking a life.

Gerald Stanley had every right to be concerned about the well-being of his family, as everyone else would have if a group of people under the influence of alcohol showed up aggressively at your house. He had every right to protect what he worked very hard for. Fortunately, in Canada, no citizen has the right to kill. We have a justice system to ensure that anyone who takes a life must pay for their crime.

The issue many of the protester's have is the fact that the defense was allowed to remove anyone that they could from being a juror. The defense was allowed to remove anyone that was visibly-recognizable as being of First Nations ancestry from the jury pool. Would it be considered proper if a group of non-First Nations people killed a First Nations person and the jury was set up to be made up of only First Nations jurors? the optics just don't seem right.

I have always had a problem with getting treated a certain way because of the actions of another person. It wasn't I that committed the egregious actions, why should I have to deal with the repercussions? Why must the actions of other First Nations people be put under the microscope and why must we have to explain ourselves because a group of people that were drunk f@cked with the wrong person? I don't condone the theft of other people's property but I also don't condone killing someone for attempting to steal something so trivial. Fortunately, the laws in our country say the same thing. Which is why Stanley's lawyer never tried to make this a self-defense case, because he knew that his client would be in jail if he had tried. The defense knew from the start that the only way they could win is to say that Stanley accidentally killed Colten. Yeah, a highly likely story. I don't believe this for one second. I have no evidence of this whatsoever but it sounds like something a lawyer would come up with to win their case.

To sum it up - here are my thoughts on the matter:

The people in the SUV had no business whatsoever on that farm, or any other property that wasn't theirs for that matter. They should have been more wary of f@cking with another person's family and the possible repercussions that come with such terrible actions. These people weren't on trial and if they were to have been it wouldn't have been for murder or manslaughter.

These were actions of a small number of individuals.

There needs to be a better understanding of Treaties in Canada from all sides. Too many people view it as First Nations people getting free stuff that others have to otherwise pay for. There are probably better sources one can find but here is one I found doing a quick google search: https://elysebruce.wordpress.com/201...that-fn-trust/

I repeat: Tax-payers money is not used to fund First Nations. I don't think it's fair to dislike others just because many think the opposite.

Firstly, I hope that I never have to go to court, Secondly, I hope that if I do it won't be by a jury that already has negative thoughts of me because of other people's actions, Thirdly, I hope that I don't get killed for looking at someone the wrong way. And no, I won't be going around stealing other people's stuff.

This shouldn't be about Natives and non-Natives - it should be about justice. It is recognized that the current system is not fair to many, First-Nations being one of the groups in Canada that it is unfair to. I am thankful that there are leaders in Canada that recognize this - it is surprisingly refreshing, especially compared to past leaderships in Canada.

I have the utmost respect for farmers - it's ironic to be saying this but I have some friends that are farmer's and others yet that I am related to. They work their asses off to feed their families and are feeding many others with their products.

Please don't let this sh!t hurt your perspective of others. There are all kinds of people that go around doing bad stuff, I can't control what those people teach to their children, I can only control what I teach to my children and it will be to treat others with respect (hopefully that respect is reciprocated), don't steal other people's stuff and work hard for yourself and your family.

I do not wish to continue on with this commentary but if anyone has any questions that I can answer, I will try my best to give you the best answer that I know.


EDIT: The title states "Colten Boushie Trial and Case" - Colten Boushie was never on trial - he was killed and not on trial. It should read "Gerald Stanley Trial and case". Is it too much to ask the mods to change the title of this thread to read accurately?

[agentzero]

The issue many of the protester's have is the fact that the defense was allowed to remove anyone that they could from being a juror. The defense was allowed to remove anyone that was visibly-recognizable as being of First Nations ancestry from the jury pool. Would it be considered proper if a group of non-First Nations people killed a First Nations person and the jury was set up to be made up of only First Nations jurors? the optics just don't seem right.

Before commenting on your quote I want to say that I appreciate what you posted. You are absolutely correct and there are two sides to every story. Like many, I was shocked at the verdict, but from the perspective of the evidence presented. I prefer to view the case from that angle, since that is the angle the court has to work with (and must, at all costs, work with).

Counsel for the defence have a certain number of exclusions/recusals that they can use to pare down the jury from the larger group selected from the electoral list to the number that will serve as the jury itself. They have a certain number that they can use without explanation, then they have a certain number with explanation etc. The number is limited and not having practiced criminal law in a while, I can't recall the exact figure. So, at one point, yes, they can exclude "who they want" but past a certain point, they can't. They must motivate requests for exclusion.

The biggest issue was the turnout from the electoral list. It was low, very low. 750 people were called. 204 showed up. A bigger solution to that problem would have been a larger turnout, with more first nations. It would have made the exclusions of all first nations very hard. Now, the turnout is low for so, so many reasons, from apathy to mistrust in the legal system. There could be as many reasons as there are people on the voter list. Problem is, the turnout was low, so excluding all first nations from the jury was made easier.

From thereon out, I would guard against any criteria for the composition of the jury. Yes, it can play against justice in many ways, but the opposite can just as easily (for example, imposing a quota of female members for sex assault trials against a woman.. certain members of minorities for trials involving victims or perpetrators of a certain race). It is a hugely slippery slope on which, in my mind, it is way to dangerous to embark and the negatives outweigh the positives.

I just wanted to bring clarity to the jury selection process. It's not as simple as giving the defence the choice it wants. It has much more to it and the low turnout does not help. If everyone on the voter list turns out, maybe the jury composition, and the verdict, are different.