Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

  1. #46
    Atomic Wedgy's Avatar
    Atomic Wedgy is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    7,102
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Master

    Default Re: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

    Quote Originally Posted by renello View Post
    Some of my best friends are native
    Thanks for that.

    Its not exactly ancient history mate. My dad and all his brothers and sisters were forcably removed from their homes to live in residential schools where they were abused sexually, physically and mentally. They were punished for speaking their native tongue and they were not allowed to speak or have any contact with their parents. Families were torn apart due to the policy of Canada to assimilate the entire aboriginal community of Canada. Many kids just killed themselves. Some of them were killed by people who ran the schools. This was just swept under the carpet at the time. I do not believe you understand that of which you speak, so I would just leave it alone.

  2. #47
    Rylant's Avatar
    Rylant is offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,812
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Star

    Default Re: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

    Quote Originally Posted by renello View Post
    No worries Atomic. Some of my best friends are native and they figure the verdict in the Stanley case is fair. Every ethnic group has suffered at some point in the past, many continue to suffer today. There are currently many atrocities occurring worldwide. There are shifts in cultures, religions, governments over time. Yes natives had a rough ride but then they did the same to each other before Europeans arrived on the scene in numbers. Time to look forward and learn lessons from the past. The way to healing is to end the cycle of dependence. Aboriginals have been indoctrinated by their leadership into believing that they are entitled to be “maintained” in perpetuity by others. Let them establish indigenous sovereignty but on their own dime. Giving in to constant demands begets more demands. Extinguish all transfers and entitlements, let them make it, or not, on their own, and perhaps regain some measure of pride and self-respect. Reserves are ridiculous. Most have no economic basis for existence. The current structure is flawed. Individuals should own their homes and lands. Not be subject to whims of a chief.
    Misguided post of the day? You knew it was only a matter of time before the respectful posts of this thread turned into a shit show. This kind of attitude makes me sad, and I think has the ability to turn this thread upside down.

    Rylant

  3. #48
    agentzero's Avatar
    agentzero is offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,369
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Master

    Default Re: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

    Ugh.. I tried.

    At least no (few?) blatant insults or personal attacks were flung... I have no problem with someone expressing their views but they should be informed. If they're not, then it degenerates pretty fast.
    Blades of Steel
    9 Team Full Keeper - Pts Only (G,A,W,SO)

    Crosby, Wheeler, Bergeron, Forsberg, Connor, Kopitar, E.Lindholm, Pastrnak, DeBrincat, Fiala
    Jones, Klingberg, Hamilton, Theodore, Letang
    Saros, Shesterkin
    Garland, Vrana, Bjorkstrand, Verhaege, Backstrom, Karlsson, Perunovich, Spurgeon, Pulock, Hellebuyck

  4. #49
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default Re: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

    Quote Originally Posted by agentzero View Post
    Ugh.. I tried.

    At least no (few?) blatant insults or personal attacks were flung... I have no problem with someone expressing their views but they should be informed. If they're not, then it degenerates pretty fast.
    Agreed. Saying USA/CAN (among other countries) indigenous or native cultures have had a "rough ride" has to be the understatement of the year. Theirs is a very unique situation in that European (spanish too) settlers didn't even bother with attempting to enslave indigenous peoples, they skipped right to eradicating them altogether. Essentially, genocide. They've been relegated to unusable land just to ensure the survival of their kind....their very culture and any semblance of identity. Disease,violence, imposing our way of life onto them (assimilation). There are/were so many prohibitions against them, and now we're expected to believe the few scraps tossed are too much. Gee hunting rights...ya don't say?

    Equality.

    Yes.

    Laughable.
    @SmittysRant

  5. #50
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default Re: Colten Boushie Trial and Case.

    Quote Originally Posted by agentzero View Post
    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.
    See. The problem I have is we are all dissecting this from a logical and measured POV, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a man, isolated on his farm (as has been stated) when teens or grown males unexpectedly happen upon his premises with seemingly ill intent is in a position to second guess the safety of his family over the legal rights of trespassers.

    at least one person attempted to steal a truck by hitting the truck window with a .22-calibre rifle that was in the back of the SUV.
    The SUV was eventually driven onto Stanley?s farm. In the ensuing moments, an occupant of the SUV attempted to start a quad on Stanley?s property and the grey SUV collided with a parked vehicle on Stanley?s property, court heard. During the incident, Boushie ? sitting in the driver?s seat ? was killed by a single gunshot to the head from a handgun held at the time by Gerald Stanley.
    ..if that much is true. Manslaughter, sure technically. But time served and reduced sentence should be allocated.
    @SmittysRant

  6. #51
    agentzero's Avatar
    agentzero is offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,369
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Master

    Default Re: Colten Boushie Trial and Case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomm Bastic View Post
    See. The problem I have is we are all dissecting this from a logical and measured POV, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a man, isolated on his farm (as has been stated) when teens or grown males unexpectedly happen upon his premises with seemingly ill intent is in a position to second guess the safety of his family over the legal rights of trespassers.





    ..if that much is true. Manslaughter, sure technically. But time served and reduced sentence should be allocated.
    I don't think anyone questioned what you are saying. In fact, it was a large part of the narrative.

    Stanley and his family were not looking for trouble. Trouble found them, and the whole thing was over within two minutes.

    Boushie's death was an accident, but Stanley was holding a loaded firearm in his hand when he went to approach the SUV to pull out the keys. I absolutely believe he did not want to kill Boushie, but when you have a firearm in-hand and it is not a situation of self-defence, then the question is whether he was reckless with his pistol. Given the circumstances, I think he was and that carries an "automatic" (read: logical) conclusion of manslaughter.

    It all comes down to whom is responsible for Boushie's death. Here, there is responsibility both with Boushie and with Stanley. That would definitely factor into the sentencing. Now, sentencing is a whole other ball-game and since he was acquitted, it would be really hard to speculate on that.
    Blades of Steel
    9 Team Full Keeper - Pts Only (G,A,W,SO)

    Crosby, Wheeler, Bergeron, Forsberg, Connor, Kopitar, E.Lindholm, Pastrnak, DeBrincat, Fiala
    Jones, Klingberg, Hamilton, Theodore, Letang
    Saros, Shesterkin
    Garland, Vrana, Bjorkstrand, Verhaege, Backstrom, Karlsson, Perunovich, Spurgeon, Pulock, Hellebuyck

  7. #52
    everfeb's Avatar
    everfeb is offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,232
    Rep Power
    23

    Dobber Sports Padawan

    Default Re: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

    I feel Mr. Stanley should have gotten Manslaughter at the minimum. This is going to irk some people here but he did leave the safety and shelter of his home and aggressively confront the people on his property. Had he stayed in his home this death would not have happened. Approaching 4 people like this was reckless on Stanley's part and COULD have led to his death and possibly his family's. The way it turned out he killed another human...but he saved his ATV and Vehicle? Had he stayed in his house, he might have had to make an insurance claim. And what were the keys doing in the SUV. On the other hand, if 1 or all 4 of the people in his yard breached his house, I'd have no problem with his shooting at them.
    As exerps from the linked article below state, Mr. Stanley's defence was one of accident so Manslaughter applies when someone is doing an unlawful act like careless use of a firearm.
    If this post is out of line please delete.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    https://www.utoronto.ca/news/how-can...hie-u-t-expert

    "The jury was instructed that if the accused was not guilty of murder that they should consider whether he was guilty of manslaughter. I was very surprised that the jury did not come in with at least a manslaughter verdict. And that’s because the defence that Mr. Stanley mounted is a defence of accident, and the way it works in Canadian law is that if you believe that the discharge was accidental, then that means there’s at least a reasonable doubt that he didn't have the intent to kill.

    So therefore you get an acquittal on murder, but the way it works is we have an extremely broad manslaughter offense in Canada. And it applies whenever someone is doing an unlawful act like careless use of a firearm, which seems to have been present here, pointing a gun at a person’s head."
    SOME POOL RULES. Points only (G-1, A-1). One year Hybrid Pool. 3 round draft with balance of roster selected from any undrafted NHLer.. 19F 4 D 2 Rooks SALARIES AND POSITIONS DO NOT MATTER (other than being a F or D). NO Inter-Team Trading, Bench or Minors. Our WAIVER WIRE is ANY player in the NHL who is not Drafted in our league's 3 round draft. Each manager gets 6 ADD/DROPS (TRADES) for the year...any player on roster can be TRADED for any unDrafted F/D/R from ANY NHL team. INJURY RULE "IR". A hurt player can be replaced by another F/D from HIS NHL team and this is NOT considered a trade.. Injured player can be put back on team any time.

  8. #53
    Nehithaw's Avatar
    Nehithaw is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,438
    Rep Power
    38

    Dobber Sports Ace

    Default Re: Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

    I read the article on the National Post regarding the judges instructions to the jurors. The article states to "put yourself in a juror's shoes".

    Here is something that caught my eye:

    "If you have a reasonable doubt about Mr. Stanley?s guilt arising from the credibility of the witnesses then you must find him not guilty."

    To my understanding, if none of the witnesses in the car were sober, then their testimony hurt the case more than it helped because their credibility was already questioned/ripped to shreds.
    We often here the saying, there are two sides to a story, in this case, because the occupants of the SUV were intoxicated (taking into account what is said above in the quote) that there is only one side to this story.

    Gerald Stanley could have said anything and it was ultimately believed by almost everyone, our members here included.

    This is just my opinion and mine alone - Gerald Stanley had his gun go off accidentally and killed Colten Boushie, like that millionaire tripped and fell on that girl, penetrating her in the process - he was acquitted too. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...arge/77416928/
    Comish Dynasty - 3 Tiers - 24 GMs (G A +/- PIM STP SOG HITS BLK W SV GAA / 4C, 4LW, 4RW, 6D, 1G) - $1130 SALARY CAP - Tier 1

    C - Point $111, Horvat $67, Athanasiou $27 (C/LW), Mittelstadt $5, Lafferty $5 (C,LW,RW), Kupari $5, Coyle $40 (C/RW), Saarela $5
    LW - E.Kane $130, Bertuzzi $11 (LW/RW), Matt Martin $27, B.Lemieux $5, Haula (C/LW) $5, Motte $5,
    RW - Tarasenko $117, Keller $28 (RW/LW), Niederreiter $65 (LW/RW) , Tatar $57 (LW/RW), Kyrou $5 (C/LW), B.Ritchie
    D - Werenski $62, Pulock $57, R.Ellis $65, Ceci $36, T.Myers $59, T.DeAngelo $9, Bear $5, Witkowski, $5, Byram $5, Boqvist $5, T.Smith $5, Capobianco $5
    G - Grubauer $42, Rittich $27, Sorokin $5,


  9. #54
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default Re: Colten Boushie Trial and Case.

    Quote Originally Posted by agentzero View Post
    I don't think anyone questioned what you are saying. In fact, it was a large part of the narrative.

    Stanley and his family were not looking for trouble. Trouble found them, and the whole thing was over within two minutes.

    Boushie's death was an accident, but Stanley was holding a loaded firearm in his hand when he went to approach the SUV to pull out the keys. I absolutely believe he did not want to kill Boushie, but when you have a firearm in-hand and it is not a situation of self-defence, then the question is whether he was reckless with his pistol. Given the circumstances, I think he was and that carries an "automatic" (read: logical) conclusion of manslaughter.

    It all comes down to whom is responsible for Boushie's death. Here, there is responsibility both with Boushie and with Stanley. That would definitely factor into the sentencing. Now, sentencing is a whole other ball-game and since he was acquitted, it would be really hard to speculate on that.
    Yeah...no...I'm just thinking out loud. I'm guilty of it too - we tend talk discuss a thing as if the facts currently known were known at the time of the incident. In this instance, it's important for jurors (or us here) to put ourselves in the point in time of this very unfortunate incident, in an attempt to discern right from wrong. Not any easy thing to be sure. I know nothing about the lay of land or environment where this incident occurred nor all the pertinent details. Just very broad, general "facts" if you will.


    ...and from what I know, I would say a manslaughter conviction would have been reasonable. The thing I am hung up on is the sentence, were he actually found guilty. I would have difficulty pinning to much time to his actions. That's where I'm hung up...as a man who would protect his family and is equally prone to irrational behavior.
    @SmittysRant

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •