Gerard Stanley Trial and Case.

[Nehithaw]

I do not live in the area set out for jurors but to give you some perspective: I live over 500 km's of icy, narrow, gravel road from North Battleford. I own my own vehicle which would be no problem. I have money but I've got my own bills and family to worry about. I would have to pay my own meals, accommodation, take time off work and not be paid for it. All that to make sure that justice prevails? Why should I HAVE to? One would think that justice should prevail anyway.

When a court of law allows a person who killed another to walk away scot-free, would you want to partake in other similar matters afterwards? Many people knew that Gerald Stanley would get off when he was allowed to be free, right after the killing. Many others would have been in jail until their court date. You call it apathy - many others just get accustomed to being treated a certain way and they see no signs of things changing any time soon.

EDIT: This for agentzero: As a lawyer, if you were the prosecutor, knowing that all of the occupants had been under the influence of alcohol and that their testimony was unlikely to be admissible in court - would you go after a 2nd degree murder charge that you are unlikely to win or would you make certain that you at least got a manslaughter conviction?

[agentzero]

I do not live in the area set out for jurors but to give you some perspective: I live over 500 km's of icy, narrow, gravel road from North Battleford. I own my own vehicle which would be no problem. I have money but I've got my own bills and family to worry about. I would have to pay my own meals, accommodation, take time off work and not be paid for it. All that to make sure that justice prevails? Why should I HAVE to? One would think that justice should prevail anyway.

When a court of law allows a person who killed another to walk away scot-free, would you want to partake in other similar matters afterwards? Many people knew that Gerald Stanley would get off when he was allowed to be free, right after the killing. Many others would have been in jail until their court date. You call it apathy - many others just get accustomed to being treated a certain way and they see no signs of things changing any time soon.

EDIT: This for agentzero: As a lawyer, if you were the prosecutor, knowing that all of the occupants had been under the influence of alcohol and that their testimony was likely to not be admissible in court - would you go after a 2nd degree murder charge that you are unlikely to win or would you make certain that you at least got a manslaughter conviction?

Regarding your first paragraph, I will certainly agree that the stipend for jurors is far too low. It hasn't moved in I don't know how long. It definitely plays into it. I don't necessarily agree with your sentiment about "why should I have to" since unless anyone does, then no one does and injustice continues. I say this knowing full-well my situation is very different than so many others and in many ways, I have the luxury of thinking this way. I am very cognizant that most aren't. And trust me, as an aside, lawyers are excluded from being jurors, but I sure as hell would want to be one.

I think your second paragraph is exactly the sentiment I wanted to speak to. If one gets to the point of feeling like no matter what, they can't make a difference, because of years of things going the other way, that to me is apathy. The reasons for the apathy are very, very understandable, but it is the sentiment. Despair can be another. Regarding bail, that is determined as to whether the individual is a risk to public safety. He was deemed not to be. You can say, and I will support the argument, that racism plays into that determination, but that is the reason.

As for your question: the witness' intoxication levels has nothing to do with the admissibility of their evidence. It can play into the credibility, and probably did (and should) but the evidence was admissible. As a prosecutor, I would have argued manslaughter more fervently, with a different angle.. i.e. that Stanley didn't mean to pull the trigger, doesn't remember, but most likely did and that there is no reasonable doubt to believe that he didn't. It's also very easy for me to say behind this keyboard and not handling the case. That said, manslaughter was an option to the jury and they declined it, so it was before them to decide it was manslaughter if they wanted to.

[Loch]

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?

Your entire post was excellent but to save space I'll just quote the part I addressed (which is to say the title is changed).

[Rylant]

Ya ballsy topic which is clearly going to be polarizing.

The entire case sadly does have racial overtones to it. The fact that the defense can use all of its peremptories to eliminate all of the native appearing jurors assuring an all white jury, is something that needs to be looked at.

A quick question because I don't know the legality of it, or if I am off base by saying it. Shooting bullets into the air to scare people off seems a little wild-west to me. Those bullets need to go somewhere, no? Is that something that you can do? Just shoot your gun in the air twice to scare people?

Also, the jury was instructed to find Stanley guilty of murder if they found him to be intending to kill, and if they rejected that, to strongly consider manslaughter if they deemed him to be guilty of negligence causing death. The jury acquitted him on all charges.

Stanley also using a defense of "the gun just went off" is an effort to downplay his level of responsibility. Guns don't just "go off" unless they are possessed by the devil, or sitting in a fire. The weapon expert who tested the gun suggested that the trigger must have been pulled to discharge.

Also, I do understand that it must be difficult in this area, which racial and cultural tension is common. It's a sad situation. Despite Trudeau's misguided comments, I do think we need to do better on a daily basis with our treatment of Native and Inuit people.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened, if the races were reversed. Would a white man be dead? And if he was, would a native man responsible for killing him be free? I am not so sure.

Rylant

[agentzero]

I agree with so much of your post Rylant, from the role reversal to the wild-west thing with the guns. Saskatchewan, rural Saskatchewan, I was told (by a friend who is from there) is a very different place than where I live and yes, that is accepted.

On the jury composition, I would really caution against any idea of ensuring representation other than encouraging turnout from the voter list. Shit, raise the daily stipend. Otherwise, we get down a very dangerous slope.... Very.

[Nehithaw]

Regarding your first paragraph, I will certainly agree that the stipend for jurors is far too low. It hasn't moved in I don't know how long. It definitely plays into it. I don't necessarily agree with your sentiment about "why should I have to" since unless anyone does, then no one does and injustice continues. I say this knowing full-well my situation is very different than so many others and in many ways, I have the luxury of thinking this way. I am very cognizant that most aren't.

Why should I have to judge others? Why should I have to speak up against something that should be easily understood? Why can't all Canadians know about Treaties in Canada? Why can't it be easier for others to understand that the Canadian government allowed for First Nations kids - some as young as 5 years-old to be taken from their families to 'take the indian out of the child'? All of this and more is at the root of the problems we are seeing.

My statement refers to why isn't this common knowledge and why must someone go out of their way to ensure that justice prevails. If justice were fair to begin with, it would not require someone to speak up for or against the matter. Those in place to ensure justice occurs should have it looked after without having someone to speak up otherwise.

EDIT: Thank you Loch.

[agentzero]

Why should I have to judge others? Why should I have to speak up against something that should be easily understood? Why can't all Canadians know about Treaties in Canada? Why can't it be easier for others to understand that the Canadian government allowed for First Nations kids - some as young as 5 years-old to be taken from their families to 'take the indian out of the child'. All of this and more is at the root of the problems we are seeing.

My statement refers to why isn't this common knowledge and why must someone go out of their way to ensure that justice prevails. If justice were fair to begin with, it would not require someone to speak up for or against the matter. Those in place to ensure justice occurs should have it looked after without having someone to speak otherwise.

EDIT: Thank you Loch.

There is a lot in there, Nehithaw and as a fan of philosophy, I can definitely see you on some of those levels. Accountability is ultimately paramount, but for many reasons, most of which have to do with human imperfection, accountability cannot be achieved alone and it requires that we all participate and call each other out on it, as you are very much doing now.

To remain philosophical with you: we must judge others in this manner because we as a collective have decided that is how we want our society to be organized and run. It's as simple as that in my book. If some of us want to change that, processes exist by which if enough people agree, change will happen (and has). It's not perfect and change doesn't always happen, but some does, and much doesn't and arguably, the change that does, comes so too late for so many and on time for very few.

[Mr. Guru]

#metoo

[Rylant]

#metoo

Probably not wise to re-visit that thread... lol.

Rylant

[vandalay]

Great job everyone with keeping this thoughtful instead of full of over the top rhetoric. What a sad story this is.

I didn't see this raised in any of the posts so I thought I'd share. Anyone with an interest in this matter might want to read this, the Judge's instruction to the jury. In my view it is necessary reading for those wanting to comment:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

[Rylant]

Great job everyone with keeping this thoughtful instead of full of over the top rhetoric. What a sad story this is.

I didn't see this raised in any of the posts so I thought I'd share. Anyone with an interest in this matter might want to read this, the Judge's instruction to the jury. In my view it is necessary reading for those wanting to comment:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

Definitely going to read this. It's a long read and very interesting. Thanks.

Rylant

[Rylant]

I agree with so much of your post Rylant, from the role reversal to the wild-west thing with the guns. Saskatchewan, rural Saskatchewan, I was told (by a friend who is from there) is a very different place than where I live and yes, that is accepted.

On the jury composition, I would really caution against any idea of ensuring representation other than encouraging turnout from the voter list. Shit, raise the daily stipend. Otherwise, we get down a very dangerous slope.... Very.

I definitely get your point about the idea of ensuring representation. My objection to what happened, is that the defense very clearly used all of their peremptories to ensure an all-white jury. This all-white jury found the white defendant not guilty on all charges. Now I am not blatantly saying that they found him not guilty because they are white and so is he, but it does cloud the verdict for me. I also am blatantly saying that the defense blatantly ensured an all-white jury very intentionally. To me, that is something that needs to be prevented. Yes, do not ensure racial representation, but at the same time, don't allow the defense the opportunity to filter the jury this way. I am also very curious of the race percentages in the population of the area from which the jury was selected. I honestly do not know what those percentages are. If it turned out that the Native population and Minority population in the area is 3 percent, then having an all-white jury might be more reasonable just because it is mathematically quite possible and I might re-think my stance. However, if the Minority population in the area is 30 percent, having an all white jury is highly unlikely mathematically. I also understand the necessity of the peremptory, however using it in the manner is which the defense did should not be allowed.

Rylant

[chuckcouples]

I definitely get your point about the idea of ensuring representation. My objection to what happened, is that the defense very clearly used all of their peremptories to ensure an all-white jury. This all-white jury found the white defendant not guilty on all charges. Now I am not blatantly saying that they found him not guilty because they are white and so is he, but it does cloud the verdict for me. I also am blatantly saying that the defense blatantly ensured an all-white jury very intentionally. To me, that is something that needs to be prevented. Yes, do not ensure racial representation, but at the same time, don't allow the defense the opportunity to filter the jury this way. I am also very curious of the race percentages in the population of the area from which the jury was selected. I honestly do not know what those percentages are. If it turned out that the Native population and Minority population in the area is 3 percent, then having an all-white jury might be more reasonable just because it is mathematically quite possible and I might re-think my stance. However, if the Minority population in the area is 30 percent, having an all white jury is highly unlikely mathematically. I also understand the necessity of the peremptory, however using it in the manner is which the defense did should not be allowed.

Rylant

Here's an article about the jury selection.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...nley-1.4506931

204 of the 750 summoned people showed up for selection.

[Nehithaw]

[b]EDITED FOR CONTENT.

I never mentioned revenge on anyone. You must have misread something along the way. There is no changing the way you think - I just hope that those after you can use education to learn more before opening their mouths to reveal ugliness.

I will try my best to be civil with someone that has ill-feelings towards me just because I am a Nehithaw. There is no place for this kind of hate on a site that we all enjoy. If you feel the need to continue, you can send me PM's and we'll do this in private if you want.

[Swels Stewart]

DELETED

If this is a joke, it's in bad taste. If not, it's a pretty ugly sentiment for the mods to let stand.