- Joined
- Jul 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,151
- Reaction score
- 0
Except that they already testified they werent stealing anything. Just the opposite. They were looking for help. If the races were reversed they would have already hung the shooter
Colten Boushie murder trial
- Thread starter Pseudo Sane
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 6,581
- Reaction score
- 2,022
Honest question here. Beyond calling the police, what steps can somebody take to prevent the in progress theft of something like an ATV? For instance, if I physically tried to stop someone from taking the ATV by tackling them or maybe grabbing and turning the steering wheel and they were injured would I still end up on the wrong side of the law? Is the only legal course of action in the moment to simply do my best to get a good ID and call the police?
M
monster zero
Guest
We call Trudeau PM Zoolander these days. He's the king of the Soy Boys (soy increases estrogen production in males).
A real Tofu Tina smh..
A real Tofu Tina smh..
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,558
- Reaction score
- 1,212
I’m a center leftist from California...
And I gotta say,let a motherfucker(gang in this matter) come onto my property with a rifle,drunk..trying to steal my shit...and fight me for my property...pssshhhh
Slow singing,and flower bringing...he’s dead.
I think cali leftist are hard righties in Canada....fuuccckkkkkkkk
Mind blown.
Paint whatever picture you want of “these wild youth” lol..they sound like shit heads that played a fools game and won a fools prize.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 6,581
- Reaction score
- 2,022
Who gets in/on somebody's vehicle on their property and starts it without the intent to steal it instead of simply finding somebody to ask for help? Honestly getting in my car or ATV and starting it is a strange way to ask for help when.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 31,936
- Reaction score
- 34,270
"Looking for help" has been used many times as cover for robbery, theft, and all kinds of bs in rural areas. It's code for we're full of shit.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 1,028
Fact: Prior to entering Stanley's farm, they had entered another farm and attempted to steal a vehicle. They weren't charged for that in exchange for testifying. Nothing in their testimony suggests they were looking for help, at least not in any reasonable fashion. I know they said they were just looking for help, but instead of driving straight to the farmhouse, the driver stopped at the ATV, jumped out of the car and tried to start the ATV. When Sheldon Stanley (age 28) saw that, he started shouting and running towards the SUV, which then backed up in his direction. Is that how you'd say a reasonable person goes about looking for help with a flat tire from a stranger?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,558
- Reaction score
- 1,212
Lol..you mean the testimony that he just tried to start the atv, but wasn’t stealing it?
Either your dumb as rocks or being so biased that’s it’s causing you to skew facts.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 51,934
- Reaction score
- 25,646
? I'm hysterical?
I guess you got me lol. Fucking with his yard. Ok. Boys will be boys.
M
monster zero
Guest
We always hear these cries of injustice where I'm from in Winnipeg. Guy charges police with a screw driver and is shot: "He was just turning his life around and was an upstanding citizen.."
As someone who lives in the rough area of town, and has taken aboriginal studies courses at the university level I know they get treated poorly and the whole situation is a clusterfuck.. But damn boys, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
As someone who lives in the rough area of town, and has taken aboriginal studies courses at the university level I know they get treated poorly and the whole situation is a clusterfuck.. But damn boys, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2017
- Messages
- 3,409
- Reaction score
- 0
He's like a real life John Redcorn except instead of fucking some guy's wife he's fucking Canada
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,558
- Reaction score
- 1,212
Sign me up,sounds like I need a new truck. This guys argument is a joke
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 76,913
- Reaction score
- 17,499
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 1,028
At the heart of Canadian criminal law is the idea of reasonableness. If someone is trying to steal your ATV, you tell them to stop, and when they don't you use reasonable physical force in order to prevent them from stealing your property, you'd go free. The onus would be on you to convince the jury that your use of force was reasonable in the context of the situation.
Pseudo Sane
Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,327
- Reaction score
- 1,017
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. A couple of the witnesses for the prosecution who were in the SUV gave contradictory evidence and changed their stories at trial.
They admitted at trial that they had tried to steal a vehicle at another farm, but were unable to do so. Again, this isn't defense counsel conjecture; the victim's companions admitted to this. I do not note this as evidence that the shooting was justified, but just to add context to the other evidence regarding their attempts to access one vehicle after arriving at the Stanley farm and to start the ATV.
I am not clear as to whether the occupants of the SUV admitted to trying to get in and operate a truck on the Stanley property, but Stanley and his son maintain that they did (coverage on the testimony was very spotty, so I haven't been able to confirm this point), but one of the occupants of the vehicle admitted to trying to start the ATV.
In the context of an admission of an earlier theft attempt during the same outing, and an admission of trying to start an ATV on the Stanley property, it was basically guaranteed that any jury would see Boushie and his friends as entering on Stanley's property with bad intentions.
Whatever the propriety of the shooting, the story that Boushie and his friends were on the property simply to get help with a flat tire is unlikely in the extreme.
It also didn't help that the witnesses for the prosecution were fully cut at the time, which makes their testimony entirely unreliable: https://globalnews.ca/news/4000597/witness-cassidy-cross-colten-boushie-gerald-stanley-murder-trial/. You cannot trust any witness to give an accurate recounting of what happened when they are drunk out of their gourd.
Think of it from the point of view of the jury: on the one hand, you have Stanley, who has very self-interested reasons to deny a purposeful shooting, but who has maintained a consistent, if unconvincing, story throughout, of an accidental discharge.
On the other hand, you have the Crown witnesses from the SUV, who were incredibly poor witnesses due to their intoxication, their changing stories, and the fact that they had almost certainly entered onto the property with bad intent.
Remember you don't need to believe the accused; his story just needs to raise a reasonable doubt about how things went down.
I wouldn't have been surprised by a manslaughter conviction, but I am not shocked the jury found a reasonable doubt from the little we know of the evidence.
People tend to forget that the reason we have a high burden of proof on the State is to restrict the awesome power of government. Without procedural safeguards, the government can crush you like a bug.
I would not be at all shocked if Boushie's family went after Stanley in a civil trial and won, because of the lower burden of proof, incidentally.
IMO the whole case turned off of going from "we were looking for help for a flat tire" to " joyriding/stealing ATV etc". If they lied about that then you cant believe anything else that came out of the prosecution witnesses.
I firmly believe its a manslaughter case with the penalty being time served or something along those lines. Regardless at the end of the day he took someones life and there should be some kind of consequence because we dont have the " stand your ground" law here
I firmly believe its a manslaughter case with the penalty being time served or something along those lines. Regardless at the end of the day he took someones life and there should be some kind of consequence because we dont have the " stand your ground" law here
Pseudo Sane
Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,327
- Reaction score
- 1,017
This is a good summary.
What Americans have to understand that for a large segment of the population in Canada, the fact that Boushie was killed with a pistol under any circumstances is hugely inflammatory. All handguns are restricted weapons. You have to be licensed to own them, you need an authorization to transport them, and they have to be under lock and key at basically all times by law. Virtually no one can carry a weapon day-to-day outside of peace officers.
I struggle to find an equivalent for the United States; maybe gunning someone down with an Uzi?
Anyone, the gun culture here is quite different surrounding handguns, and a lot of people will view Stanley as a maniac for even owning a pistol, let alone going to get one during a confrontation.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,006
- Reaction score
- 41
I was born and raised in Saskatchewan. I grew up in North Battleford where the trial was held and have been following this story closely from the beginning.
Here are a few more important points I see glossed over a lot while discussing this trial.
- there has been lots of complaining about the all white jury. Out of 750 people called for jury duty only 250 showed up. From what I have read, around 30 indigenous people were contacted for jury duty, 23 had criminal records and were therefore ineligible and the other three had ties to the family on trial. The remainder were interviewed to determine if they could be impartial and were dismissed. I've read that some indigenous people that showed up were talking about "hanging Stanley", so really they shot themselves in the foot if they wanted to be part of the jury. Finally, both the crown and the defence get to dismiss up to 12 potential jurors. The defence dismissed those who showed clear bias, some of them being indigenous, just as the prosecution dismissed white farmer types that might sympathize with Stanley. The jury selection process was legit. I wish there was more aboriginal representation in the jury so the outcome couldn't be questioned but its not like they let Stanley's defence team hand pick the whole jury.
-blood spatter was found on the trigger of the gun which could not have happened if G. Stanley's finger was on it. Stanley had run to his shed to get a pistol, claimed to have loaded what he thought was two bullets and then ran outside, fired two warning shots in the air (crown witnesses confirm this), then Boushie started to drive the SUV out of the farm yard but then veered into one of Stanley's parked vehicles. Gerald claims his wife was in that area mowing grass before these events started and feared she might have been run over. Gerald ejects the clip, not knowing there was still a round chambered, and approached the vehicle. Gerald claims that he was going to try to look under Boushie's SUV to see if his wife had been hit and Boushie revved the engine. Stanley reached into the SUV to turn the ignition off and thats when the gun went off.
-the hang fire defence is sketchy to me because expert witnesses said it was extremely rare and even when it does happen the delay before firing is up to a few seconds, not the minute or two after the warning shots were fired. However, there was an unusual bulge in one of the casings from the rounds Gerald Stanley's fired which could have been caused by the bullet not being sea
-the witnesses were not credible because they changed stories throughout and were so drunk that they may not have remembered things properly. Their stories did not match up with each other and they admitted to lying before the trial and some of them lied under oath. That certainly didn't help the crown's case.
There just wasn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that G. Stanley commited murder or manslaughter. The jury got it right. The second degree murder charge was a huge over reach which created unrealistic expectations in the public, especially the indigenous community.
Here are a few more important points I see glossed over a lot while discussing this trial.
- there has been lots of complaining about the all white jury. Out of 750 people called for jury duty only 250 showed up. From what I have read, around 30 indigenous people were contacted for jury duty, 23 had criminal records and were therefore ineligible and the other three had ties to the family on trial. The remainder were interviewed to determine if they could be impartial and were dismissed. I've read that some indigenous people that showed up were talking about "hanging Stanley", so really they shot themselves in the foot if they wanted to be part of the jury. Finally, both the crown and the defence get to dismiss up to 12 potential jurors. The defence dismissed those who showed clear bias, some of them being indigenous, just as the prosecution dismissed white farmer types that might sympathize with Stanley. The jury selection process was legit. I wish there was more aboriginal representation in the jury so the outcome couldn't be questioned but its not like they let Stanley's defence team hand pick the whole jury.
-blood spatter was found on the trigger of the gun which could not have happened if G. Stanley's finger was on it. Stanley had run to his shed to get a pistol, claimed to have loaded what he thought was two bullets and then ran outside, fired two warning shots in the air (crown witnesses confirm this), then Boushie started to drive the SUV out of the farm yard but then veered into one of Stanley's parked vehicles. Gerald claims his wife was in that area mowing grass before these events started and feared she might have been run over. Gerald ejects the clip, not knowing there was still a round chambered, and approached the vehicle. Gerald claims that he was going to try to look under Boushie's SUV to see if his wife had been hit and Boushie revved the engine. Stanley reached into the SUV to turn the ignition off and thats when the gun went off.
-the hang fire defence is sketchy to me because expert witnesses said it was extremely rare and even when it does happen the delay before firing is up to a few seconds, not the minute or two after the warning shots were fired. However, there was an unusual bulge in one of the casings from the rounds Gerald Stanley's fired which could have been caused by the bullet not being sea
-the witnesses were not credible because they changed stories throughout and were so drunk that they may not have remembered things properly. Their stories did not match up with each other and they admitted to lying before the trial and some of them lied under oath. That certainly didn't help the crown's case.
There just wasn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that G. Stanley commited murder or manslaughter. The jury got it right. The second degree murder charge was a huge over reach which created unrealistic expectations in the public, especially the indigenous community.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,006
- Reaction score
- 41
G. Stanley had a licence to own a hand gun. He ran to go get it from his shed. I disagree that people would fid him a maniac for having a hand gun. Its not that unusual for farmers to have firearms, including hand guns. He claims to use it to scare away coyotes and allegedly only retrieved it to scare away the intruders, firing warning shots into the air.
