Colten Boushie murder trial

[Pseudo Sane]

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.

Fellow Sherdogger, I know the facts of the case. I was explaining the difference in gun culture because a large part of the audience on Sherdog is American, and they might not understand the significance of the use of a handgun in the Canadian context.

 

[phesyx040]

Not the point.

Colten Boushie didn't do anything to Gerald Stanley. He was passed out in the SUV. He was shot in the head by a jumpy racist hick.

I keep seeing this. Please, answer me this. Colten was driving the SUV when he was shot. So how could he be passed out?
The others with Colten said that when they arrived on the farm yard he was passed out. One of them said in the back seat and another said in the passenger seat. But then he got into the drivers seat and rammed Stanley's vehicle.

You think he did that while unconscious?

 

[Pseudo Sane]

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.

Thanks for the info about the jury. I had not heard this. A pity it hasn't received more coverage.

 

[phesyx040]

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

Read the court transcripts again. They admitted that they were trying to steal. They had just come from another farm where they had tried to break a window with the butt of the rifle they had, breaking the stock off, which was later retrieved and matched. That didn't work so they went to the Stanley farm. One of them tried to start an ATV and another tried to get into one of Stanley's trucks.

If they were innocent kids just looking for help why didn't they stop at the Christian bible camp that they passed by on the way to the farms they were looting?

 

[El anciano]

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.

Then the trial should have been moved. No way was that guy going to get convicted by a jury of his buddies. Its easy to understand the anger by the natives. Once again they get screwed over and nobody has to pay

 

[phesyx040]

Then the trial should have been moved. No way was that guy going to get convicted by a jury of his buddies. Its easy to understand the anger by the natives. Once again they get screwed over and nobody has to pay

The jurors selected had no ties to Stanley. So just because they were white it always automatically means that they are incapable of impartiality and will acquit ONLY because the accused is also white? Sorry but I don't buy that at all.

So if the jury was all Indigenous the trial would have been fair? If the jury was half white half indigenous then that would be great because nobody could question the verdict, but the indigenous people need to a.) show up when called and b.) not be so obviously biased. Also, the result could have been a hung jury and he would have walked anyway.

They interviewed the jurors and were satisfied that they could be impartial. Both the Crown and Defence select the jury. Not sure the outcome would have been different anywhere else in this province.

 

[lifelessheap]

Even if you believe the Stanleys version of events, the punishment for that is death?

A kid is dead. Gerald Stanley killed him.

A kid is dead? Are you fucking kidding me? No, an ARMED ROBBER was killed. If the guy didn't get shit faced and trespass, and also try to steal an ATV and SUV while in possession of a gun he wouldn't have been killed.

Have you gone onto someone's property while armed and tried to accomplish grand theft auto? Have you been a victim of armed robbery?

My house was broken into and I woke to the sound of my mom screaming. I frantically ran to fight the attacker and he bolted out of the house. It was beyond scary. It fucked my family over for months. My mom and sister couldn't sleep properly for 6 months. Fuck thieves and burglars. And fuck the asshole liberals who care more about them than their victims.

 

[El anciano]

The jurors selected had no ties to Stanley. So just because they were white it always automatically means that they are incapable of impartiality and will acquit ONLY because the accused is also white? Sorry but I don't buy that at all.

So if the jury was all Indigenous the trial would have been fair? If the jury was half white half indigenous then that would be great because nobody could question the verdict, but the indigenous people need to a.) show up when called and b.) not be so obviously biased. Also, the result could have been a hung jury and he would have walked anyway.

They interviewed the jurors and were satisfied that they could be impartial. Both the Crown and Defence select the jury. Not sure the outcome would have been different anywhere else in this province.

Sorry. You lost me at the part where you said indigenous people cant be unbiased. Yes only white people are capable of that.

There absolutely should have been minorities on the jury. But I know you dont think they are capable of such grown up activities

 

[phesyx040]

Sorry. You lost me at the part where you said indigenous people cant be unbiased. Yes only white people are capable of that.

There absolutely should have been minorities on the jury. But I know you dont think they are capable of such grown up activities

Where did I say that indigenous people couldn't be unbiased? The ones they called for jury duty clearly were biased and were dismissed as a result.

You were the one who implied that there was "no way" he would be convicted by a jury of his buddies (you meant white people, right?) So you were insinuating that there is no way an all white jury could be unbiased. So I asked if you felt that an all indigenous jury could be unbiased.

 

[Ol'Ironhead]

Your home is your castle. When some thug tries to tresspass and steal your belongings you worked hard for, and has a loaded weapon, you should have every right to defend yourself and use lethal action especially if they have weapon. How did he know this thug wasn’t going to try to break in and rape his wife if he had the chance? Exactly, he wasn’t going to risk that chance. He took care of business and Justice was served. You want to fuck around and break into people’s homes and property, then you should realize you’re on borrowed time and it’s only a matter of time before you get put down like the rabid dog that you clearly are.

 

[Malvo]

Just imagine being at home and 5 young, strong and out of control drunk men come onto your property with a gun. For fucks sake.

I live in Tay-Hoss though so it'd be all good.

 

[Ayin]

This thread has generally better discussion of this trial’s outcome and more informative and balanced coverage of it than i’ve seen in two days.

Not that I doubt that magic of Sherdog, but for the Canadian media that’s just really sad.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Even if you believe the Stanleys version of events, the punishment for that is death?

A kid is dead. Gerald Stanley killed him.

The punishment for playing stupid games is winning stupid prizes.

Yes, a kid is dead. But let's face it, I doubt the cure for cancer died with him

 

[Bald1]

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.

Depends on where you live. In the GTA or Vancouver people are less gun savy and more reactionary to firearms than anywhere in rural Canada. Most people I know in Calgary, and especially north and west of here have guns. You're a fool not to have means of protecting your loved ones or animals in the Rockies. There are large predators in these parts and it's not unheard of carrying while out and about. Not that I know anything about that.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Sorry. You lost me at the part where you said indigenous people cant be unbiased. Yes only white people are capable of that.

There absolutely should have been minorities on the jury. But I know you dont think they are capable of such grown up activities

Three points:

First, I think one of the real flashpoints in this case is that jury trials, particularly those involving violent crimes, work much better for ingroup violence rather than outgroup violence. When you are all members of the same group, you can generally feel confident that group loyalty will not be the deciding factor. Right or wrong, there is a clear ingroup-outgroup dynamic between the predominantly white farmers and the indigenous population of the reserves in northern Saskatchewan, and neither group is confident that members of the other group will give them a fair hearing rather than deciding matters based upon group loyalty. People who can do otherwise certainly exist in both groups, but good luck locating them, because that involves a hell of a lot of trust, and people who feel embattled tend to lean hard on their ingroups.

This is a terrible social problem without an obvious solution, other than forming a bigger ingroup. Please let me know if you figure out how to do that.

Second, these sorts of incidents become a symbol and a focal point for a lot of otherwise unrelated frustrations and emotions. You can see it in this thread: for some people this is a symbol of the systemic problems and the truly terrible lives of many First Nations people who are born into the broken remnants of a culture and surrounded by the far, far more prosperous and alien culture that swept into what was once their land and took it away from them. It is about anger at how incredibly shitty and purposeless live is on reserve for a lot of people. It is hard to rage against systemic problems, especially when they are largely impersonal. It is easy, on the other hand, to rage against a particular farmer who shot a particular kid you knew under murky circumstances. Picture all the shit about life in the sticks from Hillbilly Elegy, but way, way worse.

For other people, this incident is symbolic of random violence, and of the callousness of predominantly city-dwelling people far away who don't have to deal with the spillover from the serious violence and criminality on many reserves. People who are afraid, isolated and feel betrayed by a system which seems to want to take away their right to protect themselves and their families and replace this with empty promises of police protection. It is easy to get rage when you hear people saying you should belly up and just hope your family doesn't get killed or raped before the cops arrive.

Because of these feelings, people try to cram a lot more things into a single judgment than it could ever possible hold.

Third, another question is how we got to a point where when you call 30 indigenous people for jury duty, 23 of them have a criminal conviction. That's over 75% of the potential indigenous jurors who were called who couldn't be jurors because they've been convicted. That is insane, and whatever the causes, points to a massive and ongoing social disintegration which needs to be addressed.

Whatever the demerits of the prosecution of the trial, I don't think it is the criminal justice system so much as the reserve system which needs to change. In its current form it is doing almost unbelievable harm to First Nation's communities.

But no one has made any coherent suggestions on how to move forward which don't involve:

1) Everyone whose ancestors arrived in Canada post 1500 fucking off and dying ;
2) First Nations assimilating into mainstream Canadian culture and just giving up on being their own peoples; or
3) Continue throwing money at the reserve system in the hope the potable water will eventually come out the other end, instead of heartbreak and misery .

I wish I had a good answer for this, but I really don't. I suspect it isn't something that the federal government can accomplish, but will have to be sorted out in the communities themselves.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

This thread has generally better discussion of this trial’s outcome and more informative and balanced coverage of it than i’ve seen in two days.

Not that I doubt that magic of Sherdog, but for the Canadian media that’s just really sad.

Haven't seen a single subjective or substantive report by the Canadian media outside the identity politics of it. Compare that to that their coverage of the Millard/smich -Babcock case which has been way more facts driven -- and you will see Canadian MSM love to stir the racial pot.

 

[El anciano]

Where did I say that indigenous people couldn't be unbiased? The ones they called for jury duty clearly were biased and were dismissed as a result.

You were the one who implied that there was "no way" he would be convicted by a jury of his buddies (you meant white people, right?) So you were insinuating that there is no way an all white jury could be unbiased. So I asked if you felt that an all indigenous jury could be unbiased.

You said the indigenous people need to not be "so obviously biased." as if they are incapable of serving on a jury like the more superior white folk. Sorry I am not specifically meaning to point you out, its just that I hate how so many whites look down on minorities and act as if they are lesser people.

Bottom line here is a young man lost his life because apparently a bunch of people think it is worth less than an atv

 

[phesyx040]

You said the indigenous people need to not be "so obviously biased." as if they are incapable of serving on a jury like the more superior white folk. Sorry I am not specifically meaning to point you out, its just that I hate how so many whites look down on minorities and act as if they are lesser people.

Bottom line here is a young man lost his life because apparently a bunch of people think it is worth less than an atv

The ones selected for jury duty were obviously biased. They failed the screening. The have to be impartial. I am sure many white people were also dismissed for the same reason. They were able to find 12 jurors that could be reasonable and unbiased. They happened to be white.

White people make up 81.6% of the population in Saskatchewan. Non aboriginal minorities make up 3.6%. Aboriginals make up 14.9%

Is an all white jury really such a surprise or injustice given these stats?

 

[Bald1]

Bottom line here is a young man lost his life because apparently a bunch of people think it is worth less than an atv

Do you think that young man had a hand in the way events played out that day?

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Final thought before I go to bed: people who call on the removal of procedural safeguards from the criminal justice system as a result of this trial should be very careful, because I would bet my last dollar that the people who will be hurt by any such change will not be so much the Gerald Stanleys of the world (who was able to afford a competent defense attorney, probably by mortgaging his farm), but the Coulten Boushies, who find themselves represented by legal aid lawyers or not at all.

The State will always, always, always, come down harder on those with the least power; this is not a value judgment, its an inevitability, because it takes power in the form of influence and money to push back against a criminal charge, and you either push back, or someone else does it for you, or you get crushed.

But let's take this position at face value; assume that the criminal justice system is corrupt, and that it is racist. Fine. if you think that the criminal justice system is bad, if you think it is corrupt, if you think the deck is so stacked that nothing could make it worse, then you are a naive fool. Our system is not perfect, but it could be much, much worse.

So when the State tells you that it needs to remove procedural safeguards to enable to advance the interests of the poor and the downtrodden and dispossessed, understand that every procedural safeguard removed will be another weapon used by the State against the poorest and the weakest and those least able to fight back. It is inevitable.

I have the same reaction to the attempts to withdraw procedural safeguards around sexual assault accusations. It makes me mad as hell, and it should make you mad too. People do not have the slightest understanding of what an unbelievable gift that due process is for the weak and powerless, because it is often the only thing that saves them from getting absolutely railroaded.