Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 02-14-2018, 02:04 PM   #481
OMG!WTF!
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5 View Post
Well according to Gerald Stanley it was to fire shots in the air and scare them off, not to shoot someone.
Yeah I was trying to say that because he didn't claim self defense doesn't mean he was not lawfully defending himself under the circumstances.

Like there has to be a reason to have the guns out. Target shooting for example. If Stanley was target shooting with friends he might be guilty because pointing a gun at someone's head would be negligent.

In this case, the air of self defense has to considered or it would be a negligent event. Maybe not self defense but the over all circumstances.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 03:31 PM   #482
Makarov
#1 Goaltender
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll View Post
In this case itís easy. It was never argued that Stanley shot Boushie in self-defence.
Yes, I know. That was the point I made earlier.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 03:39 PM   #483
meritmat
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

OK

So the one thing we can agree on is, Stanley had a great lawyer.

Quick question, rough guess what his lawyer bill would be?
meritmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 03:43 PM   #484
taco.vidal
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meritmat View Post
OK

So the one thing we can agree on is, Stanley had a great lawyer.

Quick question, rough guess what his lawyer bill would be?
I dont think his lawyer was necessarily great. I think his defense was rather obvious especially once the crown laid out its case.
taco.vidal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 03:47 PM   #485
Makarov
#1 Goaltender
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
Yeah I was trying to say that because he didn't claim self defense doesn't mean he was not lawfully defending himself under the circumstances.

Like there has to be a reason to have the guns out. Target shooting for example. If Stanley was target shooting with friends he might be guilty because pointing a gun at someone's head would be negligent.

In this case, the air of self defense has to considered or it would be a negligent event. Maybe not self defense but the over all circumstances.
The Crown agreed that he had a lawful reason to have the gun and even to fire the gun in the air as warning shots (if that is what he did) (the concession regarding the warning shots is a bit surprising to me but whatever.) No one argued that merely having the gun out was an unlawful or negligent act. Similarly, no one would argue that the act of pulling out a firearm at a gun range is in itself unlawful or negligent.

The issue in both circumstances is what the accused person does with the firearm in the moments before the fatal shot is fired. Are those actions unlawful or negligent? He didnít pay attention to where his firearm was pointed when he reached into the car. Mr. Boushie was in close proximity. But it was a stressful, chaotic situation. Was he careless in the circumstances? Was he negligent? Itís not an easy answer (for me).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 03:50 PM   #486
meritmat
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

More about the "flawed" jury selection...

http://torontosun.com/news/national/...r-of-jury-pool

Real story comes out after the fact.
meritmat is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to meritmat For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 04:54 PM   #487
Flamenspiel
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

nm
Flamenspiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 06:59 PM   #488
icecube
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: compton
Exp:
Default

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...00004628251014
icecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 07:09 PM   #489
jonesy
First Line Centre
 
jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: spLiceland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icecube View Post
Interesting. She says that if her sons had shown up at his door they would not have been shot. Infers it is because they are white.

Left out the super drunk part, having a gun part, running over the lawn mower your wife was using part, driving on the property in a car with a serious run flat.

It really deflates the argument
__________________
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jonesy For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 07:17 PM   #490
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icecube View Post
I am assuming that by posting that that you are responding to my question to say that all things being exactly equal apart from it being white adults attacking the farm that things would have been much different. Is that correct?

A couple of replies to the lady (which you appear to agree with) suggesting that.
I am sure that my sons could have shown up on Gerald Stanley's farm and he would not have gotten out his semi-automatic pistol. And I'm also sure it wouldn't have discharged accidentally. And I'm also sure that if it had, he would have at least been found guilty of manslaughter, or improper use of a firearm. Or something. I'm also sure police wouldn't have come to my house and searched it. They would, perhaps, have searched the murderer's house.
Quote:
If my son was drunk, in a car driving with other drunk people and a loaded gun, taking part in a home invasion, driving into a person's yard to steal their things, I can guarantee you that there would be no expectation of protection based on his skin colour or appearance of race. There would be a feeling of complete failure on my part, that as his mother I did not do a better job of teaching him to make good choices. I would be angry that his father did not do a better job of teaching him how to make good choices for himself. But no- I would not expect his white skin to be an excuse or a protection.
Quote:
My kids are indigenous and they haven't been harrassed by the police or "white" people. If I lived in the country and had someone come on to my property that I didn't know I sure in the heck would be scared too. I don't care what race they are! Too much crime going on nowadays. Can't trust anyone. This Stanley dude would have probably done the same thing had it been a carload of "white" guys he didn't know. The justice system is messed up period. Criminals go free constantly whatever race they are. But to say this was a race issue just instills more hate. Do you even know ANYTHING about this guy to say that he was a racist? Don't get me wrong because what happened to this young man was terrible and I feel for his family. I also feel bad for Gerald Stanley and his family and what they are having to go through as well. Until you know for certain that this had to do with race it is wrong for you to assume otherwise.
__________________



Last edited by Bagor; 02-14-2018 at 07:20 PM.
Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 07:21 PM   #491
jonesy
First Line Centre
 
jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: spLiceland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meritmat View Post
More about the "flawed" jury selection...

http://torontosun.com/news/national/...r-of-jury-pool

Real story comes out after the fact.
Does Justin Trudeau know this?
__________________
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 07:22 PM   #492
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Why are we posting random Facebook posts in here? And why would anyone read them?
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 07:48 PM   #493
WhiteTiger
Franchise Player
 
WhiteTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Why are we posting random Facebook posts in here? And why would anyone read them?
In the absence of facts, one must turn to conjecture and opinion.
WhiteTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 08:41 PM   #494
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
Yeah I was trying to say that because he didn't claim self defense doesn't mean he was not lawfully defending himself under the circumstances.

Like there has to be a reason to have the guns out. Target shooting for example. If Stanley was target shooting with friends he might be guilty because pointing a gun at someone's head would be negligent.

In this case, the air of self defense has to considered or it would be a negligent event. Maybe not self defense but the over all circumstances.
If he had the gun out for self defense, why would he only load 2 bullets, fire them in the air, and then pull his clip out? Doing so just made his weapon completely useless for self defense. Why not load a full clip? The RCMP photos of his shed showed a full set of 8 rounds ready to load:

http://media.socastsrm.com/wordpress...S-ammo-bag.png


Saskatchewan lawyer Rob Feist posted a pretty good critique of Stanley's account and I agree with the questions he raises. Stanley's account just doesn't make a lot of sense to me:


Quote:
Gerald Stanleyís defence is the defence of accident. If you believe it, his defence explains all of the physical evidence, and most particularly a Tokarev casing found on the SUV dash and Coltenís DNA found on the Tokarev itself. But to believe it completely, you have to accept the following:


A. Gerald Stanley did not know how many rounds he put into the Tokarev;


B. Gerald Stanley, who believed he or his family were under threat, loaded his firearm with two shells, and then fired both shells in the air, leaving his firearm empty and useless for self-defence;


C. Gerald Stanley tried to make the Tokarev safe by repeatedly pulling its trigger into the air;


D. Gerald Stanley took the time, in this situation, to make the Tokarev safe before proceeding to the vehicle he believed had run over his wife;


E. Gerald Stanley believed the Boushie SUV had run over his wife, even though there was no explanation for his belief, other than his wife not being on the lawnmower;


F. Gerald Stanley went to the window of the vehicle to turn the vehicle off to immobilize it, even though the driver had exited the vehicle, and Colten Boushie, the person nearest the steering wheel, was asleep or passed out;


G. Gerald Stanley used his left hand to attempt to turn off the vehicle ignition, keeping the firearm in his right hand, even though he claimed the firearm was made safe, and using your left hand through a driverís side window to turn off an ignition is incredibly awkward; and


H. Gerald Stanley experienced a hang-fire - an extremely rare occurrence in itself - with a duration of many seconds - an almost impossible length of time for a hang-fire - at the precise second his Tokarev was aimed at close range at Colten Boushieís skull.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 08:49 PM   #495
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Alternatively, the Crown’s theory is that Gerald Stanley committed the offence of manslaughter based on his careless use of the Tokarev handgun.

The carelessness included the following: that Gerald Stanley was not careful enough to count how many cartridges he loaded into the magazine of the Tokarev handgun;

Gerald Stanley did not know how many times he pulled the trigger of the Tokarev handgun before he approached the grey Ford Escape.

Gerald Stanley was not aware of the safety mechanisms on his own handgun despite owning it for four years. This included his mistaken belief that there was a magazine disconnect that would have prevented the trigger from functioning when the magazine was removed.

Gerald Stanley put himself within arm’s length of people while armed with a handgun that he had made not safe.

Gerald Stanley was careless when he engaged in the physical confrontation with Colten Boushie while holding a loaded handgun close to Mr. Boushie’s head while other individuals were in the back seat.

Gerald Stanley was not aware of what his right hand was doing when he reached into the cabin of the grey Ford Escape.

Gerald Stanley was careless when he pointed a loaded handgun at Colten Boushie’s head.

Gerald Stanley’s careless acts led to the foreseeable injury that caused the death of Colten Boushie.
Judges summary of crowns theory of manslaughter
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 08:51 PM   #496
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
The defence says that if the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley’s actions were a marked departure from the standard of care a prudent person would exercise when scared and facing a dangerous situation then you must acquit.

The defence says that at the time of the accident Mr. Stanley feared his wife was trapped under the vehicle and before he could determine whether she was the engine revved up considerably, leaving him no time to consider anything other than the need to turn off the vehicle.

The defence submits it is completely unreasonable to expect Mr. Stanley to stop and clear the gun that he believed on reasonable grounds was empty and disarmed.

The defence says that in the circumstances Mr. Stanley acted reasonably. The defence says that Mr. Stanley was not aware of the hang fire and that even if he had been, he did not have the luxury of carefully counting out the recommended 60 seconds in clearing the gun before he knew that his wife was safe.

The defence submits that Mr. Stanley faced a crisis situation, never intending to hurt anyone and that the only reasonable verdict is acquittal.
Judges summary of defense position on Manslaughter
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 08:53 PM   #497
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
The use of firearms is an activity that involves the control over a thing that has the potential to cause serious harm to life and limb. The criminal law pays special attention to persons who have control over things like firearms. We expect those who voluntarily assume control over guns to act in a way that indicates respect for the inherent potential for harm by those firearms.

To answer this question you are not required to decide what was in Mr. Stanley’s mind at the time he used the firearm. Carelessness is the absence of the required state of mind. To determine this question you must look at what Mr. Stanley did and did not do, how Mr. Stanley did and did not do it and what Mr. Stanley said and did not say.

You should consider all the circumstances including any personal characteristics of Mr. Stanley that deprived him of the capacity necessary to have the mental state of care required in the circumstances.

Careless use of a firearm involves conduct that shows a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances.

If you have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley’s use of the firearm showed a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances or that Mr. Stanley took reasonable precautions to live up to that standard of care this element has not been proven.

I have already told you that it is not disputed that Mr. Stanley was legally justified in defence of his property to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air, if you find that that is what he did, in light of what had gone on in his farmyard. However, you must now closely analyze whether his actions between that point and the shooting of Mr. Boushie amount to careless use of that firearm and whether he had a lawful excuse.

The elements of careless use and lawful excuse are somewhat intertwined. Mr. Stanley says that he thought that there were only two bullets in the magazine. He says that he thought that he had fired all rounds because he had pulled the trigger multiple times. He said that he thought the gun could not fire with the magazine out. He says that he did not pull the trigger around the time that he approached the grey Escape.

On the other hand, the gun did discharge and the bullet from the discharge hit Mr. Boushie. Should Mr. Stanley have taken more care to ensure the gun was not pointed at or in the direction of Mr. Boushie? Guns are dangerous. You can see the care with which everyone treated the handgun in court even though it was always thought to be empty.

You must decide the issue of carelessness and lawful excuse. If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley used the firearm without lawful excuse in a careless manner you must find him not guilty of manslaughter. Your deliberations would be over.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley used the firearm without lawful excuse, in a careless manner, you must find that Mr. Stanley is guilty of the lesser included offence of manslaughter. Your deliberations would be over.
Judges instructions on requirements for manslaughter

Last edited by GGG; 02-14-2018 at 08:55 PM.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 09:05 PM   #498
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

So after reading the instructions to the jury I still believe manslaughter is the correct finding. Essentially the crown lists 7 or 8 careless actions that a reasonable person would have taken to ensure the firearm was secure and anyone would have prevented his death.

That said, and I was wrong arguing this point earlier in the thread, I understand how a person could acquit him

Quote:
You should consider all the circumstances including any personal characteristics of Mr. Stanley that deprived him of the capacity necessary to have the mental state of care required in the circumstances.

Careless use of a firearm involves conduct that shows a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances.
I disagree that the circumstances would excuse him from the responsibility of always knowing where is gun was pointed and therefore did not meet the standard of care in those circumstances.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 09:17 PM   #499
schteve_d
First Line Centre
 
schteve_d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Fort McMurray, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
So after reading the instructions to the jury I still believe manslaughter is the correct finding. Essentially the crown lists 7 or 8 careless actions that a reasonable person would have taken to ensure the firearm was secure and anyone would have prevented his death.

That said, and I was wrong arguing this point earlier in the thread, I understand how a person could acquit him



I disagree that the circumstances would excuse him from the responsibility of always knowing where is gun was pointed and therefore did not meet the standard of care in those circumstances.
I've made this point earlier, but again, far easier to be typed from a computer chair or couch than while trying to disable a vehicle that you believe has your wife pinned underneath it while likely in a state of panic, among chaos and confusion.
schteve_d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 09:50 PM   #500
Makarov
#1 Goaltender
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schteve_d View Post
I've made this point earlier, but again, far easier to be typed from a computer chair or couch than while trying to disable a vehicle that you believe has your wife pinned underneath it while likely in a state of panic, among chaos and confusion.
At the same time, when you make the decision to own a gun and then to use a gun, you voluntarily undertake a great responsibility to use it safely with great regard for the people around you (I think). It is one of the most dangerous tools a person can wield. You must take extra steps that a gun-free person does not need to take in those same chaotic and confusing situation.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016