Colten Bushie murder trial

[stang]

Originally Posted by GGG

How about the elected official saying the only mistake was leaving witnesses. Does that count? Or are you saying that he meant that it was important to shoot all of the people in the car because they were all criminals.

You have to go back to the reporting and comments around the initial incident and not around the verdict to see how disgusting the rhetoric was.

Ok you're right, there must have been some. I guess what I meant was for the most part. There are idiots everywhere. I guess i am glad I missed most the crap.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't think hang fires are all that rare either. Remington is currently in a lawsuit involving 7.5 million guns that routinely experience delayed firing. There's a documentary about it stating hundreds of people have died from hang fires just from Remington guns.

If this type of evidence was adduced (no idea whether it was), it would have assisted Mr. Stanley in his defence of the murder charge but would have resizable been quite damaging on the manslaughter charge.

[Flash Walken]

During an appearance Tuesday at the House of Commons justice committee, Nicholson agreed with a question from Tory backbencher Brian Jean that firing a warning shot over the head of a repeat thief coming onto a rural property to steal an all-terrain vehicle would be ``reasonable'' under the circumstances.

His comments were not welcomed by groups representing the legal profession and front-line police officers.

Eric Gottardi of the Canadian Bar Association said it was ``particularly unfortunate'' that Nicholson chose to endorse even the concept of warning shots _ especially at a time when the government is expanding the notion of citizen's arrests.

Jean, a Fort McMurray lawyer, said in an interview Thursday that brandishing a weapon was the kind of thing that happened when he was growing up in the rough northern Alberta resource city.

But people who raised guns or fired them to ward off thieves often ended up before the courts, said the Tory MP, which usually found such use of force was not reasonable.

``I think that is reasonable now, to be able to take a step beyond what you would expect others to do,'' said Jean.

Representatives of the CBA and the Canadian Police Association told the justice committee Thursday that increasing the latitude for citizen's arrests could endanger the public.

Jean, part of the Conservative majority on the committee, said the witnesses seemed to be saying ``there was a duty so step away and allow people to steal things.''

``I don't think that duty exists. I don't think it's ever existed and I think it's ludicrous.''

Asked about Nicholson's comments on warning shots, Jean responded: ``I actually think this legislation will clarify the law for Canadians and it'll make criminals stay away. I think criminals will take it more seriously now.''

While criminals might be deterred by the increased prospect of meeting a gun-toting property owner, Jean did not agree that gun owners will be emboldened by the very same law.

``To go to the next step and take a weapon out and fire it is a big, big step for people, even in rural Alberta. People don't do that,'' said Jean.

``They don't brandish weapons that are loaded at anybody. And I would suggest very, very few people would fire a weapon. And a lot fewer would fire at somebody trying to run away.''

Jean added that shooting over the head of a fleeing thief is out of bounds.

``Firing a weapon at somebody that's trying to escape with a quad (ATV), that's not acceptable. That is not reasonable in the circumstances. And I can't imagine any judge in any province or territory in this country agreeing that would be a reasonable use of force or a reasonable defence of property.''

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/...cted-intruders

The Canadian Bar Association said Nicholson is sending a bad message in a very nuanced area of the law.

Eric Gottardi, vice-chair of the CBA’s criminal justice section, called it “particularly unfortunate” that the minister chose to endorse even the concept of warning shots.

“All it’s going to take is someone to shoot 10 inches too low in the dark and take someone’s head off and that person is going to be up on murder charges,” said Gottardi.

“They’re going to be looking to the minister and looking to this law to protect them. We don’t think it’s a good idea.”

The new law broadens the rules for citizen’s arrest and self-defence, said the Vancouver lawyer.

“I would think that the last thing the government wants is to even have a perception out there in the public that people now have this much broader, more robust set of protections to make arrests or take extreme measures to defend their property.”

Opposition MPs agreed.

“Shooting a gun over their heads is essentially threatening to shoot them,” said NDP justice critic Jack Harris. “That seems to me to be unreasonable.”

“We’ve got to be very cautious that we don’t encourage any sense of vigilantism in this country,” said Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister.

Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, said the front-line officers he represents always want people to call police first for any threat.

“As an ex-firearms instructor and someone that’s very familiar with firearms, one of the most important things to consider when you are handling a firearm or discharging a firearm is to know where any round that you fire may end up,” Stamatakis said of warning shots.

“I don’t think the preferred approach is to encourage citizens to take matters into their own hands.”

But Gary Mauser, a firearms expert and professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University, doesn’t believe Nicholson overstepped the bounds or sent a bad signal.

“The opposition is quite right to focus on the delicate balance that the Crown must take with respect to self defence, citizen’s powers of arrest and the powers of the law,” Mauser said in an interview.

But he pointed out the scenario of someone facing an attacking intruder in the dark and the “natural human right” to stop that attack.

“Exactly the details of such cases is what the knife-edge of legality depends upon,” said Mauser.

https://globalnews.ca/news/209093/ef...rning-shots-2/

[speede5]

Originally Posted by stang

The bolded part is flat out wrong. He was looking for his wife under the vehicle when the shot rang out. He believed her under the vehicle and was trying to remove the keys so he wouldn't get run over as well.

You got me on that one, I was sure I read that he looked under and saw she wasn't but maybe that was after the fact.

I don't have a problem with him using the gun for warning shots, I just felt manslaughter would stick because the bullet came from a gun under his control. And when you add a firearm to a situation your responsibilty increases.

Like you said it all happens fast, easy to monday morning quarterback it.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Probably, I don't know enought, the only trials that I've been part of, I've been a witness (and in one case a really bad witness).

In terms of the question above, I get your point, but lets be honest, both sides are going to try to stack the jury box. Either there was an incredible statistical anomaly here, or the defense could prove that the Native perspective jurors were biased in this case, and the Crown was eliminating white jurors that were already decided on the verdict.

I get why Natives would say we want more Natives in the jury, but there can't be a quota system can there? We can't say "Yeah when we questioned all of the jury members, the natives and whites were on opposite sides but because we have a quota in place now, we have to empanel.

That makes no sense to me.

You can't quota a jury, its the very definition of possible injustice in action.

The only way it would work is if you had a native defendant in a crime against whites that the jury has to be all Asian.

Or if its a case of a white/black crime or black/white crime, the jury has to be all native.

That's the only way to get away from perceived racial bias in the jury box.

How soon until we can replace jurors with T-1000's that hate all of humanity so they would be completely unbiased.

That's my worry in all this. In my experience, quota systems end up with not always having the best or right person for the job. Pierre did it with the RCMP, and Justin is doing it with his cabinet.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by speede5

Who cares what Boushie had posted on his facebook? You think Stanley knew that when the incident happened? This was two strangers meeting for the first time and nothing in Boushies past is relevent to the reaction of Stanley.

You are basically slut shaming the victim.

All of that history points to a lot of issues that led up to this and things that need to be fixed but it doesn't justify how a farmer reacted on that day.

And we need to stop calling them armed thugs. No one in the Stanley family saw the broken gun until after Colton was dead. Stanley didn't claim self defense. However Boshie got shot the gun in the vehicle was not a factor.

Originally Posted by speede5

Of course it affects the overall picture. That's the intent of mentioning it over and over.

The amount of times I have heard drunk armed thugs in this conversation (all over the web) is crazy. Stanley did not see drunk armed thugs. No one assaulted them before the shot was fired.

I'm not saying they were there selling cookies but it is easy to sway opinion when you paint a picture.

Country kids drink on the backroads and get into all sorts of trouble, white or native. From all accounts that's what Stanley was dealing with. Drunk kids/young adults. When the bullets started flying they were running, which was the desired result, but they weren't fighting.

It's only after that we see a checkered past and people rest easy because thank god they had gangster pics on social media.

Unless you count the 5000+ pounds of metal they were drunkenly using to sideswipe and nearly hit the family with as a weapon. But other than that one massive weapon; no, there were no weapons at all and they were not being assaulted.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Actual final shot aside.

He thought the life of his wife and son were danger. A car can be used as a weapon as has been demonstrated many times. He thought his wife may have been trapped under the car at the time.

I think it was perfectly reasonable to have the gun pointed at the driver during that situation. You wouldn't want the person in the driver's seat to try to run you over or risk further injury to the person under the car.

Why do you feel differently?

That's a self defense argument. If the defense position was I feared for my wife's life therefore I had the gun pointed at him and it went off. We could have a discussion around self defense laws. That isn't what was presented as the defense so on the manslaughter charge it's still he admitted to unlawfully using a weapon and it went off.

I don't see though how hangfire is a defense of manslaughter without using self defense as part of it which the defense did not.

[The Fonz]

Can see where Boushie's SUV swerved toward the lawn-mower that Stanley's wife was allegedly driving, getting between her and the home.

The lane to exit the yard is on the left.





Looking at the tracks, and assuming that Stanley's wife was running to their home, you can certainly understand why Gerald Stanley believed his wife was under that vehicle.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's a self defense argument. If the defense position was I feared for my wife's life therefore I had the gun pointed at him and it went off. We could have a discussion around self defense laws. That isn't what was presented as the defense so on the manslaughter charge it's still he admitted to unlawfully using a weapon and it went off.

I don't see though how hangfire is a defense of manslaughter without using self defense as part of it which the defense did not.

However and this is where the manslaughter goes away. He says that he discharged two rounds as a warning shot. Squeezed the trigger a third time and then did an activity which was based around making the gun safe, you've now created reasonable doubt in terms of even manslaughter.

This basically becomes a defective product issue, or even a gun safety issue, but you have reasonable doubt since he testified that he took the proper actions that he believed mad the gun safe.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's a self defense argument. If the defense position was I feared for my wife's life therefore I had the gun pointed at him and it went off. We could have a discussion around self defense laws. That isn't what was presented as the defense so on the manslaughter charge it's still he admitted to unlawfully using a weapon and it went off.

I don't see though how hangfire is a defense of manslaughter without using self defense as part of it which the defense did not.

I think there would have to be an element of carelessness demonstrated when using the gun in order to get a manslaughter conviction. It's not illegal to use a gun in this case, to fire warning shots or to point it at the people who are threatening you. None of that is illegal in this case. In reality, the facts support the theory that he was responsibly using the gun. He only loaded three bullets. He fired two warning shots and attempted to fire a third. He didn't pursue anyone even after one of them punched his wife. So were his actions careless? The answer comes down to do you believe he pulled the trigger several times to clear the weapon and did the weapon malfunction?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think there would have to be an element of carelessness demonstrated when using the gun in order to get a manslaughter conviction. It's not illegal to use a gun in this case, to fire warning shots or to point it at the people who are threatening you. None of that is illegal in this case. In reality, the facts support the theory that he was responsibly using the gun. He only loaded three bullets. He fired two warning shots and attempted to fire a third. He didn't pursue anyone even after one of them punched his wife. So were his actions careless? The answer comes down to do you believe he pulled the trigger several times to clear the weapon and did the weapon malfunction?

Are you saying it isn't unlawful to point a gun at someone? You aren't responsibly using a firearm if you point it at someone. You may be defending yourself but it isn't responsible use of a firearm. Him being threatened has absolutely no bearing on the outcome becuase this isn't a self defense case.

My understanding of Manslaughter is it can be an accidental death while committing an unlawful act or negligence causing death. You do not need negligence to be convicted of Manslaughter.

In order to acquit I think you need to believe that the gun was pointed at Bushie accidently and it went off accidentally.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's a self defense argument. If the defense position was I feared for my wife's life therefore I had the gun pointed at him and it went off. We could have a discussion around self defense laws. That isn't what was presented as the defense so on the manslaughter charge it's still he admitted to unlawfully using a weapon and it went off.

I don't see though how hangfire is a defense of manslaughter without using self defense as part of it which the defense did not.

Just because the self-defense argument wasn't used in this case, doesn't mean there were not the elements in it to allow it to used.

After reading through a whole bunch of stuff about this trial and evidence presented along with testimony, the truth is that his attorney was correct in leaving the self defense aspect out of it. Again though, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think there would have to be an element of carelessness demonstrated when using the gun in order to get a manslaughter conviction. It's not illegal to use a gun in this case, to fire warning shots or to point it at the people who are threatening you. None of that is illegal in this case. In reality, the facts support the theory that he was responsibly using the gun. He only loaded three bullets. He fired two warning shots and attempted to fire a third. He didn't pursue anyone even after one of them punched his wife. So were his actions careless? The answer comes down to do you believe he pulled the trigger several times to clear the weapon and did the weapon malfunction?

But those are not uncontested facts. They're what the defense said happened, but there's no real evidence of that beyond Stanley's testimony. It's not like he dropped the gun right after the shot and it was found empty without a clip in it. By the time the police got there Stanley had taken the gun, put it in a storage case, and put the case in a closet in his house.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's a self defense argument. If the defense position was I feared for my wife's life therefore I had the gun pointed at him and it went off. We could have a discussion around self defense laws. That isn't what was presented as the defense so on the manslaughter charge it's still he admitted to unlawfully using a weapon and it went off.

I don't see though how hangfire is a defense of manslaughter without using self defense as part of it which the defense did not.

Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that he actually did say this at trial.

I mean just because the defense team didn't lay out the trial strategy for a full on self defense argument doesn't really mean a thing for jurors. They can consider what they want as factual evidence. Just because the judge and lawyers set a defined trial strategy really doesn't mean much.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that he actually did say this at trial.

I mean just because the defense team didn't lay out the trial strategy for a full on self defense argument doesn't really mean a thing for jurors. They can consider what they want as factual evidence. Just because the judge and lawyers set a defined trial strategy really doesn't mean much.

No, juries are instructed by the trial judge to only consider specific defences which have an "air of reality." It does not sound like self defence was such a defence. If the jury considered self defence, the verdict should be quashed. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just because the self-defense argument wasn't used in this case, doesn't mean there were not the elements in it to allow it to used.

After reading through a whole bunch of stuff about this trial and evidence presented along with testimony, the truth is that his attorney was correct in leaving the self defense aspect out of it. Again though, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Are you saying the self defense exists in a legal sense of affecting whether this is manslaughter or the general ethical sense of was this justified?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that he actually did say this at trial.

I mean just because the defense team didn't lay out the trial strategy for a full on self defense argument doesn't really mean a thing for jurors. They can consider what they want as factual evidence. Just because the judge and lawyers set a defined trial strategy really doesn't mean much.

I think that this is why the jury acquitted and why the defense was very shrewd in raising all the elements of self defense without having to meet the legal burden of self defense and why the not guilty finding on the manslaughter charge was a miscarriage of justice based solely on the testimony of the accused.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you saying the self defense exists in a legal sense of affecting whether this is manslaughter or the general ethical sense of was this justified?

Im saying there was an element of self defense in his actions even though it was never presented as such during the trial.

I have zero doubt he and his family were terrified as things started to unfold as they did and when he could no longer see his wife, complete panic over took him.

[wileecoyote]

This whole situation is lose/lose. There are no winners here. My speculation is that the jury didn't find a lot of credibility in any of the witnesses. The bulged brass casing supported the hang fire scenario as put forth by the defense and may have tipped things in favor of Mr Stanley.

I am happy that the jury cannot disclose their reasons for judgement. If witness credibility ultimately decided the outcome, then that is not a miscarriage of justice. Justice demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It wasn't there in the eyes of the jury, not for 2nd degree murder, not for manslaughter.

What I can't understand is how racism can only be practiced by white folk. Can't a car load of First Nation people be accused of racism by attempting to commit crimes against white people?

Colten Boushie spun the wheel of fortune and hit bankrupt. It is a shame that it cost him his life. He and his friends chose to do what they did. Mr Stanley was forced to choose to try defend himself and his family from an unknown threat that was unfolding very rapidly. As a retired LEO I know personally that when bad things happen, they unfold very quickly and having time after to consider the coulda, woulda, shouda scenarios doesn't help very much. I'm sure Mr Stanley wishes things had gone differently and this will haunt him to his dying day.

It is unfortunate that politicians are going to milk this as Trudeau is doing with his comments and meeting with the family of Colten Boushie.

How can we change the justice system to be more fair. I am not sure it is humanly possible. As long as the "beyond reasonable doubt" exists, there will be cases that seem to be unfair. Get rid of the jury system? Have a jury made up of Judges? I don't know what the answer is.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

That's my worry in all this. In my experience, quota systems end up with not always having the best or right person for the job. Pierre did it with the RCMP, and Justin is doing it with his cabinet.

Well, it's not like serving on a jury is merit-based in the first place. That's a large part of the problem.