Colten Bushie murder trial

[meritmat]

And tried stealing a truck at a neighbors right before they got to Gerald’s. I would love for this story to die but once or twice a week CBC has to create a story with an anti Gerald Stanley spin to it

[icecube]

Originally Posted by meritmat

And tried stealing a truck at a neighbors right before they got to Gerald’s. I would love for this story to die but once or twice a week CBC has to create a story with an anti Gerald Stanley spin to it

Well he did end a young man's life with a bullet to the back of the head and came up with an absurd hang fire excuse so pardon those of us who have no sympathy for the man. At least he gets to go on living somewhere else. Trying to sell a book about it gives me doubt he has an ounce of remorse.

[2Stonedbirds]

The hangfire condition in Stanley's pistol revealed itself in testing after 20 or so rounds. Forget the exact number. But it was malfunctioning.
Some drunken ass hats got burned after playing with fire. So pardon those of us who feel no sympathy towards the man.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The hangfire condition in Stanley's pistol revealed itself in testing after 20 or so rounds. Forget the exact number. But it was malfunctioning.

Source for that claim? That's contrary to anything I've read about the case.

[meritmat]

Originally Posted by icecube

Well he did end a young man's life with a bullet to the back of the head and came up with an absurd hang fire excuse so pardon those of us who have no sympathy for the man. At least he gets to go on living somewhere else. Trying to sell a book about it gives me doubt he has an ounce of remorse.

If the young man and his friends weren’t in the middle of a crime spree he might still be alive today. Actions have consequences

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by icecube

Well he did end a young man's life with a bullet to the back of the head and came up with an absurd hang fire excuse so pardon those of us who have no sympathy for the man. At least he gets to go on living somewhere else. Trying to sell a book about it gives me doubt he has an ounce of remorse.

Going off of memory, but how can you call it absurd, when there was a deformed shell casing and forensic evidence showed that he hadn't had a finger on the trigger.

The fact is that the court came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough proof to convict. That's how the legal system works.

Nobody is asking you to have sympathy for the man, who frankly I do because he was put in a terrible situation by people that basically invaded his farm. He felt that his family was in jeopardy, it was about more then the mere attempt to steal his property.

If he wants to write a book to help him recoup his legal costs and pick up the pieces of his life which means probably moving away from his home, then good for him, its up to people to buy it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by icecube

Well he did end a young man's life with a bullet to the back of the head and came up with an absurd hang fire excuse so pardon those of us who have no sympathy for the man. At least he gets to go on living somewhere else. Trying to sell a book about it gives me doubt he has an ounce of remorse.

Or. Drunk people came on to property that wasn't theirs when a man was minding his own business and he felt a thread to his family and now this poor man has to live with the fact he killed someone for the rest of his life.

See. We can all spin this the way we want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Struch]

The kids running from him say they heard the bullets whizzing right by their heads, correct?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by David Struch

The kids running from him say they heard the bullets whizzing right by their heads, correct?

That is what they and the media reported initially, however the criminals did admit later on that this was not nessessarily true.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by David Struch

The kids running from him say they heard the bullets whizzing right by their heads, correct?

He testified that he heard two shots and one of them ricocheted.

Then he changed his story. The kids were either too drunk to know what was going on or outright lied initially.

Two witnesses at the second-degree murder trial of Gerald Stanley admitted they have changed their stories since they first spoke to police after their friend, Colten Boushie, was fatally shot on a Saskatchewan farm.


Cassidy Cross-Whitstone, who was driving the vehicle in which Mr. Boushie was a passenger, and Belinda Jackson came under withering questioning on Thursday from Mr. Stanley's lawyer, Scott Spencer, about the inconsistencies in their statements to police and their testimony at trial. Mr. Cross-Whitstone, who was 17 at the time, said he initially lied to police because he was afraid he might be in trouble.

Mr. Cross-Whitstone said he had consumed about 30 shots of liquor that day. After their Ford Escape got a flat tire, he drove to a farm and tried to break into a truck with the butt of his .22 calibre rifle, which he had earlier denied. He said at the time he realized he shouldn't be stealing, and when they left in the Escape, his plan was to ask for help with their flat tire at another farm.

Mr. Cross-Whitstone said the rifle was not loaded when he tried to break into the truck. Afterward, he threw the rifle, which was now missing a stock and seemed bent and broken, in the back of the Ford Escape.


When he was asked how it could be that the gun was in fact loaded when it was seized by RCMP, Mr. Cross-Whitstone said maybe someone at the farm loaded the gun and put it beside Mr. Boushie.


He also told court that after being confronted on Mr. Stanley's farm, he ran from the vehicle and he heard two shots fired in his direction. He said he heard one bullet ricochet and another fizz through the air. But 24 hours after the incident, he told police he believed those were warning shots fired in the air and did not mention a ricochet, Mr. Spencer pointed out.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37817572/

A jury faced with witnesses that came across as either drunk or dishonest, and the misshapped cartridge as well as testimony from the forensic team that it was unlikely that the farmers finger was on the trigger at the time of the shooting, and there was no way that there was going to be a conviction.

The prosecution had a lousy set of facts and poor witnesses who admitted to being extremely drunk at the time.

[CaptainCrunch]

summary of the witnesses and evidence

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn...y-murder-trial

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Going off of memory, but how can you call it absurd, when there was a deformed shell casing and forensic evidence showed that he hadn't had a finger on the trigger.

I do recall testing proved that his gun does hangfire. But how can any evidence prove that his finger was or was not on the trigger at the moment?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I do recall testing proved that his gun does hangfire. But how can any evidence prove that his finger was or was not on the trigger at the moment?

There was blood spatter from Boushie on the trigger which wouldn’t have happened if his finger was on it.

[Fuzz]

Isn't the first rule of gun club to not point your gun at anything you don't want dead?

[GGG]

Go back and read the Judges instructions. Its clearly, accepting all of Stanley's testimony as factual, Manslaughter.

Stanley did not exercise the due care expected of an average person in that situation. He pointed his gun at Colton thus failing in his duty of care when having a firearm.

The crown screwed up by putting non-credible witnesses on the stand. But I don't see how you can read the judges instruction to the Jury and follow Canadian Law and not convict of manslaughter. The Jury accepted his unpled yet alluded to self-defense arguments. He had a good lawyer.

[The Fonz]

I agree, GGG, the case does seem like textbook manslaughter. The fact that the gun hang-fired, does not change the fact that his firearm pointed at someone while loaded, and ultimately killing that person, is criminal negligence causing death.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

Go back and read the Judges instructions. Its clearly, accepting all of Stanley's testimony as factual, Manslaughter.

Stanley did not exercise the due care expected of an average person in that situation. He pointed his gun at Colton thus failing in his duty of care when having a firearm.

The crown screwed up by putting non-credible witnesses on the stand. But I don't see how you can read the judges instruction to the Jury and follow Canadian Law and not convict of manslaughter. The Jury accepted his unpled yet alluded to self-defense arguments. He had a good lawyer.

I think the jury believed that Stanley pulled the trigger several times attempting to clear the weapon. That suggests he was not acting carelessly when the gun went off. Plus the stressful situation he was in. It's not that crazy of a verdict. There's no appeal coming.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think the jury believed that Stanley pulled the trigger several times attempting to clear the weapon. That suggests he was not acting carelessly when the gun went off. Plus the stressful situation he was in. It's not that crazy of a verdict. There's no appeal coming.

There is also his testimony that he removed the magazine before approaching the SUV.

I'd say that that action, combined with his belief that the gun was not loaded and the RCMP testifying that the firearm experienced malfunctions during testing, along with the forensic evidence that showed his finger was not on the trigger, played a huge part in the acquittal.

The argument can be made that pointing a firearm is an offense in itself, but in this case it was not intentional.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Stanley did not exercise the due care expected of an average person in that situation. He pointed his gun at Colton thus failing in his duty of care when having a firearm.

Not if you really believe that he thought his wife was under the truck and they were about to take off.

In that case an argument can easily be made that he responded with the due care expected of an average person - none. He's not going to go back to his barn to lock up his gun when he has mere fractions of a second to prevent them from, what he believed, running over his wife.

The drivers were driving erratically, apparently deliberately hitting their vehicles and then drove towards the last place he had seen his wife...with the lawnmower she was using direcetly in front of the vehicle. If he had already believed to have empty the gun, some could argue he had already done enough in a high-stress situation like that. Which is apparently what the jury believed.

Still, yes, I would be very hung up on the fact that he failed to point the gun away from the Colten, but the question the jury had to ask themselves if his actions were reasonable for the average person to make during the high-stress situation. They apparently found it reasonable ergo, he was not found guilty of manslaughter. They were convinced that a person who thought his wife was about to be run over did not have to have the reasonable state of mind of watching where his (apparent) empty gun was pointed.

[David Struch]

The province has been picking jury candidates in a single random selection, when the law requires two. Have they opened the door to appeals?

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/s...stanleys-jury/