Colten Bushie murder trial

[stang]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There are many cases where this type of careless handling of a firearm result in manslaughter convictions. In R. v. Penner (2017 BCSC 1688), accused handles a firearm that he believes is unloaded in confined space and in close proximity to three other persons. It accidentally discharges and tragically kills someone. He was convicted of manslaughter.

I can provide many other similar examples.

Was R v. Penner a high stress situation where the defendant thought his family was in danger? Sounds like some people being careless sitting around. Totally different situation.


Where was all the outrage for this one?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rglar-1.666778

George Mason is thinking "Thank goodness my burglar was white"

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There are many cases where this type of careless handling of a firearm result in manslaughter convictions. In R. v. Penner (2017 BCSC 1688), accused handles a firearm that he believes is unloaded in confined space and in close proximity to three other persons. It accidentally discharges and tragically kills someone. He was convicted of manslaughter.

I can provide many other similar examples.

Yeah but that is a wildly different situation. They were out target shooting. There was no lawful reason to point a gun at your buddy while target shooting. Stanley had a lawful reason to point a gun at someone in my opinion. If you don't think that a truck bashing into your stuff and revving towards your wife is a threat then I do not know what is.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There are many cases where this type of careless handling of a firearm result in manslaughter convictions. In R. v. Penner (2017 BCSC 1688), accused handles a firearm that he believes is unloaded in confined space and in close proximity to three other persons. It accidentally discharges and tragically kills someone. He was convicted of manslaughter.

I can provide many other similar examples.

You're really pushing a false equivalency here by comparing this case to a bunch of friends playing with a gun while getting drunk.

Bad lawyering man.

[stang]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah but that is a wildly different situation. They were out target shooting. There was no lawful reason to point a gun at your buddy while target shooting. Stanley had a lawful reason to point a gun at someone in my opinion. If you don't think that a truck bashing into your stuff and revving towards your wife is a threat then I do not know what is.

Might not be a great example but people don't think in a panic situation. I know a few people who have rolled their vehicles because a small animal ran out on the road. Even though they were taught to just hit the animal. Can't imagine being in the situation where you think you're trying to get your wife out from under a truck.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by stang

Was R v. Penner a high stress situation where the defendant thought his family was in danger? Sounds like some people being careless sitting around. Totally different situation.


Where was all the outrage for this one?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rglar-1.666778

George Mason is thinking "Thank goodness my burglar was white"

Mr. Mason fired shots from a distance, in the dark, believing the vehicle to be empty (according to his evidence anyway). Far different from (a) close range; (b) in daylight; and (c) most importantly, a vehicle that Mr. Stanley knew for certain was occupied.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Mr. Mason fired shots from a distance, in the dark, believing the vehicle to be empty (according to his evidence anyway). Far different from (a) close range; (b) in daylight; and (c) most importantly, a vehicle that Mr. Stanley knew for certain was occupied.

Still closer to the case then the one you posted.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

You're really pushing a false equivalency here by comparing this case to a bunch of friends playing with a gun while getting drunk.

Bad lawyering man.

Those aren’t the facts in that case (as found by the sentencing judge). Accused was not impaired and was not “playing around”. He was checking the firearm to ensure that it was not loaded when it accidentally fired.

In any event, as I have stated numerous times, I am not saying the jury got it wrong. I am saying that in most cases a situation like this would result in a murder or manslaughter conviction. This is one of the rare exceptions. But this rarity explains the frustration and anger of people reacting to the verdict (especially viewed through then prism of current and past indigenous experiences in Canada). For some reason, this has proven to be a very controversial position in this thread.

Thanks for the lawyering tips though. Very valuable to me.

[OMG!WTF!]

Those aren’t the facts in that case (as found by the sentencing judge). Accused was not impaired and was not “playing around”. He was checking the firearm to ensure that it was not loaded when it accidentally fired.

Yeah but he was doing it improperly which is why they got a conviction in my opinion.

Mr. Penner failed to check whether the safety was engaged or to engage the safety. He also failed to remove the magazine. Mr. Penner suggests that because he did not attend the firearms safety class concerning semiautomatic weapons, he would not have known to remove the magazine before checking the chamber. However, Mr. Penner had previously used this firearm.(i) Mr. Penner also failed to safely control the direction of the firearm’s muzzle.

So there's culpability there. He didn't know what he was doing and did it improperly. That's not even close to what happened with Stanley.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by stang

Blood spatter on the trigger (which means his finger wasn't on it at the time if the shot) and the bulged casing shell seem to be physical evidence to support his story.

This was the key evidence in my opinion. The jury also apparently heard that such a hang fire is very unusal, but not impossible. And the age and type of ammo could be contributing factors. And so far as I know, there was no other explanation given as to how the buldge in the casing occured.

We don't know how the jury considered the evidence, but I think that reasonable doubt based on the above is a good possibility.

But certain people are up on their soapboxes, and are bound and determined that there must be some kind of racist conspiracy here.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by stang

Still closer to the case then the one you posted.

Not sure i agree. Clearly (I think) knowledge that you are in close proximity with another human being increases the expected standard of care for the person handling the firearm. The only question in my mind is whether or not the the heightened stress of the situation lowered the standard sufficiently to “excuse” Mr. Stanley’s actions. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. I’m not totally convinced.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Thanks for the lawyering tips though. Very valuable to me.

I'm sorry for being condescending with the lawyer jokes. I just find your position and arguments out of keeping for a typical lawyer.

Its actually refreshing to know lawyers do have inherent biases leading to opinions like the rest of us humans, in contradistinction to the soulless robots chanting reasonable doubt like Balfour Der.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah but he was doing it improperly which is why they got a conviction in my opinion.



So there's culpability there. He didn't know what he was doing and did it improperly. That's not even close to what happened with Stanley.

I think you you’d Be hard-pressed to argue that ant. Stanley did things “properly” (ie, by the book). The question is whether he did things reasonably in the circumstances at the moment of the shooting.

[puckedoff]

Still would prefer to live in a Canada where people are held accountable for ransacking other peoples property, rather than a Canada where the expectation is that hooligans can run wild and homeowners must cower in a panic room. I think this ruling promotes the former, which is the benefit of the jury trial in my non legal opinion.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I'm sorry for being condescending with the lawyer jokes. I just find your position and arguments out of keeping for a typical lawyer.

Its actually refreshing to know lawyers do have inherent biases leading to opinions like the rest of us humans, in contradistinction to the soulless robots chanting reasonable doubt like Balfour Der.

Strange view since my arguments are more equivocal than those made by the assistant crown attorney in this very case (as well as several prominent lawyers Sichuan as Kent Roach). You may need to reassess your expectations (and your understanding of what constitutes bias [ie, disagreeing with you is not necessarily evidence of bias]).

[OMG!WTF!]

I think you you’d Be hard-pressed to argue that ant. Stanley did things “properly” (ie, by the book). The question is whether he did things reasonably in the circumstances at the moment of the shooting.

You characterized the Penner case as an accident. It was nothing of the sort. It was avoidable and the result of a lack of care, attention and knowledge. Yet when something as rare as a hang fire apparently happened, it's all about not taking proper care and attention or doing things by the book in your opinion. It seems like you're trying to win a case here so I'll just wrap it up. You win.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Also in his testimony, he shot two warning shots, pulled the trigger again and it didn't fire, and I believe pulled the trigger multiple times and it didn't fire, so he believed that the weapon was empty and sage.

When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?

Lol

The jury believed he acted reasonably and that when the gun fired it was an accident. I think that was generous considering you are always supposed to treat a gun as if loaded and never point it at anyone. I think they were generous because of the circumstances and that is where it gets messy. Most of the defenders of Stanley still cling to him defending his family etc, but that was never a justifiable defense for shooting. His only chance of being acquitted was the belief it was an accident.

[stang]

Originally Posted by speede5

When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?

Being in a classroom is very different then being in a live situation with this happening. I am sure CC is very aware of the difference once its not training and its real.

Originally Posted by speede5

The jury believed he acted reasonably and that when the gun fired it was an accident. I think that was generous considering you are always supposed to treat a gun as if loaded and never point it at anyone.

Actually you are allowed by law to point a gun at someone.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You characterized the Penner case as an accident. It was nothing of the sort. It was avoidable and the result of a lack of care, attention and knowledge. Yet when something as rare as a hang fire apparently happened, it's all about not taking proper care and attention or doing things by the book in your opinion. It seems like you're trying to win a case here so I'll just wrap it up. You win.

Both of the situations you describe here are clearly accidents. If they weren’t accidents, they would be murder. But just because something was an accident doesn’t mean it can’t be a criminal offence. Manslaughter in the Criminal Code explicitly contemplates conviction for accidental deaths.

Perhaps I’m missing your point?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by speede5

When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?

Lol

The jury believed he acted reasonably and that when the gun fired it was an accident. I think that was generous considering you are always supposed to treat a gun as if loaded and never point it at anyone. I think they were generous because of the circumstances and that is where it gets messy. Most of the defenders of Stanley still cling to him defending his family etc, but that was never a justifiable defense for shooting. His only chance of being acquitted was the belief it was an accident.

This seems to be a tough point to grasp. You're never supposed to point a gun at someone without lawful reason.

Pointing a firearm87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

I think in this situation there was a lawful reason. Stanley wasn't target shooting with his buddies or shooting at a range with an instructor. I'd be hard pressed to figure out when you could point a gun at someone if not in this one.

Both of the situations you describe here are clearly accidents. If they weren’t accidents, they would be murder. But just because something was an accident doesn’t mean it can’t be a criminal offence. Manslaughter in the Criminal Code explicitly contemplates conviction for accidental deaths.

Perhaps I’m missing your point

No they are not both accidents. One has a negligent aspect to it. The other does not because any reasonable person would have assumed the gun Stanley fired was void of live rounds after several trigger pulls. That's normal. As well, given the situation it would not have been illegal to point the gun at someone threatening you.

One guy had no idea how to use his gun and shot someone in a situation that any other responsible person would have been able to avoid with due care and attention.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by speede5

When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?

Lol

The jury believed he acted reasonably and that when the gun fired it was an accident. I think that was generous considering you are always supposed to treat a gun as if loaded and never point it at anyone. I think they were generous because of the circumstances and that is where it gets messy. Most of the defenders of Stanley still cling to him defending his family etc, but that was never a justifiable defense for shooting. His only chance of being acquitted was the belief it was an accident.

What are you talking about?

Of course he could have used that as a defense, but chose not to.