Colten Bushie murder trial

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Stanley was acquitted because the Crowns witnesses kept changing their stories, and we're totally unreliable. The Crown failed to prove guilt.

It genuinely concerns me that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is so misunderstood.

Very much agree.

I've been trying to be open minded during our discussions, but some posters seem to think that the jury was wrong because they don't agree with their decision.

That's not how this works. We didn't see the evidence they did, we didn't have the discussions they did. We don't get to second guess their decision or deem them all racists to justify our vitriol.

The crown failed to make their case. The jury was left with reasonable doubt at to whether Stanley committed murder or manslaughter.

Be glad we live in a country that doesn't allow people to be railroaded in sham courts or convicted without proving their culpability. Don't yearn for it when a case doesn't go the way you want it to.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Do you really believe that is the only fear that most indigenous people in Canada have to live with? Fear that a loved one will commit suicide? Fear of being sexually assaulted? Fear that a daughter will go missing and never be found? Fear of being picked up by police and dumped at the edge of town in the middle of winter? Fear of unemployment and poverty?

I think some posters are being very naive frankly.

Man, how many dog whistles did you bring with you?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that we should get rid of jury trials. I think that what we should do is stream every trial on the internet and have a jury by Internet.

If you want to you can go on your fazebook like page and see a list of trials, with a short description, and preferably some memes.

Then you can log in and watch the trial, and for example if a lawyer objects,. you can vote on whether on not its sustained or denied.

You can totally help the lawyers with the examination by sending in questions that will go right to their tablets.

And in the end, you can actually vote on the verdict.

Social democratization at its best.

Oh and lawyers can appeal on meme.

I mean frankly no matter what the courts are going to be accused of racism, its just going to happen.

I get the whole concept of social equalization, but I have to ask, does that really matter when it comes to the examination of an actual crime, or should that be reserved for the decision concerning the sentences if found guilty.

I get it, you're poor or you have a severe alcohol disorder or you're a drug addict. But does that matter when it comes to the crime you committed.

I'm poor so I shot this person killing him.

I'm addicted to drugs, so I broke into a families house and beat them to within an inch of his life.

I'm come from a drunken family so I got drunk and got into a car and ran over a kid.

Frankly, I always believed that the question in front of the courts is more about, did you commit the crime. All of the other factors can come into play after that's decided to me.

Also in no way does for example putting quotas in a jury make a court less racist. If you have a native defendant saying that you have to actually have half native and half whatever isn't inherently less racist. The question has to be, can you get beyond the race of the defendant and put forward a fair verdict based on the evidence put forward to you and based on the rules of the courts and the law.

Also I get the idea that they believe that the courts are racist, so what do they want? Their own justice system within Canada? do we do that with everyone, but what happens when you have a race on race crime then, you're back into the whole court is racist thing.

If you want to make the courts less racist, then you have to find a way to make it open and understandable, so that the first instinct isn't just to look at a verdict and decide its racist.

If you want to make the courts less racist, then you need to find a way to make people take the time and actually understand how a verdict was reached, which means things like making jurors explain why they reached every single verdict, similar to what a judge has to do.

This entire post should be moved to the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" thread.

[OMG!WTF!]

It's also telling that Gladue sentencing has gone from providing alternatives to prison sentences to simply a get out of jail free card and has resulted in nothing but more indigenous people in jail. Talk about a lose/lose solution. I'll bet you changing the jury system will have similar unintended consequences and outcomes.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I think you are confusing the purpose of the justice system. It isn't to make victims feel better or to provide any sort of assistance to help a grieving mother over the tragic death of her son. The court system, through a jury of his peers, found Stanley not guilty. I haven't heard anything that makes me feel that this jury didn't do what they felt was right in finding him not guilty. We don't know exactly what they heard and discussed, so its impossible to second guess them. A lot of people disagree with their decision, but it all seems to be for emotional reasons.

I wholeheartedly agree that the country continues to let down FN. But I don't think throwing a white farmer (who was the initial victim in all of this) would do anything to help anyone at all.

If you honestly believe that the only people who were surprised by the verdict were surprised only for emotional reasons, then I don’t know what to say. I have already posted numerous times the reasons why I think that most cases where the uncontraverted evidence is that the accused shot the victim in the head at close range will result in at least a conviction for manslaughter (and indeed often in murder). I have also repeatedly acknowledged that (a) I didn’t hear the evidence; (b) we don’t have reasons from the jury; and (c) every case is different and there’s are always outliers and exceptions. I don’t know whether the jury got it right or wrong or why. But I find it nonetheless surprising. And I promise that it is not purely for emotional reasons.

But hey, I’m just some guy on the internet. Fair enough. However, an article with quotes from some of the most prominent criminal law academics in the country (including a former professor of mine) was just recently posted in this thread. Most of those academics expressed varying degrees of surprise with the verdict. I sincerely doubt that those opinions are based only on emotion. Nonetheless, those opinions were completely ignored in this thread. I don’t believe they generated even one comment.

Anyway, I’m getting a bit frustrated at this point so I think I will just leave it to the legal experts in here from now on.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Right. And you don’t think that indigenous persons are far more likely to be violently killed in Canada than non-indigenous persons? I can dig up the statistics for you if you like.

EDIT: of course those statistics won’t even be complete because we don’t actually have any idea of the true number of murdered and missing indigenous people (especially women) in Canada. Just let that sink in for a moment.

And they're mostly murdered, raped, etc. by other natives. Just as most poor people in general are murdered, raped, etc. by other poor people.

To find out how much being native contributes to any of these stats, we'd need to account for other variables: poverty, substance abuse, abusive homes, family structure, education, etc. I think we'd find the violent crime victimization rate for whites who are poor, substance abusers, raised in violent homes, and school dropouts would be dramatically higher than the population in general.

Obviously the history of native people in Canada contributes to their high rates of poverty, substance abuse, and violence. But it seems to me it would more effective to tackle the poverty, substance abusing, broken homes, etc. factors in the equation than the native factor. Not only are they a bigger part of the problem than simple race, but those factors are also big contributors to social ills suffered by non-native Canadians. Any policies that prove effective at breaking the chain of child abuse and negligence among native families should also be effective at breaking the same chain in non-native families.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Aboriginals engage in far far risky behaviour on a per capita basis than any other ethnicity. They suffer from solvent (not substance) but solvent abuse at alarming rates, drug addiction, sexual abuse, lack of education, lack of social bonds and are more likely to end up in jail, not because the system is racist, but because they are more likely to commit crimes.

There are reasons for these, social and systemic reasons, but these are facts nonetheless. This is not a "racist" system, but it's a system that results in far more aboriginals being imprisoned.

I'll try to dig out the stats at lunch but I remember reading that the conviction rate. Basically number of convicted or pled out / Number of Charged was significantly higher for Natives. There is no social reason for this to be the case and is essentially purely a systemic problem.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

This entire post should be moved to the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" thread.

Why?

By the way, you do know that the internet part was a running joke based around every group calling for social democratization of everything.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Aboriginals engage in far far risky behaviour on a per capita basis than any other ethnicity. They suffer from solvent (not substance) but solvent abuse at alarming rates, drug addiction, sexual abuse, lack of education, lack of social bonds and are more likely to end up in jail, not because the system is racist, but because they are more likely to commit crimes.

There are reasons for these, social and systemic reasons, but these are facts nonetheless. This is not a "racist" system, but it's a system that results in far more aboriginals being imprisoned.

I don’t disagree with much of this really. However, the “system” isn’t just the criminal justice system. And the broad “system” is clearly discriminatory in many ways. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently found that the federal government hasn’t been systematically discriminating against First Nations children in its provision of child welfare services.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I might have you confused with a similar sounding poster, but aren't you a lawyer? Isn't the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing what puts food on the table for most of your profession?

Strange to see a lawyer exhibiting such bias based on all the limited and confounded information.

Strange indeed.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And they're mostly murdered, raped, etc. by other natives. Just as most poor people in general are murdered, raped, etc. by other poor people.

To find out how much being native contributes to any of these stats, we'd need to account for other variables: poverty, substance abuse, abusive homes, family structure, education, etc. I think we'd find the violent crime victimization rate for whites who are poor, substance abusers, raised in violent homes, and school dropouts would be dramatically higher than the population in general.

Obviously the history of native people in Canada contributes to their high rates of poverty, substance abuse, and violence. But it seems to me it would more effective to tackle the poverty, substance abusing, broken homes, etc. factors in the equation than the native factor. Not only are they a bigger part of the problem than simple race, but those factors are also big contributors to social ills suffered by non-native Canadians. Any policies that prove effective at breaking the chain of child abuse and negligence among native families should also be effective at breaking the same chain in non-native families.

No disagreement from me.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Man, how many dog whistles did you bring with you?

I don’t think you know what dog whistle means.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why?

By the way, you do know that the internet part was a running joke based around every group calling for social democratization of everything.

I'm honestly never sure if you are completely joking or not.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'll try to dig out the stats at lunch but I remember reading that the conviction rate. Basically number of convicted or pled out / Number of Charged was significantly higher for Natives. There is no social reason for this to be the case and is essentially purely a systemic problem.

Does it account for poverty levels? Education levels?

When you can't afford any form of a good lawyer and don't have the education to understand what you're saying to police will come back to hurt you (for example), that's going to hurt your conviction rate.

Poor, uneducated criminals being convicted more is not necessarily a racial issue at the Justice System level but does point to even bigger society issues when we know that more Indigenous people live in poverty with lower level of education on average.

[Robbob]

They did this episode on The Orville

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that we should get rid of jury trials. I think that what we should do is stream every trial on the internet and have a jury by Internet.

If you want to you can go on your fazebook like page and see a list of trials, with a short description, and preferably some memes.

Then you can log in and watch the trial, and for example if a lawyer objects,. you can vote on whether on not its sustained or denied.

You can totally help the lawyers with the examination by sending in questions that will go right to their tablets.

And in the end, you can actually vote on the verdict.

Social democratization at its best.

Oh and lawyers can appeal on meme.

I mean frankly no matter what the courts are going to be accused of racism, its just going to happen.

I get the whole concept of social equalization, but I have to ask, does that really matter when it comes to the examination of an actual crime, or should that be reserved for the decision concerning the sentences if found guilty.

I get it, you're poor or you have a severe alcohol disorder or you're a drug addict. But does that matter when it comes to the crime you committed.

I'm poor so I shot this person killing him.

I'm addicted to drugs, so I broke into a families house and beat them to within an inch of his life.

I'm come from a drunken family so I got drunk and got into a car and ran over a kid.

Frankly, I always believed that the question in front of the courts is more about, did you commit the crime. All of the other factors can come into play after that's decided to me.

Also in no way does for example putting quotas in a jury make a court less racist. If you have a native defendant saying that you have to actually have half native and half whatever isn't inherently less racist. The question has to be, can you get beyond the race of the defendant and put forward a fair verdict based on the evidence put forward to you and based on the rules of the courts and the law.

Also I get the idea that they believe that the courts are racist, so what do they want? Their own justice system within Canada? do we do that with everyone, but what happens when you have a race on race crime then, you're back into the whole court is racist thing.

If you want to make the courts less racist, then you have to find a way to make it open and understandable, so that the first instinct isn't just to look at a verdict and decide its racist.

If you want to make the courts less racist, then you need to find a way to make people take the time and actually understand how a verdict was reached, which means things like making jurors explain why they reached every single verdict, similar to what a judge has to do.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm honestly never sure if you are completely joking or not.

Sometimes I'm not even sure, sometimes it just happens. Maybe its the post concussion syndrome.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

And this is the exact way it is supposed to, and should, work. The Crown must prove their case beyond a reasobable doubt, it is no incumbent on the accused to provide evidence supporting their innocence. In this case, the jury clearly felt that the Crown presented no evidence supporting their charges.

The way you are talking, it sounds like you would be fine if the accused in trials were forced to prove their innocence.

In this situation the defendant must absolutely provide evidence to support his claims in order to be successful. If you're caught on video shooting someone in the head, do you honestly think there's no burden on you to provide evidence to prove your innocence if you expect to successfully defend yourself? Of course there is, and that has nothing to do with the overall notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Stanley readily admitted that the gun he was holding killed Boushie which is admitting to at least manslaughter barring exceptional circumstances. So the onus was on him to provide evidence that he was not responsible for the crime he admitted to if he wanted to be successful. I guess for the jury (and a lot of other people) him just saying it was an accident with virtually no physical evidence to support his claims was enough to introduce reasonable doubt. It certainly isn't enough in my mind though. I mean, what else is he going to say?

[stang]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I guess for the jury (and a lot of other people) him just saying it was an accident with virtually no physical evidence to support his claims was enough to introduce reasonable doubt. It certainly isn't enough in my mind though. I mean, what else is he going to say?

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.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually this is the definition of Racism, Having a negative stereotype of people based on who they are as opposed to what they are doing. If your reaction to 5 drunk natives and 5 drunk white people coming on to your land is different than that is racist. You are arguing that historical acts justify that racism. I would disagree that it is a justification.

Not justifies, but that it is human nature and actually a proper survival trait.

If I hear on the news a random X race man in my neighborhood is breaking in and killing people, and a random X race man jumps into my yard and starts banging on the door trying to break in and I shoot him, am I being racist because "maybe he wasn't the killer X race man?"

He didn't go out looking for Natives because of a pre-determined stereotype. However, when a group of people ARE acting in a pre-determined stereotype, a different reaction/altered reaction to that group of people compared to your reaction to another group is expected (And not racist IMO)

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

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.