02-14-2018, 10:30 AM
|
#421
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
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.
|
That blood splatter evidence is interesting. Where did you read about that?
It seems to me that blood splatter evidence on some parts of the trigger is really only consistent with the fact that Mr. Stanley’s finger was not covering the entire trigger at the time of the fatal shot (but to me that doesn’t suggest that his finger wasn’t on the trigger at all). However, if the blood splatter was on most or all of the trigger, that is consistent with there being no finger on the trigger.
Of course, that is only relevant to the murder charge (not the manslaughter charge).
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:32 AM
|
#422
|
CP's Fraser Crane
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
That blood splatter evidence is interesting. Where did you read about that?
It seems to me that blood splatter evidence on some parts of the trigger is really only consistent with the fact that Mr. Stanley’s finger was not covering the entire trigger at the time of the fatal shot (but to me that doesn’t suggest that his finger wasn’t on the trigger at all). However, if the blood splatter was on most or all of the trigger, that is consistent with there being no finger on the trigger.
Of course, that is only relevant to the murder charge (not the manslaughter charge).
|
I wasnt at the trial, just going by the defence lawyers closing remarks.
Quote:
Spencer began his closing remarks by joking that “the good news is this is probably the last time you’ll hear from me.”
“The rest of it is bad. This whole situation is bad, and sad, so sad.”
He began by pointing to the expert testimony. With respect to the Tokarev pistol, Spencer noted blood on the trigger, consistent with evidence that Stanley’s finger was not on the trigger when Colten Boushie was shot.
|
http://www.newsoptimist.ca/news/loca...ces-1.23168999
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to stang For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:34 AM
|
#423
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canehdianman
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.
|
Just for fun, here is noted misunderstander-of-the-criminal-justice-system Kent Roach’s two cents:
Quote:
The compromise charge was there. The jury was instructed that if the accused was not guilty of murder that they should consider whether he was guilty of manslaughter. I was very surprised that the jury did not come in with at least a manslaughter verdict. And that’s because the defence that Mr. Stanley mounted is a defence of accident, and the way it works in Canadian law is that if you believe that the discharge was accidental, then that means there’s at least a reasonable doubt that he didn't have the intent to kill.
So therefore you get an acquittal on murder, but the way it works is we have an extremely broad manslaughter offense in Canada. And it applies whenever someone is doing an unlawful act like careless use of a firearm, which seems to have been present here, pointing a gun at a person’s head.
As an academic lawyer, the vast majority of cases that I see where there’s a defence of accident raised to murder results in a manslaughter conviction. Of course, if there had been a manslaughter conviction, rightly or wrong, Mr. Stanley would have, subject to a successful appeal, been looking at at least four years in jail because of our mandatory minimum sentences.
|
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:35 AM
|
#424
|
CP's Fraser Crane
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
That blood splatter evidence is interesting. Where did you read about that?
It seems to me that blood splatter evidence on some parts of the trigger is really only consistent with the fact that Mr. Stanley’s finger was not covering the entire trigger at the time of the fatal shot (but to me that doesn’t suggest that his finger wasn’t on the trigger at all). However, if the blood splatter was on most or all of the trigger, that is consistent with there being no finger on the trigger.
Of course, that is only relevant to the murder charge (not the manslaughter charge).
|
However I would think that that part of it along with the deformed casing would be enough to believe his version of the events.
Short hang fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naX1oxM40cs
8 second hang fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjDu5zwa4rM
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to stang For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:42 AM
|
#425
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang
|
RCMP firearms expert testified that the longest hang fire he had ever read about was 28 milliseconds and that he could not imagine one lasting longer than a second.
Still hard for me to imagine how pointing a gun, which you knew had some bullets but perhaps didn’t know exactly how many bullets, at someone’s head at short range and thus causing that person’s death isn’t manslaughter.
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:44 AM
|
#426
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Fort McMurray, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang
|
That is right up there among the most stupid things I have ever seen a human do.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to schteve_d For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:44 AM
|
#427
|
Franchise Player
|
There are lawful reasons to point a gun at someone. I would assume one of those reasons would be if someone posed a threat to you or your family. So if the gun malfunctioned and if there was a threat deemed reasonable by any normal person, then maybe that's why he's innocent of manslaughter.
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:51 AM
|
#428
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
There are lawful reasons to point a gun at someone. I would assume one of those reasons would be if someone posed a threat to you or your family. So if the gun malfunctioned and if there was a threat deemed reasonable by any normal person, then maybe that's why he's innocent of manslaughter.
|
Even Mr. Stanley’s evidence was that the vehicle wasn’t moving at this point. Why would he need to point a gun at the driver? Indeed, as I understand it, his evidence was that he was reaching into the vehicle to hrab the keys when the gun fired. He wasn’t training it on the driver out of any sort of fear. He wasn’t paying attention to where it was pointed.
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:52 AM
|
#429
|
CP's Fraser Crane
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by schteve_d
That is right up there among the most stupid things I have ever seen a human do.
|
Yup, lucky guy
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:57 AM
|
#430
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sadly not in the Dome.
|
You know it's possible that he didn't purposely point the gun at the deceased's head right? Reach into the cab of the truck with your left hand and maybe reach for the door with your right hand with the gun still in it? Has there been any talk of angle of the gun, up, down? Was it actually pointed at the back of his head? Perhaps he reached in and the gun went off and there was no pointing whatsoever? I would lean towards that since he was found not guilty.
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 10:59 AM
|
#431
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
RCMP firearms expert testified that the longest hang fire he had ever read about was 28 milliseconds and that he could not imagine one lasting longer than a second.
|
You're putting way too much credence on one mans anecdotal experience. If the trial came down to only this point and the defense needed to counter it, I'm sure they could have easily found their own expert supporting a longer hang-fire time.
It appears they didn't have to, so I think you can read into it that this expert testimony really didn't count for much in the context of everything else.
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:02 AM
|
#432
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
RCMP firearms expert testified that the longest hang fire he had ever read about was 28 milliseconds and that he could not imagine one lasting longer than a second.
Still hard for me to imagine how pointing a gun, which you knew had some bullets but perhaps didn’t know exactly how many bullets, at someone’s head at short range and thus causing that person’s death isn’t manslaughter.
|
Except as he testified, he fired the two warning shots and pulled the trigger after that and it didn't fire, he didn't think he had any bullets left.
You can talk about negligence in that he didn't check, but he certainly from his testimony believed that the gun was safe.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:05 AM
|
#433
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Even Mr. Stanley’s evidence was that the vehicle wasn’t moving at this point. Why would he need to point a gun at the driver? Indeed, as I understand it, his evidence was that he was reaching into the vehicle to hrab the keys when the gun fired. He wasn’t training it on the driver out of any sort of fear. He wasn’t paying attention to where it was pointed.
|
That's why I think the malfunctioning gun is the important fact here. But also, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to point a gun at anyone during a highly stressful threatening situation. I wouldn't expect anyone to make perfect choices during that sort of scenario. A trained military expert maybe but an unsuspecting farmer, no. And I think that after pulling the trigger several times it's reasonable to assume the gun isn't loaded.
Of course you have to believe Stanley's testimony. And this is where I'm unclear. It seems obvious that the prosecution's testimony was unbelievable. But does that automatically make the defense testimony valid? Do you have to believe one or the other?
I think what makes sense is a careless storage of a firearm charge.
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:11 AM
|
#434
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Of course you have to believe Stanley's testimony. And this is where I'm unclear. It seems obvious that the prosecution's testimony was unbelievable. But does that automatically make the defense testimony valid? Do you have to believe one or the other?
|
Well no, not really. But we have a presumption of innocence, so if you don't believe the prosecution's story, that's really grounds for reasonable doubt even if you don't believe the defense.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:12 AM
|
#435
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galakanokis
You know it's possible that he didn't purposely point the gun at the deceased's head right? Reach into the cab of the truck with your left hand and maybe reach for the door with your right hand with the gun still in it? Has there been any talk of angle of the gun, up, down? Was it actually pointed at the back of his head? Perhaps he reached in and the gun went off and there was no pointing whatsoever? I would lean towards that since he was found not guilty.
|
Yes, this is the entire point: his carelessness with a firearm caused the death of a person and thus presumably constituted manslaughter.
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:17 AM
|
#436
|
CP's Fraser Crane
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearFart
You're putting way too much credence on one mans anecdotal experience. If the trial came down to only this point and the defense needed to counter it, I'm sure they could have easily found their own expert supporting a longer hang-fire time.
It appears they didn't have to, so I think you can read into it that this expert testimony really didn't count for much in the context of everything else.
|
They did. They had their own people including just regular joes who had experienced long hang fire on their own. They also had some accounts from the internet brought in, however they weren't allowed to use that. Could have just shown that youtube video I posted.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to stang For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:17 AM
|
#437
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Still hard for me to imagine how pointing a gun, which you knew had some bullets but perhaps didn’t know exactly how many bullets, at someone’s head at short range and thus causing that person’s death isn’t manslaughter.
|
Don't get me wrong, I'd have a hard time finding him not guilty (on the evidence that I read) simply because I understand at no point should a gun be pointed at a person under any circumstances other than with the explicit possibility that you could kill them. So for me, that probably would be a sticking point if I was on the jury. At the same time, I would have had a hard time condemning a person to a minimum of 4 years if I truly thought it was an accident.
But really the argument from the defense was that he had unloaded the gun, shot multiple times with nothing happening and therefore saw it as safe. Now it goes to the jury (if they believe that) to decide if what he did was something a reasonable person would have done in that high stress situation. If they could understand that a reasonable person may not have had a focus on where his gun was aiming while he was looking to save his wife, well that's a tough spot. And ultimately, likely, what got him off.
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:20 AM
|
#438
|
CP's Fraser Crane
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Don't get me wrong, I'd have a hard time finding him not guilty (on the evidence that I read) simply because I understand at no point should a gun be pointed at a person under any circumstances other than with the explicit possibility that you could kill them. So for me, that probably would be a sticking point if I was on the jury. At the same time, I would have had a hard time condemning a person to a minimum of 4 years if I truly thought it was an accident.
But really the argument from the defense was that he had unloaded the gun, shot multiple times with nothing happening and therefore saw it as safe. Now it goes to the jury (if they believe that) to decide if what he did was something a reasonable person would have done in that high stress situation. If they could understand that a reasonable person may not have had a focus on where his gun was aiming while he was looking to save his wife, well that's a tough spot. And ultimately, likely, what got him off.
|
Nailed it. I believe the first part was what the Jury was told
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:20 AM
|
#439
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
That's why I think the malfunctioning gun is the important fact here. But also, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to point a gun at anyone during a highly stressful threatening situation. I wouldn't expect anyone to make perfect choices during that sort of scenario. A trained military expert maybe but an unsuspecting farmer, no. And I think that after pulling the trigger several times it's reasonable to assume the gun isn't loaded.
Of course you have to believe Stanley's testimony. And this is where I'm unclear. It seems obvious that the prosecution's testimony was unbelievable. But does that automatically make the defense testimony valid? Do you have to believe one or the other?
I think what makes sense is a careless storage of a firearm charge.
|
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.
EDIT: I will try to find a more analogous example later tonight because I do think the reasonableness of Mr. Stanley’s belief the gun was unloaded is an interesting question. My difficulty is that he is the one who loaded it just moments earlier (as I understand it).
__________________
"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."
Last edited by Makarov; 02-14-2018 at 11:27 AM.
|
|
|
02-14-2018, 11:21 AM
|
#440
|
Franchise Player
|
It seems to me that a self defense argument would have been much more reasonable. Is that true? Bouchie had a rifle between his legs sitting in the front of the truck that had already bashed into other vehicles on the property. Wouldn't it be reasonable to shoot the guy you thought was driving and who had a gun between his legs? I know nothing about our self defense laws but if that's not it I don't know what is.
I think Stanley just gave a full rendition of the truth from day one even though it maybe is a little harder to believe than the self defense angle.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 AM.
|
|