Colten Bushie murder trial

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Ummm, depending on the situation. Yes you ####ing should.

The second that someone poses no risk to you, others or your property, you no longer should have any rights to kill them.

But again, the whole defense in this case was the accidental discharge. Mr. Stanley did not discharge the firearm because he felt he needed to. His position, whether it's the truth or not, was that the discharge was an accident as a result of hangfire due to the earlier warning shots.

At no point, ever, did Mr. Stanley claim that he fired the shot that killed Colton to protect his family or property. That wasn't his mindset. Ironically, he probably should have had that mindset considering the loaded gun but he was unaware of it at the time.

Well of course not, because he claims it is a hangfire.

However, self defense runs through this case entirely right up until the final discharge of the gun. He said that he feared for his life and that of his family, thought that these guys may have ran over his wife because she was out mowing the lawn and they ran their car over the mower. He states that pretty clearly.

That is why the situation escalated, that is why he brought out the gun and that is why he fired 2 warning shots into the ground and tried to fire a 3rd. The jury chose to believe that Stanley's actions were reasonable given the situation.

If this had happened in a nightclub, we'd see a radically different result and likely a conviction.

[stang]

Along with the hang fire claim, was that the casing was deformed indicating it was normal. There was also blood spatter on the trigger of the gun indicating his finger wasn’t on the trigger.

I feel for both sides in this case. Terrible situation, as it doesn’t seem like Colten knew what was happening (blood level of .30) and woke up and jumped in the drivers seat. It seems like it’s his friends fault for putting him in this situation

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I know the circumstances but my belief is if you're pointing at someone's head and it goes off hang fire or not - you're level of responsibility has increased and your ability to claim mistake goes down.

Going by the testimony, the gun winding up pointed at Boushe's head wasn't intentional. If Stanley hand the gun in his right hand and was reaching into the truck to try and turn the keys off, its entirely possibly that the gun inadvertently got pointed in his direction. Especially since we don't know what Boushie was doing at the time.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well of course not, because he claims it is a hangfire.

However, self defense runs through this case entirely right up until the final discharge of the gun. He said that he feared for his life and that of his family, thought that these guys may have ran over his wife because she was out mowing the lawn and they ran their car over the mower. He states that pretty clearly.

That is why the situation escalated, that is why he brought out the gun and that is why he fired 2 warning shots into the ground and tried to fire a 3rd. The jury chose to believe that Stanley's actions were reasonable given the situation.

No one is arguing about the self defense though up until the point where the shot was fired. You called it a dog and pony show because of self defense, but that's all peripheral which set the stage, so to speak, but no one argued that what he did up until the incidental firing of the gun was unreasonable in the court. Which means it wasn't a self defense case and certainly did not underscore the need to have self defense law reform.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This trial underscores the need to self defense law reform in Canada. There shouldn't be a dog and pony show every time someone defends themselves on their own property in Canada.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If this had happened in a nightclub, we'd see a radically different result and likely a conviction.

Of course we would. It's not even possible to compare a nightclub shooting to this case.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No one is arguing about the self defense though up until the point where the shot was fired. You called it a dog and pony show because of self defense, but that's all peripheral which set the stage, so to speak, but no one argued that what he did up until the incidental firing of the gun was unreasonable in the court. Which means it wasn't a self defense case and certainly did not underscore the need to have self defense law reform.

That is not correct.

The crown argued that Stanley's actions were "exceedingly reckless", which is why they focused on the higher charge of 2nd degree murder.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

That is not correct.

The crown argued that Stanley's actions were "exceedingly reckless", which is why they focused on the higher charge of 2nd degree murder.

Yes of course! Because, at the very least, he had a gun pointed to the back of the head of a person trying to leave the situation.

The Crown's argument was that he intentionally shot him, that he knew the gun had only fired 2 when he put in 3 bullets, that a hangfire is extremely rare and doesn't last the way that Stanley claimed, and that Stanley lied about believing his wife was under the car at the time of the shooting.

They did not claim that Stanley should not have had the gun in the first place, or that he was unable to defend himself. Everything leading up to the actual shooting, there was no argument about it being excessive or unwarranted.

From another discussion:

Criminal conviction requires both the act being done AND a guilty state of mind. In this case the guilty state of mind required is either intention to kill (for murder) or carelessness (for manslaughter). Stanley went into the trial presumed innocent and the entire burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was on the Crown. This is a high bar to meet and it must be because we don't hold people responsible for crimes like murder unless we are absolutely sure that they are guilty.

With that in mind, for a murder conviction the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley intended to kill Boushie. He claims he believed his gun was empty and that his gun malfunctioned. The fact that the jury found him not guilty of murder does not necessarily mean they accepted this as the truth; it only means that they were not convinced BARD that he intended to kill. The jury then moves on to consider manslaughter.

The Crown's case for manslaughter was that Stanley caused Boushie's death unlawfully by careless use of a firearm. The Crown argued he was careless with his firearm in that he didn't know how many rounds he loaded in, didn't know how to make his gun safe, and was careless about where his gun was pointing at the time it went off. The legal test for carelessness the jury had to apply was whether what Stanley did was a "marked departure from what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances". Can't say for sure what the jury's reasons were but it seems likely they considered the intensity of the situation and determined that his actions were not drastically different from what a reasonable person would do.

Hope this clears up some confusion.

This all came down to the intention and handling of the handgun at the time of the shooting.

Gerald Stanley was really not on trial for anything prior to that. Had the gun not gone off, no one would have batted an eye at his actions. There's no need for self-defense law reforms because of this case.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes of course! Because, at the very least, he had a gun pointed to the back of the head of a person trying to leave the situation.

The Crown's argument was that he intentionally shot him, that he knew the gun had only fired 2 when he put in 3 bullets, that a hangfire is extremely rare and doesn't last the way that Stanley claimed, and that Stanley lied about believing his wife was under the car at the time of the shooting.

They did not claim that Stanley should not have had the gun in the first place, or that he was unable to defend himself. Everything leading up to the actual shooting, there was no argument about it being excessive or unwarranted.

Had the Crown actually vetted their witnesses, the chances that charges would have been brought in the first case is probably very slim. None of their evidence supported anything they claimed during the trial.

Luckily they can only appeal if there was an issue with the judge's instructions to the jury, which is doubtful considering how long he took to prepare them.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Had the Crown actually vetted their witnesses, the chances that charges would have been brought in the first case is probably very slim. None of their evidence supported anything they claimed during the trial.

Not quite sure the point you're trying to make with respect to my post about this really not being a self-defense case.

But even without witnesses, Stanley's own testimony probably warranted enough to go to trial. Let's not forget that there was a dead body.

Like what do you think would happen without the witnesses?

"How'd that happen?"
"My gun just went off accidentally"
"Oh okay."

Yes, surely the witnesses did not help the Crown's prosecution when it's likely they were not being truthful on the stand, but even without them completely there was major questions that warranted a trial.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not quite sure the point you're trying to make with respect to my post about this really not being a self-defense case.

But even without witnesses, Stanley's own testimony probably warranted enough to go to trial. Let's not forget that there was a dead body.

Like what do you think would happen without the witnesses?

"How'd that happen?"
"My gun just went off accidentally"
"Oh okay."

Yes, surely the witnesses did not help the Crown's prosecution when it's likely they were not being truthful on the stand, but even without them completely there was major questions that warranted a trial.

Should have trimmed the post, sorry. Was talking mostly about the center portion about the Crown's claims.

If they had known that they were going to be putting a who slew of witnesses on the stand to admit they lied and actually had no idea what happened, they probably would not have called them. Without the witnesses, what evidence would the Crown have been able to present that supported their claims?

Even the firearms expert they put on the stand was a bit of an embarrassment.

[14]

Lots of sides. One never knows until you are in it.

I feel for the jury. What a situation to be put in after. So many people making assumptions.

I support them.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...nley-1.4506931

You're right. And while not quite explicit in that article, I had read a lot of the no-shows were Indigenous. Which really is somewhat understandable in the sense they live so far away, many don't have transport, and rightfully-or-wrongfully probably felt disenfranchised with the Canadian justice system.

45 minutes to and from the courthouse is nothing. Hell, I live inside Calgary city limits and it takes me that long (or longer, I've spent over an hour getting there) to get to and from the Courthouse. If it matters to you, you make it happen and you do it.

And 12 Challenges out of the 204 that showed up is still a very small fraction.

[Jacks]

The Prime Minister, the Justice Minister and the Indigenous Services Minister all came out with comments basically saying that the wrong verdict was reached. I can't remember anything like that ever happening before.

[combustiblefuel]

A tragic series of events that could have been avoided.

I wonder how much this also played a factor .

"Over course of the next two days, the RCMP photographed the crime scene. The .22-calibre rifle barrel, which belonged to Cross-Whitstone, was found near Boushie's body. It was bent out of shape and contained five bullets in the magazine and one in the chamber."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...rald-1.4520214

[chemgear]

http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...system-lawyers

After Stanley verdict, lawyers say political commentary risks justice system independence

Edmonton-based criminal lawyer Tom Engel said when politicians, especially the justice minister, appear to criticize verdicts, the public may believe that future decisions by the courts are influenced by the remarks.

Engel said if the case is appealed, he doesn’t believe the politicians’ comments would colour the decisions made by the appeal courts or Supreme Court of Canada.

The problem, he said, is that the public may perceive that there is an influence.

[Regorium]

The only story I get out of this is the increasing political and media interference in our courts. It's a sad trend.

[Locke]

I'd never heard of a 'hang-fire' but seeing as it appears to have been a Russian Tokarev I wouldnt put it outside of the realm of possibility.

The Russians arent notorious for their Engineering Acumen and meticulous attention to detail.

Oh great...now we've dragged the Russians into this...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The media are fanning the flames trying to create a massive racial issue out of this and acting like the entire country is up in arms. They don’t care at all about the truth. Purely just sensationalism. I shouldn’t be surprised but I am. And disgusted.

I've deliberately avoided any CBC coverage of the verdict. On anything to do with native issues, they no longer even pretend to be anything but passionate advocates for the most simplistic and emotionally-satisfying narratives.

CBC radio recently did some features on native children taken into state custody. It was all about the racism and injustice of it. All emotion and no reason. No acknowledgement of the terrible position child services are put in when they're told on the one hand that they have to reduce the number of native children taken into care, and on the other hand that they have a duty to ensure children are not in danger in their homes. No acknowledgement that this is a complex issue. Disgraceful for a national broadcaster.

Originally Posted by Swarly

Yep, the media really seem to be trying to push one side of this case. The biggest thing I have noticed is how all the people infuriated by the result have been calling him a kid, media too. Big stories and people talking about a guy killing a kid who went onto his property.

Um no, he was a 22-year-old man who got drunk and thought it would be fun to terrorize a couple farms. It's sad how it turned out but the stories do feel one-sided.

Yeah, that's a pretty transparent technique to torque a story. If a 22-year-old police officer shot someone, would the officer be referred to as a kid? Not a chance.

[burn_this_city]

CBC has turned into the mouthpiece of leftwing identity politics. There is no nuance to anything they cover anymore, just shrill garbage journalism.

[icecube]

Many interesting parts to this case and to say that racism isn't one of them is very disingenuous.

Around a third of the population around the North Battleford area is indigenous. The verdict came from an all white jury. The defence used a peremptory challenge on every single visibly indigenous looking person during jury selection.

Everyone who has grown up near the rural prairie areas knows people who drove around drunk or stole gas or snooped around on farms. Boushie and his friends were stupid and wrong to be driving around drunk and stealing but I don't believe for a second that if Boushie were a white kid that he'd have paid for his stupidity with his life. Indigenous people are NOT treated the same way in this country. Racism exists, especially in the rural areas, you better believe it does.

I understand the reasons why he wasn't found guilty of second degree murder. These kids were on his property and he felt threatened. Their testimonies were hindered by the fact they couldn't remember details due to being so drunk etc. The hang fire defence is completely absurd. He smashed their tail light in. His son smashed the windshield with a hammer. He lost it and shot the kid. He should have at least done some time for manslaughter.

Stanley himself also testified that he did not ever see the rifle, so the armed robbery self defense theory doesn't fly. The other two kids fled after he pulled his gun and fired two shots (they say he fired at them, he says he fired them in the air). Does anyone actually think the gun accidentally went off? Come on now.

Hypothetical situation: If a First Nations man put a gun near the back of a white kids head and pulled the trigger shooting him behind the ear, do you honestly think for one second that he'd get off scott free? That his trial would involve twelve First Nations jurors?