Colten Bushie murder trial

[GGG]

If the crown only provided the forensic evidence and not any witnesses I think they get a conviction.

A person claims that the gun hung fire and that he accidently loaded 3 rounds into.

A person is did and the person who shot him admits to doing it.

That's the facts of the case that actually matter. State of mind and everything that happened before or after does not matter. It was not a self defense case. I think in a vacuum the above evidence has a conviction rate of 99%.

I suspect (and this is purely personal speculation) that the Jury used the self defense aspect that was all but raised in the testimony to justify this but not use as a defense led to the not guilty verdict. It was a very shrewd strategy of the defense to put the victim on trial and a poor decision by the crown to call the witnesses in the vehicle who were drunk at the time and unreliable.

Find another case where hang fire was successfully used to get reasonable doubt? I would be surprised to find it to exist. The Crown failed to keep the trial about the evidence and therefore reasonable doubt was created as the crown witnesses couldn't tell you what happened. Even though witnesses weren't really required to get a conviction.

[llwhiteoutll]

You’re forgetting intent though. With no intent, there is no way to support a murder charge.

If the Crown hadn’t called the witnesses they did, they could have probably secured a manslaughter conviction. But none of the other evidence showed any sort of intent.

Also not sure how Boushie was put on trial? Stanley’s testimony focused on the situation, not on facts learned about Boushie after the fact.

[OMG!WTF!]

But I would guess that the accidental misfire explanation would not succeed in the vast majority of similar situations (say, for example, a young black man shooting someone in the head at close range in a mall in Scarborough.)

There's really no similarity with that example at all. It's way different to shoot someone in a public mall versus on your property. It's really hard to imagine a scenario where the details of the Stanley case that actually pointed to his innocence could be represented in a shopping mall by a person of any race.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You’re forgetting intent though. With no intent, there is no way to support a murder charge.

If the Crown hadn’t called the witnesses they did, they could have probably secured a manslaughter conviction. But none of the other evidence showed any sort of intent.

Also not sure how Boushie was put on trial? Stanley’s testimony focused on the situation, not on facts learned about Boushie after the fact.

Sorry I forgot to add that I would have only charged with Manslaughter.

Agree you don't have evidence for a 2nd degree conviction and it was likely racial politics that led to this charge despite the lack of reliable witnesses.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

Sorry I forgot to add that I would have only charged with Manslaughter.

Agree you don't have evidence for a 2nd degree conviction and it was likely racial politics that led to this charge despite the lack of reliable witnesses.

Mr. Stanley shot someone in the head at close range. One could easily infer intent to harm or kill from that action alone. What more would you expect in a typical murder charge? Accused persons seldom announce or admit to their intention to harm or kill the victim.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Mr. Stanley shot someone in the head at close range. One could easily infer intent to harm or kill from that action alone. What more would you expect in a typical murder charge? Accused persons seldom announce or admit to their intention to harm or kill the victim.

The Crown didn’t present any evidence that spoke to intent though. Inference is not enough (thankfully)

As much as it seems that people hate it, the burden of proof is not on the accused. It is up to the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So in this case the Crown either had evidence to support intent (and a 2nd degree murder charge), and chose not to present it or they didn’t have that evidence but got forced into charging it by public pressure. Either way, Stanley explained his actions, the Crown had no evidence/chose not to rebut and the jury acted correctly.

Considering that pretty much every witness the crown called bolstered reasonable doubt, I’d say that they went in unprepared because of external pressure to take action

[CaptainCrunch]

Article theorizing why the jury did what it did

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...dict-1.4532064

It has also prompted legal questions about the case and the basis on which the jury of five men and seven women may have reached its verdict.
CBC News spoke to legal experts to explain some of the issues the jury may have taken into consideration.

At the end of the trial, the jury was left with three choices: convict Stanley of second-degree murder, convict him of the lesser charge of manslaughter, or acquit.


"Any one of those three could be said to be reasonably supported by the evidence," said Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer David Butt.

Given that Boushie was shot in the head, as well as the fact Stanley arguably had a motive to use force, it wasn't unreasonable to suggest the killing was intentional, meaning second-degree murder was a viable charge, said Michael Plaxton, an associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan's College of Law.


However, he said some credibility issues with Crown witnesses likely made it harder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was intentional.

If the jury did not believe Stanley intended to kill Boushie, the option of convicting him of manslaughter was available. Put simply, manslaughter is a dangerous act that causes death, but without intent to kill.


Canada has an extremely broad manslaughter law, in particular when a person is using a firearm in a careless manner, said Kent Roach, a University of Toronto law professor. A manslaughter conviction follows, then, whenever a person who is using a firearm in a careless manner ought to have known that someone could be seriously injured from the way he or she was was using the firearm, Roach said.


"For me, one of the enduring mysteries ... is why did [the jury] reject manslaughter," he said.


Penney agreed that an argument could certainly be made for a manslaughter conviction based on the evidence that Stanley was grossly negligent by brandishing a weapon in a way that was very dangerous and resulted in the death of Boushie.



But he said there's also an argument to be made that Stanley did take precautions, that he did attempt to figure out if the weapon was loaded at the time of his confrontation with Boushie. If that's true, or if there's a reasonable doubt, that could make a manslaughter conviction challenging, Penney said.


"I'm not suggesting that was the correct way to view it … but it's not crazy if that's the way the evidence was presented."

Plaxton, in a series of tweets, argued that based on the lack of statistical evidence of ''hang fire," the reasonableness for the jury to accept this theory seemed "pretty thin."


And if the jurors rejected the hang fire theory, Plaxton wrote, this means they may have felt they had been left two options: either convict Stanley of second-degree murder, or acquit.


"Once left with the all-or-nothing choice, the jury was left to ask whether it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the midst of all that chaos in a blindingly-quick period of time, Stanley intended to fire the fatal shot.
"We know what it decided."

So my question is this, if the Crown appeals can they retrial by dropping the second degree murder option and appeal based only on Manslaughter or laughter.

Reading the above makes the verdict more logical.

It sounds like the Prosecution beyond having lousy witnesses, and cloudy evidence, over reached by giving three options. But is that enough to appeal?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

If the crown only provided the forensic evidence and not any witnesses I think they get a conviction.

A person claims that the gun hung fire and that he accidently loaded 3 rounds into.

A person is did and the person who shot him admits to doing it.

That's the facts of the case that actually matter. State of mind and everything that happened before or after does not matter. It was not a self defense case. I think in a vacuum the above evidence has a conviction rate of 99%.

I suspect (and this is purely personal speculation) that the Jury used the self defense aspect that was all but raised in the testimony to justify this but not use as a defense led to the not guilty verdict. It was a very shrewd strategy of the defense to put the victim on trial and a poor decision by the crown to call the witnesses in the vehicle who were drunk at the time and unreliable.

Find another case where hang fire was successfully used to get reasonable doubt? I would be surprised to find it to exist. The Crown failed to keep the trial about the evidence and therefore reasonable doubt was created as the crown witnesses couldn't tell you what happened. Even though witnesses weren't really required to get a conviction.

Maybe, but it goes back to the deformed round that failed when tested and theoretically could support the misfire or hang fire scenario.

Even with the forensic evidence and argument could be made for reasonable doubt.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Like you say, intent is key. Stanley never intended to shoot anyone, that can be inferred from both his testimony and his actions.

If people are going to demand that the villificationnof the deceased stop, then they should also be demanding that the constant attempts to turn this into a race issue should stop as well. No evidence was ever submitted to allege that this was race based, but portions of the public are trying to make the entire cae about race. And they are not stopping there, we now have opportunistic meddling by politicians trying to drum up votes and demands to implement measures that would change the legal system to make it even more race based

I think you're conflating two different things; from what I've seen, there haven't been many accusations that the killing was had a racial component. There are complaints that the process has inherent racial problems, and that's a totally legitimate viewpoint. I think the jury likely got this as right as they could have given the evidence, and a jury with different demographics may have found the same conclusion.

Let's reverse the roles: a white guy is on trial for killing a minority, and the jury is made up entirely of minorities. It turns out that the prosecution had multiple white people disqualified from the jury. Would you consider that fair? Would you think that it's offensive to assume that a white guy can't be impartial when judging another white guy? In a rape trial, let's say the jury was all men and the defense successfully disqualified multiple females from serving on the jury.

It gets worse when you consider that this has been going on for a century, and even if the jury got it right here, there have likely been many court cases where all-white juries got cases like this wrong. Indigenous people have legitimate reason to believe that they system is inherently bias against them, and I don't blame them for being skeptical about whether the system got it right here.

[llwhiteoutll]

I think they only way for the crown to appeal is if they show that the judge was wrong in the jury instructions

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Article theorizing why the jury did what it did

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...dict-1.4532064


So my question is this, if the Crown appeals can they retrial by dropping the second degree murder option and appeal based only on Manslaughter or laughter.

Reading the above makes the verdict more logical.

It sounds like the Prosecution beyond having lousy witnesses, and cloudy evidence, over reached by giving three options. But is that enough to appeal?

I wonder how hard an appeal would be with the PM and Justice minister weighing in publically? How can Stanley get a fair trial in appeal?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The Crown didn’t present any evidence that spoke to intent though. Inference is not enough (thankfully)

Of course it is. It is trite law to say that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions. How else would the Crown ever prove an accused’s intent?

The only real issue on the murder charge was whether or not Mr. Stanley intentionally fired the gun. He testified that he did not. In many cases, a trier of fact would reject that evidence from an accused (it’s pretty self-serving). In this case, the jury accepted it (at least to the extent that it raised a reasonable doubt).

[OMG!WTF!]

I just think his story makes sense. He loaded three bullets. Shot two warning shots and testified he pulled the trigger several more times to clear the gun. It's an old gun with rusty old ammo and the casing in question was inconsistent with good ammo. After the shot was fired the other "kid" jumped out of the car and punched his wife. At that point if Stanley had murderous intent he would have had more ammo to begin with and or certainly would have pursued more ammo and likely fired at that guy on purpose. I can easily believe he had no intention of shooting the guy as accidents happen, hang fires happen, misfires happen. No one can say it didn't happen in this case. And with the warning shots and the threat involved, I don't see any negligence other than having a crappy old gun; an offense he is still charged with.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I think they only way for the crown to appeal is if they show that the judge was wrong in the jury instructions

Probably, I don't know enought, the only trials that I've been part of, I've been a witness (and in one case a really bad witness).

In terms of the question above, I get your point, but lets be honest, both sides are going to try to stack the jury box. Either there was an incredible statistical anomaly here, or the defense could prove that the Native perspective jurors were biased in this case, and the Crown was eliminating white jurors that were already decided on the verdict.

I get why Natives would say we want more Natives in the jury, but there can't be a quota system can there? We can't say "Yeah when we questioned all of the jury members, the natives and whites were on opposite sides but because we have a quota in place now, we have to empanel.

That makes no sense to me.

You can't quota a jury, its the very definition of possible injustice in action.

The only way it would work is if you had a native defendant in a crime against whites that the jury has to be all Asian.

Or if its a case of a white/black crime or black/white crime, the jury has to be all native.

That's the only way to get away from perceived racial bias in the jury box.

How soon until we can replace jurors with T-1000's that hate all of humanity so they would be completely unbiased.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe, but it goes back to the deformed round that failed when tested and theoretically could support the misfire or hang fire scenario.

Even with the forensic evidence and argument could be made for reasonable doubt.

Even with Hang Fire though isn't it still manslaughter? He carelessly operated a firearm. More likely he pulled the trigger by accident when he reached for the keys but either way having a gun pointed at someone's head regardless of the state the person believes it is in is unlawful. Therefore when a person dies as a result of an unlawful act its manslaughter (though I'm playing internet lawyer and would love Mbates to chime in on this one)

[stang]

Originally Posted by GGG

Race became an issue not because of the media but because of the number of white people who legitimately believe it was okay to shoot an Indian.

Maybe I haven't been reading in the right spots, but I haven't read anyone think its ok to shoot an Indian. I have read a lot of people saying its ok to shoot a criminal though.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/n...rglar-1.666778

Was there a lot of outrage after this? I didn't hear any.

Originally Posted by speede5

There were options for Stanley, he and his son left the conflict and returned to it. He saw his wife was not under the SUV before the shot, they could have retreated to their home, armed and waited it out. It could have turned out different.

They left the conflict when the vehicle was thought to be leaving the yard. The vehicle then swerved hard into the area where Stanleys wife was mowing. (look at pictures for how close it was the vehicle was to the mower)

The bolded part is flat out wrong. He was looking for his wife under the vehicle when the shot rang out. He believed her under the vehicle and was trying to remove the keys so he wouldn't get run over as well.

Here's a case where a man was shot to death for using a vehicle as a weapon.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/saskat...ford-1.3643486

All this happened in seconds. I feel for both sides as I know how hard it is to lose a family member. I feel terrible his family has to go through this.

I admit I feel for Stanley too as I can easily put myself in his shoes. I have had stuff stolen out of my yard (live rural) and i have neighbors who have confronted thieves and have been shot at!! As well as other neighbors who have thieves on camera and they are armed as well.

Its being said lots, "Property isn't worth a life". Well I think the criminals need to understand this too, as they are willing to risk theirs and others for "property"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I wonder how hard an appeal would be with the PM and Justice minister weighing in publically? How can Stanley get a fair trial in appeal?

You would think that any defense lawyer for Stanley would argue this pretty hard if a retrial was ordered on an appeal. A change of venue wouldn't even work unless you moved the trial out of the country.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stang

Maybe I haven't been reading in the right spots, but I haven't read anyone think its ok to shoot an Indian. I have read a lot of people saying its ok to shoot a criminal though.

How about the elected official saying the only mistake was leaving witnesses. Does that count? Or are you saying that he meant that it was important to shoot all of the people in the car because they were all criminals.

You have to go back to the reporting and comments around the initial incident and not around the verdict to see how disgusting the rhetoric was.

[OMG!WTF!]

I don't think hang fires are all that rare either. Remington is currently in a lawsuit involving 7.5 million guns that routinely experience delayed firing. There's a documentary about it stating hundreds of people have died from hang fires just from Remington guns.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GGG

Even with Hang Fire though isn't it still manslaughter? He carelessly operated a firearm. More likely he pulled the trigger by accident when he reached for the keys but either way having a gun pointed at someone's head regardless of the state the person believes it is in is unlawful. Therefore when a person dies as a result of an unlawful act its manslaughter (though I'm playing internet lawyer and would love Mbates to chime in on this one)

Actual final shot aside.

He thought the life of his wife and son were danger. A car can be used as a weapon as has been demonstrated many times. He thought his wife may have been trapped under the car at the time.

I think it was perfectly reasonable to have the gun pointed at the driver during that situation. You wouldn't want the person in the driver's seat to try to run you over or risk further injury to the person under the car.

Why do you feel differently?