Colten Bushie murder trial

[Cecil Terwilliger]

The impression I got from the mainstream media and online and what I’m reading this thread are total opposites.

Based on the headlines I thought the farmer had murdered an innocent native kid in cold blood. Even the stories themselves focus purely on the outrage.

Reading this thread, it was unfortunate, but no question who was at fault here.

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.

Justin Trudeau looks like a jackass with his comments. He is quickly exposing himself as an opportunist in the worst kind of way no matter how pointless or empty the cause.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

The amount of outrage on Twitter over this is surprising. I think manslaughter would have been an appropriate verdict also, as its not really clear why the gun became pointed at the kid's head, but in the end the circumstances of the case led the jury to not want to even do that. The thieves had a gun with them which they broke trying to steal a truck on another farm, and it had 5 bullets, one in the chamber.

Stanley grabbing his gun was prudent.

The thieves' testimony was so completely unreliable I imagine the jury discarded most of it. They were all so drunk they couldn't remember what happened and between them each had a different set of facts including the gender of the person holding the gun. They each drank more than a 26 oz of spirits that day!

Its very sad this kid died. Those with him should have been charged also (attempted theft, impaired driving, etc) but its seems the RCMP took it easy on them.

There are plenty of natives posting on twitter there could be no trespass because it was native land, that just makes them look silly.

Trudeau is a milquetoast on this trial with his tweet.

At the end of the day, the witnesses were so lousy that it was almost impossible for the Jury to know what happened, hence reasonable doubt.

I guess any appeal might be around the judges instructions more then anything else.

The fact of the matter is the Crown is probably going to be forced to appeal the case due to undue command influence, and there's a good chance that another jury will find the same verdict, which will inflame things even more.

And the whole he didn't own the land, is just so much BS.

Trudeau really needed to shut his mouth, I mean I get it, he wants to be the cool Prime Minister that hugs puppies and is all for every politically correct cause. But in this case, he should have said that he had faith in the process and courts, and if you have any questions you can start there.

Now he's basically encouraged whatever is to come.

Look there's no doubt that there's a systematic problem with the false sympathy in terms of a bunch of stupid kids acting like idiots and making people feel threatened. But the idea that if there was a native judge or a native stacked jury making the verdict different shows a perverse misunderstanding of the justice system and that verdicts should be arrived at to make people feel vindicated or revenged is just wrong.

The sad thing is that the farmer and his family have been threatened because of this verdict, which coming from and to an extent being encouraged by native leaders is just as reprehensible and is going to encourage a cycle of violence.

[ResAlien]

So I’m clear, drunkenly trying to steal a vehicle is justifiable grounds for being killed? Tough crowd.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The impression I got from the mainstream media and online and what I’m reading this thread are total opposites.

Based on the headlines I thought the farmer had murdered an innocent native kid in cold blood. Even the stories themselves focus purely on the outrage.

Reading this thread, it was unfortunate, but no question who was at fault here.

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.

Justin Trudeau looks like a jackass with his comments. He is quickly exposing himself as an opportunist in the worst kind of way no matter how pointless or empty the cause.

The media byline makes it seem like the farmer made Bushie get on his knees and then executed him mafia style while uttering racial statements.

They actually picked a side on this story and reached their conclusions based on the story.

What you said about Trudeau is right, he's the worst kind of pure politician. He reaches his decisions and makes his statements over what makes him look the most sympathetic, and on issues that he actually has to put some serious thought into, he either stalls or stammers.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

So I’m clear, drunkenly trying to steal a vehicle is justifiable grounds for being killed? Tough crowd.

I knew this was coming and that's not the point.

The point is that we shouldn't have a criminal justice system where people can drunkenly crash into #### on your property, attempt to steal more crap, and when an altercation happens and someone dies, you lose your liberty for the rest of your life by going to jail.

It's a tragedy that Colten died, yes, but the farmer shouldn't be in prison the rest of his life because drunken asses came on to his property causing trouble

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

So I’m clear, drunkenly trying to steal a vehicle is justifiable grounds for being killed? Tough crowd.

This literally has nothing to do with the jury decision.

Justification has nothing to do with what happened.

We literally don't know what happened that day that had anything to do with a second degree murder or manslaughter charge because the witnesses and facts were lousy.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

So I’m clear, drunkenly trying to steal a vehicle is justifiable grounds for being killed? Tough crowd.

C'mon Res, that's nearly a Psychnet-level driveby. Is that what you're actually getting from this thread?

[OMG!WTF!]

Reminds me of the Wiebo Ludwig non murder a bit. I guess that was more an issue of not having enough evidence to charge anyone. But similar in effect.

There are a lot of states where all those trespassers would have been charged with capital murder and jailed for life. They should consider themselves lucky.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The point is that we shouldn't have a criminal justice system where people can drunkenly crash into #### on your property, attempt to steal more crap, and when an altercation happens and someone dies, you lose your liberty for the rest of your life by going to jail.

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.

[White Out 403]

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.

Yeah, sure, I agree depending on the situation. Not this one. This wasn't some cold blooded execution but an unfortunate death. The benefit of the doubt should be with the person who was minding their own business on their own land.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Pool of over 750 people were summoned for jury selection in the trial.

The defense can use their peremptory challenges on 12 of them.

I read somewhere only 200 some showed up. Sorry - can't find source.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The impression I got from the mainstream media and online and what I’m reading this thread are total opposites.

Based on the headlines I thought the farmer had murdered an innocent native kid in cold blood. Even the stories themselves focus purely on the outrage.

Reading this thread, it was unfortunate, but no question who was at fault here.

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.

Justin Trudeau looks like a jackass with his comments. He is quickly exposing himself as an opportunist in the worst kind of way no matter how pointless or empty the cause.

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.

[Oling_Roachinen]

It's our version of the Zimmerman-Martin case, with certain media trying to paint the most one-sided narrative and inflame racial tensions without reporting all the facts. Right up to our leader having to get his say in to support the 'victim.'

[4X4]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

So I’m clear, drunkenly trying to steal a vehicle is justifiable grounds for being killed? Tough crowd.

You're better than this. Totally useless comment. Though I shouldn't be surprised, as you're a Trump supporter. Don't bother pointing out that that might not be true, because you live in America, and Trump is the president, therefore......

[Coys1882]

What a horribly ####ty situation all around. The kids on reserves are so ####ed - there's no one looking out for them. They're doomed from birth. I read the blood alcohol content on some of them was .26?

As someone who grew up in Northern Saskatchewan on a farm with reserves nearby I can understand what the Stanley family were going through but something seems off with his story. I understand hangfires - but you point at what you're planning to shoot. If the gun went off accidentally - it still means he was pointing it at this guy's head.

[Amethyst]

You can't kill someone for stealing (or attempting to steal) your stuff. Even if they are drunk. Even if there have been a lot of thefts from farms in your area. But the defence never claimed it was self-defence.

Stanley shot Boushie in the back of the head. I think either he was angry/scared and in the heat of the moment, shot him OR he was careless and pointed the gun directly at a person when he only wanted to fire warning shots.

To me, that makes him guilty of something. I haven't followed the case well enough to guess whether the crown did a bad job, the jury made the wrong call, or whatever.

I grew up not far from where this happened and there are definitely racial issues just below the surface (and sometimes above).

[Kjesse]

The defence lawyer advanced the case with a very smart point which I imagine impacted the jury quite a bit. What he said in closing was, Stanley could have claimed self-defence because the victim had a gun with him. But he didn't, he consistently said he didn't pull the trigger, the gun went off itself. Risky but it makes the story more plausible by not taking advantage of the other guy having a gun.

This was not a self-defence case.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

What a horribly ####ty situation all around. The kids on reserves are so ####ed - there's no one looking out for them. They're doomed from birth. I read the blood alcohol content on some of the kids was .26?

As someone who grew up in Northern Saskatchewan on a farm with reserves nearby I can understand what the Stanley family were going through but something seems off with his story. I understand hangfires - but you point at what you're planning to shoot. If the gun went off accidentally - it still means he was pointing it at this kid's head.

He actually was firing warning shots. Two warning shots and a hangfire. It's pretty reasonable to assume anyone would be pointing at their target but another thing to shoot at it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I read somewhere only 200 some showed up. Sorry - can't find source.

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.

Glen Luther, a criminal law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, called the turnout "disappointing."

"As we learn about the size of the judicial boundary, it seems obvious that many people in the far north would not be able or willing to travel to Battleford," he said.

One female juror expressed concern about having to travel for 45 minutes to and from the courthouse during the trial.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

He actually was firing warning shots. Two warning shots and a hangfire. It's pretty reasonable to assume anyone would be pointing at their target but another thing to shoot at it.

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.