Colten Bushie murder trial

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by speede5

When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?

I dont know...was his instructor driving around impaired with a loaded rifle smashing into his property and taking a run at his wife on a lawnmower?

There is this thing called context...you should read up on it.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Not sure i agree. Clearly (I think) knowledge that you are in close proximity with another human being increases the expected standard of care for the person handling the firearm. The only question in my mind is whether or not the the heightened stress of the situation lowered the standard sufficiently to “excuse” Mr. Stanley’s actions. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. I’m not totally convinced.

You think the case where a guy hasn't taken training, and is goofing off with a gun and shoots his friend is closer to the Stanley case then the case where the guy accidentally shoots the intruder breaking into his place?

I guess we have nothing more to talk about.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

This seems to be a tough point to grasp. You're never supposed to point a gun at someone without lawful reason.



I think in this situation there was a lawful reason. Stanley wasn't target shooting with his buddies or shooting at a range with an instructor. I'd be hard pressed to figure out when you could point a gun at someone if not in this one.

But his evidence is that’s he isn’t intentionally pointing his gun at Mr. Boushie. So this section is of no assistance to him. Now, had he been intentionally pointing his gun, it would be an interesting argument whether he was justified in doing so at the point where the fatal shot is fired. The vehicle isn’t moving. I mean, I have to think that as he approaches the vehicle close enough to reach his arm in, he becomes aware that there is no sign whatsoever that’s someone is trapped under the vehicle. There is no blood. There’s are no sounds of distress or cries for help etc. I know: heat of the moment. But any belief has to be reasonableness in the circumstances. Interesting but ultimately moot question.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Makarov

But his evidence is that’s he isn’t intentionally pointing his gun at Mr. Boushie. So this section is of no assistance to him.

Can you point me to the section where it says its only applicable if its intentional pointing?

[schteve_d]

Have people really not reacted poorly before in the "heat of the moment" or during a quick, stressful time and then looked back at it with the benefit of hindsight and realized that you could have handled it better and/or differently.

It's all very easy to sit at the keyboard drinking coffee and say what Mr. Stanley could have, or should have, done. Just try and put yourself inside his head at the time that, I suppose if you believe that part of his testimony, he believed his wife was trapped underneath an SUV. This is a farmer. This is not a highly trained soldier who has practiced and prepared for this scenario. Do you know why soldiers train for scenarios? Part of it is so they can make mistakes, review them, correct them and then do it again. And again. And again until it is second nature.

Think as fast as you can. If someone busted in to wherever you were sitting RIGHT NOW and you believed that you were in harms way, can you honestly say that you would make the ideal decision? Be honest. I honestly think most can not say that.

I won't say that Mr. Stanley made necessarily all the right decisions that day, but I don't believe that he should spend one minute in jail for the way that things played out. I can honestly say that I likely would not have handled it as well as he did as a matter of fact.

[stang]

^^^ A lot of normal people can't handle a rabbit jumping out on the road without rolling their vehicles. Let alone thinking someones attacking your family.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by speede5

When you were in the army if you did that and then pointed you gun at an instructor you think everything would be a-ok?

Lol

The jury believed he acted reasonably and that when the gun fired it was an accident. I think that was generous considering you are always supposed to treat a gun as if loaded and never point it at anyone. I think they were generous because of the circumstances and that is where it gets messy. Most of the defenders of Stanley still cling to him defending his family etc, but that was never a justifiable defense for shooting. His only chance of being acquitted was the belief it was an accident.

The first part gets a big huh from me.

Of course not in training, but we're not even talking similar levels or training or situations.

Stanley was not a soldier, he was not trained daily to exist in a generally shytty and stressful environment that involved guns.

When he talked about believing that the weapon was safe after firing two warning shots and essentially dry firing, that combined with the misshapen round, pretty much killed the murder charge, and almost certainly put the pin in a chance of a manslaughter conviction.

What was testified to certainly painted it as an accident and the Crown had nothing to counter it with. The most compelling testimony was from the shooter, and the Crown was stuck with a lousy set of witnesses, a misshapen round, physical evidence that indicated that his finger was not on the trigger. all of that points to the possibility of a accident, and if there's a possibility that can't be countered, you now how reasonable doubt.

At the end of the day, the defense was smart in staying away from a self defense errr defense. They might have lost on that one, even though, again the Crown would have had a lousy set of facts and witnesses to fall back on.

And yeah, I can certainly tell you that in the military, gun safety is a relentless pursuit, with extreme circumstances for mistakes.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Have people really not reacted poorly before in the "heat of the moment" or during a quick, stressful time and then looked back at it with the benefit of hindsight and realized that you could have handled it better and/or differently.

It's all very easy to sit at the keyboard drinking coffee and say what Mr. Stanley could have, or should have, done. Just try and put yourself inside his head at the time that, I suppose if you believe that part of his testimony, he believed his wife was trapped underneath an SUV. This is a farmer. This is not a highly trained soldier who has practiced and prepared for this scenario. Do you know why soldiers train for scenarios? Part of it is so they can make mistakes, review them, correct them and then do it again. And again. And again until it is second nature.

Think as fast as you can. If someone busted in to wherever you were sitting RIGHT NOW and you believed that you were in harms way, can you honestly say that you would make the ideal decision? Be honest. I honestly think most can not say that.

I won't say that Mr. Stanley made necessarily all the right decisions that day, but I don't believe that he should spend one minute in jail for the way that things played out. I can honestly say that I likely would not have handled it as well as he did as a matter of fact.

I am working from home today. I would go for my gun.....

[speede5]

Wow my attempt at humour fell flat

[CaptainCrunch]

Unrelated gun story.

When I was in the Army, I got some leave and went to visit my uncles farm with my 15 year old nephew.

We decided to go out shooting, and picked a spot between two silos. and started trying to hit posts on the fence line. When I got done, I saftied the rifle, and handed it to him. And decided to go behind a silo behind the firing position for a quick smoke, while he fired away. When he hit the end I came out, and he thought he'd play the dumbest joke ever and was kneeling and pointing the rifle at me.

I figured that it was unloaded and he was messing with me, so I asked him in a low voice if there was a round in chamber. He said no, I repeated the question and he checked. then laughed and said it was clear.

So I jumped him and laid a beating on him, and then had to explain to his parents my uncle and aunt was that beyond the whole pointing the rifle at me loaded or unloaded, that he had to check to make sure there wasn't a round chambered.

I then wrapped my knuckle on my left hand, got in my car and drove home to Calgary.

People do stupid things or aren't certain, they get complacent, or just plain lazy. People in a panic situation tend to be sloppy and undisciplined and lose track of the details.

If you go through the various gun control threads on this site, I've been pretty consistent in terms of people using guns for home defense. They're more likely to kill a friend or family or neighbor then the criminal, because its dark, its panicky and things move way to fast, and they don't train people like soldiers.

I get what Stanley's thought process was if I can as the jury had to rely on his testimony. He was dealt what seems like a pretty shytty set of cards, and he lost track of details, and the boy lost his life.

I'm not sure that it falls into the realm of manslaughter because of the evidence of not pulling the trigger and having what looks like a bad round.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by stang

Can you point me to the section where it says its only applicable if its intentional pointing?

It may well be that intention is the men’s tea of the offence so this section may not apply at all to Mr. Stanley’s account. Indeed, it seems doubtful that the pointing of the firearm at Mr. Boushie was even voluntary (just a product of trying to reach into the vehicle) according to Mr. Stanley’s account (in which case this section definitely has no application)

But if I’m wrong about those two things, then the only two “lawful excuses” of which I am aware are self defence and perhaps defence of property. Both of those excuses would, as a matter of logic I think, require the person to be intentionally pointing the firearm in order to protect themselves or their property.

I don’t know for certain but those are my thoughts.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by speede5

... Most of the defenders of Stanley still cling to him defending his family etc, but that was never a justifiable defense for shooting. His only chance of being acquitted was the belief it was an accident.

Wholly incorrect.

In Canada you are allowed to use "reasonable force" and in some instances that can be deemed to be lethal force. Plenty of case law where people use lethal force in self-defense of themselves or their families. If he believed that his family was at risk of death he, under the law, could use lethal force.

The defense chose not to go this way and opted for the "accidental discharge" route.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Makarov

But if I’m wrong about those two things, then the only two “lawful excuses” of which I am aware are self defence and perhaps defence of property. Both of those excuses would, as a matter of logic I think, require the person to be intentionally pointing the firearm in order to protect themselves or their property.

I don’t know for certain but those are my thoughts.

Self defense, defense of others, defense of property if the threat to life is also present.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Wholly incorrect.

In Canada you are allowed to use "reasonable force" and in some instances that can be deemed to be lethal force. Plenty of case law where people use lethal force in self-defense of themselves or their families. If he believed that his family was at risk of death he, under the law, could use lethal force.

The defense chose not to go this way and opted for the "accidental discharge" route.

Yes, and I didn't say you couldn't use reasonable force. I said in this case it was not justified. Maybe that's jumping the gun, in this case it was never debated because it was not used as a defense, although many seem to think he was acquitted because he was allowed to shoot Boshie.

All sides agreed he was just in using the gun to scare them off. It's the part where it went off and killed someone that it got messy.

We will never know if he would have been aquitted had he claimed self defense.

Being acquitted of manslaughter does not mean he was justified in firing the gun at another person in self defense.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Self defense, defense of others, defense of property if the threat to life is also present.

Right, but I can’t see how one could argue both that I didn’t intend to point my gun at Mr. X but I pointed my gun at Mr. X because I reasonably feared for my safety, another’s safety, or to reasonably protect my property etc.

[automaton 3]

Here is the transcript of the Judge's instructions to the jury including a summary of the evidence.

Extremely thorough in my view. Answers many of the questions in this thread as well.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

[automaton 3]

This is the decision tree:

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. He is not guilty of manslaughter because he did not act in a way that would be a departure of a normal person. The difference between negligence and accident.

Also, because the defense of self defense was not used, doesn't mean the governing law doesn't apply. He was still governed by that law. He still had a right to point the gun at someone whether he did so on purpose or not. That answers the question people were asking...if it's not self defense then why did he have a gun in the first place.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

if it's not self defense then why did he have a gun in the first place.

Well according to Gerald Stanley it was to fire shots in the air and scare them off, not to shoot someone.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Right, but I can’t see how one could argue both that I didn’t intend to point my gun at Mr. X but I pointed my gun at Mr. X because I reasonably feared for my safety, another’s safety, or to reasonably protect my property etc.

In this case it’s easy. It was never argued that Stanley shot Boushie in self-defence.

The argument was that this was an accidental discharge. It would seems that Stanley’s actions and testimony, as well as the physical evidence, were enough for the jury to find that there was reasonable doubt for both manslaughter and second degree murder