Colten Bushie murder trial

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair enough. There is little doubt that Mr. Bushir and his companions were engaging in criminal behaviour on the night of the shooting (and I have little doubt had also done so in the past).

But it is interesting that so much of this thread has been devoted to discussing that issue rather than the issue of Mr. Stanley’s guilt (especially given the implausibility of the rifle misfire defence [at least it sounds pretty implausible to me]). I’d like to read a little bit more about the evidence adduced at trial before I make up my mind. However, I think that issue deserves more attention in this thread.

The thing about the hang fire is that while they are rare, they do occur. Using 60-70 year to of surplus ammo would certainly increase the chance of one depending on how the ammo had been stored and how degraded it was at the time it was fired. The RCMP expert called even testified that when he test fired the pistol he experienced a failure to fire and a jam, using Stanley’s ammo, both of these would support the theory of degraded ammo.

He had also not personally experienced a hang fire and offered his opinion that one might last a half second at most, as well as referencing a study done that claims a .28 second delay for a hang fire.

I’d say that the firearms testimony didn’t do much for the Crown and only served to confirm that it was possible that the pistol experienced a malfunction that night

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Would a handful of natives jurors have made a difference? Need all 12 jurors for a conviction and the prosecution's case was so poor.

Well I just reject that premise, because to accept this means that the only reason the jurors found the way they did was race. We don't know the facts better than the jurors, and it could well be that having 12 native jurors would mean that same outcome.

[station]

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

This incident and trial contain racial tensions. You can deny it and say it’s not right but it’s there.

Regardless of circumstances, criminal or not, a young man lost his life and the perpetrator won his freedom on a technicality. A family and a community now feel the pain of injustice and can we really blame them?

You can declaim about the fairness of the trial and the justice system, you can pour over the minutiae of the incident to justify the veridict, you can breathlessly bemoan liberal media, and you can rant about criminals and self defence, but seriously what is the point? What is to be gained?

Tensions are high, emotions are high. We have a checkered history (at best) with indigenous relations and overt racism still exists in modern (especially rural) Canada. Maybe we could just stop and listen for a minute, you know?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by David Struch

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ick=sf_globefb

Isn't it equally despicable to suggest that a native person is more qualified to be a jury member in this situation than a white person?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by station

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

This incident and trial contain racial tensions. You can deny it and say it’s not right but it’s there.

Regardless of circumstances, criminal or not, a young man lost his life and the perpetrator won his freedom on a technicality. A family and a community now feel the pain of injustice and can we really blame them?

You can declaim about the fairness of the trial and the justice system, you can pour over the minutiae of the incident to justify the veridict, you can breathlessly bemoan liberal media, and you can rant about criminals and self defence, but seriously what is the point? What is to be gained?

Tensions are high, emotions are high. We have a checkered history (at best) with indigenous relations and overt racism still exists in modern (especially rural) Canada. Maybe we could just stop and listen for a minute, you know?

He wasn't found not guilty on a technicality. The Crown didn't have evidence to show the intent required to support a second degree murder charge and based on the evidence, the jury didn't find that his actions met the standard of manslaughter.

The family and the FSIN have been pushing a very specific narrative since the day this happened, going so far as to denounce RCMP statements surrounding the case, and it focused solely on race and not on facts.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

How it is irrelevant?

I know you're a lawyer, but given those charges against Stanley, isn't the jury asked to essentially evaluate Stanley's behavior right up until the moment of discharge to see if his actions he took prior to the shooting were reasonable or not? I.E. was it reasonable to discharge the firearm (fire the warning shots) and have the firearm pointed at Bouchie?

Well, yes, I suppose those facts could be relevant to the issue of intent and therefore to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should be guilty of murder or manslaughter. But I don’t think they are relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should have been acquitted of all charges. Firing a gun, even as a warning shot, at people who are not causing you to reasonably fear for your own safety (ie in self defence) is an unlawful act and in this case that unlawful act cases the death of another person. Therefore Mr. Stanley should have been guilty of at least manslaughter (if this had been his story). However, as I understand it, his story was that he had the rifle for the purpose of firing warning shots (presumably safely aimed away from any persons) but the rifle accidentally went off at the precise moment when it was pointed at the victim (or the vehicle he was in). So that was the issue for the jury: is that evidence sufficient to rise a reasonable doubt in your mind?

Two caveats: I don’t practice criminal law so MBates may well chime in to correct me on my feeble understanding of murder and manslaughter; and I don’t know with any precision what the evidence at trial was but this is what I have gleaned so far (I definitely could Ben wrong).

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by station

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

This incident and trial contain racial tensions. You can deny it and say it’s not right but it’s there.

Regardless of circumstances, criminal or not, a young man lost his life and the perpetrator won his freedom on a technicality. A family and a community now feel the pain of injustice and can we really blame them?

You can declaim about the fairness of the trial and the justice system, you can pour over the minutiae of the incident to justify the veridict, you can breathlessly bemoan liberal media, and you can rant about criminals and self defence, but seriously what is the point? What is to be gained?

Tensions are high, emotions are high. We have a checkered history (at best) with indigenous relations and overt racism still exists in modern (especially rural) Canada. Maybe we could just stop and listen for a minute, you know?

I find it disgusting that the our highest politicians have no regard for the rule of law. Every single person who has slammed trump for attacking the FBI and various other levels of law enforcement/courts should be equally up in arms about the comments made by Trudeau and his ministers.

[OMG!WTF!]

The problem as I see it is if you think this jury is racist then we shouldn't have jury trials. What's to say an all indigenous jury would provide fairness. Or 6 and 6. If you can't avoid nullification in this one case then you can't avoid it ever and we should no longer offer jury criminal trials.

There were conflicting stories all over the place in this trial. Of course you're not going to get a conviction when your witnesses contradict each other and change their stories. Was Gian Gomeshi innocent because it was an all Indian jury with no white women on it or because the evidence was based in lies and collusion?

The crown attorney was also using his jury picks to get rid of white middle aged farmers. Jury trials are just no good. I don't think a judge would have called him a murderer either.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They're where they are because their culture was destroyed. Their culture was destroyed because that's what happens when more advanced and populous cultures meet less advanced and populous ones. It's the outcome every single time, in every corner of the planet. It requires no malice on the part of the more advanced and populous culture (which isn't to say malice is absent).

I don't look at history through the lens of a Hollywood movie narrative, with heroes, villains, and saviours. There's nothing that could have preserved the native cultures of the Americas, given the enormous disparity in technology between the old world and new, never mind the disease vulnerability that resulted in 90 per cent of the pre-contact population falling prey to smallpox, etc.

It might be important to, at the very least, recognize that there are in fact many villains in the ‘conquest’ of nations, with malice beyond comprehension. From Central America in the 1400s to modern day, actions and policies have deliberately inflicted more harm to the native populations of this the entire Americas than could be described in a forum post. Is it isolated to North American Indians? Certainly not, and I don’t believe the current population should be entirely responsible to atone for these past atrocities. But denying the vicious and willfully brutal past which has led to the unfortunate present is ignorant at best.

Regarding this case however, I do believe the jury made the right decision. Sad circumstance, but not one the charges should be convicted of murder, IMO.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The problem as I see it is if you think this jury is racist then we shouldn't have jury trials. What's to say an all indigenous jury would provide fairness. Or 6 and 6. If you can't avoid nullification in this one case then you can't avoid it ever and we should no longer offer jury criminal trials.

There were conflicting stories all over the place in this trial. Of course you're not going to get a conviction when your witnesses contradict each other and change their stories. Was Gian Gomeshi innocent because it was an all Indian jury with no white women on it or because the evidence was based in lies and collusion?

The crown attorney was also using his jury picks to get rid of white middle aged farmers. Jury trials are just no good. I don't think a judge would have called him a murderer either.

I actually think that this is the answer. Jury trials (both civil and criminal) are, in my view, a vestige of a bygone era. I think it is very problematic that trials on important matters can be decided without reviewable reasons (and reviewing jury charges is fraught with difficulties). But I suspect attempts to legislate away the jury trial (at least for criminal matters) would be complex and subject to numerous legal challenges (ie, is it a constitutional right?)

[RinkRat]

This whole situation just reminds me of death of my brothers friend back in 2001. Plenty of difference but an interesting comparison.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle1113646/

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, yes, I suppose those facts could be relevant to the issue of intent and therefore to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should be guilty of murder or manslaughter. But I don’t think they are relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should have been acquitted of all charges. Firing a gun, even as a warning shot, at people who are not causing you to reasonably fear for your own safety (ie in self defence) is an unlawful act and in this case that unlawful act cases the death of another person. Therefore Mr. Stanley should have been guilty of at least manslaughter (if this had been his story). However, as I understand it, his story was that he had the rifle for the purpose of firing warning shots (presumably safely aimed away from any persons) but the rifle accidentally went off at the precise moment when it was pointed at the victim (or the vehicle he was in). So that was the issue for the jury: is that evidence sufficient to rise a reasonable doubt in your mind?

Two caveats: I don’t practice criminal law so MBates may well chime in to correct me on my feeble understanding of murder and manslaughter; and I don’t know with any precision what the evidence at trial was but this is what I have gleaned so far (I definitely could Ben wrong).

He testified at trial that he feared for the life of his wife and son. He also thought that his wife may have been run over by the vehicle and was potentially trapped under the car because they hit the mower (she was out mowing the lawn at the time) and she was nowhere to be seen, hence why he ran and grabbed his gun.

[stang]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The thing about the hang fire is that while they are rare, they do occur. Using 60-70 year to of surplus ammo would certainly increase the chance of one depending on how the ammo had been stored and how degraded it was at the time it was fired. The RCMP expert called even testified that when he test fired the pistol he experienced a failure to fire and a jam, using Stanley’s ammo, both of these would support the theory of degraded ammo.

He had also not personally experienced a hang fire and offered his opinion that one might last a half second at most, as well as referencing a study done that claims a .28 second delay for a hang fire.

I’d say that the firearms testimony didn’t do much for the Crown and only served to confirm that it was possible that the pistol experienced a malfunction that night

There is videos on youtube of hang fires lasting longer then 7 seconds. One guy blows a hole in his hat even (idiot)

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, yes, I suppose those facts could be relevant to the issue of intent and therefore to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should be guilty of murder or manslaughter. But I don’t think they are relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Stanley should have been acquitted of all charges. Firing a gun, even as a warning shot, at people who are not causing you to reasonably fear for your own safety (ie in self defence) is an unlawful act and in this case that unlawful act cases the death of another person. Therefore Mr. Stanley should have been guilty of at least manslaughter (if this had been his story). However, as I understand it, his story was that he had the rifle for the purpose of firing warning shots (presumably safely aimed away from any persons) but the rifle accidentally went off at the precise moment when it was pointed at the victim (or the vehicle he was in). So that was the issue for the jury: is that evidence sufficient to rise a reasonable doubt in your mind?

Two caveats: I don’t practice criminal law so MBates may well chime in to correct me on my feeble understanding of murder and manslaughter; and I don’t know with any precision what the evidence at trial was but this is what I have gleaned so far (I definitely could Ben wrong).

They said in the trial that he was well within his legal rights grabbing the gun and firing warning shots, it was the 5-10 seconds after that they were discussing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

He testified at trial that he feared for the life of his wife and son. He also thought that his wife may have been run over by the vehicle and was potentially trapped under the car because they hit the mower (she was out mowing the lawn at the time) and she was nowhere to be seen, hence why he ran and grabbed his gun.

But, as I understand it (having now refreshed my memory by reading a CBC article summarizing the trial evidence) the fatal shot is fired well after this and at relatively close range (according to Mr. Stanley’s own evidence). It wasn’t a warning shot and he knew his wife was not anywhere near the (not moving SUV).

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Makarov

But, as I understand it (having now refreshed my memory by reading a CBC article summarizing the trial evidence) the fatal shot is fired well after this and at relatively close range (according to Mr. Stanley’s own evidence). It wasn’t a warning shot and he knew his wife was not anywhere near the (not moving SUV).

No, he did allegedly believe his wife was around the SUV, hence the reason for reaching for the keys to turn off the vehicle.

And, the shot itself was, Stanley testified, a hangfire from the earlier warning shots.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I wonder how it is in other countries. In South America for example weren't the natives totally destroyed where the entire continent speaks Spanish and is Catholic? Do they face the same or more struggles as the natives here?

The Spanish and Portuguese were more cruel and exploitative than the British and French, but the populations of native populations in central and south america were far higher relative to the newcomers, so there has been more of a synthesis of cultures.

Originally Posted by Deelow

It should be common knowledge that there was more going on here than a flat tire. I'm convinced many that have labeled Stanley as a racist murderer don't realize the events that led up to the shots being fired.

That's what happens when simple narratives become more appealing than the complex truth. I guess the question is do we blame the media for crafting those simple narratives, or ourselves for eating them up? In the case of a broadcaster like the CBC, one of the reason's they're funded publicly is to free them from the commercial imperative to give the customers these sorts of easy narratives.

Originally Posted by station

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

This incident and trial contain racial tensions. You can deny it and say it’s not right but it’s there.

Regardless of circumstances, criminal or not, a young man lost his life and the perpetrator won his freedom on a technicality. A family and a community now feel the pain of injustice and can we really blame them?

There's nothing wrong with feeling empathy for the family of the dead man. But it's bad for society when people look at these matters through the lens of group identity - when the sorrow or anger we feel about the death of a 22 year old varies dramatically depending on his race or religion. It fuels our darkest and most divisive impulses.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by station

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

This incident and trial contain racial tensions. You can deny it and say it’s not right but it’s there.

Regardless of circumstances, criminal or not, a young man lost his life and the perpetrator won his freedom on a technicality. A family and a community now feel the pain of injustice and can we really blame them?

You can declaim about the fairness of the trial and the justice system, you can pour over the minutiae of the incident to justify the veridict, you can breathlessly bemoan liberal media, and you can rant about criminals and self defence, but seriously what is the point? What is to be gained?

Tensions are high, emotions are high. We have a checkered history (at best) with indigenous relations and overt racism still exists in modern (especially rural) Canada. Maybe we could just stop and listen for a minute, you know?

How about empathy for Mr. Stanley and his family. Their lives were forever changed when a rolling crime spree made its way onto his property that day. The crime spree could have ended in any number of negative outcomes; a car crash because they were all severely intoxicated and driving a vehicle with a flat tire, being arrested because they were committing numerous crimes, being shot by police because they had a loaded firearm in the car. And thats not to even mention the potential harm to persons in the public and property of innocent residents. The participants in the crime spree made decisions to act in the manner they did. They chose to commit crimes and put themselves and others at risk. Mr. Stanley didnt wake up that morning and decide to go on a crime spree. He was put in a dangerous situation that he didnt chose to be in.

[OMG!WTF!]

Justifiable or not, there are several states where Stanley wouldn't have been charged with anything and wouldn't have spent a single day in court and where every one of Bushie's friends would be convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in jail. The truth is probably somewhere in between but as I see it, the indigenous community caught as much of a break as they did suffer an injustice.

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair enough. There is little doubt that Mr. Bushir and his companions were engaging in criminal behaviour on the night of the shooting (and I have little doubt had also done so in the past).

But it is interesting that so much of this thread has been devoted to discussing that issue rather than the issue of Mr. Stanley’s guilt (especially given the implausibility of the rifle misfire defence [at least it sounds pretty implausible to me]). I’d like to read a little bit more about the evidence adduced at trial before I make up my mind. However, I think that issue deserves more attention in this thread.

Probably irrelevant, but for the record it was a pistol, a Makarov, not a rifle.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by station

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

Turns out my empathy level for criminals is zero.