Colten Bushie murder trial

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by icecube

Just found it in the globe and mail too.

At the preliminary inquiry in 2017, Ms. Jackson testified that Leesa Stanley, Mr. Stanley's wife, said, in the moments after Mr. Boushie was shot, "That is what you get for trespassing." The comment was not raised at trial, but it remains particularly inflammatory to some in Mr. Boushie's family"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37921120/

There was a probably a credibility issue with the witness which occurred through the trial.

They changed their stories so many times that the defense won based on what they said. So this could be another bit of BS.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Is this actually true? That it was an all white dury?

I ask because all I could find was this where there were an initial pool of 750 people summoned as potential jurors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...shie-1.4504633

Obviously probably much lower than that number would probably have attended and according to the article Lawyers can only use a peremptory challenge up to a maximum of 12 times.

Begs the question how would you finish up with an all white jury with a maximum of twelve challenges?

That's the question isn't it. I think the media and the family are trying to make this more insidious then it is.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It would be different again if it was drunk red necks driving around a first nations community with a loaded gun and trying to steal stuff.

The trick is to not subscribe hero/victim us/them status to people based on group identities. That's what the courts try to do. And it's what the rest of us should be trying to do also.

It's not identities, it's internal vs external. Canadians can see even less overt and institutional racism in the US plain as day, but are mostly blind to similar examples in Canada.

[meritmat]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not identities, it's internal vs external. Canadians can see even less overt and institutional racism in the US plain as day, but are mostly blind to similar examples in Canada.

I also really blame the Liberal media (CBC) in this, its all about the white farmer shooting a Native.....nothing about a truck full of Natives driving around drunk, trying to commit theft. What would have happened if they ran into somebody and killed them?

[meritmat]

This kinda reminds me a little of the Trayvon martin shooting in the US.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by meritmat

This kinda reminds me a little of the Trayvon martin shooting in the US.

Not really.

Thee two stories are completely different.

[meritmat]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Not really.

Thee two stories are completely different.

I was thinking how Obama got involved

[Cecil Terwilliger]

To me the big deal here isn’t whether the farmer got jail time. His life is gonna be real ####tty with it without jail time. He may have deserved some time in jail but the verdict doesn’t seem like a major miscarriage of justice. His crime didn’t seem malicious. It was a heat of the moment action when he was outnumbered by drunk criminals. That being said it does sound like his reaction was excessive.

However I don’t like how this is being framed as a case of racial prejudice motivating the farmers actions. If the RCMP, the jury, the courts etc aren’t fair for the native kid, that’s a tragedy, but it isn’t the farmers fault. Even if he should have done time, he shouldn’t be the focus of the hatred spewing in the media and online for going free. That’s what makes an already tragic situation worse. Framing this as a racist farmer who got away with murder because of a crooked justice system only adds fuel to the fire when we should be looking to improve the situation, not inflame it.

Edit: just to add here, in my earlier post in this thread I said there was no doubt who was at fault. I think that needs clarification because it may seem as though I’m implying the native guy deserved it. I meant more that the native guy wasn’t just an innocent victim. It doesn’t absolve the farmer if he committed a crime but I was under the impression from the news and social media that the farmer murdered and innocent native kid. Not that he shot a criminal who was robbing him. It doesn’t make the farmer innocent but it does change the way I look at the situation.

[Weitz]

^^ Unfortuantely that’s not the world we live in anymore. What actually happened doesn’t matter just what the end result and who “gets justice”. Was what the farmer did excessive? Sure. But none of this happens if those 5 people weren’t breaking the law to begin with.

[CaptainCrunch]

It seems to me that the focus of the media and even our Prime Minister isn't about the application of justice, but the application of vengeance.

Why did the jury find him not guilty? Was it the interpretation of reasonable doubt? If it was, then the court functioned exactly the way that it should have. Or is there now an expectation that having a jury made up of people that would look at the death of Bushie and be able to ignore reasonable doubt in the pursuit of vengence?

The Crown is fully free to appeal, and there is no doubt that there will be pressure put on the prosecutor by the Justice Minister and even by the words of native leaders and our Prime Minister. But what is the likely hood of a fair trial on appeal now? I'd say that its very small.

I get the anger over Bushie's death, and I also think that people understand that this wasn't about what Bushie was doing at the time that was on trial, but the action of a farmer, with un-reliable witnesses that changed their story. With the RCMP experts not being able to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt the right verdict was reached here, and an appeal unless there's a solid reason besides, we couldn't load the jury with people that could convict with reasonable doubt shouldn't happen.

We can't appeal just to appeal, we can't appeal just to placate the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister or the family of Bushie and the Native leadership.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We can't appeal just to appeal, we can't appeal just to placate the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister or the family of Bushie and the Native leadership.

They're not. They're appealing to emotion, now.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not identities, it's internal vs external. Canadians can see even less overt and institutional racism in the US plain as day, but are mostly blind to similar examples in Canada.

And some Canadians desperately want Canada to engage in a culture war around race so they can play a role in an emotionally-satisfying narrative - the role of righteous saviors.

[station]

The overall lack of compassion and empathy in this thread toward both the deceased and the First Nations community is stunning to me.

An emotional response to a tragedy and an arguably unjust verdict is identity politics and culture war? Are you guys seriously this callous?

While the actual verdict may have come down to reasonable doubt over Stanley’s story and inconsistent witness testimony, this whole incident is frought with racial undertones and to deny this is to be blind or willfully ignorant.

I think one can look at the evidence presented and logically understand how the jury reached its decision, while also understanding the sadness, disappointment, and anger felt by the victim’s family and the community at large.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by station

The overall lack of compassion and empathy in this thread toward both the deceased and the First Nations community is stunning to me.

An emotional response to a tragedy and an arguably unjust verdict is identity politics and culture war? Are you guys seriously this callous?

While the actual verdict may have come down to reasonable doubt over Stanley’s story and inconsistent witness testimony, this whole incident is frought with racial undertones and to deny this is to be blind or willfully ignorant.

I think one can look at the evidence presented and logically understand how the jury reached its decision, while also understanding the sadness, disappointment, and anger felt by the victim’s family and the community at large.

They were crimanials in the midsts of committing crimes while doing it drunk with a loaded rifle ( which they had all ready used to try and steal a truck)in the vechile. These are facts. Hard for me to empathize no matter what race they are .

[White Out 403]

I feel bad that Colten is dead and his family is feeling grief. But he was mid crime spree day drunk terrorizing hard working farmers who were minding their own business. This was entirely preventable.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It seems to me that the focus of the media and even our Prime Minister isn't about the application of justice, but the application of vengeance.

Why did the jury find him not guilty? Was it the interpretation of reasonable doubt? If it was, then the court functioned exactly the way that it should have. Or is there now an expectation that having a jury made up of people that would look at the death of Bushie and be able to ignore reasonable doubt in the pursuit of vengence?

The Crown is fully free to appeal, and there is no doubt that there will be pressure put on the prosecutor by the Justice Minister and even by the words of native leaders and our Prime Minister. But what is the likely hood of a fair trial on appeal now? I'd say that its very small.

I get the anger over Bushie's death, and I also think that people understand that this wasn't about what Bushie was doing at the time that was on trial, but the action of a farmer, with un-reliable witnesses that changed their story. With the RCMP experts not being able to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt the right verdict was reached here, and an appeal unless there's a solid reason besides, we couldn't load the jury with people that could convict with reasonable doubt shouldn't happen.

We can't appeal just to appeal, we can't appeal just to placate the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister or the family of Bushie and the Native leadership.

Juries don’t give reasons so we will never know why they acquitted Mr. Stanley. This is one of the frustrating things about a jury trial.

Also, I think it’s important to keep in mind that defence of property does not, generally speaking, legally justify homicide in Canada. So, in that sense, Mr. Bushie’s actions on the night of his death, though no doubt blameworthy in their right, are not really relevant to the question of whether Mr. Stanley committed manslaughter or murder. I suspect this is why the defence was based around an accidental misfire of the rifle. I obviously didn’t hear of the evidence (so my opinion doesn’t mean much) but that story just doesn’t have the ring of truth to it (for me).

[David Struch]

I keep seeing the word criminals here but was anyone charged with theft?

[David Struch]

the defence used those peremptory challenges to eliminate anyone who looked Indigenous. The defence strategy was transparent, despicable, and it worked: Play the race card for tactical advantage.

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

[GGG]

Originally Posted by David Struch

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

Or the the defense was concerned that the race card would be played against them and took no chances. Was the defense pursuing a white racist jury or was it avoiding a native racist jury?

One thing people always miss is that they think the Justice system is about getting justice for the victim of crime. In the trial portion of the system it is not about Justice for the victim. It is about adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the accused and has nothing to do with the victim. This process is tilted in favour of the accused.

I understand that is painful for the victim but like the many sexual assault cases that don't result in a conviction the system is designed to protect the innocent at the expense of letting the guilty free.

[OMG!WTF!]

Here's a CBC article with a different point of view from before the verdict was released and before they went 100% racist....

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/s...ewan-1.4505592

The majority of the Supreme Court in that case found that the jury selection process is constitutionally sound — and "representativeness" doesn't ultimately equate to exactness. Justice Moldaver found that "the right to a representative jury is an entitlement held by the accused that promotes the fairness of his or her trial, in appearance and in reality. It is not a mechanism for repairing the damaged relationship between particular societal groups and our criminal justice system."