Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5282
Reputation: 270.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:59 am    Post subject: PM chastized Saskachewan court for wrong verdict Reply with quote

Our "socal justice" PM has made an ass of himself -- again!

Quote:
Ministers say Canada must 'do better' after Boushie verdict
'I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better,' PM says
CBC News Posted: Feb 10, 2018 2:26 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 10, 2018 7:24 PM ET

Justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Indigenous services minister Jane Philpott both posted on Twitter they want more to be done.


Quote:
Jane Philpott

@janephilpott
Devastating news tonight for the family & friends of #ColtenBoushie. My thoughts & prayers are with you in your time of grief & pain. We all have more to do to improve justice & fairness for Indigenous Canadians.

11:59 PM - Feb 9, 2018
620
396 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Quote:
Jody Wilson-Raybould

@Puglaas
Thank you PM @JustinTrudeau. My thoughts are with the family of Colton Boushie tonight. I truly feel your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians. https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/962176071201247232

11:40 PM - Feb 9, 2018
1,447
1,294 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Justin Trudeau echoed those statements, offering his condolences to Boushie's family.

"I'm not going to comment on the process that led to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times," he told reporters Saturday morning.

"I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."


Quote:
Justin Trudeau

@JustinTrudeau
Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US.

11:07 PM - Feb 9, 2018
3,281
1,904 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

But some question the ministers speaking publicly on a judicial decision.

"Inappropriate" was the word former justice minister Peter MacKay used to describe the posts.

"It undermines the system of justice, quite frankly, to have politicians weigh in," he said, adding the case could still be appealed, so they are technically commenting on a case currently before the courts.

Unwarranted skepticism of a properly conducted trial will set a dangerous precedent, MacKay concluded. [....]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.4530093


This is a version of the trial that has appeared in a local paper: http://thestarphoenix.com/news.....-day-recap

What the CBC doesn't mention is that Boushie and a bunch of his drunken buddies were trying to terrorize Stanley's family and stealing his ATV when Bushie was accidentally shot. They were armed, and driving around drunk in a truck with a flat tire, and tried to steal cars at three other farms along the way. There was half a dozen involved.

Our PM is politicizing justice, whatever little bit of if we have left. This is damaging and deserves our contempt. This is not how a Canadian head of state acts. He has to reign in his raging ego and the seemingly irresistible impulse he feels when he sees somebody else being 'politically correct'. He has to out-do them.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it especially odd that a PM and justice minister would come out and say a jury came to the wrong verdict

that by itself is deeply troubling , under our laws when a jury is given instructions to reach a verdict , they are suppose to be doing so free of political interference or outside influence


its up to the 12 people in the jury room to decide on a verdict , this jury heard the case and looked at the evidence and decided they couldn't convict him of murder


we need to respect that decision , there is no evidence the jury acted inapproiately or was racist , that's pure nonsense
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lawyers critical of political
commentary on court verdicts following Gerald Stanley acquittal


Canadian Press
Canadian Press

Published:
February 11, 2018


Updated:
February 11, 2018 10:58 AM EST


By Linda Givetash, THE CANADIAN PRESS

VANCOUVER — The public perception of political interference in criminal trials places the independence of Canada’s judiciary system at risk, lawyers say.

Concerns have been raised following federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould’s comments on the acquittal of a white farmer charged in the death of an Indigenous man in Saskatchewan.


Edmonton-based criminal lawyer Tom Engel said when politicians, especially the justice minister, appear to criticize verdicts, the public may believe that future decisions by the courts are influenced by the remarks.

Wilson-Raybould said in a tweet that Canada “can and must do better,” after a jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also weighed in at a news conference Saturday, saying Canada has “come to this point as a country far too many times.”

Engel said if the case is appealed, he doesn’t believe the politicians’ comments would colour the decisions made by the appeal courts or Supreme Court of Canada.

The problem, he said, is that the public may perceive that there is an influence.

“You can’t have even that kind of appearance in our justice system,” he said.
related linksPM says he feels pain of Colten Boushie’s family
Rally in Regina in support of Colten Boushie’s family

Michael Lacy, a partner in the criminal law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto, also said politicians “have no business at all” in commenting on the outcome of a trial.

“It undermines the independence of the judicial branch,” he said in an email.

“Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” Lacy said, adding public figures should stick to offering sympathies over the tragic loss of life.


Rallies were held across the country Saturday to show support for, and solidarity with, the Boushie family.

The trial heard that Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in an SUV that had been driven onto Stanley’s farm near Biggar, Sask. Stanley testified that he was trying to scare off Boushie and the others in the vehicle. He said the fatal shot occurred when he reached into the SUV to grab the keys out of the ignition and his gun “just went off.”

The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations and Boushie’s family have raised concerns about the trial because there were no visibly Indigenous jurors selected.

Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said Saturday that the courts are rife with systemic racism and the justice system is in need of an overhaul.

Engel said the case does raise questions about the diversity of a jury and how members are selected. He said politicians could use this an opportunity to look at how legislative changes can improve those processes, while steering clear of discussing the verdict.

The use of peremptory challenges to eliminate certain people from juries is a procedure that needs to be reconsidered, he said, adding it’s understandable that people are questioning the apparent whiteness of the jury in this case.

“You can’t go from that fact to say the verdict was wrong. Nobody knows that,” Engel said. “I think the perception that’s been created here is just awful in terms of the integrity of that trial and whether racism played a part.”


http://canoe.com/news/national.....-acquittal
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

its highly unlikely if not impossible that the court and defense lawyers intentionally put together a biased or racist jury

as all potential members would of been screened and gone thru background checks , anyone with close personal ties to the accused or victim would of automatically been excluded

and anyone who had made public remarks that were racist or who was part of any activities/ groups that were anti native or involved in such would of obviously been excluded from potential jurors

its highly unlikely anyone with known biases would of made it on the jury in the first place as Canada has a detailed and complex process to select them , often 100's of possible jurors are selected until a final group of 12 is ready for a trial
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tories accuse PM of 'political interference' after comments on Boushie case

PM Justin Trudeau
'I'm not going to comment on the process that led to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times,' Trudeau said in California.

.


Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
Published Sunday, February 11, 2018 5:45PM EST



OTTAWA -- The federal Conservatives are accusing Justin Trudeau of "political interference," after the prime minister responded to the acquittal of a white farmer in the death of a young Indigenous man by saying the criminal justice system has to "do better."

Trudeau made the comments after a jury in Battleford, Sask., Friday found Gerald Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder in the 2016 death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie, a resident of the Red Pheasant First Nation.

"I'm not going to comment on the process that led to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times," Trudeau said in California, where he was wrapping up a four-day trip to the U.S.



"I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."

Trudeau's comments appeared to reflect concerns expressed by hundreds of Indigenous People who took to different sites across Canada on Saturday to protest what they described as injustice and a lack of fairness within the court system.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott, meanwhile, took to Twitter to express their support for Boushie's family and assert the need for improvements.

"My thoughts are with the family of Colten Boushie tonight," Wilson-Raybould wrote Friday. "I truly feel your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do better -- I am committed to working every day to ensure justice for all Canadians."

Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh echoed those sentiments as he tweeted: "There was no justice for Colten Boushie.

"Already Indigenous youth live with little hope for their future, and today they have again been told that their lives have less value. We must confront the legacy of colonialism and genocide so they can see a brighter future for themselves."

Many concerns have been raised about discrimination toward Indigenous People in the criminal justice system; retired Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci, for example, raised flags about a lack of Indigenous representation on juries in Ontario in 2013.

Iacobucci's probe was launched after an inquest into the 2007 drowning death of a high-school student in Thunder Bay, Ont., was stopped because of a lack of Indigenous People on the jury.

But federal Conservatives, some of whom also expressed their condolences to Boushie's family, nonetheless blasted Trudeau and his ministers for weighing in on a specific case.

"The tragic death and pain for the family of (Colten Boushie) is unimaginable, and our thoughts are with his community," Conservative Indigenous affairs critic Cathy McLeod wrote on Twitter.

However, she added, "we need to let the many steps of an independent judicial process unfold without political interference."

Conservative deputy leader Lisa Raitt and finance critic Rob Nicholson also criticized Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould, with Raitt questioning whether the prime minister and justice minister were implying that the jury arrived at the wrong verdict.

Several Tory MPs, meanwhile, retweeted a comment from Toronto criminal lawyer Sean Robichaud, who argued it was "wholly inappropriate for elected officials to publicly undermine findings of a lawfully delivered verdict, particularly when it is one of a jury."

In an interview, Robichaud said any public comments from the prime minister or justice minister questioning the credibility of the judiciary pose a threat to Canada's democratic system, in which the courts are equal to the legislature.

They could also have the reverse effect of what Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould may want, he added, by making it more difficult to appeal the decision because of perceptions any future jury would be tainted.

The correct response to a verdict that the government doesn't agree with, Robichaud said, is an appeal.

The trial heard that Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in an SUV that had been driven onto Stanley's farm near Biggar, Sask.

The SUV driver testified the group had been drinking during the day and tried to break into a truck on a neighbouring farm, but went to the Stanley property to ask for help with a flat tire.

Stanley, 56, testified that he fired warning shots to scare the group off. He said the fatal shot occurred when he reached into the SUV to grab the keys out of the ignition and his gun "just went off."


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/tories-accuse-pm-of-political-interference-after-comments-on-boushie-case-1.3798985
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GUNTER: Boushie verdict not a travesty of justice

​​

It’s a shame Colten Boushie is dead. He seemed like a decent kid. He’d trained as a wilderness firefighter and as a short-order cook. He was trying to better himself.

He didn’t deserve to die that day in August 2016 when he and a group of friends drove onto Gerald Stanley’s farm near Biggar, Sask.

But Stanley’s acquittal on second-degree murder charges in a Sask. courtroom on Friday is not a travesty of justice.

Boushie and four friends had been drinking and swimming at a lake near the Stanley place all day on Aug. 9, 2016. After leaving the lake (and before they reached the Stanley farm), the quintet tried to steal a truck from another farm by using a rifle they had with them as a crowbar.

They never managed to boost the truck, but they did break the stock off their rifle.

However, it is unlikely Gerald Stanley knew the SUV-load of kids from the Red Pheasant First Nation who pulled onto his property that day had already tried to boost a pickup from one of his neighbours. So it’s equally unlikely any of his actions that day were based on specific knowledge these kids had just committed a crime nearby or were likely to do so again.

Jurors heard conflicting testimony over what the carload of young people were up to on Stanley’s property. They claimed they had just come into the yard to ask for help with a flat. Stanley and his son both testified they heard someone trying to steal an ATV.

Stanley then retrieved an old Eastern bloc handgun and went out into the yard and fired a couple of warning shots to scare off Boushie and his pals. When Stanley then approached the SUV and attempted to reach in and take the keys out of the ignition, he claims his gun just went off a third time.

This time the bullet struck Boushie behind the left ear, killing him.

This is awful. Nothing Boushie and his friends were doing justified any of them dying.

Yet it took jurors only 13 hours (not long in a murder trial) to reach a not-guilty verdict. They must have believed Gerald Stanley’s “accident” claim.

The acquittal sparked rallies and protests across the country on the weekend. At an event in Edmonton, one woman claimed she was not surprised by the verdict because there weren’t any Asian, Indigenous or black people on the jury.

Pardon me!? Who is the racist here? Her implication is that whites cannot be objective.

Not likely. Juries, regardless of race, typically side with homeowners in self-defence cases because they can picture themselves in similar circumstances.

And it came out at trial that the kids in the SUV had lied to police and prosecutors about how much they’d had to drink (at least one of them was four times over the legal limit), about whether they’d committed other crimes that day and whether they had a gun.

None of this has stopped the race-baiting.

Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said we “can and must do better.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also said “we have to do better.”

Better than a trial by jury, the epitome of democratic justice? Should we leave justice to crusading politicians and activists until we get only the verdicts they want?

Currently, many rural residents feel vulnerable, compelled to defend themselves and families. Rural crime has nearly doubled since 1995, rural RCMP staffing and budgets are down, response times can be appalling and when criminals are caught, the justice system slaps their wrists, especially Indigenous offenders who are required, by law, to receive leniency in sentencing.

Fixing this problem won’t require more activism, but more pragmatism (which we won’t get).


http://canoe.com/opinion/colum.....22b4469838
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5282
Reputation: 270.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
its highly unlikely if not impossible that the court and defense lawyers intentionally put together a biased or racist jury

as all potential members would of been screened and gone thru background checks , anyone with close personal ties to the accused or victim would of automatically been excluded

and anyone who had made public remarks that were racist or who was part of any activities/ groups that were anti native or involved in such would of obviously been excluded from potential jurors

its highly unlikely anyone with known biases would of made it on the jury in the first place as Canada has a detailed and complex process to select them , often 100's of possible jurors are selected until a final group of 12 is ready for a trial


You might think so, but words are 'changing meaning. It used to be signs saying, Man wanted, no Blacks need apply. Now racism is something that is 'detected' and has to be ferreted out.

But this is a murder trial. Honestly, a man's life is at stake. I think most people would set aside their own feelings to judge fairly. The problem is -- the jury sees the perp, and sees the witnesses, and like it or not, they make judgements about the credibility of the perp and the witnesses. That's their job.

Who's more credible? On the one hand, a group of natives who were with Bouchie, his friends. They were all drunk, shooting guns off from their vehicle, driving on a flat tire, trying to 'steal' another vehicle. They're all waving guns around.

The jury draws its conclusions. Each person weighs it all up for themselves, go into a room and argue with others until they all agreed. It's not easy to convince twelve people, and it shouldn't be. Those people feel a responsibility to their neighbours, on the one hand, and on the other, some will see racial animus. That's why we have twelve -- it evens this stuff out.

Who knows how the individuals on the jury form their opinions? Are their opinions a product of racism or realism?

This is probably as good as any other jury verdict. They heard the defendant. Frankly, his defence seems a stretch to me -- the thing is, who wouldn't pull the trigger? Whatever the law says, whatever the judge says, people feel that it's OK to defend your family and protect your property in exactly this Mad Max kind of situation.

This is a tragedy, and it's too bad that these kids can't get drunk and have some fun. We all wish it were different.

I am not recommending that each of us get guns, and act this way, only that it shouldn't be illegal to protect your home and have the peaceful enjoyment of your property. And that's what's probably behind the verdict.

The 'Mad Max' part of the story is getting left out.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'We have questions and we want answers': Boushie family in Ottawa to meet with ministers

Relatives want changes to justice system after not-guilty verdict in Colten Boushie shooting death

By Marc-André Cossette, Elise von Scheel, CBC News Posted: Feb 11, 2018 4:14 PM ET| Last Updated: Feb 12, 2018 9:14 AM ET

Colten Boushie's cousin, Jade Tootoosis, left, and his mother, Debbie Baptiste, arrive at Ottawa's Macdonald-Cartier International Airport on Sunday. Baptiste says the verdict in the Gerald Stanley trial has left her deeply disappointed in the justice system.


Relatives of Colten Boushie are in Ottawa to meet with federal ministers and press for changes to Canada's justice system following a not-guilty verdict in his shooting death.

Alvin Baptiste, Boushie's uncle, as well as cousin Jade Tootoosis and mother Debbie Baptiste arrived in the capital Sunday night following earlier delays due to weather.

"We had to travel from Saskatchewan all the way over here to bring justice for my son, Colten Boushie, and that's why we're here," Debbie Baptiste told CBC News after arriving in Ottawa.

Family lawyer Chris Murphy said meetings have been arranged with Carolyn Bennett, minister of Indigenous-Crown Affairs, and Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott for Monday morning.

Murphy said further meetings are expected with the ministers of public safety and justice on Tuesday.


"Ministers will be able to listen to the concerns of the family," said a spokesperson for Philpott.

Tootoosis said the family wanted the meetings to talk about "the distrust and the injustices that we experienced as a family with the loss of my brother, Colten, and throughout the trial process."


"We're hoping that we have these meetings and our concerns are heard and not just listened to, but taken into action," she said, thanking people across the country who have held rallies or offered support.

"We want to start talking about what do we do to address this, so that no other families go through what we went through," said Tootoosis.

"We have questions and we want answers."

Divisive trial and verdict

Boushie, 22, was shot and killed after he and four others from the Red Pheasant Cree Nation drove onto Gerald Stanley's rural property in Saskatchewan in August, 2016.

On Friday, Stanley, who was charged with second-degree murder in Boushie's death, was found not guilty after a jury trial.

colten boushie and gerald stanley
Gerald Stanley, right, was found not guilty in the death of Colten Boushie. (Colton Boushie/Facebook and Liam Richards/Canadian Press)

Boushie was shot in the head after an altercation with Stanley, his son and wife.

Stanley testified during the trial that he never meant to shoot anyone, and that the handgun he was holding accidentally went off.

The jury could have found Stanley guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter, or not guilty, according to Chief Justice Martel Popescul, who oversaw the trial.

The decision to acquit Stanley sent shockwaves through the courtroom that have rippled across the country.

'It's easy to send a tweet'

"I'm here to speak with the government — [to tell them] that the way they're treating us, it's not right," Alvin Baptiste said.

"They're asking for reconciliation and we're willing to work with the Canadian government ... and change the laws that are out there. They're not working for the First Nations people at all."


The family members are expected to be joined Monday by Kim Jonathan, first vice chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.

"We've seen such disrespect and disregard for Colten's life," Jonathan said Saturday. "We're not going to ask for a meeting, we're not going to request to be heard — we will be heard."

Alvin Baptiste
Alvin Baptiste, Colten Boushie's uncle, says he came to Ottawa to speak with federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould about racism in Canada's justice system. (Marc-André Cossette/CBC)

She added they have compiled a list of things they allege were done improperly during the investigation. The group plans to publicly present this list on Parliament Hill.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould, the minister of justice, each took to Twitter to share their opinions after the verdict was announced.

"It's easy to send a tweet," Jonathan said. "We need that to translate into action, not just a handshake and a hug."

The family does not know how long it plans to stay in Ottawa and has not booked return flights to Saskatchewan yet, according to Murphy.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.4530880
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
RCO wrote:
its highly unlikely if not impossible that the court and defense lawyers intentionally put together a biased or racist jury

as all potential members would of been screened and gone thru background checks , anyone with close personal ties to the accused or victim would of automatically been excluded

and anyone who had made public remarks that were racist or who was part of any activities/ groups that were anti native or involved in such would of obviously been excluded from potential jurors

its highly unlikely anyone with known biases would of made it on the jury in the first place as Canada has a detailed and complex process to select them , often 100's of possible jurors are selected until a final group of 12 is ready for a trial


You might think so, but words are 'changing meaning. It used to be signs saying, Man wanted, no Blacks need apply. Now racism is something that is 'detected' and has to be ferreted out.

But this is a murder trial. Honestly, a man's life is at stake. I think most people would set aside their own feelings to judge fairly. The problem is -- the jury sees the perp, and sees the witnesses, and like it or not, they make judgements about the credibility of the perp and the witnesses. That's their job.

Who's more credible? On the one hand, a group of natives who were with Bouchie, his friends. They were all drunk, shooting guns off from their vehicle, driving on a flat tire, trying to 'steal' another vehicle. They're all waving guns around.

The jury draws its conclusions. Each person weighs it all up for themselves, go into a room and argue with others until they all agreed. It's not easy to convince twelve people, and it shouldn't be. Those people feel a responsibility to their neighbours, on the one hand, and on the other, some will see racial animus. That's why we have twelve -- it evens this stuff out.

Who knows how the individuals on the jury form their opinions? Are their opinions a product of racism or realism?

This is probably as good as any other jury verdict. They heard the defendant. Frankly, his defence seems a stretch to me -- the thing is, who wouldn't pull the trigger? Whatever the law says, whatever the judge says, people feel that it's OK to defend your family and protect your property in exactly this Mad Max kind of situation.

This is a tragedy, and it's too bad that these kids can't get drunk and have some fun. We all wish it were different.

I am not recommending that each of us get guns, and act this way, only that it shouldn't be illegal to protect your home and have the peaceful enjoyment of your property. And that's what's probably behind the verdict.

The 'Mad Max' part of the story is getting left out.



the bigger question is where does this go from here ? native groups are demanding changes to the justice system , whatever that would possibly involve ?

the relatives are meeting with federal ministers in Ottawa

also how could there ever be a fair re-trail ? after the high profile comments from the PM and justice minister on there anger at not guilty verdict , the justice minister is responsible for appointing judges , meaning the judge at trial could be someone she appointed

and potential jurors might of seen the post trial coverage and feel they have a duty to find the farmer guilty of something as first one didn't

also other potential jurors might not want to be involved with a retrial due to political implications and high profile status case has generated on first nations , they might be worried they could be targeted if they find the farmer not guilty again

there has also been reports online that someone has already posted death threats online against the white farmer , setting up a go fund me page for anyone willing to harm him , to pay for there defence
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 956
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Figured you would not let me down !

Coming from supporters of Harper and his constant comments against the Courts, your criticism of PM JT and this case is especially rich !

Well done.

Oh...and I havent even started on the fantasy scenario you play out here on the facts. Good lord , its like neither of you even read the court case.

Quote:
This is not how a Canadian head of state acts.

He had a really really good teacher. Harper is good that way.

LOL! Ah boys, thanks for the laughs, even when someone dies for an ATV. Woot !
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7902
Reputation: 314.9Reputation: 314.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Setting aside any partisan he said, she said;

Aside from political chest thumbing, is there even a mechanism in place which would allow for a re-trail? It was a not guilty verdict which I believe significantly limits the ability to go back to the well.

I am confused as to what the Government is looking to accomplish here aside from political capital.

Are we looking for changes to the Justice System or the Criminal Code and if so what would have needed to change here?

Or are we implying that there was some sort of issue with the Jury, Justice, or Evidence provided in the Court Room?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 956
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All good questions ans I too am unsure of what can /should come next.

First off , our PM (regardless of who it is) needs to lay off commenting so soon after a verdict.

It looks bad . Real bad.

In this trial, it should be hard for anyone to even consider acquittal.

There were three options, 1) 2nd D Murder 2) Manslaughter 3) acquittal.

A gun went off, Stanley held it and owned it.

How the hell he isnt held accountable is beyond me.

Political capital , probably, bad move if so.

The legal profession, the experts, are suggesting a better mix of people in the jury. Numerous FN's were dismissed , which while legal is problematic.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 956
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stanley is not entirely clear, he faces two charges of unsafe storage of a firearm.

Two !

Sarcasm tunred off now.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7902
Reputation: 314.9Reputation: 314.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a Johnny Come Lately to this entire case;

The biggest question I can see to debate which established everything else, is if the gun being present was justifiable? If so, you have your path to clear acquittal.

The problem here is you need to establish this was a culpable homicide
And this is the biggest grey area in the Canadian Criminal Law.

If a person reasonably believes a potential threat is imminent they are able to legal protect themselves or their family and if this applies once again the Criminal code offers a very generic "as much force as reasonably necessary".

If the jury felt there was a threat that justified carrying a weapon and the weapon went off by accident (a point I believe no one on either side seems to be taking issue with) then its not unlawful act nor is it criminal negligence which to my understanding now does not satisfy the requirement for a culpable homicide which makes either Murder or Manslaughter not applicable.

While I understand its an emotionally charged issue, the moment the jury established that Stanley believed a potential threat was imminent it became very challenging to kick back either second degree murder or manslaughter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That aside;
I think its agreed that a Prime Minister in general shouldn't be weighing in on these matters via social media or other mechanism immediately after the verdict is reached.

Aside from undermining the judiciary it comes off as pandering, especially if nothing tangible comes after.

As to if it was done for political capital;

It will be pretty clear in the next few weeks, either the Federal Government will move to clear the ambiguity of Section 40 of the Criminal code and establish a more clear precedent for what can be done if you feel you or your family is at risk on your property

Or your start trying to play a very sticky game about jury selection which likely won't end well and likely won't hold up against a Supreme Court challenge.

Or opt for some sort of third way that I am just not seeing at the moment.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 956
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If the jury felt there was a threat that justified carrying a weapon and the weapon went off by accident (a point I believe no one on either side seems to be taking issue with) then its not unlawful act nor is it criminal negligence
...&...

If a person reasonably believes a potential threat is imminent they are able to legal protect themselves or their family


It is my understanding that if one can escape , he or she is to do so.

I have not really followed this case, however from the little I have read it may appear the jury instructions were wrong.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


PM chastized Saskachewan court for wrong verdict

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB