• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Gerald Stanley not guilty of shooting Colten Boushie in the head !?!

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Colten Boushie's mother is heading to Ottawa to demand justice


Thousands of people protested in cities across Canada on the weekend after Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley was acquitted in the 2016 shooting death of Boushie, a 22-year-old Cree man. Now, Debbie Baptiste is set to call onJustice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and other ministers to end peremptory challenges, a mechanism that was used in Stanley's trial to block anyone who looked Indigenous from serving on the jury. "This racism is dividing us," Baptiste said. Wilson-Raybould has already taken the rare step of commenting on a criminal case, saying "Canada can and must do better."


Criminal lawyer David Butt argues that "Our justice system, by permitting a jury without an Indigenous member to decide an obviously racially charged case, has let down not just Indigenous people, but all of us."


And University of Saskatchewan law professor Michael Plaxton writes that "It's easy to explain why the jury acquitted Gerald Stanley of second-degree murder: It concluded that there was no intention to fire his weapon at the occupants inside the SUV. It is trickier to explain why it acquitted the defendant of manslaughter."
 

acheron

TRIBE Member
everything I've read so far tells me the community where this happened is pretty fucked up. The band leadership all have long criminal records, the four men who were involved in the attempted theft at the Stanley farm were all related to band leadership and themselves were well known for drunkenness, thieving etc.

Which means that Gerald Stanley still had no justification for killing Colton Boushie in defence of his property - because that's illegal in Canada, period - but it shows that the indigenous situation in that area is really bad and needs a lot of help, to curb the drinking problem, and the petty crimes, and what must be a fairly negative opinion of the native population by whites as a result, despite the myriad problems in Canadian society that contribute to that.

Apparently jury selection was difficult. over 600 people were summoned to jury selection but less than half showed up, which no doubt contributed to the all-white jury being selected.

It should have been at least manslaughter - I hope there will be an appeal.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I know im responding to single-case examples, and maybe the media feeds me more outrage examples than good examples

But I am extremely fucking skeptical of the whole idea of juries.

I guess on the other side if you get a shit judge, the game is over and a jury can balance that - I guess...

Is a Jury the best of a bunch of shit options? Maybe sometimes I guess??

Still I wonder if Im better taking the "single judge lottery" and hoping to get a professional, reasonable one.
 

kennyboy

TRIBE Member
Obviously I have no insight or facts / details as to what transpired other than what has been in the news.

My first question would be why was this car load of people coming to my farm?

Having grown up in the country no one just shows up unannounced especially if you don’t know them. And all farmers have guns.

So as much as this has become a political hotbed, I don’t think this is anywhere that the PM should go. If he wants to chime in then perhaps he should address the underlying issues that continue to plaque the First Nations people.

Actions over words.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Mondieu

TRIBE Member
Obviously I have no insight or facts / details as to what transpired other than what has been in the news.

My first question would be why was this car load of people coming to my farm?

Having grown up in the country no one just shows up unannounced especially if you don’t know them. And all farmers have guns.

So as much as this has become a political hotbed, I don’t think this is anywhere that the PM should go. If he wants to chime in then perhaps he should address the underlying issues that continue to plaque the First Nations people.

Actions over words.
^ This. 100%.
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Obviously I have no insight or facts / details as to what transpired other than what has been in the news.

My first question would be why was this car load of people coming to my farm?

Having grown up in the country no one just shows up unannounced especially if you don’t know them. And all farmers have guns.

So as much as this has become a political hotbed, I don’t think this is anywhere that the PM should go. If he wants to chime in then perhaps he should address the underlying issues that continue to plaque the First Nations people.

Actions over words.
I have many farmers in my family. When strangers show up unannounced you become much more vigilant. You are vulnerable, a burglary can turn into a robbery which can turn into an assault/rape which can turn into murder. Cops are not down the street.

The CBC article did not mention that the adults in the SUV had tried to steal a truck before arriving at the Stanley farm. Below is another article.

Gerald Stanley trial: Jury delivers not guilty verdict in death of Colten Boushie

5 adults commit a home invasion, try to commit a robbery, try to run a resident over with the SUV, then crash their car into the resident's car (they are all drunk). Defendant witnesses likely committed perjury and one did not show up to testify.

Don't rob people and you won't get shot, it's pretty simple.
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
everything I've read so far tells me the community where this happened is pretty fucked up. The band leadership all have long criminal records, the four men who were involved in the attempted theft at the Stanley farm were all related to band leadership and themselves were well known for drunkenness, thieving etc.
I read that thread. The adults in the SUV did not win the gene pool lottery.
 

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
The Stanley verdict: Manslaughter and ‘hang fire’
MICHAEL PLAXTON
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
FEBRUARY 11, 2018
Michael Plaxton is a professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan. He is the author of Implied Consent & Sexual Assault, and the forthcomingSovereignty, Restraint, & Guidance: Canadian Criminal Law in the 21st Century.

It's easy to explain why the jury acquitted Gerald Stanley of second-degree murder: It concluded that there was no intention to fire his weapon at the occupants inside the SUV. It is trickier to explain why it acquitted the defendant of manslaughter.

First, keep in mind that this was not a case in which the accused claimed that his finger "slipped" while brandishing a weapon in order to keep intruders at bay. At no point did the defence argue that he intentionally pointed his weapon at the youths in order to protect his family or his property. He was holding the gun at the pivotal moment, but in the (he argued, well-founded) belief that it was empty.

According to Mr. Stanley's testimony, he obtained the pistol because he was afraid that the intruders would attack his son, who had just smashed the windshield of the SUV with a hammer. He loaded it with three bullets – but at the time he wasn't sure if it was two or three. He then proceeded to fire two warning shots. He pulled the trigger a third time, but nothing happened. Mr. Stanley checked his pistol carefully, and concluded that the gun was empty. He then ran to the SUV, ostensibly because he was worried that his wife was injured. As he reached to turn off the ignition, the gun discharged, killing Colten Boushie.

The defence case turned on evidence of "hang fire" – a phenomenon in which there is a delay between the pulling of the trigger and the discharge. Without that evidence, it would have been all but impossible for the jury to find that Mr. Stanley's use of the firearm was anything other than careless. A conclusion that Mr. Stanley was waving around a gun that he had good reason to think might be loaded, would have been more than sufficient basis for a manslaughter conviction.

The evidence supporting the hang-fire theory was weak. It amounted to little more than anecdotal evidence to the effect that "hang fires happen." There was no statistical evidence on the incidence rate of hang fires, either among firearms generally or among the particular make and model of pistol used by the defendant. The Crown's firearms expert suggested that hang fires are rare and that such delays in firing are quite short – certainly, much shorter than Mr. Stanley's testimony would indicate.

With this in mind, it makes sense that the Crown, during closing arguments, strongly emphasized the flaws in the hang fire theory. The Crown suggested that Mr. Stanley's evidence was flatly inconsistent with that of expert testimony concerning how his pistol functions. More importantly, the Crown noted a possible inconsistency between Mr. Stanley's evidence and that of his son: whereas Mr. Stanley testified that he "ran" to the SUV to check on his wife, his son testified only that he walked. That doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it goes to just how much of a delay there was between the trigger-pull and the discharge. Clearly, the jury thought this was significant, since they specifically asked to hear the testimony of both Mr. Stanley and his son as to what happened after the warning shots were fired.

Ironically, though, the Crown may have pushed the jury into a corner. If the hang-fire theory was rejected, then Mr. Stanley's story was not just undermined on one discrete detail. It went to the heart of his account. Again, there was no evidence – even by the defence – that his finger simply "slipped." So how did the gun go off, if there was no hang fire? He must have pulled the trigger, which would suggest that the killing was intentional. So it may have seemed to the jury that rejecting the hang-fire theory required it either to convict on second-degree murder, or to acquit.

This is probably not what the Crown intended. If anything, knowing that there were real credibility issues with its own witnesses, the Crown was likely aiming for a manslaughter conviction.

But the Crown might not have done enough to stress just how the jury could reach that conclusion. At the same time, perhaps the jury was not focused on Mr. Stanley's motive to kill – that it was surely a wild coincidence that the gun happened to discharge just as it was pointed at the back of the head of someone who had, on Mr. Stanley's account, posed a threat to his son and wife.

All this is Monday morning quarterbacking. The hang-fire evidence, credibility issues and media glare arguably made this a messy case to prosecute. Looking forward, the Crown may attempt to argue that the evidence of hang fire should not have been admitted in the first place. Or it may claim that the use of peremptory challenges by the defence, at the jury empanelling stage, improperly excluded Indigenous jurors. I am not optimistic about the prospects of success for either argument. They are, however, makeable.

What cannot be argued on appeal is that the jury simply got it wrong. The Crown can only appeal on questions of law, not fact. We will never know precisely how the jury reached its verdict. But I would make this observation: This was not a trial about whether and when it is okay to shoot each other – either to protect ourselves, our families or our property. It was a trial about whether and how, on a remote farm in Saskatchewan, a gun malfunctioned on Aug. 9, 2016. As we reflect on the verdict, we should keep that point squarely in mind.
 

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
It sute sounds like manslaughter, and poor decisions

From Wikipedia:
"Boushie and his friends got a flat tire in a truck they previously stole after attempting to rob another home owner in the area while drinking and driving and went to a farmhouse owned by fifty-six-year-old local Battleford, Saskatchewan, farmer, Gerald "Gerry" Stanley to seek help.[1] They entered the Stanley property, one of them tried to steal an ATV and their vehicle crashed into one of Stanley's cars. Stanley went to get an old handgun. He fired two warning shots in the air, and then shot Boushie in the head at point-blank range, killing him instantly."
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
It sute sounds like manslaughter, and poor decisions

From Wikipedia:
"Boushie and his friends got a flat tire in a truck they previously stole after attempting to rob another home owner in the area while drinking and driving and went to a farmhouse owned by fifty-six-year-old local Battleford, Saskatchewan, farmer, Gerald "Gerry" Stanley to seek help.[1] They entered the Stanley property, one of them tried to steal an ATV and their vehicle crashed into one of Stanley's cars. Stanley went to get an old handgun. He fired two warning shots in the air, and then shot Boushie in the head at point-blank range, killing him instantly."
Criminal Code

"232 (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation."

Stanley said the gun went off due to hang fire not him firing 'in the heat of passion' and the jury believed him, so no manslaughter.
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Stanley is screwed anyways. He had to sell his 30 year old farm to pay for legal bills because some adults made very bad decisions which had worse consequences. A farmer having to sell his farm, the only life he knows, over this is brutal. He should sue anyone he can.
 

wickedken

TRIBE Member
I know im responding to single-case examples, and maybe the media feeds me more outrage examples than good examples

But I am extremely fucking skeptical of the whole idea of juries.

I guess on the other side if you get a shit judge, the game is over and a jury can balance that - I guess...

Is a Jury the best of a bunch of shit options? Maybe sometimes I guess??

Still I wonder if Im better taking the "single judge lottery" and hoping to get a professional, reasonable one.
there's a choice for a judge or judge and jury. I think in some cases you can get three judges. I find it very interesting that the structure of higher courts is essentially that of a jury as well.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top