Off Topic

It was a trial about whether and how, on a remote farm in Saskatchewan, a gun malfunctioned on Aug. 9, 2016.

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 18th, 2018 8:29 pm
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28749 posts
4548 upvotes
Ottawa
Here is an interesting thought, "the only people who can argue they have a truly “informed” opinion would be the people who attended or participated in the trial."

Intelligent and reasonable comments in this article in Police Advisor, especially on what Trudeau and Justice Minster Wilson-Raybould said.
http://thepoliceinsider.com/boushie-cas ... eadership/
It's alright if you don't agree with me... I can't force you to be right. - Anonymous
Member
Apr 14, 2017
277 posts
96 upvotes
DT Calgary
Still can't believe these silly protests. But what you expect in today's society.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16442 posts
1832 upvotes
Langley
Just to correct the title, it's not a question of whether the gun malfunctioned, but whether the ammo malfunctioned. A gun can operate perfectly and the ammo can hangfire.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
6276 posts
233 upvotes
They quite clearly overcharged due to community pressure. You can't put together a case alleging 2nd degree murder and then be mad at the jury for not opting to find him guilty of manslaughter. They should have been realistic with the family and community and gone for a plea deal on manslaughter.

The defense did a good job. They basically put it to the jury that either you believe that Stanley intended to kill someone or you don't.
Sr. Member
Feb 10, 2007
969 posts
385 upvotes
Calgary, AB
Why would he take the plea on manslaughter? If he intentionally murdered the guy then sure.

And thinking that this is just a Sask issue, not a chance. Aboriginal racism, in both directions, is rampant across the country.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
6276 posts
233 upvotes
Fort McMurray wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 12:18 am
Why would he take the plea on manslaughter? If he intentionally murdered the guy then sure.
Because if they had tried him for manslaughter and built a case around that charge he likely would've been convicted. I imagine Stanley would have taken a significantly reduced sentence to plead guilty to manslaughter and avoid the risk and cost of a jury trial.
Deal Addict
Apr 22, 2014
2799 posts
395 upvotes
Oshawa, ON
Lesson: Don't use Russian surplus for self defense.
signature removed for inappropriate content
Jr. Member
Oct 23, 2017
193 posts
75 upvotes
GTA West
It is extremely uncomfortable to see an all-white jury acquit a white man accused of violence against a native, and that the potential native jurors were all disqualified. It reminds me of all-white juries dispensing justice to blacks in the American south.

But I am sure that an all-native jury would be equally biased, so I don't know how a jury in SK can be impartial in these kinds of cases. I don't understand our legal system well enough to know if these cases can be tried with a judge instead of a jury?

Native leaders have tons of legitimate historical grievances and are quick to recount them. But I don't hear a strong voice among them to denounce the rampant criminality that we currently see from reservations. And if you challenge them on youth crime, they can blame it on the white man as well, citing the breakdown of native family values etc. caused by the residential school system. I just don't hear leadership here? The disrespect white people have for natives starts because they don't respect themselves. People who live in areas with native populations can see the corruption, crime, and abuse to women and children on the reserves. And then the criminality compounds that,

Historically, whenever the government is pro-active in Indian affairs, things seem to go horribly wrong. But I don't see that native leaders are offering practical solutions either, and they seem to be a fractional group divided by region and culture.

As far as I can see, SK had a native population of some 7 - 10,000 people living in a hunting-gathering culture when white settlers started arriving. With this population having grown to 160,000 it is obvious that the original reserves that were established for 10,000 people don't have the resources needed to sustain the current population. Natives complain that settlers took the best land from them, but in fact farming only became viable in SK when European grains were introduced. And natives have not shown much inclination to take up agriculture. You don't even see many houses with vegetable gardens when you drive through a rez. It would seem that the inevitable migration of native people to urban areas has with some exceptions been disastrous. The schools on the rez fail them, not to mention the contemporary "native culture" there, when they go the city. But we all know what happens when we try to put the kids in school away from the rez!

So what is the way forward here?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2983 posts
84 upvotes
Toronto
Dealmaker1945 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 8:46 am
It is extremely uncomfortable to see an all-white jury acquit a white man accused of violence against a native, and that the potential native jurors were all disqualified. It reminds me of all-white juries dispensing justice to blacks in the American south.

But I am sure that an all-native jury would be equally biased, so I don't know how a jury in SK can be impartial in these kinds of cases. I don't understand our legal system well enough to know if these cases can be tried with a judge instead of a jury?

Native leaders have tons of legitimate historical grievances and are quick to recount them. But I don't hear a strong voice among them to denounce the rampant criminality that we currently see from reservations. And if you challenge them on youth crime, they can blame it on the white man as well, citing the breakdown of native family values etc. caused by the residential school system. I just don't hear leadership here? The disrespect white people have for natives starts because they don't respect themselves. People who live in areas with native populations can see the corruption, crime, and abuse to women and children on the reserves. And then the criminality compounds that,

Historically, whenever the government is pro-active in Indian affairs, things seem to go horribly wrong. But I don't see that native leaders are offering practical solutions either, and they seem to be a fractional group divided by region and culture.

As far as I can see, SK had a native population of some 7 - 10,000 people living in a hunting-gathering culture when white settlers started arriving. With this population having grown to 160,000 it is obvious that the original reserves that were established for 10,000 people don't have the resources needed to sustain the current population. Natives complain that settlers took the best land from them, but in fact farming only became viable in SK when European grains were introduced. And natives have not shown much inclination to take up agriculture. You don't even see many houses with vegetable gardens when you drive through a rez. It would seem that the inevitable migration of native people to urban areas has with some exceptions been disastrous. The schools on the rez fail them, not to mention the contemporary "native culture" there, when they go the city. But we all know what happens when we try to put the kids in school away from the rez!

So what is the way forward here?
It is not at all like white jurors and black defendants for it is a white jury with a white defendant. If it was a jury of natives then it would be like a black defendants white a white jury...but that is presupposing that white people and natives cannot come to similar conclusions on a case when presented with the same evidence which, i submit, is quite racist.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2983 posts
84 upvotes
Toronto
Pete_Coach wrote:
Feb 12th, 2018 5:34 pm
Here is an interesting thought, "the only people who can argue they have a truly “informed” opinion would be the people who attended or participated in the trial."

Intelligent and reasonable comments in this article in Police Advisor, especially on what Trudeau and Justice Minster Wilson-Raybould said.
http://thepoliceinsider.com/boushie-cas ... eadership/
Considering the RCMP nor the media quoted any of the offensive tweets they likely cdo not represent white racism towards natives for if they did the article would be full of quoted tweets.
Deal Addict
Jan 12, 2015
3070 posts
25641 upvotes
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.4531086

We don't have to agree with jury's decision in Gerald Stanley case, but we must respect it

In Canadian law, an accused person has a right to a trial before his or her peers. It is the accused's right.

Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley was represented by peers, while many Indigenous accused are not.

Stanley was found not guilty last week of second-degree murder and not guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter in the death of Colten Boushie on his Biggar, Sask., farm.

Although no one can verify the ethnicity or background of any jurors in this particular case, the accused in this case was a non-Indigenous farmer, and the jury reportedly appeared non-Indigenous. Therefore, the accused's right to a trial before a jury of his peers was not violated.

The selection of his jury was legal. It was based on established rules. His counsel and Crown counsel followed those rules.

Many Indigenous people coming before our courts are charged with serious offences and are also being tried by juries.

They deserve greater representation from their peers on their juries. It is in those instances when our system can improve. This case has shed some light on this issue — but arguably from the wrong direction.

Our system isn't perfect. But our system remains something to be proud of. It deserves both scrutiny and respect. Sentiments of this respect must come from our leaders. Change must be measured, unemotional and rational. In this regard, "we can and must do better."

Why are so many Indigenous people victims of crime? Perpetrators of crime? Over-represented in custodial facilities? Denied bail and parole? Suffering from addiction? Missing? Unemployed? Living in poverty? "We can and must do better" to address these issues as well.

Indigenous people are not only underrepresented in our juries, they are underrepresented in policy development and legislative change. The system needs to better include all Canadians. Our system can always do better.

The shooting of Boushie polarized many in the province and indeed the country. Several questioned the RCMP's handling of the case, the jury selection process, the legal tactics utilized by the lawyers, and the verdict.

As a defence lawyer, I have felt both the jubilation of success and the heartache of defeat. I have bonded with clients and felt passionate about their innocence. Sometimes it is obvious to me how the trier of fact achieved the result. Other times, it is not.

It can be frustrating and infuriating. I cannot imagine what accused persons, victims and close family members feel. I only know how I feel.

Swiftly following the Stanley verdict, members of Boushie's family spoke of the tragic loss they have suffered. Their disappointment and grief were palpable and understandable.

The Battlefords Agency Tribal Chiefs said in a media release that they were "deeply disturbed" by the verdict and called for "an immediate inquiry examining a number of injustices during this trial including problems with jury selection, the prosecution and trial processes."

Among the criticisms, two veteran and highly respected Crown prosecutors were called out as being "incapable of handling such a high-profile case" despite decades of experience on complex and difficult trials.

The members of jury, after having been lauded by the counsel for Boushie's family "as taking their oath very seriously," were being called racist hours later.

Chief Justice Martel Popescul, a highly experienced trial judge and former trial lawyer, was being referenced as the former RCMP lawyer who "tried to stop the inquiry into the murder of Cree trapper Leo LaChance" in 1991 — as if his former work as a lawyer somehow had a bearing on his conduct in this case.

Systemic discrimination is indisputable
So many people are calling the decision wrong, saying the process was "fixed" and that the "deck was stacked" against a fair trial from the outset.

It is understandable that Indigenous Canadians have felt excluded from the justice system. Systemic discrimination of Indigenous peoples has been recognized and codified in our Criminal Code. It is undeniable and indisputable.

Many individuals in the community are crying out for immediate change. Many speak of the lack of Indigenous representation on Canadian juries. Others speak about racism in all parts of the system.

The fact remains that the Canadian justice system remains one of the greatest, if not the greatest, in the entire world.

Trials are conducted before experienced trial judges, or juries that are being instructed by those judges. High-profile cases like these are prosecuted by experienced and highly qualified Crown prosecutors. The rules of evidence, procedures and substantive principles of law are those that are well-founded and thought out.

As a lawyer and citizen, I acknowledge we can always improve the system. But improvement can only occur if we are respectful.

We need to respect the jury in this case. Failure to do so can compound injustice. We need to respect their work, dedication and commitment to our system. They deliberated. They heard the evidence.

Most commentators, including myself, did not.

We don't have to agree with the decision, but we must respect it. Disrespecting these 12 men and women has no place in improving the system. In this regard, we also can and must do better.
Deal Fanatic
Feb 9, 2006
8277 posts
2264 upvotes
Brampton
1. I'm always amazed by sleuths on Reddit.
2. It's scary that mob/media/social media court can be so wrong and have so much "influence"
3. It's scary that people in high places basically have no faith in the system that our society is built around.

n. I seriously ain't voting liberal next round.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
6276 posts
233 upvotes
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh decries Boushie verdict, weighs up position on jury challenges
As a former defence lawyer, Singh said he had used peremptory challenges in his past work.

“In my case, I wanted to ensure that the jury was more diverse so I challenged folks that were not … I wanted to have more diversity on the jury,” said Singh.

“I wanted to have more people of colour and more people of diverse backgrounds, so I would have challenged someone who wasn’t diverse,” he said.
How, in 2018, can a leader of a federal party be so openly racist? He fully admits to using challenges to exclude people based on ethnicity but disagrees when others do it?


I appreciated the comments from Oullette. He took a very difficult but fair position that puts him at odds with his party and the community that his family comes from. That's tough but shows real leadership. MP 'sorry for the Stanley family'

Top