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 Addict
Sep 13, 2016
1331 posts
611 upvotes
hugh_da_man wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 2:26 pm
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh decries Boushie verdict, weighs up position on jury challenges



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'
Just read Oullette's comments. He comes across as a much more mature and level headed politician than most of the leaders at higher positions. Remarkable.
Deal Addict
Sep 22, 2013
1594 posts
528 upvotes
BananaHunter wrote:
Feb 12th, 2018 12:57 pm
This case is disturbing in multiple ways:

-The media portrays Stanley as the bad guy when there is insufficient evidence. From the facts I am reading, these kids trespassed on his property, were drunk, and had a gun. Enough said...

-Native leaders and even our PM thinks the rule of law don't mean anything by saying this is "injustice". I don't see how the rule of law failed.

-Picking jurors based on race is even MORE racist and will lead to more problems. How anyone can even make a case for how jurors should have some aboriginals is appalling. Are we saying ALL whites are racist against natives? This statement is even worse.

-People should be proven innocent until proven guilty. The kids changed their stories multiple times....what more needs to be said? If there's beyond reasonable doubt, Stanley should rightfully be acquitted of murder. At most it should be involuntary manslaughter and from what I was reading, such an option DID exist. So I don't see how the justice system failed.

-The justice system WILL FAIL if people keep thinking public outrage should influence a verdict arrived at by proper legal procedures.

-The native people have loud voices. Just because they are loud, doesn't mean they are right. Just because you are upset, doesn't mean you are right. I don't think they can keep saying things like "the Europeans took our land...". So what? Does this give every native person the right to trespass because the land was originally theirs? Geez!!!! Enough of identity politics and this SJW crap.
Too bad there’s no like button in off topic.

I’m tired of all the SJWs being outraged when somebody committing a crime has something bad happen to them.

Maybe if they didn’t break the law on multiple occasions that night he’d still be alive.

Maybe it was bound to happen at some point anyways.
Last edited by Mars2012 on Feb 14th, 2018 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: posted image was reported and removed due to profanity
Deal Fanatic
Aug 15, 2015
5193 posts
1586 upvotes
ON
UrbanPoet wrote:
Feb 12th, 2018 11:48 am
An accidental discharge is possible with a defective gun and/or some sort of impact. Like dropping a loaded gun.
Sometimes a cartridge can go off by itself. I forgot the technical term... but its when the trigger is pulled. the primer hits and the powder has a delayed reaction. Thats why they teach if you pull the trigger and nothing happens... you point it in a safe direction like down range.

Also... even trained cops and people in the military get tunnel vision/stressed in a dangerous situation. The difference is the pro's have training and let that knowledge kick in/concentrentrate. Its quite possible he didnt even know he pulled the trigger. The proper finger off the trigger is just sticking your index finger outwards. A nervous or stressed reaction can cause fist to clench.
That's an ND or Negligent Discharge.
Image
Just to point out something that's been overlooked. There was no course for restricted, non restricted or full auto firearms at one time, so if one had gotten his firearms then, they never had to go through that.
Member
User avatar
Jan 30, 2010
385 posts
149 upvotes
North Battleford
The defense used a hang-fire theory. The ammo was surplus from 1953, the handgun was Soviet cold war era junk and the bullet casing found in the car had a usual budge Image
Deal Fanatic
Aug 15, 2015
5193 posts
1586 upvotes
ON
zoso454 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 2:24 am
The defense used a hang-fire theory. The ammo was surplus from 1953, the handgun was Soviet cold war era junk and the bullet casing found in the car had a usual budge Image
That picture is potato quality. Do you have any clear ones ?
That bulge in the casing isn't usual at all.
It would appear the cartridge wasn't fully chambered when it ignited.
Either out of battery or hangfire as the defense claimed.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
28850 posts
7038 upvotes
GTHA
zoso454 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 2:24 am
The defense used a hang-fire theory. The ammo was surplus from 1953, the handgun was Soviet cold war era junk and the bullet casing found in the car had a usual budge
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.
from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e37932338/

'Anatomy of a hang-fire': Gun expert cross-examined at Stanley Trial
http://battlefordsnow.com/article/59484 ... nley-trial
Member
User avatar
Jan 30, 2010
385 posts
149 upvotes
North Battleford
dilligafeh wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:10 am
That picture is potato quality. Do you have any clear ones ?
Here is a better one on Twitter.
Member
User avatar
Jan 30, 2010
385 posts
149 upvotes
North Battleford
tk1000 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:25 am
The evidence supporting the hang-fire theory was weak.


True but as his defense lawyer pointed out it if Gerry was lying he would of claimed self defense. Evidence shows that there was a loaded gun in front seat with Boushie when he was shot.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
28850 posts
7038 upvotes
GTHA
zoso454 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 9:07 am
[/i]

True but as his defense lawyer pointed out it if Gerry was lying he would of claimed self defense. Evidence shows that there was a loaded gun in front seat with Boushie when he was shot.
Stanley thought it was a bar or a pipe, he testified. He said he took his left hand and banged the piece of pipe. He only wanted to turn the vehicle off, Stanley testified.

“I moved that bar or pipe or whatever … boom, the thing just went off,” he testified, insisting his left hand was on the vehicle’s keys and that he did not have a finger on the trigger. Stanley said he could not say for certain if Boushie bumped the trigger.

from http://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan ... nce-lawyer


Why did Stanley and his son approach the vehicle if they knew the gun was in the front seat?
Member
User avatar
Jan 30, 2010
385 posts
149 upvotes
North Battleford
tk1000 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 10:08 am
Stanley thought it was a bar or a pipe, he testified. He said he took his left hand and banged the piece of pipe. He only wanted to turn the vehicle off, Stanley testified.

“I moved that bar or pipe or whatever … boom, the thing just went off,” he testified, insisting his left hand was on the vehicle’s keys and that he did not have a finger on the trigger. Stanley said he could not say for certain if Boushie bumped the trigger.

from http://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan ... nce-lawyer


Why did Stanley and his son approach the vehicle if they knew the gun was in the front seat?
He didn't know. However if just he lied to cops and told them he shot him after he saw a gun pointed at him he likely wouldn't of been charged.
Deal Addict
Aug 29, 2012
4031 posts
1118 upvotes
It would be much simpler if we had the castle doctrine. If you trespass on a property where you have no business to be, the home owner should have every right to protect himself.
This is the great ideological divide of our times: not between left and right but between those of us who believe in truth; and those who believe, Oprah style, that we’re all entitled to our own truths and that everyone’s is equally special.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
28850 posts
7038 upvotes
GTHA
zoso454 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 10:15 am
He didn't know. However if just he lied to cops and told them he shot him after he saw a gun pointed at him he likely wouldn't of been charged.
Boushie was shot in the head while he was sitting in the driver’s. Why was Stanley's gun pointed at the head?


The Crown prosecutor argued Stanley handled the firearm carelessly because he didn’t know how many bullets he loaded into the gun or how many shots he fired, and that he held a loaded gun close to three people in a vehicle in an unsafe manner. He also said Stanley wasn’t aware of the safety measures of his own gun, a gun he owned for four years, because he thought removing the magazine would disarm the gun — which isn’t the case.

from https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sta ... -1.3794264
Deal Addict
Nov 12, 2006
1314 posts
369 upvotes
London
tk1000 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:25 am
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.
from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e37932338/

'Anatomy of a hang-fire': Gun expert cross-examined at Stanley Trial
http://battlefordsnow.com/article/59484 ... nley-trial
The first article focuses on the hangfire vs. the firearm, while it is more a result of the ammunition.
In this case, it was old, which likely skews the statistical probability vs. overall statistics where newly manufactured is included.
The credibility of that article is "questionable" at best.
The government mandated safety course specifies 1 minute to wait in the event of a hangfire
Although that is commonly considered excessive by a wide margin, according to the "expert", that is 214 times anything he has heard of.
I suspect 1 minute was based documented cases of longer duration.

Although the exact sequence of events, hangfire, and other testimony is subject to what I'll call "human factors" such as credibility, etc., there is some objective evidence presented in these last few posts which is being ignored.
Despite any credibility issues with other testimony, this hard evidence would have been sufficient for reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.
The onus is on the prosecution to prove otherwise.

The casing had a bulge which could have only occurred "out of battery". (i.e the cartridge was not chambered by a length indicated by the length of the bulge).
It is also known that the trigger can not be pulled when that firearm is in that state, due to the mechanics of that firearm.
It can be concluded based on objective evidence that at the moment the gun discharged, it was not caused by a simultaneous trigger pull.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16442 posts
1832 upvotes
Langley
The problem is that if the gun was out of battery, you don't get a minor bulge but a case with a huge hole or split. Even if you'd get a bulge, I think it would be symmetrical around the radius of the cartridge portion that didn't have the chamber to hold the case form. Not just on one side. I also think that if the cartridge was partially out of the chamber, you'd see a clear delineation between the exposed and contained portions. A clear crease marking the boundry between where the case was free to expand and where it wasn't free to expand.

This is what it should look like if fired out of battery, whether hangfire or gun malfunction.
Image
Deal Fanatic
Aug 15, 2015
5193 posts
1586 upvotes
ON
i6s1 wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 11:59 am
The problem is that if the gun was out of battery, you don't get a minor bulge but a case with a huge hole or split. Even if you'd get a bulge, I think it would be symmetrical around the radius of the cartridge portion that didn't have the chamber to hold the case form. Not just on one side. I also think that if the cartridge was partially out of the chamber, you'd see a clear delineation between the exposed and contained portions. A clear crease marking the boundry between where the case was free to expand and where it wasn't free to expand.

This is what it should look like if fired out of battery, whether hangfire or gun malfunction.
Image
It's worth mentioning those surplus ammo casings are steel, so a bit more resilient than brass that is flexible and would strech and blow out. If the rifling on that barrel is well worn, then it wouldn't produce enough back pressure to completely destroy a strong casing partially extracted from the chamber.

Top