Colten Boushie murder trial

[Chesten_Hesten]

I agree, that part I don't like. But I can't help but feel that Stanley was at least negligent in his use of a firearm. If he didn't intend to shoot, why was his muzzle pointed inside cab while he tried to fish the keys out of the ignition?

He's claiming the Marvin defense

 

[ralphc1]

First of all, one witness in the truck said they came to the farm just to ask for help. That aside, lets pretend that the story of the property owners were actually true. Trying to "steal" an atv is not an excuse to murder people. Let it go and file a police report.

We all have been out having fun as a kid. Nobody should die because of it. Lets hope justice is served and rip to the victim

Where do you live? I'll come and steal your stuff.

 

[KantoTerror]

Regardless if you're sober or drunk...it's a bad idea to trespass on someone's property. If you're a homeowner with your family and you see 5 strangers enter your property and one has a rifle...what's the first thing that comes to mind? brew some coffee?

 

[KnightTemplar]

Where do you live? I'll come and steal your stuff.

You really think he's got anything worth stealing?

 

[Mark Cutting]

You really think he's got anything worth stealing?

Probably a few cans of potted meat.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Does anyone know if it's true that there were 30 or more First Nations people who were summoned for jury duty but never showed up? I heard someone say that but haven't found any source for it so maybe it's bullshit.

 

[Staph infection]

Play stupid games wins stupid prizes. 5 men who were drunk and steady tried to steal a vehicle while armed came into this mans property.

They brought it in themselves and sadly one paid with his life but that is the route they chose.

 

[Grenz]

Does anyone know if it's true that there were 30 or more First Nations people who were summoned for jury duty but never showed up? I heard someone say that but haven't found any source for it so maybe it's bullshit.

I haven't read that anywhere, and I spent a couple of hours going over old articles after the verdict came out. It's actually also besides the points in the context of the Canadian legal system.

The Charter guarantees you the right to be judged in front of a jury of your peers in the case of a criminal trial. It's part of what we consider to be a fair trial. So in this case, Stanley was judged by a jury of his peers, i.e small town Saskatchewan farmers. I'm sure there are arguments to be made against this doctrine, but this is how it's worked here for 150 years.

 

[Sketch]

I don't care.

At least you are honest. Thank you.

Meh should have been man slaughter imo , it seems to me the guy was reckless .

I grew up near a reserve and never had any problem with the first nations kids I also traveled the west coast while working on fishing boats So I have been on many reserves , there are alot of issues thst our first nations struggle with and they do face alot of racism .

Fucked up situation all the way around

FUCKING LOL. This is a great post, I will give you 7/10 on the trolling scale. Only thing you messed up on was the antidote about your personal experiences that then jumped into the topic of racism. It would have been more powerful to try and deflect the current topic and evidence with a feel good story.

I see what you are saying but I feel the farmers had stayed inside , fired a warning shot and yelled the police are on their way this would have ended much differently.

As far as castle doctrine I think if someone has entered your home you should be able to get medieval on them but not just because they are on your property

Ah yes, the warning shot. Just like the movies. Here's hoping nobody fires back a warning shot at you. Since it was also multiple people vs him.

 

[spamking]

In Canada you can't somebody I was trying to steal your ATV... I call that civilized

The situation got out of hand when dude decided to get his gun out and go wild west

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say . . . did you leave out a few words or was there a typo?

Regardless, the situation got out of hand well before the gun was involved.

 

[spamking]

First of all, one witness in the truck said they came to the farm just to ask for help. That aside, lets pretend that the story of the property owners were actually true. Trying to "steal" an atv is not an excuse to murder people. Let it go and file a police report.

Do you think the ATV owner went outside intending to kill someone? Let it go? So they could potentially come back for more of your stuff at a later date? No thanks.

We all have been out having fun as a kid. Nobody should die because of it. Lets hope justice is served and rip to the victim

There is having fun as a kid and then there is trespassing and attempted robbery . . .

 

[Ares Black]

I have been following the case, and Gerald Stanley straight-up murdered Colten Boushie.

It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't an accident. It was murder.

 

[Sketch]

I have been following the case, and Gerald Stanley straight-up murdered Colten Boushie.

It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't an accident. It was murder.

Then you haven't been following the case.

 

[Ares Black]

Then you haven't been following the case.

I have. There is no justification for shooting a guy in the back of the head.

The defense claimed it was an accident, but the facts don't support that.

He's guilty.

 

[Ares Black]

Play stupid games wins stupid prizes. 5 men who were drunk and steady tried to steal a vehicle while armed came into this mans property.

They brought it in themselves and sadly one paid with his life but that is the route they chose.

3 men (boys) and 2 girls.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Sounds like some drunk cunts tried to violently steal from someone and got killed for it. Shit happens across the US like 20 times a day.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I grew up on a farm out in the "sticks", surrounded by reserves in Saskratchyourass. There is nothing more scary than unknown people on the property at night. An elderly neighbor kitty corner to us across the grid was hospitalized and eventually passed from injuries after being beaten. Fuckers ransacked and trashed his house, then jacked some fuel and left the rest to drain out of the tanks.

 

[Ayin]

I haven't read that anywhere, and I spent a couple of hours going over old articles after the verdict came out. It's actually also besides the points in the context of the Canadian legal system.

The Charter guarantees you the right to be judged in front of a jury of your peers in the case of a criminal trial. It's part of what we consider to be a fair trial. So in this case, Stanley was judged by a jury of his peers, i.e small town Saskatchewan farmers. I'm sure there are arguments to be made against this doctrine, but this is how it's worked here for 150 years.

The most interesting take away from this for me is the widely held belief that the solution going forward is more of a specific ‘type’ of people in a jury.

Leaving aside the impacts such a thing would have had in this trial, and how that would have been good or bad, the idea is extremely interesting to me because I am absolutely convinced that if presswd no one loudly talking about it would have any suggestion besides something that sounds flatly wrong.

If a member of a specific group is on trial, how many of the jury members should be of the same group? How many natives would make a native based trial fair? Or how many whites would make it unfair? Should trials involving women require more women? Or gays more gays? Should certain groups be intentionally limited because of their perceived antagonism, historical, modern or “systemic”, to the person in question?

 

[Sketch]

I have. There is no justification for shooting a guy in the back of the head.

The defense claimed it was an accident, but the facts don't support that.

He's guilty.

There is no justification for going on peoples property at night, on drugs and drunk, looking to steal and or do worse. While having a gun among your party.

 

[Sketch]

The most interesting take away from this for me is the widely held belief that the solution going forward is more of a specific ‘type’ of people in a jury.

Leaving aside the impacts such a thing would have had in this trial, and how that would have been good or bad, the idea is extremely interesting to me because I am absolutely convinced that if presswd no one loudly talking about it would have any suggestion besides something that sounds flatly wrong.

If a member of a specific group is on trial, how many of the jury members should be of the same group? How many natives would make a native based trial fair? Or how many whites would make it unfair? Should trials involving women require more women? Or gays more gays? Should certain groups be intentionally limited because of their perceived antagonism, historical, modern or “systemic”, to the person in question?

One thing I noticed is that nobody talks about the facts of the case. They are not stated in the "news" coverage. Those who are most enraged apparently do not even know what happened. They talk about the guy who was just "on someone's property" and "looking for help" without mentioning he was part of a group of drunk people who tried stealing a truck and had started up an ATV. If they do admit that theft had something to do with the incident, they claim that nobody deserves to be killed over property, without mentioning that the guys party had a rifle and that the farmer and his son had been run down with the SUV. The only facts that matter are race and death. For some people, it is always "murder" for a white to kill an aboriginal person, so they don't care about details.