Gerald Stanley Not Guilty
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Oh I agree. My previous post was only a statement of fact.
This Crown had witnesses that were 30 shot drinker and drivers, thieves, liars, court no shows,
and one so wasted she slept through a gunshot. Not to mention a loaded rifle.
Oh and a defendant that did nothing wrong.
Crown will try to put this one in the rearview as fast as possible,
notwithstanding the idiot Chief Crybaby Sox.
Can the reputation/record of a community at large have any bearing on the guilt/innocence of an individual within that community? I would hope NOT!
That's why it it's called a jury of your peers.
Oh good Lord. Trudeau is live on the tube crying for for a dead gangbanger saying "I'm not going mention what led up to the shooting but" ...boohoo poor Injuns.
F-ck you Trudeau.
Oh good Lord. Trudeau is live on the tube crying for for a dead gangbanger saying "I'm not going mention what led up to the shooting but" ...boohoo poor Injuns.
F-ck you Trudeau.
The Crown will have to appeal this. Nothing to do with Trudeau, whatsoever (or the Indians, either). You cannot kill people to protect your property here in Canada, pretty much anywhere in the US, anywhere that adheres to Common law in the world. Just because a jury found him innocent does not mean that they are right. Also, there is no "double jeopardy" law in Canada so the Crown can charge him over and over for this same killing if and when new evidence comes along. This is far from over.
Obviously, you know nothing about common law. Look up William Blackstone and his writings on defense of your real property.
Yes you may use arms for the defense of the person, even while resisting criminal activity as long as the force used was proportional.
Bushie was armed.
That should be the end of the story.
The Crown may only appeal on issues of law, NOT the decision of a jury.
Last edited:
Not if they have anything resembling a brain in their tiny bureaucratic heads.
All appealing this will do is put another jury in the box, to hear the same evidence.
What could possibly make them think another 12 individuals would unanimously come up with a verdict completely opposite that of the first 12?
Another trial would simply end up enraging the Native community even more, and keep the anger boiling for the full length of another trial.
It would be so, so stupid.
But what if the accused feared a life was being threatened?
When are people going to get it through their heads that this is not a racial issue? What would anyone with an I.Q. of 5 think could happen when you go driving on to private property pissed to the eye balls & armed to the teeth, with criminal intentions (stealing)?
Aside from my comments on this matter I think the Crux of the matter IS could a determination of guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBLE be made? Possibly not!
Maybe in future there's a solution to this problem. Pass a law that all juries should be comprised of 6 whites and 6 racial minorities. That would at least remove the discrimination card!
its the government we are talking about.
when you don't pay for anything, anything becomes more reasonable to you.
Another basic flaw in our system.