Gerald Stanley Not Guilty


Colpy
+2
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There are many grounds for appeal.

I'm sure they will put their pointy little heads together and come up with something.

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.
 
captain morgan
+7
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

It would be so, so stupid.

Cue, Justin Trudeau
 
JLM
+2 / -1
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

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.

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)?
 
Curious Cdn
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

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)?

Shoot first, ask questions later. A bunch of of Saskatchewan farmers say "It's okay".

The law of treeless jungle ...
 
JLM
-1
#35
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!
 
petros
+3
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Shoot first, ask questions later. A bunch of of Saskatchewan farmers say "It's okay".

The law of treeless jungle ...

Steal first and pray you don't get shot second.
 
DaSleeper
+3
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

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)?

Armchair SJW jurors always know better than the jurors sitting in the courtroom don't you know,,......
And their verdict of "Guilty of racism" is never a knee-jerk reaction!
 
justlooking
+2
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Steal first and pray you don't get shot second.


Let me steal shit and terrorize your family.

For reconciliation.
 
JLM
-1
#39
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!
 
Hoid
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

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.

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.
 
taxslave
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Shoot first, ask questions later. A bunch of of Saskatchewan farmers say "It's okay".

The law of treeless jungle ...

The only way justice is served in a timely manner.
 
Murphy
+2
#42
I guess this needs to be posted here as well. Duplicate threads.
---

Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with defending your house - everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority.

The court must have determined that shooting Boushie was justified. He trespassed on a property, was committing a crime, and took a weapon with him. It would be easy for the defense to establish that taking a weapon with him when attempting to rob a house meant Boushie was ready to use it, if necessary.

Once it was established that Boushie was prepared to use his rifle during the commission of a crime, then Stanley's actions became easier to justify. Stanley used enough force as was necessary. To my mind, that was the crux of the argument and the reason for the not guilty verdict.
 
JLM
-1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Murphy View Post

I guess this needs to be posted here as well. Duplicate threads.
---

Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with defending your house - everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority.

The court must have determined that shooting Boushie was justified. He trespassed on a property, was committing a crime, and took a weapon with him. It would be easy for the defense to establish that taking a weapon with him when attempting to rob a house meant Boushie was ready to use it, if necessary.

Once it was established that Boushie was prepared to use his rifle during the commission of a crime, then Stanley's actions became easier to justify. Stanley used enough force as was necessary. To my mind, that was the crux of the argument and the reason for the not guilty verdict.

And for sake of argument, lets say he was guilty. Could it be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
 
Curious Cdn
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

The only way justice is served in a timely manner.

Why not shoot them all in advance?
 
taxslave
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Why not shoot them all in advance?

Good plan. That would protect the innocent.
 
Curious Cdn
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Good plan. That would protect the innocent.

Gassing is more efficient.
 
Murphy
+1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

And for sake of argument, lets say he was guilty. Could it be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Are you asking if Stanley was quilty? Given that no one was there to witness what happened, or what, if anything, was said, I don't think so.

But I was not in the courtroom. None of us was, so we are speculating. The judge usually makes a statement after ruling. Perhaps we will find out how the verdict was decided.
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Murphy View Post

Are you asking if Stanley was quilty? Given that no one was there to witness what happened, or what, if anything, was said, I don't think so.

But I was not in the courtroom. None of us was, so we are speculating. The judge usually makes a statement after ruling. Perhaps we will find out how the verdict was decided.

I'm inclined to agree with you, what I'm alluding to is he was found to be not guilty, which doesn't mean innocent - only that there was insufficient proof. The man will still live "under a cloud" for the rest of his days.
 
justlooking
+3
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

The man will still live "under a cloud" for the rest of his days.

Under a cloud ?
More like in fear for his life.
 
Colpy
+2
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by justlooking View Post

Under a cloud ?
More like in fear for his life.

And mark my words, he will be disarmed by the state.

Luckily, Some friend or relative will loan him a 12 ga pump.
 
Curious Cdn
-2
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by justlooking View Post

Under a cloud ?
More like in fear for his life.

Under a cloud? Hell no! He's a hero in some circles. Maybe, the NRA will give him the "I killed for Freedom" award. Opportunities to actually use your guns for what they are meant to be used for are few and far between, although it appears that opportunities are opening up, now.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

And mark my words, he will be disarmed by the state.

Luckily, Some friend or relative will loan him a 12 ga pump.

The only problem I have with this case is not the verdict but the use of peremptory challenge in jury selection instead of challenge for cause......
 
Colpy
+8
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Under a cloud? Hell no! He's a hero in some circles. Maybe, the NRA will give him the "I killed for Freedom" award. Opportunities to actually use your guns for what they are meant to be used for are few and far between, although it appears that opportunities are opening up, now.

Here's some advice: When you have had every point you've raised trashed, it is time to STFU.

STFU.

It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Mark Twain
 
JLM
-1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Here's some advice: When you have had every point you've raised trashed, it is time to STFU.

STFU.

It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Mark Twain

No worries, Colpy.................he's just being himself!

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

The only problem I have with this case is not the verdict but the use of peremptory challenge in jury selection instead of challenge for cause......

Oooooooh Sleepy, your technicalities are a little beyond my level of sophistication.
 
Curious Cdn
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Here's some advice: When you have had every point you've raised trashed, it is time to STFU.

STFU.

It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Mark Twain

Not to worry, Colby. Your chance to use one of your guns to kill someone will come along, too ...if it hasn't already. It's "okay" to do that, now. A jury in Boondocks Saskachewan says so.
 
JLM
-1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Not to worry, Colby. Your chance to use one of your guns to kill someone will come along, too ...if it hasn't already. It's "okay" to do that, now. A jury in Boondocks Saskachewan says so.

And you would think it's Okay if Stanley were to serve life in prison?
 
Decapoda
+7
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Not to worry, Colby. Your chance to use one of your guns to kill someone will come along, too ...if it hasn't already. It's "okay" to do that, now. A jury in Boondocks Saskachewan says so.

I can't decide if you're a tragedy or a comedy. One thing I do know is that you are such a f*cking delusional hypocrite that you can't see your own obvious hypocricy and bigotry consistantly on display in almost every post you make. It's amazing how you actually believe that the way to defend virtue is belittle and insult literally everyone. I know you have conviced yourself that people give a shit about your opinion depite the constant negative feeback you recieve, but trust me...they really don't.

When your only debating tactic is bitter contempt for everyone, you lose everyone's respect and attention, and the only reaction you may get is pity.
 
JLM
-1
#58
I'm wondering if Trudeau isn't acting like a bit of an idiot in this case! I think he's ignoring the fact that possibly First Nations in this case are overwhelmed by emotions which are getting in the way of the facts.
 
justlooking
+4
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I'm wondering if Trudeau isn't acting like a bit of an idiot in this case! I think he's ignoring the fact that possibly First Nations in this case are overwhelmed by emotions which are getting in the way of the facts.

That would be his specialty.
 
petros
+2
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Under a cloud? Hell no! He's a hero in some circles. Maybe, the NRA will give him the "I killed for Freedom" award. Opportunities to actually use your guns for what they are meant to be used for are few and far between, although it appears that opportunities are opening up, now.

Ever since this happened utility workers going on a Rez in SK get a police escorts.

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.268630

This guy was a workmate and friend of my brother.

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.268630

Another dead Whitie for no reason.

https://regina.ctvnews.ca/mobile/gan...ears-1.3003015

You want racism? I could post all day long.

SASKATOON - Debbie Okemahwasin, 38, will face a charge of aggravated assault. Okemahwasin was charged on Sept. 16 in after a 83-year-old woman was assaulted on the sidewalk outside of the Saskatoon police station. The senior injured in the incident died one month later. (CTV) PREVIOUS: Assault victim dies
 

Similar Threads

36
The Oilers will win the Stanley Cup!
by GrizzlyBear | Dec 29th, 2017
12
Stanley cup is coming
by capebretoner | Apr 14th, 2006