Gerald Stanley Not Guilty


Ron in Regina
+1
#571
This is Colten Boushie's Crew: http://www.newsoptimist.ca/news/loca...ial-1.23162401

 
petros
+1
#572
Quite the "story".
 
Ron in Regina
+4
#573
Stories....different stories on different days from the same "witnesses" in exchange for their immunity from prosecution. The Crown Prosecution was sure hoodwinked by Colten's Crew in the Gerald Stanley case.
 
JLM
+2 / -1
#574
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Quite the "story".


Notice how Bones has gone all quiet on us?
 
petros
+1
#575
They Crown was desperate.
 
JLM
+2 / -1
#576
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The Crown was desperate.


You got to wonder how incidents such as this even get to trial in the first place! Someone is squandering a lot of our money.
 
petros
+3
#577
I'd still feel the same way if it was a Stormfront member killed on a Native guy's farm but I'd never cry racism if the Native farmer got off.

Dead gangbangers are a good thing.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

You got to wonder how incidents such as this even get to trial in the first place! Someone is squandering a lot of our money.

Due process.
 
Ron in Regina
+5
#578
Debbie Batiste and her family members nuisance civil suit against Gerald Stanley should be squashed, and if anyone should be sued, it's the adults who where the role models of Boushie & Crew as they where growing up to create the individuals that created the situation that made Gerald Stanley and his family victims in this whole crazy mess. Any funds from that law suit should go directly to Gerald Stanley's legal bills in this travesty.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#579
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Perhaps I'm wrong in the way I see this issue, but I believe that Gerald Stanley & his family are the victims in this whole Goat-Rodeo, and not the drunk armed thieves who where not on the Stanley farm with good intentions. I see this civil suit by Debbie Batiste and others in her family as a vindictive method to further victimize the victims.

As I've said before, I think the outcome was the correct one.

But what you are all upset about is that Mr. Stanley had to spend money and go through a trial.

So, how did we get from "Mr. Stanley standing over a dead Indun with a gun in his hand" to "Mr. Stanley was working on his farm when he was approached by drunk Induns who presented him with a reasonable threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm, justifying shooting one of the Induns."

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Say it with me, now. In - ves - ti can anyone finish the word?

That's right, investigation. In this case, the investigation consisted of the police investigation, the Crown prosecutor's investigation, and the trial. All of these are what we like to call "fact finding."

But you're all upset by the fact there was a trial because Mr. Stanley had to pay for a lawyer. So let's cut out the trail and concentrate on the first two steps of the investigation. They did not, of course, cost Mr. Stanley much besides his share of taxes, but they were not cost-free. Those parts of the investigation cost tax money. Further, we could have provided Mr. Stanley with legal counsel at government expense, but I dismissed that because I didn't want to hear endless pissing and moaning about taxes.

So. . . how do we get from the initial point to the final outcome without an investigation or trial? You've made it clear that's what you want. So I propose the following. Pass a law saying that every time a white man is found standing over a dead Indun with a gun in the white man's hand, whatever he says about the incident is to be irrebuttably presumed to be the truth.

That or declaring open season on Induns are the only ways I can think of.

And the term is "quashed" ferfuksake.
 
Ron in Regina
+5
#580
The issue isn't about Cowboys and Indians. The issue is about Criminals and Victims. I believe you're blinded in this by your racism. Currently the Victims are about to be revictimized by a civil suit. Your "White Man" this and "Induns" that....give your head a shake. This is about law abiding and not law abiding.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

But you're all upset by the fact there was a trial because Mr. Stanley had to pay for a lawyer. So let's cut out the trail and concentrate on the first two steps of the investigation. They did not, of course, cost Mr. Stanley much besides his share of taxes, but they were not cost-free. Those parts of the investigation cost tax money. Further, we could have provided Mr. Stanley with legal counsel at government expense, but I dismissed that because I didn't want to hear endless pissing and moaning about taxes.


In Saskatchewan, for example, you are eligible for legal aid if 1) you are supported by a social assistance program; 2) your financial resources are not above the social assistance program’s level; or 3) the cost of legal services from private lawyers would reduce your financial resources to the social assistance level. If you do not receive social assistance, you may be asked to contribute to the costs of legal services.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So. . . how do we get from the initial point to the final outcome without an investigation or trial? You've made it clear that's what you want. So I propose the following. Pass a law saying that every time a white man is found standing over a dead Indun with a gun in the white man's hand, whatever he says about the incident is to be irrebuttably presumed to be the truth.

That or declaring open season on Induns are the only ways I can think of.

And the term is "quashed" ferfuksake.


Quashed. Thank you. I'm not an internet lawyer and wasn't familiar with the term.

Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Colten Boushie shooting: No appeal will be filed in Gerald Stanley case, says prosecutions office

On Wednesday in Regina, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Anthony Gerein announced the public prosecutions office saw “no basis” for doing so.

“The Crown cannot appeal because some people have questions about how the investigation was done or what the lawyers did,” Gerein told reporters.

“I know there is much sadness over the decision not to appeal,” he continued. “That is unfortunate, but there can be no appeal because the law does not allow it.”

“There is no basis for concluding the judge said or did anything that would justify an appeal,” he said. The trial judge was Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Martel Popescul.

The Boushie family “is not taking the news well,” according to their lawyer, Chris Murphy. He said the first words Boushie’s mother uttered when she heard there would be no appeal were, “This isn’t the end of the fight.


....and what could that mean? How can she take revenge on this farmer who was trying to protect himself and his family while protecting his property and his livelihood from an invading band of drunken armed criminals?

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Link: Lawyer discusses civil lawsuits against Gerald Stanley, RCMP | 980 CJME


Cha-Ching!! knew this was coming.


.....and here we are.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#581
Ok, so how about we add another law barring Induns from filing lawsuits?

By the way, what did you think when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and then Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued him?

Just to test you "this isn't about invaders and Induns" theory.

Hey, there is good news. Apparently the law is moving in the direction you want. Peter Khill, seeing that Jon Styres was messing with his truck, armed himself and left the safety of his house to confront Styres, then killed him. Styres was unarmed. Mr. Khill got the same verdict Mr. Stanley got.

Maybe you could pass a version of Floriduh's "stand your ground" law, but that's pretty imperfect. In order to get the effect you're looking for, you'd need something like what I proposed. Shouldn't be that tough to pass in Saskatchewan.

I'm just trying to help you here. You specified that you want white people who kill Induns to be able to go on their way with a minimum of time and expense. I'm suggesting ways to achieve that without all those expensive, wasteful, time-consuming things like investigations and trials.
 
JLM
+3 / -1
#582
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Ok, so how about we add another law barring Induns from filing lawsuits?

By the way, what did you think when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and then Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued him?

Just to test you "this isn't about invaders and Induns" theory.




You seem to have a hard time getting it through your head that this case isn't about Indians! It's about a couple of law abiding citizens minding their own business, mending a fence vs. a vehicle full of drunken hooligans invading the property in a threatening manner, committing theft and assault. Can I make it any simpler?
 
taxslave
+3
#583
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Ok, so how about we add another law barring Induns from filing lawsuits?

By the way, what did you think when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and then Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued him?

Just to test you "this isn't about invaders and Induns" theory.

Hey, there is good news. Apparently the law is moving in the direction you want. Peter Khill, seeing that Jon Styres was messing with his truck, armed himself and left the safety of his house to confront Styres, then killed him. Styres was unarmed. Mr. Khill got the same verdict Mr. Stanley got.

Maybe you could pass a version of Floriduh's "stand your ground" law, but that's pretty imperfect. In order to get the effect you're looking for, you'd need something like what I proposed. Shouldn't be that tough to pass in Saskatchewan.

I'm just trying to help you here. You specified that you want white people who kill Induns to be able to go on their way with a minimum of time and expense. I'm suggesting ways to achieve that without all those expensive, wasteful, time-consuming things like investigations and trials.

NO. What we want is criminals to stand trial for their crimes. We do not want hard working law abiding citizens needlessly put in a media court at their own expense for protecting their property.
Race has nothing to do with it.
 
petros
#584
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Ok, so how about we add another law barring Induns from filing lawsuits?

By the way, what did you think when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and then Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued him?

Just to test you "this isn't about invaders and Induns" theory.

Hey, there is good news. Apparently the law is moving in the direction you want. Peter Khill, seeing that Jon Styres was messing with his truck, armed himself and left the safety of his house to confront Styres, then killed him. Styres was unarmed. Mr. Khill got the same verdict Mr. Stanley got.

Maybe you could pass a version of Floriduh's "stand your ground" law, but that's pretty imperfect. In order to get the effect you're looking for, you'd need something like what I proposed. Shouldn't be that tough to pass in Saskatchewan.

I'm just trying to help you here. You specified that you want white people who kill Induns to be able to go on their way with a minimum of time and expense. I'm suggesting ways to achieve that without all those expensive, wasteful, time-consuming things like investigations and trials.

Pizza pizza
 
Tecumsehsbones
#585
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

NO. What we want is criminals to stand trial for their crimes. We do not want hard working law abiding citizens needlessly put in a media court at their own expense for protecting their property.
Race has nothing to do with it.

Well, sounds like Floriduh's stand your ground law is exactly what you want. Or maybe a stronger version of it that compels the Crown prosecutor to accept whatever the accused says. See, the problem with Floriduh's law is the prosecutor can still put you on trial, or can just let you go.

So when a black woman who is being beaten up in her house by her ex-boyfriend who has a stay-away order against him, and grabs a gun and fires a shot into the wall to convince him she'll shoot him if he doesn't leave, the prosecutor can still send her to prison. Because in Floriduh race has nothing to do with it either. Just ask 'em, they'll tell you.

I find it interesting that you consider the court system in Canada to be "media courts." Isn't it a shame that Justin Bourque was railroaded by a "media court?"

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

You seem to have a hard time getting it through your head that this case isn't about Indians! It's about a couple of law abiding citizens minding their own business, mending a fence vs. a vehicle full of drunken hooligans invading the property in a threatening manner, committing theft and assault. Can I make it any simpler?

I thought it was about a man who shot and killed another. . . well, let's just say an Indun.

I'd discuss it with you, but you haven't understood anything I've said so far, so there's little likelihood you can follow my argument.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

[SIZE=2]
Quashed. Thank you. I'm not an internet lawyer and wasn't familiar with the term.

You have made it abundantly clear that you're no kind of lawyer at all.

So I encourage you to push for your province to pass a "he came at me" law, stating that the word of someone who has just killed someone else that "he came at me" must be accepted as true.
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; Aug 11th, 2018 at 08:43 PM..
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#586
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post


I'd discuss it with you, but you haven't understood anything I've said so far, so there's little likelihood you can follow my argument.


You keep telling yourself that and pretty soon you'll believe it. Let's just say for sake of argument a trial was necessary. The decent outcome would be for the accused to be reimbursed for all expenses including loss of income and inconvenience upon acquittal.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#587
Gerald Stanley should never have been charged with anything more than involuntary manslaughter.
 
JLM
-1
#588
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Gerald Stanley should never have been charged with anything more than involuntary manslaughter.


Yeah, I suppose he has to be charged with something to cover irresponsible handling of a gun. I suppose if I was a judge I'd have fined him $100.
 
spaminator
#589
Colten Boushie film to open Toronto's Hot Docs festival
Canadian Press
Published:
March 19, 2019
Updated:
March 19, 2019 2:22 PM EDT
A film examining the case of a young Indigenous man who was killed on a farm in rural Saskatchewan will open this year’s Hot Docs festival in Toronto.
Organizers say Tasha Hubbard’s “nipawistamasowin: We Will Stand Up” will make its world premiere at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival, which runs April 25 to May 5.
A news release says the documentary “looks at inequity and racism in the Canadian legal system” after the case of Colten Boushie.
The 22-year-old member of the Red Pheasant First Nation died from a gunshot to the back of his head after entering a rural farm property with his friends near Biggar, Sask., in August 2016.
Last year a jury acquitted farmer Gerald Stanley of second-degree murder after he testified his gun went off accidentally when he was trying to scare off young people who drove onto his property.
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet,
but your article continues below.
The verdict gained international attention and sparked rallies across the country.
Hubbard’s film “weaves a profound narrative encompassing the filmmaker’s own adoption, the stark history of colonialism on the Prairies, and a transformative vision of a future where Indigenous children can live safely on their homelands,” the National Film Board of Canada, which co-produced the doc, said in a statement.
The NFB said it’s the first film by an Indigenous filmmaker to open Hot Docs, which revealed its full lineup on Tuesday. In Cree, “nipawistamasowin” translates to “we (small group) will stand up for others (big group),” a spokeswoman said.
Other Canadian films making their world premiere at this year’s festival include Phillip Pike’s “Our Dance of Revolution,” about Toronto’s black LGBTQ community.
“Prey” by Matt Gallagher is about a sexual-abuse survivor pursuing justice in a case against the Catholic church in Toronto.
Also having its world premiere is “Propaganda: The Art of Selling Lies” by Oscar-nominated Toronto filmmaker Larry Weinstein, which looks at the history of the art of persuasion.
The festival’s Focus On program will feature Canadian filmmaker Julia Ivanova and her retrospective titles as well as the world premiere of her new film “My Dads, My Moms and Me.”
A total of 234 films and 18 interdisciplinary projects are in the festival.
Previously announced docs in the lineup include “Gordon Lightfoot: If You Could Read My Mind.” The Canadian singer-songwriter will also attend the festival.
Other guests set to attend include artist, activist and director Ai Weiwei (“The Rest”); biochemist Jennifer Doudna (“Human Nature”); New Brunswick-born Willie O’Ree, who was the first black player to skate in the NHL (“Willie”); and whistleblower Deane Berg along with Dr. Daniel Cramer and Dr. Ami Zota (“Toxic Beauty”).
The festival will also have virtual reality and interactive experiences, including the live performance of “Supreme Law,” a satirical re-telling of the origins of Canada’s Constitution with comedian Jus Reign.
Organizers say the films hail from 56 countries, with 54 per cent of the directors being women. That’s up from last year, when 50 per cent of the films were made by female directors.
“Like the lantern shown on the festival artwork this year, the filmmakers featured at Hot Docs light the way in showing us outstanding stories and outspoken subjects of immense power, relevance and importance,” Shane Smith, director of programming for Hot Docs, said in a statement.
“The work of documentary filmmakers in their unrelenting pursuit of the truth is as necessary as ever, and we’re honoured to be sharing their vital, vibrant and creative films with Toronto audiences.”
http://torontosun.com/entertainment/...-docs-festival
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#590
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

You seem to have a hard time getting it through your head that this case isn't about Indians! It's about a couple of law abiding citizens minding their own business, mending a fence vs. a vehicle full of drunken hooligans invading the property in a threatening manner, committing theft and assault. Can I make it any simpler?




The ignorance and arrogance of the forum moron knows no bounds.
 
Kreskin
#591
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

The ignorance and arrogance of the forum moron knows no bounds.

You should be nicer to yourself.
 
JLM
-1
#592
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

You should be nicer to yourself.


No worries, I'll survive it!
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#593
If the film is FN endorsed you know that it was innocent kids looking for help narrative being promoted
 
White_Unifier
#594
It's difficult to blame the farmer. Even if he had access to a taser, it could have been out of reach at the time, or uncharged, or he thought the others had firearms. Of course, that's if tasers were not prohibited weapons.
 
Mowich
+2
#595
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

If the film is FN endorsed you know that it was innocent kids looking for help narrative being promoted

It will be interesting to see just how much time is spent on the Boushie issue and how much is spent telling her own personal story. Great way to get some attention by using the kid's death as a vehicle for your own interests.
 
Twin_Moose
#596
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

It's difficult to blame the farmer. Even if he had access to a taser, it could have been out of reach at the time, or uncharged, or he thought the others had firearms. Of course, that's if tasers were not prohibited weapons.

It wouldn't change the narrative
 
Curious Cdn
#597
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

It will be interesting to see just how much time is spent on the Boushie issue and how much is spent telling her own personal story. Great way to get some attention by using the kid's death as a vehicle for your own interests.

The "Friends of Stanley" are free to make their own version.
 
taxslave
+3
#598
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The "Friends of Stanley" are free to make their own version.

There are no versions. It is either fact of fantacy.
 
JLM
+3 / -1
#599
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The "Friends of Stanley" are free to make their own version.


This whole thing was a boondoggle right from the get go. The issue was behaviour, NOT race or colour of skin!
 
Cannuck
#600
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

There are no versions. It is either fact of fantacy.

That's priceless, coming from a Trumpite
 

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