Gerald Stanley Not Guilty


petros
+2
#1
Shouts of 'murderer' in courtroom after Gerald Stanley acquitted in Colten Boushie shooting.

Several people in the courtroom yelled "Murderer!" seconds after a Saskatchewan jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty of killing Colten Boushie early Friday evening.

As a sheriff's deputy put his hand on his shoulder, Stanley recoiled for a moment before being hurriedly led out of the tense room.

Stanley, 56, was charged with second-degree murder in the August 2016 death of the 22-year-old.

The Battleford Court of Queen's Bench jury began deliberating Thursday afternoon and returned its verdict Friday evening.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted to the news on Twitter.

Justin Trudeau
@JustinTrudeau
Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US.

10:07 PM - Feb 9, 2018

Does that mean we don't need more RCMP members on staff in rural SK Justin?
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
darkbeaver
+1
#2
Rural SK, just keep the grain coming, we,ll help you develope thinking if you ever imagine you need it.
 
OmegaOm
+3
#3
I am not siding with any side, I was not there. But what do you do when your in the country far from the police and you have drunk kids on your land making mischief. I would not want to kill one of them, but you have to be afraid for your life. Do these kids have guns, where is my wife. You go into defensive mode.
 
darkbeaver
#4
Because us Nova Scotians were the first Canadians to aquire thinking we can hardly bother to burden ourselves with the inteiors points of contention, you exist to produce grain, porridge for the masses, you serve no other purpose, bread, and then your utility is exhausted.
 
petros
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Rural SK, just keep the grain coming, we,ll help you develope thinking if you ever imagine you need it.

Wee who!

Quote: Originally Posted by OmegaOm View Post

I am not siding with any side, I was not there. But what do you do when your in the country far from the police and you have drunk kids on your land making mischief. I would not want to kill one of them, but you have to be afraid for your life. Do these kids have guns, where is my wife. You go into defensive mode.

Making mischief? They were stealing and we're armed.
 
darkbeaver
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

We who!

You are confined to the interior I can hardley expect you to understand the finer things.
 
petros
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Because us Nova Scotians were the first Canadians to aquire thinking we can hardly bother to burden ourselves with the inteiors points of contention, you exist to produce grain, porridge for the masses, you serve no other purpose, bread, and then your utility is exhausted.

And grow the beer you're drinking right now.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

You are confined to the interior I can hardley expect you to understand the finer things.

Like what? Row boats?
 
darkbeaver
#8
Point under intense consideration at this very moment.

You just enable us.

That,s your primary function, what,s the crop look like this year?

If you interfere with the beer flow we will of course visit you on a diplomatic mission with treads. If you threaten the flow of beer we will just vapouize the lot of you and install IT chunks of metal that obeys . The tractor tech will eventually eliminate the need of you.

Most of the brains in Canada come frum Nova Scoltia except for the very few anomolous inexplicable non Nova Scotian mutants that periodically raise thier fat heads above the madding crowd.

Fish is associated with brains wheat is associated with porridge, you fukkin western retard you

There isn,t even any trees out there.

Wha t made you think you would advance beyound producers of beer primaries?

I understand there isn,t a lot of you, we,ve tried to breed more but the climate is harsh and the DNA is weak., obviously.

You are obviously a product of a grain fed woman.

Fish is a higher form of nutriant and produces a higher human, everybody knows that.

I,m drunk or I wouldn,t attempt to clue you in.
 
JLM
-1
#9
He could well have been guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt!
 
Decapoda
+8
#10
Boushie and the others weren't on trial, but their actions were. When they rolled into the Stanley yard, the driver testified he had about 30 shots that day, he couldn't even walk, let alone drive. How many miles did he drive on that rim? Why were they trying to steal cars, why were they armed?

Boushie didn't deserve to be shot, but there's no doubt these thugs were playing a very dangerous game. What if they would have run someone over that day, would people still be crying racism or blaming this incident on 150 years of genocide? At one point Stanley thought they ran over his wife, what if they had? How would the average person react to such a situation?

This turned out terribly for all involved, a kid lost his life, families on both sides have been permanently impacted, reconcilliation has taken a big step backward inthis country...nothing good comes out of this. It's too bad a guy felt threatened enough on his own property that he needed to defend himself with a gun. its too bad a group of young adults made some really terrible decisions.
 
justlooking
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted to the news on Twitter.

Justin Trudeau
@JustinTrudeau
Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US.

10:07 PM - Feb 9, 2018

Does that mean we don't need more RCMP members on staff in rural SK Justin?


PM Selfie, never misses a beat.
He will do to race relations what Obama did to the USA.

Don't need more RCMP in the boonies, no one wants to pay for it anyway.

What is needed is much stronger Castle Doctrine Laws.
 
Colpy
+6
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

He could well have been guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt!


I see this as a case of "jury nullification", in which the jury ignored the law, because finding Stanley guilty would have been unjust, despite the fact he may have been in violation of the law.

Perfectly legitimate.

Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Boushie and the others weren't on trial, but their actions were. When they rolled into the Stanley yard, the driver testified he had about 30 shots that day, he couldn't even walk, let alone drive. How many miles did he drive on that rim? Why were they trying to steal cars, why were they armed?

Boushie didn't deserve to be shot, but there's no doubt these thugs were playing a very dangerous game. What if they would have run someone over that day, would people still be crying racism or blaming this incident on 150 years of genocide? At one point Stanley thought they ran over his wife, what if they had? How would the average person react to such a situation?

This turned out terribly for all involved, a kid lost his life, families on both sides have been permanently impacted, reconcilliation has taken a big step backward inthis country...nothing good comes out of this. It's too bad a guy felt threatened enough on his own property that he needed to defend himself with a gun. its too bad a group of young adults made some really terrible decisions.

Exceptional post.

Exactly correct.
 
Curious Cdn
-1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Boushie and the others weren't on trial, but their actions were. When they rolled into the Stanley yard, the driver testified he had about 30 shots that day, he couldn't even walk, let alone drive. How many miles did he drive on that rim? Why were they trying to steal cars, why were they armed?

Boushie didn't deserve to be shot, but there's no doubt these thugs were playing a very dangerous game. What if they would have run someone over that day, would people still be crying racism or blaming this incident on 150 years of genocide? At one point Stanley thought they ran over his wife, what if they had? How would the average person react to such a situation?

This turned out terribly for all involved, a kid lost his life, families on both sides have been permanently impacted, reconcilliation has taken a big step backward inthis country...nothing good comes out of this. It's too bad a guy felt threatened enough on his own property that he needed to defend himself with a gun. its too bad a group of young adults made some really terrible decisions.

If your property is threatened, you have no right to defend it with a gun. Our criminal code says that. The same applies in almost all of the United States and in most civilized places. This jury decision will be appealed and overturned. If not, it is open season on each other.
 
Colpy
+10
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

If your property is threatened, you have no right to defend it with a gun. Our criminal code says that. The same applies in almost all of the United States and in most civilized places. This jury decision will be appealed and overturned. If not, it is open season on each other.



If that was so, why are armoured car guards armed?

The answer is simple: to defend their lives while they are protecting property.

All this particular case means is that the jury found it would be unjust to convict Stanley for shooting an armed man that was robbing him. That is all.

An appeal is a review of the trial court's application of the law. You can't appeal a jury's decision.

And a jury has every right to ignore the law. In fact, that is (IMHO) a major reason for the existence of juries; to ensure justice is done despite the law.
 
petros
+1
#15
1 jury or 100, the verdict would have been the same.
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

If your property is threatened, you have no right to defend it with a gun. Our criminal code says that. The same applies in almost all of the United States and in most civilized places. This jury decision will be appealed and overturned. If not, it is open season on each other.

Apparently (only from what I've heard and read) the accused felt more than his property was being threatened.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

If that was so, why are armoured car guards armed?

The answer is simple: to defend their lives while they are protecting property.

All this particular case means is that the jury found it would be unjust to convict Stanley for shooting an armed man that was robbing him. That is all.

An appeal is a review of the trial court's application of the law. You can't appeal a jury's decision.

And a jury has every right to ignore the law. In fact, that is (IMHO) a major reason for the existence of juries; to ensure justice is done despite the law.

And even if there was an incorrect application of the law (judge gave wrong instructions, etc.), the only outcome of a successful appeal will be a new trial. They will never flip a verdict of a jury -- ever. And how the jury came to its verdict is also something that will never be known.
 
spaminator
+1
#18
if someone stole my scifi dvds there would be hell to pay.
 
petros
#19
Move to North Battleford and make it happen.

North Battleford, a city of 14,400, has the highest overall score in the country in Statistics Canada's 2016 Crime Severity Index. The city previously had the country's worst rate for violent crime, but saw an eight per cent reduction in that type of crime in 2016. The city's violent crime score is now second highest in the country.

With a 15 per cent increase in non-volent crime in 2016, though, North Battleford still leads the country in the rate for those crimes.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

And even if there was an incorrect application of the law (judge gave wrong instructions, etc.), the only outcome of a successful appeal will be a new trial. They will never flip a verdict of a jury -- ever. And how the jury came to its verdict is also something that will never be known.

Double Jeopary. An appeal requires fresh evidence without using anything from the 1st trial.
 
justlooking
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Double Jeopary.

We don't have a double jeopardy law in Canada.
Crown can appeal if there was an error that contributed to the verdict,
there can be a second trial.

But I havent read anything that would make me think
an appeal was coming.
 
petros
+3
#21
The next jury would be just as tired of gangs as the last.
 
justlooking
+5
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The next jury would be just as tired of gangs as the last.

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.
 
JLM
-1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Move to North Battleford and make it happen.

North Battleford, a city of 14,400, has the highest overall score in the country in Statistics Canada's 2016 Crime Severity Index. The city previously had the country's worst rate for violent crime, but saw an eight per cent reduction in that type of crime in 2016. The city's violent crime score is now second highest in the country.

With a 15 per cent increase in non-volent crime in 2016, though, North Battleford still leads the country in the rate for those crimes.



Double Jeopary. An appeal requires fresh evidence without using anything from the 1st trial.

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!
 
petros
+8
#24
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.
 
Curious Cdn
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

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.

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.
 
petros
#26
How?
 
Curious Cdn
#27
Howe's on first, hayseed.
 
Colpy
+6
#28
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.

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.

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.

The Crown may only appeal on issues of law, NOT the decision of a jury.
Last edited by Colpy; Feb 10th, 2018 at 02:16 PM..
 
petros
#29
Food limp falling wiggle.
 
Hoid
#30
There are many grounds for appeal.

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

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