Political commentary on court verdicts hurts views of justice system: lawyers

[Colpy]

The days of keeping the mouths shut are over.

Maybe you have been asleep for the last couple of years but things we used to quietly accept we no longer quietly accept.

The times are changing.

And that is a assault on the justice system.

Gov't and the judiciary are supposed to be arms length institutions, and yes, the PM and the Minister of Justice criticizing the verdict of a jury is improper, for the three reasons I listed previously.

We really need to rid ourselves of Trudeau and the Liberals.

 

[Hoid]

Quietly accepting statements that border on interference with a jury verdict may be your idea of how Canada should be changing, but they aren't and never will be mine. The PM and Justice Minister had no business what-so-ever making comments that could be seen as questioning a just verdict.

How is something that gets said after a verdict tampering with that verdict?

And that is a assault on the justice system.

Gov't and the judiciary are supposed to be arms length institutions, and yes, the PM and the Minister of Justice criticizing the verdict of a jury is improper, for the three reasons I listed previously.

We really need to rid ourselves of Trudeau and the Liberals.

The people of Canada are supposed to be running the show.

These institutions are just expressions of the will of the people.

It is not the will of the people that justice be denied to anyone.

This is my understanding of how the country is supposed to work. If the justice system is not delivering justice it is appropriate that our parliament address that issue.

 

[Colpy]

The people of Canada are supposed to be running the show.

These institutions are just expressions of the will of the people.

It is not the will of the people that justice be denied to anyone.

This is my understanding of how the country is supposed to work. If the justice system is not delivering justice it is appropriate that our parliament address that issue.

Baloney.

The justice system is the result of well over 800 years of common law development.....it is not to be changed on a whim.

 

[JLM]

Well you most certainly are the LEAST unbiased person commenting on this case, Cliffy. How the hell do you know the death was racially motivated. You know nothing about the Stanley family except what you may have seen or read. Have you ever lived on a rural farm far from any quick response time by the police? I have and I can attest to the fact that when you are threatened by hooligans the last thing on your mind is the color of their skin. The first thing on your mind is how the hell do I keep my family safe from drunken people bent on mayhem.

Your knee-jerk reaction to this trial and verdict is yet another example of your inability to comprehend that there are two sides to every story and in this case what is crystal clear is the fact that this death was preventable had but their families given a single thought to what would happen to their children driving about intoxicated to the gills with a loaded rifle.

I admire Cliffy's defense of the "underdog" but having said that there is generally a reason as to why a person is the underdog and to my way of thinking given the report these guys were driving while pissed to the eyeballs with loaded firearms adds up to crass stupidity. The problem here is stupidity isn't against the law while their actions were. A charge of second degree murder in my view was definitely out of line. I'd even have strong doubts about manslaughter with a suspended sentence. Mishandling a firearm might be in order.

 

[Jinentonix]

To also be fair, he didn't claim self defense as a defense, he claimed it was an accident. I don't know too much about Tokarev pistols or if there are more than one model, what I do remember though is a statement from a friend, instructor, former SAS operative and firearms expert to another friend and co-worker who had purchased one, that they were mass produced and of questionable quality such that the Russian tank crews they were issued to regarded them as a last resort firearm to be used only once rather than be taken alive by German troops, if you get my meaning.

Interesting take, considering the Tokarev is renowned for it's ruggedness (it could withstand tremendous abuse), reliability, simplicity, power and accuracy. Hell, even the Wermacht was issuing captured Tokarevs to their own units. In fact variants of the Tokarev are still in use by various security forces today. Not to mention they are very popular with target shooters in the West.
I'm also willing to bet most tankers regarded a sidearm as worthless. In regard to the Russians, if the Germans can take out your mobile, decently armoured, 30-35 ton 76mm gun platform, what are you gonna do to them with a little pop gun?

I'm also aware that Stanley didn't declare self-defence as his defence, but I'm also not buying his accidental discharge story either. The only reason I mentioned self-defence is that it is supposed to be the only justifiable reason for blowing somebody's brains out.


Don't get me wrong, if these kids weren't busy being little criminal shits, Boushie would probably still be alive today.

 

[Mowich]

How is something that gets said after a verdict tampering with that verdict?


The people of Canada are supposed to be running the show.

These institutions are just expressions of the will of the people.

It is not the will of the people that justice be denied to anyone.

This is my understanding of how the country is supposed to work. If the justice system is not delivering justice it is appropriate that our parliament address that issue.

I did not state they were tampering with the verdict. Learn to read and comprehend before making such ridiculous comments.

Justice was done.............not denied.

 

[JLM]

The days of keeping the mouths shut are over.

Maybe you have been asleep for the last couple of years but things we used to quietly accept we no longer quietly accept.

The times are changing.

Trudeau had no business whatsoever sticking his nose into the outcome of a trial! There's an appeal process done through the proper channels, where the P.M. has no bearing on anything to do with it. Imagine having the audacity to say we can do better. We have to at least assume until a retrial is called that the judge, prosecutor, defense and jury did a proper and professional job. It's definitely not up to Justin to go beaking off.

 

[Hoid]

Baloney.

The justice system is the result of well over 800 years of common law development.....it is not to be changed on a whim.

It is changed literally every day.

That is part of how it is made.

I did not state they were tampering with the verdict. Learn to read and comprehend before making such ridiculous comments.

Justice was done.............not denied.

Justice was done to who?

 

[Colpy]

It is changed literally every day.

That is part of how it is made.


Justice was done to who?

The LAW changes due to the will of the people.

The administration of justice does not.

 

[mentalfloss]

Free speech.

 

[Hoid]

The LAW changes due to the will of the people.

The administration of justice does not.

You can have all that sort of platitude but the fact remains we can no longer not talk about race in Canadian justice. Much as we would all like to avoid those and all difficult discussions.

It is entirely appropriate and about time that our leadership start addressing real issues.

It is entirely appropriate the our Minister of Justice discuss Canadian justice.

How can that be against the system? WTF?

 

[mentalfloss]

It's Colpy.

No one is allowed to be a blow hard but him.

 

[Hoid]

Politicians cannot talk about issues. Obviously.

 

[Colpy]

You can have all that sort of platitude but the fact remains we can no longer not talk about race in Canadian justice. Much as we would all like to avoid those and all difficult discussions.

It is entirely appropriate and about time that our leadership start addressing real issues.

It is entirely appropriate the our Minister of Justice discuss Canadian justice.

How can that be against the system? WTF?

It is appropriate for ministers to talk about justice in a general way.

It is NOT appropriate for them to criticize a jury decision.

And the Supreme Court of Canada has already weighed in on the issue of aboriginal jurors.


Justices Moldaver, Rothstein, Wagner and Gascon held that while representativeness is an important feature of the jury system, its meaning is circumscribed. Representativeness does not involve targeting particular groups for inclusion on the jury and the state is not required to address historical and systemic wrongs against Aboriginal people by targeting them for inclusion. They held that a jury should be a “representative cross-section of our society, honestly and fairly chosen”, citing R v Sherratt, [1991] 1 SCR 509. Representativeness should be involved in the process used to compile the jury roll, but not in its final composition. The reviewing court should ask whether the state provided a fair opportunity for a broad cross-section of society to participate in the jury process. A fair opportunity is provided when the state makes reasonable efforts to:

(1) compile the jury roll using random selection from lists drawn from a broad cross-section of society, and

(2) deliver jury notices to those who have been randomly selected.

If these two steps are followed, the jury roll will be representative and the accused’s Charter right to a representative jury will be respected. The role of representativeness under Charter section 11(d) is limited to its effect on independence and impartiality. Impartiality is guaranteed through the way that the jury roll is compiled. However, the ultimate composition of the jury roll (e.g., it contains few individuals of the accused’s race or religion) is not in itself indicative of bias.

Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Jury Composition and Aboriginal Equality - LawNow Magazine

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Interesting take, considering the Tokarev is renowned for it's ruggedness (it could withstand tremendous abuse), reliability, simplicity, power and accuracy. Hell, even the Wermacht was issuing captured Tokarevs to their own units. In fact variants of the Tokarev are still in use by various security forces today. Not to mention they are very popular with target shooters in the West.
I'm also willing to bet most tankers regarded a sidearm as worthless. In regard to the Russians, if the Germans can take out your mobile, decently armoured, 30-35 ton 76mm gun platform, what are you gonna do to them with a little pop gun?

I'm also aware that Stanley didn't declare self-defence as his defence, but I'm also not buying his accidental discharge story either. The only reason I mentioned self-defence is that it is supposed to be the only justifiable reason for blowing somebody's brains out.


Don't get me wrong, if these kids weren't busy being little criminal shits, Boushie would probably still be alive today.

Well, I was only re stating something I was told by a fellow with decades of experience not only participating in battle but also training special forces of various nations besides the UK. I doubt if even regular troops considered a sidearm as anything more than a self defense tool for use to get yourself to relative safety, this fellow's assertion was that the Tokarev was more useful to dispatch one's self. However, the Russians were in the unique position that they were regarded as less than human by invading forces so the choice between torture and death by captors left few options.


Evidence that Stanley's ammunition was quite old is relevant too, I have had and seen malfunctions from fairly new stuff. I have also seen accidental discharges, one most notably in a busy parking lot while the guy was putting his rifle in his trunk, fortunately there were no injuries or damage, so $h!t does happen.

 

[taxslave]

Not really sure who you mean but Canada is widely reviled for the state of indigenous affairs and frankly most Canadians are fed up with it too.

Its like the homeless issue - we are tired of living with it and want to get it solved to whatever degree that is possible.

The answer for both is to quit giving them money for nothing.

How is something that gets said after a verdict tampering with that verdict?


The people of Canada are supposed to be running the show.

These institutions are just expressions of the will of the people.

It is not the will of the people that justice be denied to anyone.

This is my understanding of how the country is supposed to work. If the justice system is not delivering justice it is appropriate that our parliament address that issue.

In this case justice was delivered. You just don't like the fact that an innocent man went free.

 

[Hoid]

It is appropriate for ministers to talk about justice in a general way.

It is NOT appropriate for them to criticize a jury decision.

And the Supreme Court of Canada has already weighed in on the issue of aboriginal jurors.


Justices Moldaver, Rothstein, Wagner and Gascon held that while representativeness is an important feature of the jury system, its meaning is circumscribed. Representativeness does not involve targeting particular groups for inclusion on the jury and the state is not required to address historical and systemic wrongs against Aboriginal people by targeting them for inclusion. They held that a jury should be a “representative cross-section of our society, honestly and fairly chosen”, citing R v Sherratt, [1991] 1 SCR 509. Representativeness should be involved in the process used to compile the jury roll, but not in its final composition. The reviewing court should ask whether the state provided a fair opportunity for a broad cross-section of society to participate in the jury process. A fair opportunity is provided when the state makes reasonable efforts to:

(1) compile the jury roll using random selection from lists drawn from a broad cross-section of society, and

(2) deliver jury notices to those who have been randomly selected.

If these two steps are followed, the jury roll will be representative and the accused’s Charter right to a representative jury will be respected. The role of representativeness under Charter section 11(d) is limited to its effect on independence and impartiality. Impartiality is guaranteed through the way that the jury roll is compiled. However, the ultimate composition of the jury roll (e.g., it contains few individuals of the accused’s race or religion) is not in itself indicative of bias.

Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Jury Composition and Aboriginal Equality - LawNow Magazine

There has been no criticizing the jury decision.

There has been an acknowledgement that criminal justice is not fairly applied.

You need to understand that argument prior to forming your opinions.

The issue is not that this farmer should have been found guilty of murder.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

To the bolded he goes to trial in March over these charges and probably be found guilty

As to the P.M. and the ministers comments this verdict goes in contrast to their progressive trade negotiations towards human rights IMO it's as simple as that

No need to shout, the fact that Stanley is still facing firearm charges has not made it to the media in these parts, in fact there has been very little coverage at all until this verdict. I can't even speculate on the reasons all charges weren't presented at trial unless the Crown is proceeding with a summary conviction rather than an indictment, or there are underlying strategic reasons. All I have seen too is that they are proceeding with unsafe storage but no mention of unsafe use. The reason I say unsafe storage is a stretch is that there are so many defenses to such a charge you would think the Crown would go after something with a better chance of conviction. Prosecutors, in Ontario especially, have a habit of throwing in every conceivable charge in hopes that at least one will stick.

 

[Colpy]

There has been an acknowledgement that criminal justice is not fairly applied.

In this particular case...which is BS, and yes it is a criticism of the fact Stanley was not convicted..........

Geez, don't go all obtuse on me.

 

[Hoid]

In this particular case...which is BS, and yes it is a criticism of the fact Stanley was not convicted..........

Geez, don't go all obtuse on me.

Well I have not said he should have been convicted.

I have said there were no First Nations people on the jury.