Political commentary on court verdicts hurts views of justice system: lawyers
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
This was justice.
If you don't want to get shot, don't get drunk, arm yourself, invade a man's property, and try to rob him.
Stanley was the intended victim of crime.
It didn't turn out that way.
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.
I honestly doubt this happened due to a malfunction. Stanley was involved in trying to get the keys out of the truck's ignition at the time the gun went off. I would bet money that Stanley inadvertently had his finger on the trigger as he gripped the pistol.
I think the jury engaged in nullification, and ignored the law, as the application of the law would have been unjust in the circumstances.
That is a perfectly legitimate option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada
But we will never know.
Justice was done, in any case.
Maybe this is a good illustration of why we are taught manners!
Yep, sometimes arriving at the proper and desired 'destination' is more important than the details of the process.
I don't doubt that it was accidental, but I wouldn't put money on anything. I have seen, as I'm sure you have, all sorts of firearm malfunctions; hang fires, misfires, squib fires, slam fires, sympathetic discharges, stovepipes and jams of all kinds. Other than a with barrel blockage, most accidents happen from mishandling after the malfunction, that I have witnessed first hand. The Crown had the opportunity to add charges of unsafe handling or even unsafe storage, (which would have been a stretch) among other such Criminal Offenses as has been seen most notably in Ontario, but they were going for the brass ring.
If the jury had deliberated for an hour, as did the last trial jury that acquitted Henry Morgantaler, I would be more suspect of jury nullification. The fact that they deliberated for 13 hours and asked to review evidence as well lessens that likelihood in my mind. The Crown would have a tough row to hoe appealing on the grounds that the judge somehow influenced the jury, or that the jury was unduly biased because they were also involved in the selection process.
I wouldn't go so far as to say absolutely that justice was served, I think many were expecting a manslaughter conviction, but there is still that thing we call reasonable doubt. As unsettling as it is, it is better that possibly justice not be done, or seen not to be done, than injustice committed. I would say that justice was served to the best ability of the system we have in place, which is far better than any alternatives being bandied about.
Last edited:
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
The incident itself was not racially charged Stanley did not go to Pound Maker youths from Pound Maker came to Stanley's farm and at first the Stanley's thought it was a client rustling through and getting something out of their own truck that was there to be repaired until they heard the quad start. It got racially charged a few hours later on social media and it wasn't just by "whitey" either BTW I find the term "Whitey" as a racist derogatory term
Last edited:
All middle aged white people where dismissed by the prosecution, and the jury was made up from what appeared not to be of indigenous ancestry, not saying what ancestry the jury was, any Metis in the group?
500 people decided not to show up for jury duty.
Maybe that is the first question you should be asking.
Quite frankly after all the virtue-signalling towards FN's that our ill-advised PM is guilty of, I would have been more surprised had he kept his mouth shut. That would have been the right thing to do.
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.
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.
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.