The racist bullshit aside, how the fuck do they not find guilty of manslaughter?
Isn't the only defence is that it was an accident?
Bobby Cameron, the chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, spoke at FSIN's North Battleford office at a hastily-called press conference two hours after the trial's conclusion.
Cameron expressed deep skepticism about Stanley's assertion that the gun he was holding accidentally went off, killing Boushie.
"In this day and age, when someone can get away with killing somebody, when someone can get away with saying, 'I accidentally walked to the storage shed, I accidentally grabbed a gun out of the storage box and I accidentally walked back to the car and then I accidentally raised my arm in level with the late Colten Boushie's head, then my finger accidentally pushed the trigger' – what a bunch of garbage," said Cameron before tightly-packed crowd.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Something else that struck me - when I was doing firearms training back in the FAC days, the RCMP trainer made it abundantly clear: Firing warning shots in the air is not legal.
But this was in Alberta. Maybe it's different in Saskatchewan.
I have not paid attention to this case at all. Are there any (consensus) reports on what precipitated the "altercation" and what the "altercation" actually was?
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I have not paid attention to this case at all. Are there any (consensus) reports on what precipitated the "altercation" and what the "altercation" actually was?
Not really. This is one of the better write ups of what's been said so far:
Stanley was acquitted and the racism towards the native population is just as fucked up as you would expect.
Accidentally shooting someone in the back of the head apparently carries fewer consequences than accidentally causing a traffic collision.
Did they actually charge him with accidentally discharing a firearm, or whatever the actual charge is for that kind of thing?
His defense (well, part of the defense - the ancestry requirement for the jury was probably also quite significant) was "I didn't deliberately shoot the guy, I was just insanely negligent in my firearms handling on a variety of levels that an average ten-year-old could reasonably be taught to avoid," to which the jury went "Oh, it's cool then."
They had the option of exacting consequences for doing that sort of thing, given there are traditionally consequences for killing someone through incompetence. They just chose not to because, uh, mysterious reasons or something.
I have not paid attention to this case at all. Are there any (consensus) reports on what precipitated the "altercation" and what the "altercation" actually was?
From what I've read, there's a bunch of them in van (I think it was a van, working from memory here), they run into something and get a flat or the like. They go to Stanley's neighbours, try to break into his truck, fail, go to Stanley's place and then the accounts start to diverge a lot it seemed. Stanley thinks they were robbing him because X, they claim they were just asking for help, there's an altercation, Stanley claims he shot the guy accidentally, other testimony seems to contradict that, etc, etc.
Ugh. Shooter has a Gofundme that's theoretically for "legal fees" (last I heard that site doesn't allow legal-fees campaigns, at least when there's criminal charges involved?) but in practice has had its goal raised a couple of times in the last day because he's getting flooded with pledges. So just in case the whole situation wasn't enough of a fucking travesty he's basically claiming a bounty for it all.
From what I am reading, holy shit. Can that decision get appealed by a higher court, because there are some serious layers of bullshit going on there by the defendant that I can't believe was considered seriously by the jury.
I have not paid attention to this case at all. Are there any (consensus) reports on what precipitated the "altercation" and what the "altercation" actually was?
Not really. This is one of the better write ups of what's been said so far:
From what I've read, there's a bunch of them in van (I think it was a van, working from memory here), they run into something and get a flat or the like. They go to Stanley's neighbours, try to break into his truck, fail, go to Stanley's place and then the accounts start to diverge a lot it seemed. Stanley thinks they were robbing him because X, they claim they were just asking for help, there's an altercation, Stanley claims he shot the guy accidentally, other testimony seems to contradict that, etc, etc.
Okay yeah, I read the CBC piece and - no offense Brolo, not your fault obviously - but I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the hell happened. Nothing anybody (allegedly) did makes any sense to me at all.
The racist bullshit aside, how the fuck do they not find guilty of manslaughter?
Isn't the only defence is that it was an accident?
This post ended up longer than I expected so im putting it in a spoiler rather than forcing you all to look at a big old wall of text and links.
Accidents usually only qualify as manslaughter if you acted in a negligent manner. Whether you feel stanley did...
It basically boils down to if you believe his testimony 100% and also are biased.
Canadian manslaughter is broken down in a couple of ways, but this is the one that would apply as near as I can tell (I am not a lawyer)
"Criminal negligence — when the homicide was the result of an act or a failure to act that showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives of others. An act is generally considered negligent if a reasonable person would have foreseen that the action would endanger a life."
There are a few key aspects to this, namely
A. Did stanley act in a negligent manner
B. Would a reasonable person have acted differently
C. Would a reasonable person believe that he/she was endangering someone's life if they did as Stanley did.
"Stanley told court he took the clip out of his Tokarev handgun after firing two or three warning shots straight into the air. He recalled the gun fired the first two times he pulled the trigger, but said he doesn’t think the gun fired with the third trigger pull."
"He said he fired two warning shots in the air and popped the clip out of the gun. He then saw the lawnmower his wife, Leesa Stanley, had been riding and felt "pure terror."
"I thought the [SUV] had run over my wife," he said."
"He saw what he thought was a piece of metal sticking out the window. Gerald said he reached for the keys with one hand and the handgun in the other. He said his finger was not on the trigger
"Scott Spencer, Stanley’s defence lawyer, argued that Boushie’s death was a “freak accident” that occurred when Stanley responded in a “measured” way to a highly charged and dangerous situation that involved — in Stanley’s mind — strangers driving onto his farm, trying to steal his quad, crashing into his wife’s vehicle and attempting to run down his son.
“Things happen when you create this type of home invasion, fear-filled, high-energy roller coaster ride. When you create that, you create an opportunity for there to be an accident and a tragedy. And that’s what happened here,” Spencer told the jury.
“In this circumstance, the question is: If you were in Gerry’s boots, would you reasonably be expected to do anything significantly different?”
If you believe his testimony, then the hangfire may not constitute criminal negligence
IIRC the obtaining of the gun, and the firing of the warning shots were legal/justified under law (I believe the judge stated this to the jury. He said that it was only the events after this that they were to consider when making the verdict.)
A reasonable person, fearing for the life of their wife would absolutely approach the vehicle in question. (assuming you believe that your wife was under the car)
A reasonable person, would assume that a gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled.
All this of course hinges on you believing his testimony, and he is of course biased towards himself.
But this is more or less how the defense went, and why they were allowed to acquit him, because a "reasonable" person would have acted in the same way, and the law isnt supposed to punish you for acting reasonably.
it's still a crock of shit though. Regardless of him (allegedly) not having his finger on the trigger you don't point a gun at somebody unless you're ok with them dying, that's firearms 101. He should have gotten negligent manslaughter for sure. (at the least)
You're the one who brought the gun, if you accidentally killed someone then that's negligent. It wouldn't be negligent necessarily if it wasn't an accident, but then it needs to be justified.
How do you claim you accidentally shot someone as a defence for murder, while simultaneously not being found negligent?
You're the one who brought the gun, if you accidentally killed someone then that's negligent. It wouldn't be negligent necessarily if it wasn't an accident, but then it needs to be justified.
How do you claim you accidentally shot someone as a defence for murder, while simultaneously not being found negligent?
TBH it sounds like perhaps the jury wasn't aware that negligent manslaughter was a charge that could be levied. Frankly I wasn't aware that it was a particular subsection of manslaughter until I made these posts. (I was only aware of voluntary and involuntary and to be honest I wasn't 100% certain on either definition.)
" Defence lawyer Scott Spencer said in his closing arguments Thursday that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley fired at Boushie intentionally if the murder charge is to stick."
"The lawyer said the shooting was a freak accident. “It’s a tragedy, but it’s not criminal,” he told the jury. “Some people aren’t going to be happy. You have to do what is right based on the evidence you heard in this courtroom. You must acquit.” "
and then the prosecution
" “You can’t believe what Gerald Stanley said. The only inference is that it was pulled. Was it pulled intentionally? Did it go off accidentally?” Burge said.
“In either event ladies and gentlemen, if it was pulled intentionally, I am suggesting that’s murder.” "
These were the closing arguments. It seems to me that the prosecution was attempting to poke holes in stanleys testimony, and prove that this was a murder. The defense suggested that it's impossible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, and so "you must acquit."
Even though negligent manslaughter covers accidentally discharging a handgun, if the jury wasn't made aware that this was a possible charge that could be brought to bear against stanley, I can see why they would acquit him completely. Rather than just acquitting him of murder but convicting him of manslaughter.
Which seems like a real case of mishandled prosecution. You cant always prove it's not an accident, so make sure the jury knows they can convict him for negligence.
The closing arguments that you share seem to totally overlook manslaughter. Can't remember where I saw it, but I believe the judge was the one to instruct the jury (not sure at what points) that there was 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or not guilty.
TBH it sounds like perhaps the jury wasn't aware that negligent manslaughter was a charge that could be levied. Frankly I wasn't aware that it was a particular subsection of manslaughter until I made these posts. (I was only aware of voluntary and involuntary and to be honest I wasn't 100% certain on either definition.)
Given the shenanigans involved in jury selection it's within the realm of possibility that the jury didn't care.
Since theirs is generally the final say, nullification is a thing that can happen in jury trials if they decide "yeah, the defendant did this, but so what?"
TBH it sounds like perhaps the jury wasn't aware that negligent manslaughter was a charge that could be levied. Frankly I wasn't aware that it was a particular subsection of manslaughter until I made these posts. (I was only aware of voluntary and involuntary and to be honest I wasn't 100% certain on either definition.)
Given the shenanigans involved in jury selection it's within the realm of possibility that the jury didn't care.
Since theirs is generally the final say, nullification is a thing that can happen in jury trials if they decide "yeah, the defendant did this, but so what?"
The defense vetoed any possible minorities on the jury because they wanted (or possibly needed) an all-white jury to get an acquittal. They succeeded, and the people deliberating the case basically ended up being drawn exclusively from the one demographic in the region most likely to be cool with what the defendant did regardless of circumstances. End result is basically like what happened in the Bundy trial in Oregon last year, or in any number of killings in the American south in the fifties and sixties.
The defense vetoed any possible minorities on the jury because they wanted (or possibly needed) an all-white jury to get an acquittal. They succeeded, and the people deliberating the case basically ended up being drawn exclusively from the one demographic in the region most likely to be cool with what the defendant did regardless of circumstances. End result is basically like what happened in the Bundy trial in Oregon last year, or in any number of killings in the American south in the fifties and sixties.
Could the crown not do anything about that? They've got control over the jury too don't they?
They couldn't force people on; either side can just say "nope" to any particular juror, without explanation, and that's it. The crown could also use peremptory challenges to veto anyone they didn't want there, but unless they took it to the exact opposite extreme and required an all-nonwhite jury the defense was still going to get their way.
They couldn't force people on; either side can just say "nope" to any particular juror, without explanation, and that's it. The crown could also use peremptory challenges to veto anyone they didn't want there, but unless they took it to the exact opposite extreme and required an all-nonwhite jury the defense was still going to get their way.
My understanding is that they couldn't do that either; both sides have a limited numbers of these vetos. But my understanding (which may be flawed and incomplete, as I am neither a lawyer nor did I follow the case in details) is that more white people than minorities showed up for jury duty, and fewer minorities than the number of vetos the defense had, ergo the defense was able to get rid of all minorities and force an all-white jury.
What the legal system needs is a failsafe for non-representative juries for when the selection process fails, as it did in this case.
The argument is it’s a matter of numbers. For various reasons there were less potential indijenous jurors than the number of no explanation vetos the defence had available. The reverse was not the same for the prosecrution. Due to this there are some people suggesting that no explanation vetoes be abolished believing it to be a positive step towards lowering discrimination in the justice system.
I’ve personally been removed as a potential juror from a murder trial and it really is no explanation with no reasoning provided. I was asked one question and they either didn’t believe my answer or didn’t like the way I looked.
Lots of people are going to be dissatisfied with this verdict as it will be difficult to see how if it was a negligent act it wasn’t manslaughter. There’s also unlikely to be an appeal as the judge apparently was careful with their jury instructions and you can’t appeal simply because you dislike the verdict.
The defense vetoed any possible minorities on the jury because they wanted (or possibly needed) an all-white jury to get an acquittal. They succeeded, and the people deliberating the case basically ended up being drawn exclusively from the one demographic in the region most likely to be cool with what the defendant did regardless of circumstances. End result is basically like what happened in the Bundy trial in Oregon last year, or in any number of killings in the American south in the fifties and sixties.
Could the crown not do anything about that? They've got control over the jury too don't they?
Having been selected for juror duty, the jury system in Canada is the stuff of nightmares. I went in feeling pretty excited about the process, and walked out being pretty disillusioned.
First of all, jurors don't get paid for the first 10 days, which really sucks if you in the lower income bracket, and then for the next 10 days you only get paid 50$ a day, going up to 100$ if the trial goes on a long time. So no one really wants to do it.
Justice is swift for people who don't show up for the juror selection process-it may take years for a case to come to trial, but if you miss juror duty, the will hunt you down and have you in front of the judge the next day.
As other people have stated, the defence can remove you from juror duty for no reason at all-for an unlimited amount of times. When you announce your name in front of the judge, you also announce you profession, and the defence chooses you based upon your race and profession.
For the case I was in, careless driving causing death, fleeing the scene of the accident causing death, lying to an officer of the peace, co-conspiring to aid in a crime causing death and to lie to an officer of the peace, the defence chose the defendants based upon their profession-white managers in specifically the construction industry were chosen for the final jury pool, and I was rejected without explanation.
Frankly, there shouldn't be a jury filtering process by either parties. The jury should be selected to reflect the demographic backgrounds of the victim and suspect equally, and the defence and crown are given an appeal to the judge before the trial start if they have a solid reasoning to argue that specific jury or some members of it may be biased against them.
Or just get rid of juries and have the judge make the decision, since he knows the law and precedents and won't be swayed by empty courtroom theatrics.
Frankly, if I ever get put on trial for something, I'm asking for a judge trial. I've heard so many horror stories of obviously innocent people being sentenced to hell and of obviously guilty people being set free by juries being blinded by lawyer play-acting and their own prejudices and ignorant of the laws they're supposed to be arbitrating from, that I have zero faith in them.
Based on who the judge was for this trial that might have been even worse for the prosecution.
I may be idealistic and silly, but I'd like to think it's easier to hold a judge accountable for personal bias and preferential treatment to one side, than to hold a jury accountable.
Battleford is a fucking dump and Saskatchewan is full of dumb ass bible thumping racists, so I am unsurprised by this verdict.
Brad Trost is my MP so I can say this stuff.
I think we can all say this is a bad racist ruling, but I would hope we could do that without shitting on entire provinces.
I guess you don't live in Saskatchewan, otherwise you'd know who Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon, is. I am quite comfortable shitting on the place where I live. It's pretty stupidly religious and pretty racist.
You may be cool with it, but I do live here and I'm not. He's a goddamn loon, yes, but that doesn't give you the right to shit on all the rest of us here just because you don't like his ideas and ideals.
You may be cool with it, but I do live here and I'm not. He's a goddamn loon, yes, but that doesn't give you the right to shit on all the rest of us here just because you don't like his ideas and ideals.
It kinda does? Your largest voting block voted him in, you all get tainted by that by association and it makes you and your neighbours look complicit, regardless of whether you voted for him or not. Like, I am not familiar with him but a quick look at wiki and ...
Trost has been noted for publicly taking fiscally and socially conservative stances. In July 2016, Trost took definitive positions on everything from taxes, deficit financing and a carbon tax to legalization of marijuana and transgender bathrooms.[13]
In July 2009, Trost criticized his own government's funding of Toronto Pride Week under the $100 million Marquee Tourism Events stimulus program.[14]
In November 2009, Trost launched a petition to stop the federal government's funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). According to Trost's petition, the IPPF "promotes the establishment of abortion as an international human right and lobbies aggressively to impose permissive abortion laws on developing nations."[15] During the 2011 federal election campaign, Trost made news when he spoke at a Saskatchewan Pro-life Association convention and noted to the audience that the government had not renewed funding to Planned Parenthood over the previous year and urged continued support for their defunding.[16]
In September 2011, Trost publicly voiced his anger at the federal government's decision to fund the International Planned Parenthood Federation. He said that Conservative MPs' requests that the Prime Minister's Office cease funding have been ignored.[17]
In January 2012, Trost criticized the strict party discipline imposed upon Conservative MPs, saying it stifled debate and independent thought.[18]
Trost argued unsuccessfully at the 2016 Conservative policy convention to retain the party's definition of marriage as "the Union of one man and one woman" even though other social conservatives supported the removal.[19][20] At the same convention, Trost compared the "equality" arguments in favour of gay marriage to the redistribution equality arguments used to support socialism.[21] On May 4, 2017 Trost sent a private member's bill to the floor to privatize the CBC, Canada's national public broadcaster, and upon its second reading it was defeated 260 to 6, with only himself and five other Conservative members voting for the bill. Nays on the bill included his party's interim leader.[3]
Holy shit, your neighbours voted that guy in more than once?! Uhh...
God, stuff like this though, I really wish we could do away with FPTP so the part that didn't vote for the biggest voting block could still be recognized as participating in our parliamentary democracy by being represented, without having to stoop to painting everyone with the same brush because of how FPTP boils down to big tent parties where some of us feel like we have to vote alongside some really reprehensible people.
Posts
Isn't the only defence is that it was an accident?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313
A series of accidents, really.
But this was in Alberta. Maybe it's different in Saskatchewan.
Not really. This is one of the better write ups of what's been said so far:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214
There have been a number of contradictions and redactions over the course of the trial, though.
His defense (well, part of the defense - the ancestry requirement for the jury was probably also quite significant) was "I didn't deliberately shoot the guy, I was just insanely negligent in my firearms handling on a variety of levels that an average ten-year-old could reasonably be taught to avoid," to which the jury went "Oh, it's cool then."
They had the option of exacting consequences for doing that sort of thing, given there are traditionally consequences for killing someone through incompetence. They just chose not to because, uh, mysterious reasons or something.
From what I've read, there's a bunch of them in van (I think it was a van, working from memory here), they run into something and get a flat or the like. They go to Stanley's neighbours, try to break into his truck, fail, go to Stanley's place and then the accounts start to diverge a lot it seemed. Stanley thinks they were robbing him because X, they claim they were just asking for help, there's an altercation, Stanley claims he shot the guy accidentally, other testimony seems to contradict that, etc, etc.
Brad Trost is my MP so I can say this stuff.
We were just stopping for the night and going on, but it seemed like a dump.
Okay yeah, I read the CBC piece and - no offense Brolo, not your fault obviously - but I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the hell happened. Nothing anybody (allegedly) did makes any sense to me at all.
This post ended up longer than I expected so im putting it in a spoiler rather than forcing you all to look at a big old wall of text and links.
It basically boils down to if you believe his testimony 100% and also are biased.
Canadian manslaughter is broken down in a couple of ways, but this is the one that would apply as near as I can tell (I am not a lawyer)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/murder-vs-manslaughter-1.1155132
"Criminal negligence — when the homicide was the result of an act or a failure to act that showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives of others. An act is generally considered negligent if a reasonable person would have foreseen that the action would endanger a life."
There are a few key aspects to this, namely
A. Did stanley act in a negligent manner
B. Would a reasonable person have acted differently
C. Would a reasonable person believe that he/she was endangering someone's life if they did as Stanley did.
"Stanley told court he took the clip out of his Tokarev handgun after firing two or three warning shots straight into the air. He recalled the gun fired the first two times he pulled the trigger, but said he doesn’t think the gun fired with the third trigger pull."
https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/stanley-says-he-thought-gun-was-disarmed-when-boushie-shot-1.3788046
"He said he fired two warning shots in the air and popped the clip out of the gun. He then saw the lawnmower his wife, Leesa Stanley, had been riding and felt "pure terror."
"I thought the [SUV] had run over my wife," he said."
"He saw what he thought was a piece of metal sticking out the window. Gerald said he reached for the keys with one hand and the handgun in the other. He said his finger was not on the trigger
The Tokarev then went off."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214
"Scott Spencer, Stanley’s defence lawyer, argued that Boushie’s death was a “freak accident” that occurred when Stanley responded in a “measured” way to a highly charged and dangerous situation that involved — in Stanley’s mind — strangers driving onto his farm, trying to steal his quad, crashing into his wife’s vehicle and attempting to run down his son.
“Things happen when you create this type of home invasion, fear-filled, high-energy roller coaster ride. When you create that, you create an opportunity for there to be an accident and a tragedy. And that’s what happened here,” Spencer told the jury.
“In this circumstance, the question is: If you were in Gerry’s boots, would you reasonably be expected to do anything significantly different?”
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/closing-arguments-are-underway-in-the-trial-of-saskatchewan-farmer-gerald-stanley-who-is-charged-with-second-degree-murder-in-the-shooting-death-of-colten-boushie
If you believe his testimony, then the hangfire may not constitute criminal negligence
IIRC the obtaining of the gun, and the firing of the warning shots were legal/justified under law (I believe the judge stated this to the jury. He said that it was only the events after this that they were to consider when making the verdict.)
A reasonable person, fearing for the life of their wife would absolutely approach the vehicle in question. (assuming you believe that your wife was under the car)
A reasonable person, would assume that a gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled.
All this of course hinges on you believing his testimony, and he is of course biased towards himself.
But this is more or less how the defense went, and why they were allowed to acquit him, because a "reasonable" person would have acted in the same way, and the law isnt supposed to punish you for acting reasonably.
it's still a crock of shit though. Regardless of him (allegedly) not having his finger on the trigger you don't point a gun at somebody unless you're ok with them dying, that's firearms 101. He should have gotten negligent manslaughter for sure. (at the least)
You're the one who brought the gun, if you accidentally killed someone then that's negligent. It wouldn't be negligent necessarily if it wasn't an accident, but then it needs to be justified.
How do you claim you accidentally shot someone as a defence for murder, while simultaneously not being found negligent?
TBH it sounds like perhaps the jury wasn't aware that negligent manslaughter was a charge that could be levied. Frankly I wasn't aware that it was a particular subsection of manslaughter until I made these posts. (I was only aware of voluntary and involuntary and to be honest I wasn't 100% certain on either definition.)
https://globalnews.ca/news/4014213/gerald-stanley-closing-arguments-murder-trial-colten-boushie-saskatchewan/
" Defence lawyer Scott Spencer said in his closing arguments Thursday that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley fired at Boushie intentionally if the murder charge is to stick."
"The lawyer said the shooting was a freak accident. “It’s a tragedy, but it’s not criminal,” he told the jury. “Some people aren’t going to be happy. You have to do what is right based on the evidence you heard in this courtroom. You must acquit.” "
and then the prosecution
" “You can’t believe what Gerald Stanley said. The only inference is that it was pulled. Was it pulled intentionally? Did it go off accidentally?” Burge said.
“In either event ladies and gentlemen, if it was pulled intentionally, I am suggesting that’s murder.” "
These were the closing arguments. It seems to me that the prosecution was attempting to poke holes in stanleys testimony, and prove that this was a murder. The defense suggested that it's impossible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, and so "you must acquit."
Even though negligent manslaughter covers accidentally discharging a handgun, if the jury wasn't made aware that this was a possible charge that could be brought to bear against stanley, I can see why they would acquit him completely. Rather than just acquitting him of murder but convicting him of manslaughter.
Which seems like a real case of mishandled prosecution. You cant always prove it's not an accident, so make sure the jury knows they can convict him for negligence.
The closing arguments that you share seem to totally overlook manslaughter. Can't remember where I saw it, but I believe the judge was the one to instruct the jury (not sure at what points) that there was 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or not guilty.
Given the shenanigans involved in jury selection it's within the realm of possibility that the jury didn't care.
Since theirs is generally the final say, nullification is a thing that can happen in jury trials if they decide "yeah, the defendant did this, but so what?"
I think we can all say this is a bad racist ruling, but I would hope we could do that without shitting on entire provinces.
You must be new here.
I'm ... not really feeling inclined to disagree with the people who've describing it as a scalp bounty.
What happened?
hope that people post better springs eternal
Could the crown not do anything about that? They've got control over the jury too don't they?
My understanding is that they couldn't do that either; both sides have a limited numbers of these vetos. But my understanding (which may be flawed and incomplete, as I am neither a lawyer nor did I follow the case in details) is that more white people than minorities showed up for jury duty, and fewer minorities than the number of vetos the defense had, ergo the defense was able to get rid of all minorities and force an all-white jury.
What the legal system needs is a failsafe for non-representative juries for when the selection process fails, as it did in this case.
I’ve personally been removed as a potential juror from a murder trial and it really is no explanation with no reasoning provided. I was asked one question and they either didn’t believe my answer or didn’t like the way I looked.
Lots of people are going to be dissatisfied with this verdict as it will be difficult to see how if it was a negligent act it wasn’t manslaughter. There’s also unlikely to be an appeal as the judge apparently was careful with their jury instructions and you can’t appeal simply because you dislike the verdict.
Having been selected for juror duty, the jury system in Canada is the stuff of nightmares. I went in feeling pretty excited about the process, and walked out being pretty disillusioned.
First of all, jurors don't get paid for the first 10 days, which really sucks if you in the lower income bracket, and then for the next 10 days you only get paid 50$ a day, going up to 100$ if the trial goes on a long time. So no one really wants to do it.
Justice is swift for people who don't show up for the juror selection process-it may take years for a case to come to trial, but if you miss juror duty, the will hunt you down and have you in front of the judge the next day.
As other people have stated, the defence can remove you from juror duty for no reason at all-for an unlimited amount of times. When you announce your name in front of the judge, you also announce you profession, and the defence chooses you based upon your race and profession.
For the case I was in, careless driving causing death, fleeing the scene of the accident causing death, lying to an officer of the peace, co-conspiring to aid in a crime causing death and to lie to an officer of the peace, the defence chose the defendants based upon their profession-white managers in specifically the construction industry were chosen for the final jury pool, and I was rejected without explanation.
Frankly, if I ever get put on trial for something, I'm asking for a judge trial. I've heard so many horror stories of obviously innocent people being sentenced to hell and of obviously guilty people being set free by juries being blinded by lawyer play-acting and their own prejudices and ignorant of the laws they're supposed to be arbitrating from, that I have zero faith in them.
I may be idealistic and silly, but I'd like to think it's easier to hold a judge accountable for personal bias and preferential treatment to one side, than to hold a jury accountable.
I guess you don't live in Saskatchewan, otherwise you'd know who Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon, is. I am quite comfortable shitting on the place where I live. It's pretty stupidly religious and pretty racist.
It kinda does? Your largest voting block voted him in, you all get tainted by that by association and it makes you and your neighbours look complicit, regardless of whether you voted for him or not. Like, I am not familiar with him but a quick look at wiki and ... Holy shit, your neighbours voted that guy in more than once?! Uhh...
God, stuff like this though, I really wish we could do away with FPTP so the part that didn't vote for the biggest voting block could still be recognized as participating in our parliamentary democracy by being represented, without having to stoop to painting everyone with the same brush because of how FPTP boils down to big tent parties where some of us feel like we have to vote alongside some really reprehensible people.