Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

pondering, i really think most people ARE saying that.  that's the basis for a mansaughter charge:  that even if it was accidental, he still should be found guilty cause someone has to pay.  my position is:  to ask an innocent person to think of the safety of their intruder is too much, only an egregious case like shooting someone in the back as they flee or inflicting harm after the threat has passed (going after them, chasing them down and hurting them) should be a charge. 

but if an accident happens, like during a struggle a gun goes off killing an intruder as happened here my feeling is: well, if they weren't put in that situation by the intruder it never would have happened to begin with so they're no danger to society, why would we lock them up?   this is the reaction most people have in cases like this, and we're not usually outraged by that. 

To me it's clear the outrage here is purely contextual: the media is reporting the facts wrong, people are framing it as racism (erroneously i think), and most people aren't bothering to really look into it before they have already made their conclusions (just look at all the posters here who have the facts totally wrong and mixed up--and we're more informed than most)

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thanks. The link is not working. If you take off the stuff after Stanley's name it should work.

http://rabble.ca/news/2018/02/all-white-jury-runs-justice-trial-gerald-s...

In the jury box, a dark-haired woman in a short dress and long hooded sweater jumps up as Stanley passes, and runs off camera herself --getting away from the family and the assembled Indians in the courtroom.

The trial was over, Gerald Stanley was being escorted from the courtroom. Why would she stay? I could see her leaving quickly but how do you run out of a jury box? Why would it be out of fear of the family and supporters? Were they rushing the front of the courtroom? If not she was more likely just leaving not running away out of fear of the Indians in the courtroom (just using the author's terminology). 

I watched a bit of Mohawk girls and of course it's a tv show not real life but they were trying to transmit Mohawk culture. A girl comes to the reserve after her parents pass away because her father was Mohawk. A bunch of the girls give her a really hard time but she does make a couple of friends. In one episode they tell her to never look afraid or back down if the other girls come at her because that's how Mohawk girls are. You have to stand your ground.

In grades 6 and 7 students were bused in from what was then called Caughanawaga and is now Kanawake. They were defintely tougher than us and showed it and they traveled in a pack. If you were on the stairs or in a hall they never moved aside, it was up to everyone else to get out of their way because they would just keep walking and push anyone aside that didn't move fast enough. They didn't misbehave or get into more fights than anyone else but I was sure they didn't want to be friends with me. In hindsight I can see that it was bravado. 

“Fights with Native kids were a too-common part of [my friend’s childhood] experience … It’s no overstatement to point out that such kids were, on average, rougher than the white kids, or that they were touchier…”

I'm sure they grew up to be just like the rest of us and move aside in halls etc. but at the time they certainly projected a tougher image and I think it was deliberate. They wanted to look tough. They succeeded. 

Gerald Stanley put Colten Boushie down at point-blank range

The idea that he deliberately walked over, aimed at Boushie's head and fired is not proven and highly unlikely. If he came out intending to murder someone he would have fully loaded and he would have kept shooting to leave no witnesses. 

 these jurors were raised to see us as scary animals, to think of us as wild “wagon burners” -- a slur you hear on the Prairies -- it was easy for them to see why he was justified. "It could have been me and my family," they undoubtedly thought -- and who wouldn’t do anything to protect their families?

Not once has anyone claimed or suggested that Stanley was justified in shooting Colton. 

Colten Boushie didn’t have a family. Indians don’t have “families.” They have braves and squaws, chiefs and papooses, bitches and thugs -- but not a mother and father like the Stanleys are.

I have never met a white person who denies the humanity of indigenous peoples or thinks that they don't have families or considers them animals. That might be an apt description of the most extreme racists but they are rare. That certainly does not describe the jury. 

White people are collectively guilty of a lot and the institutional racism is unforgivable. Indigenous people are entitled to be furious beyond measure. If indigenous people really believe these claims it is counterproductive and other indigenous people would be better off correcting them. There is enough cause for bitterness, resentment and fury. No need to add fuel to the fire assuming the desire is to prevent confrontations that can turn violent. 

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, which is an agency of the federal government, announced Tuesday that it will review how the Battleford RCMP detachment dealt with the Boushie investigation.

The commission has initiated a complaint process regarding the investigation of Boushie's death and the events that followed, including the notification of family, the search of his mother Debbie Baptiste's home and the circulation of media releases regarding the case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/boushie-rcmp-review-stanley-a...

In the opinion of an independent expert the RCMP were negligent:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rcmp-sloppy-and-negligent-in-...

Quote:

Doesn't the RCMP watch CSI?

If they did then they probably think that all they have to do is take one of the poorly-shot crime scene photos, put it in a CSI-machine, and say "Enhance.  Enhance.  Enhance."

Anyway, it sort of seems like the stuff that the independent investigators flagged as inappropriate isn't really the stuff any participants on this thread flagged.  They seem to have stopped well short of saying "it couldn't have been a hangfire and the defendant was clearly a racist liar."

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Doesn't the RCMP watch CSI?

If they did then they probably think that all they have to do is take one of the poorly-shot crime scene photos, put it in a CSI-machine, and say "Enhance.  Enhance.  Enhance."

Anyway, it sort of seems like the stuff that the independent investigators flagged as inappropriate isn't really the stuff any participants on this thread flagged.  They seem to have stopped well short of saying "it couldn't have been a hangfire and the defendant was clearly a racist liar."

There would have been more evidence had the scene of the death been protected, in particular the area around the vehicle and anywhere there was blood. From what I read it happened on the 9th and the investigators only showed up on the 11th. This is emergency services? Are there really that many incidences this serious that it takes two days to investigate the scene of a death by gunshot? 

Witnesses were questioned by constables not investigators. I'm not a professional, I just watch cop shows, but it makes sense to me for investigators to question everyone separately when such a serious incident occurs. Do we only have part time investigators? Are they not on call? 

Accidently or not Gerald killed a man. He should have been questioned by an investigator before being released. 

A major problem in this case is that justice must be seen to be done and that hasn't happened. I don't know if it is racism or not, allowing the evidence to be washed away by rain is gross incompetence no matter what the reason. 

That evidence might even have proven how the gun was positioned relative to the seat which could have supported or undercut the claim of accidental shooting. Maybe it wouldn't have, but we will never know because the evidence was destroyed. 

A little paragraph down the bottom of the CBC story:

The experts CBC consulted agreed that errors were made, but did not conclude it would have changed the outcome of the trial.

​After all, Gerald Stanley was charged with murder. It was the jury that acquitted him, and I doubt there was much that would have changed that.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In the opinion of an independent expert the RCMP were negligent:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rcmp-sloppy-and-negligent-in-...

Lots of great detail about the steps that were not followed, but what stood out for me was this:

Quote:

"If I had been the commissioner of the RCMP," said Murphy, "and I knew this was going to be an important case for race relations, my immediate response would have been, 'I want everything done on this case that can be done.'"

Notwithstanding the actual process of investigating this case, apparently the RCMP didn't even understand the important PR aspect. Then the RCMP wonders why it has problems in First Nations communities.

Reminds me of the shoddy investigation done in the initial stage of the Hellen Betty Osborne investigation.

From Aristotle24:

Believe me, white kids doing this kind of thing is viewed differently. Or don't believe me. Instead, believe our other Prairie commentators who have weighed in here.

​Well, it certainly was different. No one was charged with the murder. No jury, 'settler' or otherwise, got to review the evidence and pronounce on the case.

As posted above:

If I had been the commissioner of the RCMP," said Murphy, "and I knew this was going to be an important case for race relations, my immediate response would have been, 'I want everything done on this case that can be done.

​This kind of stood out for me too. Is this guy really saying that the level of investigation should depend on political considerations? That is absolutely ridiculous. Every investigation should be a professional investigation. It is imperative that political considerations don't count. Otherwise you really will end up with a system that favours some and denies others, based on their ability to crowdfund.

I agree there should have been a more professional investigation in this case. At the same time, I agree with the above quoted 'experts' who say that it would not have changed the verdict.

There was no dispute at the trial about who shot whom, or about which weapon was used. The one single piece of evidence that might have made a difference is the distance between the shooter and the victim at the time the shot was fired. The testimony was that Stanley was standing close enough to the vehicle to reach in and grab the keys. If examination of the wound showed the bullet was fired from some distance, that key piece of testimony would have failed. Yet no one disputed the testimony.

Jurors are not allowed to speak of their verdict after the fact, which I think is a good thing, but given the circumstances of the killing, I suspect the jurors felt they couldn't convict someone for protecting their family home from marauding drunks.

So I do not believe the jury's decision had anything to do with the finer points of evidence, which may or may not have been collected in the investigation. 

Rev Pesky wrote:

As posted above:

If I had been the commissioner of the RCMP," said Murphy, "and I knew this was going to be an important case for race relations, my immediate response would have been, 'I want everything done on this case that can be done.

​This kind of stood out for me too. Is this guy really saying that the level of investigation should depend on political considerations? That is absolutely ridiculous. Every investigation should be a professional investigation. It is imperative that political considerations don't count. Otherwise you really will end up with a system that favours some and denies others, based on their ability to crowdfund.

I agree there should have been a more professional investigation in this case. At the same time, I agree with the above quoted 'experts' who say that it would not have changed the verdict.

There was no dispute at the trial about who shot whom, or about which weapon was used. The one single piece of evidence that might have made a difference is the distance between the shooter and the victim at the time the shot was fired. The testimony was that Stanley was standing close enough to the vehicle to reach in and grab the keys. If examination of the wound showed the bullet was fired from some distance, that key piece of testimony would have failed. Yet no one disputed the testimony.

Jurors are not allowed to speak of their verdict after the fact, which I think is a good thing, but given the circumstances of the killing, I suspect the jurors felt they couldn't convict someone for protecting their family home from marauding drunks.

So I do not believe the jury's decision had anything to do with the finer points of evidence, which may or may not have been collected in the investigation.

Of course putting aside the questions of the evidence the white jury would let off one of their own for shooting at a bunch of drunk Natives. That's the mentality people have towards Natives in this part of the country.

You know that First Nations people are deeply suspicious and mistrustful of police in this part of the country? Do you think that makes the job of the police easier or harder? This case was the perfect opportunity for the RCMP to show that they would take seriously crimes committed against First Nations people, and by having an unprofessional investigation they blew it big time. Do you think First Nations people are going to have any confidence in the police after this?

Do you remember Wiebo Ludwig, who was brought up in this thread? He faced a similar situation with joyriding teenagers, only in this case they were white. I recall that the RCMP, unlike in this case, were on the scene of Ludwig's property doing what they could to gather enough evidence, however in this case they didn't find anyone. Also remember that unlike in Stanley's case, nobody came to Ludwig's defense. Let's say that someone had been charged with that shooting. What chances do you think that person would have had of being acquitted?

Maybe when crimes happen in rural areas evidence is generally not collected in as vigourous a fashion as it is in the big cities. But in this one particular case, where the victim was First Nations and the shooter white, the evidence was not collected appropriately. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

Rev Pesky wrote:

A little paragraph down the bottom of the CBC story:

The experts CBC consulted agreed that errors were made, but did not conclude it would have changed the outcome of the trial.

​After all, Gerald Stanley was charged with murder. It was the jury that acquitted him, and I doubt there was much that would have changed that.

So, they did not conclude it would have changed the outcome of the trial.  

Did they conclude it would not have changed the outcome?

That is the conclusion that matters. It can't be made without knowing what the evidence would have uncovered. 

Where the gun was relative to Colton's head was not in question. Where was the gun  relative to the car?  Was it in a position that supports Gerald's contention that he was reaching to turn off the engine? Was the door open or closed when the shot was fired. 

It could have proven Gerald's account more or less likely to be true. 

The outcome of the trial is not just whether or not Gerald was convicted. It's also whether or not the public is satisfied that the justice system did its job regardless of verdict. 

The trial did not prove Gerald's innocence. He was acquitted because there wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty. I'm sure Gerald would have preferred to be proven innocent not just "not convicted".  

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 Maybe when crimes happen in rural areas evidence is generally not collected in as vigourous a fashion as it is in the big cities. But in this one particular case, where the victim was First Nations and the shooter white, the evidence was not collected appropriately. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

Police are no better in cities. They shoot people armed with knives and screwdrivers. A hospital worker was accidently shot on the way to work because police were shooting at a man who had been kicking garbage all over the place. 

White people living in trailer parks with open sewage also get treated like trash. 

It's about money and power, you get treated way better when you have it. The racism comes into play when people assume POCs have neither. Dressing poorly will result in the same poor treatment. Anyone who is perceived to lack money and power is vulnerable. 

Its not either/or.  It's not racism or classism, they work together.

Smith:   ""You know, the fact no one came forward as a witness in the Ludwig case, and that some white people are also not treated well does not mean that systemic racism does not exist, any more than men feeling sorry for themselves does not mean that sexism doesn't exist."   

I think the best hope for reconciliation requires that the issues of the "oppressors" are considered as well.   

Mobo2000 wrote:

I think the best hope for reconciliation requires that the issues of the "oppressors" are considered as well.   

You think farmers complaining about being the victims here haven't been getting airplay? Maybe you should listen a bit closer. Ralph Goodale showed up two days after the trial to pledge support to them.

And it is funny how "reconciliation" is starting to turn into a white word. It was pointed out at the rally here in Saskatoon that they didn't want to hear "The R Word", because there is no reconciliation. And the Indigenous student council at the U of S has also had enough of it:

The Indigenous Students' Council said it is "tired of being taken advantage of" and will no longer "toe the line" of reconciliation on campus at the University of Saskatchewan. 

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/indigenous-students-council-ur...

Can you blame them? Sorry. Rhetorical question. Of course people are blaming them.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know, the fact no one came forward as a witness in the Ludwig case, and that some white people are also not treated well does not mean that systemic racism does not exist, any more than men feeling sorry for themselves does not mean that sexism doesn't exist.  

Correct. My sister and I both worked in male-dominated tech. When we didn't get a particular job it may have been sexism or it may have been the man was better qualified. Sexism absolutely did impact our careers but I can't say that every job I didn't get was due to sexism. 

Saying racism cannot be proven in a particular case is not the same as saying systemic racism doesn't exist. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is actually kind of significant that as far as the Stanley case got, despite shoddy evidence gathering, he was still found not-guilty. It is not the same as not having any evidence to lay a charge.  

It is more likely he was not found guilty because the evidence gathering was shoddy. There was no physical evidence disproving Gerald's account of what happened. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 And if I may offer an opinion, I can't imagine what evidence would have been enough to change that verdict. So I expect he just meant there was no way to tell. 

Blood splatter and gunshot residue are evidenciary. It could have told us the position of the gun and Colton's head and how likely that position was as Gerald reached for the ignition. 

I have several times read "imagine the position, how awkward it would be reaching in with your left hand to turn off the ignition". Yes, exactly. That is both an argument for the fact that it couldn't have happened that way and an argument for it happened because it is so awkward. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 And no. It isn't just about how people dress or look. You can have a good job and drive a nice car like Philando Castile, and still be shot dead.  That's why this is about racism, not fashion crime.  

No it isn't -just- about how people dress or look but it is a factor. If something terrible happens to a white person is it okay because they are white so it isn't racism? You claim that Gerald shot Colton because Colton is FN and that the jury didn't convict him because Colton is FN. While systemic (and individual) racism absolutely exists ascribing it to a single incident.

Being white did not stop the teenage girl from being shot. If she had been FN it would be held up as another incident racism and that accusation would have been wrong. 

Thanks for the sensible, informed and enlightening post, Hurtin Albertan. Given that all tragedies like this are individual, there are a lot of things that set these two apart.

From Pondering:

The trial did not prove Gerald's innocence. He was acquitted because there wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty. I'm sure Gerald would have preferred to be proven innocent not just "not convicted".  

​One of the interesting parts of our legal system is the presumption of innocence. One who has gone to trial, and has been acquitted of the charge they faced cannot be less innocent than they were before the trial.

Also from Pondering:

It's about money and power, you get treated way better when you have it.

​You mean the way the police treated the deaths of the Shermans.

• Boushie's body was covered, but he lay face-down in the gravel in the Stanley farm yard for more than 24 hours while RCMP waited for a warrant, according to RCMP testimony during the trial.
• The RCMP blood spatter expert did not come to Saskatchewan to examine the vehicle or other items. This decision was mentioned several times by Stanley's defence team during the trial. On Monday, the RCMP said they can't comment on the crime scene or blood spatter evidence during the 30-day period after the verdict during which an appeal is possible.
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/colten-boushie-family-list-probl...

I am horrified Boushie's body was on the ground for 24 hours. Surely there is a judge that can be called for time-sensitive warrants.  Do the police not have procedures to follow at the scene of a fatal shooting?

As I thought the defence used the point that the evidence was washed away, evidence that could have provided more information on what happened that day. 

As a juror I would question being expected to reach a guilty verdict when evidence that could have provided clarity was left to be destroyed, and that the body wasn't brought to a coronor for a full 24 hours. All the witnesses for the Crown gave conflicting testimony. Firearms experts had conflicting opinions. 

I am not claiming that racism didn't play some part in the events that occurred. I'm saying it's very difficult to prove. Were police racist or are they just that incompetent and uncaring? 

This was not an open and shut case much as you want to frame it that way. There was evidence destroyed, conflicting accounts, conflicting experts and an inexplicable bluge in the casing. Neither expert could explain it. That's huge. Neither said it was common, neither even gave a couple of scenarios that could have caused it. As a juror I would be thinking that it is not a coincidence that only the bullet that killed Colton had a bulge and they were unable to recreate the same effect and had no idea what caused it. A hangfire could not be absolutely ruled out even though they usually occur within a second. Something caused the bulge. If the experts couldn't absolutely rule out a hangfire then how could I as a juror rule it out absolutely? 

The Boushie family's lawyer sent a letter with numerous possible grounds for appeal to the justice minister. Some of those arguments were relayed to him by lawyers and academics from across Canada.

Clearly that was disregarded. One thing is for sure. You don't affect the outcome of a trial if you don't even try.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/stanley-boushie-appeal-1.4565538

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And he could no more have thought the gun was not loaded than someone could look at an open door and think it was shut. Articles about this have been posted already with pictures.

I disagree.

I've witnessed probably 20-25 people fire a gun by accident when they thought it was unloaded.

I've also seen guns fired when someone put it away in a holster, when someone put it on their back and the trigger got caught on something, the trigger getting caught on a stick.  Lots of stuff, but not realizing a gun is loaded is probably the most common cause of firearm accidents.

Personally I think he shot him in the head by accident either by hitting the trigger accidentally or because he was pumped full of adrenaline and lost fine motor control of his hands and fingers. Or both.

If Colton was sitting in the driver seat looking forward and Gerald had the gun in his right hand I can picture Gerald leaning in the window, his right arm\hand behind Colton and awkwardly reaching for the keys with his left hand. While trying to reach awkwardly left handed for the keys he inadvertantly pulled the trigger with his right hand and the gun pointing towards his head.  Someone not well disciplined with firearms might keep their finger on the trigger. 

In situtations like that your hands feel like big clubs and you lose a lot of dextarity.

The hangfire stuff is weird but that too could explain the gun going off behind colton.

You're right I do know that. I've said the exact same thing in this thread. Couple times. Slides on guns don't always remain to the rear when a gun is empty because sometimes the parts intended to hold them back are broken or worn down just enough to not catch. The video you posted is a clear example of the parts being worn down. It sometimes catches but a little movement makes the slide release.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

In my opinion for a case to have a bulge in the side of it there has to be room for the case to expand. There is no room in a barrel for the case to expand unless the barrel bulges as well, which happens, but I don't recall reading about it.

If the case bulged when the bullet was outside of the barrel I would wonder why the pistol didn't explode in Geralds hand and how the bullet had enough pressure to be fatal. A bullet needs to be surrounded by the barrel and locked in place to have enough pressure to shoot out of the gun and cause death. If you held a bullet in your hand and some how hit the back of it causing it to fire it wouldn't have enough pressure to go through a piece of paper.

David Tanovich, a law professor at the University of Windsor who followed the case closely, said he believes there are strong grounds for an appeal and he's disappointed the case will not be put before the appeal court. "The failure of the Crown to appeal and give the Court of Appeal a chance to review the case not only deprives the family and community of an opportunity for a second look at the process, but further serves to reinforce the view amongst some lawyers and others that this was a fair and unbiased process," Prof. Tanovich said in an e-mail.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/crown-says-it-wont-appeal-...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am saying it is obvious when the gun is open and empty.

Neither expert found anything faulty with Stanley's gun that could cause this, and in any case, his gun was loaded, and had the slide closed. There is no way if he had his eyes open and his hand on the gun that he would not have known it was loaded.

Clear enough?

And sure, whatever happened to that casing it didn't change how the gun fired.

It's clear enough that you are misrepresenting Gerald's testimony to suit what you believe. He didn't claim the gun was empty as in ejecting the magazine. If he had ejected the magazine of course it couldn't have fired. 

What he said was that he fired into the air a couple of extra times to make sure there were no bullets left in the magazine. That is not at all the same thing as ejecting it. 

As illustrated by your youtube the magazine does not automatically eject when it is empty. 

David Tanovich, as posted above. 

The failure of the Crown to appeal...etc. 

It would have been interesting to hear from Tanovich what he thought the grounds for appeal were. Unfortunately, either he, or the reporter, didn't mention them.

Boushie's lawyer complained about testimony from 'lay' persons as to weaponry, but I very much doubt an appeal court would overturn the trial for that. In fact, the Crown had plenty of oppportunity to instruct the jury as to the value of that evidence.

​What it comes down to is this. Stanley's defence was that the pistol fired some time after he had pulled the trigger. The jury chose to believe that.

All the parsing of the ins and outs of firing a pistol, sloppy investigation, specfic timeline, intent of the intruders is meaningless. What people appear to want is for the jury not to believe Stanley's defence. But they did, and there is no appeal of a jury's decision.