Yup that would usually be how the fix is in, and why these white guys can feel pretty comfortable riding around with their semiautomatics. I'll give you that.
And so long as cops can conveniently fuck up, and lawyers can shut out anyone who might have a higher standard they can continue to feel like they are protected.
Excuse me for pointing out that it isn't just about good old boy rule, and there is actually a pretense of law and order hanging in the balance here.
But what did the forensic evidence show?Only if you take his word for it. The other witnesses said the bullets were whistling past them. His word against theirs, and they had less to lose.
But I'm sure he was the one telling the more accurate story. [/sarcasm]
There was no forensic evidence presented on the shots fired at the fleeing men. Just testimony.
But what did the forensic evidence show?Only if you take his word for it. The other witnesses said the bullets were whistling past them. His word against theirs, and they had less to lose.
But I'm sure he was the one telling the more accurate story. [/sarcasm]
There was no forensic evidence presented on the shots fired at the fleeing men. Just testimony.
Did any of the Crown's forensic evidence, or any forensic evidence at all, contradict Stanley's version of events? It seems to me the Crown presented a weak case that did not sufficiently counter Stanley's explanation and that left the jury in a position that supported acquittal. My hunch is that the Crown [and RCMP] did not strongly believe in Stanley's guilt and that was reflected in court. And it should be remembered that the jury has to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant, not the Crown. I think giving the Crown more power to convict would be generally detrimental to indigenous people who are already greatly overrepresented in regard to being found guilty and being incarcerated.
I wonder what a healing circle would have done if this case had been brought before it? I think it would have led to a better outcome.
It seems to me the Crown presented a weak case that did not sufficiently counter Stanley's explanation and that left the jury in a position that supported acquittal.
Yes. If a witness says "yes, you did" and a defendant says "no, I didn't" and there's nothing else to break the deadlock, it's generally considered the more progressive outcome if the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant, not the state.
But the new question seems to be "but what if a RACIST jury WANTS to acquit, because they're RACIST??"
And I don't know how we can ever tell the difference between a racist jury giving the benefit of the doubt to the defendant because they're racist, or a jury giving the benefit of the doubt to the defendant because that's what we all agree they're supposed to do.
It seems to me the Crown presented a weak case that did not sufficiently counter Stanley's explanation and that left the jury in a position that supported acquittal.Yes. If a witness says "yes, you did" and a defendant says "no, I didn't" and there's nothing else to break the deadlock, it's generally considered the more progressive outcome if the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant, not the state.
But the new question seems to be "but what if a RACIST jury WANTS to acquit, because they're RACIST??"
And I don't know how we can ever tell the difference between a racist jury giving the benefit of the doubt to the defendant because they're racist, or a jury giving the benefit of the doubt to the defendant because that's what we all agree they're supposed to do.
I think one thing we have to go by in determining whether a jury is racist is how they deal with the forensic evidence. If the bullet had had no bulge I think Stanley would have been more likely of being found guilty of manslaughter. Without the unexplained bulge in the bullet I think Stanley's only avenue for acquittal would have been to say that he was so frightened that he and his family were under threat that he accidentally fired the gun. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happened but that he did not want to admit that he was frightened. I don't think he purposely shot the gun but it is possible that is what happened which is why it was so important for the Crown to have forensic evidence that the shot was deliberate. Instead the RCMP allowed that possible evidence to be washed away in the rain.
I don't think he purposely shot the gun but it is possible that is what happened which is why it was so important for the Crown to have forensic evidence that the shot was deliberate. Instead the RCMP allowed that possible evidence to be washed away in the rain.
I'm not discounting or excusing the RCMP's treatment of potential evidence. But what do you feel got washed away in the rain that could have explained one bulging cartridge casing?
Canadians are allowed to use reasonable force up to and including deadly force with firearms for purposes of self-defnese. Now you say protecting your property, I think that's where some of the confusion comes in. Someone shooting at a theif going through their garage or vehicle or stealing a bike? Yea that's not allowed. But what about when someones wants to steal property in your house and you're between the theif and your big screen TV?Should you just move out of their way and hope they leave you alone and just take the TV? Hope they don't assault you in the process? Just run away? What if you have 4 small children and a wheelchair bound parent living with you? There's lots of what if's. My view, which seems backed up by the court, is that if someone is forcing their way into your house and you feel that your life is in danger then you can use deadly force.
Depending on where you live, if you have a landline, you can simply knock the phone off the hook, dial 9-1-1, leave the phone off the hook without talking to the operator, and they will send help as quickly as they can.
I don't think he purposely shot the gun but it is possible that is what happened which is why it was so important for the Crown to have forensic evidence that the shot was deliberate. Instead the RCMP allowed that possible evidence to be washed away in the rain.I'm not discounting or excusing the RCMP's treatment of potential evidence. But what do you feel got washed away in the rain that could have explained one bulging cartridge casing?
I think blood splatter evidence could have proven that Stanley held the gun in a such a way that showed that the shot was made intentionally. On the other hand it could have given more weight to the scenario that the shot was a hangfire or accidental.
The men who fled did not tell the police that "bullets whizzed by" when they were first interviews. All of the witnesses changed their stories repeatedly. That too probably contributed to "reasonable doubt".
It is more believable to me that he shot in the air rather than shooting men in the back. I think it is safe to assume people who own several guns are aware of basic law. If he shot unarmed men in the back that would be murder. That would be stupid. It makes no sense.
Even though he is white Gerald has more credibility.
Pondering, he did shoot an unarmed man in the back of the head. That's why there was a trial.
Stanley had a lot more to lose than the other two witnesses. He wasn't more credible - he's just more like you.
JKR - The expert testimony was fairly clear that, despite the bullet casing bulge, it was highly improbable that the hangfire occurred - which would have HAD to happen for Stanley's account to hold water. That testimony was largely ignored for a palatable finding.
Pondering, he did shoot an unarmed man in the back of the head. That's why there was a trial.
I'm aware of that. I was referring specifically to whether or not he shot in the air or at the men when I referred to credibility. I explained the logic that led me to that conclusion. No one disputes that Gerald was holding the gun nor that Colton was shot in the head with it.
Stanley had a lot more to lose than the other two witnesses. He wasn't more credible - he's just more like you.
No that is you. You base your decision solely on skin color.
JKR - The expert testimony was fairly clear that, despite the bullet casing bulge, it was highly improbable that the hangfire occurred - which would have HAD to happen for Stanley's account to hold water. That testimony was largely ignored for a palatable finding.
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-chief-jus...
Two cartridges were found on the ground in Stanley’s yard, while a third was found in the grey SUV Boushie was sitting in when he died.
Williams told the jury the cartridge from the SUV had an “unusual bulge,” but that he didn’t know what caused it.
One possible explanation was a mechanical malfunction in the pistol, but Williams said during cross-examination on Friday that the handgun did not appear to be broken.
Williams said a bulge could have been caused by an obstruction in the barrel of the gun, but he did not observe any obstruction. He noted that any obstruction could have been blown out by the bullet.
He said another possible explanation was that the ammunition was defective, which could have caused a hang fire — a situation in which there is a perceptible delay between when the trigger is pulled and when the bullet is fired. Williams stressed that such an event is “exceedingly rare” and that any delay would last less than a second.
Defence lawyer Scott Spencer asked Williams how long he believed a hang fire could last. Williams said the longest hang fire he had ever read about was 28 milliseconds, and he didn’t imagine any hang fire could last for more than half a second.
Spencer asked whether Stanley’s ammunition — 1953 military surplus stock from Czechoslovakia that had been stored in a shed — could have been degraded. Williams agreed that age and storage are both factors in the degradation of ammunition.
John Ervin, a firearms expert called by the defence, said the bulge on the casing was caused by the bullet firing when the gun was not in battery. In other words, the cartridge was not properly seated in the chamber when it detonated.
Ervin said that, in order for a bulge like the one on the casing to have formed, the gun would have to have been out of alignment to a point where it could not have fired.
“I simply don’t know what caused that firearm to discharge,” he said.
Ervin said one possibility is a hang fire. He said that while these are rare, they are more common with older ammunition.
“There’s not enough evidence to say there was a hang fire, nor is there enough evidence to say there was not a hang fire,” Ervin said.
Spencer asked Ervin what the longest possible hang fire could be. Ervin said it was impossible to know. He said that in firearm courses, if people pull the trigger and don’t hear a bang they are instructed to keep holding their guns downrange for 30 to 60 seconds.
I'm not a firearms expert but it seems unlikely to me that the bullet cartridges would have been found in the yard if he had been shooting at the men. They would have been much farther away. Could you weight in on that Paladin?
Timebandit, the witnesses were extremely drunk and changed their stories multiple times. We know for sure that they did lie. The police were negligent in failing to protect the evidence. The expert testimony was conflicting enough to cast doubt. If I were a juror I would need to be certain before sending a man to prison for such a serious crime. It would only take a few jurors to convince the rest that reasonable doubt exists because nobody likes to send people to prison unless they are sure the person is guilty. I hope that would also apply to indigenous jurors.
JKR - The expert testimony was fairly clear that, despite the bullet casing bulge, it was highly improbable that the hangfire occurred - which would have HAD to happen for Stanley's account to hold water. That testimony was largely ignored for a palatable finding.
One of the firearms experts that gave testimony, John Ervin, sounds to me like he gave reasonable doubt to the possibility of their being a hangfire:
John Ervin, a firearms expert called by the defence, said the bulge on the casing was caused by the bullet firing when the gun was not in battery. In other words, the cartridge was not properly seated in the chamber when it detonated.
Ervin said that, in order for a bulge like the one on the casing to have formed, the gun would have to have been out of alignment to a point where it could not have fired.
“I simply don’t know what caused that firearm to discharge,” he said.
Ervin said one possibility is a hang fire. He said that while these are rare, they are more common with older ammunition.
“There’s not enough evidence to say there was a hang fire, nor is there enough evidence to say there was not a hang fire,” Ervin said.
Spencer asked Ervin what the longest possible hang fire could be. Ervin said it was impossible to know. He said that in firearm courses, if people pull the trigger and don’t hear a bang they are instructed to keep holding their guns downrange for 30 to 60 seconds.
People may argue with this firearm expert but that is what the jury heard. “There’s not enough evidence to say there was a hang fire, nor is there enough evidence to say there was not a hang fire,” Ervin said. The jury did not have the credentials to dismiss this expert. The Crown should have impeached this expert if they wanted the jury to dismiss his testimony.
The question is whether people are paying attention to what those experts actually said.
I have said this a couple of times, but since we are back here again, although you are focusing on that casing, which is clearly an unknown, neither expert said it had any effect on the gun firing.
It didn't cause a misfire. That gun was dropped and hit with a hammer and it did not misfire.
If it had been part of a hangfire it would still have meant the trigger was pulled, and that it might have delayed firing a second - a second while the gun was pointed at Boushie's head.
So while it was an unknown there is no indication it would have changed anything of substance. Stanley would have pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at Boushie's head.
But it seems to have given people (including the jury) who aren't thinking too hard about this evidence an excuse to call that reasonable doubt simply because it is something unknown that happened at the time the gun went off.
And while I don't know what someone being drunk has to do with a lie (but sure, let's keep bringing that up for fun) it is worth mentioning that there were lies on both sides of this story. There were discrepancies between Stanley's story and his son's. Stanley's claim that he did not know his gun was loaded. And his story about thinking his wife was under a vehicle, but not calling for her or even bothering to look and see if she was there.
Funny, we bring up drunkenness on a point where it is irrelevant, like witnesses lying, but completely disregard it in the case of Boushie, who was sitting doing nothing. Not fighting. Not picking up the broken gun that was sitting between his knees. Not driving away. In no danger of acting like a "sicko torturer" when Gerald Stanley shot him in the back of the head.
Pondering, I followed that trial closely. You keep focusing on the flaws of the victims and downplaying the inconsistencies of the perpetrator. I haven’t based anything in my analysis of the events on colour other than to note that, in this part of the world that I am familiar with and you are not, much of how Stanley reacted - going for a gun in the first place, the aggression of the confrontation before firearms were involved - is typical and yes, race is a factor.
I have been in the area many times and I’ve observed this first hand. Many other people have pointed out the same thing. And you’re playing right into this. Poor white guy dealing with drunk Indians. You don’t seem to get what a racist trope that is out here.
Stanley didn’t know they were drunk, didn’t wait to find out why they were there, didn’t give them a chance to leave. They were brown and on his property.
JKR - the jury accepted one expert’s testimony and ignored two others. Even the one they accepted is based not on likelihood but on the impossibility of proving a negative. You can’t prove a unicorn doesn’t live in my basement but you can be reasonably sure, given a lack of evidence for unicorns in general, that there’s little doubt there isn’t.
That the jury based their decision on a logical fallacy to come to a verdict that they were comfortable with doesn’t make this sound any more like justice.
It would also depend on how the 'experts' came off to the jury. I don't know but that often sways a jury too if one sounds more 'authoritative' than the other
I have said this a couple of times, but since we are back here again, although you are focusing on that casing, which is clearly an unknown, neither expert said it had any effect on the gun firing.
This morning defence lawyer Scott Spencer cross-examined RCMP Forensic Firearms Specialist Greg Williams, questioning him in detail about "the anatomy of a hang-fire." Yesterday, Williams told the jury a hang-fire is a firing delay caused by faulty or degraded ammunition, resulting in "a noticeable delay from 'click' until 'bang,'"
One of the three recently-fired cartridge casings recovered at the scene and matched to the Tokarev pistol contained an "unusual bulge," Williams said, which may have been caused by a hang-fire if someone manipulated the pistol's action after pulling the trigger. According to RCMP testimony, the casing with the bulge was found inside the SUV which was carrying Boushie and a group of friends, while the other two were found elsewhere in Stanley's farmyard.
http://panow.com/article/737563/anatomy-hang-fire-gun-expert-cross-exami...
But it seems to have given people (including the jury) who aren't thinking too hard about this evidence an excuse to call that reasonable doubt simply because it is something unknown that happened at the time the gun went off.
The RCMP firearms expert said the bulge could be a result of a hangfire and a hangfire can be caused by faulty or degraded ammunition. No other explanation for the bulge was offered. As to not being able to recreate a hangfire, I think that is the norm.
And while I don't know what someone being drunk has to do with a lie (but sure, let's keep bringing that up for fun) it is worth mentioning that there were lies on both sides of this story.
Drunkeness affects memory and cognitive function.
There were discrepancies between Stanley's story and his son's. Stanley's claim that he did not know his gun was loaded. And his story about thinking his wife was under a vehicle, but not calling for her or even bothering to look and see if she was there.
I don't know about the discrepancies between his son and his accounts of what happened. It is possible for him not to have realized his gun was loaded with another bullet. Whether or not his wife was under the vehicle he was still fully entitled to try to turn the vehicle off.
Funny, we bring up drunkenness on a point where it is irrelevant, like witnesses lying, but completely disregard it in the case of Boushie, who was sitting doing nothing. Not fighting. Not picking up the broken gun that was sitting between his knees. Not driving away. In no danger of acting like a "sicko torturer" when Gerald Stanley shot him in the back of the head.
Drunkenness and witnesses lying isn't irrelevant. It goes to credibility. If a person who was extremely drunk first tells me a woman did the shooting and she shot twice, and it turns out a man was holding the gun and there was one shot it pretty much calls her testimony into account. She got out of the vehicle and punched the woman so I think she really did believe the shot came from Leesa not Gerald. One or both of the men testified they were shot at and yet the casings were found in the yard which suggests to me that he did fire straight up. I think bullets go really a long way if they don't hit something. So, all three witnesses for the Crown changed their stories dramatically. The two running away seem to have tried to make Gerald look more guilty by claiming he shot at them when he shot in the air. The woman obviously didn't see anything. When she got out of the vehicle she saw Leesa Stanley and assumed she was the culprit so punched her and told police she was the shooter. When she found out Gerald was the shooter she lied again. The crown had no credible witnesses. They had three drunk lying witnesses. That isn't irrelevant. It pretty much means nothing they said could be taken at face value because they were obviously willing to lie and were motivated by the desire to make Gerald look guilty of things he didn't do. How can any of their testimony be trusted?
If Boushie had been a newborn babe shot in the head it would make no difference at all to the conclusion other than being even more convincing that it was an accident. Gerald is not a career criminal so probably doesn't kill people just for the hell of it. He had no motive to kill Boushie. I agree that it's odd he didn't call out for his wife, that his first thought was that she might be under it. Odd doesn't necessarily mean a lie. But let's assume that part was a lie. It doesn't change any essential facts. If anything it would give a motive for shooting Colton rather than support an accidental discharge of the gun.
As a juror being told, by the witness for the Crown, that the bulge could have been caused by a hangfire, there was no other explanation for the bulge, the shooter had no criminal history, no history of racist incidents, I would believe that there as at least a reasonable chance that it might have been a hangfire.
I think it is believable that he went to get the gun to scare them off, fired twice in the air, saw the SUV stopped and Boushie climbing into the driver's seat to take off so ran over to try to stop the vehicle from moving so it couldn't cause further damage and the gun went off accidently. How it went off I have no idea but I don't find it credible that Gerald just walked over then cold-bloodedly shot Boushie in the head.
For the sake of argument, even if Gerald did lie as much as everyone else it wouldn't matter. He didn't have to prove his innocence. The crown had to prove his guilt.
It would also depend on how the 'experts' came off to the jury. I don't know but that often sways a jury too if one sounds more 'authoritative' than the other
It isn't a case of that, Bacchus. Neither of them made a claim that would have resulted in anything other than what I just laid out.
Again, if the jury was paying attention to what they actually said.
Pondering, Stanley said he ran to the car. His son said he walked.
Not sure what your point is about the bullet, but it has no bearing on what I just said. Didn't cause a misfire. A hangfire would still have meant a pulled trigger pointed at Boushie's head.
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.
Why do we need to keep repeating this stuff?
People in these threads claim we are the ones not dealing with the facts because we point out that racism is the major factor at the root of the problems with this case, and the denial and spin around it.
How about we deal with these facts?
I haven’t based anything in my analysis of the events on colour other than to note that, in this part of the world that I am familiar with and you are not, much of how Stanley reacted - going for a gun in the first place, the aggression of the confrontation before firearms were involved - is typical and yes, race is a factor.
That race is often or usually or almost always a factor does not mean it can be assumed to be a factor in this particular case especially with regards to Gerald's motives. There is no way to know if the Stanley's would have reacted the same way if they had been white men behaving in the same manner. That you are sure of it doesn't make it so, certainly not to the extent that a jury should assume it.
I have been in the area many times and I’ve observed this first hand. Many other people have pointed out the same thing. And you’re playing right into this. Poor white guy dealing with drunk Indians. You don’t seem to get what a racist trope that is out here.
I'm not suggesting their drunkeness had anything at all to do with Gerald's actions. I'm saying that people who were extremely drunk at the time of an incident aren't very credible no matter what their race.
JKR - the jury accepted one expert’s testimony and ignored two others. Even the one they accepted is based not on likelihood but on the impossibility of proving a negative. You can’t prove a unicorn doesn’t live in my basement but you can be reasonably sure, given a lack of evidence for unicorns in general, that there’s little doubt there isn’t.
The Crown's expert said the bulge could be caused by a hangfire, a hangfire can be caused by old ammunition, he offered no other explanation for the bulge. The bulge is one of the only pieces of physical evidence. Against that is the testimony that hangfires are usually under a second, but you should wait 30 seconds to be sure.
That the jury based their decision on a logical fallacy to come to a verdict that they were comfortable with doesn’t make this sound any more like justice.
The logical fallacy is yours. Your assumption that all the jurors acquitted Gerald because they are all racists is rooted in prejudice. You discount all the evidence that undercuts your argument. You approach the case as though Gerald had to prove his innocence rather than the Crown having to prove his guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
Gonna move my comment to the Colton thread.
Well I am going to post this here, because I am sure I'm going to have to eventually do it again anyway. For the record, this is what that kind of pistol looks like when it is empty, and when it is loaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ZibExXg1s
Pondering, I can and do know that Stanley wouldn't have reacted the same way to white people. I've driven onto many a farmyard, but as a white woman have never been subjected to that level of aggression. Nor has any group of white people I know, whether they were drunk, sober, kids, adults, up to no good or just dropping in. I know people from farms in the area, I understand the culture. You are out of your depth here. You're also casting about for reasons Stanley was justified in shooting.
Ultimately, whether you boil it down to race or class, your continued insistence on seeing the best in Stanley's intentions or level of credibility and the worst in the witnesses belies your deep discomfort.
Ultimately, Stanley has very little credibility because he has the most to lose. If he was to admit to shooting at people, he'd be setting himself up for jail time. Who wouldn't lie? At the very least, he was pissed off and buzzed with adrenaline and was waving a gun around. That's manslaughter. That the jury took a small piece of testimony and hung an acquittal on an incredibly remote possibility makes it very clear that they were actively looking to acquit.
Well I am going to post this here, because I am sure I'm going to have to eventually do it again anyway. For the record, this is what that kind of pistol looks like when it is empty, and when it is loaded.
He didn't claim to have removed the magazine which I assume holds the bullets. The video is about the gun malfunctioning and right next to it is a list of youtubes with the gun malfunctioning.
All the gun experts, including the Crown's gun expert, stated that the bulge could be caused by a hangfire and that they could not rule out a hangfire. The only point against it being a hangfire was that they are usually under a second but not expert would testify that hangfires cannot take longer than a second. That it couldn't be replicated is meaningless as hangfires can't normally be replicated.
Old ammunition can cause hangfires and the ammunition was from 1953.
Williams fired several of Stanley's rounds through the Tokarev pistol in testing, he said, and one — which he referred to as a "dud" — failed to fire. The casing of another round broke after firing, he said, causing the handgun to jam....
Spencer questioned Williams about other possible causes for the unusual deformity in the shell casing. Williams said it could potentially have been caused by a mechanical malfunction in the pistol or if the pistol had an oversized barrel installed. An obstruction in the pistol's barrel or slide could also have been the cause, Williams said, though he noted there was no evidence directly supporting any of the theories.
Ultimately, Williams said, he could not determine the exact cause of the bulge, other than to say it indicated something unusual occurred when the round was fired.
http://panow.com/article/737563/anatomy-hang-fire-gun-expert-cross-exami...
The evidence shows that the bullets were old and the gun did malfunction when tested even though it wasn't a hangfire. I don't see why an oversized barrel was mentioned because the gun didn't have an oversized barrel so that didn't cause the bulge leaving the only possible explanation being a gun malfunction.
http://panow.com/article/737563/anatomy-hang-fire-gun-expert-cross-exami...
So the gun definitely malfunctioned, hangfires can cause bulges, but hangfires are usually under a second, but they can last a few seconds.
None of the firearms experts said that it could not have been a hangfire. That they are rare and he never heard of one lasting more than a couple of seconds is not same thing as testifying "no, it could not have been a hangfire".
If a firearms expert won't say that then it is possible, even if highly unlikely, that it was a hangfire.
How much more clearly do I need to say this?
Stanley claimed he thought the gun was empty. When the Tokarev pistol is empty the slide automatically goes back into the open position.
I posted the video to show how very different that would look and feel than with the gun loaded and the slide closed.
The gun in the video is not Stanley's personal gun. He isn't the guy talking. Unlike the guy in the video, Stanley didn't have any problem with his gun closing when it was empty. In fact neither expert said they could find anything wrong with it.
Again, I am just posting it to show you what that make of pistol looks like loaded and empty.
And I will repeat again: none of what you just typed had any bearing on what caused the gun to fire, and the outcome. Stanley must have been holding the gun pointed at Boushie's head, and he must have pulled the trigger. And whether instantaneously or a second later, it fired and killed him.
Pondering, I can and do know that Stanley wouldn't have reacted the same way to white people....I understand the culture.
Really, so is the reverse fine. Could Gerald say he "understands the culture" of FNs so can make assumptions based on that. That is exactly what you are doing. Even if every single farmer in the area is a racist ass that can't wait to shoot injuns that still wouldn't prove that Gerald Stanley is. You want a jury to convict based on cultural assumptions about farmers in your area in general.
You're also casting about for reasons Stanley was justified in shooting.
Your bias is showing. Evidence shows that he shot in the air not at people. Accidental shooting does not imply justification.
Ultimately, whether you boil it down to race or class, your continued insistence on seeing the best in Stanley's intentions or level of credibility and the worst in the witnesses belies your deep discomfort.
And that you ignore all the facts illustrates that you made up your mind before hearing any facts at all. All you needed to know what a white man killed an FN man to determine that it was racism.
Ultimately, Stanley has very little credibility because he has the most to lose. If he was to admit to shooting at people, he'd be setting himself up for jail time. Who wouldn't lie?
Absolutely. But having a motive to lie, even a huge one, doesn't prove you are lying. Physical evidence supports his claim that he shot in the air. Physical evidence proves the men who claimed he shot at them were lying. We don't need to suspect the woman was also lying we know it for a fact.
At the very least, he was pissed off and buzzed with adrenaline and was waving a gun around. That's manslaughter. That the jury took a small piece of testimony and hung an acquittal on an incredibly remote possibility makes it very clear that they were actively looking to acquit.
There is no evidence that he was "waving it around". It isn't an "incredibly remote" possibility. The amunition was old which is known to cause hangfires and the gun malfunctioned in testing and one of the bullets turned out to be a dud. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to include at least a 1% chance that it could have been a hangfire.
I do agree that he could be guilty of manslaughter but I don't agree that it was proven in court that it was manslaughter.
I do agree that racism may have, even probably, played a part in mutiple aspects of the case, perhaps even in Gerald's emotional reaction, greater fear, but it was not proven. You can assume it as fact, I don't blame you for assuming it as fact. You're probably right. But jurors can't convict based on generalities. It would be no better than convicting someone because they are FN.
As a juror I would be loath to convict anyone if I believed there was a possibility they were telling the truth and I do believe there is a reasonable possibility Gerald is telling the truth and he did not pull the trigger. To me that is the most credible account of what happened because I don't believe even racist farmers are looking for a reason to execute FN men. That is very extreme. That is KKK material. If there was any evidence of that in Gerald's background it would impact my opinion.
Physical evidence shows (by my reading) that he did shoot in the air to scare them away. He told the truth about that and the witnesses lied.
I'm 90% sure that neither Sheldon nor Gerald were were afraid for their physical safety at the beginning of the event. I'm 90% sure the hammer throw in particular was an unecessary escalation that played a large part in what followed. If a vehicle were coming at me I would be too busy jumping out of the way to throw a hammer. I don't understand what that was supposed to accomplish. It would panic any driver. Sheldon went running for his truck keys when Gerald went for his gun. Why?
Like you I don't believe they were that frightened at that point in time. Sheldon may have gone for his truck so he could prevent the SUV from doing more damage but that doesn't make a lot of sense. It was riding on a rim with a smashed windshield. I can't help suspecting that he intended to follow them. When Gerald approached the SUV I think it is likely that he did just want to stop it which was the responsible thing to do given the condition of the SUV and that it had already hit another vehicle. It would be irresponsible to allow it back on the road. It's also possible it was a "citizens arrest". He didn't want them to get away. I think the least likely explanation is that he was afraid for his wife's safety. It's still possible though because from the picture I saw the SUV stopped in front of the mower she was on and she was no longer on it. It isn't impossible that it would cross his mind that she might have been hurt.
I really do agree that on probabilities racism was involved and that even if accidental the reckless actions of both Gerald and Sheldon led directly to the tragic death of Colton. It just wasn't proven in court. There is no proof that Gerald lied. There is proof that the witnesses lied. There is evidence that suggests it wasn't a hangfire, they are rare and only last a second, there is evidence it was a hangfire, an inexplicable bulge, a mal-functioning gun, old ammunition.
How much more clearly do I need to say this?
Stanley claimed he thought the gun was empty. When the Tokarev pistol is empty the slide automatically goes back into the open position.
......
Again, I am just posting it to show you what that make of pistol looks like loaded and empty.
Okay, like I said, I am stretching to try to understand guns. As I understand it the bullets go into the magazine. The magazine is loaded into the gun. The magazine does not automatically eject when there are no bullets left. You have to physically eject it. When you eject the magazine, the slide comes out of the gun and it should not be possible to push it back in.
How does that have anything to do with a bullet still being in the magazine?
If there is a bullet in the gun it will be in the closed position.
If there is no bullet in the gun it will be in the open position.
That is why Stanley's claim that he thought it was empty is not credible.
If there is a bullet in the gun it will be in the closed position.
If there is no bullet in the gun it will be in the open position.
That is why Stanley's claim that he thought it was empty is not credible.
Your youtube doesn't show that. It shows the opposite. It shows the gun closed, magazine installed with no bullets in the magazine.
He then removes the magazine to show that while it shouldn't be possible to close the gun without a magazine it still closes which is the faulty part.
Gerald did not claim to have ejected the magazine. If the magazine were ejected it would be impossible to fire the gun. He said he thought the magazine was empty not that he had removed it.
If there is a bullet in the gun it will be in the closed position.
If there is no bullet in the gun it will be in the open position.
If the gun is functioning normally and properly, yes.
But when the gun is functioning normally and properly, does it eject spent shells that have expanded beyond what the chamber could possibly permit?
Presumably, there were three shots fired from the gun. Two of them either into the air, or at the brains of fleeing victims, depending on which narrative you believe. And then a third, which undeniably killed Boushie. Was the bulging cartridge one of the first two shots, or was it the third? And if it was the third, and if cartridges don't typically do that (the same way "hang fires" don't typically happen) then what does this mean about how that gun and ammo -- both older than most of us -- was operating that day?
You seem quite confident that the gun could not have looked empty, based on the position of the slide, if it were not, but you seem at the same time to think that a deformed brass cartridge is a totally common thing, like finding an apple with a bruise. You would like us to disregard some improbable thing (a hang-fire, as Stanley describes it) and then totally disregard another improbable thing (a brass shell casing that was magically able to grow larger than the thick steel barrel that would contain it, if everything was working as it should).
Pondering, no he didn't say anything about the magazine. That's not the point. The gun in the video is actually one that is not working properly. No one found anything faulty about Stanley's gun.
The only reason I posted the video is to show how different the gun looks when it is open and closed.
I am not sure why this is so hard to understand.
If that was the case Magoo, and the gun was somehow not opening and closing properly the experts would have discovered that. Neither did.
I know it is handy to pretend that anomalous shell is an explanation for a number of things (even though according to the experts it is not). Indeed, the defense lawyer seemed to use it that way because it is a handy device for sowing confusion and helping people believe things they want to.
This has nothing to do with my confidence; I'm not making this up. The fact is neither firearms expert found a link between that shell and how the gun operated, and neither mentioned that the gun was open when it should be closed, or vice versa. Before he fired that final shot the slide would have most certainly have been visibly closed.
And the ammo? Well it might have been part of a hangfire. Again, one second between the trigger being pulled and Boushie being killed.
You really do seem to be reaching into the unsubstantiated and the impossible to pretend that Stanley was not lying.
You know what... for some reason I thought pointing out how the slide position related to the gun being loaded was going to be a simple exercise, but evidently even something as straightforward as this can get buried in shit by people who just don't want to see it.
If we want to talk about this more I will discuss it over in the thread about the trial. On that, Paladin was right. Silly me for trying to cover both bases.
If that was the case Magoo, and the gun was somehow not opening and closing properly the experts would have discovered that. Neither did.
The way they discovered the reason for one bulging cartridge?
What was that reason, besides some improbable occurance?
CBC's radio coverage of that town hall included a comment by a rancher from Muscowpetung, who pointed out that response times are worse on First Nations, but "we don't pick up guns and shoot people."
It hasn't been posted online yet.
In the quaint village of Perdue in central Saskatchewan, frustration over break-ins, thefts and property owners having to chase trespassers off their land is growing."We're in the middle of nowhere and we're stuck," grain farmer Greg Pavloff said.
"Cops may be two or three hours away. What are we supposed to do?"
It's well known that we're all entitled to use reasonable force, if someone robs our farm, or breaks into our condo, or repeatedly steals from our food store. Except, from the guy the RCMP sent to speak for them:
"I can't provide an answer to what's reasonable," Sawrenko said."What's reasonable to me isn't reasonable to someone else."
So... take your chances. Take your chances with being assaulted or killed while being robbed, or take your chances that you'll be the defendant.
Should we just divert some funds to the rural policing budget? Make sure that rural residents have the same response as urban residents?
Take your chances with being assaulted or killed while being robbed, or take your chances that you'll be the defendant.
Do you honestly believe that choosing to confront someone breaking into your house doesn't raise your own risk of being seriously injured or killed?
Do you honestly believe that choosing to confront someone breaking into your house doesn't raise your own risk of being seriously injured or killed?
Maybe it does. And certainly choosing to recreationally sky-dive raises my risk of hitting the ground at terminal velocity.
But I'm talking about people taking the risks THEY choose to take, as opposed to the risks some asshole who smashed the lock on their door wants them to take. I don't promise them it'll always turn out better; I just don't know how it's anyone else's place to tell them to hand over the silverware and beg, if necessary.
But I'm talking about people taking the risks THEY choose to take, as opposed to the risks some asshole who smashed the lock on their door wants them to take. I don't promise them it'll always turn out better; I just don't know how it's anyone else's place to tell them to hand over the silverware and beg, if necessary.
For one, the police will generally advise someone in that situation to just hand over your things if someone wants to hurt you to get them. Maybe that has something to do with seeing first hand how easily these situations can get out of control? Certainly if someone breaks into your house and you have a practical means to escape and go to a neighbour's to wait it out, why wouldn't you?
It's interesting you mention people choosing to take risks. I think part of it is tough talk from people who think they would know what to do in a situation who haven't thought it through. It's easy to talk tough about how you would confront a home invader or you would shoot someone who came into your house, but being presented with that actual situation is a different matter entirely.
It's interesting that people have posted stories about people who were hurt by someone who invaded their homes. There are probably also many people who get hurt by choosing to fight back when they didn't have to.
It's interesting that people have posted stories about people who were hurt by someone who invaded their homes. There are probably also many people who get hurt by choosing to fight back when they didn't have to.
If you are able to flee that's great, but if you can't flee you have to decide if the person just wants property or also wants to do you harm. I would assume they want to do me physical harm because the alternative requires me to risk my safety.
It's interesting you mention people choosing to take risks. I think part of it is tough talk from people who think they would know what to do in a situation who haven't thought it through. It's easy to talk tough about how you would confront a home invader or you would shoot someone who came into your house, but being presented with that actual situation is a different matter entirely.
When I'm talking about people choosing to take the risk, I'm not talking about people claiming that they'd take those risks, I'm talking about people actually taking those risks.
It's interesting that people have posted stories about people who were hurt by someone who invaded their homes.
Even more interesting that the police, who we pay to protect them, would say "just give them whatever they demand; do not make them angry".
You seem to be ignoring that at both these town halls the police pointed out that the actual stats don't match the complaints. As the cop said in Biggar, they can't deal with a problem they aren't told about. And odd that they managed to find eight cars to show up at Boushie's mother's place.
So again, while yes, cop resources are stretched, as indeed they are everywhere. I think I said already that I saw a detatchment completely shut down by one DUI on a Saturday night (actually, it was Oakbank detatchment, which includes part of northwest Winnipeg, so this isn't just a rural problem).
Even so, I think there is more than a bit of bullshit of the libertarian gun nut variety going on here. Sorry kids, but I have met quite a few of them. The fact that they managed to bend the ears of Saskatchewan municipalities doesn't change the fact they are a lobby with an ulterior motive, which is that the law should not apply to them. And they are emboldened enough that they aren't afraid to call themselves what they are: Farmers with Firearms. They are confident people are going to fall for their sicko torturer crap.
And even if gun fans here who have fallen for it aren't just talking tough and would be confident pulling a gun on someone who shows up at their place at night in the dark, that still means one outlaw way of doing things for those who can shoot, and another for those who cannot, or aren't interested in taking the risk of killing or being killed themselves.
It also ignores the question of race. That if you happen to be a non-white gun owner like Philando Castile you can be killed at a traffic stop by just doing the right thing and telling a cop you have your legally owned firearm with you in the car. Or that some twitchy white guy is going to assume - again - that they guy walking up the drive to get gas is a sicko torturer, so it is okay to kill him. Or that another known white supremacist can shoot an Indigenous person in the back after he walks into his store and only get manslaughter.
Sorry, but that's real too, as much as people want to pretend it doesn't exist, and pretend it isn't a central part of these gun nuts' thinking. After all, we have cops and councillors saying that they got what they deserved, and he shouldn't have left witnesses. That's how confident they are that they can get away with this.
It seems people are conflating two separate issues, the right to protect property and the right to protect life and limb.
Even when protecting life and limb as I understand the law the potential victim is only entitled to use the amount of force necessary to escape harm, that means if it is possible, run don't fight.
I think anyone who breaks into another person's home should be prepared to die for it just like extreme sports. Do people deserve to die just for stealing? Nope, but if you break into someone's home they won't be handing out a survey to question intentions. Like extreme sports, you take your chances.
Gerald was "lucky" in the sense that he could justify fear based on the movement of the vehicle which justified his getting the gun and there was enough reasonable doubt that the last shot was accidental.
The newer case in which there were no deaths, of the homeowner shooting people rumaging through his car, is very different. I don't see how that homeowner can justify fear for his life or accidental shooting. I can see having sufficient fear to have the gun in hand but not shooting at the people. He should have stayed in his home or barely outside of it and shot in the air. That would likely have scared them into running. The farmer was protecting his property (his car) not his life.
Farmers with Firearms want the second case to be legal which should never happen.
Actually Pondering, the penalty for theft isn't death. In fact we don't have a death penalty in this country. So no, you don't just get to kill people, even for breaking into your home.
And even though some people seem easily bamboozled by the argument, you don't get to kill people just because you live in the country either.
Actually Pondering, the penalty for theft isn't death.
That's correct. If someone steals your laptop, you cannot, four months later, kill them for stealing your laptop.
n fact we don't have a death penalty in this country.
That's correct. Even if somone is convicted of stealing your laptop, the state will not end their life.
So no, you don't just get to kill people, even for breaking into your home.
Unless you fear for your life, and can convince a jury that using lethal force was the only reasonable way, under the circumstances, to ensure your or your family's safety.
As noted so very many times, Smith, people who break into homes are not legally obligated to wear a sign saying "Property invader; you will not be harmed" or "Itchy trigger finger; I'll sure as fuck shoot you for that laptop".
Do you think you could convince home invaders to just be honest, Smith? If criminals were legally obligated to be honest about their intentions, that could be a game-changer!
Well Pondering did say people who commit B&Es should be prepared to die.
I don't, because most of them aren't armed (the last one who tried to get into our place actually left his shoes behind on the porch, I expect when he heard me coming down the stairs).
But I sort of get her point, even if I am not thinking about thieves. I think the more pertinent question is whether those who want to pick up a gun in response are prepared to die, because that is what they are inviting. I don't consider myself a particularly smart person, but I'm not that stupid.
Even when I had my pick of double barreled shotgun, 22 and 30/30 sitting in the closet I would never have been that stupid. Never crossed my mind. It is that stupid.
Actually Pondering, the penalty for theft isn't death. In fact we don't have a death penalty in this country. So no, you don't just get to kill people, even for breaking into your home.
And even though some people seem easily bamboozled by the argument, you don't get to kill people just because you live in the country either.
You didn't read my post because that is what I said. It is not legal to shoot someone because your property is threatened. You can shoot someone if your safety is threatened or you believe it to be so.
If someone breaks into your home the court seems to agree it is valid to fear for your safety or your life.
As far as I know, minimal force must be used and only until the threat is ended.
Farmers with firearms want to be able to defend property with guns and that can never be allowed to happen. Homeowners already have the benefit of the doubt when an intruder breaks into their home. Farmers also seem to want to include their "yards" as being part of their "home" that they should be able to protect. That too cannot be allowed.
Yeah, I read it. In or out of the home is not a distinction that is made in the law. And there seems to be a big blind spot around the fact that this is a question of whether a judge will excuse someone for an act which is very definitely criminal - shooting someone. Presumed self defense is in no way a get out of jail free card.
But again, the bigger concern is not whether the judge will let you off, but whether you will survive.
Yeah, I read it. In or out of the home is not a distinction that is made in the law. And there seems to be a big blind spot around the fact that this is a question of whether a judge will excuse someone for an act which is very definitely criminal - shooting someone. Presumed self defense is in no way a get out of jail free card.
But again, the bigger concern is not whether the judge will let you off, but whether you will survive.
I live in a city. I don't own a gun. Probably nobody in my building owns a gun. City robbers have a low risk of encountering a homeowner with a gun. Most farmers seem to own guns. It's logical to me that they do.
When you break into a home that is occupied it's called a home invasion. If the homeowner can establish that they reasonably feared for their safety of the safety of their family it is legal to shoot the intruder dead.
I would be terrified if I saw a man in the dark in my apartment in the dead of night. I think it is fair for anyone to feel fear for themselves encountering that situation.
You have given accounts proving you don't have to shoot someone which is great but it doesn't nullify all the cases in which homeowners are harmed and even killed by intruders. If there is even a 1% chance the homeowner might be at risk it is valid for them to shoot first ask questions later. The risk belongs 100% to the intruder.
Um. Unless the intruder takes the gun away and kills them.
Oops. Then that gun is no longer such a good idea.
And even without that very possible circumstance do you really want to have something like that on your conscience? Do we really want to follow the example of all those trigger happy cops who shoot everyone who has a knife?
Are you really thinking about what you are recommending here? You are talking about someone (not sure who) dying.
Well Pondering did say people who commit B&Es should be prepared to die.
As should anyone jumping out of an airplane, even with a parachute.
Or someone jogging on the highway, at night, in all black sweats.
I think the more pertinent question is whether those who want to pick up a gun in response are prepared to die, because that is what they are inviting. I don't consider myself a particularly smart person, but I'm not that stupid.
Well, if they do die, are they deserving of our sympathy? After all, they went "full Rambo" on someone when they could have just let them take the silverware.
But similarly, is a shot burglar deserving of our sympathy, when they could have just done without someone else's silverware?
Yes. Either could die. Both are making a choice that could lead to them dying.
But the burglar who knows he just wants silverware and doesn't want to harm anyone is risking his life for forks. The homeowner who hears him bumbling through the kitchen at 3am has no idea what he wants.
And even without that very possible circumstance do you really want to have something like that on your conscience? Do we really want to follow the example of all those trigger happy cops who shoot everyone who has a knife?
Knives are incredibly dangerous. "Just a knife" attitudes get people killed, like this cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpbQSeyX23Q
Reading some of these posts I almost expect someone to suggest it's someones right to rob other people if they live in poverty or have economical problems.
If you play stupid games be prepared to win stupid prizes. Don't rob people and this won't be an issue.
