Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

469 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Were the firearm experts ever able to replicate a shot that produced a bullet with a similar bulge?

Did the firearm experts ever explain why the bullet had that bulge?

6079_Smith_W

No.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

milo204 wrote:

kropotkin: racism?  ok it seems you're obviously just looking to sling mud as opposed to talking normally about this. 

This man pointed a weapon, that he had just loaded, at another human being who was inert in the front of a car. I know many people and I do not know a single person who would point a gun at someone in that situation. I lived for a number of years in the Rocky Mountains and hunting is a large part of both the culture and tourism industry. I can't imagine any of my gun owning friends in their isolated rural home breaking the windshield of a car and kicking out the tail lights and then running to get a hand gun because some drunk teenagers showed up on their property. I mean WTF kind of human being does that to another human being.

So I can either believe that this killer is a homicidal maniac acting with no regard for the lives of other humans or he is a racist asshole who saw a group of "drunk Indians" on his property and reached for a gun like he would to repel any other vermin.  I also lived in Saskatoon for four years and was disgusted at the overt racism displayed against indigenous people. It is no worse than Prince George but there are certain parts of the country that are worse than others and Sask is bad. Racism is a significant part of some Canadians' culture.  

Milo your victim blaming is unintentional racism 101. "Hell what was that black kid doing in a mostly white neighbourhood," is the US response to racist killings. You and Pondering are giving us the Canadian version of the same biased worldview. I don't live in a culture where people reach for their guns to repel burglars and I am glad of it. This farmer committed homicide and you want to blame the dead young man for being drunk and disorderly. Your lack of empathy for the real victim and instead your on going sympathy for the poor hard done by farmer says you have a cultural bias based on race.

Paladin1

Guns misfiring is not a science, to be sure. The US Army recently replaced all their handguns with the Sig Sauer P320 worth $580 million.  They recently discovered if you dropped those brand new pistols while loaded it would misfire. Oops.

I'm not surprised by the gun experts conclusions as it supports what I think happened. Mr Stanely unintentionally pulled the trigger. The defense pulled defense-lawyer magic, befuddeled the issue and got their client off.

 

Yes I'm sure the rifle as badly broken. They were alledgedly using it for target practice from inside the SUV (police found spent shell casings) so the gun WAS working, and then it was apparently broken while attempting to break into a vehicle.  The gun was also present AND loaded in the presence of a robbery.

Whether a gun physically works or not doesn't preclude someone from being charged under the Canadian Firearms act for the various broken laws. 

 

So whats my point?  Gerald Stanley is charged for offenses under the CFA where as the owner of the 22 caliber rifle are not. Is it possible that discrepencies like this contribute to the polarized views and opinions in Sask? Along with the many examples of FN being treatedunfairly and to a seemingly second set of rules?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This article highlights the difference in tone when discussing young people shot in a farming community for drunken joyriding.  Unlike Stanley no one was charged because the shot came from a distance and no one owned up to it. If the weapon had been found and someone charged it would have been manslaughter. Stanley has had many neighbours come to his defence and justify this murder, despite the fact that their was no actual physical endangerment involved, unlike the unanimous condemnation of the Ludwigs's by their local community. The local farm comunity was sympathetic to the young white victim and wanted charges laid for her death despite the drunken reckless driving that might have been endangering the lives of the Ludwig children. Gee what is the difference again?

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2009/06/19/she-did-not-deserve-to-die-...

 

6079_Smith_W

There's no indication of when they were using that rifle for target practice. Or who did, or even if the 22 shells came from the same rifle.

Except that they weren't using it that way when they came in the Stanleys' yard.

At that point it was NOT working; the firearms expert said he had to use a hammer in order to get it to fire.

He also said it was technically still a firearm. Clearly the fact it was not easily functional (you try aiming with no stock and then using a hammer to tap the trigger) put it in a grey area though. That, and the fact it was not used, may have factored into the police decision to not lay a charge.

You know guns better than I do; why are you spinning things that clearly make no sense given what we already know about those weapons?

Webgear

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That pistol has a 13 pound trigger pull, is not prone to misfire, and would have had the slide back if it had been empty, as Stanley claimed. Everything he said about it is suspicious.

I am not inclined to believe that it just went off accidentally.

On some firearm forums, the trigger pressure that hase been noted is less than 8 pounds of pressure for that type of pistol.

This isn't an excuse for what has happened. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

Were the firearm experts ever able to replicate a shot that produced a bullet with a similar bulge?

Did the firearm experts ever explain why the bullet had that bulge?

It shouldn't be surprising if none of the testing of the weapon produced a casing with a similar bulge, particularly if it was caused by the hang-fire that similarly wasn't replicated.  But really, if a golfer claims to have shot a hole-in-one on the sixth hole, going out to the same hole with a bucket of balls and that golfer's driver is unlikely to "replicated" that hole-in-one, not because they don't happen, but because that's pretty much how rare occurrances are.  If we can easily replicate them then they're not rare.

But the casing bulge is measurable, physical evidence.  We can't just dismiss it by saying that Stanley was lying about it, and it's pretty incompatible with any theory that relies on that gun/ammo functioning properly.

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But the casing bulge is measurable, physical evidence.  We can't just dismiss it by saying that Stanley was lying about it, and it's pretty incompatible with any theory that relies on that gun/ammo functioning properly.

Stanley didn't say anything about it. And there is no indication that it means anything at all. No one said that it would have stopped the gun from operating properly , so it actually is compatible. The defense offered some outside theories regarding hangfire, but no one came up with any reason why the gun might have misfired, if in fact it did.

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No.

I think the Crown had the responsibility to bring in a firearms expert to explain the statistical probabilities associated with such a bulge. Without that info it seems to me that the Crown might have been trying to conceal something. On the other hand maybe the Crown failed to deal with the bulge issue because they weren't fully devoted to their case? Maybe the Crown's lawyers were not completely opposed to Stanley being found not-guilty?

In any case, I've been to many places in Saskatchewan and I agree that there is a huge amount of racism against Indigenous people there. You can almost cut it with a knife. Often while standing in line to be seated at a restaurant one can see how people are treated differently. These kind of continuous everyday ongoing "micro-racisms" is very difficult to live with. Even just watching it on a continuous basis is very disturbing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And there is no indication that it means anything at all.

So it's totally normal?  Happens with lots of shots?  JKR asked whether it happened again during numerous test fires.

Quote:
No one said that it would have stopped the gun from operating properly , so it actually is compatible.

Evidently it certainly didn't prevent the gun from continuing to work, seeing as how it was used to try to replicate a hang-fire.

I think the question is "what caused the bulge?".  Surely, the answer to that is not "the gun working properly, since that's what the casings are supposed to look like."

It's not incompatible with the gun ever working properly again.  I'm suggesting it's incompatible with the gun being supposed to have been working properly when that particular shot was fired.  The way a cartridge fits into the barrel of a gun when everything is working properly would make it impossible for a casing to bulge outward unless the first half inch of that barrel also bulged outward.

Quote:
The defense offered some outside theories regarding hangfire, but no one came up with any reason why the gun might have misfired, if in fact it did.

Those theories aren't actually necessary.  We don't need to know why the gun may have discharged incorrectly (age?  neglect?  dodgy ammunition?) -- we only need to know whether it could have.  That bulging casing is physical evidence that it did, unless we consider that sort of thing to be proper functioning.

Is a bulged casing evidence of:

a) a gun operating normally, and firing with the cartridge partially out of the chamber as designed?

b) a gun barrel that could not contain the expanding gases of a discharged round, and allowing those gases to deform a brass cylinder?

c) evidence that something went wrong with that particular round?

6079_Smith_W

Did you read the article at #251?

Seems like we're piling on questions for which there are no clear answers, but which don't really have any bearing on the central points.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Did you read the article at #251?

Yes.  They hit golf ball after golf ball, but couldn't replicate the supposed "hole-in-one".

Quote:
Seems like we're piling on questions for which there are no clear answers, but which don't really have any bearing on the central points.

Except that the question of why one of three cartridges would have a measurable bulge has a lot of bearing on one of the central points, namely, "was the gun functioning normally?"

I don't place any stock in the fact that it wasn't replicated.  I again suggest that that is pretty much the definition of a rare event.

But when a gun that is alleged to have hang-fired (a rare event) also discharged a cartridge bulged past what the chamber of a properly functioning gun loaded with a properly functioning round would allow (also a rare event) it's hard not to think that maybe the two were somehow related.  Maybe you're got some other theories, but I'm not shocked if a jury thinks maybe that bloated brass cartridge had something to do with the "hang-fire" that you think Stanley was just lying about.

And if the Crown made no effort to explain it as perfectly normal, and nothing to do with malfunction (nevermind not replicating it) then they left plenty of reasonable doubt, which the jury is literally expected to consider. 

Why did that one casing bulge?  I don't expect you to have the definitive answer, but if you can't say any more than "Who knows; God works in mysterious ways" then what's the surprise here?

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And if the Crown made no effort to explain it as perfectly normal, and nothing to do with malfunction (nevermind not replicating it) then they left plenty of reasonable doubt, which the jury is literally expected to consider. 

I agree. The jury must give the benefit of the doubt to the defence, not the Crown. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 

This man pointed a weapon, that he had just loaded, at another human being who was inert in the front of a car.  

I don't believe he did that. I believe he was trying to reach into the car to turn off the ignition using his left arm which would be very awkward because he had the gun in his right hand. The gun went for whatever reason and hit Boushie. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 I can't imagine any of my gun owning friends in their isolated rural home breaking the windshield of a car and kicking out the tail lights and then running to get a hand gun because some drunk teenagers showed up on their property. I mean WTF kind of human being does that to another human being. 

The kind that owns multiple guns on a farm and keeps them around for protection. The kind that wants to arrest the men that tried to rob them. Colton Boushie was 22, Belinda Jackson 24, Cassidy Cross-Whitstone 18, Eric Meechance 23, I didn't find Kiora Wuttunee's age. 

kropotkin wrote:
This farmer committed homicide and you want to blame the dead young man for being drunk and disorderly.  

No. I don't believe he intended to kill Colton. I am not blaming Colton for his own death but he is not some drunk and disorderly teenager. He was a grown man driving around with another grown man with a loaded gun and they were drunk. They were obviously there to steal a vehicle. I don't know anyone who would drive around on a rim like that do you?

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 Your lack of empathy for the real victim and instead your on going sympathy for the poor hard done by farmer says you have a cultural bias based on race.

I don't recall showing the Stanleys any sympathy and I do recall saying that the conditions Boushie was living under are a direct result of racism and the destruction of entire communities by the residential schools and by continued seizing of indigenous children and removing them from what is left of their community.

Colton Boushie did not "deserve" to die but there is plenty of responsibility to go around. His "friends" drove him there while he was asleep. After the windshield was smashed they jumped out of the car (including the driver) and ran leaving the two women and Boushie behind in the vehicle. Boushie then went from the passenger seat to the drivers seat, the side he fell out of, so he must have made it into the seat but not yet hit the gas. He had the broken but still loaded gun in his lap. 

I'm guessing all farmers have guns and that hunting guns are very common with non-farmers too. Gerald Stanley may not have seen a gun but he would have been stupid not to consider that one might be in the vehicle. 

Gerald Stanley had no business confronting the men. He should have shouted for his wife to get inside and gone inside himself with his son. I would not have blamed him if he got a gun and stood at the door to let them see it while shouting at them to get off his property. 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I'm troubled by the blindness on display regarding your approach of scrutinizing Boushie's friends while believing that, the gun accidentally went off even though several firearms experts said no, it didn't.

I am giving the 5 the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe they intended to run anyone down with the SUV. 

The .22-calibre rifle, which belonged to Cross-Whitstone, was found near Boushie's body. It was bent out of shape and contained five bullets in the magazine and one in the chamber.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boush...

Even though the five were driving around with a  gun loaded with a bullet in the chamber and 5 spares I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe the five really intended to murder people even though they went swimming and drinking with a loaded gun in the daytime. I also don't believe Stanley intended to murder anyone. 

I don't know about guns. "accidentally" includes accidentally pulling the trigger, a hangfire, or the other thing that was mentioned. I just don't believe that Gerald Stanley intended to murder Boushie for trying to steal.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 The real question is does any of that justify shooting someone in the back of the head.

I think if he intended to kill one of them he would have intended to kill them all so his gun would have been fully loaded and he wouldn't have wasted any bullets or even gotten that close to the SUV before pulling the trigger. 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There's no indication of when they were using that rifle for target practice. Or who did, or even if the 22 shells came from the same rifle.

I recall reading they said they were using the rifle to for target practice from the vehicle (another law broken) earlier in the day.

Quote:
Except that they weren't using it that way when they came in the Stanleys' yard.

Were they aware the gun was no longer functioning? If they were using it for target practice earlier in the day (I can try and find the source if you wish) and then the gun was broken and damaged while using it to break into a vehicle, it's reasonable to think they would assume the gun still would shoot if they pulled the trigger.

Quote:
He also said it was technically still a firearm. Clearly the fact it was not easily functional (you try aiming with no stock and then using a hammer to tap the trigger) put it in a grey area though. That, and the fact it was not used, may have factored into the police decision to not lay a charge.

It could be.

Quote:
You know guns better than I do; why are you spinning things that clearly make no sense given what we already know about those weapons?

I'm not spinning anything. I've stated my personal opinion is that he likely should be guilty of manslaughter and I don't buy the hangfire defense. I don't think I'm wrong about the pistol or rifle.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Clearly the fact it was not easily functional (you try aiming with no stock and then using a hammer to tap the trigger) put it in a grey area though. That, and the fact it was not used, may have factored into the police decision to not lay a charge.

Here's an easy test for the harmlessness of it: give it to some 16 year old to take to school to show off in the cafeteria.  If it's useless, that should not be a problem for anyone any more than a gun-shaped candle would be.

6079_Smith_W

That's absurd, Magoo. Just because the cops decided to not lay a charge doesn't mean you can legally walk into a school with it. The test of how well it worked was explained by the firearms witness. The rules about what you can bring into a school, and what goes into  police decision to lay a charge are two completely different things.

Whatever caused the cartridge to bulge didn't stop the gun from firing. The expert said that it would have happened at the time the gun fired, and that if anything it might mean the bullet going out with less force. But it had no bearing on misfiring, or any hangfire (which in any case would only have been a second) .

It still doesn't explain how Stanley claimed he thought the gun was empty when the slide position made that impossible.

And Paladin, whether you are reading things into their intent that isn't borne out by testimony - no one picked up that gun - they had broken it, so clearly they were not firing shots when they came into Stanley's yard. It was sitting between  Boushie's knees with the barrel pointed up, and no one noticed it until after he had been killed. Also, it looks like the trigger guard was broken off, so either they realized it wasn't working, or they were really taking their lives in their hands.

If you want to petition the RCMP and demand charges, fine. I can see why they might have let that one pass, considering all they really had was a broken gun that had no connection to the case.

Pondering

I read witnesses were given immunity in exchange for testimony. Everyone agrees the gun was broken, it couldn't be used, the Stanley's didn't know it was there until he fell out of the truck. We know the gun was loaded and was broken when trying to break into another vehicle. I'm pretty sure that was enough to lay a firearms charge. 

The jury had to decide if Gerald Stanley's explanation was possible not probable. They had to be certain beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

A civil lawsuit is decided on balance of probabilities. The Stanleys have a cattle farm. I hope Colton's mother sues. It won't bring Colton back but it could help the family heal.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Just because the cops decided to not lay a charge doesn't mean you can legally walk into a school with it. The test of how well it worked was explained by the firearms witness. The rules about what you can bring into a school, and what goes into  police decision to lay a charge are two completely different things.

Okay.  I guess I just thought that if a gun couldn't be fired, there would be no reason to worry about it.

Quote:
Whatever caused the cartridge to bulge didn't stop the gun from firing.

Unless that particular round also deformed the chamber, or the firing mechanism, why should it.

But why did one round deform like that?  Some might imagine a hang-fire, or other malfunction.  But what say you?

Quote:
But it had no bearing on misfiring

So... normal firing?  That's why deformed shell casings are so common?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fucking racist assholes everywhere. 

Bacchus

Nothing like personal attacks to spice up a discussion

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Are you referring to me, kropotkin1951?

Because 6079_Smith_W assured me we were free to talk about brass shell casings without being called racist for it.

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But what say you?

What are you asking me for?

Williams said nothing about it damaging the gun. He said he wasn't able to make it misfire, and had no idea what would make it do that. He didn't say anything about that deformation having any bearing on the firing of the gun, only that it happened at the time the gun fired.

So maybe you see something in there that has some relevance to the killing. I don't. But I sure see some people focusing on these things that might be interesting and mysterious, but according to the expert don't have any bearing on what happened.

The most the defense tried to make of it was that is was responsible for an alleged rare hangfire. Which means what? Stanley points the gun at Boushie's head and pulls the trigger and it goes off a second or two later?

Somehow I don't see that as being appreciably different.

Except he claims he though the gun was empty, even though it was very obviously not.

Might seem contradictory, until you realize that it's just a grab bag for the jury to prop up the belief that it was an accident, despite him pointing the gun at his head, seeing it was loaded, and pulling the trigger. So either rare accident works. Doesn't matter that they are contradictory and neither makes sense.

(edit)

cross posted.

Oh I didn't promise not to call anything racist. I think this thread is dripping with it. I think most of the assumptions being made here are racist, I think the fact this tragedy has been reduced to a game and we aren't even talking about systemic racism reflects our racism,  and I think the fact the jury jumped on these ridiculous excuses comes down to racism too.

But nobody is stopping you from talking Magoo. Maybe kropotkin should have the same privilege. Besides, I thought you said you weren't asking for a racism safe space.

 

 

 

 

 

Bacchus

So personal attacks are allowed now? Awesome

6079_Smith_W

Don't chomp at the bit quite so enthusiastically. He didn't call you personally a racist.

But you know what, I get that he's frustrated. I don't like what is going on here either. I don't like the racist attitudes. I don't like that someone's murder is being treated like a game. I  don't like the needling and passive aggression. And I especially don't like that Indigenous concerns can't even get on the table in the thread that is supposed to be dedicated to them.

This is a complete shame and waste of time.

 

 

Bacchus

I'm pretty sure anyone who is no enthsiastically embracing his view is who is being called a racist just like you are doing though you couch it as racist attitudes instead of just saying we are all racists

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What are you asking me for?

Why you think that one casing deformed.

And whether you think maybe it means that gun was functioning normally.  Which, I guess, would imply thinking that normally functioning guns normally eject deformed shells, and that's just normal.

Quote:
He didn't call you personally a racist.

I don't like the racist attitudes.

Who's the racist?  Whose attitude is racist?

Quote:
And I especially don't like that Indigenous concerns can't even get on the table in the thread that is supposed to be dedicated to them.

Which is exactly why I absentmindedly pondered the merits of a "Law and Justice" forum where those who wanted to ask why the shell casing got deformed could do so, and you wouldn't have to suffer that kind of "racism".

But to borrow from your own playbook, do you feel like you're being prevented from discussing what you want to discuss?