Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

Also an important letter to read:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155533122490910&set=a.10151610...

Important perspective:

I spoke briefly to his uncle Alvin Baptiste and he told me that the case has been very difficult for his sister Debbie Baptiste, who is also the mother of the deceased. “She has to leave when they show pictures or refer to him in the testimony,” he told me.

He also told me that his mother refuses to attend and hear her grandson’s name over and over again and to see pictures of his deceased body entered as evidence.

One of the witnesses, Eric Meechance, was asked to identify a rifle that was allegedly in their possession. He was shown a picture of the rifle beside the body of the deceased. He asked why they showed him that picture and he broke down. He had been shown a picture of his dead friend, and that was a cultural taboo.

http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/cuthand-first-nations-tradi...

Honest question.  How is the Crown supposed to prosecute a murder trial, and defence to defend against it, consistent with cultural traditions?  Does that apply only to certain cultures?

Not guilty. Fuck.

Unfortunately not much has changed:

They really should start spelling that province's name with 3 ks, not one.

What are you talking about? Stanley is the kind of person people see as a salt-of-the-earth-regular-hard-working-farmer kind of guy and I think that's what played a role in his acquital. The picture of Cormier that the press has used in the Tina Fontaine case is not particularly flattering, he seems to come across as a "loser," and for that reason I expect he will be convicted of at least something.

And yes, I agree that racism is a problem in Winnipeg as well. It's one of the reasons that Kevin Chief lost the federal by-election to replace Judy Wasylicia-Leis.

Posted yesterday by Senator Murray Sinclair on his Facebook page:

This very well written summary came across my Facebook feed. I think it is clear that the jury did not understand what the term reasonable means in the term, beyond a reasonable doubt. This is merely the same settler justice that has prevailed since the days of Almighty Voice.

From Patti LaBoucane’s post:

Let’s be really REALLY clear. 
1. Colten was unarmed. 
2. The defence DID NOT CLAIM self defence. Self defence is not at play here. 
3. Stanley shot Colten at close range in the back of the head. 
4. This case has nothing to do with whether anyone in the SUV had addictions issues. Mental health challenges are not a reason to be shot. 
For anyone labouring under the lies being told, Rob Fiest has laid out the cases as clearly as possible. Here is his post:

As I have been asked by a couple people, I wanted to provide a few thoughts on the evidence at the Gerald Stanley trial. I have kept on top of the trial, as it is of historic importance to our community; have followed the evidence closely in person, in media, and on Twitter; and attended to watch summations of the Crown and Defence cases this morning.

Before talking about the key issues, it is worth talking about what the key issues aren't.

First, there is no debate about basic who, what, when, and where questions. Gerald Stanley held the gun that discharged and killed Colten Boushie and the resultant injury was the cause of death. No debate there was a homicide or that Gerald Stanley caused that homicide. All of that is admitted.

Second, the case is not about self-defence. All the internet yapping about “castle law” and “property rights” came to nothing at trial, and Mr. Stanley did not make a self-defence argument - because the Defence lawyer, knowing his job, knew that Gerald Stanley was not under threat when the gun was fired. In Canadian law, lethal force in self-defence is only justified in the face of threat of serious injury or death to you or another person. That threat did not exist in this case, and, wisely, the Defence did not grasp at that straw. This case changes nothing about the right to self-defence, and those nonsense arguments should stop.

The issue the jury is forced to decide on - the defence put to the jury - is limited only to the defence of accident. And here is where the evidence put forward by Gerald Stanley is exceptionally interesting.

To set the scene (and you will likely know much of this, so skip this paragraph if you like) on the day in question, an SUV carrying Colten Boushie and four other young people came on to the Stanley farm, and was located at various points on the Stanley driveway. Gerald Stanley and his son Sheldon formed the opinion that the young people had come to the farm to steal, and Mr. Stanley and Sheldon Stanley decided to give some form of chase or response. Sheldon ran toward the vehicle and smashed the windshield with a hammer he was carrying. Mr. Stanley kicked out the tail light. After the windshield was smashed, the vehicle carrying Boushie took a hard turn into an SUV owned by the Stanleys, and the Stanleys felt the crash was deliberate and potentially a run at Sheldon. Gerald Stanley ran back to his shed and got a Tokarev pistol. Sheldon went to the house, where there were several other firearms. One of the witnesses in the vehicle claimed that Gerald yelled at Sheldon to go to the house to get a firearm, but Sheldon’s evidence was that he went to the house to retrieve his keys. At that point, Boushie’s vehicle appeared to have been immobilized in the Stanleys’ driveway, and two male occupants exited the vehicle. Two female occupants and Boushie, who was likely passed out or asleep, stayed inside.

Now, here is the crux of Mr. Stanley’s evidence on his defence of accident - and where Mr. Stanley’s evidence becomes truly amazing.

Stanley claimed while in the shed, he loaded the Tokarev with three shells. He claimed he thought he loaded two, but later realized there were three - the same number the RCMP found had been discharged.

Stanley then claimed he pointed the semi-automatic Tokarev up in the air, and began pulling the trigger, to fire “warning shots”. He claimed he fired two warning shots, and after that believed the firearm was empty. After the shots were fired, the two males who exited the vehicle ran from the scene, leaving only Boushie and two female occupants in the vehicle.

Gerald Stanley then claimed, even though he believed he had only put two rounds in the Tokarev, that he pulled the trigger several more times after the warning shots to make the firearm safe, and nothing happened. He then claimed he opened the slide and removed the magazine, also to ensure the firearm was made safe.

Gerald Stanley then claimed he saw the riding lawnmower his wife had been driving parked on the lawn, with his wife no longer driving, and somehow formed the belief that she may have been run over by the vehicle containing Boushie.

Gerald Stanley then claimed he ran to the Boushie vehicle, and wanted to look underneath it to ensure his wife was not there. He claimed as he was going to look under the vehicle, the vehicle revved its engine, and he decided he needed to turn the vehicle off.

Gerald Stanley then claimed, holding the Tokarev in his right hand, he reached through the Boushie SUV’s driver side window with his left hand to try to turn off the ignition. (I encourage you to actually try this, on a vehicle, and think about why you would use your left hand to turn off a vehicle as opposed to switching hands and putting the firearm in your left. Motion it out. Using your left hand makes no sense, and is incredibly awkward.)

Gerald Stanley then claimed that, as he was trying to turn the ignition off, the Tokarev was in his right hand pointed at Colten Boushie’s skull. And Stanley claimed at that moment, a hang-fire occurred - there was still a shell in the Chamber, and the firearm discharged spontaneously without a trigger pull, killing Colten. Despite the fact Stanley had opened the action, pulled the magazine out, and repeatedly dry-fired it. And despite the fact hang-fires are extremely rare, and normally last less than half-a-second.

Gerald Stanley’s defence is the defence of accident. If you believe it, his defence explains all of the physical evidence, and most particularly a Tokarev casing found on the SUV dash and Colten’s DNA found on the Tokarev itself. But to believe it completely, you have to accept the following:

A. Gerald Stanley did not know how many rounds he put into the Tokarev;

B. Gerald Stanley, who believed he or his family were under threat, loaded his firearm with two shells, and then fired both shells in the air, leaving his firearm empty and useless for self-defence;

C. Gerald Stanley tried to make the Tokarev safe by repeatedly pulling its trigger into the air;

D. Gerald Stanley took the time, in this situation, to make the Tokarev safe before proceeding to the vehicle he believed had run over his wife;

E. Gerald Stanley believed the Boushie SUV had run over his wife, even though there was no explanation for his belief, other than his wife not being on the lawnmower;

F. Gerald Stanley went to the window of the vehicle to turn the vehicle off to immobilize it, even though the driver had exited the vehicle, and Colten Boushie, the person nearest the steering wheel, was asleep or passed out;

G. Gerald Stanley used his left hand to attempt to turn off the vehicle ignition, keeping the firearm in his right hand, even though he claimed the firearm was made safe, and using your left hand through a driver’s side window to turn off an ignition is incredibly awkward; and

H. Gerald Stanley experienced a hang-fire - an extremely rare occurrence in itself - with a duration of many seconds - an almost impossible length of time for a hang-fire - at the precise second his Tokarev was aimed at close range at Colten Boushie’s skull.

Points A, C, D, E, and F make Mr. Stanley’s story hard to believe. Points B and G simply make no logical sense whatsoever. Point H is beyond reason, and is a submission somewhere along the lines of the magic bullet that shot JFK. While the story raised by Mr. Stanley is not impossible - in the way that suggesting Colten Boushie having died of a heart attack ten seconds before he was shot is not, by way of example, impossible - in my opinion, it is an extreme stretch to suggest that a story of this level of credibility should raise a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Stanley’s intentions.

This is, from what I have reviewed, a fair synopsis of Mr. Stanley’s evidence that the homicide of Colten Boushie was accidental. If you read it, and catch any errors, feel free to point them out, and I may revise. I have included a link to the CBC synopsis below.

I am not sharing this information to tell you that Mr. Stanley is guilty - whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is for the jury to decide. Rather, I hope it assists folks in understanding what the trial has been about, what it is clearly not about, and the extremely specific chain of unlikely events the jury will have to believe occurred to accept Mr. Stanley’s incredible version of events.

Lawyers warn of political commentary on verdicts after Stanley acquittal

Sorry if it's "too soon" or whatever, but they're kind of right.  When politicians act as though the jury got it wrong and should have thought otherwise, it both puts the judicial branch on the spot for "having failed", and ironically exonerates the Crown for having failed.

This is not to say that 99.99% of the population cannot or should not believe that Stanley is guilty.  Just that there's a problem when high-ranking politicians (basically the right and left bower, to borrow euchre terms) make it clear that the jury did not come to the conclusion that they were supposed to and Canada is officially disappointed in them.

Except they didn't say the jury got it wrong. They said nothing at all about the verdict.

Every recommendation I have heard  has been about the government reconsidering preemptive challenges for juries because of the underrepresentation of Indigenous people. That is a fair concern that has nothing to do with the specifics of this trial.

As for Justin Trudeau expressing sympathy for the family, it is better than our premier warning people that they should watch their mouths and not do anything rash.

Well as it says in that FB link up at #14, this might be a good time to write letters to the Justice Department, and your MPs.

I don't know if this has already been addressed here but it was mentioned on Cross Canada CheckUp today that several Indigenous People were called for jury duty but none actually ended up on the jury. Is that correct?

You highlighted what I have said. Self-defense within reason. This was within reason?

What the hell was his defense? What else could it have been (besides blatant racism) And racism is the reason Stanley walked away from this.

 Maybe Stanley is a 'White nationalist' maybe not but he sure is racist

And I think that applies to the jury. That's the gist of what happened from what I read. You want to explain Stanley's defense in court?

Apparently I'm wrong. But I can't think of another defense one would choose when gunning down someone besides self defense. That gun didn't accidentally kill Boushie,there's just too much accuracy and precision.

Even if the defense was that it was áccidental',it was accidental because he was defending himself with a gun. Why would anyone run out with a gun when some people were on his land? The defense would have to be self defense or protecting his land which is a form of self defending. But what do I know?

Whatever.

Thanks Smith.

I know the lawyers were just doing their job to get their client off but something is dreadfully wrong with our legal system that allows all Indigenous people to be scratched from the jury like that. 

And I guess what I want to say to Trudeau is to stop trying to make himself look good by nattering on about Duterte, and clean up the human rights atrocities in Canada's own back yard. And while we are on the topic of the Philippines why is Canada not bringing back Canada's garbage that has been sitting, waiting for years in Manila because the Filipinos don't want Canada's garbage? Who knew!  

Smithee wrote:

 truly hope that this case is going to be appealed

Doesn't the so-called Morgentaler Amendment(not sure of the actual name of the law) prevent a not-guitly verdict from being appealed?

Did the Crown reject anyone?  Angry white farmers, for example?

This has been a part of our system since forever.  It's only a problem NOW?

And how should we fix it?

a) no more rejected jurors.  The first 12 chosen by lottery are the jury, no exceptions.

b) only the defense can reject (up to a maximum).

c) only the Crown can reject (up to a maximum).

d) either side may reject, but they must submit an essay for each rejected juror, 4-6 pages double spaced, explaining why they were rejected.  An independent panel of 12 randomly chosen Canadians will review each essay and provide a judgement within six months.

Here's something to consider:  the right to be tried "by a jury of your peers" does not specifically mean you have a right to be tried by a jury of people who look like you, go to the same church as you, or believe as you do.  But whatever else it does mean applies solely to the defendant and never the Crown.

Funny thing that the redneck crowd overlooked is that Stanley also lied about the gun going off accidentally. Why the double standard? Why were lies told by Boushie's friends enough to discredit the Crown's case but the lie about the gun going off by accident not enough to discredit Stanley?

Because his story, true or not, basically hasn’t changed and the presence of a rifle led credence to his claim of fear. And before you jump on me for the weaknesses in his defence (which I agree with) all his lawyer needed to do was put some doubt in the juries mind and tadaa you have ‘reasonable doubt’

Yes. If there was something done wrong (for example, the judge's instruction to the jury) that is grounds for an appeal. If that were not so there would probably be no appeals.

Unfortunately the crown and defense already agreed on some pretty bizarre things, like that it was okay for Stanley fire those first two shots, even though some witnesses said they heard them flying and ricocheting.

And "peers" just means people. News flash: Indigenous people are people, even if some don't think so. Last time I was called up one of the wealthiest business guys in the room, who tried to beg off because he was so important wound up on the jury trying someone who at the opposite end of the economic and cultural spectrum. He was still qualified to sit on that jury.

I think the jury was waiting for any shred that would give them a way to let the white guy off, even a series of obvious lies like his wife being under a car, an extra bullet he didn't know about while he happened to be pointing the gun at the back of his head, and it magically going off even though the trigger requires a 13 pound pull.

The defense lawyer gave that to them,  so of course they did it. No mystery there.

I just checked on YouTube for examples of hangfires. This guy almost shoots himself in the head. Luckily only his hat is injured:

https://youtu.be/Za2ezCNvBeU

It's not a handgun but it does take longer than 0.58 seconds. I guess it is more likely to happen with old ammunition.

And here's the paradox that underpins the recent interest in jury composition and peremptory challenges.

If we believe that any juror is equal to any other (and all I mean is that if we believe within reason that any juror, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity or class can follow instruction, act in good faith, and deliver a fair and just verdict based on evidence) then we could do as some U.S. states, and the UK have done and abolish peremptory challenges.  But if we believe that, then we should also believe that peremptory challenges serve no purpose but also do no harm.  A waste of time and resources at worst.

In other words, if we're ready to get rid of peremptory challenges because we believe that any juror is a fair juror and  neither the Crown nor the defense should "hand pick" the jury then we should also have no problem with an all white jury, all female jury, all septuagenarian jury or whatever. 

As soon as either side "rejects" someone potentially based on sex, age, ethnicity or class (or for that matter, life experience -- if you're defending an accused carjacker, you probably don't want 6 people on the jury who've been carjacked) we can only assume that it's because that person is perceived as potentially being biased -- for or against the defendant -- at which point excluding them from the jury pool seems much less unreasonable.

Would six Aboriginal jurors have had a better technical insight into "hang-firing"?  Is that why the jury should have been one half Aboriginal?  Or do we think those jurors' life experiences have given them special insight into what racist farmers are "really like" and would have no patience for the legal mumbo-jumbo? 

To put the question even more simply, should the jury have been half Aboriginal on the belief that those jurors would be more likely to convict than the six non-Aboriginals they got instead?  If so then that's still hand-picking a jury to produce a desired outcome, and if not that then what, specificially??

No.  But Court of Appeal can apply what is called the "curative proviso" to leave the verdict intact despite legal errors.  Or, order a new trial.  The only difference between appealing not-guilty v guilty verdict is that higher court may no longer substitute a conviction in the former case.