Author Topic: An activist PM and government (Read 3328 times)

Goddess · « **Reply #90 on:** February 13, 2018, 05:42:16 pm »

Quote from: ?Impact on February 13, 2018, 05:13:27 pm

I suspect most jurors were excused with little asked, that is one of the differences between American and Canadian jury selection.

I meant the ones who were chosen were likely asked if they were able to be impartial. The ones who asked to be excused likely were not asked that. People usually cite work or health to get out of jury duty and I doubt the questions go beyond that.

SirJohn · « **Reply #91 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:01:20 pm »

Quote from: cybercoma on February 13, 2018, 05:09:31 pm

You continue to illustrate how you give the benefit of the doubt to white people against the backdrop of how you’re quick to assume the worst when it comes to people of colour. You’re only proving my point about your racist orientation.

I give the benefit of a doubt where there IS one. Regardless of race. You patronize non-whites because you think they're not good enough to reach our standards.

cybercoma · « **Reply #92 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:27:39 pm »

Your own words defy you.

kimmy · « **Reply #93 on:** February 13, 2018, 08:15:26 pm »

Quote from: Goddess on February 13, 2018, 03:53:43 pm

If a carload of drunken people pulled into any one's yard out here, got out and tried to steal a quad, rammed other parked vehicles like these ones did, (Stanley said he thought they had pinned his wife while ramming her vehicle)......I'm not sure the outcome would have been much different. And it wouldn't have been about race - it wouldn't matter what race they were.

In cases of home invasion, I think it's common for juries to side with the homeowner because they can imagine it happening to themselves.

These young people made a series of very poor choices that day. Did the man deserve to die because of it? No, but how was Stanley to know what they were or were not about to do?

I really agree with this post. If a group of people invade my home, I am not waiting to find out whether they're just hear to steal and break my stuff or if they intend to hurt me as well. My own safety requires I expect that they may well intend to cause me harm, and I will react accordingly.

-k

Peter F · « **Reply #94 on:** February 13, 2018, 08:33:08 pm »

I see the point but disagree. The defendant claimed the gun went off accidentally. He did not have the intent to shoot the guy. So that would mean that he did not feel his life was in immediate danger. It also means that he had no intention of using the weapon on the victim to defend his property either. That is if one believes the testimony of the accused and I can think of no reason to doubt it.
I think I understand that Kimmy would perhaps behave differently in similar circumstance. i suspect the jury didn't even want to convict him for manslaughter considering the circumstance's recounted to them.
Juries are good things even when they return results that seem bizarre.

Queefer Sutherland · « **Reply #95 on:** February 13, 2018, 08:42:02 pm »

Quote from: JMT on February 12, 2018, 08:20:48 pm

He's spent a lot of money on clean water. That's certainly a start.

I know he promised it, if true then kudos to him. Have a link?

Omni · « **Reply #96 on:** February 13, 2018, 08:59:29 pm »

Quote from: Goddess on February 13, 2018, 03:53:43 pm

Having spent 40 years of my life in Saskatchewan, this trial shone a spotlight on race relations in that province. There's always been problems and this is nothing new there. It's been going on a long time.

I'm disappointed but not surprised at Trudeau's remarks on the case.

Bouchie's cousin is charging that indigenous people were purposefully left out of the jury pool. I do hope they will look a little deeper into that claim. That being said, an awful lot of people do not show up for jury duty - of both races. Those who do generally want to be excluded for one reason or another. I imagine the jury selection was more than just a few questions asked. I imagine they would have asked everyone if they felt they could render an impartial verdict. Some whites may have said no. Some indigenous people may have said no.

This case hit home for us - we live in a cluster of acreages, quite a ways off of a minor highway, and close to a reserve. Our area has had carloads of drunken indigenous kids just like these ones, come through often enough, ringing doorbells to see who is home and stealing anything not nailed down. We are at least a half hour away from any RCMP detachment. If a carload of drunken people pulled into any one's yard out here, got out and tried to steal a quad, rammed other parked vehicles like these ones did, (Stanley said he thought they had pinned his wife while ramming her vehicle)......I'm not sure the outcome would have been much different. And it wouldn't have been about race - it wouldn't matter what race they were.

In cases of home invasion, I think it's common for juries to side with the homeowner because they can imagine it happening to themselves.

These young people made a series of very poor choices that day. Did the man deserve to die because of it? No, but how was Stanley to know what they were or were not about to do? Perhaps his reaction was based on a carload of drunken people coming onto to his property and threatening his family, or perhaps he was more frightened because they were indigenous. I don't think Stanley woke up that morning, hoping to shoot an Native. He doesn't seem like the kind of person who dreamed of the day he could shoot one and get off scot-free. I wonder if there was a part of the trial where they explored his feelings towards Natives? And what came out of that?

I hear a lot of what you're saying here as I've had some experience with similar. One thing that comes to mind is recollections of when I first moved west and ended up living in working in a northern BC community. The local hotel bar which was basically the only one in town, consisted of two large rooms which referred to as the "White side" and the "Indian side", and it wasn't hard to see why once you entered the main door. Fights used to break out in the parking lot on a fairly regular basis. You get the picture. At the same time I was working as a contractor in support of a very busy/successful company that did seismic exploration in the nearby forests. There staff was pretty close to 50/50 white and native. They worked very well together and also got along well during their off hours. I met with the owner of the company on a regular basis and asked him one time how he had come to develop this blend of staff and he replied that he felt a need to include people who lived on the land since most of the others were folks flying in for a summer job. Sounds simple enough I guess but it certainly worked well for him. The contrast between what I experienced during the day at work, compared with going for a beer at night were stark. I wonder if there would be a way to apply the same type formula in farming country?

Goddess · « **Reply #97 on:** February 14, 2018, 09:56:11 am »

The ones that were with Bouchie in the van lied to the police about many things, too. I think that llikely didn't sit well with the jury.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

Quote

Cross-Whitstone didn't know it, but Gerald was also a part-time mechanic, fixing up the vehicles of people who live in the area and even people coming off the road.

Gerald and Sheldon both saw someone from the SUV go into a gold Ford truck parked in the yard by a customer.

"We didn't really think anything of it," recalled Sheldon, thinking it was one of his father's customers.

Both Stanleys saw the SUV make its way toward the shop and someone get out and climb aboard an ATV. Sheldon Stanley hollered at the person.

Meechance said he tried to start the ATV, but denied trying to steal it when cross-examined by Gerald Stanley's lawyer, Scott Spencer.

Boushie remained in the back of the SUV along with Wuttunee and Jackson, according to Whitstone.

"As soon as we heard the quad start, I started running," Sheldon Stanley testified in court.

Gerald Stanley testified that he kicked the tail light because he thought the SUV was headed for his son, while Sheldon admitted smashing the front windshield of the vehicle with a hammer.

Sheldon Stanley said a few minutes after the third shot was fired, Wuttunee and Jackson opened the driver's side door and Boushie tumbled out, a .22-calibre rifle (missing the stock) lying between his legs.

Sheldon Stanley said Wuttunee and Jackson then attacked his mother Leesa, who had been mowing grass on the property and went to the Boushie SUV after it settled near the farmhouse.

"I punched her," said Jackson.

Jackson told a different story. She said she heard Gerald Stanley tell his son to "go get a gun." She said Gerald Stanley retrieved a gun from the shop and she saw him shoot Boushie twice in the head. (An autopsy only found one bullet entry hole.)
Before that last shot, according to Jackson, Meechance and Cross-Whitstone had fled the car while Boushie was in the front passenger's seat.

Both Meechance and Cross-Whitstone said they fled down the farm's driveway, and both said they heard bullets whizzing in their direction.

Quote

Feeling "stressed," Stanley told the court he fired two warning shots in the air and kept pulling the trigger to make sure the gun was rid of bullets.

"In my mind it was empty," he said.

He then saw the lawnmower his wife had been riding and felt "pure terror."

lawnmower near SUV
Gerald Stanley testified that he thought the SUV had run over his wife, who had been mowing the lawn. (RCMP)

"I thought the [SUV] had run over my wife," he said.

Goddess · « **Reply #98 on:** February 14, 2018, 10:14:58 am »

I know from my time in Sask too, that the fact that indigenous people are required by law to receive lenient sentences - is getting to be a real problem. These ones knew that they would have been given a slap on the wrist, if anything at all, for stealing vehicles, drunk driving, having a shotgun in their car, punching Stanley's wife and ramming and damaging property.

cybercoma · « **Reply #99 on:** February 14, 2018, 10:45:23 am »

Quote from: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 10:14:58 am

I know from my time in Sask too, that the fact that indigenous people are required by law to receive lenient sentences - is getting to be a real problem.

Do you have a link to the code that says this?

waldo · « **Reply #100 on:** February 14, 2018, 10:55:09 am »

Quote from: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 10:14:58 am

I know from my time in Sask too, that the fact that indigenous people are required by law to receive lenient sentences - is getting to be a real problem.

no - across Canada where 'Gladue Courts' exist, it's a guiding principle... does not allow a court the liberty to impose a sentence outside the range of legally available penalties: 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code:

Quote

all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

Gladue Practices in the Provinces and Territories --- http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr12_11/p2.html

Goddess · « **Reply #101 on:** February 14, 2018, 11:13:46 am »

Quote from: waldo on February 14, 2018, 10:55:09 am

no - across Canada where 'Gladue Courts' exist, it's a guiding principle... does not allow a court the liberty to impose a sentence outside the range of legally available penalties: 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code:

Gladue Practices in the Provinces and Territories --- http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr12_11/p2.html

Thank you, Waldo.

I think this is the part: "with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders." that gets people riled about the lenient sentences.

guest4 · « **Reply #102 on:** February 14, 2018, 11:59:17 am »

Quote from: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 11:13:46 am

Thank you, Waldo.

I think this is the part: "with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders." that gets people riled about the lenient sentences.

The courts also consider the circumstances of non-native people at sentencing. Thing is that white people are generally given more lenient sentences than natives as a matter of course. Consider this scenario, in Alberta:

30-year-old white guy in front of the judge for the third or fourth time on drug posession charges - probation.

17-year-old native kid next, first offense for drug possession, two years in an adult federal penitentiary.

This really happened to someone I know. This kid wasn't even off the reservation, was raised in a middle class white home, but he looked native and so the "justice" system treated him like one.

The thing so many White people fail to realize is that they've benefitted from preferential treatment in the justice system forever. This doesn't mean that no Whites ever go to jail or that non-whites never get a break; it does mean that if you aren't white, you are more likely to get a longer sentence than a white guy for the same crime. And if you are rich and White, even better for you.

SirJohn · « **Reply #103 on:** February 14, 2018, 11:59:31 am »

Quote from: Peter F on February 13, 2018, 08:33:08 pm

I see the point but disagree. The defendant claimed the gun went off accidentally. He did not have the intent to shoot the guy. So that would mean that he did not feel his life was in immediate danger.

If the judge did not feel he had a reasonable fear of being harmed I don't think the judge would have said he was legally in the right to brandish a firearm and fire warning shots

SirJohn · « **Reply #104 on:** February 14, 2018, 12:00:22 pm »

Quote from: kimmy on February 13, 2018, 08:15:26 pm

I really agree with this post. If a group of people invade my home, I am not waiting to find out whether they're just hear to steal and break my stuff or if they intend to hurt me as well. My own safety requires I expect that they may well intend to cause me harm, and I will react accordingly.

-k

Especially when the police are 30-60 minutes away.

Canadian Politics Today

News:

Author Topic: An activist PM and government (Read 3328 times)

Goddess

Re: An activist PM and government

SirJohn

Re: An activist PM and government

cybercoma

Re: An activist PM and government

kimmy

Re: An activist PM and government

Peter F

Re: An activist PM and government

Queefer Sutherland

Re: An activist PM and government

Omni

Re: An activist PM and government

Goddess

Re: An activist PM and government

Goddess

Re: An activist PM and government

cybercoma

Re: An activist PM and government

waldo

Re: An activist PM and government

Goddess

Re: An activist PM and government

guest4

Re: An activist PM and government

SirJohn

Re: An activist PM and government

SirJohn

Re: An activist PM and government