Canadian Politics Today

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 07:35:01 pm


Title: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 07:35:01 pm
I’ve come to the conclusion that having an activist PM is a seriously negative outcome from the last election.  The PM’s picks for Ministers also seems to have led to activists in charge of ministries.

It has been fairly minor (“I’m a feminist”, indigenous reconciliation, “Person-kind”) up to this point.   It has taken a much more serious turn recently with tweets, statements and meetings that seem to undermine the justice system and, worse, an attempt to undermine a jury’s verdict in a murder case.

The tweets and statements by the PM and Justice Minister were bad enough....   it characterizes the jury as racist, the defendant as racist and a wrong decision by the court (jury).  It reminds me of what Trump does.   It is no different, in my opinion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meeting-1.4530880

An activist, by definition, has a biased position that is not necessarily swayed by the facts and is often positional.  We shouldn’t have an activist government when it comes to matters of criminal justice when the government is supposed to be arms length from the entire process to maintain the impartiality of the justice system from politics.

Here is how a Justice Minister should act:  https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/stefanson-offers-sympathy-no-comment-on-boushie-verdict-473829613.html

And how leadership from an indigenous MP should look:
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/mp-sorry-for-the-stanley-family-473760143.html


http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/0212-na-stanley/wcm/bca6edc9-5f0e-4854-a625-deb8f2445e4a
Quote
Activists, First Nations leaders and some lawyers are demanding change after an all-white jury Friday acquitted a white farmer who shot and killed a young Indigenous man in rural Saskatchewan.

In press conferences, online and at rallies across the country, they pressed the message that Canada’s justice system is broken and must be fixed.

However, some lawyers are worried that politicians now weighing in on the case are going too far and may even be putting the independence of the country’s judiciary at risk with their comments.

“Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” said Michael Lacy, a partner in the criminal law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto.

On Saturday, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said in a tweet that Canada “can and must do better,” after a jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also weighed in at a news conference in California, saying Canada has “come to this point as a country far too many times.”

Edmonton-based criminal lawyer Tom Engel said when politicians, especially the justice minister, appear to criticize verdicts, the public may believe that future decisions by the courts are influenced by the remarks.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 12, 2018, 07:40:28 pm
I'm not convinced that he's an activist at all.  I think he pretends like he's an activist and a change agent and so on, but I think the reality is that he's a slick glossy social-media-friendly facade for the status quo. Much like Barack Obama, the talk has vastly exceeded the amount of actual change or activism. Like Obama, Trudeau is good at convincing people that the same-old same-old is new and different.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 12, 2018, 07:55:02 pm
When you call indigenous reconciliation “activism,” you completely ignore the findings of the royal commission and more broadly the purpose of royal commissions.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 07:59:20 pm
I think this is something I would have said not all that long ago.  I think that it's a very white thing to say.  The jury was racist, even if they weren't discriminatory.  The entire system is racist, even if it doesn't mean to be.  Having a partner that has brown skin has shown me the error in my past beliefs.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 12, 2018, 08:04:01 pm
I think there's a big difference between supporting reconciliation vs supporting the undermining of our judicial system to give natives or women or other disadvantaged groups the verdicts they want.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 08:11:05 pm
I think there's a big difference between supporting reconciliation vs supporting the undermining of our judicial system to give natives or women or other disadvantaged groups the verdicts they want.

 -k

I'm not really sure it's about the verdict that anyone wants.  Obviously, there is a lack of trust from the non majority community.  That right there undermines justice if anything does.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 12, 2018, 08:12:48 pm
I'm not convinced that he's an activist at all.  I think he pretends like he's an activist and a change agent and so on, but I think the reality is that he's a slick glossy social-media-friendly facade for the status quo. Much like Barack Obama, the talk has vastly exceeded the amount of actual change or activism. Like Obama, Trudeau is good at convincing people that the same-old same-old is new and different.

I dunno, I think his efforts to help aboriginals is pretty damn empty since he's done basically nothing but lip service.  But he seems a genuine activist for things like feminism and multiculturalism, even though what he does seems pretty dumb.

Anyways, I think the guy is quite uninformed and naive, and has probably the weakest intellect of any PM of modern times I can think of.

He was wrong to comment on the Boushie verdict.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 12, 2018, 08:13:37 pm
I think there's a big difference between supporting reconciliation vs supporting the undermining of our judicial system to give natives or women or other disadvantaged groups the verdicts they want.

 -k
Fair treatment under the law? That’s too much to ask? They’re disadvantaged by the perception of their indigenous being from the time they interact with a cop on the street right brought sentencing. When controlling for like-characteristics (age, education, accusation, etc), they face harsher treatment. It is necessary that we remedy that kind of injustice that stems from prejudiced expectations of indigenous character.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 12, 2018, 08:18:07 pm
When you call indigenous reconciliation “activism,” you completely ignore the findings of the royal commission and more broadly the purpose of royal commissions.

But Trudeau does virtually nothing to help indigenous peoples, besides things that cost virtually nothing.  He'll say these verdict was BS but he'll do nothing to change the system.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 12, 2018, 08:20:16 pm
I’m not supporting Trudeau, but the recommendations are practical and they will take time to implement. Some things have been done already, others will take time before they can be done, and others still will be an ongoing process.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 12, 2018, 08:20:31 pm
I think this is something I would have said not all that long ago.  I think that it's a very white thing to say.  The jury was racist, even if they weren't discriminatory.

At 1st glance the verdict seems like BS, but we weren't a jury member, we didn't see all the evidence.  To say the jury was racist is a pretty serious accusation that needs evidence too.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 08:20:48 pm
But Trudeau does virtually nothing to help indigenous peoples, besides things that cost virtually nothing.  He'll say these verdict was BS but he'll do nothing to change the system.

He's spent a lot of money on clean water.  That's certainly a start.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 08:21:35 pm
At 1st glance the verdict seems like BS, but we weren't a jury member, we didn't see all the evidence.  To say the jury was racist is a pretty serious accusation that needs evidence too.

The jury probably didn't (intentionally anyway) use race in their determination.  The reality is, the deck is stacked against brown people from before the time that they are born.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 12, 2018, 08:24:32 pm
“Fun” fact...any time an indigenous person was up for jury duty, the defence objected to them. Legally, lawyers can reject jurors for any reason whatsoever, including the way they look. He US isn’t even as backwards as Canada in this regard. Lawyers there are not allowed to reject jurors based on race. So yeah, there’s definitely systemic racism at play.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 12, 2018, 08:33:14 pm
I think this is something I would have said not all that long ago.  I think that it's a very white thing to say.  The jury was racist, even if they weren't discriminatory.  The entire system is racist, even if it doesn't mean to be.  Having a partner that has brown skin has shown me the error in my past beliefs.

Yup.  Racism is invisible to people who don't experience it directly. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 12, 2018, 08:54:18 pm
What gets lost is this debate is these yahoos were on this guy's farm with weapons to steal stuff. That act is what made brandishing a gun a reasonable action given the circumstances. This introduces huge amounts if doubt into the question of manslaughter and there was no evidence that he deliberately pulled the trigger. So it is hard to see how any jury that had not appointed itself a social justice lynch mob could have convicted.


Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:01:57 pm
there was no evidence that he deliberately pulled the trigger

Reasonable doubt is not the same thing as no evidence. We should refrain from reading into a jury decision our own biases.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 09:04:57 pm
TimG - that’s another  topic.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 12, 2018, 09:06:01 pm
I certainly have not examined the facts of the Bouchie case enough to have any opinion at all.

However, I do recall that after the Ghomeshi trial people were outraged by the verdict and were demanding that the justice system be "fixed" so that the next Ghomeshi would be convicted.

 And that's wrong.  Because when you look at the facts presented at trial, a not guilty verdict was the only reasonable outcome.  Ghomeshi being acquitted does NOT show that the system is broken.  There might be things that could be done to improve the way sexual assault cases could be prosecuted, but that's a discussion independent of Ghomeshi's guilt or innocence.

Likewise Gerald Stanley. It's reasonable to have a discussion about whether the police or the legal system fail native victims.  But it's not reasonable to declare that "the system doesn't work!" on the basis of a verdict that didn't go the way some people wanted it to. And it's not reasonable for politicians to attack the credibility of our legal system on the basis of a verdict that's unpopular.


 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 12, 2018, 09:06:16 pm
He's spent a lot of money on clean water.  That's certainly a start.

Has he ?  Is there somewhere we can go to track his record on indigenous affairs ?  I feel that that's the test I want to apply to this government.  I can't tell if there doing anything or not.  They seem to rely on his offhanded comments and photo ops to communicate policy somehow. 

Am I wrong ?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 12, 2018, 09:08:13 pm
Reasonable doubt is not the same thing as no evidence. We should refrain from reading into a jury decision our own biases.

Yay!  You're back! :D

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:09:29 pm
Legally, lawyers can reject jurors for any reason whatsoever

Agreed, in Canada the concept of impartiality in a jury is only supported by the fact that both crown and defense can reject jurors for any reason whatsoever (they don't need to specify their reason either). The hope is that it will balance out in the end, but that is hardly the case when it comes to issues like race. Technically the crown could reject all "white" jurors, but then we would have a stalemate in juror selection.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 12, 2018, 09:17:59 pm
Technically the crown could reject all "white" jurors, but then we would have a stalemate in juror selection.
No, because the number of objections is limited. Eventually both sides would exhaust their allotments and they would get whoever is in the pool. Before we go rushing to change jury selection based on one case it worth remembering that SCC has put a 30 month limit on trials an introducing a more complex jury selection process like they have in the US would only increase the time and cost of trials (and by implication increase the number of accused let go because the process took too long).
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 12, 2018, 09:20:07 pm
What gets lost is this debate is these yahoos were on this guy's farm with weapons to steal stuff. That act is what made brandishing a gun a reasonable action given the circumstances. This introduces huge amounts if doubt into the question of manslaughter and there was no evidence that he deliberately pulled the trigger. So it is hard to see how any jury that had not appointed itself a social justice lynch mob could have convicted.

If he would have deliberately pulled the trigger then the 2nd degree could have reasonably been arrived at. You can't shoot people in this country because you think they are stealing your property. Pointing a gun at somebody does put them in danger and so if you do that you best have a good reason to do so. Apparently his gun went off unintentionally and so that's why he was acquitted. I suspect there will be an appeal case.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 09:24:33 pm
Quote
I suspect there will be an appeal case.

How does Crown appeal now that the Justice Minister and PM have essentially said what outcome they want a jury or judge to find?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:26:25 pm
When you call indigenous reconciliation “activism,” you completely ignore the findings of the royal commission and more broadly the purpose of royal commissions.

And that's a bad thing?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:27:02 pm
I think this is something I would have said not all that long ago.  I think that it's a very white thing to say.  The jury was racist, even if they weren't discriminatory.  The entire system is racist, even if it doesn't mean to be.  Having a partner that has brown skin has shown me the error in my past beliefs.

Which is all complete bullshit, of course.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 09:28:15 pm
Which is all complete bullshit, of course.

And that is something I would expect you to say.  Such is life.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 12, 2018, 09:28:19 pm
No, because the number of objections is limited. Eventually both sides would exhaust their allotments and they would get whoever is in the pool. Before we go rushing to change jury selection based on one case it worth remembering that SCC has put a 30 month limit on trials an introducing a more complex jury selection process like they have in the US would only increase the time and cost of trials (and by implication increase the number of accused let go because the process took too long).

You don't need a lot of peremptory challenges to get rid of any indigineous people when you have such a less than diverse jury pool to choose from.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:30:13 pm
Fair treatment under the law? That’s too much to ask? They’re disadvantaged by the perception of their indigenous being from the time they interact with a cop on the street right brought sentencing. When controlling for like-characteristics (age, education, accusation, etc), they face harsher treatment. It is necessary that we remedy that kind of injustice that stems from prejudiced expectations of indigenous character.

This is the same bullshit claim made by the BLM crowd. "Hey, just because we commit WAY more crime and WAY more violent crime, like WAY out of proportion to our numbers in the general population, that's no reason why we should be going to jail all the time!"

Mind, I'm perfectly willing to adjust the sentences to house native or black gangmembers and  killers in the houses of social justice warriors and their families.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:31:00 pm
Eventually both sides would exhaust their allotments and they would get whoever is in the pool.

The problem is the allotments for peremptory challenges. If we had only challenge for cause, or an extremely limited number of peremptory challenges (ie. one) then we might not be in this mess always. The exact same thing occurs when it is a native Canadian on trial and the crown makes peremptory challenges (based on race).
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:31:02 pm
You don't need a lot of peremptory challenges to get rid of any indigineous people when you have such a less than diverse jury pool to choose from.

Especially when the natives don't show up for jury duty to begin with, from what everyone I've heard from is saying.
Hey, by the way, it's a jury of your peers, not a jury of the alleged victim's peers.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:32:42 pm
And that is something I would expect you to say.  Such is life.

I'm a law and order conservative. I have little sympathy for criminals of whatever race or ethnicity. Bouchi and his drunken pals went around robbing farmers and he got shot. I would feel not one iota more sympathy if they were all drunken blonde Swedes.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 09:33:47 pm
Especially when the natives don't show up for jury duty to begin with, from what everyone I've heard from is saying.
Hey, by the way, it's a jury of your peers, not a jury of the alleged victim's peers.

“Everybody says”....   please provide a cite for this claim.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:34:27 pm
by the way, it's a jury of your peers, not a jury of the alleged victim's peers.

That is an Americanism, but you also failed to grasp what I pointed out above, it also works against Native Canadians when they are the accused and the crown makes the peremptory challenges.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:35:04 pm
TimG - that’s another  topic.

I think its part of the same topic. The progressives like Trudeau are up in arms about this but how much do they even know about the details? The TV coverage I've seen has been long on protesting natives talking about racism, and expressions of sympathy from political ****, and very, very short on details about why the jury returned the verdict they did. Do you think Trudeau read throught the court transcripts or something? He just watched TV.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 09:35:44 pm
This is the same bullshit claim made by the BLM crowd. "Hey, just because we commit WAY more crime and WAY more violent crime, like WAY out of proportion to our numbers in the general population, that's no reason why we should be going to jail all the time!"

It's not like they're marginalized within society, directly contributing to all of that, or anything.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:37:08 pm
That is an Americanism, but you also failed to grasp what I pointed out above, it also works against Native Canadians when they are the accused and the crown makes the peremptory challenges.

It's not an Americanism its a Britishism that dates back to the Magna Carta. It comes from Common law, where both American and Canadian law originates.

And the whole idea of the peremptory challenges is to weed out people who might be racist or biased against or in favour of the accused.
Reading up a bit on this, there were originally 35 such challenges allowed in Britain, but the number was lowered over the years to a handful and has now been abolished there. They've gone back to 'you gets what you gets', or a random sampling of the population.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:40:38 pm
Do you think Trudeau read throught the court transcripts or something?

Since he didn't comment on the specifics of the case, that would be irrelevant.  in fact 30% of his statement was making that clear; the 30% that the right wing pundits ignore when they quote him.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:40:46 pm
It's not like they're marginalized within society, directly contributing to all of that, or anything.

There are whole books you can write about the reasons behind the cultural value problems in both communities, but that's not relevant to the reality the justice system faces. If you want to address native crime you have to address the problems of native cultural degeneration which is caused by the Indian Act and the reservation system. If you stick people out in the boonies with nothing to do they're going to get into trouble. Without any purpose in life they're going to drink, do drugs and fight.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 12, 2018, 09:41:10 pm
This is the same bullshit claim made by the BLM crowd. "Hey, just because we commit WAY more crime and WAY more violent crime, like WAY out of proportion to our numbers in the general population, that's no reason why we should be going to jail all the time!"

Mind, I'm perfectly willing to adjust the sentences to house native or black gangmembers and  killers in the houses of social justice warriors and their families.

Who are you actually quoting or is just more of your racist bullshit, and do you have a cite to prove this "WAY out of proportion" comment?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:41:31 pm
Since he didn't comment on the specifics of the case, that would be irrelevant.  in fact 30% of his statement was making that clear; the 30% that the right wing pundits ignore when they quote him.

Even though, of course, he WAS in fact, commenting on the case. Otherwise his words make absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:41:55 pm
Who are you actually quoting or is just more of your racist bullshit, and do you have a cite to prove this "WAY out of proportion" comment?

You really are a pathetic moron.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:43:57 pm
“Everybody says”....   please provide a cite for this claim.

How about this.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/21/ontario-not-required-to-fix-native-reluctance-for-jury-duty-supreme-court.html
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 12, 2018, 09:44:25 pm
There are whole books you can write about the reasons behind the cultural value problems in both communities, but that's not relevant to the reality the justice system faces.

Of course it's relevant. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 12, 2018, 09:46:10 pm
Of course it's relevant.

It's relevant to the discussion of how you fix the social problems so that natives have a purpose in life and don't break the law. It's not relevant to what you do about them breaking the law. The Justice department is not going to fix this.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:47:24 pm
It's not an Americanism its a Britishism that dates back to the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was about barons having their land disputes with the King influenced by other barons. Criminal trials were the domain of the church (trial by fire and water), which would dunk the accused into a lake or other horrific test and God would decide; if they lived they were set free.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 12, 2018, 09:47:51 pm
That is an Americanism, but you also failed to grasp what I pointed out above, it also works against Native Canadians when they are the accused and the crown makes the peremptory challenges.

But if one is looking for an impartial jury, why does one want Native Canadians on it?   If the jury had been all native instead of all white, they could have been relied upon to show no bias?  If not, and they were as likely as a white jury to be biased, what's the point? 

There should be an automatic switch to a judge only trial when a potential for a biased jury exists.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 09:49:05 pm
How about this.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/21/ontario-not-required-to-fix-native-reluctance-for-jury-duty-supreme-court.html

You give me a cite from a different province on a different case....    Come on....  try a little harder.

Provide a cite that says natives didn’t show for jury duty for that case.    We already know there were several natives in the pool who were all dismissed.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:52:06 pm
But if one is looking for an impartial jury, why does one want Native Canadians on it?   If the jury had been all native instead of all white, they could have been relied upon to show no bias?  If not, and they were as likely as a white jury to be biased, what's the point?

The why have any peremptory challenges, as I have been saying. Your logic works both ways, if you are implying that native Canadians are biased then non-native Canadians are also biased. The problem is that with only a small percentage of the population, native Canadians are the victims of systemic bias as they have been claiming.

Re. Trudeau's comments, read them they make complete sense outside of this specific trial.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 12, 2018, 09:55:17 pm
But if one is looking for an impartial jury, why does one want Native Canadians on it?   If the jury had been all native instead of all white, they could have been relied upon to show no bias?  If not, and they were as likely as a white jury to be biased, what's the point? 

There should be an automatic switch to a judge only trial when a potential for a biased jury exists.

You should re read the opening part of your post. What a silly question.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 09:55:26 pm
I think the thread on jury selection and judge only trial is sufficiently removed from activist PM and government that it merits its own topic.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 12, 2018, 09:56:33 pm
The why have any peremptory challenges, as I have been saying. Your logic works both ways, if you are implying that native Canadians are biased then non-native Canadians are also biased. The problem is that with only a small percentage of the population, native Canadians are the victims of systemic bias as they have been claiming.

Re. Trudeau's comments, read them they make complete sense outside of this specific trial.

I'm saying the presumption of bias is implied if you look to put certain people on a jury.  It's certainly implied by the efforts to exclude natives, and it's also implied by any objection to that.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 09:57:26 pm
Quote
Re. Trudeau's comments, read them they make complete sense outside of this specific trial.

But they weren’t outside this trial.   They were about this trial, and that was completely idiotic for a PM and the Justice Minister to do.   Also, meeting with the Boushies is even worse.   Are they planning how to “get justice” for him together?   How to get the verdict they all wished they got in the first place?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 12, 2018, 10:05:25 pm
I'm saying the presumption of bias is implied if you look to put certain people on a jury.  It's certainly implied by the efforts to exclude natives, and it's also implied by any objection to that.

Wow, talk about a dog chasing it's tail. Of course lawyers look to put certain people on a jury which is what peremptories are for.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 12, 2018, 10:06:22 pm
No, because the number of objections is limited. Eventually both sides would exhaust their allotments and they would get whoever is in the pool. Before we go rushing to change jury selection based on one case it worth remembering that SCC has put a 30 month limit on trials an introducing a more complex jury selection process like they have in the US would only increase the time and cost of trials (and by implication increase the number of accused let go because the process took too long).
Yes. Let’s not rush to make it illegal to reject jurors based on race. /s
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 12, 2018, 10:09:16 pm
I'm a law and order conservative. I have little sympathy for criminals of whatever race or ethnicity. Bouchi and his drunken pals went around robbing farmers and he got shot. I would feel not one iota more sympathy if they were all drunken blonde Swedes.
You don’t have sympathy for criminals....except white murderers, which evidently according to your post here, deserve more sympathy than native burglars.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 12, 2018, 10:09:27 pm
Wow, talk about a dog chasing it's tail. Of course lawyers look to put certain people on a jury which is what peremptories are for.

So do you agree or disagree?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 10:11:13 pm
I'm saying the presumption of bias is implied if you look to put certain people on a jury.  It's certainly implied by the efforts to exclude natives, and it's also implied by any objection to that.

Hence the need to discuss, outside of this specific trial, the inherent systemic biases. That is what native Canadians, the Prime Minister, and I are talking about.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 10:13:41 pm
Hence the need to discuss, outside of this specific trial, the inherent systemic biases. That is what native Canadians, the Prime Minister, and I are talking about.

That’s not what the PM is doing at all.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 12, 2018, 10:15:40 pm
That’s not what the PM is doing at all.

Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 10:16:52 pm
But they weren’t outside this trial.   They were about this trial

I disagree, go back and listen to his entire statement. The trial may bring currency to the issues he is talking about but the issues are about the system and not the specific trial.

If the Boushies are looking to "get justice" from Trudeau, as you imply, they will be disappointed.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 12, 2018, 10:25:40 pm
Hence the need to discuss, outside of this specific trial, the inherent systemic biases. That is what native Canadians, the Prime Minister, and I are talking about.

I think that rather than comment right after the trial, regardless of how he feels about this verdict, he should have just been taking steps to improve the system. He is the PM after all, that's his job.

So far, no action, just words that serve to undermine the justice system with no blueprint for improvement. Typical.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 12, 2018, 10:37:51 pm
I disagree, go back and listen to his entire statement. The trial may bring currency to the issues he is talking about but the issues are about the system and not the specific trial.

That’s nonsense.  The PM and the Justice Minister made comments specific to the verdict.   To say otherwise is stunningly hyper partisan. 

Quote

If the Boushies are looking to "get justice" from Trudeau, as you imply, they will be disappointed.

They should make what they say public.   How does anyone now they didn’t meet about their specific case?   In fact, to think otherwise is bizarre.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2018, 11:14:42 pm
That’s nonsense.  The PM and the Justice Minister made comments specific to the verdict.   To say otherwise is stunningly hyper partisan. 

They should make what they say public.   How does anyone now they didn’t meet about their specific case?   In fact, to think otherwise is bizarre.

I would say not to listen to the source quotes, and make broad assumptions that are unrelated to them is hyper partisan

So when an oil company executive meets with the Prime Minister, must that also be made public? Any and all meeting with the Prime Minister must be on the books? When the Prime Minister meets with the families of fallen soldiers, we need cameras there?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 12, 2018, 11:23:40 pm
The problem is the allotments for peremptory challenges. If we had only challenge for cause, or an extremely limited number of peremptory challenges (ie. one) then we might not be in this mess always. The exact same thing occurs when it is a native Canadian on trial and the crown makes peremptory challenges (based on race).
Cutting the number without cause is fine. Going to a US style system where every juror is put through intense analysis while both sides try to rig the jury to suit them is not a good idea. It would only slow the process down for everyone - a process that is already too slow.

I am worried that we will end up with another abomination like we got after the Ghomeshi trial where the accused is now compelled to hand over any evidence they may have that shows the accuser is lying to the crown in advance which simply allows the liars to avoid being exposed in court as liars.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 12, 2018, 11:51:10 pm
Cutting the number without cause is fine. Going to a US style system where every juror is put through intense analysis while both sides try to rig the jury to suit them is not a good idea. It would only slow the process down for everyone - a process that is already too slow.

I am worried that we will end up with another abomination like we got after the Ghomeshi trial where the accused is now compelled to hand over any evidence they may have that shows the accuser is lying to the crown in advance which simply allows the liars to avoid being exposed in court as liars.

What makes you think attorneys don't challenge/dismiss jurors in the same fashion they do in the US?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 12, 2018, 11:58:19 pm
What makes you think attorneys don't challenge/dismiss jurors in the same fashion they do in the US?
https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/us/gallery/long-jury-selection/index.html

Quote
Jury selection in the trial of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has taken longer than the judge had expected. For several weeks, prospective jurors have each taken a turn in the hot seat, being questioned by U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole and attorneys for the prosecution and defense, as Tsarnaev, second from right in this court sketch, listened. But this case isn't the longest jury selection ever, by far. Although no one appears to keep official records on such matters, several infamous cases over the years have taken months to pick a jury, and longtime jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius recalls one jury selection that took the better part of a year.
The US system allows lawyers to grill potential jurors to look for bias they don't like. In the Canada system there are only peremptory challenges with some 'with cause' when a lawyer happens to know something about the juror. It is more efficient and it is not clear it produces worse juries than the US system.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 13, 2018, 12:08:18 am
https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/us/gallery/long-jury-selection/index.html
The US system allows lawyers to grill potential jurors to look for bias they don't like. In the Canada system there are only peremptory challenges with some 'with cause' when a lawyer happens to know something about the juror. It is more efficient and it is not clear it produces worse juries than the US system.

Lawyers in Canada can excersise their peremptory challenges at will. The numbers of those vary from 12 to 20. What is important is to have a cross sectional jury pool to begin with. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 13, 2018, 12:51:24 am
I would say not to listen to the source quotes, and make broad assumptions that are unrelated to them is hyper partisan


The PM was the one who tweeted and made statements.   The meeting with the family is completely innapropriate. 

Quote
So when an oil company executive meets with the Prime Minister, must that also be made public? Any and all meeting with the Prime Minister must be on the books?

Damn straight!!!


Quote
When the Prime Minister meets with the families of fallen soldiers, we need cameras there?

You are equating drunken thieves to fallen soldiers.....   way to go!   ::)
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2018, 07:36:14 am
At this point litterally the entire indigenous population is outraged by this verdict.  I don’t think it’s b hind the scope for the PM to address that.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 10:54:44 am
The Magna Carta was about barons having their land disputes with the King influenced by other barons.

Yes, and this then evolved into ordinary people being judged for their crimes by a jury of THEIR peers. It is in common law, not an Americanism. And it is still an expensive, time-consuming brake on governments imposing unfair laws on citizens.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 10:58:44 am
You give me a cite from a different province on a different case....    Come on....  try a little harder.

Provide a cite that says natives didn’t show for jury duty for that case.    We already know there were several natives in the pool who were all dismissed.

I gave you a cite from a left leaning news organization talking about the 'reluctance' natives who live on reserves have for showing up for jury duty. I find it highly unlikely this is an Ontario-only issue and feel it's more than adequate to support my previous statement. I don't feel this is a be-all/end-all to the argument of why natives aren't on juries more, but it's certainly a contributing factor.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 11:00:52 am
You don’t have sympathy for criminals....except white murderers, which evidently according to your post here, deserve more sympathy than native burglars.

You were there? You read the court transcripts? Listened to the witnesses? Saw the evidence? Oh, you saw a news story. Yeah, that's how we judge guilt or innocence in this country.  ::)
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 11:04:22 am
At this point litterally the entire indigenous population is outraged by this verdict.  I don’t think it’s b hind the scope for the PM to address that.

Maybe we should look to why they're outraged because I doubt its this particular case. I know the entire non-indigenous community wouldn't be outraged if a group of drunken white kids went to a native farmer's property to steal stuff and one of them got shot.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 11:08:03 am
I would say not to listen to the source quotes, and make broad assumptions that are unrelated to them is hyper partisan

He was specifically talking about the case. Just because he said in the beginning that he didn't want to get into the origins of 'how we got here' doesn't change a thing.

For Michael Plaxton, a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, "such remarks are deeply problematic." They politicize criminal trials, interfering with the right of a jury "to reach the verdict they conclude is appropriate, in light of the evidence, the trial judge's instructions, and the burden of proof, without having to fear that they will be pilloried by public figures for having reached the 'wrong' conclusion," he said in an exchange by e-mail.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/you-and-i-can-question-the-gerald-stanley-verdict-politicians-should-not/article37954500/
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 13, 2018, 12:12:19 pm
Maybe we should look to why they're outraged because I doubt its this particular case. I know the entire non-indigenous community wouldn't be outraged if a group of drunken white kids went to a native farmer's property to steal stuff and one of them got shot.

Do you ever tire of making broad assumptions you can in no way know are true? I tend to agree with the law. You can't go shooting people because they are stealing your TV set.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 13, 2018, 12:27:49 pm
You were there? You read the court transcripts? Listened to the witnesses? Saw the evidence? Oh, you saw a news story. Yeah, that's how we judge guilt or innocence in this country.  ::)
The dead kid wasn’t convicted of a crime and neither was the killer, if you want to reference legal decisions as your basis for reasoning. Your argument clearly highlights racist thought, as you condemn an indigenous kid more harshly for burglary than you do a white man for murder, while claiming to care about criminality. You don’t give a crap about crimes against minorities whatsoever; you only care about crime when the perpetrator is a minority and especially if the victim is white. That’s exactly what your previous comment reveals about you.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2018, 12:38:56 pm
He was specifically talking about the case.

was the context not more broadly focused on jury makeup/selection... notwithstanding the fact the defence team excluded five potential jurors, "who appeared to be Indigenous".

Quote from: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
The criminal justice system must "do better" — the government will take steps to address "systemic issues."
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Boges on February 13, 2018, 12:46:21 pm
So are we going to try and make it impossible for Defence Attorneys to challenge potential jurors?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 03:27:25 pm
The dead kid wasn’t convicted of a crime and neither was the killer, if you want to reference legal decisions as your basis for reasoning. Your argument clearly highlights racist thought, as you condemn an indigenous kid more harshly for burglary than you do a white man for murder, while claiming to care about criminality. You don’t give a crap about crimes against minorities whatsoever; you only care about crime when the perpetrator is a minority and especially if the victim is white. That’s exactly what your previous comment reveals about you.

You really have a twisted, paranoid, suspicious mind about anyone who isn't a social justice warrior. First, I didn't condemn the 'kid' for burglary at all. I merely stated that my sympathy for criminals - of any race - is low. Witness testimony from his 'colleagues' admitted they'd just robbed a truck on another farm, and there was no valid excuses - though they tried - as to why one of them got onto someone else's ATV and tried to start it, or why another was rummaging in the back of a parked car.

I have plenty of doubts about whether or not the farmer intended to kill someone, as did the jury, but the judge did say that his getting his gun, brandishing it, and firing warning shots was legally justified. And the ammunition was over sixty years old from Soviet era Czechoslovakia.

The reason you and other SJWs get outraged whenever I talk about such things is because unlike you, I treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of race or ethnicity. I judge them all evenly. You, in your deeply paternalistic liberal racism, can't ever bring yourself to judge a native or black man or arab or any other kind of minority the way you would a white man. Because ultimately, deep down inside, you consider them to be intellectually inferior, and not capable of the same degree of civility. Thus holding them to the same standards strikes you as unfair and 'racist'.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 13, 2018, 03:31:41 pm
Again...you “have no sympathy for criminals,” but you excuse a murderer because of a much lesser crime. If you cared about criminality at all, I would think murder would be a greater issue for you than mere robbery. It’s certainly a bigger issue in the law and morally, taking someone’s life is a far greater crime. But nope....fuckin Indian had it coming, eh?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 03:36:41 pm
Again...you “have no sympathy for criminals,” but you excuse a murderer because of a much lesser crime. If you cared about criminality at all, I would think murder would be a greater issue for you than mere robbery. It’s certainly a bigger issue in the law and morally, taking someone’s life is a far greater crime. But nope....fuckin Indian had it coming, eh?

And again, the judge said he was legally entitled to take out his gun and fire warning shots and the ammo was over 60 years old from Czechoslovakia. Thus producing reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

My sympathy for criminals is low enough that I'm pretty uncaring about what haqppens to them.  If, as an example, someone blew the **** out of a Hells Angels HQ and killed every guy inside I'd be like "Meh" and wouldn't really be hoping the police get the murderer who did it. I'd probably be hoping he blew up more of them. The colour is immaterial. That's why I have so little sympathy for Black Lives Matters. With almost no exceptions they were all criminals anyway. Ya break the law and fight with the cops ya takes your chances.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 pm
Did the judge say it was legal to murder someone?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 03:41:23 pm
Did the judge say it was legal to murder someone?

You don't know he did that. Murder is a legal term - well, homicide is, actually - and the jury said no.
Usually we can say if a guy takes out a gun and points it at someone and fires it he definitely was trying to kill them. Makes jury decisions a lot easier. In this case, though, given what the judge said, we can't say that. Makes it harder to know.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 13, 2018, 04:02:36 pm
You really have a twisted, paranoid, suspicious mind about anyone who isn't a social justice warrior. First, I didn't condemn the 'kid' for burglary at all. I merely stated that my sympathy for criminals - of any race - is low. Witness testimony from his 'colleagues' admitted they'd just robbed a truck on another farm, and there was no valid excuses - though they tried - as to why one of them got onto someone else's ATV and tried to start it, or why another was rummaging in the back of a parked car.

I have plenty of doubts about whether or not the farmer intended to kill someone, as did the jury, but the judge did say that his getting his gun, brandishing it, and firing warning shots was legally justified. And the ammunition was over sixty years old from Soviet era Czechoslovakia.

The reason you and other SJWs get outraged whenever I talk about such things is because unlike you, I treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of race or ethnicity. I judge them all evenly. You, in your deeply paternalistic liberal racism, can't ever bring yourself to judge a native or black man or arab or any other kind of minority the way you would a white man. Because ultimately, deep down inside, you consider them to be intellectually inferior, and not capable of the same degree of civility. Thus holding them to the same standards strikes you as unfair and 'racist'.

That's rich coming from you. C'mon sir argus I think we have all read enough of your posts to get the cut of your jib and that  the ethnicity/skin color of people you focus on shapes your discussion. As to the case the acquittal was arrived at because the jury was convinced the gun misfired and so intent was taken off the table. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 04:15:47 pm
That's rich coming from you. C'mon sir argus I think we have all read enough of your posts to get the cut of your jib and that  the ethnicity/skin color of people you focus on shapes your discussion.

The people I 'focus' on depend on the topics created and  posts which are made. I didn't start this topic to say how outraged I was about what Trudeau said. I merely responded to it, as you did.

As to your posts, what they reveal is about the low IQ which lies behind them.

Quote
As to the case the acquittal was arrived at because the jury was convinced the gun misfired and so intent was taken off the table.

How racist of you.  ::)
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 13, 2018, 05:09:31 pm
You don't know he did that. Murder is a legal term - well, homicide is, actually - and the jury said no.
Usually we can say if a guy takes out a gun and points it at someone and fires it he definitely was trying to kill them. Makes jury decisions a lot easier. In this case, though, given what the judge said, we can't say that. Makes it harder to know.
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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 13, 2018, 05:13:27 pm
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.

I suspect most jurors were excused with little asked, that is one of the differences between American and Canadian jury selection.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 13, 2018, 05:42:16 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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 13, 2018, 06:01:20 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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 13, 2018, 06:27:39 pm
Your own words defy you.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 13, 2018, 08:15:26 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
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: 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.  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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 13, 2018, 08:42:02 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?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 13, 2018, 08:59:29 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?   
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess 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.



Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: 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.  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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 10:45:23 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?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2018, 10:55:09 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
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 11:13:46 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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 11:59:17 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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 14, 2018, 11:59:31 am
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

 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 14, 2018, 12:00:22 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.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 02:29:36 pm
Statistics Canada shows youth crime rates in Saskatchewan for car thefts, break and enters, mischief and assaults are much higher than the national average.  Combine that with crime specific to Stanley’s area.

There was another murder that happened not far from him. Two men from the Red Pheasant reserve (the same reserve that is home to the 5 adults that drove into Stanley’s yard) murdered two men and a dog. The two men were related to two of the men who assaulted Stanley.

Two others from the same reserve beat and assaulted two women who stopped to assist them with a “flat tire”. Crime in this specific area is rampant and this reserve has a problem it needs to be addressed. One just needs to google a bit and see what is going on in Saskatchewan.

An elderly woman from Debden, SK was beaten with a wooden baseball bat in her own home by thieves.  Kirk DeSchryver from Denzil, SK was ran over twice by thieves on his farm who were there to steal his ATV.

People living in rural areas have to fear for their lives when they hear a vehicle roll up on their driveway. Is this someone looking for help, is this a friend, or is this someone here to steal your stuff, burn your house down, assualt you, ram you with a vehicle, trash your property or even murder you?

It's a shame when a man doing some daily chores with his son on his farm is forced to defend his family and his home when a vehicle with 5 black-out drunk violent thieves with a loaded weapon, on a crime spree involving multiple victims decide to come on to his property, ram his vehicles, attempt to steal property and use their vehicle to try and hit the people living there.

An even worse shame is when the media and politicians then use the dead criminal as a prop to further divide a country, to race bait, to demonize rural citizens, to decieve, to try and distract from the actual problem of unchecked rural crime, to promote an atmosphere tense with fear and anger, to shut down any discussion by calling people racist.

Interestingly, a Facebook page called "Farmers With FireArms" was set up in response to rural crime in Saskatchewan.  This was months before the Stanley/Boushie shooting.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 02:34:50 pm
Especially when the police are 30-60 minutes away.
I guess the rule of law doesn’t matter to you anymore. Funny that you would abandon a core plank in the Conservative platform. I suppose your lawless zones apply to everyone who is 30-60 mins away from the police. That means we can steal from each other in those areas too, right? Oh, sorry...I forgot. In your **** up mind, property is more valuable than life. Well, white people’s property is more valuable than the lives of people who aren’t white anyway.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 02:37:22 pm
I guess the rule of law doesn’t matter to you anymore. Funny that you would abandon a core plank in the Conservative platform. I suppose your lawless zones apply to everyone who is 30-60 mins away from the police. That means we can steal from each other in those areas too, right? Oh, sorry...I forgot. In your **** up mind, property is more valuable than life. Well, white people’s property is more valuable than the lives of people who aren’t white anyway.

Just stop.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 14, 2018, 02:57:49 pm
I guess the rule of law doesn’t matter to you anymore. Funny that you would abandon a core plank in the Conservative platform. I suppose your lawless zones apply to everyone who is 30-60 mins away from the police. That means we can steal from each other in those areas too, right? Oh, sorry...I forgot. In your **** up mind, property is more valuable than life. Well, white people’s property is more valuable than the lives of people who aren’t white anyway.

Boy, your brain is shrinking, day by day as the bile rises.
I believe in the rule of law, but ultimately I believe in justice. And that includes the ability to defend yourself if you have to, even if you're white and the attacker isn't. I realize that thought horrifies you since to you all whites are guilty of something and all non-whites are virtuous, innocent, gentle children. But your beliefs are based on your innate racism that thinks of non-whites as inferiors in need of your paternalistic protection.

As for property being more valuable than lives. Well, it's worth more than the lives of those who are stealing it. And if you can't call the cops when someone is stealing it then use whatever means you need.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 03:04:11 pm
Say, maybe you can write your MP and have the Criminal Code changed so we put everyone to death for robbery.  For Justice!
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 14, 2018, 03:08:13 pm
Say, maybe you can write your MP and have the Criminal Code changed so we put everyone to death for robbery.  For Justice!

I'm not calling for the death penalty for robbery. I'm saying that a person in a rural area who has no police around has to defend himself and his property as he or she can. That doesn't mean executing thieves, but if there's a confrontation and one of them gets killed I'm not going to shed any tears on their behalf. The judge felt it reasonable for him to brandish his gun and fire warning shots. It's a short emotional journey from having sufficient reasonable fear (under the law) to do that to firing.

If the people involved were all white you'd probably recognize that.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 03:15:43 pm
I'm not calling for the death penalty for robbery. I'm saying that a person in a rural area who has no police around has to defend himself and his property as he or she can. That doesn't mean executing thieves, but if there's a confrontation and one of them gets killed I'm not going to shed any tears on their behalf. The judge felt it reasonable for him to brandish his gun and fire warning shots. It's a short emotional journey from having sufficient reasonable fear (under the law) to do that to firing.

If the people involved were all white you'd probably recognize that.

So you don't think thieves should be executed, but you don't care if they are. A bit of a contradiction don't ya think?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 03:30:22 pm
The two men were related to two of the men who assaulted Stanley.

So now Stanley was assaulted? Telephone tag at the extreme.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 03:36:21 pm
Stanley testified that he thought they were trying to run over his wife and son.  They also punched his wife.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 03:39:12 pm
Usually when people have tire trouble and pull into a farmyard, they pull up to the door, ring the doorbell, explain they need help and there's no trouble.  These ones pulled up to the shop, 2 got out and tried to rummage through a truck, one got out and started the ATV.  I don't believe they were there to get help.  They were there to steal a vehicle.  Like they tried to do earlier at the farmhouse down the road.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 03:44:15 pm
Stanley testified that he thought they were trying to run over his wife and son.  They also punched his wife.

That again sounds like telephone tag working. It would be nice to have a single reference transcript, but the punching you are referring to I believe was Belinda Jackson who was with Boushie did punch Stanley's wife or mother (not clear from the reporting I have seen) after the shooting took place.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: BC_cheque on February 14, 2018, 04:23:05 pm
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

His whole argument is full of holes.  He felt he was under threat, yet he only put two bullets in the chamber and he used them as warning shots.  He decided to look under the vehicle for his wife even though there was no reason to believe she'd beeen run over.  He kept his (believed to be empty) gun in his right hand and tried to turn the ignition off with his left hand for some reason.  If that all isn't enough, the gun miraculously fired without being pulled.

The whole argument hinges on the point of absurdity, yet the jury thought it creates reasonable doubt.

Let's face it, the jury were racist AF and you are defending a murderer.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 04:45:54 pm
That again sounds like telephone tag working. It would be nice to have a single reference transcript, but the punching you are referring to I believe was Belinda Jackson who was with Boushie did punch Stanley's wife or mother (not clear from the reporting I have seen) after the shooting took place.

Quote
"I punched her," said Jackson.

It was quoted in the article I linked to earlier.

How is it "telephone tag" when Stanley testified at the trial that they were driving their SUV straight for his son and he also thought towards his wife?  How is it "telephone tag" when the girl testified at the trial that she punched Stanley's wife?  Do you just like the phrase "telephone tag" or do you not understand what it means?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 05:15:03 pm
His whole argument is full of holes.  He felt he was under threat, yet he only put two bullets in the chamber and he used them as warning shots.  He decided to look under the vehicle for his wife even though there was no reason to believe she'd beeen run over.  He kept his (believed to be empty) gun in his right hand and tried to turn the ignition off with his left hand for some reason.  If that all isn't enough, the gun miraculously fired without being pulled.
Hang fires happen - especially with old ammo which was the case. It can't be proven that a hang fire did occur but it plausibly could have occurred given the available evidence. That possibility introduces doubt to makes it next to impossible to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement. Remember that in a criminal trial the onus is on the crown to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that a hang fire could not have occurred. It is not enough to say it is unlikely.

Jumping to the conclusion that he was a murderer and the jury was racist is nothing but racist BS coming from someone who assumes a "white" farmer must have wanted to kill the native because that what all white farmers want to do and "white" jurors are willing to ignore crimes committed by "white" farmers . Trying looking in the mirror before accusing others of racism.

Frankly, the casual racism that you and your fellow travellers seem to think is acceptable is the most pernicious form of racism in our society today.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 05:49:08 pm
Quote
He decided to look under the vehicle for his wife even though there was no reason to believe she'd beeen run over.

From the linked article:

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

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.

Stanley testified that he ran as fast as he could to the SUV and, after hearing the engine rev, went to the driver's window intending to turn the ignition off.

His wife was missing from the mower and there was a crazed bunch of drunks on his property some of them ramming into vehicles and some of them trying to steal.  It must have been chaotic.  And Stanley would have had no idea what their intentions were beyond a bunch of drunken, violent theives.  That was what they presented to Stanley.  I find it hard to fault him for worrying where his wife was at during all this.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 05:53:39 pm
Quote
Jumping to the conclusion that he was a murderer is nothing but racist BS coming from someone who assumes a "white" farmer must have wanted to kill the native because that what all white farmers want to do. Trying looking in the mirror before accusing others of racism.

I don't believe Stanley woke up that morning intending to kill a Native.  The gang of young adults, however, DID wake up that morning intending to find trouble - drunkenly driving around with a loaded shotgun, breaking into vehicles and causing havoc.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 06:02:08 pm
It was quoted in the article I linked to earlier.
How is it "telephone tag"

Details, and order of events are very important.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 06:04:59 pm
I don't believe Stanley woke up that morning intending to kill a Native.  The gang of young adults, however, DID wake up that morning intending to find trouble - drunkenly driving around with a loaded shotgun, breaking into vehicles and causing havoc.

That sounds very biased.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 14, 2018, 06:34:05 pm
Stanley testified that he thought they were trying to run over his wife and son.  They also punched his wife.

I think they punched her after he shot & killed Boushie
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 06:36:41 pm
I don't believe Stanley woke up that morning intending to kill a Native.
Technically speaking the crown did not believe this either. 2nd degree murder implies he formed the intent to kill during the altercation which is a pretty ridiculous claim because if that was what actually happened I would have expected a 'self defence' argument instead of the 'hang fire' argument. The only plausible charge was manslaughter and that would have required that crown prove that he should have known that gun could have gone off. Everything hinges on his claim that he believed he only loaded 2 bullets.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Peter F on February 14, 2018, 06:56:23 pm
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

sure, but I never claimed he had no grounds to brandish a firearm or fire warning shots. Doing so in itself does not indicate intent to shoot someone. The intent to cause harm is necessary for the murder charge.
   Although, on the face of it, manslaughter would stick since, as the accused claimed, his firearm went off accidentally.  However, I suspect the jury felt that  finding him guilty of manslaughter would, in the circumstance, be too much.
   This is what juries are for.   Sorta like the woman charged with first degree murder some twenty years ago because she admittedly plotted the murder of her husband and enlisted the help of her son. The murder was carried out and never denied by the woman or the son. Jury found them not guilty of anything either.  Circumstances matter to juries.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 08:04:27 pm
Hang fires happen - especially with old ammo which was the case. It can't be proven that a hang fire did occur but it plausibly could have occurred given the available evidence. That possibility introduces doubt to makes it next to impossible to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement. Remember that in a criminal trial the onus is on the crown to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that a hang fire could not have occurred. It is not enough to say it is unlikely.

Jumping to the conclusion that he was a murderer and the jury was racist is nothing but racist BS coming from someone who assumes a "white" farmer must have wanted to kill the native because that what all white farmers want to do and "white" jurors are willing to ignore crimes committed by "white" farmers . Trying looking in the mirror before accusing others of racism.

Frankly, the casual racism that you and your fellow travellers seem to think is acceptable is the most pernicious form of racism in our society today.

Hang fires can happen but, they are about as scarce as hens teeth, and they don't wait nearly as long after trigger pull as would be necessary to have been what happened here in all likelihood. The jury was either misinformed, biased, or gullible.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 08:20:43 pm
I own the same Tokarev TT-33 pistol that Stanley used. I have plenty of experience with the same 50+ year old Cold War era Czech surplus ammo Stanley used. And I've got plenty more experience with other Eastern Bloc ammo of the same vintage in other calibres. I've never had a hang-fire, squib, or failure to fire with any of it.  It's possible, but very rare, and for this event to occur at the moment that Stanley's pistol was pointed at Bouchie's head seems "awfully convenient" to say the least. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. I'm very skeptical of the "hang-fire" story.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 08:25:41 pm
I think they punched her after he shot & killed Boushie

I didn't get that from the article, but I could be wrong. It really doesn't paint a clear picture of who was doing what at what time, who was still in the vehicle at the time Boushie was shot, and so on.

That said... Ms Jackson is the one who claimed that Stanley shot Bouchie twice in the back of the head. You're going to tell me that she watched Bouche get shot twice, and then she decided to go have a fist-fight with the wife of the guy who's still standing there with a pistol?  Really?  Does that seem like a believable scenario?  You just watched this supposed cold-blooded killer double-tap your friend in the head, and your reaction is to go over and punch his wife while he's standing there with the pistol?

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 08:27:50 pm
That sounds very biased.

What part is biased? You'd prefer we find a less judgmental term to describe a home invasion?  "Aggressive trespass"?  "High-intensity loitering"?

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 08:35:11 pm
There was another murder that happened not far from him. Two men from the Red Pheasant reserve (the same reserve that is home to the 5 adults that drove into Stanley’s yard) murdered two men and a dog. The two men were related to two of the men who assaulted Stanley.

Two others from the same reserve beat and assaulted two women who stopped to assist them with a “flat tire”. Crime in this specific area is rampant and this reserve has a problem it needs to be addressed. One just needs to google a bit and see what is going on in Saskatchewan.

An elderly woman from Debden, SK was beaten with a wooden baseball bat in her own home by thieves.  Kirk DeSchryver from Denzil, SK was ran over twice by thieves on his farm who were there to steal his ATV.

People living in rural areas have to fear for their lives when they hear a vehicle roll up on their driveway. Is this someone looking for help, is this a friend, or is this someone here to steal your stuff, burn your house down, assualt you, ram you with a vehicle, trash your property or even murder you?

It's a shame when a man doing some daily chores with his son on his farm is forced to defend his family and his home when a vehicle with 5 black-out drunk violent thieves with a loaded weapon, on a crime spree involving multiple victims decide to come on to his property, ram his vehicles, attempt to steal property and use their vehicle to try and hit the people living there.

I feel like all of this context has been conspicuously absent from the media coverage following the verdict. From the coverage you'd get the impression that a native kid was peacefully minding his own business when some raging psycho walked up and blew his head off for ****'n'giggles.


 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 08:39:05 pm

What part is biased? You'd prefer we find a less judgmental term to describe a home invasion?  "Aggressive trespass"?  "High-intensity loitering"?

 -k

This:
I don't believe Stanley woke up that morning intending to kill a Native.

vs this:
The gang of young adults, however, DID wake up that morning intending to find trouble

I'd guess they intended, at most, to 'drink', but I doubt 'intending to find trouble' was even on their mind when they woke up.   

But now that farmers have carte blanche to kill Natives it's important to remind everyone that Natives are just out to cause trouble so good riddance to bad actors, right?



Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 08:41:42 pm
for this event to occur at the moment that Stanley's pistol was pointed at Bouchie's head seems "awfully convenient" to say the least. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. I'm very skeptical of the "hang-fire" story.
Winning a lottery is very rare but it happens to someone every week. You need to separate statistical probability from personal experience. Furthermore, there is an observer bias because events where something unusual occurred are, by definition, more likely to be noticed than the normal occurance. In this case, the hang fire (if it occured) is the reason we are talking about the story. IOW, hang fires may be rare but when they do occur the chances of someone getting hurt are much more likely. This means the conditional probability of a hang fire occurring given the fact that someone was hurt is much higher than the general probability that of hang fire occurring.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 14, 2018, 08:42:37 pm
This:
I don't believe Stanley woke up that morning intending to kill a Native.

vs this:
The gang of young adults, however, DID wake up that morning intending to find trouble

I'd guess they intended, at most, to 'drink', but I doubt 'intending to find trouble' was even on their mind when they woke up.   

But now that farmers have carte blanche to kill Natives it's important to remind everyone that Natives are just out to cause trouble so good riddance to bad actors, right?

It's funny that you use the first three lines to illustrate "bias", and then follow it with that fourth line
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 08:47:17 pm
It's funny that you use the first three lines to illustrate "bias", and then follow it with that fourth line

It's a shame that posting what you seem to consider pithy comments misses the mark so consistently. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 08:49:14 pm
Winning a lottery is very rare but it happens to someone every week. You need to separate statistical probability from personal experience. Furthermore, there is an observer bias because events where something unusual occurred are, by definition, more likely to be noticed than the normal occurance. In this case, the hang fire (if it occured) is the reason we are talking about the story. IOW, hang fires may be rare but when they do occur the chances of someone getting hurt are much more likely.

The gun in question was examined by an expert, who said it was extremely unlikely there was a hang fire - and even if there were, it would be for less than a second, not the length of time it took to walk down the driveway.  Not to mention, the son testified that he thought the shot that killed Boushie happened while his father was walking down the driveway.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 14, 2018, 08:50:25 pm
It's a shame that posting what you seem to consider pithy comments misses the mark so consistently.

It would be, if I was, and I did.

I could just say, what a bloody hypocrite, but I have too much class to start a conversation with that.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 08:50:39 pm
Winning a lottery is very rare but it happens to someone every week. You need to separate statistical probability from personal experience. Furthermore, there is an observer bias because events where something unusual occurred are, by definition, more likely to be noticed than the normal occurance. In this case, the hang fire (if it occured) is the reason we are talking about the story. IOW, hang fires may be rare but when they do occur the chances of someone getting hurt are much more likely.

Comparing the lottery to a hang fire makes no sense at all since, as you point out, someone wins the lottery every week. as I previously pointed out a hang fire wouldn't have waited long enough to occur, and people usually only get hurt by guns when they are pointed at them.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 09:01:48 pm
The gun in question was examined by an expert, who said it was extremely unlikely there was a hang fire - and even if there were, it would be for less than a second, not the length of time it took to walk down the driveway.  Not to mention, the son testified that he thought the shot that killed Boushie happened while his father was walking down the driveway.
If it was that clear the jury would have convicted him of manslaughter. Be wary of after the fact claims. We don't know what evidence was put before the jury and what has been added later by pundits.

What annoys me about this story is the suggestion that white jurors make decisions based on prejudice instead of rationality examining the evidence and the "solution" is to demand that "native" jurors be added to make decisions based on prejudice. It is simply not rational to claim that white jurors are prejudiced but native jurors are not.  You either trust the jury system or you don't. Playing games with the composition of juries is not going to fix a problem with prejudice if it really exists.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 09:19:00 pm
If it was that clear the jury would have convicted him of manslaughter. Be wary of after the fact claims. We don't know what evidence was put before the jury and what has been added later by pundits.

What annoys me about this story is the suggestion that white jurors make decisions based on prejudice instead of rationality examining the evidence and the "solution" is to demand that "native" jurors be added to make decisions based on prejudice. It is simply not rational to claim that white jurors are prejudiced but native jurors are not.  You either trust the jury system or you don't. Playing games with the composition of juries is not going to fix a problem with prejudice if it really exists.

I don't think the jurors would have intended or been aware of any bias, but given some of the comments of the public I would be surprised if they were completely unbiased.   It's essentially an bunch of people deciding on who was 'guilty' between one of their own and an 'outsider'.   If some of the 'outsiders' were included in the decision of guilt, perhaps there would have been a different verdict, or perhaps not.  But the one-sidedness of the process leaves the suspicion that the verdict was essentially unfair.  Given that the Natives in Canada have been experiencing 'unfairness' at the hands of the Canadian government and white society for a century or so, it's not surprising they're not very willing to trust that this trial was 'fair'.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 09:28:52 pm
It is simply not rational to claim that white jurors are prejudiced but native jurors are not.  You either trust the jury system or you don't. Playing games with the composition of juries is not going to fix a problem with prejudice if it really exists.

The current system is playing games with the composition of juries, that is what you seem to fail to understand.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 14, 2018, 09:36:28 pm
The current system is playing games with the composition of juries, that is what you seem to fail to understand.

That's one thing I didn't know about the system until this case.  It seems like it is designed to deliberately introduce bias, if only you can get away with it.

Stupid, if you ask me.  (I realise nobody has)
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 10:40:48 pm
That's one thing I didn't know about the system until this case.  It seems like it is designed to deliberately introduce bias, if only you can get away with it.

Stupid, if you ask me.  (I realise nobody has)

It was designed to exclude bias however lawyers know how to take advantage of it.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 10:42:44 pm
If some of the 'outsiders' were included in the decision of guilt, perhaps there would have been a different verdict, or perhaps not.  But the one-sidedness of the process leaves the suspicion that the verdict was essentially unfair.
One can argue that changing the composition of juries would help increase the perception that justice is done. That argument does not require that one argue that this particular jury let their prejudices drive their decisions.

As for the question of "insider" vs "other" I would argue that a defendant of any race faced with a band of armed maradurers would have been given a lot of benefit of the doubt because the jurors can empathize with the fear of home invasions. Similarly a native who left the reserve, bought a farm and worked hard making a living would have been given the same deference if this native farmer was faced with a group of marauding white boys.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 10:55:35 pm
One can argue that changing the composition of juries would help increase the perception that justice is done. That argument does not require that one argue that this particular jury let their prejudices drive their decisions.

As for the question of "insider" vs "other" I would argue that a defendant of any race faced with a band of armed maradurers would have been given a lot of benefit of the doubt because the jurors can empathize with the fear of home invasions. Similarly a native who left the reserve, bought a farm and worked hard making a living would have been given the same deference if this native farmer was faced with a group of marauding white boys.

Why does the Native have to leave the reserve and become a "White" farmer type in order to deserve the deference you speak of?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 11:03:01 pm
Why does the Native have to leave the reserve and become a "White" farmer type in order to deserve the deference you speak of?
It is about explaining how the concept of "insiders" and "outsiders" is applied by most people. It is NOT based on race - it is based on culture. When people share the same culture they are considered insiders. A native leaving the reserve would have a cultural connection with the jury that that natives living on reserves would not have. The fixation that people have with race is bizarre. Race is irrelevant. Culture matters.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 14, 2018, 11:04:36 pm
Why does the Native have to leave the reserve and become a "White" farmer type in order to deserve the deference you speak of?

I'd be okay with a native shooting a home invader too.  On the reserve or off.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 11:12:51 pm
It is about explaining how the concept of "insiders" and "outsiders" is applied by most people. It is NOT based on race - it is based on culture. When people share the same culture they are considered insiders. A native leaving the reserve would have a cultural connection with the jury that that natives living on reserves would not have. The fixation that people have with race is bizarre. Race is irrelevant. Culture matters.

Once again you try to suggest that the Native who leaves the reserve is somehow less biased than the white farmer on the jury. Race and culture totally overlap.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 11:16:08 pm
I'd be okay with a native shooting a home invader too.  On the reserve or off.

An all white jury might disagree.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 14, 2018, 11:20:38 pm
An all white jury might disagree.

The defence could make sure there were no whites on the jury.

Or they could ask me.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 14, 2018, 11:36:07 pm
The defence could make sure there were no whites on the jury.

Or they could ask me.

No, the defense could not do that. Both sides are limited to the numbers they can exclude.
The jury pool would in all likelihood contain a large majority of non natives.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 15, 2018, 02:00:28 am
This:
I don't believe Stanley woke up that morning intending to kill a Native.

vs this:
The gang of young adults, however, DID wake up that morning intending to find trouble

I'd guess they intended, at most, to 'drink', but I doubt 'intending to find trouble' was even on their mind when they woke up.   

Perhaps not when they woke up, but they certainly decided to commit some robberies well before they got to the Stanley farm.

But now that farmers have carte blanche to kill Natives

I doubt anybody thinks they've got a carte blanche to kill aboriginal people.  I think everybody looks at what the Stanley family has gone through and are just relieved that it wasn't their own farm that Boushie and friends showed up at.

And imagine how much pressure the Crown is going to be under to get a conviction next time. I doubt anybody is going to want to be the next white-guy put on trial for killing a native regardless of the circumstances.

it's important to remind everyone that Natives are just out to cause trouble

Not all of them. But Boushie and friends, certainly. Pointing that out seems to get people very upset right now.

so good riddance to bad actors, right?

I don't think that someone getting killed is anybody's first choice of an outcome to a situation like this, but with all the focus on native anger at the verdict, everybody has forgotten that this didn't happen in a vacuum. The context is an environment where people are in reasonable fear for their safety.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 15, 2018, 06:30:13 am
Winning a lottery is very rare but it happens to someone every week. 

And therein we get to the problem of the legal concept of 'reasonable doubt'.  Would an all-white jury believe the Indian got his money from a 'lottery win' vs a white person ?   A 1-in-a-million chance but "reasonable" depends on human factors, which necessarily involve trust, racism etc.

From what I have read here, I think he fired but unsure whether he aimed at the victim. 

He got off because of a lenient legal system that favours white landowners, and twists things around so that the guy who lived and walks away is the persecuted one.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Peter F on February 15, 2018, 06:55:02 am
Quote
He got off because of a lenient legal system that favours white landowners, and twists things around so that the guy who lived and walks away is the persecuted one

That lenient legal system tried to have him put away for 2nd degree murder. Failing that then Manslaughter.  I'm not sure what you mean by lenient. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 15, 2018, 07:21:00 am
That lenient legal system tried to have him put away for 2nd degree murder. Failing that then Manslaughter.  I'm not sure what you mean by lenient.

?  He got OFF.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 07:48:10 am
It is about explaining how the concept of "insiders" and "outsiders" is applied by most people. It is NOT based on race - it is based on culture. When people share the same culture they are considered insiders. A native leaving the reserve would have a cultural connection with the jury that that natives living on reserves would not have. The fixation that people have with race is bizarre. Race is irrelevant. Culture matters.
Culture is the neo-racist proxy for race. You're just playing semantics. The subjugation of Indigenous peoples was establish and is perpetuated by racialized notions of white superiority. You can call it culture all you want, but when someone looks indigenous, people assume a cultural identity based on their racial appearance. Those assumptions aren't made if the indigenous person passes as white by having more caucasian features and anglo-sounding names. All of those prejudiced assumptions about cultural inferiority that are foisted upon indigenous peoples leads to their unequal treatment and puts them behind the 8-ball in any sort of social encounters. The institutions that we built up in this country were founded upon and built up around those racist assumptions that continue today. White people don't have to navigate a social landscape where the colour of their skin brings with it negative connotations affecting their ability to find a job, rent an apartment, get an education, be approved for loans, etc. That's what white privilege is--a concept that you wrongfully reject.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 08:06:11 am
That lenient legal system tried to have him put away for 2nd degree murder. Failing that then Manslaughter.  I'm not sure what you mean by lenient.
Manslaughter is a lesser included charge for murder 2. That they didn't even convict for manslaughter is unconscionable. We don't have castle law in Canada.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 15, 2018, 08:42:18 am
Culture is the neo-racist proxy for race. You're just playing semantics.
Nonsense. No society can function without a common culture. Differences in culture lead divisions in society that have nothing to do with skin colour. Trying to turn everything into a question of race is a SJW obsession. Furthermore, *every* society in the world presumes their culture is superior and expects others to conform. This is the nature of human cultures and trying to suggest that there is something uniquely oppressive about European/Canadian culture is not only dishonest - it is delusional. If anything European/Canadian culture one of the most open cultures in the world because the requirements for joining the culture do not include a requirement to reject other cultures. Multiple cultural identities are acceptable.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 15, 2018, 08:43:35 am
That they didn't even convict for manslaughter is unconscionable.
I suggest you research the concept of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". It is clear that you don't understand it.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 15, 2018, 09:33:17 am
Maybe moving the trial to a completely different venue would help reduce the appearance of bias. For example, imagine the trial had been moved to Vancouver. There would be a large pool of jurors of non-white, non-aboriginal jurors who aren't biased by any preconception of Saskatchewan's reserves or rural crime problems and hadn't made preconceptions about the trial because the story wasn't covered much in BC.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 10:05:51 am
I suggest you research the concept of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". It is clear that you don't understand it.
Manslaughter. Maybe you should look into its definition.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 10:17:05 am
Nonsense. No society can function without a common culture.
You're making an argument that political boundaries are the same as cultural boundaries and if they're not then they should be. That's white nationalist dogma that they use to promote separate countries for separate races. Now if you're referring to culture as a common stock of knowledge that allows for the simplest of social functioning (like not standing backwards in an elevator or not having to ask someone what every other word means in their sentence), then indigenous people don't have a different "culture" in those terms. So your argument about difference is moot.

However, earlier you were promoting a hierarchy of culture by ascribing to indigenous culture all the negative aspects of people that also exist in "white culture," whatever you presume that to be: "it's not race, it's culture" implies that there is a problem with their culture but not "ours." Kids getting drunk and going around robbing people or getting into fights? That's indigenous culture when red kids do it, but it's not "white" culture when white kids do it every single weekend in downtown Windsor, Toronto, or Montreal. Just the way that culture is defined in this conversation is in itself racially motivated and racist. That's another aspect to this use of "culture" as a proxy for race.

It's not race, it's culture is the neo-racist's thin veil for their racism. "I didn't say race, I said culture" is nothing more than semantic game, substituting words to present the same the same racist ideas.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 10:27:33 am
No, the defense could not do that. Both sides are limited to the numbers they can exclude.
The jury pool would in all likelihood contain a large majority of non natives.

I see.

Still, I would imagine any jury, regardless of race, would favour any innocent homeowner, regardless of race, over some criminal scumbag. regardless of race.

I know I would.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Goddess on February 15, 2018, 10:40:32 am
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoes

Transcript of the judge's instructions to the jury  ^^^
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 11:08:23 am
I see.

Still, I would imagine any jury, regardless of race, would favour any innocent homeowner, regardless of race, over some criminal scumbag. regardless of race.

I know I would.

Then any lawyer worth his salt would perceive that preconceived notion and you would be deleted from jusy duty.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 11:15:25 am
Then any lawyer worth his salt would perceive that preconceived notion and you would be deleted from jusy duty.

Bastards! No wonder there are so many miscarriages of justice!

Of course, then there would be nobody left, so it would go to a judge alone. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2018, 11:24:55 am
Clean shave, nice haircut, and well tailored suit.

All you need to be found innocent.

... a pale complexion doesn't hurt
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 11:30:42 am
Bastards! No wonder there are so many miscarriages of justice!

Of course, then there would be nobody left, so it would go to a judge alone.

Believe it or not there are people who can set aside any bias they may have and simply deal with the evidence that surrounds a case. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 11:32:30 am
Believe it or not there are people who can set aside any bias they may have and simply deal with the evidence that surrounds a case.

How would you know?  Isn't that the issue with the case at hand?

And I do have some trouble believing that completely.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 11:46:38 am
How would you know?  Isn't that the issue with the case at hand?

And I do have some trouble believing that completely.

I can understand your trouble as you have already demonstrated your bias in your previous post. The issue with the case at hand is to do with jury selection. I think the jury were guided by the evidence in the case but there may have been errors therein. Has to do with "hangfire"
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 12:15:56 pm
Comparing the lottery to a hang fire makes no sense at all since, as you point out, someone wins the lottery every week. as I previously pointed out a hang fire wouldn't have waited long enough to occur, and people usually only get hurt by guns when they are pointed at them.

The first time I was on a gun range it was made clear to me that if my gun failed to fire after I pulled the trigger I should hold it in position, pointing downrange for a period of time. I forget what that period of time was but it sure as hell wasn't as second. I think it was ten or thirty seconds. So hangifires do happen, and they can certainly be longer than a second.

And if you're 'brandishing' a gun at someone, then as soon as you fire your warning shot you're likely to drop the gun down to point at them again. Probably in not much over a second, in fact.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 12:17:24 pm
I can understand your trouble as you have already demonstrated your bias in your previous post. The issue with the case at hand is to do with jury selection. I think the jury were guided by the evidence in the case but there may have been errors therein. Has to do with "hangfire"

As long as my bias doesn't have a racial aspect I'm comfortable with it.  I've never experienced a hangfire.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 12:21:02 pm
Maybe moving the trial to a completely different venue would help reduce the appearance of bias. For example, imagine the trial had been moved to Vancouver. There would be a large pool of jurors of non-white, non-aboriginal jurors who aren't biased by any preconception of Saskatchewan's reserves or rural crime problems and hadn't made preconceptions about the trial because the story wasn't covered much in BC.

 -k

But they wouldn't have been a jury of his peers. They would have not even grasped the concept that calling the police would be of no use because the police are so far away, as are any neighbours you might run to for protection.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 12:25:35 pm
The first time I was on a gun range it was made clear to me that if my gun failed to fire after I pulled the trigger I should hold it in position, pointing downrange for a period of time. I forget what that period of time was but it sure as hell wasn't as second. I think it was ten or thirty seconds. So hangifires do happen, and they can certainly be longer than a second.

And if you're 'brandishing' a gun at someone, then as soon as you fire your warning shot you're likely to drop the gun down to point at them again. Probably in not much over a second, in fact.

In this case he had to walk down the driveway to get to the car in order to start pointing the gun. That casts doubt on the hangfire likelihood. It sounds like the jury may have been misinformed on the issue, which likely cast doubt as to intent.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 12:27:14 pm
You're making an argument that political boundaries are the same as cultural boundaries and if they're not then they should be. That's white nationalist dogma that they use to promote separate countries for separate races. Now if you're referring to culture as a common stock of knowledge that allows for the simplest of social functioning (like not standing backwards in an elevator or not having to ask someone what every other word means in their sentence), then indigenous people don't have a different "culture" in those terms. So your argument about difference is moot.

However, earlier you were promoting a hierarchy of culture by ascribing to indigenous culture all the negative aspects of people that also exist in "white culture," whatever you presume that to be: "it's not race, it's culture" implies that there is a problem with their culture but not "ours." Kids getting drunk and going around robbing people or getting into fights? That's indigenous culture when red kids do it, but it's not "white" culture when white kids do it every single weekend in downtown Windsor, Toronto, or Montreal. Just the way that culture is defined in this conversation is in itself racially motivated and racist. That's another aspect to this use of "culture" as a proxy for race.

It's not race, it's culture is the neo-racist's thin veil for their racism. "I didn't say race, I said culture" is nothing more than semantic game, substituting words to present the same the same racist ideas.

Jesus god, what a heaping load of pseud-intellectual bullshit. Do you talk like this in real life? Everything is racist to you. Having a belief in culture and values unique to your nation is racist and white nationalist. Judging another culture based on the common behaviour pattern of the members of it is racist, regardless of how wildly that behaviour pattern varies from that you were raised with. There's no one other than extreme progressive who wouldn't laugh in your face at this twaddle.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 12:27:50 pm
As long as my bias doesn't have a racial aspect I'm comfortable with it.  I've never experienced a hangfire.

As explained, your bias is what a lawyer will look for to disqualify you.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 12:31:19 pm
As explained, your bias is what a lawyer will look for to disqualify you.

What the hell, I just wouldn't tell them.  I'd pretend to be an absolute paragon of ambiguity, until it was too late.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 12:42:13 pm
Jesus god, what a heaping load of pseud-intellectual bullshit. Do you talk like this in real life? Everything is racist to you. Having a belief in culture and values unique to your nation is racist and white nationalist. Judging another culture based on the common behaviour pattern of the members of it is racist, regardless of how wildly that behaviour pattern varies from that you were raised with. There's no one other than extreme progressive who wouldn't laugh in your face at this twaddle.
Oh but I'm the one enraged by dissenting opinions.  :D
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 12:44:39 pm
What the hell, I just wouldn't tell them.  I'd pretend to be an absolute paragon of ambiguity, until it was too late.

A good lawyer would likely outsmart you pretty quick.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 12:48:45 pm
Oh but I'm the one enraged by dissenting opinions.  :D

I'm sorry but are you mistaking contempt for rage? I assure you I merely meant to convey contempt. I actually feel there's something psychologically wrong with you in your bizarre obsession with creating racism out of every damned position and belief.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 12:49:11 pm
A good lawyer would likely outsmart you pretty quick.

Basic disagreement here.  The lawyer's not born that can outsmart me.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2018, 12:54:15 pm
Basic disagreement here.  The lawyer's not born that can outsmart me.

What about Mueller?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 12:55:46 pm
I'm sorry but are you mistaking contempt for rage? I assure you I merely meant to convey contempt. I actually feel there's something psychologically wrong with you in your bizarre obsession with creating racism out of every damned position and belief.
Every damn position or belief? There's that narcissism again. There's a lot of posters on here, the majority in fact, even those I don't agree with, who don't promote racist ideas like you do. I've got to admit though... it's pretty clear that you can't refute what I'm saying, since you decided instead to attack me personally and throw a hissy fit....uh, I mean show your "contempt."
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 pm
What about Mueller?

It'd be over in a heartbeat. :D
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 12:58:14 pm
What about Mueller?

So far, he can't even outsmart Trump.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 12:59:26 pm
It'd be over in a heartbeat. :D

I might take longer, but I'd be also doing a Sudoku.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 01:03:16 pm
So far, he can't even outsmart Trump.

Um, sorry but you have no way of knowing that until he releases his report. So far he seems to have Trump pooping his pants, hence his failed attempts to get rid of him.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 15, 2018, 01:04:53 pm
Um, sorry but you have no way of knowing that until he releases his report. So far he seems to have Trump pooping his pants, hence his failed attempts to get rid of him.

Don't apologise, you're absolutely right.  He doesn't tell me anything anymore.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 15, 2018, 01:15:14 pm
But they wouldn't have been a jury of his peers. They would have not even grasped the concept that calling the police would be of no use because the police are so far away, as are any neighbours you might run to for protection.

There are rural communities in BC too, you know.  Ascribing idiocy to people and communities about which you clearly know nothing is one of your less endearing qualities.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 15, 2018, 01:17:35 pm
Jesus god, what a heaping load of pseud-intellectual bullshit.

No need to be rude just because you don't understand what was written.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 02:27:57 pm
Every damn position or belief? There's that narcissism again. There's a lot of posters on here, the majority in fact, even those I don't agree with, who don't promote racist ideas like you do. I've got to admit though... it's pretty clear that you can't refute what I'm saying, since you decided instead to attack me personally and throw a hissy fit....uh, I mean show your "contempt."

Uhm, you weren't talking about the subject. You were saying that anyone who took positions about values or culture was a racist and white nationalist. I certainly addressed that bit of insanity and dismissed it with the contempt it deserved.

And since the majority on this site are progressives, even if not as extreme as you, you tolerate them better.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 02:28:47 pm
There are rural communities in BC too, you know.  Ascribing idiocy to people and communities about which you clearly know nothing is one of your less endearing qualities.

Please list the rural communities in Vancouver for me, would you?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 02:29:35 pm
No need to be rude just because you don't understand what was written.

I understand bullshit when I smell it.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 02:31:58 pm
You were saying that anyone who took positions about values or culture was a racist and white nationalist.
Is that what I was saying really? That might be what you think I'm saying, but I outlined how it's racist thinking in terms of how cultural differences are defined differently by people. Simply taking a position about values or culture is not enough to be racist and white nationalist. There was a lot more to my comment that you're ignoring.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 15, 2018, 02:39:20 pm
Please list the rural communities in Vancouver for me, would you?

Just as many rural communities as there are in Saskatoon, is my guess.  Just because someone lives in a city doesn't mean they don't understand "rural" or the concept of delayed emergency response. 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 02:54:56 pm
Is that what I was saying really? That might be what you think I'm saying, but I outlined how it's racist thinking in terms of how cultural differences are defined differently by people. Simply taking a position about values or culture is not enough to be racist and white nationalist. There was a lot more to my comment that you're ignoring.

You said that Tim's position arose out of neo-racist and white nationalist beliefs, which is bullshit.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 02:55:23 pm
Just as many rural communities as there are in Saskatoon, is my guess.  Just because someone lives in a city doesn't mean they don't understand "rural" or the concept of delayed emergency response.

You realize she said VANCOUVER, not BRITISH COLUMBIA, right?
Yeah, there might be some people in Vancouver who had some awareness of rural living, but mostly not.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 15, 2018, 03:10:17 pm
You realize she said VANCOUVER, not BRITISH COLUMBIA, right?
Yeah, there might be some people in Vancouver who had some awareness of rural living, but mostly not.

Except, as you have pointed out in the  past, Vancouver is well-populated with people who are, according to you, largely from rural areas of the world, which lack proper law and order; I bet they'd really understand the idea that they should protect what is theirs cause the cops aren't gonna come any time soon.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 15, 2018, 06:45:03 pm
Believe it or not there are people who can set aside any bias they may have and simply deal with the evidence that surrounds a case.

Are you a white person?   If so, then no you cannot, according to those who are calling this verdict an injustice.  (The PM and his Justice Minister)
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2018, 07:28:44 pm
Are you a white person?   If so, then no you cannot, according to those who are calling this verdict an injustice.  (The PM and his Justice Minister)

It is only the self righteous right wing pundits that are saying others are calling the verdict an injustice, they are the ones interfering in the judicial system.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 07:48:48 pm
Except, as you have pointed out in the  past, Vancouver is well-populated with people who are, according to you, largely from rural areas of the world, which lack proper law and order; I bet they'd really understand the idea that they should protect what is theirs cause the cops aren't gonna come any time soon.

Where have I said most of our immigrants come from rural areas? Cite.

And what makes you think the areas they come from lack proper law and order? I bet China has tons of law and order in rural areas. In other areas, like Pakistan or Somalia, say, tribal elders are the law and are rarely far away.

Canada has one of the lowest police per population in the western world. Roughly half what it is in France or Germany, way less than in the US or UK. Add in how incredibly spread out we are in rural areas and I doubt you can find many places that have the same time length to get someone in authority to help you.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 07:49:42 pm
It is only the self righteous right wing pundits that are saying others are calling the verdict an injustice, they are the ones interfering in the judicial system.

It wouldn't matter to you if Trudeau demanded the jury be arrested and executed you'd still be defending it.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 15, 2018, 08:01:27 pm
Where have I said most of our immigrants come from rural areas? Cite.

And what makes you think the areas they come from lack proper law and order? I bet China has tons of law and order in rural areas. In other areas, like Pakistan or Somalia, say, tribal elders are the law and are rarely far away.

Wow, your story has certainly changed.  Suddenly we aren't importing most of our immigrants from thirdworld shithole countries, a bunch of "goatherders" was your term.  But never mind, if you've now changed your mind then I applaud that.  :) 

But it still remains a remarkably stupid claim that because someone lives in Vancouver they could not possibly understand rural living.  Especially since you have no hesitation in claiming you know all there is to know about everybody, near and far.   

But carry on.  :)
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 15, 2018, 08:04:41 pm
It wouldn't matter to you if Trudeau demanded the jury be arrested and executed you'd still be defending it.

Alittle over the top again maybe?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 08:05:19 pm
Wow, your story has certainly changed.  Suddenly we aren't importing most of our immigrants from thirdworld shithole countries, a bunch of "goatherders" was your term.  But never mind, if you've now changed your mind then I applaud that.  :) 

I asked for a cite and rather than acknowledging you simply made it up you congratulate me for changing my story. You're an amazingly dishonest person.

Quote
But it still remains a remarkably stupid claim that because someone lives in Vancouver they could not possibly understand rural living.

I'd say the claim was unremarkable and common sense, but I know using that term will trigger you into hysterics and make you hide under your bed.
"AHH! Common sense! Ahhh! My old nemesis again! Ahhh! Mommy! Mommy! The bad man said the bad phrase again!"
 
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 15, 2018, 08:56:24 pm
But they wouldn't have been a jury of his peers.

You're taking the word "peers" far too literally. It certainly is not interpreted in law to mean "12 other white male farmers".

They would have not even grasped the concept that calling the police would be of no use because the police are so far away, as are any neighbours you might run to for protection.

That's an argument that can be presented in trial, using facts like response times, a road map demonstrating how far it is from the nearest RCMP detachment to the farm, examples of other violent crime in the area, and so on.  If this was part of Stanley's defense, it isn't to be assumed that the jury already knows this stuff, it's to be entered into testimony and shown during the trial. And Vancouver residents who are alarmed by emergency response times of 10 minutes would probably be quite startled by emergency response times of 45 minutes in rural areas.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 16, 2018, 02:15:57 pm
That's an argument that can be presented in trial, using facts like response times, a road map demonstrating how far it is from the nearest RCMP detachment to the farm, examples of other violent crime in the area, and so on.  If this was part of Stanley's defense, it isn't to be assumed that the jury already knows this stuff, it's to be entered into testimony and shown during the trial. And Vancouver residents who are alarmed by emergency response times of 10 minutes would probably be quite startled by emergency response times of 45 minutes in rural areas.

 -k

You can TELL people this, but it's not the same as living year after year with the background knowledge that any help, be it police, fire, ambulance, is a long distance away so if anything happens you damn well better be able to handle it yourself. That affects how you think about things in a way which is much more profound and innate than simply 'being told' that these are the listed facts.

I would guess a big chunk of those Vancouverites would be aghast over him even owning a firearm to begin with. I'm sure you've met such people, who recoil like there's something seriously wrong with you if you own a gun.

Why do you own a gun, Kimmy? Do you want to shoot someone? Do you practice in front of a mirror saying "You talking to me?" Do you fantasize about shooting someone who 'deserves it'? Huh, Kimmy? Huh?

Do you really think a bunch of NDP types from the lower mainland are going to judge whatever you do with a firearm without that kind of **** as a background in their minds?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: kimmy on February 17, 2018, 11:48:45 am
If someone told you that a black man accused of a crime needs to have a jury consisting of other black men because they're the only ones who can relate to the circumstances of racial profiling and discrimination and prejudice, you'd probably tell them they were full of ****.

You're entitled to a jury of your peers. You're not entitled to a sympathetic jury.

 -k
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Rue on February 17, 2018, 12:08:06 pm
Basic disagreement here.  The lawyer's not born that can outsmart me.

Oh yah? Who is more powerful, Superman or the Martian Manhunter?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Rue on February 17, 2018, 12:09:38 pm
Clean shave, nice haircut, and well tailored suit.

All you need to be found innocent.

... a pale complexion doesn't hurt

You make racist comments. You feel  because its against caucasians its politically acceptable. All that does is prove the point many of us know.

You engage in the very behaviour you are so quick to assume others engage in,
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 17, 2018, 12:13:31 pm
Oh yah? Who is more powerful, Superman or the Martian Manhunter?

Uh, nice try genius: that's entrapment.

[Edited to add: This is a joke.  Dry humour.  I respect all of you.  Leave me alone.]
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Rue on February 17, 2018, 12:17:47 pm
How would you know?  Isn't that the issue with the case at hand?

And I do have some trouble believing that completely.

The point is you engage in subjective speculation with zero proof of any bigotry or bias. Get back to me when you have something
other than a projection of your subjective assumption.

Also if you make me defend and agree with Omni again I shall be peeved. I prefer defending you. Seriously, the automatic assumption the jury has to be aboriginal or have some
aboriginals to have been fair is simplistic. The issues a jury can and can not consider are screened by the trial Judge. You underestimate how a trial Judge controls what the jury
discusses and how they act as a failsafe to keep juries focused on the actual issues.

I can tell you the issue was not about race as much as leftists would like you to believe it was. They are playing the race card. The decision probably would have been no different had the person
been killed been white. Why? Because the Crown must show beyond reasonable doubt the homeowner had the criminal intent to kill someone. What you and others do not understand is
the fact that the homeowner may not have intended to kill someone with his gun does not mean he is innocent of other charges regarding use of a firearm.

I think what has happened is some people and I hope not you wanted a Frankenstein to burn. Humans lust blood. When they see blood they want more and want juries to act as surrogate
lynch mobs for them. Its not what juries do or are intended to do. They are to act in a manner removed from screaming with pitchforks and looking for a Frankenstein to burn on fire.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Rue on February 17, 2018, 12:18:32 pm
Uh, nice try genius: that's entrapment.

[Edited to add: This is a joke.  Dry humour.  I respect all of you.  Leave me alone.]

2 good ones. Say what you want I love your humour.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest7 on February 17, 2018, 12:23:10 pm
Oh yah? Who is more powerful, Superman or the Martian Manhunter?

Well, as I'm not under oath, I can confidently assert that I've never heard of the Martian Manhunter.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: cybercoma on February 17, 2018, 01:39:30 pm
If someone told you that a black man accused of a crime needs to have a jury consisting of other black men because they're the only ones who can relate to the circumstances of racial profiling and discrimination and prejudice, you'd probably tell them they were full of ****.

You're entitled to a jury of your peers. You're not entitled to a sympathetic jury.

 -k
Yet it’s illegal to discriminate against jurors based on race in the US. It’s not in Canada.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 17, 2018, 02:59:12 pm
You're entitled to a jury of your peers. You're not entitled to a sympathetic jury.

 -k

The purpose of a jury of your peers is to have people judging you who live under the same circumstances as you do. Otherwise what IS the purpose?

And what IS the inference anyway? White people won't concvict white people? The evidence for this seems lacking. Farmers won't convict farmers? No evidence of this either.

This whole bullshit brouhha wouldn't exist if the guy who'd been shot was white.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 17, 2018, 03:05:20 pm
The purpose of a jury of your peers is to have people judging you who live under the same circumstances as you do. Otherwise what IS the purpose?

And what IS the inference anyway? White people won't concvict white people? The evidence for this seems lacking. Farmers won't convict farmers? No evidence of this either.

This whole bullshit brouhha wouldn't exist if the guy who'd been shot was white.

Oh I could quite easily see that if it had of been a white guy shot and half the jury was non white you'd be pointing fingers vigorously.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 17, 2018, 03:20:37 pm
The purpose of a jury of your peers is to have people judging you who live under the same circumstances as you do. Otherwise what IS the purpose?

So I assume you are clearly saying that almost 100% of all native Canadians that have stood trial have been improperly judged and all that were found guilty need restitution for the obviously flawed judicial system in Canada.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 17, 2018, 03:27:17 pm
So I assume you are clearly saying that almost 100% of all native Canadians that have stood trial have been improperly judged and all that were found guilty need restitution for the obviously flawed judicial system in Canada.

apparently he's never been near a reserve.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 17, 2018, 03:34:26 pm
So I assume you are clearly saying that almost 100% of all native Canadians that have stood trial have been improperly judged and all that were found guilty need restitution for the obviously flawed judicial system in Canada.

I'm not saying you need to be judged by people of the same race. But generally it's considered to mean the same general area.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 17, 2018, 03:34:53 pm
Oh I could quite easily see that if it had of been a white guy shot and half the jury was non white you'd be pointing fingers vigorously.

I'm not as racist as you are.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 17, 2018, 03:37:26 pm
I'm not saying you need to be judged by people of the same race. But generally it's considered to mean the same general area.

You said who live under the same circumstances as you do, that is very different that same general area.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 18, 2018, 11:55:55 am
You said who live under the same circumstances as you do, that is very different that same general area.

What I meant was anyone living in that area would be familiar with the problems of obtaining assistance and protection from police or others. It would be a fact of life they'd always lived with. They would also likely be a lot more comfortable with guns and gun ownership than urban dwellers since guns are a fairly normal tool in rural area and a lot more people hunt. Most urban dwellers have likely never even seen one and probably don't even know anyone who had one.  Guns have a different, for want of a better term, mystique there.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 18, 2018, 01:17:51 pm
Quote
peer
n. an equal. A "jury of one's peers," to which criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled, means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. It does not mean a jury ethnically, educationally, economically, or sexually the same as the defendant, although, in some jurisdictions attempts are made to meet those criteria.

This the US definition and I doubt ours is much different because it makes sense. The key word is impartial. Should a jury deliberating over a street person charged with theft be composed entirely of other street people? I don't think so.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 18, 2018, 11:41:48 pm
Perhaps this case should bring us to consider the possibility of overhauling our jury selection process, specifically the objection issue. Objections for cause are pretty much straight forward however peremptory objections can be, or certainly can appear to be discriminatory, to wit, all natives that came before the defense council were dismissed. A lawyer can use a peremptory simply because of their instinct, but there should be way to ensure it's not done based on race. Jurors should be selected based on their apparent ability to be willing and capable of listening to, and then basing their opinion of the evidence provided, which may take possibly weeks to  hear. And maybe we should up the pay rate. I know I would do everything I could do to get dismissed if I was looking at a few weeks of 40 bucks a day.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 19, 2018, 10:55:45 am
This is a fairly good summary of why juries tend to mostly be white. Basically they're mostly selected from local taxpayer rolls - which means homeowners. There is some effort to get renter names and names from nearby band councils, but that seems to be hit and miss. Also, if you have a job it's hard to take a week off without pay to be on a jury unless you have a GOOD job. This could be an economic hardship for lower paid people, and so when they ask to be excluded they generally are. Those who are single parents are too.

Most of the people summoned to jury duty don't even show up and that's the ones on the list in the first place. A lot of natives were summoned for this jury pool but most didn't show up, and then most asked to be excluded and were. Others were dismissed because they knew or were related to the families of the five natives involved.

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/02/16/how-a-broken-jury-list-makes-ontario-justice-whiter-richer-and-less-like-your-community.html
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Peter F on February 19, 2018, 12:08:39 pm
Saskatchewan, unlike Ontario, doesn't use the tax rolls as the source for jurors. It uses the registry of the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act. A much more sensible system.
See section 7 'selection of prospective jurors' at http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/J4-2.pdf

edit to add: sorry, issues with link,
edit again: Everything's alright now.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2018, 12:18:36 pm
BC uses the voters list.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 19, 2018, 12:37:57 pm
BC uses the voters list.

Which of course tends to under represent natives. The Sask. system seems fairer, but there is always the peremptory objection issue.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2018, 01:04:27 pm
Which of course tends to under represent natives. The Sask. system seems fairer, but there is always the peremptory objection issue.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who have the right to vote and don't exercise it.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 19, 2018, 02:14:13 pm
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who have the right to vote and don't exercise it.

You don't have to sympathize but DO understand that non-participation is a measure of the systems' failures.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 19, 2018, 02:33:36 pm
You don't have to sympathize but DO understand that non-participation is a measure of the systems' failures.

According to a report in another newspaper which none of you will likely accept, the judicial authorities attempted to cast a very wide net in order to get a fair jury, summoning over 700 people, half of which were natives. Many of these people failed to show, and many of the natives who did show asked to be excused either because they knew or were related to one of the five families on the reserve involved, or because it would be a hardship for them for some reason. Some of those remaining were openly prejudiced against the defendant.

http://torontosun.com/news/national/malcolm-half-of-prospective-boushie-jurors-were-aboriginal-says-member-of-jury-pool
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 02:56:38 pm
You don't have to sympathize but DO understand that non-participation is a measure of the systems' failures.
No it isn't. It is measure of the choices made by individuals. The system provides anyone who wishes to vote with the means to do it. If they choose not to vote  that is not the "system's" fault.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 19, 2018, 02:57:00 pm
According to a report in another newspaper which none of you will likely accept, 

It may be true.  What should we do ?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 19, 2018, 02:58:25 pm
No it isn't. It is measure of the choices made by individuals.

People who don't "vote" are non-participants.  If that measure goes up, it warrants investigation, ie "Why are people not voting ?"

Quote
The system provides anyone who wishes to vote with the means to do it. If they choose not to vote  that is not the "system's" fault.
"Fault" and "Failure" are different things.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 19, 2018, 02:59:20 pm
No it isn't. It is measure of the choices made by individuals. 

Why do people choose not to vote?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 03:01:25 pm
Some of those remaining were openly prejudiced against the defendant.
I think it would be very difficult to find a native willing  to risk their community's wrath by acquitting. This would make it even more difficult to find native jurors to serve in this kind of case.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 03:02:14 pm
Why do people choose not to vote?
There are many excuses but in the end it comes down to: "too lazy to care or bother".
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2018, 03:04:57 pm
You don't have to sympathize but DO understand that non-participation is a measure of the systems' failures.

People have to take some initiative on their own, you can't hand them everything. The vote is the foundation of our democracy yet how much time do you have to spend voting every year? It's not like it's a hardship and it isn't difficult.

It isn't always the systems fault, people fail themselves all the time.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2018, 03:06:04 pm
There are many excuses but in the end it comes down to: "too lazy to care or bother".

They might have to miss an episode of Big Brother or some other shitty show.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2018, 03:07:29 pm
Aw, it's too inconvenient, why can't I do it online? Puke.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 19, 2018, 03:54:28 pm
I think it would be very difficult to find a native willing  to risk their community's wrath by acquitting. This would make it even more difficult to find native jurors to serve in this kind of case.

So you're assuming Native people are less able to understand and be guided by the evidence. You've come a short way baby.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 19, 2018, 03:57:05 pm
It may be true.  What should we do ?

Stop blaming racism for what happened. And if racial diversity on juries is that important, consider ways to persuade people to sit on juries - which would include higher remuneration, requirements that business accommodate them, and better selection lists.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 19, 2018, 04:00:11 pm
So you're assuming Native people are less able to understand and be guided by the evidence. You've come a short way baby.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can add two plus two and come up with racism every damned time.

What he VERY CLEARLY was suggesting was that given the anger on the reserve - and given everyone on that reserve would know who the native members were, if they acquitted, they would face consequences, possibly including violence.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 04:00:53 pm
So you're assuming Native people are less able to understand and be guided by the evidence. You've come a short way baby.
Actually, any normal person reading what I wrote and what I was responding to would understand that I was not saying that. But you are the champ when it comes to completely misunderstanding posts.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 19, 2018, 04:20:07 pm
Actually, any normal person reading what I wrote and what I was responding to would understand that I was not saying that. But you are the champ when it comes to completely misunderstanding posts.

Perhaps you don't understand that whatever is said in the jury room is kept secret. If a native juror voted to acquit no one would know unless they chose to broadcast it by themselves.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 19, 2018, 04:21:30 pm
  And if racial diversity on juries is that important, consider ways to persuade people to sit on juries - which would include higher remuneration, requirements that business accommodate them, and better selection lists.

Seems reasonable.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 04:23:04 pm
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-criticism-needed-canadas-jury-system-works/article38022515/

Quote
In 1994, a young Indigenous man, John Black, while pumping gas into his car at a gas station in Kelowna, B.C., was confronted by an unarmed white man riding a bicycle, who was taunting and threatening him. Mr. Black, fearing for the safety of his wife and child in his car, calmly took out a tire iron, and struck the head of Dale Anfield. Mr. Black then drove to the police station and turned himself in. He was charged with second-degree murder. I was his defence lawyer. My Indigenous client was judged by what appeared to be an all-white jury. My client was acquitted. The white judge correctly instructed the jury on the law. The members of the victim's family were outraged at the jury's verdict. No one suggested racism after this verdict.
People who suggest that justice wasn't done because jury's favor their race are spouting nonsense.
Most jurors take their job seriously and rule based on the evidence presented.

The facts of this case seem to be an even more obvious case for manslaughter but I guess the jury decided to give the benefit of the doubt to someone facing an attacker.

Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 19, 2018, 04:24:00 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how you can add two plus two and come up with racism every damned time.

What he VERY CLEARLY was suggesting was that given the anger on the reserve - and given everyone on that reserve would know who the native members were, if they acquitted, they would face consequences, possibly including violence.

And this potential for violence would exist only from reserves. Who's racist?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 19, 2018, 04:47:26 pm
There are many excuses but in the end it comes down to: "too lazy to care or bother".

Most people I know who don't vote say its because it makes no difference who they vote for.  I imagine people living on reserves feel that way a lot.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 04:51:55 pm
Most people I know who don't vote say its because it makes no difference who they vote for.
An excuse that really means "too lazy to care or bother".
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 19, 2018, 04:55:08 pm
According to a report in another newspaper which none of you will likely accept, the judicial authorities attempted to cast a very wide net in order to get a fair jury, summoning over 700 people, half of which were natives. Many of these people failed to show, and many of the natives who did show asked to be excused either because they knew or were related to one of the five families on the reserve involved, or because it would be a hardship for them for some reason. Some of those remaining were openly prejudiced against the defendant.

Actually we don't know how many natives showed, it could have been 100% that were called. You also ignore the fact from that article that probably more of the white people (have there) asked to be excused for reasons other than knowing one of the families on the reserve involved. I would say your extreme bias is clearly on display.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 05:10:24 pm
Actually we don't know how many natives showed, it could have been 100% that were called.
Or, more likely, no shows were proportionate which means 70% did not show.

You also ignore the fact from that article that probably more of the white people (have there)
Irrelevant since no one is asking how come there weren't more white people on the jury.

The most relevant part of that article was this:

Quote
Some media outlets have reported that every prospective juror who appeared to be Aboriginal was challenged and essentially vetoed by the defense council. 

The prospective juror also dismissed that idea, suggesting the defence council challenged individuals who had made openly biased comments. Besides, the person added, “they were challenging white people too.”
It is one person's opinion but, if it is a fair assessment it would not be first time the media has create a story by inventing "facts" when the reality does not give them the narrative they want.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 19, 2018, 05:12:56 pm
It is one person's opinion but, if it is a fair assessment it would not be first time the media has create a story by inventing "facts" when the reality does not give them the narrative they want.

Fair assessment? Another with an extreme bias.

He has nothing to link those who made comments to those who were challenged, other than his own bias.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 05:25:11 pm
Fair assessment? Another with an extreme bias.
You have no way to know if it fair or not. The only who is showing bias is you. You are simply unable to accept that  reality is likely a lot more complicated and messy than the narrative you prefer.

He has nothing to link those who made comments to those who were challenged, other than his own bias.
You have no basis for that claim. The potential juror, OTOH, could have a basis for their claim. Unless you have evidence that every juror was rejected without questioning you have no business claiming bias.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 19, 2018, 05:34:01 pm
You have no way to know if it fair or not. The only who is showing bias is you. You are simply unable to accept that  reality is likely a lot more complicated and messy than the narrative you prefer.

I see when you claim it was fair then all is peachy dandy but now that I question that I am the one with bias? You seriously need to look in the mirror.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: guest4 on February 19, 2018, 05:41:27 pm
An excuse that really means "too lazy to care or bother".

It means they feel disengaged and even hopeless; if nothing much changes in people's day-to-day life whether they are  poor or middle class regardless of who gets voted in, why should they care?   If their life slowly gets worse while very few people get richer - again regardless of who is in power - then why would they feel like their vote matters?  If voting changes nothing for an individual then why is it their failure rather than the system?
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 05:49:16 pm
I see when you claim it was fair then all is peachy dandy but now that I question that I am the one with bias?
I said people assuming the jury was biased are unreasonable and have no basis for that claim. I said that, based on the public evidence, there appears to be 'reasonable doubt' wrt a manslaughter charge. I also am sympathetic to the argument that perception matters and having no native jurors undermines faith in the system even if the verdict was reasonable. Unfortunately, as more information becomes available it is not a simply question calling more native jurors or limiting objections because of all of the confounding factors. Would just be served by a hung jury and endless retrials? I don't see any fixes that could not create more problems than they solve.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: TimG on February 19, 2018, 05:53:26 pm
If voting changes nothing for an individual then why is it their failure rather than the system?
Because it is their choice. It does not matter why they made the choice they still made the choice. Personal responsibility still has a place in society even though it seems like everyone wants to play the victim. If they really felt the choices are so bad they could spoil their ballot - spoiled ballots are counted even if they don't affect the results. A large number of spoiled ballots would tell politicians that there is a group of voters that 1) vote and 2) are not satisfied which means they have an incentive to find out why. People who don't vote don't matter to politicians because they don't vote.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 19, 2018, 05:56:48 pm
I said people assuming the jury was biased are unreasonable and have no basis for that claim.

I never made that claim. I said the jury selection process is unfair.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 19, 2018, 06:04:39 pm
Perhaps you don't understand that whatever is said in the jury room is kept secret. If a native juror voted to acquit no one would know unless they chose to broadcast it by themselves.

Perhaps you think natives are too stupid to understand that verdicts are unanimous.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2018, 06:59:45 pm
It means they feel disengaged and even hopeless; if nothing much changes in people's day-to-day life whether they are  poor or middle class regardless of who gets voted in, why should they care?   If their life slowly gets worse while very few people get richer - again regardless of who is in power - then why would they feel like their vote matters?  If voting changes nothing for an individual then why is it their failure rather than the system?

Well if they don't get engaged when they have the biggest stake in change, they have nothing to complain about. If they don't care, why should they expect people who do vote to care about what they want.

Young people who have the greatest stake in change and will inherit the country have the worst voting record. If they want change, get their faces out of their phones (or at least use them to get politicly educated) and do something about it. It takes an hour to vote and they only have to do it four times every four years, once each for federal and provincial elections and twice for civic elections. Four hours out of their lives every four years to partake in a democracy that most of the world's people can only dream about. Poor babies, my heart bleeds for them.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Omni on February 19, 2018, 07:54:51 pm
Perhaps you think natives are too stupid to understand that verdicts are unanimous.

Au contraire, I suggest they are as capable of weighing evidence as white people.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 19, 2018, 11:56:23 pm
Young people who have the greatest stake in change and will inherit the country have the worst voting record. If they want change, get their faces out of their phones (or at least use them to get politicly educated) and do something about it.

They have, in the last federal election the younger age groups had the most significant increase of all while older age groups were relatively flat.

b.t.w. Voter age demographics are based on exit polls as the vote itself is confidential so statistics here are no more accurate than other polls.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 20, 2018, 12:48:07 am

b.t.w. Voter age demographics are based on exit polls as the vote itself is confidential so statistics here are no more accurate than other polls.

That’s not how it works.  They don’t release the voting, but they know who voted and do summary stats on that data, not on exit polls.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: ?Impact on February 20, 2018, 03:50:58 am
That’s not how it works.  They don’t release the voting, but they know who voted and do summary stats on that data, not on exit polls.

In recent years that has been an attempt by Elections Canada to improve the quality where they use administrative data from the electoral process to obtain a random sample of electors who voted. By linking these data to the National Register of Electors,they are able to produce estimates of voter turnout by age and sex.

Here are links to the methods:

https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2016-104-e.html

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2015/vtsa&document=table1&lang=e
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: wilber on February 20, 2018, 09:12:53 am
They have, in the last federal election the younger age groups had the most significant increase of all while older age groups were relatively flat.



Will it last or was it just Trudeau Mania II ?  Older age groups are already over 70% so it is not surprising they would be flat. A lot of those older voters also experienced Trudeau Mania I and know better.
Title: Re: An activist PM and government
Post by: SirJohn on February 20, 2018, 10:24:47 am
Who is going to voluntarily report for jury duty if it might actually consume much of your life for months at a time? Is there a reason some trials need to last so damned long? I can't imagine how there could be enough information to justify a five month trial unless there were enormous delays along the way and there was minute, nitpicking detail that would bore me out of my mind. And I don't get paid if I don't work. So this sort of thing would cost me a fortune.

This guy, on the other hand, is sueing over PTSD

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/juror-who-spent-five-months-at-ontario-murder-trial-files-lawsuit