Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

Accountability Now

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,890

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Accountability Now

  1. Accountability Now
    The criminal code of Canada disagrees with you. As per number 2 above, the minute they began to cause it to move (ie breaking the window or jumping on the ATV and starting it) that would be enough to prove intent.
  2. Accountability Now
    Do you need me to provide a definition of 'heard'? You know...like when someone tells you something! I clearly did not say I read as I would have cited it and backed it up (unlike anything you do). When asking some peers of why these individuals have not been charged with crimes they have already admitted to, I was told it was most likely that they were given immunity in exchange for testimony. Again, this is only one idea to the question I have asked a number of times on this thread...a question that you couldn't answer either which is "why have these guys not been charged"? So far the only answer that makes sense is the one that I HEARD.
  3. Accountability Now
    Your argumentation style leaves little to be desired. You were shown the parts in the Criminal Code where I CLEARLY showed this and and you still refute it. Of course, you don't refute it with logic, common sense or even any resemblance of an argument, rather you simply state...No they did not. I think its time for you to step up your game or possibly find a new method of amusing yourself.
  4. Accountability Now
    I have proven this in this very thread. They admitted to intending to steal and then assaulted Stanley to the point where he reasonably feared for his and his family’s safety. It’s just as @Argus says, you are only interested in facts when they serve your purpose. Besides, none of the crimes the natives committed will lead to charges as I heard they are given immunity in exchange for their testimony which was viewed much more valuable as that testimony is how Stanley got the non guilty verdict.
  5. Accountability Now
    I see. Keep in mind at this point it wasn't 200. 100 people had left with 45 or so aboriginals which according to the article were mostly on one side of the room. With that said, you could only get a sense of how many were vocalizing and not a true number. I think that does happen. My wife was selected for jury duty once and she said that some people were removed based on things they said while waiting. I'm curious what the representative numbers were after the numbers were picked? I don't even know how many numbers would be picked. I'm just wondering how many of the picked (ie people who's number was drawn) were excused because of vocal behaviour and if that had an adverse effect on the final number? The defense could only object to five I believe so realistically, if the numbers were 50/50 meaning 10 or so aboriginals then there should have been 5 left. So were these five excused because of their vocal outbursts? It certainly would be interesting to see this breakdown
  6. Accountability Now
    Yes. This is quite important as the article does state it was unable to corroborate this one witness' story. I wonder what information would be available from the legal staff onsite that day which could be gleaned by the Justice Minister to see if there were in fact extenuating circumstances. Again, it is just one person but its the only one I have seen speak out about it. If a large number of them were rather vocal then its not hard to believe that would be a rational reason for why they were excused. Again, this person is only referring to the 45 remaining and not the estimated other 55 that were excused because of a relationship to the Boushie family or previous engagements. Of course vocally raising your intent is the surest way to get out of jury duty. Homer Simpson taught us that....here Are you saying how a First Nations person could be distinguished from a white person? In some cases I would agree with you as there are some FN people who look more white than FN. However on the most part I don't think it would be too difficult to sort it out especially if they segregated themselves in the room, as this person states they did.
  7. Accountability Now
    I posted one from the Toronto Sun but doesn’t meet their measuring stick
  8. Accountability Now
    https://www.google.ca/amp/torontosun.com/news/national/malcolm-half-of-prospective-boushie-jurors-were-aboriginal-says-member-of-jury-pool/amp This article sums it up
  9. Accountability Now
    Or change the number allowed. I am not a professional on this issue but I have to believe their is a reason they do it in the first place.
  10. Accountability Now
    Why do you keep saying "allegation". Boushie's friends admitted to what you are saying is allegations. How about perjury? http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/gerald-stanley-trial-a-day-by-day-recap EDIT: I missed it the first time I read it but the driver admitted to driving drunk. Not sure if you can charge someone by them admitting it or if you need an actual blood alcohol to convict. Also from the Star Phoenix article:
  11. Accountability Now
    Well here is one documented account from the CBC. Not sure about you but I certainly would feel scared for my life if a bunch of thugs came on my property, knowing they were trying to steal and now appeared to do whatever they could to get away: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-trial-lawyer-defence-case-1.4519655
  12. Accountability Now
    They rammed their SUV into another truck and made Stanley think his wife under the truck. He reasonably thought by their actions that he was being assaulted. As per the code: Assault 265 (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
  13. Accountability Now
    Sure: Robbery 343 Every one commits robbery who (a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property; (b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person; (c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or (d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
  14. Accountability Now
    I don't disagree with you. I feel that people that post shit like that on their site do reflect what that message says in a large sense. You are absolutely correct in that the media has done a very poor job of making this guy out to be some innocent bystander when the sad reality is that he was a hooligan. Does he deserve to get shot for those actions...no. But he shouldn't be made into some sort of martyr as a result of criminal activity. Again, the part I find ironic is that i have yet to hear if his four accomplices are going to be charged with trespassing and/or attempted robbery. Is that not the obvious next step and if so, why isn't the media commenting on that?
  15. Accountability Now
    To be fair....those are lyrics from this song below.
  16. Accountability Now
    NOT A CHANCE. But keep dreaming bud!
  17. Accountability Now
    AGAIN....please explain to me what POLITICAL gain law professors or lawyers have to gain by making these statements? I know you need to stretch as far as possible to make your weak argument but this is getting onerous Just want to make sure you are reading the same thing. What is this point? And what must we do better than what this point it? Please explain
  18. Accountability Now
    False conclusion? Interestingly enough I have posted numerous backings from political columnists and professors in Canadian law who all state that his comments had an implication and a consequence on the future appeal (should it proceed). Yet you have provided nothing but your opinion. No offense but I think I'll take the opinion of the legal experts over yours! Lol. Its clear that your love for Trudeau has put the blinders on so I really won't spend any more time trying to convince you that him speaking on this active case was inappropriate, however I would be to blame if I didn't provide you with one last article as I feel it sums it up. It again has the opinion of a law professor (which doesn't mean much to you) but the one that I find is interesting is the comments made by Aaron Paquette who is a City of Edmonton Councillor of Metis decent: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/you-and-i-can-question-the-gerald-stanley-verdict-politicians-should-not/article37954500/ I suggest you read the whole article which is aptly titled "You and I can question the Stanley verdict - politicians should not.
  19. Accountability Now
    The great thing about these forums is that is easy to see what people have said and in particular you might look back at the second post of this thread where shortly after he tweeted it, I questioned his reasoning. I did not wait for the right wing radio hosts or rabid listeners as you say...it was clear as day. It was also clear that immediately a vast number of Twitter followers immediately commented the same thing. You keep saying that this was inspired by right wing politicians but you couldn't be more wrong. If anything, the right wing politicians saw an opportunity to point out a conclusion that MANY, MANY other people came to all on their own. Even other MLW members who are notoriously left wing pointed out the same thing. This is not a matter of right versus left. Its a matter of Trudeau commenting at a very inappropriate time and in a very inappropriate way. As for the 1 tweet and one short sentence, they both insinuate that the verdict was not right. Imagine the verdict was guilty....would he have said the same thing? Not a chance. He may have not said anything at all but it certainly wouldn't have been the same 1 tweet and one short sentence he said this go around. Of course, the bottom line is that he shouldn't be saying anything about it....nothing. Its a matter for the court and knowing there is a chance for an appeal he should have kept his mouth shut....but he can't do that can he??
  20. Accountability Now
    Wow! Your response reeks of desperation to make your beloved PM remain infallible in your eyes. You seem like a smart enough person that it seems so odd that you would go to such a stretch.
  21. Accountability Now
    I won't lose any sleep over it if they don't get charged but I do think it would be a bit ironic if they don't. Like you, I don't know so i can't say for sure if its happening Oh I wasn't worried about what other politicians were saying about Trudeau's tweet, rather I was concerned with a number of lawyers who are a part of the system think: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/0212-na-stanley
  22. Accountability Now
    @?Impact Any reason why you are steering clear of my questions?
  23. Accountability Now
    Are you saying Trudeau’s comment did NOT imply a questionable verdict?
  24. Accountability Now
    I will google that however I was serious in my question. Did they not get charged? With that said, the only proven ‘racist’ item in our criminal code is actually a benefit to aboriginals. If they are charged with an event then the courts have to take into account their aboriginal upbringing. And if convicted, their sentencing is also adjusted because of the color of their skin. Just last year an aboriginal woman was supposed to spend 10 years in a federal penitentiary for killing someone while drinking and driving. She was just moved to an aboriginal healing house to serve her term. I guess they want equality until they benefit from not being equal!!
  25. Accountability Now
    Not that this is one sided reporting but the one thing I haven’t found is were Colten’s accomplices ever charged/convicted with trespassing or attempted robbery? I can’t find that info anywhere but maybe it’s my poor Google Skills.
×
×
  • Create New...