Thank you Trudeau...

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Nor were the inconsistencies in Stanley's testimony either. You are trying to retry a case with only part of the story. It is correct to report on the outcome, and not list details, especially when they are one sided like you are presenting.

In fact, it was the news reports which were one-sided. Basically they said that Bouchi was shot after he and his friends drove onto Stanley's farm. Actually, one of them said 'wandered' onto his farm. It makes it sound like he just shot him out of hand as a trespasser for no reason other than him being a native.

[OftenWrong]

44 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Don't worry....just keep spending more time pointing at Trump and those "racist" Americans while ignoring the cultural conflicts and "cesspool" conditions back home.   This has always worked in the past, regardless of the issue.    Trudeau celebrates diversity while being very divisive at the same time...a true political talent.

Yep. "Not in My Canada..."

[?Impact]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

In fact, it was the news reports which were one-sided

Then point out the specific cases of one-sided reporting and we can all agree it is wrong.

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I also read it wasn't widely reported that an RCMP forensics firearms expert testified on Thursday that tests showed the gun couldn't be fired without pulling the trigger. .

There were a number of experts on both sides. The thing that was interesting was that the shell of the fatal bullet was different than the other two in that it had a buldge which no one could definitively explain. Here’s as good of a summary that I can find:

“Boushie was shot once. The fatal shot entered behind Boushie’s left ear and exited through the side of his neck.

Stanley’s defence lawyer, Spencer, said during his opening statements Monday the shooting was a “freak accident that ended in tragedy.”

The death was not solely a case of self-defence, he argued. A rifle, which court heard was missing its stock, was between Boushie’s legs in the SUV at the time of the shooting, but Stanley did not see the gun, according to Spencer. The fatal shot was the result of what Spencer believes was a hang fire, a delay between when the trigger is pulled and when the bullet fires.

“Hang fires happen, and that’s what happened here,” Spencer said.

Three spent gun casing found at the scene — two located outside the SUV and one found on the vehicle’s dash — matched to the Tokarev handgun seized from the Stanley home. One of the casings, the one found in the vehicle, showed what forensic firearms expert Greg Williams described as an “unusual bulge.”

Williams, a witness for the Crown, told court last week a hang fire alone wouldn’t cause the bulge and also said the longest hang fire he knows about is .28 seconds, but on Monday, Spencer called two witnesses to the stand to dispute Williams’ claims.

One witness, Nathan Voinorosky, told court he once experienced a seven-second hang fire while target shooting, and the other, Wayne Popowich, said he’s experienced delays between seven and 12 seconds.

Popowich, a man who doesn’t know Stanley but contacted Spencer after seeing media coverage of the trial, told court he also once experienced a hang fire that created a bulge. However, he noted during cross-examination, that specific incident happened 40 years ago.

He said he wasn’t sure if an issue with the gun or the ammunition caused the delayed firing and bulge.

The Tokarev gun seized from the Stanley farm was tested by Williams and one other expert, John Ervin. Both experts testified last week the handgun fired fine when tested, but Williams noted one cartridge tested failed to fire.

Williams tested 36 cartridges from 80 that were seized from the Stanley farm. The ammunition tested was Czechoslovakian army surplus ammunition from 1953, and Williams told court misfires with older ammunition like the ones he tested are not uncommon.

Ervin said he couldn’t say if a hang fire occurred or not.”

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/mobile/stanley-says-he-thought-gun-was-disarmed-when-boushie-shot-1.3788046

[cannuck]

10 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

The Tokarev gun seized from the Stanley farm was tested by Williams and one other expert, John Ervin. Both experts testified last week the handgun fired fine when tested, but Williams noted one cartridge tested failed to fire.

Williams tested 36 cartridges from 80 that were seized from the Stanley farm. The ammunition tested was Czechoslovakian army surplus ammunition from 1953, and Williams told court misfires with older ammunition like the ones he tested are not uncommon.Ervin said he couldn’t say if a hang fire occurred or not.”

I am not a weapons expert, but one will be sitting beside me at Sunday dinner as he does most weekends.  I will verify my understanding with him later today.

From what I have been told, a great deal of the heavily discounted ammunition for sale around here (and "around here" is probably where Stanley purchased his) is as far back as WWII and is NOT very reliable.  Most is from former USSR states or old Chinese (or even new Chinese - not spoken of very highly for AK47 ammunition).  A missfire of 1 in 80 is a very high amount and would make the probability of irregularity high enough to pose a credible argument.   What I don't understand is if the probability of missfire/hang fire was due to the poor quality ammunition, the extremely poor quality of the handgun, or some combination of both.  

I have personally fired many thousands of then-current military rounds and NEVER experienced a missfire.  My family expert many, many times more (range officer) and will get some idea of frequency in detail.

BUT: as our voice of reason (?Impact) would point out: the acquital is based on some amount of reaonable doubt as to culpability.  The key in the whole decision was no doubt the credibility of this one single salient point, and I can see where a jury WITHOUT PREJUDICE could come to that conclusion.  We may have to hold our nose when reading that verdict, but this is the justice system working EXACTLY as it is supposed to - and such a defense is available to EVERY Canadian, red, black, white, brown, yellow or albino.

[betsy]

On 2/10/2018 at 12:42 AM, Scott Mayers said:

P.S. "Person Kind" comes from the meaning "per son" (for each SON); So if you were intending to evade any sexist overtones of the word "Mankind" you think it has, Justine, think again. [This is a dig to his comment the other day correcting some girl who used this.]

 

 

He's trying to squirm his way out of it........

 

Quote

Trudeau says ‘peoplekind’ remark was a bad attempt at humour

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/02/07/trudeau-says-peoplekind-remark-was-a-bad-joke-that-he-now-regrets.html

Edited February 11, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

deleted.

 

Off topic.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by betsy

[Argus]

On politicians pretending they know better about what the result of the trial should have been.

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,” Lacy said, adding public figures should stick to offering sympathies over the tragic loss of life.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/political-commentary-on-court-verdicts-hurts-views-of-justice-system-lawyers

Edited February 11, 2018 by Argus

[eyeball]

On 2/9/2018 at 10:12 PM, Accountability Now said:

He shouldn’t be commenting at all. Do you not get that?

Seems a tad hypocritical that commentators expect other people to keep their comments to themselves.

Are we supposed to be looking to Trudeau for an example or something?

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Seems a tad hypocritical that commentators expect other people to keep their comments to themselves.

Are we supposed to be looking to Trudeau for an example or something?

Argus posted a link to the very article that I was going to post today. See above.

I am past the point of looking to Trudeau for an example. Unless that example is of what not to do

[?Impact]

6 hours ago, cannuck said:

What I don't understand is if the probability of missfire/hang fire was due to the poor quality ammunition, the extremely poor quality of the handgun, or some combination of both. 

I believe handling of the ammunition is also a factor to consider. If it gets wet, or contaminated with substances like oil it could over time degrade. How many people clean and oil their handguns, and then handle the ammunition? That oil from your fingers gets on the casing and over time will penetrate it and cause deterioration of the primer or powder.

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Then point out the specific cases of one-sided reporting and we can all agree it is wrong.

That's worth its own thread! As one example, all our media only reported on the commenting FOR the Boushie familiy and by their purposeful declaration of (assumed certain) racism online, they did not show ONE comment of proof for this. Reporters shouldn't even be using the word 'racist' to describe responses as though it were fact. I also notice that Twitter doesn't show these either. I quoted a few against this and only saw one. Where were all the other comments in question?

CBC also eliminated ALL commenting on protected people's stories. They already and still DO moderate with a secret protected staff INDEPENDENT of our power to determine or even have a chance to hold them accountable. 

I'll let you try to show me what you think are the alternative 'sides' reporting. But note that the ones our government DOES allow us to see most readily online is the more right-wing views. [To ridicule the extreme as representative of the average falsely!] This is MANDATED by our government to our ISPs, Google, Twitter, etc. We do NOT see what the Americans see online!! Our 'freedom' of media here is even WORSE than anything American media because our governments DEMAND censorship (....to 'protect' the meek who have no 'safe space' to run to)

Edited February 11, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

As one example, all our media only reported...

If you do not actually provide an example, how do you expect me to agree it is wrong. Please provide a specific case of one sided reporting.

[Scott Mayers]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If you do not actually provide an example, how do you expect me to agree it is wrong. Please provide a specific case of one sided reporting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-boushie-comments-1.4531007

This is just brand new too!! It asserts what the "Tories" say against Trudeau's response (Expects the audience to know this as 'code' for ALL views AGAINST this issue) and only comments on those of the various other leaders including Trudeau as 'apologetic' of the systematic abuses with no demonstration of any of those supposed 'systemic abuser' comments to back these claims up. It's purposeful 'guiding' us to think that the whole rest of the population virtually and unanimously sides with the sentiments.

 

OHH, and note the LACK of 'public comment section' on this particular article.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[?Impact]

47 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

This is just brand new too!!

I don't see any one-sided reporting there. I see Jagmeet Singh making some statements that appear to address the trial, and I see Cathy McLeod, Lisa Raitt, and Rob Nicholson all trying to make it a political issue with their innuendo.

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I don't see any one-sided reporting there. 

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. 

 

 

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

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.

If you want to expand your investigation, then you should google search for Iain Stables, he stole $1.2 million worth of farm equipment in the same area. He is serving "house arrest" (I.e. no prison time), could that be because he has white skin. Bouchie however is lying in the ground, even though he never had a criminal record. Could the skin color of this young man have anything to do with the sentence he received? I only ask because this thread seems rife with references to this "native", and skin color appears to be the determining factor for many.

[cannuck]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I believe handling of the ammunition is also a factor to consider. If it gets wet, or contaminated with substances like oil it could over time degrade. How many people clean and oil their handguns, and then handle the ammunition? That oil from your fingers gets on the casing and over time will penetrate it and cause deterioration of the primer or powder.

Checked with the pros.  Even though that handgun was a cheap piece of junk, it would very, very unlikely be the cause of the hang fire.  The 65 year old ammunition is highly suspect.  I also got some information regarding the situation on that day.  This is heresay, and I am not at liberty to cite the source, other than to say it is highly credible.  Let me just say that the crimes committed by the people in that SUV on the Stanley farm and in the farmhouse began long before the shooting and were extremely violent and as far away from "looking for help with a flat tire" as you could get.   Hopefully, the others will be charged and/or fireams charges might be laid against Stanley and the real story will come out.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I don't see any one-sided reporting there. I see Jagmeet Singh making some statements that appear to address the trial, and I see Cathy McLeod, Lisa Raitt, and Rob Nicholson all trying to make it a political issue with their innuendo.

There is no innuendo.  The Conservatives are simply calling out Trudeau and a couple of his ministers for making negative comments about the judicial system or trial, which is political interference.

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Conservatives are simply calling out Trudeau and a couple of his ministers for making negative comments about the judicial system or trial, which is political interference.

Yes, the Conservatives are lying about Trudeau said. He did not make a negative comment about the judicial system or trial. They are trying to imply something that is not true, that is the innuendo.

Edited February 12, 2018 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

Trudeau is trying to obstruct the justice system for political gain.

[Accountability Now]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

If you want to expand your investigation, then you should google search for Iain Stables, he stole $1.2 million worth of farm equipment in the same area. He is serving "house arrest" (I.e. no prison time), could that be because he has white skin. Bouchie however is lying in the ground, even though he never had a criminal record. Could the skin color of this young man have anything to do with the sentence he received? I only ask because this thread seems rife with references to this "native", and skin color appears to be the determining factor for many.

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!!

 

[Accountability Now]

36 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, the Conservatives are lying about Trudeau said. He did not make a negative comment about the judicial system or trial. They are trying to imply something that is not true, that is the innuendo.

Are you saying Trudeau’s comment did NOT imply a questionable verdict?

[capricorn]

Quote

The federal justice minister has said the country "can and must do better" after a white farmer was acquitted in the shooting death of a young Indigenous man -- a verdict that sparked a firestorm of criticism from First Nations groups across Canada.

"Indigenous people across this country are angry, they're heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-to-do-better-trudeau-reacts-to-gerald-stanley-verdict-1.3798036

The Courts, juries and Canadians have their marching orders from the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister. "Do better" when First Nations individuals face criminal charges. That says to me don't find them guilty of the charges. I must remember that if ever I am selected for jury duty involving a First Nations individual.

[cannuck]

9 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

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!!

 

You are referring to Catherine McKay - who killed the Van de Vorst family (who happened to be personal friends of our children) at about the same time as Colby Heid killed one man - both Saskatchewan citizens, both drunk drivers, both killed innocent people by their actions as severely intoxicated drivers.  Only difference is that the white kid is in PA Penitentiary and the aboriginal woman was removed from penitentiary and given a holiday at a "healing lodge" (essentially a resort for aboriginal criminals so they don't have to suffer the indignities of paying for their crimes).

There IS a huge problem with racism in Canada, but it is not what the media and bleeding heart idiots claim it to be.

Before anyone starts using the standard offensive defense from the world of political correctness and claim I am therefore a racist (I am, as is every other person on this planet I have met) my children are elibible for status in this country.