Accountability Now Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 48 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I don't think attempted robbery is a crime, but correct me if I am wrong by citing the criminal code. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: I don't think attempted robbery is a crime, but correct me if I am wrong You must be putting us on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Gingerteeth said: He was found not guilty of murder he can still be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter if the prosecution decides to try again.. No, he can't. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/charter-charte/check/art11h.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 hours ago, ?Impact said: I don't think attempted robbery is a crime, but correct me if I am wrong by citing the criminal code. They might be charged with trespassing, but I don't think there is a charge of armed trespassing. I don't really give a crap. I'm satisfied they were thieves and feel little sorrow at what happened to one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gingerteeth said: There no evidence for that accusation more telling that none of the youth's were charged with armed robbery and there were no stolen objects in their truck. He was found not guilty of murder he can still be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter if the prosecution decides to try again.. 3 hours ago, Gingerteeth said: That statement would be true if they stole stuff from the first two properties which they didn't. So there is no evidence for him to claim that or for you to keep spouting that falsehood. 3 hours ago, ?Impact said: I don't think attempted robbery is a crime, but correct me if I am wrong by citing the criminal code. They might be charged with trespassing, but I don't think there is a charge of armed trespassing. Committing crimes while armed are definitely more serious than not. Theft can be an indictable offence. Doing so with a firearm carries a minimum sentence of an additional year, if memory serves... On the subject of whether they intended on stealing, it seems very clear that they were in the act of stealing and had already tried to steal a vehicle elsewhere. I'm not sure where you guys are getting your facts.... are you just making them up? Edited February 19, 2018 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 29 minutes ago, The_Squid said: No, he can't. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/charter-charte/check/art11h.html Your point would be correct if they tried for murder again. 2 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Committing crimes while armed are definitely more serious than not. Theft can be an indictable offence. Doing so with a firearm carries a minimum sentence of an additional year, if memory serves... On the subject of whether they intended on stealing, it seems very clear that they were in the act of stealing and had already tried to steal a vehicle elsewhere. I'm not sure where you guys are getting your facts.... are you just making them up? Details are ambiguous meaning there is no evidence they were comitting armed robbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Your point would be correct if they tried for murder again. Details are ambiguous meaning there is no evidence they were comitting armed robbery. Details are ambiguous all over this case... Why do you think they were there? Quote https://globalnews.ca/news/4015756/saskatchewan-trial-death-racial-tension-colten-boushie-gerald-stanley/ The driver testified the group had been drinking during the day and tried to break into a truck on a neighbouring farm, but went to the Stanley property in search of help with the tire. Quote A great many people think the five in the Ford Escape were just looking for help with a tire, yet that is not what their own testimony reflected. They did not testify they walked up to the house to ask for help, or to the people working on the fence. Rather, they testified they had been “checking” vehicles, on another farm before coming to the Stanley farm. They testified to trying to start a quad. That is not asking for help, nor asking for a floor jack. Many people have said those in the vehicle were unarmed. That is false. They drove into that yard with a loaded .22 rifle, albeit damaged from their attempt to break into a vehicle in a nearby farm just before. The SUV had live rounds and spent .22 casings in it, as they had been shooting that day. Anyone who knows anything about firearms knows you do not put a round in the chamber unless you plan to shoot something. The .22 was found with a round in the chamber, and in Boushie’s immediate proximity with his blood spattered on it. http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/opinion-there-is-so-much-wrong-being-said-by-both-sides-about-the-gerald-stanley-trial-1.23174002 Edited February 19, 2018 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Why do you think they were there? To get help with a flat tire as the youth said, they were also drunk. Drunk youth don't make good choices but trying to shoehorn the situation into them being thieves is disingenuous. There is currently no evidence, charges or anything else against those youth so it makes zero sense to keep calling them thieves. Posting different articles with different interpretations of the event isn't helpful either and the fact all the parties statements do not add up. Both sides made poor choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gingerteeth said: He was found not guilty of murder he can still be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter if the prosecution decides to try again.. No, you're very wrong. He can't be retried for the same case, even if it's a lesser charge. Manslaughter is implicit in the murder charge. Quote In order for either defence to succeed the accused must show that the current matter and the one of which he or she was previously acquitted or convicted are the same; the new charge must be the same as the charge at the first trial, or have been included implicitly in that charge. The charges need not be absolutely identical; all that must be shown is that the accused could have been convicted of the current charge at the first trial. The defence of issue estoppel is based on the principle that a court should not rule on an issue that has already been decided by another court. This principle was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Gushue case. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/918-e.htm#9. Right Quote A jury acquitted Stanley of 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter in Boushie's death. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-court-charges-improperly-stored-guns-1.4538790 Edited February 19, 2018 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: To get help with a flat tire as the youth said, they were also drunk. Drunk youth don't make good choices but trying to shoehorn the situation into them being thieves is disingenuous. There is currently no evidence, charges or anything else against those youth so it makes zero sense to keep calling them thieves. Posting different articles with different interpretations of the event isn't helpful either and the fact all the parties statements do not add up. Both sides made poor choices. So breaking into a vehicle on the other property was what....? Starting an ATV that isn't yours on their property is .... what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 On 2/9/2018 at 9:51 PM, Accountability Now said: Did you see Trudeau’s tweet about the verdict? I honestly can’t believe the PM of our country would even comment at this time. He is by far the most disgraceful PM ever to take office JT picked up his bad ass liberal attitude from his old man. Between the both of them they sure have/are still doing a number job on Canada and Canadians. The Trudeau's hated the WASP. Walking down the streets of many Canadian cities it is hard to know as to what country am I living in anymore. Thanks to the Trudeau's and their love for multiculturalism they have pretty much destroyed Canadian history and culture and traditions. And this prime mistake of ours is not finished yet. Disgraceful is putting it mildly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 22 minutes ago, The_Squid said: So breaking into a vehicle on the other property was what....? Starting an ATV that isn't yours on their property is .... what? Breaking a vehicle window is destruction of property not theft. One person jumping on the ATV isn't theft. The four youth were drunk by their own admission. This position is strengthened by the fact none of the youth are being charged with theft. These aren't professional theives these are drunk youth being stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 32 minutes ago, The_Squid said: No, you're very wrong. He can't be retried for the same case, even if it's a lesser charge. Manslaughter is implicit in the murder charge. Can still be tried for negligence resulting in a death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Breaking a vehicle window is destruction of property not theft. One person jumping on the ATV isn't theft. The four youth were drunk by their own admission. This position is strengthened by the fact none of the youth are being charged with theft. These aren't professional theives these are drunk youth being stupid. what if one of them admitted under oath at the trial to stealing ? Would you call them thieves then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Can still be tried for negligence resulting in a death. You've shown that you already don't know anything about what he can and can't be charged with after this verdict. Quit while you're behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Squid said: what if one of them admitted under oath at the trial to stealing ? Would you call them thieves then? What if what if what if.... 1 hour ago, The_Squid said: You've shown that you already don't know anything about what he can and can't be charged with after this verdict. Quit while you're behind. Considering I have countered your point. Your post is utter nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 hours ago, Accountability Now said: 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. You heard? What does that mean. I have heard a lot of things about this trial, and most of them are pure crap. 4 hours ago, OftenWrong said: You must be putting us on. Then show me attempted robbery in the criminal code, it can't be that hard can it - unless you are full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Then show me attempted robbery in the criminal code, it can't be that hard can it - unless you are full of it. Another poster already showed it to you. If you don't know this already, you must be "full of it". Do you honestly expect that someone should get off without criminal charges just because they failed to successfully steal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Another poster already showed it to you. If you don't know this already, you must be "full of it". No, they did not. Go back and read the thread, you obviously lost your glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: What if what if what if.... Here is one of them on the witness standing telling the court he was a thief. Quote Cross initially told investigators that he and his four friends in the SUV where just checking out the truck, but on the stand, he admitted they were trying to steal and that they had used the gun to break in. "I lied about me going into that truck," he testified. "My intentions were to go steal." http://battlefordsnow.com/article/594680/witness-fatal-saskatchewan-farm-shooting-scared-out-my-mind So.... you still don't think they were thieves? 10 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Considering I have countered your point. Your post is utter nonsense. What point did you counter? You said they could be charged with manslaughter... I gave you actual citations to show that this was not the case. Clearly, you didn't know what you were talking about. And now you come back with some other assertion with nothing to back it up. Criminal negligence is also covered under Homicide in the Criminal Code, so this also wouldn't be an option due to the same section of the Constitution. You are simply talking out your ass. Quote If a jury is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley intended to cause Boushie’s death, they could consider whether a manslaughter conviction is appropriate, Luther said. The jury could find Stanley guilty of manslaughter if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused Boushie’s death while committing an unlawful act (such as pointing a firearm) or because of criminal negligence, he said. http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-jury-expected-to-begin-deliberations-thursday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, ?Impact said: No, they did not. Go back and read the thread, you obviously lost your glasses. 11 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Then show me attempted robbery in the criminal code, it can't be that hard can it - unless you are full of it. Just think logically.The failed attempt to commit a felony is not a defence. That would be utterly stupid. Here, let me educate you-PART XIII Attempts — Conspiracies — Accessories463 Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are accessories after the fact to the commission of offences: (c) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; and (d) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction (i) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable, or (ii) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-101.html Gee that took about five seconds on google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, OftenWrong said: Gee that took about five seconds on google. Perhaps you should spend more than five seconds learning about the law, because that does not say that attempted robbery is a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Perhaps you should spend more than five seconds learning about the law, because that does not say that attempted robbery is a crime. It covers indictable offences. Robbery is an indictable offence.http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-344.html Edited February 19, 2018 by OftenWrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: It covers indictable offences. Robbery is an indictable offence. Read the entire section, and get back to me. You left out subsection (a) and (b), of which there are two words that are very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, ?Impact said: Read the entire section, and get back to me. You left out subsection (a) and (b), of which there are two words that are very important. That will not be necessary. If you cannot read and will not accept plain facts, I can not help you any further. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.