Thank you Trudeau...

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

You're not supposed to shoot people. And if you do, even by accident you you have to take some responsibility.

Agreed. The jury however thought there was reasonable doubt that the shooting was intentional (ie. it could have been accidental) so they decided against a charge of second degree murder.

I'm not sure if culpable homicide was even considered, but given the circumstances my guess is it would be considered non-culpable. Responsibility in this case is up to the individual to take, not the court to mandate.

------

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

• (a) by means of an unlawful act;

• (b) by criminal negligence;

• (c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or

• (d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

[Accountability Now]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

You're not supposed to shoot people. And if you do, even by accident you you have to take some responsibility. You don't have any guns do ya? 

I want you to say the same thing when I am intoxicated, trespassing in your property and trying to steal your possessions while being armed and actually discharging that weapon. 

You honestly think it’s only Americans who would have done this??? It’s a rhetorical question because I have no use in trying to persuade a person of your bias

 

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

You're not supposed to shoot people. And if you do, even by accident you you have to take some responsibility. You don't have any guns do ya? 

Nope. But the argument of those regarding a right to shoot those trespassing on land is only about degrees of one's personal space. The argument I'm having is about how the single 'family' grievance is being turned into an interpretation of insult of a whole segregated class of humans claiming some INHERENT respect that Trudeau's family's Constitutional makeup created. The natives in question were insulting Trudeau as well and yet he doesn't seem to internalize how it is his own pretentious 'apology' for the situation that is unnerving given he's just deflecting with rhetorical ignorance.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Agreed. The jury however thought there was reasonable doubt that the shooting was intentional (ie. it could have been accidental) so they decided against a charge of second degree murder.

I'm not sure if culpable homicide was even considered, but given the circumstances my guess is it would be considered non-culpable. Responsibility in this case is up to the individual to take, not the court to mandate.

------

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

• (a) by means of an unlawful act;

• (b) by criminal negligence;

• (c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or

• (d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

Truth to tell I have been too busy to follow the case with any closeness so I can't comment other than conjecture. I guess the gun must have gone off accidentally. 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I want you to say the same thing when I am intoxicated, trespassing in your property and trying to steal your possessions while being armed and actually discharging that weapon. 

You honestly think it’s only Americans who would have done this??? It’s a rhetorical question because I have no use in trying to persuade a person of your bias

 

In Canada someone stealing your property, or your assumption that they are, is not justification for killing them.

[Accountability Now]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Agreed. The jury however thought there was reasonable doubt that the shooting was intentional (ie. it could have been accidental) so they decided against a charge of second degree murder.

I'm not sure if culpable homicide was even considered, but given the circumstances my guess is it would be considered non-culpable. Responsibility in this case is up to the individual to take, not the court to mandate.

 

The judge said only three verdicts were possible: second degree murder, manslaughter or not guilty.

Perhaps your reasoning got him off the second degree murder charge but then why not manslaughter?? Clearly having them tresspass and attempt to steal while in a drunken state (while they too were armed) was enough reason to say he acted reasonably. Hence the not guilty verdict

 

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I want you to say the same thing when I am intoxicated, trespassing in your property and trying to steal your possessions while being armed and actually discharging that weapon. 

You honestly think it’s only Americans who would have done this??? It’s a rhetorical question because I have no use in trying to persuade a person of your bias

 

Well then shut the fuck up.

[Scott Mayers]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

In Canada someone stealing your property, or your assumption that they are, is not justification for killing them.

I remember learning in a high-school Law class years ago about the fact that one cannot use MORE force than the trespasser has. The case discussed was about a grandmother who shot an intruder breaking into her house. It was her grandson who lost his keys and didn't want to wake her. She was charged because she used more force than necessary and the case was WHY such concern in law came about at all, NOT because of a right to protect oneself of another violating your private space. 

I happen to disagree with simply shooting someone for trespass (like cutting across ones' lawn). But I understand that IF one feels threatened even as this grandmother was in the case I mentioned, that she still SHOULD take the risk. The 'law' is about determining what cannot be proven in a he-said-she-said kind of condition. I believe that the kid in the trial here in question was actually violating the farmer with justified fear for him to react, even if he was over-reacting.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Agreed. The jury however thought there was reasonable doubt that the shooting was intentional (ie. it could have been accidental) so they decided against a charge of second degree murder.

I'm not sure if culpable homicide was even considered, but given the circumstances my guess is it would be considered non-culpable. Responsibility in this case is up to the individual to take, not the court to mandate.

------

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

• (a) by means of an unlawful act;

• (b) by criminal negligence;

• (c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or

• (d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

 If it's non culpable then it must be accidental in order to arrive at the verdict. I wonder if it was reasonable to carry a weapon to the scene

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Perhaps your reasoning got him off the second degree murder charge but then why not manslaughter??

Manslaughter is culpable homicide, or a special instance of it. Since Stanley believed he was defending his life and property then would there be an unlawful act or criminal negligence on his part? It really boils down to their belief that he did not pull the trigger intentionally. It is hard to say what other circumstances would yield as results, but I suspect if he tried to fire over their heads and hit them instead then it would be considered criminal negligence. If he had no reason to suspect them as a threat then it would be an unlawful act. 

[Accountability Now]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

Truth to tell I have been too busy to follow the case with any closeness so I can't comment other than conjecture. I guess the gun must have gone off accidentally. 

 

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

Well then shut the fuck up.

LMFAO!! You just admitted not knowing what was happening in this topic. Maybe you should take your own advice!

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I remember learning in a high-school Law class years ago about the fact that one cannot use MORE force than the trespasser has. The case discussed was about a grandmother who shot an intruder breaking into her house. It was her grandson who lost his keys and didn't want to wake her. She was charged because she used more force than necessary and the case was WHY such concern in law came about at all, NOT because of a right to protect oneself of another violating your private space. 

I happen to disagree with simply shooting someone for trespass (like cutting across ones' lawn). But I understand that IF one feels threatened even as this grandmother was in the case I mentioned, that she still SHOULD take the risk. The 'law' is about determining what cannot be proven in a he-said-she-said kind of condition. I believe that the kid in the trial here in question was actually violating the farmer with justified fear for him to react, even if he was over-reacting.

Someone threatening  to steal property is not justification for killing them. In the US, go ahead, pull the trigger. Just be careful what statyou are in.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

I wonder if it was reasonable to carry a weapon to the scene

Yes, as I suggested above that would be an unlawful act if Stanley did not have reasonable suspicion that his (including family) life and property was being threatened. I didn't see everything on the trial, but I believe another neighbour had property stolen by this gang right before and assume that Stanley was aware of that (eg. by phone call).

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

 

LMFAO!! You just admitted not knowing what was happening in this topic. Maybe you should take your own advice!

I do take my own advice. Where do you get yours?

[Accountability Now]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

I do take my own advice. Where do you get yours?

Clearly you don’t. You’re still chirping!

[Accountability Now]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, as I suggested above that would be an unlawful act if Stanley did not have reasonable suspicion that his (including family) life and property was being threatened. I didn't see everything on the trial, but I believe another neighbour had property stolen by this gang right before and assume that Stanley was aware of that (eg. by phone call).

The jury felt he did have reasonable suspicion or they would have charged him with manslughter. 

Intoxicated hooligans trying to steal your property while in possession of a gun. Ya...I would have fear for my life too! Of course like you said, this wasn’t the first time...

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, as I suggested above that would be an unlawful act if Stanley did not have reasonable suspicion that his (including family) life and property was being threatened. I didn't see everything on the trial, but I believe another neighbour had property stolen by this gang right before and assume that Stanley was aware of that (eg. by phone call).

As mentioned I haven't followed this case closely either, but of course the precursors you mention would have an important content to the case.Pre existing fear based on previous events would be imactful for sure.

[Scott Mayers]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Someone threatening  to steal property is not justification for killing them. In the US, go ahead, pull the trigger. Just be careful what statyou are in.

It depends on how much you personally have to lose. Often those who think as you do NOT HAVE more to risk and don't care one way or the other about property losses. But you can't internalize what YOU interpret as insignificant threats based on property in these cases. Do you think it also inappropriate for you to strike back if you believed you were being raped? This is what I mean by 'degree'. The farmer's fear or real threat has to be taken into consideration. But there ARE those who would shoot you for simply walking across their lawn. That would be inappropriate.

 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

It depends on how much you personally have to lose. Often those who think as you do NOT HAVE more to risk and don't care one way or the other about property losses. But you can't internalize what YOU interpret as insignificant threats based on property in these cases. Do you think it also inappropriate for you to strike back if you believed you were being raped? This is what I mean by 'degree'. The farmer's fear or real threat has to be taken into consideration. But there ARE those who would shoot you for simply walking across their lawn. That would be inappropriate.

 

Um, you can't kill somebody who wants to steal stuff from you, at least in Canada. You'll have better luck in the states.

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, Omni said:

Um, you can't kill somebody who wants to steal stuff from you, at least in Canada. You'll have better luck in the states.

ONLY for the reason I mentioned though. It is similar in the U.S. too. The common law on that is shared. 

But this is irrelevant to the question I pose on this issue. Do you guys at least all agree that the WAY the responding family to TREAT this issue as a racial one is the problem here? Do you not think that the rallying cry of aboriginals here is a problem?

[I just got an email invitation by "Idle no more"] Here is the email:

Quote

Scott -- 
 

Colten Boushie was a 22-year-old from Red Pheasant Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. In August 2016, Colten was shot and killed by a farmer.

On February 9th, 2018, the jury and judge ruled that Gerald Stanley was acquitted of all charges.

In honor of the late Colten (Coco) Boushie, we are calling for a day of action to show solidarity and support for the Boushie and Baptiste family.

Gather wherever you are. Rallies and vigils by location will be posted on this page on the Idle No More website and on this Facebook page as soon as information is available.

 

GATHERINGS---------

General Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/2034916356793596/

SASKATOON, FEB 10: 1pm at Court of Queen's Bench, (520 Spadina Ave) 
https://www.facebook.com/events/965391253622025/

REGINA, FEB 10: 11am at Queen's Bench Courthouse (2425 Victoria Avenue)
https://www.facebook.com/events/985660894918403/

OTTAWA, FEB 10: NOON - vigil on Parliament Hill
https://www.facebook.com/events/240296859845239/

EDMONTON: FEB 10 NOON - Edmonton Police Service (9620-103A Avenue) 
https://www.facebook.com/events/152886782000579/

EDMONTON: FEB 16: 6 pm - Alberta Legislature Building (10800 97 Ave NW)
https://www.facebook.com/events/1813815998642612/

WINNIPEG, FEB 10 2-5 Odena at the Forks
https://www.facebook.com/events/143467939662410/

RED DEER AND AREA: Monday, February 12 at 6 PM
https://www.facebook.com/events/162340157749553/

VANCOUVER, FEB 10: 12:30 PST CBC Vancouver (700 Hamilton Street)
https://www.facebook.com/events/145891392744215/

VICTORIA, FEB 10: 11am in front of the BC provincial law courts. (850 Burdett Ave)
https://www.facebook.com/events/1585303884910267/

CALGARY, FEB 11: City Hall at 6pm 
https://www.facebook.com/events/143312106363874/

TORONTO: FEB 11 at 1 pm: Nathan Phillips Square 
https://www.facebook.com/events/2102118743162362/

KITCHENER-WATERLOO: FEB 11 10 AM - 12 PM, Victoria Park
https://www.facebook.com/events/399112210529622/

THUNDER BAY: Feb 10 6:30pm - 9:30pm Hillcrest Park 
https://www.facebook.com/events/145126412830732/

YELLOWKNIFE: Feb 10 1pm, Yellowknife Post Office (50th Ave)
https://www.facebook.com/events/184017965545036/

NIMKII AAZHIBIKOONG: prayer gathering

OPASKWAYAK CREE NATION  FEB 10, noon, GLMCC parking lot at OCN sign. Wear Red!https://www.facebook.com/events/187089648714167/

PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA:  FEB 10 (Schoolhouse Children's Museum & Learning Center 129 E Ocean Ave)
https://twitter.com/WomeninBlackPBC/status/962161688236777472?s=09

GOFUNDME for the Boushie & Baptiste family, if you can't attend in person: 
https://www.gofundme.com/justice4colten

Idle No More Info
http://www.idlenomore.ca/

 

[Omni]

T^he courts have spoken. There will be an appeal.

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, Omni said:

T^he courts have spoken. There will be an appeal.

Yes. And it will be forced to by the witch hunt until the guy gets destroyed regardless of whether the courts felt the case was fair or not. So much for justice here. How is this productive? How does it serve justice when the case is being treated as a political issue and not a personal one?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Yes. And it will be forced to by the witch hunt until the guy gets destroyed regardless of whether the courts felt the case was fair or not. So much for justice here. How is this productive? How does it serve justice when the case is being treated as a political issue and not a personal one?

I have faith in the courts to not take it as a political issue, simply a legal one. We have good courts here.

[?Impact]

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Do you think it also inappropriate for you to strike back if you believed you were being raped? This is what I mean by 'degree'. The farmer's fear or real threat has to be taken into consideration.

This case is not about self defense, that is a whole different kettle of fish. To justify self defense generally you need:

a) the accused must have been unlawfully assaulted by the victim;

* the accused must not have provoked the unlawful assault by the victim;

c) the force used by the accused was not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the victim; and

d) the force used by the accused was no more than necessary to enable the accused to defend him or herself

 

11 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

[I just got an email invitation by "Idle no more"] Here is the email:

As worded they are asking for a vigil to show solidarity and support for the family that lost a son. Unfortunately I expect your suspicion is right that these vigils will have people seeking more than support, and that is when and where you have a right to object.

4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

How does it serve justice when the case is being treated as a political issue and not a personal one?

It doesn't, and when that happens you have the right to object.

 

----

 

* Gawd, I hate software that is too smart for it's own good. That was supposed to be part of a list, not some silly emoji.

Edited February 10, 2018 by ?Impact

[Scott Mayers]

I don't. The court only opts for this when they see the public actually APPEARS as siding for this....even when it isn't. The media here protects the POSITION of the Aboriginals by hiding any intellectual digression against it unless they can find some absurd Ku Klux Klanner type of response. This is what falsely treats these issues as polarized on racial issues. It's purely political.