Thank you Trudeau...

[Accountability Now]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Perhaps a better title would be: "I will leverage the Stanley verdict for political gain - I will pretend to be balanced when I am nothing but."

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 

 

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Again I return to the root, because that is where the truth lies. Take Trudeau's entire quote (it is not long) and then make your argument in context.

Quote

"Our hearts go out to Colten Boushie's family. His mom Debbie, his friends and the entire community," Mr. Trudeau told reporters. "I'm not going to comment on the process that led us to this point today. But I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times. 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."

 

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

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Accountability Now said:

Just want to make sure you are reading the same thing.

Yes, and if you would go back and highlight "today" you will notice that one is referencing the incident, and the other is about the general case.

4 minutes ago, PIK said:

This country would be humming along right now if harper was still PM.

Yes there certainly was a lot of harmony when Harper was PM - choke, choke.

[Accountability Now]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, and if you would go back and highlight "today" you will notice that one is referencing the incident, and the other is about the general case.

NOT A CHANCE. But keep dreaming bud!  

[AngusThermopyle]

21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed....Trudeau is such a sleazy political opportunist, he will use any divisive circumstance to interfere, as in this acquittal. 

Spot on. Here is an article about that very thing. It's long but well worth the read.

https://www.newcenter.ca/news/2018/1/28/6su67ib1rqszpjc2w3qrm2ys1wbm7j

[AngusThermopyle]

The picture being painted by the media is one of a sweet young guy who was brutally murdered. The true story is far more nuanced than that. He didn't see himself as such by any means.

 

[Accountability Now]

7 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

The picture being painted by the media is one of a sweet young guy who was brutally murdered. The true story is far more nuanced than that. He didn't see himself as such by any means.

 

To be fair....those are lyrics from this song below. 

 

[AngusThermopyle]

28 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

To be fair....those are lyrics from this song below. 

 

That's interesting, but also doesn't change the fact that he saw himself as some kind of gangster. I'm not sure if it's still up or has been edited yet, but if you went to his FB page it's very telling. You get a clear picture that he saw himself as a gangster and thug. Lot's of posts about criminal behaviour. Also interesting is the fact that his uncle was convicted of the murder of two farmers. An uncanny similarity of circumstances wouldn't you say? It appears that criminal behaviour was, and still may be a way of life for this family.

Lately there's been talk that his uncle is a member of the Indian Posse and that this young man also aspired to be a member. I'm sure that's something that won't be reported on though. It doesn't fit the narrative that's being created.

I just checked, his FB page is gone.

Edited February 13, 2018 by AngusThermopyle
more info

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

That's interesting, but also doesn't change the fact that he saw himself as some kind of gangster.

What exactly does that mean? Does it not describe a broad cross section of young males of all stripes across North America culture for the past 70+ years? Sure the hair, clothing, tattoos, and music have changed over the years but the the basic culture remains. I have no insight into this particular case, but quoting a facebook account that reflects the culture of youth is meaningless.

Edited February 13, 2018 by ?Impact

[Accountability Now]

3 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

That's interesting, but also doesn't change the fact that he saw himself as some kind of gangster. I'm not sure if it's still up or has been edited yet, but if you went to his FB page it's very telling. You get a clear picture that he saw himself as a gangster and thug. Lot's of posts about criminal behaviour. Also interesting is the fact that his uncle was convicted of the murder of two farmers. An uncanny similarity of circumstances wouldn't you say? It appears that criminal behaviour was, and still may be a way of life for this family.

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?

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

attempted robbery

Could you please point that out in the criminal code

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Could you please point that out in the criminal code

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.

 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

• (c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or

I guess I am not as familiar with the case as you seem to be. Could you tell me where that happened?

[Hal 9000]

You're delusional to think that nothing these punks did is worthy of criminal charges.  I won't bother to scour the criminal code, but I guarantee there is no loophole that lets an attempted thief get away without charges. 

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You're delusional to think that nothing these punks did is worthy of criminal charges.

Yet another shining example of being misquoted. I never said anything remotely like that, yet you slap a label on me and put words in my mouth.

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yet another shining example of being misquoted. I never said anything remotely like that, yet you slap a label on me and put words in my mouth.

So, you agree that these punks were doing something worthy of criminal charges?  Right?

[Accountability Now]

28 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I guess I am not as familiar with the case as you seem to be. Could you tell me where that happened?

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.

 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

So, you agree that these punks were doing something worthy of criminal charges?  Right?

From what I have heard, yes that sounds right. The allegation is they attempted to steal a truck from the Fouhy farm, apparently a neighbour but I am not sure when and how far away that was; while they didn't succeed in stealing the truck I am assuming they did some damage. They had been drinking, not sure if that included the one(s) driving and what the blood alcohol level of the driver was. On the Stanley farm the allegation is they started up an ATV.

Does that list sound right, or do you have other specific crimes they committed?

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

They rammed their SUV into another truck

The account I hear is that Stanley shouted at them when the ATV started up, and one on the ATV got back into the their vehicle and they started moving. There appears to be different accounts then of where they were going. Stanley's son then smashed their vehicle with a hammer, and Stanley kicked their vehicle; it is after that it collided into a parked car belonging to Stanley.

 

Of course the old telephone tag has changed that into them ramming a truck. Another obvious possibility is when they heard Stanley they attempted to drive away but were attacked by Stanley and his son and lost control of their vehicle. If you were in a car and the window got smashed in with a hammer, could you say that you would remain in complete control? I am not trying to lay blame here, just pointing out that there are many possible scenarios and stating a Internet story as fact is quite misleading.

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

From what I have heard, yes that sounds right. The allegation is they attempted to steal a truck from the Fouhy farm, apparently a neighbour but I am not sure when and how far away that was; while they didn't succeed in stealing the truck I am assuming they did some damage. They had been drinking, not sure if that included the one(s) driving and what the blood alcohol level of the driver was. On the Stanley farm the allegation is they started up an ATV.

Does that list sound right, or do you have other specific crimes they committed?

Well, I'd say that there is clear evidence of armed robbery. 

[Accountability Now]

10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The account I hear is that Stanley shouted at them when the ATV started up, and one on the ATV got back into the their vehicle and they started moving. There appears to be different accounts then of where they were going. Stanley's son then smashed their vehicle with a hammer, and Stanley kicked their vehicle; it is after that it collided into a parked car belonging to Stanley.

 

Of course the old telephone tag has changed that into them ramming a truck. Another obvious possibility is when they heard Stanley they attempted to drive away but were attacked by Stanley and his son and lost control of their vehicle. If you were in a car and the window got smashed in with a hammer, could you say that you would remain in complete control? I am not trying to lay blame here, just pointing out that there are many possible scenarios and stating a Internet story as fact is quite misleading.

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:

 

Quote

When they heard Sheldon yelling, the people got back in the car and reversed toward Stanley. Stanley said he kicked the tail light. The vehicle then drove forward, revving fast, toward Sheldon, who hit the windshield with a hammer. The vehicle then rammed into one of the Stanley family's unoccupied SUV vehicles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-trial-lawyer-defence-case-1.4519655

 

 

[Accountability Now]

12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

From what I have heard, yes that sounds right. The allegation is they attempted to steal a truck from the Fouhy farm, apparently a neighbour but I am not sure when and how far away that was; while they didn't succeed in stealing the truck I am assuming they did some damage. They had been drinking, not sure if that included the one(s) driving and what the blood alcohol level of the driver was. On the Stanley farm the allegation is they started up an ATV.

Why do you keep saying "allegation". Boushie's friends admitted to what you are saying is allegations. 

Quote

 

Meechance testified the group had been drinking and swimming in the South Saskatchewan River. They were in Wuttunee’s SUV, a grey Ford Escape, and heading back to the reserve when they got a leak in a tire. They stopped at a farm about 15 kilometres from Stanley’s property.

Cross initially told police that the group was checking out a truck on the farm, but told court they were actually there to steal. He testified he used a rifle to break into the truck and, during the break-in, the stock of the gun broke off. The group left and Cross drove to Stanley’s farm. He said the group wanted to ask for help with the flat tire.

Meechance testified that he and Cross were on an all-terrain vehicle in Stanley’s yard, but ran when someone started yelling. Back in their SUV, Meechance said Cross drove into a parked vehicle and a man then smashed their windshield. He and Cross got out and started running.

 

 

12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Does that list sound right, or do you have other specific crimes they committed?

How about perjury? 

Quote

Two people who were in an SUV with Boushie admitted lying in police statements. One also said he lied under oath during Stanley’s preliminary hearing.

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:

Quote

Cross-Whitstone told the jury he’d been driving drunk and had a .22-calibre rifle in the back of the SUV.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Accountability Now

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Not sure if you can charge someone by them admitting it or if you need an actual blood alcohol to convict

Yes you can be charged based on an admission, it depends on the how this confession was taken. They can be ruled inadmissible for a number of reasons, for example one in Newfoundland was ruled that way because the man had a concussion. There is also the case in Ohio of Matthew Cordle who received 6+ years based on his youtube video.

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/02/2018 at 12:41 PM, ?Impact said:

You are the one that brought race (whatever that means) into the discussion. You linked protests by some aboriginals as a sign of racial bias on the part of all aboriginals, so does it not follow that there will be racial bias on the part of all non-aboriginals? We are not Americans here, we need to stop using American justice system examples because they do not apply. In Canada a jury is composed of adult citizens of the province/territory, the crown and defense can challenge any jury member for whatever reason so yes race along with gender, marital status, age, income, and profession often are the reasons a juror is [not] selected. The idea of an impartial jury is grand, but in truth what we have is crown and defense selecting a most favorable jury from their own perspectives with the hope it balances out.

"Racism" is the charge by the Boshie family and ALL those Aboriginals who collectively opted to RALLY AGAINST all Canadians and its supposed (but unclarified) "systematic abuses".  It is not something I made up here. 

"American" justice is about treating people as individuals without reference to any fucking 'superiority' complex that Kings and Queens think they deserve. You are praising our system when it is 'authoritarian' (top-down lead). The ONLY reason Trudeau and others are supporting the Natives is to HIDE their own liability to the debt of their own abuses. But they DICTATED me and all Canadians to a "constitution" specifically designed to EVADE a sincere Charter of Rights for ALL people. That is, whatever 'freedoms' we have been granted are THROUGH the auspicies of those Canadian families who are RELATED to the original Ontario/Quebec 'loyalists' made up of mostly Catholic and Anglican lovers of Feudalistic thinking that treats its members as "commoners". 

We are a theocracy that hides behind a feigned "democracy". It IS 'democratic' to THOSE fortunate to have INHERENT rights guaranteed to them with PRIORITY. These select groups though do not include those like myself that has no cult beliefs in Gods or irrational Nationalist beliefs that in my genes I OWN (inherit) my parents' and all other of my ancestor's ARTISTIC behaviors: Culture, religion, etc. 

THIS is racist because it falsely assigns ownership of ENVIRONMENTAL behaviors (of ancestors) as a GENETICALLY linked FACT!! If you are "Scottish", this government says that you OWN the culture of wearing Kilts, for instance. While this may seem mundane to you, this 'stereotyping' requires being logically consistent across all factors both GOOD AND BAD. So if you are 'German', for instance, you require OWNING the fault of the Holocaust, as much as the Oktoberfest beer celebrations etc.  

If one who is "Aboriginal" genetically has some 'right to PERPETUITIES by Trudeau's own ancestors, HE and ONLY HIS agreed relatives should PAY for any of the past abuses that he readily excuses US ALL as "owning" simply for NOT having Aboriginal genes. 

I'm tired of this stupidity. If you agree to this for some essence of loyalty to Canadian history, it only tells me that you are one of those fortunate elites who interpret your own fortune as STEREOTYPICALLY linked to all of those who have similar genes to you. 

 

So, given this background, to the case at issue, when the Natives rally, this is NO DIFFERENT than what the Germans did for their own beliefs of "distinct Nationalities" of which the Aboriginal German (Aryan race) believed they were separately worthy of OWNERSHIP of GENETIC CULTURE. That is, they too believed that they were victimized by the non-aboriginal Germans who invaded their economies and stole their lands. 

The JURY did NOTHING wrong regardless of its verdict. The Boshie family ONLY accept a 'guilty' verdict. While this is understandable of one's direct familiar relationships, IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE WHOLE ABORIGINAL RACE. And so when they rallied AS A COLLECTIVE, they also PROVE that it would have been absurdly STUPID of the defense to SELECT Aboriginal peoples on their jury. 

 

Note that IF they alter the rights of the accusers to have power of juries with privilege THIS SHOULD ALSO apply to Natives. This would be bad equally for them too (IF WE REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH ANY NEW LAWS). But they will ONLY ACCEPT laws that EMPOWER the Aboriginal uniquely and exclusively. And this means that their appeal to the government is only to have a selective socialist favor for their own "Nations" (National Socialist). 

I and all other people are born 'aboriginal' of this Earth. The problems that exist are ONLY due to racism and sexism by those who deem it essential to EMPOWER those groups uniquely and exclusively, NOT those pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't OWN some 'European' culture, regardless of the fact that many of them DO have an advantage. But the problems of the Aboriginals are NOT due to the dissociated individuals outside of any cult. It is ONLY due significantly to the contrast of WEALTH that only INCIDENTALLY have larger plurality of Aboriginals. The problem is POVERTY, ISOLATION, and further NATIONAL SOCIALISTIC protections that TREAT THEM AS discriminate beings (some other KIND of human?)

So the classification of any problem of discrimination is due to poverty. But they or other groups who are plural and strong enough as a cult are given special significance by our government because those in power and wealth here are ALSO believers in their OWN distinct status as humans. By forcefully ISOLATING people by supplanting and even reviving dead cultures through segregation (such as a right to their own private language), they are purposely attempting to HIDE the actual cause to deny the larger part of the class of those impoverished. When those within the same economic classes are isolated this way, it is just like the Israelis using their settlements to ISOLATE the collective nature of the Palestinians to be empowered to overthrow them. 

With Cultural laws, this eases the capacity of the wealthy elitist to divide us by redefining such divisiveness as a virtue: diversity. "Diversity" by them means SEGREGATE CULTS. They think of different races as distinct animals that require separate cages in a zoo. It was this very reason why the arrogant 'colonialists' suggest "reserves" as we might have a "buffalo reserve". Instead of destroying these racist concepts, you and others are supporting STRENGTHENING these institutes.

If such laws favor you, then OWN this yourself. But stop imposing us to segregate based on your own discriminatory racist beliefs. I may have 'white skin' but I am NOT 'white' by any culture other than my OWN choice .....not my ancestors! To me I treat people as independent beings that have a RIGHT to CHOOSE their 'culture'. If I like skateboarding, this becomes MY CULTURE. But if my grandparents played HOCKEY, I do NOT OWN this culture because it is NOT my choice of artistic lifestyle. (In fact I hate this stereotype also being imposed upon me as a Canadian)

[Scott Mayers]

AND, as to the comments against the American way, America is NOT a cult. They DO have people who believe in SEGREGATION laws too. BUT, they are VOLUNTARY and DO NOT IMPOSE laws that favor people based on select races. Of course this too has degraded in the U.S.. But this is IN SPITE of their Constitution with its First Amendment. And it proves that given the fact that racists and sexists STILL have more power in a voluntary society, when it is forced upon people from above, our type of system is worse.

I rode my first horse on a Cherokee Nation in South Carolina. I remembered how welcomed we were as EQUALS to them. Here in Canada, you can't do this. The reserves are ONLY for those who have a genetic linked inheritance here. In the U.S. I can CHOOSE to become a member of the Cherokee Nation. If I was adopted by an Aboriginal family, I'd only 'own' the culture that my family opts to have as traditions without laws that conserve them. 

So if you got something against the U.S., it is only because you can't avoid the POWERS of those cults that have collective BELIEFS in their Genetic roots voluntarily. But they are NOT forced in laws like they are here. 

[cannuck]

On 2/13/2018 at 12:47 PM, ?Impact said:

What exactly does that mean? Does it not describe a broad cross section of young males of all stripes across North America culture for the past 70+ years? Sure the hair, clothing, tattoos, and music have changed over the years but the the basic culture remains. I have no insight into this particular case, but quoting a facebook account that reflects the culture of youth is meaningless.

There is one hell of a difference between the typical teen who listens to the music, wears the clothes and speaks the language and one who acts out that perceived culture by comitting violent, armed crimes.  No different from the thousands of accountants and lawyers who buy Harley-Ferguson "motorcycles", dress like hells angels and speak like some kind of thug.  BUT: that does not MAKE them into a Hell's Angels member dealing in drugs, prostitution, etc.

Edited February 15, 2018 by cannuck