Thank you Trudeau...

[DogOnPorch]

Harley Ferguson?

 

[?Impact]

46 minutes ago, cannuck said:

There is one hell of a difference between the typical teen who listens to the music...

I was referencing the supposed background provided like facebook posts.

[?Impact]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Harley Ferguson?

Obviously you are not a farmer, and never drove a two wheeled tractor.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Obviously you are not a farmer, and never drove a two wheeled tractor.

 

No...never been a farmer. 

I want one.

I have rode a Bixby way back. Similar.

[Scott Mayers]

47 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No...never been a farmer. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I want one.

I have rode a Bixby way back. Similar.

 

But, you were a farmer's dog, right?

[cannuck]

11 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I was referencing the supposed background provided like facebook posts.

The inuendo seems to be the Boushie was somehow just another typical teen.   He was not (well, not quite accurate, he WAS typical of a teen from a certain clearly visible minority around the Battlefords).

[DogOnPorch]

11 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

But, you were a farmer's dog, right?

 

Only if you're a fire hydrant.

 

[Scott Mayers]

22 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Only if you're a fire hydrant.

 

Ready.

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Ready.

 

At least we both understand our roles.

[PIK]

I live in the rurals and you are on your own for quite some time before  a cop shows up. These kids were out terrorizing the rural people. If that kids was doing something else or at home, he would be alive today. I for one would have been running after the 1st warning shot.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, PIK said:

 I for one would have been running after the 1st warning shot.

Yes, I would jump into the car and drive away.

Of course if someone smashes the windshield with a hammer and drives you off the road into another vehicle and then comes to your window with a handgun and points it at your head then running is of little value.

5 minutes ago, PIK said:

If that kids was doing something else or at home, he would be alive today.

All events are part of a chain, and yes any one link on the chain leading up to the event may change the outcome, but 100% of the fault does not lie in a single link.

[scribblet]

Try reading this.   http://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/columnists/there-is-so-much-wrong-being-said-by-both-sides-about-the-gerald-stanley-trial-1.23171591

Much has been made of the all-white jury. But the calling of 750 potential jurors of a jury pool is extraordinary. That was a deliberate attempt by the court to provide as wide a jury pool as possible, and certainly larger than anything I encountered. That just a sliver of those potential jurors showed up is a reflection that many people, including First Nations people, did not wish to put in an effort for this case. Perhaps if all, or even most, of those 750 people showed up, given the local demographics and substantial Indigenous population, it would have been impossible for the defence to challenge them all people of visible minorities. There would have been too many.

 

Now Carolyn_Bennett says new legal framework will allow Indigenous people to have more control over their lives and their land more quickly.  Guess that means we don’t have to pay them billions of dollars every year now. 

There are currently 147 First Nations reserves under "Default Management" by her own Department. Does Bennett know this?   What happens to those aboriginal communities and more so now that Trudeau killed the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.  

[PIK]

Many potential jurors were native, but many said no and others said we will make sure he hangs. Thsi is all on them.

[Scott Mayers]

15 minutes ago, PIK said:

Many potential jurors were native, but many said no and others said we will make sure he hangs. Thsi is all on them.

The legal factors that the government can do only relate to the costs associated with expecting jurors who are poor to pay external costs during trial. But this would NOT be about whether one is Native but to whether one could afford those costs. 

I don't like how the politicians here are playing to the gallery to appeal to the natives as though they are sincere. If they are sincere to their cry, they'd have to literally make more discriminate laws that inappropriately ADD more segregate laws based on the culture-genetic belief that Natives are somehow being discriminated uniquely for BEING Native rather than BEING impoverished. The Natives are as equally capable of reasoning when you respect them as intellectual beings. But our politicians and the supporters of 'change' relating to this case treats the Natives as though they are impossible to reason and so they must PRETEND to be agreeing with them. 

So, if the politicians are literally sincere, they'd have to honor making laws that specifically discriminate against one's genetics in law OR require being honest to stand up against the irrationality. They are not doing either and so prove they are being deceptive one way or the other. And it is likely because each of the politicians involved actually WANT to enhance segregate laws at least for SOME such cultures they personally desire over others. 

We SHOULD then demand change! Let's demand laws that allow politicians to be hypocritical illegal and have stiffer penalties for them. Like, for instance, how one can support immigration of new people from elsewhere to add onto the burden against the Native population when they also think that the Natives abuses were DUE to naturalized Canadians who CAME from immigrants in the past?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

Now Carolyn_Bennett says new legal framework will allow Indigenous people to have more control over their lives and their land more quickly.  Guess that means we don’t have to pay them billions of dollars every year now.    

That's right.  We will however now have to pay ourselves billions of dollars a year to make up for the shortfall in resource royalties and licensee fees that will flow to native governments instead of ours.  About time too. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by eyeball

[Hal 9000]

It seems unusual that out of all those potential jurors, the defense was able to find 12 racists and the prosecution agreed to all of them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Another brick in the wall....the public will never easily know what jurors were thinking in this case, because jurors in Canada are legally prohibited from discussing their verdict under penalty of summary conviction and punishment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jury-secrecy-colten-boushie-gerald-stanley-1.4533893

 

 

[?Impact]

14 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 jurors in Canada are legally prohibited from discussing their verdict under penalty of summary conviction and punishment.

Yes, no selling your story to make it rich in Canada. What happens in the jury room stays in the jury room, and not on the Hollywood screen.

There are pros and cons of either way.

[Hal 9000]

I think the bigger problem is that many, if not all potential FN jurors were already talking about a guilty verdict before even being selected.  I mean, who would've thought that going into a trial with a preconceived verdict would exclude a juror? 

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I think the bigger problem is that many, if not all potential FN jurors were already talking about a guilty verdict before even being selected.

They were? Could you provide your source for that?

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, no selling your story to make it rich in Canada. What happens in the jury room stays in the jury room, and not on the Hollywood screen.

There are pros and cons of either way.

 

This is a trend that provides anything but "transparency"....publication bans....peremptory challenges....juror gag orders...not "Sunny Ways".

[?Impact]

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This is a trend that provides anything but "transparency"

The judicial system should be about fairness. Transparency can help or hinder fairness.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The judicial system should be about fairness. Transparency can help or hinder fairness.

 

How's that working out for 'ya this time ?   Canada's "justice system" is being attacked from all sides.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

How's that working out for 'ya this time ?   Canada's "justice system" is being attacked from all sides.

Agreed, Canada's justice system is flawed

The US justice system is also flawed

No I don't have a simple answer

[Rue]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:08 AM, ?Impact said:

Yes, expressing sorrow for the grief a family is having with the death of their son is unacceptable. He should be bold like our previous Prime Minister, and express his dissatisfaction with the judicial system and say his opinion is the only one that counts. That is the kind of dictatorial Prime Minister we need.

You clearly ignored his point. In Canadian law a Prime Minister and elected officials can NOT question the verdict of juries which is what the PM and three cabinet Ministers did. This undermines the judicial independence of the jury and undermines the entire judicial legal system. Justin Trudeau, his Justice Minister and his two cabinet members did not have the information the jury had. They do not know what evidence they had and considered. His Justice Minister should be disbarred. It is a gross violation of legal ethics of any lawyer to openly question a jury's decision.

You don't get it why? Why would anyone want to engage in jury duty if they know they will be ridiculed and questioned by politicians and/or the press? How are they supposed to feel safe and be able to discuss things without fear of retaliation?

Maybe in your world  you want lynch mobs that define guilt  by public outcry but I do not. I do not want some snot faced, partisan idiot, undermining the entire legal system so he can avoid the appearance of being unpopular to native people. Trudeau, and his cabinet members are cowards.

This whole sordid episode shows just how lacking in principle and integrity Trudeau is. He's a pandering whore. He exists to pander and constantly do things to maintain his image.

That makes him a narcissistic moron and an irresponsible idiot.

It is not up to any politician to turn our legal system into an arena to exploit politically for their own needs. The basic ability to be democratic requires a complete detachment from elected officials and our juridiciary.Any appearance of influencing our judiciary destroys it.

You would be the first to come on this forum and piss your pants accusing Harper of trying to influence the Supreme Court of Canada's role and decisions, now, well hey now, when Justin does it, suddenly its a responsible thing to do? I call bullshit.

If you do not understand why politicians should not undermine the integrity of jury decisions go find out why instead of trying to pose Justin as some kind of compassionate hero. He is nothing but a pandering whore to public opinion panicking at anything that might make him look bad.

Next I notice a lot of our journalists now asking why juries should not speak to the press and explain their positions like they do in the states. More bullshit. If someone needs an explanation as to what legal issues were considered they must ask the Judge not the Jury. In Canada our law does not permit pestering the jury as to its decision because it undermines the ability of the juries to deliberate without fear of future ridicule by the press and making decisions based only on pleasing the press. Got it? The press can consult their legal staff to understand what issues were considered.

Next and you clearly did not give it a thought, how does the Crown now launch an appeal and  how can the matter ever be sent back to another jury now that Trudeau et al have poisoned the atmosphere contaminating any prospective juror pool?

Trudeau is an idiot. His Justice Minister is a coward. His Indian Affairs Ministers are pathetic political toads.