Thank you Trudeau...

[Rue]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Agreed, Canada's justice system is flawed

The US justice system is also flawed

No I don't have a simple answer

Bull shit. Anyone can say a legal system is flawed simply because you don't like the legal decision a jury makes. That does not make it flawed however. You mistake not approving of a jury's finding with a legal system being flawed. Go on finish it. What is flawed about our justice system. What a sweeping statement. That's one big system you call flawed. I doubt you even have a  clue what the courts are in Canada, who has jurisdiction over them, what their rules of evidence and procedure are. Until you do, your partisan knee jerk reaction to a decision you do not like does not mean the system is flawed. Good luck explaining why its flawed. You haven't a clue how the system even works given you applaud politicians who undermine the integrity of the independence of the legal system. Also the fact you refer to it as the "justice" system and not legal or criminal system says a lot.

As a lawyer the first thing I have learned is that when laymen use the word "justice" they mean "revenge".

Tell you what. I could spend hours discussing ways to improve our legal system but throwing it all out in the wash as you have with one foul pronouncement is b.s.

Compared to the majority of the world we are damn lucky to have the legal system we have warts and all.

[Rue]

6 hours ago, PIK said:

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.

Of course and do you notice who is trying to play the race card? Its not the guy who shot at him, its Trudeau, the Justice Minister, his Cabinet Ministers and the usual leftist phacktards engaging in passive aggressive indirect accusations that the jury was racist and the legal system was racist. They would have you believe you can't find an aboriginal guilty of a crime. Horse crap. His being aboriginal was never the issue. These leftards are cowards. Let Trudeau at el come out and prove the Jury only decided how they did because the accused was white. What crap. Whether the shooter was white or aboriginal the considerations would be the same. The status of the trespasser, i.e., his being aboriginal was not the issue and never was although Trudeau et al are trying to make it the issue.

I call it what it is PIK leftists smeering a jury because its white and the accused is white and the dead person was aboriginal-that and only that.

The law stays blind to skin colour, ethnicity, religion, etc., when it considers the issues. If any leftist wants to come on this forum and suggest that because the jury and shooter were white it was unfair, let them have the balls to say so. They won't just like the coward Trudeau and his toad Ministers didn't. They prefer to incite anger with passive indirect inferences. Its cowardly horseshit engaging in the worst of pandering partisanship to undermine our legal system.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

You mistake not approving of a jury's finding with a legal system being flawed.

I have a question:  There's a lot of accusations about the make-up of the jury, but I thought it was supposed to be a jury of Stanley's peers (which it was) not of Bouchie's?  Is this correct?

I understand that the Bouchie family wanted indigenous people on the jury, and I agree to an extent.  The extent would be another point you make:

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

As a lawyer the first thing I have learned is that when laymen use the word "justice" they mean "revenge".

If the jury had only been indigenous people, couldn't Stanley have made the same charge - that it wasn't a jury of his peers?

I'm assuming that any white person who said, "Ya, the Native kid had it coming" wouldn't be selected for the jury, the same as any indigenous person who said, "Ya, I wanna hang the white guy" wouldn't be selected.

Why are we assuming that only indigneous people can be impartial and that no racism exists amongst indigenous people?

[Hal 9000]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

They were? Could you provide your source for that?

I could. but you wont hear that from the CBC, so it's really pointless to provide a cite just so you can predictably rip the source.  I mean, that's all you really want to do right?

[Rue]

33 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I have a question:  There's a lot of accusations about the make-up of the jury, but I thought it was supposed to be a jury of Stanley's peers (which it was) not of Bouchie's?  Is this correct?

I understand that the Bouchie family wanted indigenous people on the jury, and I agree to an extent.  The extent would be another point you make:

If the jury had only been indigenous people, couldn't Stanley have made the same charge - that it wasn't a jury of his peers?

I'm assuming that any white person who said, "Ya, the Native kid had it coming" wouldn't be selected for the jury, the same as any indigenous person who said, "Ya, I wanna hang the white guy" wouldn't be selected.

Why are we assuming that only indigneous people can be impartial and that no racism exists amongst indigenous people?

Good question. Some people believe that because the jury was white it could not be impartial in regards to considering the behavior of a white man. That of course is a racist assumption.

It is true in our legal system it is difficult to get indigenous people to join juries or find any even available to consider as potential jurors. That has to do with geographic location and other issues related to mental health, literacy, and other issues that disqualify any jurist, not necessarily racist hatred of aboriginals by lawyers selecting juries. Also culturally many indigenous people ask not to sit on juries saying they do not agree with or understand our legal system and don't want to.

Here is why Godess though I have a problem with people automatically assuming the legal system is racist against natives. Yes of course there are laws that might be discriminatory. Yes we have violate numerous treaties and agreements with indigenous communities. That's not the same issue. As well  there might be government administrative services that have problems and treat native people unfairly of course. There are all kinds of accusation about discriminatory practice in regards to Children's aid when they take children from native parents.  However, it is an insult to those in the legal system or any of us to call us all racist without any proof and just rely on inference. We have issues yes but a blanket condemnation, no.

In Canada the legal system now incorporates restorative justice programs which I have been active in. In numerous indigenous communities criminal proceedings are re-directed to healing circles and Judges in the North try their hardest to consider aboriginal principles in their legal determinations and to consult aboriginal elders with sentencing. Its an absolute lie to say the Justice system is ignoring the unique aboriginal legal methods of conflict resolution and bringing them into criminal law deliberations.

The  sad fact is the vast majority of native peoples end up in jail due to alcohol and drug related addiction issues which now are now often being treated with alternative sentencing and restorative justice programs focusing on mental health issues and how the behavior in question  hurts the whole community as well as the individual and treats it as a spiritual illness.

Its not perfect but to dismiss it in partisan pandering exercises is wrong and it won't help native peoples who have worked hard to establish these initiatives to throw them all out with one leftist dismissal.

People want revenge when someone is killed. Its an ancient and primal reaction by humans. People want a Frankenstein to burn and when they don't get one they get upset.

There is a great deal of irony in a Trudeau calling ISIL terrorists legitimate Canadians in need of rehabilitation and likening them to Italian immigrants and depicting Omar Kadr as some kind of phacking hero with one breath, then chastising the legal system in the next because Trudeau doesn't like a decision which may have negative impact on his popularity.

Let's call it like it is. Trudeau opened his big fat reactionary mouth because he panicked the decision would make him look bad. This wind bag set up a commission to look at missing aboriginal women that has proved to be a fiasco. His promised reforms to aboriginal peoples is such a mess he has two cabinet Ministers for one Ministry a sheer size of chaos. Then this decision came along and he panicked.

He has a Justice Minister and lawyer who knows better that to undermine a jury. She should be disbarred.

Years ago when Mulroney was in power his Sports Minister Jean Charet called a Judge to discuss a case and he was fired immediately. Other Ministers have been dismissed for openly trying to influence juries and Judges. Harper was lambasted by Justin Trudeau for trying to influence the courts with his comments about the Supreme Court of Canada and now Trudeau engages in the same thing. Then again this is someone whose career was built on constant accusations of the Tory government being corrupt and the first thing this snot nosed little rich boy did when elected was to travel on a private jet to a private Island of a private citizen asking his government for financial funding.

Its sleezy politics not racism.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Rue

[Accountability Now]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

They were? Could you provide your source for that?

https://www.google.ca/amp/torontosun.com/news/national/malcolm-half-of-prospective-boushie-jurors-were-aboriginal-says-member-of-jury-pool/amp

 

This article sums it up

[Accountability Now]

11 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I could. but you wont hear that from the CBC, so it's really pointless to provide a cite just so you can predictably rip the source.  I mean, that's all you really want to do right?

I posted one from the Toronto Sun but doesn’t meet their measuring stick

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

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.

 ...

I do not want some snot faced, partisan idiot ... narcissistic moron and an irresponsible idiot ... Trudeau is an idiot. His Justice Minister is a coward. His Indian Affairs Ministers are pathetic political toads.

You clearly ignored reality. Trudeau did NOT question the verdict of the jury.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Bull shit. ... your partisan knee jerk reaction to a decision you do not like ... As a lawyer the first thing I have learned is that when laymen use the word "justice" they mean "revenge".

You don't sound like a very open minded lawyer, but then you tell me that the first thing a lawyer learns is that they are better than the rest.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

usual leftist phacktards ... leftards are cowards ... coward Trudeau and his toad Ministers

Yup, you must be lawyer according to the above description of laywers

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

supposed to be a jury of Stanley's peers (which it was) not of Bouchie's?

Unfortunately when a native Canadian is on trial, they are not represented by a jury of their peers either according to that criteria

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

it's really pointless to provide a cite

fair enough, you just want to fume - noted

54 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

This article sums it up

Thank you. Several things I did notice in there. First it was according to one person, yes some people would have known Boushie so that is a valid reason to be excused but it still leaves a lot, the whole drawing numbers seems irrelevant, and it is only this persons view that the native Canadians were excused because of their previously stated bias - how they could be distinguished with so many there is completely unbelievable given the scenario painted.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

You clearly ignored reality. Trudeau did NOT question the verdict of the jury.

 

Far worse than that, Trudeau POLITICIZED the verdict of the jury.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Far worse than that, Trudeau POLITICIZED the verdict of the jury.

No, that was the right wing pundits that did that. Go back his statement, and it is not about the verdict of the jury. That however was ignored by the right wing self-righteous and they POLITICIZED the verdict of the jury.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, that was the right wing pundits that did that.

 

Nope...it was very much Trudeau who saw political opportunity to exploit.   He is sleazy that way...the Liberal way.

 

[Accountability Now]

36 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 First it was according to one person

Yes. This is quite important as the article does state it was unable to corroborate this one witness' story. I wonder what information would be available from the legal staff onsite that day which could be gleaned by the Justice Minister to see if there were in fact extenuating circumstances. 

41 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

and it is only this persons view that the native Canadians were excused because of their previously stated bias 

Again, it is just one person but its the only one I have seen speak out about it. If a large number of them were rather vocal then its not hard to believe that would be a rational reason for why they were excused. Again, this person is only referring to the 45 remaining and not the estimated other 55 that were excused because of a relationship to the Boushie family or previous engagements.  Of course vocally raising your intent is the surest way to get out of jury duty. Homer Simpson taught us that....here

45 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

how they could be distinguished with so many there is completely unbelievable given the scenario painted.

Are you saying how a First Nations person could be distinguished from a white person? In some cases I would agree with you as there are some FN people who look more white than FN. However on the most part I don't think it would be too difficult to sort it out especially if they segregated themselves in the room, as this person states they did. 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Are you saying how a First Nations person could be distinguished from a white person?

No, who watched 200 people and made detailed notes of which ones were vocalizing their biases. I guess it would an interesting way to do selection, put them all in a big room and give them free time and watch what happens. If that were taking place fine, but then the defense attorneys should say why people were excused.

[scribblet]

36 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nope...it was very much Trudeau who saw political opportunity to exploit.   He is sleazy that way...the Liberal way.

 

Exactly; his  politicizing and interfering has tainted any ability the Crown may have for an appeal, there is no chance for an untainted jury and a fair trial.  He is also attempting to destabilize our system in order to implement his own ideology. 

An unbiased accounting

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[?Impact]

12 minutes ago, scribblet said:

An unbiased accounting

Based on twitter posts

But yes he does clarify some of the same points I have been making about facts getting lost.

[Accountability Now]

15 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, who watched 200 people and made detailed notes of which ones were vocalizing their biases.

I see. Keep in mind at this point it wasn't 200. 100 people had left with 45 or so aboriginals which according to the article were mostly on one side of the room.  With that said, you could only get a sense of how many were vocalizing and not a true number. 

18 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 I guess it would an interesting way to do selection, put them all in a big room and give them free time and watch what happens. If that were taking place fine, but then the defense attorneys should say why people were excused.

I think that does happen. My wife was selected for jury duty once and she said that some people were removed based on things they said while waiting. I'm curious what the representative numbers were after the numbers were picked? I don't even know how many numbers would be picked.  I'm just wondering how many of the picked (ie people who's number was drawn) were excused because of vocal behaviour and if that had an adverse effect on the final number? The defense could only object to five I believe so realistically, if the numbers were 50/50 meaning 10 or so aboriginals then there should have been 5 left. So were these five excused because of their vocal outbursts? It certainly would be interesting to see this breakdown

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Keep in mind at this point it wasn't 200.

It certainly would be interesting to see this breakdown

I am assuming most of the vocalization took place in the waiting period before order was called and people started to be weeded out.

Yes, if reasons are actually given for the challenges then we would have better trust in the system.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

I call it what it is PIK leftists smeering a jury because its white and the accused is white and the dead person was aboriginal-that and only that.

The law stays blind to skin colour, ethnicity, religion, etc., when it considers the issues. If any leftist wants to come on this forum and suggest that because the jury and shooter were white it was unfair, let them have the balls to say so. They won't just like the coward Trudeau and his toad Ministers didn't. They prefer to incite anger with passive indirect inferences. Its cowardly horseshit engaging in the worst of pandering partisanship to undermine our legal system.

Perhaps peremptory challenges should be expanded to include if not expressly try to root out leftists from serving on juries. I mean seriously, if the effect the left has on everything is even half as bad as its purported to be shouldn't we be as proactively confronting it as much as we do racism?

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps peremptory challenges should be expanded to include if not expressly try to root out leftists from serving on juries.

Yawn

[cannuck]

10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

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.

By George he's got it!  Thus, concievably why Stanley found not guilty by a jury that heard almost all of the evidence/facts.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours 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.

Many don't even know how to read or write.

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, cannuck said:

By George he's got it!  Thus, concievably why Stanley found not guilty by a jury that heard almost all of the evidence/facts.

No there is no thus. You are make links that we don't know.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Many don't even know how to read or write.

No doubt someone will say many smell as well.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

No there is no thus. You are make links that we don't know.

Nor do you know.  I said "conceivably".   You need to hone your comprehensive skills.  Maybe put down your copy of the Regina manifesto and join the real world.

[?Impact]

Just now, cannuck said:

Nor do you know.  I said "conceivably".   You need to hone your comprehensive skills.  Maybe put down your copy of the Regina manifesto and join the real world.

You are making implications and I am simply pointing that out. I could say Stanley is innocent because I missed when I tried to swat a butterfly when I was a child.