Politics in 2018

[Cloud Cover]

An appeal is available under the CCC as follows:

Effectively under a jury verdict (which are the finders of fact as opposed to law) it would be necessary to prove that the judge made an error in law (such as in the jury selection process or in his instructions to the jury) which are substantial enough to invalidate the jury's finding.

Effectively the matter would be argued before three judges of the Alberta Court of Appeal based on transcripts of the evidence and legal arguments by counsel.

If successful the Court of Appeal would order a retrial and, in very rare circumstance, could substitute a conviction for the acquittal.

The crown would not be able to lay new charges under s 11(h) of the Charter which states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;

With the charges having been murder, I would think that the crown has put all of the facts into play and blown it's chances of trying this again on a lesser charge.

:cheers:

Why the Alberta court of appeal? Did Battleford convert?

 

[FJAG]

Why the Alberta court of appeal? Did Battleford convert?

:facepalm:

I have a really bad cold right now. Congestion. Brain not working right. Mea Culpa.

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

Saskaberta?

Albertewan?


Either way, doesn't solve the pipeline problem...

 

[pbi]

Justin Trudeau chiming in on the verdict:

"Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US"

While Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould says:
"As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians"

Being impartial is not a part of the job I guess.

This is disgusting and quite disturbing. Politicians are risking grossly overstepping their bounds here, in a manner that I find very dangerous.  While I'm probably somewhat to the "left" on some issues as compared to fellow posters here, this case is not one of them.

It is bad enough, in my opinion, that politicians have any say in the appointing of Justices: an invitation to introducing partisan politics in what must be a fair and impartial system.

For them to make the comments they are now making is totally out of bounds. The only correct comment they could make is "The Courts have spoken. The Crown is free to appeal if it has grounds".

To me, the suggestion by politicians (of ANY stripe, by the way: these just happen to be Liberals) that something is "wrong" or "unfair" in our court system because of a certain decision is wrong. The Crown did its best, and so did the defence. The Crown lost. That's what happens.

What good would it have done to "make sure" that a FN person(s) was sitting on the jury? To "guarantee" that the accused was found guilty? Are we going to make race a prerequisite for jury composition? Really? Think about that for a second, because IMHO it is a very slippery slope.

I've commented elsewhere that "justice" is not "vengeance", although that is what it seems to mean these days. Usually, I hear that sort of distorted thinking coming from the "lock 'em up" crowd dwelling toward the "right" or  "conservative" end of things, but it doesn't matter where it comes from, and politicians, unwittingly or not, shouldn't be encouraging it.

The bigger question might be just what the hell is going on in rural Saskatchewan, to produce such deep divisions and anger in society? Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home? And, on the other side of things, what made the RCMP treat Boushie's family in the manner they reportedly did, when they went to the residence to notify?

 

[ModlrMike]

Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home?

Five young people, one of whom was reportedly in possession of a rifle, went on to another man's property, and started causing mischief. There's no way this didn't end with a negative outcome - one way or another.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The bigger question might be just what the hell is going on in rural Saskatchewan, to produce such deep divisions and anger in society? Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home?

It isn't just Saskatchewan.

 

[FSTO]

The bigger question might be just what the hell is going on in rural Saskatchewan, to produce such deep divisions and anger in society? Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home? And, on the other side of things, what made the RCMP treat Boushie's family in the manner they reportedly did, when they went to the residence to notify?

When the Police is an hr to an hr and half away what choice do people have? There has been a rash of thefts throughout the prairies and farmers and ranchers are getting a little fed up with the free hand the thieves (native and non native) have had lately.

Finally what gives the group of young people the right to drive into a place and just start stealing stuff? Why would they not stop the car on the side of the road and ask for help?

 

[FSTO]

Five young men, one of whom was reportedly carrying a rifle, went on to another man's property. There's no way this didn't end with a negative outcome.

Actually 3 men and 2 women.

 

[pbi]

First off, if it's more than just SK in which people in rural areas are in fear for their lives, I go back to the question of finding out why. What is making these rural areas so dangerous that the response to a trespasser (or group of trespassers) is deadly force, seemingly right off the bat? Where is the back story here?

Don't mistake the intent of my question: it's just that-a question. The answer might be that in some places rural people do feel a high threat level. OK-if so, why? Threat from whom? Are rural people able to express their fears and concerns to any body? Or are they dismissed (perhaps as "racists")? Where is their side of this?

I get the inadequate policing part: geographically most of Ontario has little or no regular police coverage except for a few thinly spread OPP, and even down south some rural areas rarely see a cruiser, and must wait quite a while for a response.  Neither of which are automatically a real big problem, unless we are talking about an increasing threat level in these areas. Canada, I think,  is a historically under-policed country.

On the other hand, are there some rural people who think the right (and only... ) response to deal with FNs is deadly force? "Shoot first and ask questions later" ? If that is really true, how is that happening in our country? Killing people shouldn't be taken lightly in a civil society, no matter who does it.

I am guessing that this case is a warning indicator of much bigger problems. How will those problems get looked into, in a fair and dispassionate way that doesn't automatically assume that either side has a lock on what's right?

 

[ModlrMike]

Witness statements would suggest that it was not shooting that occurred first:

What happened on the Stanley farm

 

[FSTO]

First off, if it's more than just SK in which people in rural areas are in fear for their lives, I go back to the question of finding out why. What is making these rural areas so dangerous that the response to a trespasser (or group of trespassers) is deadly force, seemingly right off the bat? Where is the back story here?

Don't mistake the intent of my question: it's just that-a question. The answer might be that in some places rural people do feel a high threat level. OK-if so, why? Threat from whom? Are rural people able to express their fears and concerns to any body? Or are they dismissed (perhaps as "racists")? Where is their side of this?

I get the inadequate policing part: geographically most of Ontario has little or no regular police coverage except for a few thinly spread OPP, and even down south some rural areas rarely see a cruiser, and must wait quite a while for a response.  Neither of which are automatically a real big problem, unless we are talking about an increasing threat level in these areas. Canada, I think,  is a historically under-policed country.

On the other hand, are there some rural people who think the right (and only... ) response to deal with FNs is deadly force? "Shoot first and ask questions later" ? If that is really true, how is that happening in our country? Killing people shouldn't be taken lightly in a civil society, no matter who does it.

I am guessing that this case is a warning indicator of much bigger problems. How will those problems get looked into, in a fair and dispassionate way that doesn't automatically assume that either side has a lock on what's right?

Okay first off it wasn't a hail of gunfire that met the SUV as it entered the yard. Initially the Stanley's thought it was someone coming in to check on a vehicle they may have left there to be repaired. The Stanley's had a vehicle/machinery repair business in their yard and many people came and went into the yard. But once the ATV was fired up and the Stanley's went over to investigate thats where things went south.

Its assumptions like you just made is what is making rural people distrust comments coming from away.

 

[pbi]

Okay first off it wasn't a hail of gunfire that met the SUV as it entered the yard. Initially the Stanley's thought it was someone coming in to check on a vehicle they may have left there to be repaired. The Stanley's had a vehicle/machinery repair business in their yard and many people came and went into the yard. But once the ATV was fired up and the Stanley's went over to investigate thats where things went south.

Its assumptions like you just made is what is making rural people distrust comments coming from away.

What assumptions were those? Or did I ask questions that looked like assumptions? I don't think I actually said "hail of gunfire" anywhere in my post.

See what I  mean, though? It's hard even to ask questions about this subject, from either angle, without stirring up feelings that one "obviously believes" one thing or the other. I wasn't there, so it's a bit hard for me to assume anything.

It just bothers me that we may have a worse situation in our country, or a part of our country, than what we understand.

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

It just bothers me that we may have a worse situation in our country, or a part of our country, than what we understand.

Me too... namely believing every story ever told to you by the "victim" without due process. I'm so sick of this trend that everyone who cries victim just HAS to be automatically believed to be telling the truth. The Boushie kid was no saint, just like a lot of "innocent men" being gunned down by the "evil police" in the states...the MSM and his family portray him like some angel who was just seeking some help for a flat tire, meanwhile hes trying to steal MVC's and carrying around a rifle barrel in a loaded SUV with his friends... So sorry, not sorry.

The bleeding hearts are so easily manipulated by the MSM it's absolutely INSANE.  :facepalm:

 

[FSTO]

What assumptions were those? Or did I ask questions that looked like assumptions? I don't think I actually said "hail of gunfire" anywhere in my post.

Your opening sentence is what I commented on.

"First off, if it's more than just SK in which people in rural areas are in fear for their lives, I go back to the question of finding out why. What is making these rural areas so dangerous that the response to a trespasser (or group of trespassers) is deadly force, seemingly right off the bat? Where is the back story here?"

To me you implied that the occupants of the SUV were met with deadly force as soon as they drove into the yard.

 

[pbi]

Me too... namely believing every story ever told to you by the "victim" without due process

I agree that would be a bad idea, if I was doing it. But I'm not. I'm asking questions.

I'm so sick of this trend that everyone who cries victim just HAS to be automatically believed to be telling the truth.

Yes, me too. It's called "the Victim Industry" or "the Victim Culture". It's the abuse of something real and legitimate. Not talking about that.

The Boushie kid was no saint,

I think the "MSM" (which I follow) has made it pretty clear that is the case, nor was the other individual in the vehicle who was well known to police and had a record.

just like a lot of "innocent men" being gunned down by the "evil police" in the states..

Well...if I'm not mistaken, some innocent people actually have been shot or otherwise killed by the police in the US. If the police, whom we appoint to obey the law and protect us, are breaking that law and killing people, then IMHO it is the job of the media to raise the issue and prevent it from being dismissed. I also believe, by the way, that there are situations in which a police officer may kill a person with good justification.  It isn't just "either/or".

The bleeding hearts are so easily manipulated by the MSM it's absolutely INSANE

And people who ask irritating questions are often tagged as "bleeding hearts" or "racists" or "police haters" or "colonialists" or whatever bumper sticker people feel like slapping on to shut down questions they don't like.

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

Well...if I'm not mistake, some innocent people actually have been shot or otherwise killed by the police in the US. If the police, whom we appoint to obey the law and protect it, are breaking that law and killing people, then IMHO it is the job of the media to raise the issue and prevent it from being dismissed. I also believe, by the way, that there are situations in which a police officer may kill a person with good justification.  It isn't just "either/or".

Debatable on A) How many of them were innocent. B) How many Police are actually pulling the trigger and the subject isn't dying due to cases of excited delirium, effects of being tazed, etc.

And people who ask irritating questions are often tagged as "bleeding hearts" or "racists" or "police haters" or "colonialists" or whatever bumper sticker people feel like slapping on to shut down questions they don't like.

Wasn't using it as a label, just moreso a general brush stroke of people who live sheltered lives and think that people doing evil crap is a rarity and everyone calling the victim card is to be believed.

 

[pbi]

Debatable on A) How many of them were innocent. B) How many Police are actually pulling the trigger and the subject isn't dying due to cases of excited delirium, effects of being tazed, etc...

Maybe some deserved to be shot. It certainly happens. But I don't become "guilty" because a police officer decides (out of fear, poor training, psychological issues, misunderstanding, racism, or whatever) to kill me outside the bounds of the law. I worked for a few years in hotel security: I know very well that some people are just looking for trouble, and need a good thrashing. I get it. But not everybody deserves that all the time, and certainly not every dodgy person deserves to be killed.

Wasn't using it as a label, just moreso a general brush stroke of people who live sheltered lives and think that people doing evil crap is a rarity and everyone calling the victim card is to be believed.

Ack. And I didn't mean to say that you did. And I am with you on people who don't understand that there really are bad, evil people who deserve to die. There are. I'm just saying that taking human life in a civil society is a serious business. When it happens, we have to ask what the hell is going on, no matter who gets offended.

And, by "what the hell is going on", I mean (like I tried to say earlier) that maybe there really is serious criminal behaviour by some FN people: maybe rural folks in parts of SK really ARE frightened. If so, then we need to get this out in the open. Those farm folks need as big and loud a public platform as Boushie's supporters: they have a story too. If  people in this country are so scared that they feel they have no choice but to defend themselves with guns, that IMHO is failure on a bunch of levels.

But we need to be able to have this out without people screaming "racists" and "bleeding hearts" at each other. I'm not so sure how to do that.

 

[Jed]

Maybe some deserved to be shot. It certainly happens. But I don't become "guilty" because a police officer decides (out of fear, poor training, psychological issues, misunderstanding, racism, or whatever) to kill me outside the bounds of the law. I worked for a few years in hotel security: I know very well that some people are just looking for trouble, and need a good thrashing. I get it. But not everybody deserves that all the time, and certainly not every dodgy person deserves to be killed.

Ack. And I didn't mean to say that you did. And I am with you on people who don't understand that there really are bad, evil people who deserve to die. There are. I'm just saying that taking human life in a civil society is a serious business. When it happens, we have to ask what the hell is going on, no matter who gets offended.

And, by "what the hell is going on", I mean (like I tried to say earlier) that maybe there really is serious criminal behaviour by some FN people: maybe rural folks in parts of SK really ARE frightened. If so, then we need to get this out in the open. Those farm folks need as big and loud a public platform as Boushie's supporters: they have a story too. If  people in this country are so scared that they feel they have no choice but to defend themselves with guns, that IMHO is failure on a bunch of levels.

But we need to be able to have this out without people screaming "racists" and "bleeding hearts" at each other. I'm not so sure how to do that.

People are afraid that this is the case. Invariably these are the same people who fear guns, big knives and not being able to look after their own self defence. That is the essence of the problem.

 

[pbi]

People are afraid that this is the case. Invariably these are the same people who fear guns, big knives and not being able to look after their own self defence. That is the essence of the problem.

Isn't it more likely that the people who don't like guns, etc are the ones who would immediately deny that the SK farmers have anything to be afraid of: in other words, claiming that what I proposed definitely "isn't the case" ?  Wouldn't those people be the ones who believe the farmers are just motivated by ignorance and racism and trigger-happiness?

But, I wouldn't trivialize people who don't like the idea of killing. I would hope that most people in a civil society actually don't like it, and see it as something to be done only in a case of dire necessity./ If everybody likes the idea of killing, civil society won't be around long.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I disagree with pretty much everything this lawyer has to say about this matter:  https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/boushie-verdict-no-justice-without-indigenous-people-in-the-system-says-lawyer-1.3799738


"Public comments made by political leaders about the verdict in the Colten Boushie case can’t undermine the justice system when it comes to Indigenous people because it is already fundamentally broken, says a Native lawyer."  - what sort of BS is that? Anything that interferes with the accused right to a fair trial undermines the justice system. No further explanation needed or required.

“That’s been a problem from the very beginning. No visibly Indigenous police officers, Crown counsel, defence counsel, jury, judges, corrections, I mean, all the way around this is a non-Indigenous system,” Palmater, who is Mi’kmaq, told CTV’s Your Morning Monday." -- well, as an educator and a lawyer, it would be nice if we could have more FN graduates, without disrupting the entire standards of the post secondary education system. For example, the testing and marking schemes are rapidly becoming "Indigenized" to meet their needs. Would you take a defence lawyer or a jury or a crown counsel serious if you knew they got a trophy diploma just for showing up at class some of the time? Thats how low the standards are dropping, just look at how the (now called) Law Society of Ontario behaves.

“Society, unfortunately, and government has allowed to move forward dispossession, oppression and racism of Indigenous people with almost complete impunity. And this case is just a prime example of that.” - well, we've pretty much beat the crap out of that line of BS in this thread.

"Politicians are just speaking from the heart and they are speaking the truth, so critics will be critics. The fact remains a young man got killed and there was no justice,” he said on Your Morning Monday. “I pose this question to all those critics and all those people who think that Gerald Stanley was justified in what he did: What would you do if that was your child? What would you expect? And how would you feel?”- I would feel terrible for the parents because their drunken child was in the process of committing a crime spree with his pals and was accidentally killed in the process.

“The system is flawed. It was designed to fail First Nations people and many other people. There has to be more positive change and you’re not going to get any better recommendations (than) from people who have suffered through the justice system, families like the Boushie family.”  - The Criminal Code was NOT designed to fail any particular race, religion or creed. It did have some very serious gender issues and those are slowly being fixed. Has the justice system failed the Boushie family- yes, the Crown and the police did not put the truth to the family that their son put himself in a crowd of idiots and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Simple and painful as that may be for them to accept.  If the reverse had happened, if the crappy, unsafe rifle accidentally discharged and had shot Stanley, would there be FN and Lib outrage if there was a guilty verdict if one of those trespassers was convicted- of course they would.  OTOH, would they be happy and thankful if the verdict was not guilty - yes, the justice system would be just sunny and on its way to reconciliation.

“I think, unfortunately, they’re just going to get more words to try to placate them,” she said. “There will be no real commitment for change and that’s part of the problem with this and other governments, it’s always been words and less action.”  - Does she really expect the Courts will allow the government to flip over a constitutional principle in order to attempt to manufacture more pleasing racialized outcomes to satisfy a vengeful segment of the population by creating an actual apartheid justice system rather than a perceived one.  Every Judge in this country is watching this and dreading what lies before them... will they stick to the law and the principles of the constitution or will they be forced to get creative.