The Battleford Trial ... what's at stake?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
ChemGal said:
If someone is holding a gun, is warned, won't drop it and the police shoot them, who is at fault?
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. At face value I would say the person holding the gun who refused to drop it. So many questions would have to be answered first such as: was the gun loaded, why was he holding a gun in the first place, was he planning on using it, was the gun real etc.
 
ChemGal said:
Do people really see much of a benefit if Mr. Stanley was given a jail sentence?
Click to expand...
I am not related to the young man who was killed. You would have to ask his family that question. I am wondering why the lesser charge of manslaughter wasn't the outcome of the trial.
 
I agree that the conviction should have been for manslaughter. Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to kill. I think there was enough reasonable doubt to explain the verdict on the murder charge. But manslaughter is killing someone unlawfully without the intention to kill them, or killing someone while committing another crime. This seems to fit manslaughter, and manslaughter committed with a firearm has a minimum sentence of four years. I don't know how the judge charged the jury, mind you, or what options were explained to them. I'm almost thinking that he was charged with second degree murder on the assumption that the defence would try to bargain down to manslaughter, but they didn't. It will be interesting to see if the Crown appeals.

I actually spoke to a guy I know (former parishioner I've kept in touch with) who's also a farmer. Yes, an Ontario farmer. He's a dairy farmer, also keeps some sheep and has a couple of fields that he grows I think corn and soybeans in - but dairy is his bread and butter so to speak. I asked him what he would do in similar circumstances if a group of strangers suddenly appeared on his property uninvited acting strangely. I was a bit surprised. He told me he probably wouldn't bother calling the police - they'd either be gone by the time the police got there, and even if they weren't all the police would do (in his opinion) is tell them to leave the property. He's a pretty big guy and he said he'd just go out and do that himself. He's a hunter though and he did say that he probably wouldn't think to pick up his gun.

If anything good is going to come out of this maybe it will be some reforms to the jury selection process. To me, that was the big issue here, although the reason both the Crown and the defense have the right to challenge potential jurors is that they have the right to exclude people they think might be biased, which isn't unreasonable. So I'm wondering how you reform a jury selection process so that it both guards against bias and is representative of the community.
 
I don't believe Mr. Stanley sought to kill a man that night. I don't think Mr. Boushie and his friends had honorable intentions. I don't think possessions are worth taking a life over. I think that there is distrust and tension between the communities, and too often that leads to tragic consequences. The simplest explanation is that Mr. Stanley reached in to turn the car off, there was a struggle, and the gun went off. "Delayed discharge?" Right. That's a legal argument.

I agree that manslaughter makes the most sense based on what I know. I don't know everything the jury does.
 
revsdd said:
I agree that the conviction should have been for manslaughter. Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to kill. I think there was enough reasonable doubt to explain the verdict on the murder charge. But manslaughter is killing someone unlawfully without the intention to kill them, or killing someone while committing another crime. This seems to fit manslaughter, and manslaughter committed with a firearm has a minimum sentence of four years. I don't know how the judge charged the jury, mind you, or what options were explained to them. I'm almost thinking that he was charged with second degree murder on the assumption that the defence would try to bargain down to manslaughter, but they didn't. It will be interesting to see if the Crown appeals.

I actually spoke to a guy I know (former parishioner I've kept in touch with) who's also a farmer. Yes, an Ontario farmer. He's a dairy farmer, also keeps some sheep and has a couple of fields that he grows I think corn and soybeans in - but dairy is his bread and butter so to speak. I asked him what he would do in similar circumstances if a group of strangers suddenly appeared on his property uninvited acting strangely. I was a bit surprised. He told me he probably wouldn't bother calling the police - they'd either be gone by the time the police got there, and even if they weren't all the police would do (in his opinion) is tell them to leave the property. He's a pretty big guy and he said he'd just go out and do that himself. He's a hunter though and he did say that he probably wouldn't think to pick up his gun.

If anything good is going to come out of this maybe it will be some reforms to the jury selection process. To me, that was the big issue here, although the reason both the Crown and the defense have the right to challenge potential jurors is that they have the right to exclude people they think might be biased, which isn't unreasonable. So I'm wondering how you reform a jury selection process so that it both guards against bias and is representative of the community.
Click to expand...
It might help to discard the peremptory challenges as they have done in England....the very country that put them in place originally. I see this as a major problem, but I also think this trial has brought attention to how ineffective the RCMP seems to have become in rural Saskatchewan. Slow response times should be addressed.
 
Have you seen a map of Saskatchewan? That sucker goes on forever. The good news is it's so flat, instead of more police, you could cover the entire province with about 6 telescopic security cameras.
 
chansen said:
I don't believe Mr. Stanley sought to kill a man that night. I don't think Mr. Boushie and his friends had honorable intentions. I don't think possessions are worth taking a life over. I think that there is distrust and tension between the communities, and too often that leads to tragic consequences. The simplest explanation is that Mr. Stanley reached in to turn the car off, there was a struggle, and the gun went off. "Delayed discharge?" Right. That's a legal argument.

I agree that manslaughter makes the most sense based on what I know. I don't know everything the jury does.
Click to expand...
I should add to this, I can totally see a farmer dealing with troublesome kids by intimidating them, and reaching into a car to grab the keys. It's a veteran move on a young and inexperienced person. If Mr. Stanley wanted to fire and claim self defense, he could have stood in front of the car and fired through the windscreen. nobody would choose to get that close, where the occupants of the car could have reached for the gun and the result could have been different. I can believe that Mr. Stanley thought he fired the last shot into the air, because, again, reaching into a vehicle while you hold a loaded weapon is stupid. And I don't think Mr. Stanley is that stupid.

The whole thing sucks.
 
chansen said:
Have you seen a map of Saskatchewan? That sucker goes on forever. The good news is it's so flat, instead of more police, you could cover the entire province with about 6 telescopic security cameras.
Click to expand...
or drones.....;)

Yes it it does go on forever, but there are alternatives....like deputizing people on a volunteer basis, aiming to maim not kill, dogs, more helicopters to shorten the response time,whatever.....
 
Last edited:
chansen said:
I should add to this, I can totally see a farmer dealing with troublesome kids by intimidating them, and reaching into a car to grab the keys. It's a veteran move on a young and inexperienced person. If Mr. Stanley wanted to fire and claim self defense, he could have stood in front of the car and fired through the windscreen. nobody would choose to get that close, where the occupants of the car could have reached for the gun and the result could have been different. I can believe that Mr. Stanley thought he fired the last shot into the air, because, again, reaching into a vehicle while you hold a loaded weapon is stupid. And I don't think Mr. Stanley is that stupid.

The whole thing sucks.
Click to expand...
I believe I also read that one of the perpetrators punched Gerald Stanley's wife......he couldn't have had a very clear or unbiased head at that point.
 
Rural Saskatchewan residents are often a LONG drive from the nearest community with resident RCMP. Most RCMP detachments have few officers for the size of their territory. Often those officers grew up elsewhere. Directions that include ' do a west jog at the correction line and then south for three miles' confuse them! Other than fairly major roads none of them are marked - you have to know where you are going or use a large scale map. Forget Google maps - no cell service over huge areas.

Chansen - my partner said thanks for the laugh this morning!
 
Neighbours do their best to look out for each other. It is increasingly difficult as rural areas become depopulated and farms become agri-business. We know of people who farm 6 Sections (approximately 1 square mile is a Section.) Needless to say their neighbours won't hear them if they holler.
 
Waterfall said:
I believe I also read that one of the perpetrators punched Gerald Stanley's wife......he couldn't have had a very clear or unbiased head at that point.
Click to expand...
And there's so much coming out from both sides. It's difficult to know what really happened.
 
When I served in Newfoundland, one of the points on my charge was on a small island off the big island's coast. To get there you had to take about a five minute ferry ride. It always seemed like an isolated but idyllic and peaceful place. But residents used to say to me that it was a very different place at night, after the ferry stopped running. Why? Because there was no RCMP detachment on the island, meaning those who were so inclined could run a bit wild. They knew that for the RCMP to get there, the ferry operator would have to be awakened, he'd have to get the ferry up and running and to the other side of the tickle, wait for the RCMP to get to the wharf, then carry them back across. All that would take time - and by the time the RCMP got there whatever trouble had been going on to cause the RCMP to be called would be over because those causing the trouble would know the RCMP had been called. All they had to do was have someone watching the wharf for the ferry being started. Police aren't much help in these isolated communities.
 
Rationality seems to work all right with firearms ... and irrationality doesn't ... now which group dues radical free wile fall into ... a Teflon dawn ?

And some people slide into a different light way of thinking about conflict ... moving on to calm promises ...
 
revsdd said:
When I served in Newfoundland, one of the points on my charge was on a small island off the big island's coast. To get there you had to take about a five minute ferry ride. It always seemed like an isolated but idyllic and peaceful place. But residents used to say to me that it was a very different place at night, after the ferry stopped running. Why? Because there was no RCMP detachment on the island, meaning those who were so inclined could run a bit wild. They knew that for the RCMP to get there, the ferry operator would have to be awakened, he'd have to get the ferry up and running and to the other side of the tickle, wait for the RCMP to get to the wharf, then carry them back across. All that would take time - and by the time the RCMP got there whatever trouble had been going on to cause the RCMP to be called would be over because those causing the trouble would know the RCMP had been called. All they had to do was have someone watching the wharf for the ferry being started. Police aren't much help in these isolated communities.
Click to expand...

Self pole icing would be cool ...
 
revsdd said:
When I served in Newfoundland, one of the points on my charge was on a small island off the big island's coast. To get there you had to take about a five minute ferry ride. It always seemed like an isolated but idyllic and peaceful place. But residents used to say to me that it was a very different place at night, after the ferry stopped running. Why? Because there was no RCMP detachment on the island, meaning those who were so inclined could run a bit wild. They knew that for the RCMP to get there, the ferry operator would have to be awakened, he'd have to get the ferry up and running and to the other side of the tickle, wait for the RCMP to get to the wharf, then carry them back across. All that would take time - and by the time the RCMP got there whatever trouble had been going on to cause the RCMP to be called would be over because those causing the trouble would know the RCMP had been called. All they had to do was have someone watching the wharf for the ferry being started. Police aren't much help in these isolated communities.
Click to expand...
Helicopters would help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top