Tune into John Gormley Show today for what I expect will be the best coverage of verdict reaction, along with what are likely to be review of testimony that national media have helpfully ignored. Go here and click “Listen Live”.
Keep your comments on topic and respectful.
A couple of interesting points in this case. The defence and the crown both agreed that Stanley having a restricted weapon unlocked on his property and firing the warning shots was NOT an illegal act. I read the criminal code after the ruling came out Friday. How many people have actually bothered to read the law?
Sections 34 and 35 in Part one of the Criminal Code are pretty clear. Have a read. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/.
Defence of Person
Marginal note:Defence — use or threat of force
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
Marginal note:No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 2012, c. 9, s. 2.
Previous Version
Defence of Property
Marginal note:Defence — property
35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:No defence
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.
Marginal note:No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
I think the defence looked at the facts of the case and decided let’s let the Crown try its worst. No way anyone gets convicted in this case based on the facts, no matter what ancestry they came from.
A few comments.
The composition of the jury: 1)I’m not sure that this idea that having natives on the jury would make a huge difference is correct because, even if they did vote purely on racial lines, a guilty verdict would have to be unanimous. 2)I don’t think that natives actually would base their decision on race because they, of all people, know about the issues in their community (good and bad).
Racism vs. Evidence: if you were presented with the evidence without knowing the race of the people involved, would that alter your decision? Again, I think most people who qualify for jury duty, except activists and politicians, can be objective and base their decision on facts. I found it condescending that left leaning politicians have so little trust in the court system and their fellow citizens.
I feel as though farmers are being short-changed on the “your house is your castle” approach to trespassing. There have been many shootings where the criminal broke into a home and was shot by the home owner inside the house. In one such case the home owner chased the thief outside and then shot him and was still found not guilty.
But farmers “homes” include their barns, out-buildings, machinery, livestock etc. It’s part of their family. So when a thief shows up on a farm to steal from the farmer, that thief is going to be attacked over a much larger area than in the city.
Some people seem to think that because the criminality occurred outside and away from the farm house that the farmer used too much force. But I would argue, when you’re on a farm, you are effectively in the farmer’s house already.
That’s fair enough and I would certainly agree with his right to defend himself and his property.
But you need to remember that he didn’t make that claim. He claimed only that shooting was an accident – totally unintentional. He fired a couple of warning shots but insists he unloaded the gun before approaching the car.
You can make all the self defense arguments you want but much to my surprise that’s not what he claims happened at all.
He was probably advised by his lawyer NOT to pursue the “self defense” angle, because of the abysmal way in which the canadian legal system treats such claims.
Interesting comment by the judge as he is addressing the jury.
Popescul (The Judge) told jurors that when Stanley grabbed his pistol and fired two warning shots into the air Stanley was acting lawfully. He told the jurors it would be up to them to decide if Stanley’s actions beyond that continued to be lawful.
reading comprehension is NOT yer strong point is it. The “self defense” claims in here are not talking about the actual ‘event”, but that Stanly was defending his domain with his actions, which is quite different from self defence.
Question, have you ever seen a hand gun, much less fired one???
Stanley’s defense is weird but sort of understandable. If what he says is taken as literal truth, it’s manslaughter. But we can read between the lines: self-defense rights are not respected in Canada, so it’s better to be found guilty of an accident (manslaughter) rather than self-defense (“murder”). The jury put two and two together with a wink and a nod. Stanley better buy his lawyer something real nice for Christmas.
Listened to the Gormley show. Very informative. He qualifies at the beginning of every segment how racist Saskatchewan is. I agree with Gormley, that his suggestion that their was enough evidence to find a conviction of involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence causing death). The hangfire theory used by the defense was utter BS, but in any event, the act of a hangfire killing someone still requires a pull of the trigger, and the pointing of a gun, even if the event is accidental. The fact that this family sat around drinking coffee at the kitchen table while waiting for police to arrive and packing the gun up in a case and hiding it in the broom closet, makes me doubt their sincerity.
I expect the Crown to file an appeal. I also expect the usual anti-gun crowd to use this case to move handguns from restricted status, to prohibited status where ownership is outlawed.
It certainly was a weird defense. But if the jury would accept an unspoken self defence claim why wouldn’t they accept one clearly stated? He was outnumbered and could claim he thought they were trying to run down a family member or himself.
I have to think he genuinely claimed the shooting was an accident, but I guess we’ll never really know.
I Stand With Stanley…..
Thank you for that link.
Too bad thatsonofabitch Trudeau didn’t read that.
Got to love the Canadian Apartheid State.
All citizens are equal before the law, except Natives,Liberals, State Employees…..and so forth.
Oh right the full force of the law only applies to the little people .
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, except for Sons of the Desert Pedophile and other types of Justine’s people.
And the current Liberal Minister of Justice is so stupid she brags about this on national TV.
Our current federal government is proof Liberalism is a progressive disease.
And I will cut none who support this farce any slack.
These fools and bandits are so sure we will not snap that they insult,steal and showboat.
If you feel your MP is a fiscal conservative Liberal,a “Paul Martin Liberal”, you might be delusional.
There is no evidence of any such in Parliment or the Senate.
Useful fools enabling useless tools.
I’m not sure I agree with your conjecture that the Stanley’s ‘hid’ the pistol in the broom closet. More likely they placed the pistol in a safe storage condition so that the police could be told where it was upon their arrival. The Stanley’s seem to have kept their wits about them after a very stressful incident and realized that the police would be responding to a shooting call. The last thing you want is to be holding a firearm or having one in reach when the police are responding to that sort of call.
‘packing the gun up in a case and hiding it in the broom closet’
That’s the second time you have made that claim but how do you know they weren’t returning the gun to the place it had been originally stored.
Does the loaded gun Boushie had in his possession bear no responsibility for the tragic ending to this story?
How would you react if you saw a gun in the hands of an individual who was already posing a threat to your family?
After reading through the Reddit link, the highlighted charges against the chiefs named and their connections to the 5 adults in the SUV I recalled a execution style shooting in Cando.
One of the men charged with first degree murder was Colin Leonard Baptist.
I wonder if he’s related to Boushie’s mother, Debbie Baptiste, and Boushies uncle Alvin Baptist
https://www.producer.com/1994/11/murder-suspects-in-court/
CANADIANS WAKE UP….THIS IS OUR BLACK LIVES MATTER!!! AFN are not the innocent people you think they are they have been TERRORIZING the people in North Battleford for sometime I’d say with all the articles one reads in the Sask. papers. Stanley was protecting his family which I gather we are not aloud to do…but the perpetrator is allow. Some people should go online and see these young adults living it up at other peoples expense, they are not poor just bored with life then get stinking drunk with alcohol or drugs. This will get worse with the legality of Marijuana…this will NOT STOP. These are young adult THAT ARE BORED TO DEATH…aka NOTHING TO DO IN THERE LIVES. THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE…THE TRUDEAU GOV’T CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BY GETTING THEM EDUCATED AND JOBS???? This is what subsidization has done to the AFN…NO ACCOUNTABILITY!!! They should be held accountable for their own lives!!!!
holy jamoley!!!! what a friggin EYE OPENER.
Most people would not attempt to place the gun in a broom closet. The Stanley’s never knew their was a gun in the SUV until after the fatal shot, so throw that theory out. If it don’t smell right, it aint. I sympathize with the Stanleys, but when u grab a gun in defense of your property, you open yourself up to being charged with a criminal offense. This is the way it works in Canada. I suspect the Boushie family will now file a wrongful death suit against the Stanleys in civil court, but are waiting to see if the Crown will appeal first.
These are young adult THAT ARE BORED TO DEATH…aka NOTHING TO DO IN THERE LIVES. THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE…THE TRUDEAU GOV’T CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BY GETTING THEM EDUCATED AND JOBS????
Ah, but the Little Prince’s solution is more canoe sheds:
https://www.therebel.media/_elitest_trudeau_thinks_aboriginal_youth_on_reserves_need_canoe_sheds
Just for you lyn
“With few exceptions, groupthink breeds arrogance and ignorance, not thoughtfulness or insight”
Where do you store your guns? Some of mine are in a broom closet; handy if a varmint is bothering the dog.
“The Stanley’s never knew their was a gun in the SUV until after the fatal shot”
Stanley testified he saw something. How would Stanley not see the gun between Boushie’s legs when he’s standing directly adjacent to Boushie sitting in the SUV.
“a wrongful death suit’? in Canada?
You must be thinking of the OJ Simpson case.
I read a n article today that Gerald Stanley still faces charges for improper storage of a firearm . Possible cocquences 2 to 5 year jail term. Really.
We should have a law in Canada that the homeowner has a right to defend himself and family with as much force as necessary to do so. It seems just insane that someone can either come onto your property, steal whatever they want and you are helpless to do anything. That is just insane.
I have a T-33. There is no safety at all on the weapon. You can manually place the hammer in the half-cocked position by holding your thumb on the hammer and pulling the trigger. This is not recommended and I never do it. In that position (Half-cocked) it will not fire and the slide cannot be moved. Alternatively you can ease the hammer all the way forward. It is fun to shoot and the ammo is really inexpensive, but you have to be careful with them due to their lack of safety features.
I’ve handloaded since the 1960’s,but sometimes they put ammo on special so cheap I can’t resist,but never use it for anything more than shooting targets.
Bad optics here you have to admit. The rest of Canada will be calling us rednecks once again. It is a real shame that us folks here in Saskatchewan have not gotten to know the aboriginal communities better. I recall my first few months up at the uranium mines up north where I was very apprehensive about the fact that 50% of the work force was Aboriginal/Metis and mostly off the reserve. It did not take me very long to get over whatever fears I had as I realized that I was working with very gracious, respectful group of people trying to do the best for their families like you and I would. May be we deserve the red neck label.
Hopefully this helps them with some of the financial burden.
https://www.gofundme.com/gerald-stanley-support-fund
Our local newspaper Sault Daily Star published a Postmedia Network article today. It was a slashing attack on the Prime Minister and his ministers. To whit “Trudeau and his ministers tainted and undermined the independence of Canada’s judicial with prejudicial remarks made for what appears to be naked political gain.”
The violence and robbery by drunken youths including the unfortunate Boushie was also mentioned. Virtually taboo on our trusty press who studiously ignored any factor that shed light on this tragedy.
Our local newspaper Sault Daily Star published a Postmedia Network article today. It was a slashing attack on the Prime Minister and his ministers. To whit “Trudeau and his ministers tainted and undermined the independence of Canada’s judiciary with prejudicial remarks made for what appears to be naked political gain.”
The violence and robbery by drunken youths including the unfortunate Boushie was also mentioned. Virtually taboo on our trusty press who studiously ignored any factor that shed light on this tragedy.
Bad optics, …..we deserve the red neck label??
Really, this is your conclusion??
A bunch of drunk idiots break into their third farm for the night with a gun, try to steal a vehicle and SUV, smash things up, and it is the farmer who creates the ‘bad optics.’
In a sane world, they’d have dug a hole and buried the body with an amen and that would have been the end of it. However, in a would where someone defending their family has to consider the ‘optics’ before they act we are all well and truly fu^&ed.
The true racists in this story are turdeau, the media, and the indian mouth pieces. We need to go an take a hard look at Zimbabwe /South Africa and consider if that is truly where we want to go cause we are surely heading there, optics and all.
You forgot that its also OK, to shoot someone in the head and say “I didn’t mean to do it”