Gerald Stanley Case

Gopher News 32 Comments

Brian Zinchuk, Battlefords News-Optimist;

In following the commentary and news coverage afterwards, it has become apparent that several myths have arisen on both sides of the affair, and some things that should be considered.
Let’s begin by noting the chief justice of Saskatchewan’s Court of Queens Bench chose to assign himself as the judge for this case. That’s right from the top. If anyone should be expected to ensure a fair trial, one would think it would be the chief justice of province.
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.

32 Replies to “Gerald Stanley Case”

  1. “many people, including First Nations people, did not wish to put in an effort for this case”
    Indians have a very high rate of criminal convictions per capita.
    People with criminal convictions are not permitted to serve on a jury. It’s the law.

  2. “Gerald Stanley was found “not guilty” of second degree murder and manslaughter. That is not “innocent.” There is a distinction.”
    What, is he implying that stanley is not innocent and got off for some reason? This is a strange thing to write here.
    “…there could have been a slew of charges on both sides.”
    Except of course, there wasn’t. Only the white guy got charged. The media, the left, the indians, and turdeau would all have preferred to see him hang. For them, he should have been shot for not giving his vehicle to the indians, they owned it first anyways.
    “How we come back from that, I don’t know.”
    We can’t go back to the same crap that keeps saying indians good, white man bad. We should be mad as hell, we should stand our ground more often, we should elect politicians that get it, we should ignore media that does not get it.
    But we won’t, and so there is no coming back and only the inclined, greased, inevitable road to hell that we are on.

  4. *
    “just a sliver of those potential jurors showed up is a
    reflection that many people, including First Nations people…”
    give yourself a shake… this was prime farm-raiding season.
    those new quads don’t just drive themselves to the rez.
    *

  5. Given the circumstances surrounding the case you have to think that the trial was highly manipulated by SK Justice. They had to get it right.
    One thing they couldn’t control was the selection of jurors – but so what

  7. I have mentioned to a number of people that there was opportunity for natives to serve on the jury but they chose not to participate. Then they raise hell because the jury was made up of Caucasians and was therefore racist. Those who I enlightened on this matter all commented that they never saw that reported on the news. I tried my level best to explain that sometimes the facts don’t fit the narrative and are therefore ignored. I also advised them to refrain from turning to the CBC if they wish to be properly informed on current events.

  8. “Gerald Stanley was found “not guilty” of second degree murder and manslaughter. That is not “innocent.” There is a distinction.”
    To the world there is no distinction. To lawyers there might be.
    If they change the system of challenging potential jurors, it will work against Indians as they are considerably more likely to be in court.

  10. “it would have been impossible for the defence to challenge them all people of visible minorities. There would have been too many.”
    Just because someone is called for jury duty does not mean they have been screened prior to being called by the Crown.
    An acquaintance of mine got a called to jury duty just last Fall and they knew that only capital crimes get juries. They did not want to go. There was only one way they knew that they could be excused. They had been convicted of marijuana possession back in the early ’80s.
    Marijuana possession is a criminal offence. They reminded the Crown of that conviction and were summarily excused.
    Likewise DUI is a criminal offence. Many Indians have that on their records. The Crown could easily wipe every Indian called up to jury duty off the roster in a single day by asking if they had a DUI conviction.

  12. Brian Zinchuk sounds like an actual reporter: heavy on facts, critical of both sides in the case, critical of the national media, critical of politicians. Actual reporters are so rare these days that I’d almost forgotten how refreshing it is to read an objective account of a current event.
    Almost all “reporters” these days are actually writing opinion pieces and, in a shocking number of cases, they have become fiction writers. They write what they wanted to happen and how they wish events had unfolded, not what actually happened. It appears that the media (progressives) decided who was guilty and why it’s racism before they gathered any facts at all. Nothing would have, or will, change their mind. It’s how they approach everything from politics, to crime, to environmental reporting.
    As to the Stanley/Boushie case: is this idea that more aboriginals on the jury would have gotten a guilty verdict correct? It assumes that natives would vote based on their race, not the evidence. Frankly, this assumption shows how progressives are just as racist as white supremacists — race trumps all. I wonder if aboriginals, being less naive about crime, would be less susceptible to accept b.s. stories by witnesses and defendants.

  13. “Brian Zinchuk sounds like an actual reporter…Almost all “reporters” these days are actually writing opinion pieces…”
    The Brian Zinchuk article quoted above is an opinion piece.

  14. If facts, impartiality and political distance mattered, this case would not be discussed at all.
    Any politician commenting or implementing action over this should be booted immediately.
    As far as I can tell, legally, the court case was not a dog’s breakfast but the evidence that went in Stanley’s favour was. One witness gave different accounts and one just refused to testify. How could that go right? Then there is the forensics evidence that proved Mr. Stanley’s account.
    In this, Trudeau has found a way to both virtue-signal AND take over the courts as a true dictator would. He may fumble this and just not take any action as he has with any Big Aboriginal pet cause but taking over the courts is just too tempting.

  16. Here is part of the transcript of Chief Justice Martel Popescul’s charge to the jury
    The first and more important principle of law applicable to every criminal case is the presumption of innocence. Gerald Stanley enters the proceedings presumed to be innocent. And the presumption of innocence remains throughout the case unless the Crown on the evidence put before you satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
    Two rules flow from the presumption of innocence. One is that the Crown bears the burden of proving guilt. The other is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These rules are linked with the presumption of innocence to ensure that no innocent person is convicted.
    The burden of proof rests with the Crown and never shifts. There is no burden on Mr. Stanley to prove that he is innocent. He does not have to prove anything.
    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoes

  17. How many of the brothers served on the jury in the OJ Simpson murder trial? I don’t recall and can’t be bothered to look it up but it seems to me there were a few. Johnny Cochrane spoke directly to them. OJ walked.
    The Indian Industry is based totally on race. Think they wouldn’t play the race card if they could influence a juror? I think they would. There would be those with integrity that would base their decisions on the facts but there would be others who might succumb to the bait.
    Hopefully we don’t rebalance the scales of justice over an emotionally charged decision. Bongo is a dangerous prime minister. One who rules with a dictators zeal.

  18. The verdict must be unanimous so I can’t see how that strategy would work. I think what we’re seeing is that presumption of innocence, burden of proof and reasonable doubt is a high hurdle for the prosecution to clear to get a conviction in a criminal trial. That’s a feature, not a bug.
    Any silly attempts like mandating race quotas to ensure a diverse jury would not likely have the effect that progressives desire. Progessives would have to completely flip burden of proof, reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence in order to get what they want. I suppose they could also try to stack juries with SJWs instead of peers but I can’t see anyone agreeing to any of those types of changes.

  19. I am still waiting for several criminal charges to be laid against these five natives for drunk driving,loaded weapon in a vehicle,trespassing,attempt theft of a atv, etc etc and also a obstruction of justice charge against our esteemed PM Turdeau!

  20. “Gerald Stanley was found “not guilty” of second degree murder and manslaughter. That is not “innocent.” There is a distinction.”
    No, there ***ing well isn’t you blithering, mouth-breathing journalistic squish.
    When this is the standard for “fair and critical” reporting we’re long since past the point of being doomed.
    It was his house at Alba that killed him.

  21. *
    gerald stanley was, like most rural farmers and property owners,
    totally on his own. he could act, or run away and cower and
    hope the visigoths didn’t come after his family…
    Contemporary “Peace Officers” are the bored functionaries
    who show up after you’re knee deep in liquified turds, tear
    up your sodden, stinking backyard and leave you struggling
    with the bill.
    *

  23. “just a sliver of those potential jurors showed up is a
    reflection that many people, including First Nations people…”
    Maybe they thought guilty convictions were handed out gratis to natives just like band money, education, dentistry, etc.

  24. A meeting with the family.
    There was a Mama, an Uncle and a Cousin.
    Where is Daddy?
    Is he part of the ‘extended’ family?

  25. natives glossing over the unpleasant aspects of the case isn’t a native thing, it is a HUMAHN thing.
    humahn nature above all else. trumps everything; law, common sense, logic, research, rules, numbers, precedent,
    humahn nature to be self-serving, to ‘filter’ EVERYTHING, etc etc.
    ie: “I think ”
    “how did you come to that conclusion?”
    well I just feel that way, that is my opinion”
    ?
    “but what do you *base* that conclusion on?”
    etc ad infinitum
    seen oftentimes but not exclusively in leftist circles
    I learned ALLLLL about the effect of ‘opinions’ and ‘assumptions’ in my programming career.

  26. *
    foobert asks… “Where is Daddy?”
    in montana, naturally… c’mon, you weren’t expecting
    an intact family, were you?
    “Pete Boushie also cannot visit his son’s
    grave on the Red Pheasant Cree Nation because
    he has two felony convictions for drunk
    driving which prevent him from crossing into
    Canada.”
    *

  27. I understand the jury must be unanimous in it’s determination. The point I was attempting to make but didn’t was the effect on a jury of a recalcitrant mischief maker. A person who would ignore evidence and vote strictly on race. A majority is not possible under those conditions.
    If we get new rules from our government with regards to jury selection we can only hope it’s not based on affirmative action.

  28. I expect that Justin,in his zeal to “fix” what he considers an unfairness,will table a Bill that Natives have to either appear before a Native Judge,and they’ll probably fast track a few Native Lawyers so there are enough of them to handle the load,or require that every jury have a certain percentage of Natives on it if the Defendant is a Native.
    Worst case scenario would be if he made FN circle sentencing mandatory and took the white man’s court right out of the proceedings. There would be almost no Natives in prison in a few years,and Trudeau could point to that as his legacy.The average Rez would be like Baltimore on a Friday night.
    In the Gerald Stanley case, it seems the judge did a good job with his lengthy instructions,and the jury weighed all the evidence and came up with a verdict the Natives and political whore didn’t like.
    It will be interesting to see if the Crown appeals this verdict.

  29. agreed. Mr Stanley started out INNOCENT. aka INNOCENT until proven otherwise. he remained INNOCENT aka NOT GUILTY.
    what you say about lawyers is sadly too true. all the intricate and complex minutia of ‘da law i’ da law i’ da law’ CRAP.
    200 ‘interpretations’ of whateverthefcuk.
    regarding turdoo’s meddling and vote baiting ‘fix’, I called the local LIEberal mp and advised him I just put a note on my calendar 1 year hence and he can expect a very terse phone call if the turd has done no more than a band aid.
    I agree the jury system needs fixing, but sadly, as is common with LIEberals, the ‘fix’ is knee jerk, reactionary, catering to the mood of the moment.
    turdoo is the WORST pm we have *ever* had. kimmie kim is a close second and even she is falling behind.

  30. final comment for the evening:
    PM TURDoo is making *political points* out of the DEAD BODY of a young native man.
    typical LIEberalism.

  32. millgard et al. juries need to see MORE evidence instead of the finely tuned customized stuff.
    crown att’ys need to do jail time for withholding exculpatory evidence
    ‘experts’ need to be vetted. do a search on ‘dr charles smith’.
    https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/shared-values/death-in-the-family-the-story-of-disgraced-doctor-charles-smith-and-the-families-he-destroyed
    its ALL part of the jury system, the ‘stuff’ that gets presented to them.
    the jury system does need fixing. the ‘why’ is evident (pun intended)
    captcha 1800 CHARLES

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation