Trudeau has no business interfering with the verdict in the Colten Boushie case

[Anonymous]

The not-guilty verdict in the tragic death of Colten Boushie has resulted in calls for change to Canada's justice system after a white farmer was acquitted of killing the Cree youth.



Boushie, a member of the red Pheasant First nation, was 22 years old in August 2016 when he and four friends drove an SUV up the long, gravel driveway leading to Gerald Stanley's farmhouse west of Saskatoon.



In the confrontation that followed, Boushie ended up being shot in the head, which is the obvious and heartbreaking part of this tragedy. Colten Boushie didn't deserve to die.



The details and evidence of the trial have been both contradictory and controversial.



That Boushie and four friends, aged 18 to 24, had been drinking, tried to steal a vehicle using a gun as a crowbar before arriving at Stanley's farm, then drove onto the property looking for help with a flat, not to steal.



In the confrontation that occurred after one youth jumped out of the SUV and tried to start an ATV parked in Stanley's yard, Stanley maintained the handgun he used to scare them off discharged accidentally.



In the wake of the verdict, Boushie's family were understandably outraged. Any parent would feel the same.



red Pheasant First nation Chief Clint Wuttunee and Indigenous activists across the country expressed outrage at the verdict and Canada's justice system, which they insisted perpetuates racism and offers little justice for Indigenous people.



Stanley's acquittal, meanwhile, may be subject to appeal and the RCMP is facing allegations it botched the investigation. And if racism or errors influenced the verdict or investigation, the courts must be permitted to do their work.



That's why public remarks by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his Justice Minister Jody Wilson-raybould and Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott are so alarming.



"I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times," Trudeau said during a news conference in California. "I know Indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."



Trudeau and his ministers tainted and undermined the independence of Canada's judicial system with prejudicial remarks made for what appears to be naked political gain.



They've served neither justice, nor the cause of Colten Boushie.

[Anonymous]

The federal government isn't even trying to hide their prejudices in this case.

[Bricktop]

Pretty much ends the chance of an appeal succeeding.



Politicians need to be silenced over court determinations. It could be construed as contempt of court.



The jury made their decision in a fair trial. Did Trudeau scream when OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson walked?

[Anonymous]

Pretty much ends the chance of an appeal succeeding.



Politicians need to be silenced over court determinations. It could be construed as contempt of court.



The jury made their decision in a fair trial. Did Trudeau scream when OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson walked?

There have been Aboriginals acquitted of murder too, but there were no meetings with the federal cabinet by families of the person killed.

[Anonymous]

Here's a good editorial from Bono from Sun News Media. If you are white in Canada and are charged with the murder of a non white,  especially an Indian, the federal government says you are a guilty racist. Even when a jury of your peers who here's all the evidence says you are not.







Forget that a Canadian courtroom has a sacrosanct standing in our democracy equal to that of any legislative assembly in our land.



This apparently matters squat.



The court of public opinion is without status, of course, but the one grabbing the headlines today, and erupting on the social media — with Justin Trudeau, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-raybould, and Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott waist deep in it — has Gerald Stanley as guilty as hell in the shooting death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie, a Cree.



If Stanley had not been hustled out of the courtroom under protective guard, he would have likely been lynched.



No one was buying the shooting as an "accident."



The case had been described from the outset as a "flashpoint in the relationship between Indigenous and non-indigenous people in Saskatchewan," and, in the court of public opinion, Gerald Stanley deserved to be in jail, not returning home to his farm.



The jury, for all intents and purposes, was nothing more than a pack of rural racists, and the acquittal a foregone conclusion.



So, what was said in the wake of the jury's verdict?



Well, Justin Trudeau, tweeted this from Los Angeles.



"I can't image the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight," he wrote. "Sending love to them from the U.S."



Judy Wilson-raybould tweeted her sympathy to the Boushie family, stating that she is "committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canada" — the clear insinuation being, of course, that a jury's acquittal of Stanley was not justice at all.



But Jane Philpott held nothing back.



"Devastating news tonight for the family & friends of #Coltenboushie," she tweeted. "My thoughts and prayers are with you in your time of grief & pain. We have more to do to improve justice & fairness for Indigenous Canadians."



To Jane Philpott, therefore, our justice system sucks.



It is way out of line for leaders in our federal government, let alone any politician, to so overtly castigate a verdict in a criminal case.



All three — Trudeau, Wilson-raybould and Philpott — should have kept their feelings to themselves and their mouths shut, instead of fanning the flames in what was already a truly tragic case.



As Toronto lawyer Michael Lacy put it to the National Post, and rightfully so, "(A politician) saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada."



If a government does not agree with a court's decision, then it has every right to appeal.



But what now if the Crown does appeal in the Boushie matter, and a new trial is ordered?



There is not a potential juror in Saskatchewan who does not now know that the prime minister, the justice minister, and the minister responsible for Indigenous services, believe that Colten Boushie's family did not get justice, and that Gerald Stanley should be sitting in a jail cell today to await his sentencing hearing.



Thanks to Trudeau and his collaborators, it is only the rarest of souls who now believe Stanley is actually innocent, save perhaps for the jury who deliberated 15 hours before acquitting him.



But even they are likely now having second thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Ya, white people scare me too. The f@ggot in the inset will fuck us all.

https://cdn2-img.pressreader.com/pressdisplay/docserver/getimage.aspx?regionKey=bIAL8ks25k1jeDrUSy34Ug%3D%3D&scale=100">

[Anonymous]

How far do you live from there Herman?

[Anonymous]

How far do you live from there Herman?

About two hours from the Battlefords where the trial took place.

[Angry White Male]

I have no use for most fucking Injuns, but I don't think the shooting was legit.



Basically the defense came down to it being an accidental shooting, due to a hang-fire.  For those that don't know what a hang-fire is, it's when you pull the trigger, but the primer doesn't ignite and 'shoot' the bullet until later.



Maybe in some old antique firearms this could happen, but Boushie was shot with a modern semi-auto pistol cartridge.  I have fired tens of thousands of modern rounds, and have never had a hang fire.  Had a few duds, but never a hang fire.



Nonetheless, Boushie did have a loaded .22 in his lap at the time, so the threshold for meeting deadly force was very close to being there, but I do not think it was 100% there, and as such it was a 'bad' shooting, IMHO.



Nonetheless, it's hard for me to feel sorry for some drunken chug that's out causing trouble, and I certainly won't miss him, but I don't think the shooting was legit.

[Anonymous]

Even if the verdict was the wrong one, the government's words and actions may have prejudiced an appeal.

[Angry White Male]

Even if the verdict was the wrong one, the government's words and actions may have prejudiced an appeal.

Not necessarily.  The Government is the one that applies for appeals, and appeals have been successful in many other high profile cases...

[Anonymous]

Even if the verdict was the wrong one, the government's words and actions may have prejudiced an appeal.

Not necessarily.  The Government is the one that applies for appeals...

The crown attorney applies for the appeal not the elected federal government.

[Angry White Male]

As a firearm enthusiast, cases like this generally cause nothing but problems in the long run.  I know the law, case law, on self-defense in Canada, and when issues like this appear, they often do more harm than good.

[Angry White Male]

The crown attorney applies for the appeal not the elected federal government.

You know what I mean though...

[Anonymous]

We do not know what reason the jury acquitted Stanley. Unlike in the U.S., where jurors are permitted to speak freely to the media after they've rendered a verdict, Canadian jurors are legally barred from discussing the proceedings.



This means it's unlikely the public will ever know the reasoning behind a Saskatchewan jury's decision to acquit Gerald Stanley.