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

[Berry Sweet]

I think he lured a lot of people in with legalizing marijuana...now Im hearing his new agenda is decriminalizing all drugs.  He doesn't have my vote come next election.

[Angry White Male]

I'll be honest...  Weed wasn't hard to find before Justin, and it was essentially de-criminalized here for years already, so I'm not sure what the left wing really wanted...  They don't know, it seems.

[Berry Sweet]

No it wasn't.  People were getting arrested for having a joint on them or getting their kids taken away for smoking pot.  That needs to stop.  Pot is harmless, they need to take more kids away for idiots who drink.

[Anonymous]

JT is an idiot.  He has no business being involved with this case.  I'm sickened they are turning it into a racial issue.  So what then....it's ok for natives to get drunk and steal and act like punks?  This is the message I'm getting.  I'm sorry he died but, fuck man, maybe teach your kids not to be shit heads...maybe don't be shit heads in front of your kids so they carry the tradition.  Being poor is no excuse....I don't have a whole lot of money and my kid doesn't act like an idiot...I go out of my to make sure she grows up to be civilized with her head on her shoulders.

That is what bothers me..



The jury must be racist because they are Caucasian.



If an all Aboriginal jury had convicted Gerald  Stanley would Justin Trudeau have met with Stanley's family?



We all know the answer is no.

[Anonymous]

no matter where you come down on the shooting being legit or not.  Its obvious that the first nations group were, drunk, trespassing and there to steal stuff.  Had they not done that, no one would have been shot (accidentally or not.)



Trudeau is pandering, he figures if he does this it will help his party get more of the native vote.  Sad and inappropriate, but that's what A-hole leftist politicians do.

Most Indians typically vote NDP. Justine is trying to change that with pandering to such an extent that he interferes with a criminal case.

[Wazzzup]

no matter where you come down on the shooting being legit or not.  Its obvious that the first nations group were, drunk, trespassing and there to steal stuff.  Had they not done that, no one would have been shot (accidentally or not.)



Trudeau is pandering, he figures if he does this it will help his party get more of the native vote.  Sad and inappropriate, but that's what A-hole leftist politicians do.

Most Indians typically vote NDP. Justine is trying to change that with pandering to such an extent that he interferes with a criminal case.

I see that the NDP leader also weighed in too



NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh...tweeted "There was no justice for Colten Boushie,".... Singh further tweeted: "We must confront the legacy of colonialism and genocide so (Indigenous youth) can see a brighter future for themselves."



http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-stoking-fiery-division-over-the-boushie-verdict-doesnt-show-you-care">http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ro ... w-you-care">http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-stoking-fiery-division-over-the-boushie-verdict-doesnt-show-you-care

[Anonymous]

no matter where you come down on the shooting being legit or not.  Its obvious that the first nations group were, drunk, trespassing and there to steal stuff.  Had they not done that, no one would have been shot (accidentally or not.)



Trudeau is pandering, he figures if he does this it will help his party get more of the native vote.  Sad and inappropriate, but that's what A-hole leftist politicians do.

Most Indians typically vote NDP. Justine is trying to change that with pandering to such an extent that he interferes with a criminal case.

I see that the NDP leader also weighed in too



NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh...tweeted "There was no justice for Colten Boushie,".... Singh further tweeted: "We must confront the legacy of colonialism and genocide so (Indigenous youth) can see a brighter future for themselves."



http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-stoking-fiery-division-over-the-boushie-verdict-doesnt-show-you-care">http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ro ... w-you-care">http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-stoking-fiery-division-over-the-boushie-verdict-doesnt-show-you-care

Another politician accusing the jury of racial bias without any proof.

 

[Anonymous]

Justine is likely to announce changes to the justice system, so they get the verdict they want in high profile cases.







The trial verdict in the killing of Colten Boushie could tempt the Trudeau government to make reforms to the justice system.



In the spring of 2016, when the sexual assault trial of former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi failed to produce the verdict the Trudeau government wanted, the government decided to change the law to make it even harder for men to defend themselves against rape allegations.



Canada at the time already had one of the toughest "rape shields" in the world – a set of laws and judicial precedents that made it difficult to raise a woman's past sexual behaviour in court, thereby making it harder for a defendant to establish the alleged victim had given consent.



I wouldn't trust Ghomeshi around my wife or daughter, but that's not the point.



Because his defence lawyers had used his accusers' emails and texts to expose serious inconsistencies between the accusers' post  attack behaviour towards Ghomeshi and the claims they were making to police and prosecutors, the Trudeau Liberals changed Canadian law to make it very difficult to introduce an alleged victim's electronic communications "of a sexual nature" or "for a sexual purpose." This made it even harder than it had been for an accused to establish he had reasonable grounds to believe the alleged victim had consented.



The underlying message of the amendments was: Due process and reasonable doubt are unimportant next to social justice for women. Therefore, it's justifiable to stack the deck to make sure that when men are accused, they are found guilt.



Now in the wake of the Gerald Stanley verdict in Saskatchewan, are we headed for a similar Liberal deckstacking against those accused of crimes against Indigenous people?



Since Stanley's acquittal in the tragic shooting death of a young Cree man named Colten Boushie, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can't stop talking and tweeting about how Indigenous Canadians deserve better from our justice system.







So, then, are we headed for Gladue 2.0?



The biggest danger to young Indigenous men is other young Indigenous men, not middle-aged Saskatchewan farmers.



Indigenous people are more than three times as likely as non-indigenous people to be victims of violent crime. However, in at least 70 per cent of those cases (and possibly more), their attackers are other Indigenous people.



And as for the claim that the Stanley jury was biased because it contained no Indigenous jurors, so therefore the Criminal Code should be amended to eliminate the defence's right to automatically exclude jurors, remember that can cut both ways.



Just as defence lawyers can use peremptory rules to exclude jurors they believe might be sympathetic to victims — such as Indigenous jurors may have been in this case — so too can prosecutors and defence lawyers use the rules to keep out bigots and hardline jurors who might be biased the other way when the defendant is Indigenous.

[Wazzzup]

That's the serious danger here, is that Trudouche will try to change the justice system, and fuck it up along racial lines.  Could be an m103 moment for aborigines



BTW there are lots of whites who "don't get justice."  I know it wasn't canada, but Look at the Steinle verdict.  An illegal alien, someone who is not even supposed to be here, and a many time criminal, wasn't defending his property, he was out in a crowd playing with a gun he stole, when he shot kate Steinle, a person who wasn't trying to rob anybody, but was just walking along.



Now tell me, who got more ripped off kate Steinle or Colton Boushie?

[Anonymous]

I agree with Mel on this, he a complete not guilty verdict does not seem right. I didn't think Stanley would be convicted of second degree murder, but I did think he would be found guilty of manslaughter. But, Trudeau has no business interfering in our judicial system just like he did after Jian Ghomeshi's acquittal.

[Anonymous]

I read a bit of Trudeau's announcement. I don't really see anything new or even about the justice system other than what has been done in the past. If I read anything new, I will pass it on.

[Wazzzup]

the case is not a slam dunk in either direction.  that's why this idea that a horrible injustice was done doesn't fit.   had the farmer just walked up to boushie on the street and shot him and white jury acquitted, then I'd buy the racism stuff, but not for this.



Most likely if I were juror I would have sided with the farmer.  And had it been drunk white people trespassing and stealing from a native farmer I would have sided with the native farmer too. I don't think sending a man protecting his property who has probably never broken a law to jail for ten years would be justice.  Especially when his story could be true, I have experienced hangfire myself.  Its also easy to shoot without meaning to, if your finger is not over the trigger guard.



At the trial apparently the first nations accounts were very inconsistent and some even admitted lying.  Also the shell casing found in the car had an odd bulge, thus possibly corroborating the hangfire story.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-witness-admits-lying-to-police-about-rifle-groups-alcohol-consumption">http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-ne ... onsumption">http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-witness-admits-lying-to-police-about-rifle-groups-alcohol-consumption



Question for anyone--compare the Kate Steinle verdict and this one and tell me which is worse.

[Anonymous]

Here are some interesting things that happened  in the jury selection.

"Almost half of the prospective jurors in the Colten Boushie case were Aboriginal persons, according to one member of the jury pool. However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun."



The prospective juror says more than half of the 100 or so prospective Aboriginal jurors were granted exemptions, and were then able to head home, leaving about 45 Aboriginal prospective jurors.



There were also some very disturbing details revealed by the prospective juror:



"As the prospective jury describes, some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury. "You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don't get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves," the person said of the Aboriginal people who remained. This account comes from one individual who spoke with the Sun, and has not yet been corroborated by other witnesses."



This is exactly why our justice system gives the defence the right to challenge and reject jurors. What Trudeau seems to have forgotten – or is purposely ignoring – is that our system starts with a presumption of innocence, and is not designed to make politically-motivated convictions.



As we can see, while no system is perfect, it seems our jury selection process is working as it is intended too.



Imagine if the system is changed and a similar situation happens, except the defence can't challenge jurors who may be massively biased. People would be convicted even if that conviction is based on anger and bias, instead of facts.



That would destroy any remaining credibility our justice system has, and turn it into an injustice system. By acting based on temporary emotion and virtue-signalling, the Trudeau government is putting our entire system of justice in serious peril.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/14/concerning-trudeau-government-fix-canadas-jury-selection-process-make-things-worse/">https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02 ... ngs-worse/">https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/14/concerning-trudeau-government-fix-canadas-jury-selection-process-make-things-worse/

[Angry White Male]

I don't think sending a man protecting his property who has probably never broken a law to jail for ten years would be justice.

The problem with Canadian law is, we can only protect our actual dwelling using force.  This allowable use of force typically does not extent to your outside property.



It would be nice if it did, as it does in some (all?) US States, but trying to protect anything other than your actual dwelling is a risky move in Canada.

[Anonymous]

One good thing came out of Justin Trudeau's and Judy Wilson-Raybould's unbelievably inappropriate comments following the Gerald Stanley not guilty verdict. All Canadians now have a legitimate reason for refusing jury duty. Nope, sorry, the possibility of being shamed and vilified by the prime minister and his justice minister would cause immeasurable damage to me and my sunny ways. and besides, I'm going to be way too busy "trying to do better". The thought of our country under the leadership of ministers so dense they don't realize how wrong it is to comment on the verdict of a jury trial is frightening.



They had no business going public with their concerns and throwing the justice system under the bus.