The Manitoba Provincial Politics Discussion

[esquire]

It's a little known fact that the Manitoba Liberal leader is actually Stephen Colbert using an assumed name and some brown hair dye

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Ando

At least people know there names. How many people can name the leader of the Liberal Party.

Isn't it still Rana Bokhari who ran against Wab Kinew in Ft. Rouge? If not is shows how much of a low profile the new leader is keeping.

[esquire]

^ psst... The Liberal leader is the guy in the first picture of my last post

[OTA in Winnipeg]

[dmacc]

Does action need to be taken to address that Gerald Stanley was acquitted of 2nd degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie?

I'm of the opinion that a group of men trespassed with the intent to steal property. The men from what I heard were armed with a shot gun. these men were confronted by the owner of the property, Gerald Stanley, and in the ensuing confrontation Gerald shot one of the men, Colten Boushie.

I don't understand why there were people upset about the ruling? I feel it would be good to ask this group of intelligent and rational people what you all think of this.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Does action need to be taken to address that Gerald Stanley was acquitted of 2nd degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie?

I'm of the opinion that a group of men trespassed with the intent to steal property. The men from what I heard were armed with a shot gun. these men were confronted by the owner of the property, Gerald Stanley, and in the ensuing confrontation Gerald shot one of the men, Colten Boushie.

I don't understand why there were people upset about the ruling? I feel it would be good to ask this group of intelligent and rational people what you all think of this.

Colten Boushie was a twice convicted violent offender, he was with four other people in a stolen vehicle, prior to their encounter with Stanley they had robbed an adjacent farm, all had been drinking and were in possession of a firearm, they had in fact fired a shot at Stanley’s vehicle, the known motive of the group was to steal Stanley’s ATV, a confrontation between Stanley’s wife and a couple of the individuals had occurred before the shooting of Boushie.

Sometimes the consequences of your actions have deadly results! Did Stanley overreact who is to say if he felt the life of family members and his own life were at risk.

Really stupid of so called First Nations leadership, Wab Kinew, the PM, the Justice Minister and other elected official to even comment on the case in the way that they did, the jurors came to their conclusion based on the evidence and the case the defence and prosecution presented!

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Colten Boushie was a twice convicted violent offender, he was with four other people in a stolen vehicle, prior to their encounter with Stanley they had robbed an adjacent farm, all had been drinking and were in possession of a firearm, they had in fact fired a shot at Stanley’s vehicle, the known motive of the group was to steal Stanley’s ATV, a confrontation between Stanley’s wife and a couple of the individuals had occurred before the shooting of Boushie.

Sometimes the consequences of your actions have deadly results! Did Stanley overreact who is to say if he felt the life of family members and his own life were at risk.

Really stupid of so called First Nations leadership, Wab Kinew, the PM, the Justice Minister and other elected official to even comment on the case in the way that they did, the jurors came to their conclusion based on the evidence and the case the defence and prosecution presented!

you missed the point. the verdict isn't the issue. The issue is the composition of the jury and the appearance of possible bias. the system needs to be changed so that people cant be ruled off juries due to the colour of their skin. A true conservative would agree with that. A racist wouldn't.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

you missed the point. the verdict isn't the issue. The issue is the composition of the jury and the appearance of possible bias. the system needs to be changed so that people cant be ruled off juries due to the colour of their skin.

I don't understand, if the verdict was correct, then how could there have been bias? Were people ruled off the jury because of the colour of their skin?

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by dmacc

I don't understand, if the verdict was correct, then how could there have been bias? Were people ruled off the jury because of the colour of their skin?

there was a pretty good editorial in the globe about this the other day. under our system apparently lawyers for either side can reject potential jurors for whatever reason. in this case the defence rejected anyone who looked like they might be aboriginal. so although there probably was no bias in the verdict it is that appearance that becomes important. wouldn't aboriginal jurors have assessed the evidence the same way? so that is what politicians are questioning and appropriately so imo.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

there was a pretty good editorial in the globe about this the other day. under our system apparently lawyers for either side can reject potential jurors for whatever reason. in this case the defence rejected anyone who looked like they might be aboriginal. so although there probably was no bias in the verdict it is that appearance that becomes important. wouldn't aboriginal jurors have assessed the evidence the same way? so that is what politicians are questioning and appropriately so imo.

Can both sides refuse jurors? Couldn't the prosecutors have refused anyone who was white and therefore choosing a jury that would be biased against the defendant?

What if every jury has to be reflective of society as a whole? if 50% are white, 10% aboriginal and 30% asian than that's what a jury has to consist of?

[drew]

^ I thought that there was a maximum number (6?) of prospective jurors that either side can outright reject without reasoning.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Can both sides refuse jurors? Couldn't the prosecutors have refused anyone who was white and therefore choosing a jury that would be biased against the defendant?

What if every jury has to be reflective of society as a whole? if 50% are white, 10% aboriginal and 30% asian than that's what a jury has to consist of?

it is about optics in a racially sensitive situation. perhaps no one should be disqualified on the basis of skin colour?

[dmacc]

Drew that's interesting, I didn't know that.

Is it possible that it isn't the system that has a problem but that peoples perception of the issue and lack of understanding and knowledge of why it was set up the way it was be the problem? I hope that question makes sense.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Drew that's interesting, I didn't know that.

Is it possible that it isn't the system that has a problem but that peoples perception of the issue and lack of understanding and knowledge of why it was set up the way it was be the problem? I hope that question makes sense.

it is the system that can be the problem. why should lawyers get to reject potential jurors so easily? this should be tightened up by the judges.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Does action need to be taken to address that Gerald Stanley was acquitted of 2nd degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie?

I'm of the opinion that a group of men trespassed with the intent to steal property. The men from what I heard were armed with a shot gun. these men were confronted by the owner of the property, Gerald Stanley, and in the ensuing confrontation Gerald shot one of the men, Colten Boushie.

I don't understand why there were people upset about the ruling? I feel it would be good to ask this group of intelligent and rational people what you all think of this.

The general consensus seems to be that he should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Regardless of what others may say about having a firearm in the vehicle, past criminal record, what their blood alcohol level was, none of that is relevant. The firearm wasn't found until after RCMP arrived, and it wasn't even able to be fired ( as it was used to try and open another vehicle). So I'm not sure where rrskyler is getting his information from, but nothing i have seen indicated that there wire shots fired at that location by anyone than than Stanley.

What's on trial are Stanley's action. According to him he went to his shed, retrieved and loaded his pistol, fired three shots in the air ( of which only two fired - one was supposedly a hang fire). Some of the youths fled at this point, others tried to move the vehicle. Stanley then removed the magazine, did an unload, approached the vehicle, pointed the pistol at Boushie's head and then the hang fire completed.

That's his story. Even if the Jury believed his story, that's still manslaughter. What the non guilty verdict means is that the they heard Stanley's story, and said "The accidental hang fire doesn't matter. Someone tried to steal your property and now they are attempting to flee. You are justified in walking up to him and shooting him in the head at point blank range."

The jury's verdict says it doesn't matter if it was an accident or if Stanley did it with intent.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Can both sides refuse jurors? Couldn't the prosecutors have refused anyone who was white and therefore choosing a jury that would be biased against the defendant?

What if every jury has to be reflective of society as a whole? if 50% are white, 10% aboriginal and 30% asian than that's what a jury has to consist of?

Originally Posted by drew

^ I thought that there was a maximum number (6?) of prospective jurors that either side can outright reject without reasoning.

I believe they would be allowed 12 peremptory challenges per side. Outside of that, juror dismissal would have to be for just cause and agreed to by the judge.


http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php...tory_Challenge

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

it is the system that can be the problem. why should lawyers get to reject potential jurors so easily? this should be tightened up by the judges.

Perhaps there is a perfectly good reason that rule was put in place. Maybe we shouldn't assume the system is broken and instead ask why something is the way it is. Perhaps you'll get a very reasonable answer.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by cheswick

I believe they would be allowed 12 peremptory challenges per side. Outside of that, juror dismissal would have to be for just cause and agreed to by the judge.


http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php...tory_Challenge

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

[esquire]

A criminal trial is a very complicated affair... all that I can say is that it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and complain that the trial didn't produce the desired result. I think the jury deserves the benefit of the doubt on reaching what is most certainly a defensible finding after a painstaking process.

Besides, if there was some sort of overarching error, then the Crown will be raising it on appeal.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Perhaps there is a perfectly good reason that rule was put in place. Maybe we shouldn't assume the system is broken and instead ask why something is the way it is. Perhaps you'll get a very reasonable answer.

sometimes it is reasonable to assess the impact or current rules and make appropriate changes. I think that is the discussion that is taking place now and I think that is healthy. maybe the status quo will be maintained, maybe not.