The Stanley trial

[Ken07AOVette]

With all the talk in here when he was arrested and charged, I thought there would be a dozen threads by the time they were this deep into the trial.
Nothing at all?
Testimony from witnesses is showing blatant lies and changing stories, expert witness testimony talking about a cartridge with a strange bulge that may have been from an errant misfire, it is interesting to say the least.
Nobody else watching it? I would have liked to have gone if it was open court.
(find your own links, my last name isn't google)

[play.soccer]

I figured there wouldn't be any point cause the mods woukd shut it down after the first "attack" against boushie and co. The lying thieving criminals they are. Comitting purgery in court. What like 3 different stories of what happened that day from them.

[kingrat]

I think all of sask has been following it. And ya a lot of different stories because they were all so drunk they don't even remember what happened or what they said happened .

[ryeguy21]

The kids that have taken the stand arent the ones on trial. It doesnt surprise me you guys havent figured that out yet..

I've followed the trial from the beginning. It will be interesting to see what the defense does. I expected a lot more for the first week of the trial but the only thing that matters is what the defense will be.

[play.soccer]

Committing purgery is a crime.
Drunk driving is a crime.
Theft is a crime.
Possessing a weapon when you have a ban is a crime.
Assault is a crime.

The survivors should be charged and Stanley should be innocent.

The media and ryeguy (Lol ironic) only want justice served if it plays the narrative and they see this a race based and not fact based.

[chris762]

I found some reporting on CTV by accident. Not sure how I found it but will try again.

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Committing purgery is a crime.
Drunk driving is a crime.
Theft is a crime.
Possessing a weapon when you have a ban is a crime.
Assault is a crime.

The survivors should be charged and Stanley should be innocent.

The media and ryeguy (Lol ironic) only want justice served if it plays the narrative and they see this a race based and not fact based.

Most of what you said on the crimes is spot on but this trial is about stanley and the murder charge. Should there have been other charges? Perhaps.. but again this is about a murder charge.

Curious why you think Stanley "Should" be innocent.

While your upset about stanley innocence others are concerned how an area with 40% first nations population that there isn't one on the jury. Others are concerned with the rcmps biased investigation and the prejudice they showed after the incident....

I've been pretty glued to this trial... It will be interesting to see what happens next week.

[AndrewM]

I have followed it a bit. I think everyone’s story has been stretched. Some more than others. I don’t believe pointing a gun and it firing is an accident. You only point where you want to shoot. But if I was in his shoes I think I would have been pointing it as well. He had people that attempted to steal his quad and just recently broke into the neighbors to steal their truck. Then they backed into the other vehicle and who knows how threatened he felt. Also the people had a gun in the vehicle with a bullet in the chamber. It’s a very tragic situation all around. Will be interesting how the coming days of the trial go.

[roper1]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

the only thing that matters is what the defense will be.

I don't understand, if the prosecution has done a poor job, or the prosecution witnesses have inconsistencies, theoretically the defense's job is easier ?

[spyguy 0-0-7]

I'm waiting to see if the Defense Lawyer is going to use the self-defense defense,if the story comes out that the "rifle" was pointed at Mr. Stanley. No matter what, a young person still died.

[Jamie]

I am wondering how close he had to be in order to find the shell casing inside the truck.
Tell me, is all this hassle and death worth a quad or a truck?

I am not saying the Perp didn't deserve it but the shooter's life as he knows it very well might be over. Not worth it to me.

As for the jury selection. The Dfense did all it could (As they should have) to get rid of any bias. They ad I believe up to 14 rejections with no explanation.

I also noticed the amount of called people who said they couldn't serve was really weighted towards Indians. Thats their call.

Lousy witnesses. The one girl is still convinced the dead guy was in the passenger seat. Story keep changing...

This whole thing is a mess.

[NCC]

If the young man had a loaded rifle on his person while trespassing and attempting to steal property, and the trespassers had the Stanley family outnumbered 5-3, I think it's a cut and dried case of self defence.

The bulged case, and ammo that was more than 60 years old, leaves the door open for a defence of an accidental discharge or a hang fire.

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by roper1

I don't understand, if the prosecution has done a poor job, or the prosecution witnesses have inconsistencies, theoretically the defense's job is easier ?

I dont think the prosecutors havent done a great job but the fact that someones been shot and killed hasn't changed. The gun residue and all the witness testimonies including Stanley's own son are consistent.

What will matter is what the defence does to explain the bigger issues.. In the end its a jury without first nations all from a rural area. Who knows what will happen.

[Jim]

In my opinion the prosecution would have been better of trying for a man slaughter conviction rather than 2nd degree murder. To many inconsistencies in witnesses to get a murder conviction from a jury.

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

Most of what you said on the crimes is spot on but this trial is about stanley and the murder charge. Should there have been other charges? Perhaps.. but again this is about a murder charge.

Curious why you think Stanley "Should" be innocent.

While your upset about stanley innocence others are concerned how an area with 40% first nations population that there isn't one on the jury. Others are concerned with the rcmps biased investigation and the prejudice they showed after the incident....

I've been pretty glued to this trial... It will be interesting to see what happens next week.

Jury of his peers.

No Indians on the jury because there's a 99.9% chance that they would automatically be biased. Hell let's be real here. It's 100% chance that they would be biased against a white farmer.

Stanley should be innocent because he defended himself his family his property.


Admit it man, you are wanting Stanley to go away for years. Your bias is showing hard. Colton boushie had a BAC of 0.3. Those people weren't looking for help eithba flat tire. They were out causing crime. We all know your stance on this. Your prejudice against white farmers is showing.

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

I do think the prosecutors havent done a great job but the fact that someones been shot and killed hasn't changed. The gun residue and all the witness testimonies including Stanley's own son are consistent.

What will matter is what the defence does to explain the bigger issues.. In the end its a jury without first nations all from a rural area. Who knows what will happen.

Zero need for first nations to be on the jury. They're heavily biased against any white people.

[roper1]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

I do think the prosecutors havent done a great job but the fact that someones been shot and killed hasn't changed. The gun residue and all the witness testimonies including Stanley's own son are consistent.

What will matter is what the defence does to explain the bigger issues.. In the end its a jury without first nations all from a rural area. Who knows what will happen.

Maybe the reporters have it wrong, the papers report the judge addressed the witness inconsistencies to the jury.

I'm quite confident the defense has no responsibility to explain jury selection, that should be on the Crown

As far as 'Who knows what will happen' I'll guess a demonstration or two if someone really gets around to it..........and that would only be on a 'not guilty' outcome

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by NCC

If the young man had a loaded rifle on his person while trespassing and attempting to steal property, and the trespassers had the Stanley family outnumbered 5-3, I think it's a cut and dried case of self defence.

The bulged case, and ammo that was more than 60 years old, leaves the door open for a defence of an accidental discharge or a hang fire.

It's not if. He did. They did. There is photographic evidence. They were all committing multiple crimes that day.

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I am wondering how close he had to be in order to find the shell casing inside the truck.
Tell me, is all this hassle and death worth a quad or a truck?

I am not saying the Perp didn't deserve it but the shooter's life as he knows it very well might be over. Not worth it to me.

As for the jury selection. The Dfense did all it could (As they should have) to get rid of any bias. They ad I believe up to 14 rejections with no explanation.

I also noticed the amount of called people who said they couldn't serve was really weighted towards Indians. Thats their call.

Lousy witnesses. The one girl is still convinced the dead guy was in the passenger seat. Story keep changing...

This whole thing is a mess.

Ah yes another one who thinks people should just bend over and watch their hard earned possessions grow legs and walk away. This case will set the precedent for rural folks defending themselves against crime.

If Stanley goes innocent he will likely have to defend himself once more once the first nations mob goes after his house and family in a fit of rage.

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Jury of his peers.

No Indians on the jury because there's a 99.9% chance that they would automatically be biased. Hell let's be real here. It's 100% chance that they would be biased against a white farmer.

Stanley should be innocent because he defended himself his family his property.


Admit it man, you are wanting Stanley to go away for years. Your bias is showing hard. Colton boushie had a BAC of 0.3. Those people weren't looking for help eithba flat tire. They were out causing crime. We all know your stance on this. Your prejudice against white farmers is showing.

If no Indian can be on a jury and be unbiased how can one expect a jury of rural white farmers to be unbiased.

Stanley wasnt defending his family when he shot someone in the back of the head. If your going to kill someone over your property you better be prepared with a good defense.

I am keenly watching what Stanley's defense will be because the experts on the stand already debunked the gun went off by accident excuse.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Jury of his peers.

No Indians on the jury because there's a 99.9% chance that they would automatically be biased. Hell let's be real here. It's 100% chance that they would be biased against a white farmer.

Stanley should be innocent because he defended himself his family his property.


Admit it man, you are wanting Stanley to go away for years. Your bias is showing hard. Colton boushie had a BAC of 0.3. Those people weren't looking for help eithba flat tire. They were out causing crime. We all know your stance on this. Your prejudice against white farmers is showing.

Well your bias isn't exactly hiding behind the curtains....

One only has to look at history to predict Mr. Stanley will be putting in his crops in a few months, so relax.

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

If no Indian can be on a jury and be unbiased how can one expect a jury of rural white farmers to be unbiased.

Stanley wasnt defending his family when he shot someone in the back of the head. If your going to kill someone over your property you better be prepared with a good defense.

I am keenly watching what Stanley's defense will be because the experts on the stand already debunked the gun went off by accident excuse.

They aren't white farmers. Once again your prejudice shows.

Ah yes the queens cowboy firearm expert. "Longest hangfire I ever experienced was 0.28 seconds" what a joke. He's obviously never shot much.


This case should already be thrown out.

Also. Two people banned from owning guns that own guns. Ya. Ok. Sure it's legit.

Don't get me started on weapons prohibition according to the FA.

They. Committed. Crimes.

They. Are. Responsible. For. The. Death.

Listening to the families' claim of racism is so tiring and false.

It's a blame whitey mentality.

The little group of would be thieves are:

Guilty of robbery.
Theft of a firearm.
Was the vehicle stolen? If So, add another charge.
Possession of stolen property.
Impaired driving.
Assault.
Assault with a weapon.
Possession of a firearm while not licenced to do so.

Among other charges they should all face.

Now after the fact there is perjury. Providing false statements.

Anyone with a half a brain on that jury is going to look at those FACTS and give Stanley the not guilty verdict.

Facts not feels. This is where my posting ends as per. T first post in this thread some users are gonna cry racism to the mods. Reeeeeee as usual.

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

........... others are concerned how an area with 40% first nations population that there isn't one on the jury. ........

Not sure if this will answer your question but Danielle Smith had a defence lawyer as a guest who discussed jury selection as a general topic and had specific comments about jury selection in this particular trial.

https://globalnews.ca/calgary/program/danielle-smith/

Scroll down to Jan 30. The segment is titled Saskatchewan Court Case
It's a 15 minute listen.

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by NCC

If the young man had a loaded rifle on his person while trespassing and attempting to steal property, and the trespassers had the Stanley family outnumbered 5-3, I think it's a cut and dried case of self defence.

The bulged case, and ammo that was more than 60 years old, leaves the door open for a defence of an accidental discharge or a hang fire.

A loaded rifle that wasnt produced or waived around. Being found after the killing makes it a bit difficult to use as defense.

Stanleys son took the stand and never talked about the gun in the car.... again it was found after the fact. Broken and Inoperable. This wasn't disputed in the first week of the trial.

The experts also debunked the gun firing on its own.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Ah yes another one who thinks people should just bend over and watch their hard earned possessions grow legs and walk away. This case will set the precedent for rural folks defending themselves against crime.

If Stanley goes innocent he will likely have to defend himself once more once the first nations mob goes after his house and family in a fit of rage.

Nope.. I am just wondering if all the internet tough guys think it was worth it..
Is a quad worth a life?
Is a truck?
is your "stuff" worth your freedom?


Your last paragraph is probably dead on.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Zero need for first nations to be on the jury. They're heavily biased against any white people.

As opposed to this wonderfully open mind


I don't think there's going to be a winner either way this comes out.

[Ken07AOVette]

I thought I had read at one point that Stanley's wife was beaten and hospitalized, did that not happen?

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I thought I had read at one point that Stanley's wife was beaten and hospitalized, did that not happen?

I haven't heard how bad she took it, but it was after the shooting.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Nope.. I am just wondering if all the internet tough guys think it was worth it..
Is a quad worth a life?
Is a truck?
is your "stuff" worth your freedom?


Your last paragraph is probably dead on.

What is freedom to you? It is clear that you value freedom less than some if you don't want to protect your stuff.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by fitzy

As opposed to this wonderfully open mind


I don't think there's going to be a winner either way this comes out.

Are you saying that there should be fn on the jury?