thou shalt not kill

[generalposter]

Could you two (CF and G) be any more paranoid and obtuse? I am simply saying alcoholics and drug addicts would neither want or be wanted to serve jury duty. This could explain why some candidates declined or were declined. Don't read things that aren't there.

[generalposter]

Prerequisites of being sober and drug free for days on end would both discourage and eliminate some jury candidates.

Not everyone uses drugs &/or alcohol in any race.

'

You do see the word in blue don't you?

[generalposter]

Not everyone uses drugs &/or alcohol in any race.

You think? Wow, brilliant work.

[GordonH]

Prerequisites of being sober and drug free for days on end would both discourage and eliminate some jury candidates.

Not everyone uses drugs &/or alcohol in any race.

'

You do see the word in blue don't you?

Yes I did, just as I used the word "not"

Neither lawyer knows who drinks or uses drugs.... either prescribed or not. Sheriff department does not have breathalyzers or drug testing at the door.

Added: those who have issues that could be a problem/issue in or during the trial, are to speak up before selections begin. So they can be excused to leave

[generalposter]

You must have comprehension issues because the word "not' combined with "every" means less than all; which is what I said when I used the word "some". You've twisted a simple statement around so badly that I'm sure you have lost all track of reality here.

All jury candidates are screened carefully and you can bet alcoholic's and drug addicts are readily and easily identified. End story.

[coffeeFreak]

Could you two (CF and G) be any more paranoid and obtuse? I am simply saying alcoholics and drug addicts would neither want or be wanted to serve jury duty. This could explain why some candidates declined or were declined. Don't read things that aren't there.

We all know what you are insinuating...

[generalposter]

Could you two (CF and G) be any more paranoid and obtuse? I am simply saying alcoholics and drug addicts would neither want or be wanted to serve jury duty. This could explain why some candidates declined or were declined. Don't read things that aren't there.

We all know what you are insinuating...

Correction, you think you know. Big difference. If you see racism in my op you are definitely a problem.

Who is this "we all"? You speak for the whole board or do you have bugs?

[Bigjohn69]

http://aptnnews.ca/2018/02/15/rcmp-face ... -deserved/


A private Facebook group used by police officers across Canada shows shocking messages in support of Gerald Stanley’s acquittal.

The most offensive comments, which are sure to further inflame the racism debate accompanying the outcome of last week’s trial, were posted by an officer APTN News has been told is a serving member of the RCMP on the Prairies.

This wont go over very good . Some people never know when to not put a,thought in public

[Bigjohn69]

http://theprovince.com/news/canada/gera ... e=Facebook


No firearms expert has been able to fully explain or reproduce the “freak accident” that Gerald Stanley claims caused his gun to fire unexpectedly into the head of Colten Boushie.

[Chyren]

Ok I feel very strongly that something needs to be addressed.

The fact that the Canadian Government is now reviewing how a jury is made after this case is astounding! What the government of Canada is stating is that the 12 men and women who were the jury in this case could not come to a "positive" decision. The biggest driving force in this opinion is 100 percent RACE.

What they are saying about this jury is that because they're all white they can't come up with a guilty verdict in this case. The 12 men and women, because of their race, are all racists and just because the deceased was native they are all bad people.

Pure and simple.

I admit that the guy should be guilty of an offence. Just not murder. Careless use of a firearm causing death? Criminal negligence causing death? All good charges and he should go to jail for killing someone.

Stop painting the jurors as racists who can't come up with a "proper" verdict because of the fact they're white. Its 2018 for gods sakes can't we just get past the racism?

[LTD]

http://theprovince.com/news/canada/gerald-stanleys-magical-gun-the-extremely-unlikely-defence-that-secured-his-acquittal/wcm/5d376cfd-31b4-4b30-88e6-491aa52d534c?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook


No firearms expert has been able to fully explain or reproduce the “freak accident” that Gerald Stanley claims caused his gun to fire unexpectedly into the head of Colten Boushie.

so what that's why they call em freak accidents

[dogspoiler]

I read somewhere that the Bouchie family had moved from Montana. Does anyone know when ?

[Bsuds]

I admit that the guy should be guilty of an offence. Just not murder. Careless use of a firearm causing death? Criminal negligence causing death? All good charges and he should go to jail for killing someone.

Stop painting the jurors as racists who can't come up with a "proper" verdict because of the fact they're white. Its 2018 for gods sakes can't we just get past the racism?

Just throwing this out there...what was he charged with? Murder, manslaughter, use of a weapon resulting in death? (is that even a thing?)

The Jury can only come to a verdict on what the charges are not downgrade them to a lesser charge or upgrade to a different one. So my point being were they restricted as to what they could do? Does anyone know?

[Ka-El]

The Jury can only come to a verdict on what the charges are not downgrade them to a lesser charge or upgrade to a different one. So my point being were they restricted as to what they could do? Does anyone know?

Defence is claiming this was an accident, and as unlikely this scenario is it would have been up to Crown to prove it was not beyond reasonable doubt. My guess is the jury could not dismiss the possibility it was an accident and so acquitted.

[JayByrd]

Defence is claiming this was an accident, and as unlikely this scenario is it would have been up to Crown to prove it was not beyond reasonable doubt. My guess is the jury could not dismiss the possibility it was an accident and so acquitted.

Intent is often difficult to prove. In this case, it's likely the only people who could offer testimony about Mr. Stanley's intention and mindset in the moments leading up to the shooting, are Mr. Stanley himself, and perhaps his family members. It's easy to look at this case, listen to your gut and know it wasn't an accident. We wouldn't accept the "it just went off" defence from someone who shot a store clerk in a robbery. But the jury are not tasked with deciding what they believe, only if reasonable doubt exists or not.