I think he was lying. I think the friends of the "victim" were lying. I think the jury saw all of that and decided it was OK for this guy to shoot the people invading his property and stealing from him, regardless of what the letter of the law might say, and decided to let him get away with it. I would have, too.
Colten Boushie Decision
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
- Status
Googled slam fire on semi auto weapons......and yes I've had that happen many times.
Although we called it "misfire into full auto"
If the shell casing was deformed as someone mentioned, and the locking mechanism on the firing pin isn't working right, the firing pin will just keep working....the gas operation will turn it into an automatic firearm......but.....I have never seen or had one go full auto all on its own, someone had to discharge the first round...if a casing is slightly outside, or not correctly in the chamber it will deform itself.
I've seen that myself...and it's happened to me in competition three times, but each time only two rounds were fired , the first went off by pulling the trigger, the second a millisecond later. It was so fast it sounded like one extended discharge, and I had to spot my target to see the two holes, one just above and touching the other.
That was using a hand built West German semi auto, Bull Barrel competition .308sighted for 600 yards. Built by Vohr.
Because of the " slam fire" I placed second....after that happening a few more times, the weapon was deactivated.
Although we called it "misfire into full auto"
If the shell casing was deformed as someone mentioned, and the locking mechanism on the firing pin isn't working right, the firing pin will just keep working....the gas operation will turn it into an automatic firearm......but.....I have never seen or had one go full auto all on its own, someone had to discharge the first round...if a casing is slightly outside, or not correctly in the chamber it will deform itself.
I've seen that myself...and it's happened to me in competition three times, but each time only two rounds were fired , the first went off by pulling the trigger, the second a millisecond later. It was so fast it sounded like one extended discharge, and I had to spot my target to see the two holes, one just above and touching the other.
That was using a hand built West German semi auto, Bull Barrel competition .308sighted for 600 yards. Built by Vohr.
Because of the " slam fire" I placed second....after that happening a few more times, the weapon was deactivated.
With what I have read here the farmer is right handed and was reaching for the keys with his left hand. This is how the gun in the right hand ended up behind the drivers ear. While reaching into the car and trying to get the keys anything could have happened.
On the other hand if the farmer had a shotgun and for sake of argument it was a "stage coach" shotgun with really short barrels it would have been impossible to hold the gun on the driver and reach in for the keys. If it had been a standard shotgun, say a pump shotgun for the farm and a cheaper model with a standard barrel you couldn't have gotten close enough to the ignition to get to the keys. Sadly wrong tool for the job I guess.
If the occupants hadn't been out raising shit and causing damage and stealing then they would still be alive if they weren't killed on the way home driving while impaired. Poor decisions are always made while impaired, we as a society need to learn from others mistakes and accept them. Oh and by the way this is the opinion of a US citizen.
PD
On the other hand if the farmer had a shotgun and for sake of argument it was a "stage coach" shotgun with really short barrels it would have been impossible to hold the gun on the driver and reach in for the keys. If it had been a standard shotgun, say a pump shotgun for the farm and a cheaper model with a standard barrel you couldn't have gotten close enough to the ignition to get to the keys. Sadly wrong tool for the job I guess.
If the occupants hadn't been out raising shit and causing damage and stealing then they would still be alive if they weren't killed on the way home driving while impaired. Poor decisions are always made while impaired, we as a society need to learn from others mistakes and accept them. Oh and by the way this is the opinion of a US citizen.
PD
....and before all the gun nuts come outta the woodwork, and claim Vohr never built a semi-auto target rifle...He did for me.
That's right!....I'm still alive.
That's right!....I'm still alive.
Thanks sy...you're right, That totally covers the HOW. Doesn't do a damn thing about the why, though. You can scare someone off from a long way away with a long gun. I've fired a shotgun exactly once, & I know what a big effective bang it makes.
the dead guy had a loaded rifle with the stock removed so he was armed as well. lots of support for stanley. gofundme at $170,000. they keep increasing the goal cuz people keep donating.
This government is so retarded with a retard at the helm. But hey......nice hair.
So now they will do racial profiling with juries. The way I see if, if the case involves a native and a white man and
the jury requires 10 people it will compose of 5 natives and 5 white man.
So now they will do racial profiling with juries. The way I see if, if the case involves a native and a white man and
the jury requires 10 people it will compose of 5 natives and 5 white man.
Holding a gun, while reaching into a vehicle to turn it off does not sound like a man who was afraid. And the defendant did not claim he acted out of fear. Can we all quit using this straw man argument please?
I see a story of a man who is most likely a murderer. A man who murdered a man who attempted many unlawful acts on his property. What I don't see is American History X part 2. Some things transcend race. Its hard for the small minded to realize there is conflict without race.
So it seems but no one was on trial for being armed. Stanley said he wasn't even aware of the shotgun.
So evidently you do believe that the race of the jury does have an impact on the outcome?
Personally, I don't think it should be mandatory to racially match the jury, but as far as arguments against it go, that's a terrible one.
The intent of Stanley was on trial. But apparently ignored in the hysteria over the decision was his knowledge of the intentions of a truck full of drunken thugs.
The victim of the invason of one's property, or premises has no idea of the intent of the trespassers. Stanley had no idea if these guys wanted to steal his vehicles, damage his livelihood, rape his wife, kill or injure them. He had to deal with a group invading his space - he didn't go looking for trouble, but Trudeau is acting like these guys were dragged out of Sunday School so Stanley could kill one of them. They initiated the entire scenario.
The optics of an all-white jury look bad, and it should probably have included more diversity, but there is a huge assumption that racism was involved in the decision, whereas the evidence seems to point to a bunch of yahoos triggering a series of events while on a crime spree.
The victim of the invason of one's property, or premises has no idea of the intent of the trespassers. Stanley had no idea if these guys wanted to steal his vehicles, damage his livelihood, rape his wife, kill or injure them. He had to deal with a group invading his space - he didn't go looking for trouble, but Trudeau is acting like these guys were dragged out of Sunday School so Stanley could kill one of them. They initiated the entire scenario.
The optics of an all-white jury look bad, and it should probably have included more diversity, but there is a huge assumption that racism was involved in the decision, whereas the evidence seems to point to a bunch of yahoos triggering a series of events while on a crime spree.
I never said he was scared
but, it's reasonable to believe his story
or were there forensic facts that completely discount his version?
the RCMP, the crown are completely incompetent now?
the Judge, was asleep too? Allowing all this incompetence?
it's also reasonable to believe if he truly was trying to kill him, he would have just stood back a couple of feet from the car and unload
and I believe he stated he was concerned for his wife's safety, due to the fact they were trying to drive away, smashing into vehicles
because he didn't know where exactly his wife was
sorry, but the law doesn't care if someone is KILLED, it is concerned with facts and intent along with reasonable doubt
he isn't the first to get a not guilty after someone has died
clearly the crown didn't come close to proving it's case as far as the jury was concerned
when/if it's appealed and 3 Judges alone don't change it?
then who's Sniffles going to blame?
or if Stanley gets retried, the jury pool has been tainted by the Liberals mouthing off
not to mention the independence of the Judiciary, by all the PC mouthpieces commenting, basically saying the wrong verdict was reached
think the media, opportunistic politicians who don't seem to understand they aren't suppose to comment on cases would be looking for a mic, spouting off, if the farmer was Black, Asian, East Indian?
You are wrong on this. In Canada, the Crown can appeal either a jury's verdict of not guilty for a finding of not guilty by a judge. However, the Crown can only appeal on a question of law alone, i.e. an error in the jury instructions given by the judge regarding the applicable law, or an error of law in a judgment rendered by a judge. The Crown can appeal a sentence with leave of the court on the basis that the sentence was "unfit".
Yes. However, a judge may instruct a jury that they may find an accused guilty of a lesser included offence. Manslaughter, which is the killing of another person by an unlawful act, is a lesser included offence of murder. In this case. the judge instructed the jury that, if they found the accused not guilty of the offence of second degree murder, they could find him guilty of manslaughter.
The concern about racism in this trial related to jury selection. Defence counsel had 12 peremptory challenges, i.e. challenges for which no reason has to be given. They were used to exclude any potential juror who appeared to be of indigenous background. While what defence counsel did was perfectly legal under our current system of jury selection, the exclusion of any indigenous members of the community from the jury has, at the very least, an appearance of racism.
In Canada you hsvecthem choise of trail by by judge only Or trail by judge and jury.
Your defence usually will recommend which one would be the most advantages to accused get to g the best verdict
A judge will decide of evidence and rule of law..A jury will find on evidence, how the judge explains the law applicable to this case and will also make their decision based on emotion which includes their racist beleave and there emotional response to the type of crime and evidence presented by both sides.
In this case it was advantages for the defence yo choose trail by jury.And it was up to the lawyer to make sure the jury was favorable by its make up ..that why he had to change all the native juries. If he Did not he would not of be driving his closest best interest. THIS IS THE SYSTEM WE. Nothing wrong with it ..unless you want the Islamic system where they all ready have determined your gilt or inosents before trial. And they torture you before the trail to get the confession they want. Then at trial it just to hand down punishment.it is a little more involved then that but it not fair and impatual.
Most or all of the critasisum about on rasisum is only assumption. Without face value based on any accused or nurse making any rasist comments . And need to be proven in court to effect the verdict in any way..
That judge can dismiss the verdict if it is suspected of being determine by facts other then pressented evidence or verdict does not agree with what evidence clearly proves in court.
That does not look likely in this case.
The evidence does not support the charge and leave reasonable doubt..and when reasonable they must find a not guilty verdict.
Your defence usually will recommend which one would be the most advantages to accused get to g the best verdict
A judge will decide of evidence and rule of law..A jury will find on evidence, how the judge explains the law applicable to this case and will also make their decision based on emotion which includes their racist beleave and there emotional response to the type of crime and evidence presented by both sides.
In this case it was advantages for the defence yo choose trail by jury.And it was up to the lawyer to make sure the jury was favorable by its make up ..that why he had to change all the native juries. If he Did not he would not of be driving his closest best interest. THIS IS THE SYSTEM WE. Nothing wrong with it ..unless you want the Islamic system where they all ready have determined your gilt or inosents before trial. And they torture you before the trail to get the confession they want. Then at trial it just to hand down punishment.it is a little more involved then that but it not fair and impatual.
Most or all of the critasisum about on rasisum is only assumption. Without face value based on any accused or nurse making any rasist comments . And need to be proven in court to effect the verdict in any way..
That judge can dismiss the verdict if it is suspected of being determine by facts other then pressented evidence or verdict does not agree with what evidence clearly proves in court.
That does not look likely in this case.
The evidence does not support the charge and leave reasonable doubt..and when reasonable they must find a not guilty verdict.
its against the law to use unreasonable force to protect yourself. while most think this simply protects criminals, it actually protects everyone from being murdered under the pretense of self defense, or by mistake or any number of situation that can occur in the heat of the moment.
while the farmer may be not guilty of murder he certainly put a gun to someones head with fatal consequences. that farmer is responsible to a degree for his actions. thats what gets people upset.
while the farmer may be not guilty of murder he certainly put a gun to someones head with fatal consequences. that farmer is responsible to a degree for his actions. thats what gets people upset.
What needs to be determined is.....what is unreasonable?
The law , and lawyers...cannot take away the right to protect oneself, particularly while on your own property.
The dead guy was armed.....And causing harm, and potential further harm to the property owner, and his family.
Case closed....it don't matter what colour or race anyone was.
Without referencing any specific posters, I would encourage everyone to read the Leo Lachine case (sorry can't link on my phone) & tell me if anything seems or sounds similar...
Only for indictable (more serious) offences.
I don't know where you got this idea because it is completely incorrect. A trial judge has no power to overturn a jury's verdict. Only a court of appeal can do that. You are probably thinking of a directed verdict. If, at the conclusion of the Crown's case, a judge is satisfied that the evidence presented cannot prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he may direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. That is quite different from overturning a jury's verdict. An example might be where there is a complete lack of evidence presented to prove an essential element of the offence.
- Status
