Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Saskatchewan jury has found Gerald Stanley not guilty in the shooting death of Colten Boushie, a verdict that drew immediate anguish from those close to the slain 22-year-old. Stanley, a 56-year-old farmer, was charged with second-degree murder in the August 2016 shooting. When the jury announced the verdict, several people yelled "murderer" at Stanley before he was quickly ushered out of the room by security.
‘Actually, we did have a gun. It was my gun. We were stealing. We used the gun to try and break into a vehicle’?" defence lawyer Scott Spencer asked. "So that's all stuff you told the police last night after court?"
"I told the Crown," Cross responded. "Because honestly I was scared for myself and I was scared for the people there that they might get into trouble. I know that was wrong but that's just how I was feeling over there."
Cross added he was willing to face the consequence for the sudden departure from his testimony at an earlier preliminary hearing.
"I was young. I was stupid and I've changed a lot since that happened," Cross said.
Quote:
Cross testified he had about 30 shots of alcohol and was drunk on the day of the shooting. Court has already heard that, at around the same time of the shooting, RCMP received a report about a suspected theft from a truck at a farm about 15 to 20 kilometres from the Stanley property. A grey SUV with a flat tire, matching the one Cross was driving, was spotted at that scene and police found the broken stock of a gun.
Cross initially told investigators he and his four friends in the SUV were just checking out the truck, but on the stand, he admitted he and another man, Eric Meechance, were trying to steal and that they had used the gun to attempt to break in.
Whether you believe Stanley intentionally or accidentally shot Boushie, leaving out all the things that these native youths were doing prior to the shooting is disingenuous and wrong and trying to gain sympathy from the public without telling the full story. And the fact that a number of our political leaders don't even mention this and instead support the natives' false narrative of what really happened is just so very sad.
And also lets put out a hypothetical. What if Gerald Stanley was a NATIVE homeowner and Colten Boushie was a white male and everything else about this case was exactly the same, would we see all the natives and their supporters be outraged like they are now of Gerald Stanley the native homeowner being found not guilty by the jury of killing white male Boushie?
Or do we all of a sudden see native people jumping for joy that native farmer Stanley who was 'defending himself and his property from racist and violent youths' was aquitted? Somehow I think that's EXACTLY what would happen. That while the natives are angry that white man Stanley was aquitted, they would all of a sudden be happy that native man Stanley was aquitted under the exact same circumstances. Namely natives care more about one of their tribe 'winning' than they do of seeing actual justice be carried out whether it be in their favor or not.
Security would be a big part of any aspect of increasing trade with other countries. That is also the case with the T.P.P and CETA. That said, I do think Canada could have walked away with a trade deal with China if we had of caved into their demands. We didn't and thus no trade deal. Diverse trading partners is good but not at the sacrifice of our security and sovereignty - That includes the U.S btw. I think Trudeau has been managing everything quite well on the whole given the circumstances.
I actually have greater respect to our PM for failing to make a trade deal with China, if it means that he's taken a firm stand to uphold Canadian values and principles, and put national interests and security first. No doubt, China is one of the wealthy customers out there with potentials, but no country should compromise itself in any shape or form in order to have a business relationship with it. The cost is simply too high. China got wealthy because the world had invested heavily in it by using it as a global factory. Would and should we still be equally eager to make a trade deal with country like North Korea if they had become just as wealthy? What are the potential consequences? I wonder about that sometimes.
I actually have greater respect to our PM for failing to make a trade deal with China, if it means that he's taken a firm stand to uphold Canadian values and principles, and put national interests and security first. No doubt, China is one of the wealthy customers out there with potentials, but no country should compromise itself in any shape or form in order to have a business relationship with it. The cost is simply too high. China got wealthy because the world had invested heavily in it by using it as a global factory. Would and should we still be equally eager to make a trade deal with country like North Korea if they had become just as wealthy? What are the potential consequences? I wonder about that sometimes.
Well I think equating China as a larger North Korea is pretty extreme. Some of the Canadian requirements will probably have to be toned down as their values are not the same as ours and to expect Canada to change Chinese social values is wishful thinking. I think if we keep the trade agreement simply about trade there is no reason why we can't negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement with China and no -it doesn't have be a carbon copy of trade agreements with more trusted allies. I do agree however that if it is premature than we should not enter into an agreement just to fill the void that may occur as a result of Trumps irrational/destructive approach to trade.
Here is a very well researched article that sets out the family relationships between the people who were there on the night, and the present Chief and the past 4 Chiefs of the Red Pheasant reserve.
ALL of the people that were there are directly related to one or more of the 5 Chiefs. Each of the people who were there that night have previous criminal records for various things, like drunk driving, assault, weapons offences and threatening violence.
The 5 Chiefs have also been convicted of criminal offences ranging from drunk driving, sexual assault, firearms offences and fraud. The cost of lawyers to represent these 5 Chiefs has been paid for out of reserve funds. The reserve is nearly bankrupt because of those costs.
This article gives a complete accounting of who was involved, their family relationships, and the statements given at the time of the incident, and the testimony given in court. The article's author is a Aboriginal.
AS far as I can see. none of theses facts have been reported by the main stream media. Notice that every one of the points raised in the article is supported by links to public sources that the author has assembled.
It is a long read, but very instructive, if you want to understand what really happened, and how the facts have been distorted.
This article gives a complete accounting of who was involved, their family relationships, and the statements given at the time of the incident, and the testimony given in court. The article's author is a Aboriginal.
AS far as I can see. none of theses facts have been reported by the main stream media. Notice that every one of the points raised in the article is supported by links to public sources that the author has assembled.
Lets be real. Even if everything in that article is 100% fact that cannot be disputed it won't matter. If anyone brings this up, the natives will cry racism and intolerance and of people trying to smear and ruin their reputation. And our politicians and many other people will blindly support them regardless of the facts. Much like black crime, NO ONE in power has the balls to stand up and tell the truth that needs to be told because they either actually believe and support what these people are saying or else they know it will be suicide to say such things in public towards a minority group like the natives no matter how true it may be. Just talking about it on the internet is often enough to get you in trouble and be called a racist etc. Why bother bringing it up in real life when that will likely significantly affect you personally??
For far too long we've let certain small groups of very vocal and angry people get their way and be allowed to influence our politicians, laws and values and its gotten us to where we are now and trying to change things and turn back the clock is going to be difficult if not mostly likely impossible. This is the sad reality that we live in now and the harder these groups keep pushing the envelop, the more backlash there will be and the more cries of racism we'll hear from them and so on and so forth even though THEY'RE the cause of much of the discourse and divisiveness that's been rising in recent years.
It wouldn't have to be this way if these people had any common sense and made smarter decisions, weren't so corrupt and stopped trying to eternally guilt trip and take Canadians for all the money that they can while constantly wasting and misusing those funds year after year and then crying for more. I mean seriously even if you started out being sympathetic and supportive of native people and their causes, I think most sane, reasonable people would eventually get tired of being demonized and be neverendingly blamed for the problems that natives constantly have that are mostly of their own creation and continuation.
Here is a very well researched article that sets out the family relationships between the people who were there on the night, and the present Chief and the past 4 Chiefs of the Red Pheasant reserve.
ALL of the people that were there are directly related to one or more of the 5 Chiefs. Each of the people who were there that night have previous criminal records for various things, like drunk driving, assault, weapons offences and threatening violence.
The 5 Chiefs have also been convicted of criminal offences ranging from drunk driving, sexual assault, firearms offences and fraud. The cost of lawyers to represent these 5 Chiefs has been paid for out of reserve funds. The reserve is nearly bankrupt because of those costs.
This article gives a complete accounting of who was involved, their family relationships, and the statements given at the time of the incident, and the testimony given in court. The article's author is a Aboriginal.
AS far as I can see. none of theses facts have been reported by the main stream media. Notice that every one of the points raised in the article is supported by links to public sources that the author has assembled.
It is a long read, but very instructive, if you want to understand what really happened, and how the facts have been distorted.
Okay, my comment would be that I don't see why you think the chiefs criminal activities (which I haven't fact checked so I don't know that they are true except for a comment in a comment section) are relevant as the chiefs are neither the victim nor the perpetrator in this case.
Assuming they are true, how is that relevant to the case? They weren't present during the incident, were they?
Okay, my comment would be that I don't see why you think the chiefs criminal activities (which I haven't fact checked so I don't know that they are true except for a comment in a comment section) are relevant as the chiefs are neither the victim nor the perpetrator in this case.
Assuming they are true, how is that relevant to the case? They weren't present during the incident, were they?
The records of these chiefs if true show a history of behavior that is less honest and truthful. The same goes for Bouchie and his friends who don't seem to be all that nice and peaceful as the natives are trying hard to portray them to be. The point is who do you think is more believable? Natives who have a poor history of behavior, violence and crime or people who are minding their own business, but have trouble come to their doorstep and are forced to defend themselves?
Again whether you believe Stanley delibrately or accidentally shot Bouchie, there's absolutely no doubt that he wasn't looking for trouble or trying to mess with native people. On the otherhand there have been numerous reports of people in the past having issues with natives when it comes to violence and crime so the question is why would any reasonable, logical person take the side of native people in this case when the facts of the case are against them and most definitely their history of behavior is against them.
As I said above if Bouchie was a young, white male and Stanley was the native farmer, do we still see native people coming out to protest against the farmer and for the white male Bouchie who was in their eyes right now wrongfully murdered? Or do we suddenly see them switch sides and now we'll hear them say native farmer Stanley was defending himself and his property from these hateful, racist whites who came to his farm to do no good and that if he's convicted there will be no justice. What do you think?
The records of these chiefs if true show a history of behavior that is less honest and truthful. The same goes for Bouchie and his friends who don't seem to be all that nice and peaceful as the natives are trying hard to portray them to be. The point is who do you think is more believable? Natives who have a poor history of behavior, violence and crime or people who are minding their own business, but have trouble come to their doorstep and are forced to defend themselves?
Again whether you believe Stanley delibrately or accidentally shot Bouchie, there's absolutely no doubt that he wasn't looking for trouble or trying to mess with native people. On the otherhand there have been numerous reports of people in the past having issues with natives when it comes to violence and crime so the question is why would any reasonable, logical person take the side of native people in this case when the facts of the case are against them and most definitely their history of behavior is against them.
As I said above if Bouchie was a young, white male and Stanley was the native farmer, do we still see native people coming out to protest against the farmer and for the white male Bouchie who was in their eyes right now wrongfully murdered? Or do we suddenly see them switch sides and now we'll hear them say native farmer Stanley was defending himself and his property from these hateful, racist whites who came to his farm to do no good and that if he's convicted there will be no justice. What do you think?
I'm a non-native farmer. What do you think I and all the other non-native farmers should do with the non-native thieves who come onto our properties in the middle of the night to steal gas and other items? You think my non-native farmer with a couple of teenaged kids down the road will understand when I shoot his non-native kids? I'm not looking for trouble. Do you think the law will understand and call that reasonable force?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
