Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:34 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 32,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daslogster View Post
The criminal code states min 10 yr bans on any criminal firearms offences, it sucks but the courts don't have other options
And given the number of media reports about apprehended criminals, a very large percentage of them are in possession of firearms, even though they already have firearms prohibitions. The true criminals don't seem to let prohibitions stop them from possessing firearms.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #122  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:01 PM
Bigbuckwsm Bigbuckwsm is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette View Post
Why?

The crown traded time for testimony.

We all know that, it was well publicized.
Shouldnít witnesses be subpoenaed for testimony and not traded immunity for the same? Iíve stayed quiet on this so far but some of the stuff Iím reading is rediculous! There was a reason they were on the Stanley farm and it wasnít because they were the welcome wagon! Unfortunately we arenít now following a court case on the perpetrators!

Not going after Ken, just adding my 2 cents
  #123  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:37 AM
Peter Abelard Peter Abelard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
He was one of a group of armed thieves out committing robbery. Just because he passed out for a time doesn't mean that he was not just as guilty as the rest of the occupants. A loaded firearm being present make the entire group a threat to the public. And he was in control of the vehicle when he was shot. The vehicle itself was the second potential lethal weapon.
Control of a vehicle that was crashed and pointed in another direction?

Calling it a lethal weapon seems a bit grasping.
  #124  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:43 AM
Kurt505's Avatar
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 10,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Abelard View Post
Control of a vehicle that was crashed and pointed in another direction?

Calling it a lethal weapon seems a bit grasping.
Where did they crash and why were they there?
__________________
History has shown a slicktrick is no substitute for an intelligent action.
  #125  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:46 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 6,836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Where did they crash and why were they there?
Who knows? Maybe they were selling Amway.

People need to just call a spade a spade. They were there to steal and cause trouble. To believe otherwise and keep arguing is just trolling.
  #126  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:58 AM
Kurt505's Avatar
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 10,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
Who knows? Maybe they were selling Amway.

People need to just call a spade a spade. They were there to steal and cause trouble.
Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense knows why they were there. Trying to spin the innocent victim slant is an insult to anyone with even basic intelligence.

It's unfortunate that someone lost their life, but in all fairness he did it to himself. It's hard to feel sorry for a bully when they get their arse handed to them. This was basically a group of bullies who picked the wrong victim.

Stanley's are the only victims in this case, they were at home minding their own business, doing yard work when a group of thugs ruined their lives. Anyone who can't see that is lacking basic common sense in my opinion.
__________________
History has shown a slicktrick is no substitute for an intelligent action.
  #127  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:01 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 6,836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense knows why they were there. Trying to spin the innocent victim slant is an insult to anyone with even basic intelligence.

It's unfortunate that someone lost their life, but in all fairness he did it to himself. It's hard to feel sorry for a bully when they get their arse handed to them. This was basically a group of bullies who picked the wrong victim.

Stanley's are the only victims in this case, they were at home minding their own business, doing yard work when a group of thugs ruined their lives. Anyone who can't see that is lacking basic common sense in my opinion.
Nothing more needs to be said than this ^^^^^^^^

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  #128  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:03 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 32,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Abelard View Post
Control of a vehicle that was crashed and pointed in another direction?

Calling it a lethal weapon seems a bit grasping.
Referring to an adult with a loaded firearm within reach, as an unarmed boy , goes way beyond grasping.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #129  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:05 AM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Abelard View Post
You're trying to sell the accidental angle to a site of marksmen and hunters?

We all know what happened here: He killed an unarmed boy in anger. He got off on a subterfuge. But we all know it's BS.
What I know? The jury decided that he was not guilty.
  #130  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:11 AM
Ken07AOVette's Avatar
Ken07AOVette Ken07AOVette is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 17,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbuckwsm View Post
Shouldnít witnesses be subpoenaed for testimony and not traded immunity for the same? Iíve stayed quiet on this so far but some of the stuff Iím reading is rediculous! There was a reason they were on the Stanley farm and it wasnít because they were the welcome wagon! Unfortunately we arenít now following a court case on the perpetrators!

Not going after Ken, just adding my 2 cents
I agree they should have been tried for assault to the wife, wilful damage to private property, attempted theft, assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful posession of a firearm, using a firearm to commit a crime, criminal trespass, uttering threats, public intoxication, but the truth is a slimy lawyer provided by the FN band would cry Gladue and nothing would come of their charges.
The prosecutor may have saved us untold thousands of tax dollars doing it this way, which ultimately freed Stanley.
__________________
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....
  #131  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:23 AM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,130
Default

I figure the penalty for Gerald Stanley is a little outrageous. As a gun owner I could very well be guilty of the same charges. Iím sure many of us would be. I donít know how Gerald stored his firearms but Iíll bet that he probably had them in a closet. More than likely they were in the same closet since he has lived there. I donít know how long the lived on the farm but Iíll guess that there never was a problem with storage until some degenerates came calling looking for trouble. It sure wouldnít hurt my feelings in these same type of degenerates went calling on our law makers.
  #132  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:38 AM
TrapperMike TrapperMike is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Alix
Posts: 266
Default

Anyone hear the story about someone trying to burn down the Stanley farm on the first trial day.
  #133  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:53 AM
NCC NCC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 1,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbuckwsm View Post
Shouldnít witnesses be subpoenaed for testimony and not traded immunity for the same? Iíve stayed quiet on this so far but some of the stuff Iím reading is rediculous! There was a reason they were on the Stanley farm and it wasnít because they were the welcome wagon! Unfortunately we arenít now following a court case on the perpetrators!

Not going after Ken, just adding my 2 cents

I feel the same. If I was out with my friends and one of them was shot and killed, I sure as hell would willingly testify against the person accused of killing him. It is beyond comprehension that the dead man's friends fled (one didn't find out he was dead until a day or two later) and then refused to testify against Stanley unless granted immunity.
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.

Gerry Burnie
  #134  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:54 AM
jef612 jef612 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
Careful now youll be labelled anti gun when you choose to have a different opinion then the usual posters here.

I spoke with a cop friend the other day who said stanley shouldnt have got off on the charges... but hey its just his opinion. We all have them but ....

The forum only wants to hear one type of opinion when it comes to stanleys case. If you dont cheer for the shooting of a sleeping man your not welcome here.
You sure have a mission here...
1) Just to clarify some of the facts for you: No one was sleeping when the gun went off. Not one participant in this event. Zero.
2) The "sleeping kid" you refer to was very awake, in the drivers seat and in control of the vehicle with a loaded weapon in arms reach. Those are facts.
3) You are well aware of the old saying about opinions, everyone has one. The difference between yours and many others is that THE FACTS do not support your opinion. It seems to be a small issue for you, but a big issue for some. Now you think the world is out to get you because no one wants to agree with your slanted view of events. It is an unfortunate situation for you, but one you will have to come to terms with, as the facts are not changing.
  #135  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:54 AM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperMike View Post
Anyone hear the story about someone trying to burn down the Stanley farm on the first trial day.
Haven't seen anything. What's the scoop?
  #136  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:56 AM
Freedom55's Avatar
Freedom55 Freedom55 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perdue SK
Posts: 1,143
Default Let sleeping dogs lie.

A good number of posts in this thread belong on the threads that were either closed or dismantled. Were we not speaking to the unlawful storage of a fire arm before some commenters branched out into another opinionated rant about an historical (and resolved) case?

Free
__________________
The more I practice the luckier I get
  #137  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:01 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 32,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC View Post
I feel the same. If I was out with my friends and one of them was shot and killed, I sure as hell would willingly testify against the person accused of killing him. It is beyond comprehension that the dead man's friends fled (one didn't find out he was dead until a day or two later) and then refused to testify against Stanley unless granted immunity.
This says a lot about the character of the vehicle occupants. It also says a lot about the prosecutor that thought that the testimony of drunken thieves would be seen as credible by a jury. In the end; it was lose, lose for the prosecutor, and the vehicle occupants are likely out committing more criminal acts. There were no winners, all involved were losers.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #138  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:05 AM
Ken07AOVette's Avatar
Ken07AOVette Ken07AOVette is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 17,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC View Post
I feel the same. If I was out with my friends and one of them was shot and killed, I sure as hell would willingly testify against the person accused of killing him. It is beyond comprehension that the dead man's friends fled (one didn't find out he was dead until a day or two later) and then refused to testify against Stanley unless granted immunity.
So If you were drunk and committing criminal trespass including attempted theft and agravated assault meaning you would also be brought up on charges you would testify? Would that be before it after you were charged and tried?
__________________
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....
  #139  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:06 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 6,836
Default Trolls

Don't feed the trolls fellas.
  #140  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:16 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwest Alta View Post
I figure the penalty for Gerald Stanley is a little outrageous. As a gun owner I could very well be guilty of the same charges. Iím sure many of us would be. I donít know how Gerald stored his firearms but Iíll bet that he probably had them in a closet.
He had them hanging all over his walls, in his bedroom, in the basement etc. None of them had trigger locks, none of them were locked up and there was ammunition within reach...

It was pure disregard for the law and anyone storing firearms the same way deserves to have them taken away and be given similar fines and firearm bans...
  #141  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:29 AM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 5,042
Default

Stanley stored his guns the way we all used to before the storage laws kicked in, adapting to new laws is part of firearm ownership whether we like it or not.
  #142  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:42 AM
NCC NCC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 1,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette View Post
So If you were drunk and committing criminal trespass including attempted theft and agravated assault meaning you would also be brought up on charges you would testify? Would that be before it after you were charged and tried?
You make a valid point, but regardless of what I was being charged with, I would still be interested in seeing justice for my friend. I didn't think it through from the criminal's point of view where saving themselves was more important than seeing justice for their friend. Maybe all of the anger that is directed towards the Stanley's, the prosecutor, and the jury should be directed towards Colten Bouchie's cohorts for bombing the prosecution's case.
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.

Gerry Burnie
  #143  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:45 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 32,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette View Post
So If you were drunk and committing criminal trespass including attempted theft and agravated assault meaning you would also be brought up on charges you would testify? Would that be before it after you were charged and tried?
How much was your friends life worth to you? How bad do you want to see someone held accountable? Whether they chose to testify or not, every one of them should have been charged. At least it might have slowed down their crime sprees for a while, if they ended up being convicted.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #144  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:58 AM
Ken07AOVette's Avatar
Ken07AOVette Ken07AOVette is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 17,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC View Post
(1)You make a valid point, (2)but regardless of what I was being charged with, I would still be interested in seeing justice for my friend. (3)I didn't think it through from the criminal's point of view where saving themselves was more important than seeing justice for their friend. (4)Maybe all of the anger that is directed towards the Stanley's, the prosecutor, and the jury should be directed towards Colten Bouchie's cohorts for bombing the prosecution's case.
(1)thank you, (2)depends on your state of mind and intent at the time, (very likely many have not, and (4) I agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
How much was your friends life worth to you? How bad do you want to see someone held accountable? Whether they chose to testify or not, every one of them should have been charged. At least it might have slowed down their crime sprees for a while, if they ended up being convicted.
Depends on the 'friend', lifelong or met at the bar while drinking, there are factors that are unavailable to the peanut gallery. And I agree completely, they should have all been charged and have had to testify before/after their own trials, I do not care which. But, again, and this is a WAG, but did the Crown do Stanley a favor in prosecuting the way they did? Huge WAG, but did they know it would be a Gladue response because of the people involved and chose to go this way?
__________________
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....
  #145  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:13 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 32,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette View Post
(1)thank you, (2)depends on your state of mind and intent at the time, (very likely many have not, and (4) I agree



Depends on the 'friend', lifelong or met at the bar while drinking, there are factors that are unavailable to the peanut gallery. And I agree completely, they should have all been charged and have had to testify before/after their own trials, I do not care which. But, again, and this is a WAG, but did the Crown do Stanley a favor in prosecuting the way they did? Huge WAG, but did they know it would be a Gladue response because of the people involved and chose to go this way?
Regardless of the prosecutors reasoning, he lost the Stanley case AND criminals were not held accountable. He failed in every way.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #146  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:16 AM
Looper's Avatar
Looper Looper is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
He had them hanging all over his walls, in his bedroom, in the basement etc. None of them had trigger locks, none of them were locked up and there was ammunition within reach...

It was pure disregard for the law and anyone storing firearms the same way deserves to have them taken away and be given similar fines and firearm bans...
Hanging all over his walls??????

Drama much?

Looper
  #147  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:50 AM
Kurt505's Avatar
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 10,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jef612 View Post
You sure have a mission here...
1) Just to clarify some of the facts for you: No one was sleeping when the gun went off. Not one participant in this event. Zero.
2) The "sleeping kid" you refer to was very awake, in the drivers seat and in control of the vehicle with a loaded weapon in arms reach. Those are facts.
3) You are well aware of the old saying about opinions, everyone has one. The difference between yours and many others is that THE FACTS do not support your opinion. It seems to be a small issue for you, but a big issue for some. Now you think the world is out to get you because no one wants to agree with your slanted view of events. It is an unfortunate situation for you, but one you will have to come to terms with, as the facts are not changing.

I can't quote the garbage R3illy posted because it finally seems his whacked out claims are being checked.

Here is an unbiased article on the case which states only the facts of what happened that day and paints the true picture of what actually went on. Anyone who does not agree that the Stanley's are the victims, not the thugs, is delusional.

https://www.google.com/amp/thestarph...d-on-stand/amp


Morel of the story, don't go looking for trouble and life will be fine...... unless you have a group of thugs interrupt your peaceful life.
__________________
History has shown a slicktrick is no substitute for an intelligent action.
  #148  
Old 04-18-2018, 12:06 PM
Kurt505's Avatar
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 10,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
He had them hanging all over his walls, in his bedroom, in the basement etc. None of them had trigger locks, none of them were locked up and there was ammunition within reach...

It was pure disregard for the law and anyone storing firearms the same way deserves to have them taken away and be given similar fines and firearm bans...
It's amazing more people weren't killed sooner hey?
__________________
History has shown a slicktrick is no substitute for an intelligent action.
  #149  
Old 04-18-2018, 01:06 PM
6.5swedeforelk 6.5swedeforelk is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: N. Canada
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette View Post
So If you were drunk and committing criminal trespass including attempted theft and agravated assault meaning you would also be brought up on charges you would testify? Would that be before it after you were charged and tried?
The prosecutor surely would have explained the immunity
from prosecution stemming from your testimony,
to the witness.

I believe the Canada evidence act covers this.

But I'm assuming some form of intelligence.
  #150  
Old 04-18-2018, 01:10 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Regardless of the prosecutors reasoning, he lost the Stanley case AND criminals were not held accountable. He failed in every way.
This was a jury trial and there is nothing that I have read to indicate that the prosecutor was negligent in any way.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.