Gerald Stanley Vs. Colton Boushie Case Analysis

Gerald Stanley Vs. Colton Boushie Case Analysis

Introduction

The case involves the shooting of Colton Boushie on 9^th august 2016. The crime was said to have been committed by Stanley. Colton was an indigenous 22-year-old man. He was a member of Cree Red Pheasant First Nation (CRPFN) (Barrett-Mills 113) Jake. Although the story about the case was later convoluted, the fact is that the indigenous man, together with the other four men, experienced a flat tire. The situation forced them to go onto a property that belonged to Stanley. At this point, one among the five men tried to start an ATV. The ATV was stored on the property. In protection of the property, Stanley fired two shots to scare the group away. After the release of the warning bullets, Stanley went to the scene where the group had parked their vehicle (Barrett-Mills 115). He found Boushie sitting at the passenger’s seat, where he shot him to death. The case was taken to court, whereby Stanley was accused of the murder. The case has been in progress, and n 9^th February 2018, Stanley was said to be innocent of manslaughter and second-degree murder. The decision was arrived at after some facts were provided to the court through witnesses. The paper seeks to present a clear analysis of the court from the first day it was presented to the jury up to the day of rendering verdict.

According to various investigations that were conducted about Stanley’s case, his criminal trial was fraught with several issues that are based on the historical and continued discernment of Canada towards the indigenous individuals. According to Roach & Kent, the treaty six negotiations between Cree Chief Mistahi-masakwa and Alexander Morris, the Lieutenant Govern it is true that there were elements of discrimination in Stanley’s case. Following the words of Chief Mistahi-masakwa that people of his side were afraid of hanging, it implies that there was a lack of freedom to his people (Barrett-Mills 117). The term hanging was not a direct word, but the Chief meant that there was no freedom among his people. According to the studies, there are several cases of failure by the jury. For instance, hangings of different people such as Louis Reil, Metis leader, and exceptionally unjust Battleford 8 hangings are some of the indications that the country’s jury has failed.

Statement of Facts

These are some of the reasons why the scenario was presented to the court. The primary fact that contributed to the court was as stated. A group of five men spent their day drinking and swimming, when going back home they got a puncture of their SUV vehicle tire. They drove to a specific farm where they tried to steal a truck. After the failure of the first stealing attempt, they drove onto Stanley’s farm (Barrett-Mills 115). Here one of the members tried to steal ATV.

According to Gerald’s son Sheldon, the two, father and son, broke the SUV’s windscreen, whereby two men came out of the SUV and escape. The son went back to the house to get keys of the truck (Roach & Kent 1).  He said that while in the house, he heard three shots of a gun where he saw Gerald, his father having a handgun and magazine (Barrett-Mills 117). According to the son’s testimony to the jury, Gerald claimed that the gun went off and that he was only trying to scare the group of men away whom he thought that they had evil motives.

According to Gerald meanwhile explanation, the scene was chaotic since it involved attempted ATV stealing and collision. Following Gerald’s explanation, he had loaded the handgun with two bullets that he fired to the air but not directly to the SUV. However, as he was trying to confirm that the handgun was empty, he accidentally shot Boushie on his head. The above facts make the case worthy of being taken to court.

Statement of the Issues

The issues that were identified by the jury was said to have been influenced by the jurors who were selected (Roach & Kent 1). There are many complaints that the selection of the jurors was not favorable. There were claims that no single indigenous person made it to the jury. According to Baptiste, Boushie’s uncle, the family lost their faith since no one of the jurors was an indigenous person. According to Jade Tootoosis, who watched the process of selecting the jurors, he said that it was extremely frustrating (Barrett-Mills 119). Defense attorney and Crown were involved in the process of jurors’ selection. They selected five men and seven women for the jury from a sample of 750 people who had been identified as potential jurors. Out of the twelve jurors, none was indigenous. They were all white (Roach & Kent, 1). The complaint given was that the turnout of the 750 summoned was low during that Monday of selecting the jurors (Roach & Kent 1). Only 200 people showed up during the material day of the process, and it was said to be a challenge.

According to the selected jurors, several issues were observed. They included the exclusion of the indigenous community from the jury was due to the accusation of the racism by Stanley’s defense team (Roach & Kent 1). According to the jury composed of twelve members, one of the issues spotted was that Stanley killed Boushie. Additionally, the jury spotted that the claim by Stanley was not valid, and they referred to the excuses as “nonsense.” Following the aforementioned issues, the panel after the trial was left with three options: acquit Stanley, convict him of a lesser charge, or convict him for second-degree murder.

Jury’s reasoning

There is crucial information that ought to be well understood by the panel before the trial. The first thing is to know the disputed case with evidence. For the case of Stanley, the information that was crucial before trial was for the jury to have clear information about the contested case with testimony from any relevant source. The second piece of information knew the applicable law and its application. According to the case of Stanley, the jury reasoned that the claim by the Stanley that the shooting was accidental was nonsense, and therefore they dismissed it.

Analysis of Witnesses

One of the witnesses was a member of the group that was involved in the scenario, Cassidy Cross-White, an 18-year-old man. He said that he had lied about the attempt to break into the truck before driving to Stanley’s farm. Michael Plaxton noted that it was unreasonable for the court to say that the killing was intentional (Roach & Kent 1). He based his argument on the fact that the man was shot to death and that arguably, Stanley had a motive to use force. Belinda changed her statement ignoring the original report to police that Stanley killed Boushie. Earlier she had told the jury that the defendant had twice shot Boushie. The earlier information that had been provided to the panel by the witnesses had started changing the course.

Among the people who were involved in Stanley’s case is Judge Bauer. The role of Judge Bauer is to work with the provincial ministry of justice as a civil servant in the Queen’s Bench Courts (Roach & Kent 1). For the case of Stanley, he was working as a prosecutor.

In conclusion, according to the analysis, the verdict that the court rendered about Stanley’s case was not valid. The shooting happened sue to the notion that the group in SUV composed of thieves. Under that perspective, the killing was not intentional, as the court suggested (Roach & Kent 1). Following the case, generally, the nations were affected in two levels micro and macro. Under the micro level, the Boushie’s nation lost a productive laborer. In contrast, according to the macro level, the two countries lost a substantial amount of aggregate production since Stanley was in detention, and Boushie was no more.

Work cited

Barrett-Mills, Jake. “REVIEW ESSAY: Canadian Justice, Indigenous Injustice: The Gerald Stanley and Colten Boushie Case (Kent Roach).” Transmission 5.2 (2019): 113-119.

Roach, Kent. “The Urgent Need to Reform Jury Selection after the Gerald Stanley and Colton Boushie Case.” (2018).

Roach, Kent. Canadian Justice, Indigenous Injustice: The Gerald Stanley and Colten Boushie Case. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, 2019.