Saturday, February 10, 2018

Colten Boushie Acquittal


I know little about the trial and the acquittal in the Colten Boushie homicide.

So this is an off the top of my gut reaction.

Why do people who didn’t sit through the trial nor sit with the jury during its deliberations so quickly criticize the verdict? 

Why can’t it be as simple as the defence having raised a reasonable doubt about Stanley’s intent?

Why is Trudeau weighing in saying, paraphrase, “Canadians have to do better”?

Is Trudeau saying the justice system didn’t/doesn’t operate legitimately when the results cut against prevailing narratives?

As someone who didn’t sit through the trial nor the jury deliberations, how does Trudeau have a clue as to any injustice here? 

Was he advised of the injustice by people who also didn’t sit through the trial, weigh the evidence, judge credibility, and hash it all out in jury deliberations? 

Is it so clear that racism predicted this result?

I’m open to be persuaded that this tragic but reasonably possible accidental loss of life should have resulted in a verdict of guilty.

But the law is that judicial results are prima facie—right until proved otherwise—correct.

So those rushing to judgment who have no first hand experience with the trial, the evidence, the forensics, the cross examination and credibility of witnesses and the weighing of all that by the jury, let alone the judge’s charge to it,  might want to step back, take a few breaths, and inform themselves of all this before feeding the beast of the narrative.

Not least Trudeau.

No comments:

Post a Comment