[BeaverFever]

This article says 175 but I see where others say the initial call was for 750. I guess 750 summons get mailed out and from the responses mailed back, 175 get called in. Responding to jury summons is definitely not optional.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e37957170/

You should have to give a reason. If your strategy is to dismiss everyone of a certain race because a lawyer thinks only white people have the intellectual capacity to impartially jude a case then the lawyer should have the gonads to stand up and say that on the written record and let it follow him.

By the way Lawyers can always challenge a potential juror “for cause” meaning that they allege the person has a bias, and there is a process to deal with that : the judge then asks the juror a number of questions pre-approved by the lawyers and then rules on fitness for jury.

But a preemptive challenge is mot that; it allows either side to unilaterally dismiss jurors without cause and the lawyers don’t even know anything about the jurors they’re dismissing except what they can judge from their physical appearance so it’s based on nothing but race, sex and class bias.

There is mo moral basis for it.

[newz]

Thanos Thanos:

This is a catastrophe in the making, and all because the Liberals want to play their usual goody-two-shoes diversity card for their own political gain.

Perhaps i have misjudged you. Your words ring true.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This article says 175 but I see where others say the initial call was for 750. I guess 750 summons get mailed out and from the responses mailed back, 175 get called in. Responding to jury summons is definitely not optional.

Seems it is in Sask.

$1:

Charles Hamilton
@_chamilton

CORRECTION: 225 people responded to the summons
6:29 PM - 29 Jan 2018

Jason Warick
@WarickCBC

Looks like more than 500 no-shows for jury duty. With dozens more just excused for medical or other reasons, that appears to leave less than 200 to choose from. #sask
6:40 PM - 29 Jan 2018

Charles Hamilton
@_chamilton

So from 750 summoned, just over 200 showed up here. Already dozens have been excused. Pool is getting smaller. Still a ways to get to 12 and 2 alternates.

Want to fix the system ?

Fine the 500 who no-showed.

$1:

You should have to give a reason. If your strategy is to dismiss everyone of a certain race because a lawyer thinks only white people have the intellectual capacity to impartially jude a case then the lawyer should have the gonads to stand up and say that on the written record and let it follow him.

Would you accept,

"My jury selection person overheard this person in the hallway saying
"I'm gonna hang that white fucking devil""


as a valid reason ?


Or,

FB post, "That settler farmer bastard needs to die"


All this would would wildly increase costs for the defense, and let
people WITH biases onto juries.




Next time you are called for jury duty, state that you would rather not serve as juror as you don't wish the PM (or any Gov official) calling you a racist.

Just watch, people will use this excuse. And it will work.



After Ghomesi, the alt lefties were crying that 'women MUST be believed',
without question, all the time.

Innocent until proven guilty ? Nah, doesn't apply anymore.

Now, all white juries are racist. We must force diversity into the legal system.

Fair trial for a defendant ? Nope.

Because only whitey is racist.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

Would you accept,

"My jury selection person overheard this person in the hallway saying
"I'm gonna hang that white fucking devil""


as a valid reason ?


Or,

FB post, "That settler farmer bastard needs to die"


All this would would wildly increase costs for the defense, and let
people WITH biases onto juries.

Of course . And those are already reasons.

To clarify: lawyers can already dismiss an unlimited number of jurors with cause, such as bias. In addition to this, you can dismiss a set number for no reason at all and that’s the part that needs to change. Stop giving examples of people dismissed for readon in order to justify dismissing people without reason.

$1:

Next time you are called for jury duty, state that you would rather not serve as juror as you don't wish the PM (or any Gov official) calling you a racist.

Just watch, people will use this excuse. And it will work.

Ok I’m watching.

$1:

After Ghomesi, the alt lefties were crying that 'women MUST be believed',
without question, all the time.

Innocent until proven guilty ? Nah, doesn't apply anymore.

Now, all white juries are racist. We must force diversity into the legal system.

Fair trial for a defendant ? Nope.

Because only whitey is racist.

Again, I have no opinion on the verdict in this case but it’s funny that some people on the right are always the “guilty until proven innocent”, hang-em high, death-penalty-for-everything, criminals-don’t-deserve-fair-trials, law and order crowd until there’s a race or gender component then suddenly they’re bleeding heart “rights of the accused” activists out to defend white/male defendant.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Tricks Tricks:

I'd love to know how terrible a proposed change would be.

It might be due. But the alternative should also retain the accused right's to choose a jury 'of their peers'.

It should retain all the rights present in the Charter. Maybe they should look at the fact that 70% of the jury summons didn't show up? That's how you fix the system. When you compel someone to show up, make sure they actually do.

A law unenforced is no law. Start charging people with failure to appear for a jury summons, or the summons has no meaning.

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This article says 175 but I see where others say the initial call was for 750. I guess 750 summons get mailed out and from the responses mailed back, 175 get called in. Responding to jury summons is definitely not optional.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e37957170/

I don't think that's right, and I think that article is seriously skewing the actual story. Comments from the day of jury selection said they were expecting 750 and far less showed up. The judge ordered to have the ones who didn't investigated. That's a bad article and a bad journalist, considering they didn't even mention that.

$1:

You should have to give a reason. If your strategy is to dismiss everyone of a certain race because a lawyer thinks only white people have the intellectual capacity to impartially jude a case then the lawyer should have the gonads to stand up and say that on the written record and let it follow him.

I don't think humans in general have the intellectual capacity to impartially judge a case. But it's not a perfect system, and it never will be a perfect system. If it's a trial for hate crimes against muslims, I wouldn't want muslims on the jury. Same for jews, christians, black people, white people, asian people etc. When someone is part of "your group" and they get killed, it's bound to make you emotional. Removing those emotional people out for the jurors is a completely valid thing to do in my eyes. It has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with human nature.

$1:

By the way Lawyers can always challenge a potential juror “for cause” meaning that they allege the person has a bias, and there is a process to deal with that : the judge then asks the juror a number of questions pre-approved by the lawyers and then rules on fitness for jury.

I'm well aware of that. Read my post, as I mentioned it. And the judge isn't who rules on it, the previous 2 selected jurors do. Hence my issue, because I'd far more trust a judge to be impartial about it than random ass people.

$1:

But a preemptive challenge is mot that; it allows either side to unilaterally dismiss jurors without cause and the lawyers don’t even know anything about the jurors they’re dismissing except what they can judge from their physical appearance so it’s based on nothing but race, sex and class bias.

There is mo moral basis for it.

Is this the mansplaining that people complain about? Fuck it's annoying. I literally just gave you a scenario for it to exist.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A law unenforced is no law. Start charging people with failure to appear for a jury summons, or the summons has no meaning.

Exactly. Perhaps the defence wouldn't have been able to dismiss all the FN potentials if the other 500 people showed up. If 5 showed up for 200, then it's reasonable to assume another 7 would have been there at the very least.

[redhatmamma]

A juror speaks out..http://torontosun.com/news/national/mal ... -jury-pool
Almost half of the prospective jurors in the Colten Boushie case were Aboriginal persons, according to one member of the jury pool.

However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun.

[Tricks]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

A juror speaks out..http://torontosun.com/news/national/mal ... -jury-pool
Almost half of the prospective jurors in the Colten Boushie case were Aboriginal persons, according to one member of the jury pool.

However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun.

I'd need something better than the sun to believe that.

[BeaverFever]

Tricks Tricks:

I don't think humans in general have the intellectual capacity to impartially judge a case. But it's not a perfect system, and it never will be a perfect system. If it's a trial for hate crimes against muslims, I wouldn't want muslims on the jury. Same for jews, christians, black people, white people, asian people etc. When someone is part of "your group" and they get killed, it's bound to make you emotional. Removing those emotional people out for the jurors is a completely valid thing to do in my eyes. It has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with human nature.

Sorry this argument a major fail. First nowhere else in Canada are you allowed to presume anything about a persons character, thoughts emotions or beliefs based solely on what ethicity they are, let alone what ethnicity or religion YOU THINK THEY LOOK LIKE, which is what happens here. It’s un-Canadian.

And I SAY YET AGAIN if you think someone is biased you can challenge them and have them answer a series of questions to identify the bias.

Also curious that you only mention the race of the accused victim? I think you’re trying to thread a needle here. So if a Muslim was on trial for murdering a Jew, there should be no Jews allowed on the jury but an all-Muslim jury would be ok??? I mean if an all-white jury was ok for this case then why not?

And if you really truly believe that anyone and everyone of a certain ethnicity or religion should be disqualified from a jury of a particular trial then you should have to stand up in court and make that argument not simply have the jurors individually dismissed for unspecified reasons because you’re too cowardly to admit what your true motives are.

$1:

Is this the mansplaining that people complain about? Fuck it's annoying. I literally just gave you a scenario for it to exist.

[/quote]
No you didn’t. You gave a scenario where someone should be dismissed with cause, not where someone should be dismissed without cause. Do you not understand the difference between “with” and “without” or do I need to manslpain it to you also?

PS Are you a woman? I always thought you were a guy.

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No you didn’t. You gave a scenario where someone should be dismissed with cause, not where someone should be dismissed without cause. Do you not understand the difference between “with” and “without” or do I need to manslpain it to you also?

PS Are you a woman? I always thought you were a guy.

Oh it's a reading comprehension issue. I'll bold the important part. Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but is it even legal to challenge someone based on their race? I know some U.S. jurisdictions don't allow for it.

$1:

Because sometimes you should rule someone out because of a potential for bias, in a way that may not be allowed.

This means that while someone may have bias because of something identifiable, we may not be able to argue this as a cause. We should be able to rule those people out without a challenge. And the reason we can't argue it is because it will either a) piss of other jurors and immediately taint the case, or b) fail, and now you've pissed off that juror.

In this case of the stanley trial, I 100% believe that it would be near impossible for an indigenous person, on average, to separate emotion from their duty of being a juror. The response to the trial quite frankly proves that.

Convenient you ignore everything else about my post.

[BeaverFever]

Tricks Tricks:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No you didn’t. You gave a scenario where someone should be dismissed with cause, not where someone should be dismissed without cause. Do you not understand the difference between “with” and “without” or do I need to manslpain it to you also?

PS Are you a woman? I always thought you were a guy.

Oh it's a reading comprehension issue. I'll bold the important part. Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but is it even legal to challenge someone based on their race? I know some U.S. jurisdictions don't allow for it.

$1:

Because sometimes you should rule someone out because of a potential for bias, in a way that may not be allowed.

This means that while someone may have bias because of something identifiable, we may not be able to argue this as a cause. We should be able to rule those people out without a challenge. And the reason we can't argue it is because it will either a) piss of other jurors and immediately taint the case, or b) fail, and now you've pissed off that juror.

No first of all you can’t assume to know what ethnicity people are. You can’t exclude brown skined people because you can’t tell the difference between a Cree and a Pakistani

Second you can’t assume that just because someone belongs to a certain racial or ethnic group that they have bias towards that group, let alone be so unreasonably biased they will violate their duty as a juror. There is test to determine impartiality if you have reason to believe a specific individual may be biased and im not aware of it ever tainting the case. I’m not even sure if the juror would even necessarily be aware which side wyquestioning his impartiality.

The Jim Crow South has history books full of wrongfully convicted black men and wrongfully acquitted white men, due to the same arguments you’re making here.

Third why aren’t you concerned that any of the white jury members could be biased against FN people?

$1:

In this case of the stanley trial, I 100% believe that it would be near impossible for an indigenous person, on average, to separate emotion from their duty of being a juror. The response to the trial quite frankly proves that.

But what about the response from the white people? There have been equally extreme if not worse responses from them response. You seem to fall into the same old trap of assuming only white people are free-thinking individuals who should be judged on their own personal merits while other races and ethnicities should be judged collectively

$1:

Convenient you ignore everything else about my post.

I didn’t ignore anything. But speaking of which you didn’t answer my question about Jews and Muslims

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No first of all you can’t assume to know what ethnicity people are. You can’t exclude brown skined people because you can’t tell the difference between a Cree and a Pakistani

if you can't tell the difference between a FAN and a Pakistani individual, you might need some glasses

$1:

Second you can’t assume that just because someone belongs to a certain racial or ethnic group that they have bias towards that group, let alone be so unreasonably biased they will violate their duty as a juror.

This is actually pretty well documented in osychology. Typically speaking, people, in the case of mushy evidence (like this case) will favour people of the same race.

$1:

Thereest to determine impartiality if you have reason to believe a specific individual may be biased and im not aware of it ever tainting the case. I’m not even sure if the juror would even necessarily be aware which side wyquestioning his impartiality.

The previous jurors who make the decision could be though.

$1:

Third why aren’t you concerned that any of the white jury members could be biased against FN people?

I am. I think it's just as valid the other way around. If the races were switched around in this case, I'm not sure it would have ended the same. The problem is that we are a white majority country, and that's largely unavoidable. At that point they'd probably rule people out on political preference through questioning.

$1:

But what about the response from the white people? There have been equally extreme if not worse responses from them response. You seem to fall into the same old trap of assuming only white people are free-thinking individuals who should be judged on their own personal merits while other races and ethnicities should be judged collectively

except I never said that. You do have a habit of putting words in people mouths. I said white people would favour not convicting someone of their own race. That's why they pick that way for the defense. It's part of the defense strategy.

$1:

I didn’t ignore anything. But speaking of which you didn’t answer my question about Jews and Muslims

What? Where was that?

[BeaverFever]

Tricks Tricks:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No first of all you can’t assume to know what ethnicity people are. You can’t exclude brown skined people because you can’t tell the difference between a Cree and a Pakistani

if you can't tell the difference between a FAN and a Pakistani individual, you might need some glasses

That doesn’t really adress the point I made

$1:

Second you can’t assume that just because someone belongs to a certain racial or ethnic group that they have bias towards that group, let alone be so unreasonably biased they will violate their duty as a juror.

$1:

This is actually pretty well documented in osychology. Typically speaking, people, in the case of mushy evidence (like this case) will favour people of the same race.

So does this mean the all-white jury that was biased? I feel like you kinda snookered yourself there

Also that assertion doesn’t have any basis in law. You can generally only treat people on their actual proven individual character traits, not the trsits some study claims they might possibly have.

$1:

Thereest to determine impartiality if you have reason to believe a specific individual may be biased and im not aware of it ever tainting the case. I’m not even sure if the juror would even necessarily be aware which side wyquestioning his impartiality.

$1:

The previous jurors who make the decision could be though.

. I don’t follow.

$1:

Third why aren’t you concerned that any of the white jury members could be biased against FN people?

$1:

I am. I think it's just as valid the other way around. If the races were switched around in this case, I'm not sure it would have ended the same. The problem is that we are a white majority country, and that's largely unavoidable. At that point they'd probably rule people out on political preference through questioning.

Why only if the races were switched? Why do you think a pro-white bias could only exist with a white victim but couldn’t exist with a white accused?

$1:

But what about the response from the white people? There have been equally extreme if not worse responses from them response. You seem to fall into the same old trap of assuming only white people are free-thinking individuals who should be judged on their own personal merits while other races and ethnicities should be judged collectively

$1:

except I never said that. You do have a habit of putting words in people mouths. I said white people would favour not convicting someone of their own race. That's why they pick that way for the defense. It's part of the defense strategy.

I’m not putting words in your mouth, you’re just not being very clear. So now you’re admitting that the white people are just as likely to biased in favour of the accused as FN people are like to be biased against the accused?

$1:

I didn’t ignore anything. But speaking of which you didn’t answer my question about Jews and Muslims

$1:

What? Where was that?

Couple posts up, I’ve reposted below. To be fair, the tags in my post were wrong so the paragraphs originally were wrongly showing in a quote from you: I’ve fixed the post. My bad.

Also by “you” in the post below I’m not referring to you specifically, I mean the hypothetical person arguing in court

$1:

sorry this argument a major fail. First nowhere else in Canada are you allowed to presume anything about a persons character, thoughts emotions or beliefs based solely on what ethicity they are, let alone what ethnicity or religion YOU THINK THEY LOOK LIKE, which is what happens here. It’s un-Canadian.

And I SAY YET AGAIN if you think someone is biased you can challenge them and have them answer a series of questions to identify the bias.

Also curious that you only mention the race of the accused victim? I think you’re trying to thread a needle here. So if a Muslim was on trial for murdering a Jew, there should be no Jews allowed on the jury but an all-Muslim jury would be ok??? I mean if an all-white jury was ok for this case then why not?

And if you really truly believe that anyone and everyone of a certain ethnicity or religion should be disqualified from a jury of a particular trial then you should have to stand up in court and make that argument not simply have the jurors individually dismissed for unspecified reasons because you’re too cowardly to admit what your true motives are.