LIVE: Reaction to not guilty verdict in Gerald Stanley’s second-degree murder trial

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


The jury has reached a verdict in Gerald Stanley’s second-degree murder trial. This is the scene outside of the courthouse in Battleford, Sask.
To read more:

»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos:

Connect with CBC News Online:

For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage:
Find CBC News on Facebook:
Follow CBC News on Twitter:
For breaking news on Twitter:
Follow CBC News on Instagram:

Download the CBC News app for iOS:
Download the CBC News app for Android:

For more than 75 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio,, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.


Trevor r says:

Sorry uncle, but the jury got it right, justice was served. And doesn’t matter about race or religion, raise your kids to not be thieving little shits and they won’t run the risk of meeting someone willing to defend themselves from them. Nice job bringing up the race card when it doesn’t go your way though.

Paul Whibbs says:

Natives never stood a chance. The west had mathematics, built and sailed ocean worthy vessels, created the telescope, the steam engine – list goes on and on. Natives never even learned to forge steel. They were happy to do their thing in the Americas living off the land. I'm not putting them down. Just pointing out the difference in cultures. Combine the two cultures and it's a recipe for disaster especially 600 years ago. Read"Guns, Germs and Steel" or "This Indian Country". Both informative books.

phat Hi says:

It was an open and shot case, to soon

Carol Hama says:

None of the Boushie family mentioned what the motive was of this armed gang of people driving onto the Stanley farm. I think Canadians should have the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property. THIS IS NOT A RACIAL ISSUE, the Boushie family is trying to use it to gain support. This is a case of a man trying to defend his property from armed intruders. Because they are 'treaty people' does not give them the right to do whatever they want and get away scott-free. I HOPE all Canadians will finally be able to legally defend ourselves, our families and our property against armed intruders who enter our property illegally with intent. I hope they lose their appeal if they apply for one.

Augie Doggie says:

Boushie's relatives are all ignoring the fact that he was armed,drunk and attempting to steal a vehicle from an innocent farmer while on a crime spree.Another fine example of aboriginal leaders using tragedy to further their political ends while ignoring the actual events.Too bad the CBC is not an objective media outlet,and has become a propaganda wing of the Liberal Party

chloweful says:

If the “victim.” Was white, and Gerald was black… no one would’ve even batted an eye.

chloweful says:

“A white jury” Jesus I can taste his hatred for us…

Still ticking says:

Gerald Stanley, the suspect and his lawyer admitted in court that the suspect had tried to barge into the victim's SUV and tried to seize the victim's key from the ignition, but his gun was fired accidentally. So, the suspect admitted his guilt of killing a person because when he tried to barge into the victim's car to seize the victim's car key already in the ignition, seemed like he was trying to stop the victim from leaving, he fired the gun and killed victim accidentally.

So, how could a suspect at court did not deny killing the victim unintentionally, but then found not guilty and been acquitted of any crime? Please tell me why these make sense!
Show less

T says:

how is this a race case?

Zachery Lewis says:

Imagine if a native did the same thing to a white man, they would find him guilty asap

Tim Hick says:

Gerald Stanley should have shot all 4 of them

Tim Hick says:

Justice WAS served finally….don't go around armed stealing from people ….he got what he deserved end of story

nope nope says:

The real reaction to this verdict is in the comment sections.

Terry Wilson says:

This is a long one. Since the comments on most of the CBC News videos related to the case are disabled, I'm going to have to basically comment on all of them at once here. First, CBC News can have a like on the video; they are the uploader, not the participants. I really appreciate that the comments are enabled on this one, and that we have a variety of them.

1. This case does seem to have a problem with evidence handling, and it seems if "the law" screwed up, it is there. The shooting scene wasn't properly protected from the weather after these events occurred, and a significant amount of evidence was lost as a result. Probably just about everything I'm interested in below for 3.

2. It drives me rather nuts that the family keeps harping on there not being anyone "visibly" native on the jury. You don't have to be red to be First Nations, period end of story. I know at least three people personally who are card-carrying First Nations members able to legally hunt on reserve without a hunting license, and I thought they were white when I first met them. What this probably means is that natives actually were on the jury and the family is trying to twist that issue. (It also speaks to my color-blindness, i.e. I don't care about race and also have a physical red-green deficiency that probably masks native skin tones.) This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with jury selection and race, but if the family wants to falsely inflate it, that's a bigger problem. It is privileged information, which makes it very hard to refute them, and I'm not exactly handy to Battleford.

3. The justice system in Canada, as in the US, operates on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If there is a reasonable doubt, the defendant should not be found guilty, even if he is. The case against him doesn't have to be sealed airtight or we probably wouldn't be able to convict anyone and society would fall apart, but it does need to be pretty strong. The main bone of contention seems to be whether the weapon which killed Boushie was discharged intentionally. I'm very interested in those details, especially anything indicating what the weapon's orientation was at discharge (e.g. discharged propellant residual and/or hot gas damage to the dashboard and/or steering wheel of the vehicle) and whether Stanley's finger was on the trigger. (Most of my experience has been with video arcade light guns, but I am in the habit of keeping my finger out of the guard until I have a target – and that's in an environment where I'm expending hundreds of "rounds" per loonie (that's the nickname of both the Canadian dollar and the one dollar coin) and the weapon is completely harmless short of maybe trying to garrote someone with the cord.) It's starting to sound to me like there was a live round stuck either in the ejection port or the feed lip, which chambered when the bolt closed some point between when Stanley removed the magazine and the moment of discharge. There is a possibility that the primer was struck either by a loose firing pin or some other object when the bolt closed, allowing the round to fire without the trigger being pulled. If anyone can point to anything examining these questions, please shoot me a search term or watch?v=code. (I was a Brass Fetcher fan for years before this happened; lemme check my sub, brb. My sub was off, resubbed. There, terminal ballistics videos outnumber internal ballistics videos about ten to one, which is annoying since I find internal ballistics and engine operation so fascinating.)

4. The people who set up the circumstances in which Stanley family weapons and tools delivered harmful energy in the general direction of Colton Boushie and his friends were Colton Boushie and his friends. They were driving drunk, causing property damage, threatening people and attempting to steal vehicles. Anyone placed in the position of having to defend against such whackos, whether they are red, black, white, or even blue (blue meaning police) should be cut an awful lot of slack when facing justice for his actions during the resulting panic.

5. Boushie and his traveling companions proved to be unreliable witnesses as well, which compromises any testimonial evidence against Gerald Stanley. With the physical evidence compromised as well (see point 1), an acquittal in this case in our human justice system is to be expected, even if the Guy on the white throne would call it murder. I would have been quite worried had this trial come to any other conclusion, i.e. if racial tensions can trump a dearth of evidence to produce a conviction under these circumstances.

The Management says:

Drunk on drugs stealing, regardless you don't point a gun at someone and shoot them

glorioustrap says:

In Canada, you cannot Legally use a firearm for self-defense (Not against people. Unless the assailants are also armed and intend to use it, then it falls into a grey area in law). Is still illegal to discharge a restricted firearm anywhere outside of the range (i am not sure if this is applied in extreme circumstance), but didn't Gerald admit that he uses to scare animal in other occasions? I don't think the guy is guilty of second-degree murder, this is just an extreme case of self-defense. But he is definitely guilty of firearm misconduct.
Disclaimer: I learned this from my firearm instructor, not sure if wat i wrote factual according to the law.

Hung Lo says:

In the end, the outcome couldn't have been better for the FNs. Now, they have another FN "genocide/holocaust" issue to rail against – the Canadian justice system. Now they have another reason to gather and bang on their drums and howl at the moon. They may want to be careful in their demands for a review of "said" system as they my lose some of the privileges they enjoy in lenient sentencing such as "sentencing circles" and the "Gladue" decision which takes into account their endemic "victimhood" that comes with being an FN.

imoon001 says:

Sry your kid died bro….but dont tresspass..rules are rules

R Vanzo says:

Justice has been served. The right to self defense is a fundamental human right.

vic vin says:

That moment, when you realize you could have saved your rifle stock by using a tire-iron to break in the truck…on your way to get help for flat tire ; Priceless

Write a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: