A jury acquitted a man for shooting a burglar and a new trial has been ordered because the jury wasnt as triggered over the death of an indigenous man as they ought to have been. Perhaps the defendant should have taken into account his white male privilege and simply handed over his vehicle to the less fortunate man.

What i find most fascinating is that the wife of the would be burglar can face the media without any sense of shame for what her husband was doing when he was shot. Imo her husband already got the justice he deserved.

Where do our resident pardians stand on this issue?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/peter-khill-jon-styres-supreme-court-1.5569315

Khill was found not guilty following a 12-day trial in June 2018.

The Crown appealed that verdict and and Ontario's Cout of Appeal released its unanimous decision on Feb. 26, saying the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Khill's conduct leading up to the moment the trigger was pulled and Styres was killed.

That failure "left the jury unequipped to grapple with what may have been a crucial question in the evaluation of the reasonableness of Mr. Khill's act," reads the 48-page decision.

Lindsay Hill, Styres's partner and the the mother of his two children, previously said news of the decision left her feeling as though a weight had been lifted off her shoulders.

"I now still have some hope that Jon can get the justice he deserves."

This post was edited by duffman316 on May 15 2020 09:31am

Confusing.

You describe a car jacking. His lawyers describe a home invasion/burglary. The article describes a car being stolen.

Wtf happened lol.

I had a truck stolen and chopped up before i found it. Do you know you have to pay your insurance deductible when your car gets stolen? Lol

This post was edited by Skinned on May 15 2020 09:52am

Try to steal my car
You’ll get shot
And I won’t be sorry
That you are 6ft below w family morning the loss of you

He rolled the dice and he lost

Fuckin lost hard

A trial being redone because the jury did not receive adequate instruction is pretty typical. Why is this controversial?

canada's take on jeopardy is demented. There's no protection even when jeopardy is attached and an acquittal isn't final, because prosecutors can just wave their hands and request a new trial on something like completely subjective jury instructions
no equivalent of kepner v us in the land of timbits

I mean seriously, this is something that simply cannot happen in the US:



its not even some objective error of law or false statement. The jury already heard about his conduct during the trial. They were free to evaluate it and weigh it. This is like the prosecutors saying they want a second bite at the apple because they didn't like the taste of the first bite, and the appeals court says oh sure here have another.

so yeah, no castle doctrine is fucking stupid, but allowing double jeopardy is even worse

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 15 2020 11:07am

with how canada is headed i think we're just lucky its a retrial rather than being diverted to some unobjective tribunal to weigh his guilt based on the race of the "victim". they'd likely come away with a judgement that his race and the crimes against his people make his trespass nothing but payback for acts committed against natives 300 years ago, or worse yet that his culture's lack of recognition of property lines and property make him exempt from both trespass and theft.

This



Its controversial because it seems cut and dry.
A robber came to someones house (uninvited ans unwelcomed) clearly to steal something and got put down by someone attempting to protect his family and property.

That seems like case closed to me... Dont wanna get shot? Dont fuck with peoples stuff and definitely dont show up to someones house uninvited with ill intensions. Imo no reason to even re-open this case. Guy got what he deserved.

The legal system has procedures for a reason. If juries aren't properly educated that tarnishes the value of having a jury trial and needs correction. Someday if you have a case before a jury I'm sure you'll want them to be properly instructed, and if you don't think there is a good chance that you will have recourse in the event of an error like this it will greatly impede trust in the system.

This doesn't seem to be a case where the jury "got it right" or "got it wrong", but that the system failed and therefore should repeat the process with the correct procedures.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 15 2020 02:17pm

That is the courts fault. They should never peoceed without all facts or evidence or any given pieces of the puzzle. It sounds like the court rushed something and failed hard. Imo that doesnt mean he should have to go through all those emotions all over again, keep in mind all this takes a huge emotional toll on their family as well.... Not everyone can take a life and just live normal... If they have a retrial and hes found innocent (agai , as he should be) then he should have some level of compensation for having to stand two trials and beimg put through all of that due to the courts short commings. I'm not certain how things work legally in Canada but in most countries he would be calable of sueing the court for similar situations.

Bit extreme to say somebody deserves loss of life for theft....