Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

She's not complaining about soaring HIV rates on Saskatchewan First Nations either.

Why? Because it is an article about housing and services, not about HIV or racist trigger-happy white people . Doesn't mean that either don't exist.

Nope it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But clean water, heat and a working septic system is probably more of a priority, I'm guessing.

Quote:
And you think no one does anything about corruption because we are afraid of being called racist?

White people yes.

Quote:
You said yourself that several chiefs have been removed; how do you think that happened if no one did anything? Perhaps read up on that one before making false assumptions.

3 cheifs one 1 reserve, one after another, being removed for corruption? With accusations seemingly being leveled against the 4th?  It sounds like getting them removed is a long drawn out battle with, I suspect, lots of people suffering in the process. I think they most likely facilitated it themselves. I think white people hear and know about it but don't want to get involved. I know someone who works with INAC who has seen it first hand but says she will lose her job if she(or anyone) speaks about it, in point of fact.

Quote:
And do you really think that having someone blown apart by the cops is the desired outcome, or that it justifies these trigger happy farmers' argument? Actually it means giving them a free rein is going to wind up with more dead people.

I think farmers who have people showing up with guns or shooting at them (Ed Smith) should have the same oppertunity to defend themselves like our police officers do.  Yup could wind up with "more dead people".  Suppose the theif that almost shot Ed Smith in the head decided NOT to leave but decided to turn around come back and force his way into their home? What if his intention was to murder the 80 year old couple and rob them? Or even just smash them around and tie them up?

Do you happen to live on a farm and are subject to the same theivery and violence Sask farmers face?

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

To use that oft-repeated road story, what would have happened if there had been some armed paranoid in that car instead of someone who knew the best thing to do was to keep driving?

It would have forced a confrontation, and people would have been killed. So how does that make firearms the solution?

The guy was trained so he knew what to do. I guess the guys jumped out of his way but I would not have blamed him if he hit them with his vehicle while escaping. 

I, on the other hand, tend to freeze. What would have happened to me? Would they just steal my pick-up or would they decide to have a little fun first? 

How do you know they wouldn't have shot the driver. Why did they have hand guns?  When Tim Bosna went for a test drive he didn't expect the men to kill him. No way to foresee that. There were no visible guns. How about if some men show up on a reserve with guns and masks and try to stop someone in a pick-up. 

What do you expect people to do? Wait until they shoot you? 

If you have a gun I'm going to assume you are willing to use it. I hope the knowledge that farmers are arming themselves discourages anyone from threatening them. 

Paladin1

Could someone link me to the story you're talking about drivers and guns?

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

Do you happen to live on a farm and are subject to the same theivery and violence Sask farmers face?

Well I have been living in the city for nearly 20 years, but in fact I grew up in the country. And in the 80s and 90s I worked for several newspapers so I was privy not only to the weekly police reports, but many things which were not reported to the police.

So yes, I do know a bit about the level of crime out there; I have had break-ins, including having a dog stolen, most certainly to train fighting dogs. The thieves were not FN.

I have had my gas tank sugared, perhaps  because of the anti-Uranium sticker on it. I have seen a guy run people off the road with his car because they were "dirty Indians". A good friend was assaulted and driven out of the community because everyone assumed as a single woman she must be a prostitute. A friend of my parents lived in fear of local white supremacists (including a cop) because he was seen as different. I have had to listen to a cop brag about turning the hose on Indigenous prisoners in the lockup.

I did own inherited rifles when I lived there , but it never occured to me that I might use them against people. I have had a neighbour - a white guy - show up at my door rifle in hand to make a point. And I know a neighbour had her dog taken out of its kennel on her property by someone and taken out and shot.

I could share a number of other things, but I have run into far more personal violence and crime in towns and cities - including the three murders that involved family and friends of mine - but hopefully that establishes my ability to speak on this subject.

But I do have to ask what you think corruption has to do - in any way - with this subject. And why you think it is only something that exists in First Nations communities, or why you think it means FN people don't consider racism a problem. I know everyone points to that as a smear and a distraction, but the fact is the biggest recent corruption scandal in this province is the GTH land deal which brought down former cabinet minister Bill Boyd. There were people reluctant to talk about that too, but it wasn't because of racism.

(edit)

It's the story you cited at #43. Everyone is mentioning that story.

 

Pondering

Smith, I want to respond to an earlier post but first I want to know what you think happened on the Stanley farm. Do you think that Gerald Stanley deliberately walked up to Colton, deliberately pointed the gun at his head, then excuted him? 

6079_Smith_W

Well let's break that down.

The claim that he didn't know that gun was loaded is absolutely not believable.

That gun does not fire without the trigger being pulled, hangfires only last a second, and that bullet, while an anomaly, did not change how the gun fired.

Think about reaching in to take the keys out of a car, while at the same time keeping a gun pointed behind someone's ear. If necessary go to a car yourself and try to recreate it, and think about how plausible it is.

So I don't know. But my gut says it was a deliberate act, and a lot of that is just lies. But even if it was not deliberate the notion anyone could find him not guilty of manslaughter is absurd. Well, not absurd actually. It was something else in this case. I know some disagree.

/drift

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The claim that he didn't know that gun was loaded is absolutely not believable.

Disagree. In a high stress situation when people are losing their fine motor skills and vision, hearing and awareness shrink it's believable that he doesn't realize the gun was loaded. Videos of police officers in shootouts trying to repeatedly pull the trigger of empty guns.

Quote:
That gun does not fire without the trigger being pulled, hangfires only last a second

Not always a second. This guys hangfire was 6 or 7 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za2ezCNvBeU

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I have been living in the city for nearly 20 years, but in fact I grew up in the country. And in the 80s and 90s I worked for several newspapers so I was privy not only to the weekly police reports, but many things which were not reported to the police.

So yes, I do know a bit about the level of crime out there; I have had break-ins, including having a dog stolen, most certainly to train fighting dogs. The thieves were not FN.

Holy shit that's a lot of experience dealing with crime.  Sounds pretty rough out there. I think once I had CDs stolen out of my car in Kingston but can't think of anything else off the top of my head.

Quote:

But I do have to ask what you think corruption has to do - in any way - with this subject.

I was responding to Pondering's post #31, specifically;

Quote:
What do you think young men like Colton see? He sees a farm that will be passed from father to son. Why? Because long ago settlers came and stole his people's land and drove them into poverty then seized their children. He sees a farm he nor anyone from his community will ever likely have. He lives in a trailer park with sewage under it.

She brought up Colton and what he see's and is exposed to growing up. I interjected that corruption may be a more pressing concern or problem than not having a farm.   I couldn't own a farm, that shit's crazy expensive. The lady from the story had to save up for $500 for a water pump.   Talking about owning farms is kinda out there when people can't afford water. Why can't people afford water? Because the money the government gives reserves for that stuff isn't finding it's way to where it's supposed to.

People dropped $200'000 on Coltons gofundme and $200'000 on Geralds gofundme's page for lawyer fee's and such.

Why can't we put that sort of effort into fixing up the infrastructure on reserves since the government, chiefs and councils can't seem to figure shit out? I wasn't kidding about trying to help. I'll put the first $100 towards helping the lady in the story I posted get her ceptic tank sorted out.

Quote:
And why you think it is only something that exists in First Nations communities, or why you think it means FN people don't consider racism a problem.

I never said that.

Quote:

(edit)

It's the story you cited at #43. Everyone is mentioning that story.

Thanks, brain fart here. I thought you were talking about something totally different. More on that shortly.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well, posting an article that has nothing to do with racism and claiming it as evidence that people don't consider racism a priority is pretty much the same thing.

Ditto for drawing a connection between corruption on FN and mismanagement, and the assumption that we don't have the same thing in our society. Yes it is a lot more insular. A friend of mine who was in government said he wouldn't do it again because he'd be useless because of all the people coming to him for favours. But you know what? Small town politics aren't that much different; they just have more strict oversight by the provinces. And they have far more money and resources, and they are part of a system where media and government pay attention rather than passing the buck back and forth between the federal and provincial government. In part, because it involves people who matter to them.

I sat in on a meeting many years ago in which town development officer said of the local First Nations, which were of the same size as the town "We know these people don't have any resources or money to pitch in for this project, but we'll see what we can get from Ottawa on their behalf". No concern the media was in the room, because he knew my publisher would never let me print that. But it is a perfect indication of how white government has regarded the concerns of First Nations.

Do you really think the politicians' salaries are equal to the lack of housing, poor water, resources, infrastructure, and everything else in First Nations communities? We point the finger there, but no one even thinks about the monopoly and undue influence over FN government that the NorthWest Company continues to have:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/a-modern-day-monopoly-on-northern...

Or the greater problem that everything is micromanaged by Ottawa, and severely underfunded.

You know, drinking water in rural areas is a challenge anyway, especially for communities divided into lots with wells and septic fields in close proximity. The last place I lived in the country was just such a place, and there was a standing problem of contaminated water. It was also so hard and sulphrous I didn't even like to wash in mine, and everyone had to shock their wells regularly with bleach. So this isn't just a FN problem. Same for corruption.

Anyway, sorry for the drift. But while yes, governance is a problem for First Nations and Metis communities, they aren't the only ones, and I doubt it is their biggest challenge. It is more of a symptom.

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But while yes, governance is a problem for First Nations and Metis communities, they aren't the only ones, and I doubt it is their biggest challenge. It is more of a symptom.

I think the reserve governance system is a significant flaw. One problem is that reserves are often in areas that are not economically viable for their populations. Another significant problem is that the reserve governance system provides representation unlinked to taxation which in turn produces perverse incentives and corruption.

6079_Smith_W

I don't know. I think the goal should be expanding FN land, not opening it up to being gutted. There are already Nations saddled with long-term land leases that have effectively given over control to outside interests.

 

JKR

I think the flawed reserve governance model will still be problematic even if reserves are expanded. Many people think that traditional indigenous governance models would be better but it's not clear how such a change can take place under the current flawed reserve governance system.

6079_Smith_W

We are talking about this in another thread, including turning land outside FNs into urban reserve land mostly for business development. Of course it is up to them, but I can see why some want to keep original reserve land as an inviolable home quarter. I totally agree about the governance. Just suspicious of opening it to private ownership.

6079_Smith_W

Local RCMP just announced a series of town hall meetings around SK. Apparently nothing to do with the Stanley verdict.

https://www.google.ca/amp/thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/saskatchewa...

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't know. I think the goal should be expanding FN land, not opening it up to being gutted.

I think getting heat, water, sanitation and transparency with what they have now is more important than expanding FN land.

You'll freeze to death if you have no heat regardless of how much land you have.

6079_Smith_W

I was responding to the notion that First Nations land should be privatized.

And urban reserves, at least here in Saskatoon, are commercial space - gas stations and other businesses that provide jobs and revenue they would never have access to in a fly-in First Nation. They do help keep the lights on.

But if we want to talk about this we should probably do it over in this thread:

http://rabble.ca/babble/indigenous-issues-and-culture/until-canada-gives...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think the flawed reserve governance model will still be problematic even if reserves are expanded. Many people think that traditional indigenous governance models would be better but it's not clear how such a change can take place under the current flawed reserve governance system.

Everyone who's not Indigenous could always step back and say "not my business".

Should it be our business?

I guess I just don't want to hear, if we step back, how Indigenous people chose the whole wrong end of it, and now it's totally our business.  Can we say "govern yourselves as you wish to govern yourselves"?

6079_Smith_W

Well if we respect the bad decision of Torontonians in electing Rob Ford, what call do we have to get all paternalistic with how sovereign nations want to govern themselves? It isn't actually any of our business.

But if you are talking about corruption and irregularities, Paladin already asked about this. Yes they have to abide by Canadian law, and corruption and election irregularities will often result in anullment or criminal charges, just like politicians in our governments.

Even if our politicians aren't under the microscope to the same degree.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well if we respect the bad decision of Torontonians in electing Rob Ford, what call do we have to get all paternalistic with how sovereign nations want to govern themselves? It isn't actually any of our business.

Okay!

I never expected Indigenous people to save me and my ilk from Ford.  As long as I don't have to save them and theirs from whatever they choose, it's all good.

Quote:
But if you are talking about corruption and irregularities, Paladin already asked about this. Yes they have to abide by Canadian law

Wait, what?  Whose law?  Yours and mine?  Geez, when did we even "edumacate" them about "elections"?  What did they do before we arrived on their shores to teach them democracy?  What if scratching an "X" on a piece of paper isn't how they do it?

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But if we want to talk about this we should probably do it over in this thread:

Okay.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Think about reaching in to take the keys out of a car, while at the same time keeping a gun pointed behind someone's ear. If necessary go to a car yourself and try to recreate it, and think about how plausible it is.

Exactly, it isn't at all plausible which is why I don't believe that happened. I believe he reached in to turn off the vehicle with his left hand which is awkward. The gun in his right hand went off accidently. He didn't point it at Colton's head.   He wouldn't have bothered trying to turn off the engine if he just wanted to shoot Colton in the head. He would have just shot through the windshield facing Colton and said Colton tried to run him over. 

Concerning the gun in the vehicle which I don't think was Colton's: What I am saying is that people reading these stories know the gun was in the vehicle loaded with 5 bullets one in the chamber with a bunch of drunks therefore they could have used it prior to having broken it because drunks are unpredictable. 

So in hindsight what you have is drunks driving around with a loaded gun shooting out of the truck window and trying to rob people. That's very scary. Gerald had a gun and he was sober and he didn't intend to kill anyone (in my opinion) yet someone still died. How much more likely is it that someone will be killed accidentally or on purpose if the people with guns are drunk? 

So the next time a bunch of people drive onto a property and try to steal vehicles those being robbed are going to assume the robbers are armed and if they are armed they are willing to kill or could accidently kill someone. They were shooting at targets from inside the truck. That sounds dangerous to me. Even in the wild hunters aren't supposed to shoot unless they can see their target clearly and are positive no humans are in the same direction. Guns are not toys and the men were using that gun as a toy. 

People have dived into water before checking the bottom and died for it. They may be innocent but it is not the fault of the riverbed that they died. I have no doubt that Colton in particular was innocent and he was with the wrong people at the wrong time. I doubt he was even awake when they drove onto the farm. It's the other two guys that got out and ran probably leaving the driver door open. 

The more I read the more I believe that Gerald never had any intention of shooting Colton or anyone else and that Colton was not involved in the attempted thefts. His friends brought Colton on the farm and they were trying to steal.  They got out and ran leaving Colton confused (imagine waking up to that) and his girlfriend passed out in the vehicle. Colton is as guilty as the person who dives into the river without checking first. It's reckless behavior that can lead to tragic consequences. 

For awhile I believed Gerald guilty of at least manslaughter but now I am not so sure. Everything was happening very quickly and I think Paladin is right that during crisis situations with things happening fast it is easy to make mistakes. 

It is possible to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt and to consider all of their behaviors to have been somewhat reckless. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You know, that's exactly the rationale they use in the states to tell white people they need to have guns on them all the time, and it is the reason there is an epidemic of people, mostly non-white, being shot and killed down there. 

Most people regardless of color completely reject the notion that they should walk around armed. I think it is a minimum of people walking around armed and yes it is a problem. Being armed on a remote farm and being armed on a neighbourhood watch or at the theatre is completely different. I would never live anywhere remote specifically because I would be afraid and I am not confident that I would be able to shoot someone. I assume farmers at least have a shotgun. Isn't it the norm for a prairie farmer to own at minimum one gun? 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And here in Canada too, like this man who was shot and killed because he wanted to buy gas to get home.

That was thirty years ago so seems like a very isolated incident. It was night so I'm not sure why you think the shooter knew his race. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 There was no need anyway, because they were running away, and Boushie was doing nothing. 

Right, which is why it makes no sense that you think he deliberately executed Boushie. There was no need. Even racists don't just up and shoot someone for no reason other than race unless they are extremists. There is no evidence that Gerald was or is a KKK type. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
​What is going to happen if these nuts start riding around in their combines and trucks with semiautomatic rifles? More people are going to die. And with the outcome of that trial, they can be more sure of themselves that they have the right to kill Indigenous people, and can get away with it.

They already are riding around armed. I would stay off of their property especially while wearing a mask and holding a gun. 

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Could someone link me to the story you're talking about drivers and guns?

This isn't the same account but it is the same incident:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/fear-in-farm-country-saskatchewan-fa...

Around noon on Sept. 19, a farm labourer on a property near Fiske, a rural crossroads with an old curling rink and even an older grain elevator, saw three men in the road and a black SUV parked nearby. He slowed his vehicle. Drawing closer, he realized the men were masked — and armed. One levelled a pistol at the windshield of the truck, whereupon the labourer ducked and barrelled toward the trio. No shots were fired, an RCMP manhunt ensued.

The search ended without any arrests, but it has triggered a movement among the province’s farmers to openly declare themselves armed and prepared to protect what is their own. Photos of rifles in combines proliferated on social media in the days after the episode near Fiske. A Facebook page — Farmers With Firearms — was launched. Its members sprang into action this past Monday evening, providing updates on a high-speed pursuit involving a green pickup truck that had been spotted in a farmyard northwest of Rosetown. Several farmers gave chase. Local RCMP were called twice before responding, according to a farmer privy to the details of the chase, who requested anonymity. RCMP would not confirm the incident, or whether any arrests had been made.....

Dallas Ostrom, another grower, with land west of Saskatoon, told CBC that, like Kidd, he has always had a gun handy to dispatch an ornery skunk, but now carries the weapon for “personal protection,” a situation he described as “ridiculous.”

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

To use that oft-repeated road story, what would have happened if there had been some armed paranoid in that car instead of someone who knew the best thing to do was to keep driving?

It would have forced a confrontation, and people would have been killed. So how does that make firearms the solution?

He didn't hit any but he didn't avoid running over them either. They had to jump out of the way or they could have been killed and had they been killed it would have been a shame but it would have been their own actions that led to injury or death.

If the driver had a gun running them over would still be the best course of action as it takes time to get a gun out and you can only aim at one at a time. They had 3 guns so he would have lost a gun battle. 

We don't know if those men were indigenous or white or black or asian as they masked themselves but you seem to be fine with indigenous people carrying guns and robbing people. You just don't seem to think white people should be permitted to defend themselves unless they are shot first at which point they could be dead. 

If someone has a gun I assume they are ready to kill me with it and I'm going to do whatever I need to do to preserve my life. And yes, if they die it's their fault. If you are not willing to risk your life don't approach people with a gun. 

I am not referring to Boushie here, only the three men who had guns and tried to stop the trunk. 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Most people regardless of color completely reject the notion that they should walk around armed. I think it is a minimum of people walking around armed and yes it is a problem. Being armed on a remote farm and being armed on a neighbourhood watch or at the theatre is completely different.

Yet that is exactly what this firearms group asking for. It is what people are doing. And it is what politicians voted for. Using that same argument about sickos and torturers.

The end result is people getting killed. And this didn't happen 30 years ago. Colton Boushie was killed two summers ago. People get shot all the time for not being white. Despite the claims made about that encounter with the car, the driver had no gun, and amazingly no one was killed.

So how it is an argument for the use of firearms is beyond me.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

What the farmer paper has to say about it:

If there is one lesson from the tragic death of young Colten Boushie, it is this: introducing a gun into a volatile situation is a perilous mistake.

https://www.producer.com/2018/03/guns-not-answer-protecting-property/

Sorry, but I have been on the business end of a rifle a couple of times. It is a recipe for stupid and deadly mistakes. And sometimes acts that are not a mistake.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

This isn't the same account but it is the same incident:

Now that I think of it I've been in somewhat of the same situation and reacted the same way. In quebec late at night I was turning a corner down a poorly lit road when I noticed 8 or 9 people split up into two groups bracketing the road just hanging out. One group on the left and closer to me, one on the right and a car length ahead of the other group . I could tell by their body language that something was up and they were hovering on the side of the road, just enough to cause any polite driver to slow down. As I started to slow down the group on the right began moving into the center of the road, presumably to stop me. I hit the gas and they dove back out of the way.

The driver in the that story made a great decision IMO.  There's a chance those robbers would have just stopped him, robbed him and sent him on his way. Or maybe stole his vehicle and made him walk.   OR they could have forced him to drive them to his house, where his family may have been, and rob the house and take the family hostage. Or they could have beat the shit out of him or murdered him.

If someones train of thought is that it's only property and not worth your life then I agree. That said the point which a robbery can become assault or murder can happen pretty fast. It's your choice to assume that risk but don't force that belief onto others.

 

I don't feel the need to drive around with a gun, despite it being legal in Canada. Given the mounting crime out west and the RCMPs policing issues I'm not going to judge someone that does.

6079_Smith_W

Considering there is no point in picking up a gun for that purpose unless you are prepared to kill someone, that is sheer stupidity.

And it wasn't too far back in another thread that the assumption was made that having a rifle in a car - even a broken rifle - was proof that someone had intent to commit violence. But when it is a white farmer it is a perfectly reasonable precaution.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Considering there is no point in picking up a gun for that purpose unless you are prepared to kill someone, that is sheer stupidity.

In Bosnia in 2003 timeframe farmers had SKS rifles but most often no ammo. They used the presense of a gun as a deterant. They wound randomly work their fields and shit with the gun slung across their backs so neighbours would see they had a means to defend themselves.  Their government decided these WW2 era semi-automatic guns were military grade weapons so they banned them and NATO went into peoples homes to take them. The people were supposed to rely on the police for protection. The same police that we were constantly catching setting up illegal roadblocks/estortion sites. And of course no need to remind anyone what happened in the 90's there.They also make great clubs.

Anywho, empty guns can and do act as a deterant.

Quote:
And it wasn't too far back in another thread that the assumption was made that having a rifle in a car - even a broken rifle - was proof that someone had intent to commit violence. But when it is a white farmer it is a perfectly reasonable precaution.

Yes Smith. There's absolutely no difference between people drunk, driving around robbing people with a loaded gun in their vehicle and a farmer who keeps a gun, apparently even unloaded, in their house for self-defense. Exactly the same contect there.

6079_Smith_W

Considering that in this case, the gun in the car was only used as a pry bar, whereas the farmer shot someone in the back of the head, I agree there is a difference. Though perhaps not the difference you are thinking of.

Fact remains, you don't carry a gun for security unless you are prepared to use it, or prepared for someone to respond to you with deadly force.

And that is a seriously fucked up escalation of the situation here in the prairies. It is essentially calling for rule by the gun.

This is not Bosnia. Yet.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Considering there is no point in picking up a gun for that purpose unless you are prepared to kill someone, that is sheer stupidity.

And it wasn't too far back in another thread that the assumption was made that having a rifle in a car - even a broken rifle - was proof that someone had intent to commit violence. But when it is a white farmer it is a perfectly reasonable precaution.

No the exact same assumption applies to anyone driving around with a loaded weapon in the cab on public roads or on other people's property or brandishes one as a threat. The gun was not broken until shortly before they arrived at the farm. They didn't break it on purpose. I have said numerous times I don't believe they intended to harm anyone with it. 

I'm fairly certain the two men ran because they were afraid Gerald might use the gun after hearing him say he was getting one and that was the correct assumption to make not because Boushie was shot but because if you see someone with a gun you should assume they are prepared to use it. If they don't, great, no harm done. On the other hand if you assume they won't use the gun you could end up dead. 

Even if 99% of the time the person with the gun wouldn't use it, I'm still going to assume that they will because the 1% chance that they will could lead to my death. 

It isn't up to me to take a chance with my life just in case people only want to rob me. 

6079_Smith_W

So given the choice you would carry a gun and be prepared to shoot someone with it?  Because that is what got someone killed in this case.

Just curious, but the fact is, this kind of vigilanteeism is not up for debate in my books. I think the only people who are for it are those who don't give a shit about killing people (or those who would like to do so) and people who don't have the faintest idea what this means.

Believe me. When people start bringing guns into situations mistakes get made and people get killed. This is so fucked up I can't even believe we are having a discussion about this. We are no longer talking about reducing crime in rural areas. We are debating whether there should be any rule of law at all.

 

 

Pondering

Paladin I understand what you are saying about improving conditions on reserves. It's not that everyone wants or expects to have a farm like the Stanley's . Resentment grows with inequality. People that are reasonably content with what they have are less likely to commit crimes particularly if they haven't been mistreated by anyone. In this case we have people whose entire communities historically and in the present have been mistreated and extreme economic differences.  

Obviously FNs have a lot of work to do themselves in order to heal but that doesn't mean we get to withhold what is owed to them. We could invite bandmembers to communicate directly on what they would prefer if we believe their chief to be corrupt. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Considering that in this case, the gun in the car was only used as a pry bar, whereas the farmer shot someone in the back of the head, I agree there is a difference. Though perhaps not the difference you are thinking of.

Fact remains, you don't carry a gun for security unless you are prepared to use it, or prepared for someone to respond to you with deadly force.

And that is a seriously fucked up escalation of the situation here in the prairies. It is essentially calling for rule by the gun.

No it isn't. Everyone (with a licence) has a right to have a loaded gun in their hands on their property. That is not against the law. No one is allowed to drive around on public property with a loaded gun in the vehicle. 

For some reason you don't think people should be afraid of other people who come on their property with guns. They should think, gee, this guy probably just wants to rob me. I will give him my truck and see if I am right. 

Yet you think it's perfectly find for people to drive around with loaded guns and point them at people. 

I don't see it. I hope someone is keeping statistics on the crime rate in the area. The farmers keep guns handy to shoot magpies and skunks. Now everybody knows or should know no matter what their race. 

I sincerely hope that parents are telling their young men and women that stealing vehicles isn't worth their lives. I hope young men and women do learn from Colton's death that farmers are afraid for their person not just their property therefore will use their guns if threatened and that when guns are used accidents can happen. It's a high adrenaline situation. 

Colton's death is both no one's fault and everyone's fault. I believe it was accidental, so no one's fault, but had people acted differently the accident wouldn't have happened, so everyone's fault.

Paladin has mentioned that the accident could not have happened with a long gun so part of the problem in this particular case is that a handgun was involved. I think laws for handguns should be different. To you that makes no difference because you don't believe it was accidental. At the very least the claim that it was accidental would be more difficult to make. 

The main goal to me is to prevent further deaths. I can't see laws being passed against farmers carrying loaded weapons on their farms. They say for shooting magpies and skunks. If they use them in self-defence against people carrying guns onto their property they will not be convicted. If they can show it was plausibly accidental they will not be convicted. 

People shouldn't die just for stealing or just for diving into a river. Stealing and diving blind are both reckless behaviors that are called reckless because they are dangerous things to do. Stealing from farms where you can logically assume the farmers have guns is pretty stupid. People shouldn't die for being stupid. 

If I agreed with you, that Gerald Stanley executed Colton, I would agree that this was a travesty of justice. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Fact remains, you don't carry a gun for security unless you are prepared to use it, or prepared for someone to respond to you with deadly force.

Or you might need a really ineffective pry-bar, evidently.

6079_Smith_W

Yup. True that Magoo.

And they all have a legal right to carry guns? This is getting to be an NRA echo chamber.
You know, for the record I have no problem with people in the Churchill MB area going out armed because of polar bears. Going out expecting you might shoot a person is another matter. Not least because it is against the law, which is why the stated defense in this case was accident.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Yup. True that Magoo. And they all have a legal right to carry guns? This is getting to be an NRA echo chamber. You know, for the record I have no problem with people in the Churchill MB area going out armed because of polar bears. Going out expecting you might shoot a person is another matter. Not least because it is against the law, which is why the stated defense in this case was accident.

But they are not going out expecting to shoot people. They are going out expecting to do their farm work in peace shooting the odd skunk that won't get out of the way. 

Are you saying until they used the gun as a crowbar Colton and his friends intended to shoot someone because they had a gun? Are you saying the three masked men with guns intended to shoot someone? They all had much less reason to be carrying guns than farmers do. 

You accuse us of double standards but you have double standards. You expect criminals to be able to walk around with guns but you don't think farmers should have them. 

The stated defense was accident therefore he wasn't deemed at fault but that doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth. I just don't see any evidence that he executed Colton on purpose. At most I see careless use of a firearm. 

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So given the choice you would carry a gun and be prepared to shoot someone with it?  Because that is what got someone killed in this case.

Just curious, but the fact is, this kind of vigilanteeism is not up for debate in my books. I think the only people who are for it are those who don't give a shit about killing people (or those who would like to do so) and people who don't have the faintest idea what this means.

I'm reminded of the idea that some in the US have floated that "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." But in the Parkland shooting case, you had a trained police officer on site refusing to confront the shooter himself. Most likely that was because he knew that if he did it would end with him being just another body on the floor.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm reminded of the idea that some in the US have floated that "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." But in the Parkland shooting case, you had a trained police officer on site refusing to confront the shooter himself. Most likely that was because he knew that if he did it would end with him being just another body on the floor.

"Discretion is the better part of valour".

But if some fuck smashes his way into my house, and I had a gun to shoot him, why shouldn't I?

Because he swore on a stack of my silverware that he wouldn't harm me?  Because 5/6 of the time, Russian Roulette is harmless?

6079_Smith_W

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Most likely that was because he knew that if he did it would end with him being just another body on the floor.

Exactly.

Which is part of the reason I find it laughable that people are seriously talking about this as if they actually know what it is like to shoot someone, or be shot at, or have a gun pulled on them. I may not know as much as some, but I do know that pulling a gun is a good way to get yourself killed.

I'm not excusing them riding around with a gun trying to steal, but unlike these farmers there is no evidence they were doing it with the intent of using it on people.  And unlike Stanley, who did shoot someone in the back of the head and kill him, they didn't pick up that gun and point it at anyone.

Carrying a gun for alleged security against people isn't the same as shooting skunks.  And it is also illegal without proving a specific imminent threat and getting a permit for that specific purpose.

Again, I cannot believe people here are actually arguing in favour of this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Certainly no realization that when people think they have the right to use a gun, they will use it. That one I have seen.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Most likely that was because he knew that if he did it would end with him being just another body on the floor.

Exactly.

Which is part of the reason I find it laughable that people are seriously talking about this as if they actually know what it is like to shoot someone, or be shot at, or have a gun pulled on them. I may not know as much as some, but I do know that pulling a gun is a good way to get yourself killed.

I'm not excusing them riding around with a gun trying to steal, but unlike these farmers there is no evidence they were doing it with the intent of using it on people.  And unlike Stanley, who did shoot someone in the back of the head and kill him, they didn't pick up that gun and point it at anyone.

Carrying a gun for alleged security against people isn't the same as shooting skunks.  And it is also illegal without proving a specific imminent threat and getting a permit for that specific purpose.

Again, I cannot believe people here are actually arguing in favour of this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Certainly no realization that when people think they have the right to use a gun, they will use it. That one I have seen.

I support defending one's life with a gun not one's property. I don't believe Gerald Stanley took out his gun with the intention of shooting someone. I do believe he kept it there to shoot at magpies not people. 

We are talking about multiple incidents with different perameters. 

The farm hand said he drove straight for the men. Had they not jumped out of the way one of them could have died. Vehicles can also kill people. Had one of them died I would have considered the driver justified. 

There was another case mentioned in which a man knocked on his window to scare off an intruder and he got shot at. 

What I am saying is that there are enough incidents where guns are involved to make farmers afraid for their lives not just their property. 

Colton and his friends may not have intended to kill anyone but I don't believe Gerald intended to kill anyone either. The three men with guns probably didn't intend to kill anyone either but maybe they did or maybe one of them could have shot accidently. The guy who shot into a window was willing to kill. 

Farmers have a right to be afraid when people are coming onto their property with loaded guns. 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, I cannot believe people here are actually arguing in favour of this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Certainly no realization that when people think they have the right to use a gun, they will use it. That one I have seen.

I think we do.  Canadians have a right to self-defense, a strong one at that. I think people are generally surprised at how pro self-defense our laws and the court actually is.  People using firearms for self-defense will often run afowl of the firearms act (storage, careless use) but that's more of a catch all. 

Such as the firearm owner who was charged with careless firearms storage after it took thieves 3 days to cut their way into his gun vault. Or Ian Thompson who was charged for firing warning shots at people throwing molotov cocktails at his house.   

But if you can reasonably prove you felt your life was in danger and used a firearm to defend yourself the courts will generally go in your favor.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unless you have been in a position where you have used that weapon against someone, or had one used on you, no you don't.

It's one thing to talk about defending your castle, and what you would do when you are face to face with the guy with the gun. Quite another if you are buddy the armed guard who was too shit scared to even go into the school and do his job.

And we haven't actually broken down these scenarios . Was that fellow supposed to STOP the car and get out and start shooting? Considering he had been in a real war, even with a gun he would have done the smart thing - keep driving - which was exactly what he did.

Or was whatshisname supposed to start firing out the window into the dark at the guy who was running away?

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the law, which says that no, you aren't allowed to carry a gun for alleged self defense against people.

I don't know what the RCMP are going to say in their local meetings here (though it is interesting that none of them are on First Nations) but I sure hope they give them a serious lecture on that point. No, it isn't open season on Indigenous people who happen to stray across the property line.

And if Gerald Stanley had used that defense and had a real jury he would be convicted of murder, because no one posed an imminent threat to him at all when he shot Colten Boushie in the back of the head.

 

 

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering, yes farmers occasionally do shoot magpies and skunks. 

However when you think of a cattle farmer on the prairies your two biggest threats are coyotes who kill calves and gophers.

gophers are cute adorable little rodents who eat crops and dig holes in the pastures.

badgers are viscious and mean animals that dig even bigger holes in the pasture and cattle can break their legs and get injured if they stumble on badger holes.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
I'm reminded of the idea that some in the US have floated that "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." But in the Parkland shooting case, you had a trained police officer on site refusing to confront the shooter himself. Most likely that was because he knew that if he did it would end with him being just another body on the floor.

"Discretion is the better part of valour".

But if some fuck smashes his way into my house, and I had a gun to shoot him, why shouldn't I?

Because he swore on a stack of my silverware that he wouldn't harm me?  Because 5/6 of the time, Russian Roulette is harmless?

Unless you could show that a) you had reasonable fear that your life was in iminent danger and that just asking him not to move and holding him at gunpoint waiting for the police to show up wasn't an option and b) there was no practical way for you to run and hide while waiting either for the police to show up or for the thief to leave, you would be guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.

You want a real life example of having a gun and being able to shoot at a home invader? Some time ago I attended a personal safety event held in collaboration between the local community organization and the Winnipeg Police Service. The uniformed policeman giving the talk said that if someone breaks into his house while he's home, he's out the door and he calls 911. Think about that. A uniformed policeman, whose job is to deal with bad guys breaking into people's houses (at least before working with community relations) and who knows how to use guns, would rather call for help than deal with the bad guys himself in that situation. What does that tell you?

Paladin is also right that in cases of legitimate self defense that the courts will grant leniency. It's one thing to talk tough about how you would use guns in a particular situation, it's another to have real life experience with them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Unless you could show that a) you had reasonable fear that your life was in iminent danger and that just asking him not to move and holding him at gunpoint waiting for the police to show up wasn't an option and b) there was no practical way for you to run and hide while waiting either for the police to show up or for the thief to leave, you would be guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.

OK then.  So I guess I'd shoot the prick, claim that he wouldn't comply when I told him to stand still like a statue, and none of the doors in my house are so solid he couldn't have kicked them down.

Here's my thinking:  nobody has a right to be in my home without my permission, and I shouldn't have to "roll the dice" over whether they just want to grab the silverware and leave, or grab the silverware, stab me, or assault my wife, and then leave.  I didn't ask to gamble.

Quote:
Think about that. A uniformed policeman, whose job is to deal with bad guys breaking into people's houses (at least before working with community relations) and who knows how to use guns, would rather call for help than deal with the bad guys himself in that situation. What does that tell you?

That if a trained and armed officer of the state is unwilling to protect his own family I shouldn't rely on him to protect mine.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if Gerald Stanley had used that defense and had a real jury he would be convicted of murder, because no one posed an imminent threat to him at all when he shot Colten Boushie in the back of the head.

But that isn't the defence he used. He didn't claim that Boushie was an immient threat at the time he was shot. That wasn't an argument the jury evaluated. 

The first question was whether or not he had good reason to go get the gun. 

The answer was yes. He was afraid for his family because the SUV almost ran over his son. Even so he didn't point the gun at them he fired into the air twice to scare them. 

When he ran over to the SUV to turn it off he didn't think to put the gun down first. It fired accidently. 

You may not believe that account which is your right but you can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Gerald is lying which is what would be required.

If instead Gerald said he was afraid for his property because Colton and his friends were trying to steal from him he would have been convicted. 

Gerald could not be convicted to make up for racism in general and there is no evidence that he is racist. 

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Unless you could show that a) you had reasonable fear that your life was in iminent danger and that just asking him not to move and holding him at gunpoint waiting for the police to show up wasn't an option and b) there was no practical way for you to run and hide while waiting either for the police to show up or for the thief to leave, you would be guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.

OK then.  So I guess I'd shoot the prick, claim that he wouldn't comply when I told him to stand still like a statue, and none of the doors in my house are so solid he couldn't have kicked them down.

Here's my thinking:  nobody has a right to be in my home without my permission, and I shouldn't have to "roll the dice" over whether they just want to grab the silverware and leave, or grab the silverware, stab me, or assault my wife, and then leave.  I didn't ask to gamble.

Well if I'm out walking and someone sticks a knife to my throat and asks for my wallet, I'm handing it over. True he doesn't have a right to my wallet, but what am I proving by resisting his demands and increasing the risks of being seriously injured or killed? That's not something I ask to have happen to me, but sometimes bad things like this are forced upon us and we have to respond.

It's the same thing with crossing the street. Technically I have the right of way, but if I see a driver breaking the law and driving unsafely, I'm not going to cross and maintain my rights. I'm going to let the danger pass.

And if you had an option to find a safe place, why wouldn't you use it? One of the things that triggers violence in potential home invasions is the homeowners presence or the home owner confronting the bad guys. Is defending your silverware worth risking your life or personal safety if it can be avoided?

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Think about that. A uniformed policeman, whose job is to deal with bad guys breaking into people's houses (at least before working with community relations) and who knows how to use guns, would rather call for help than deal with the bad guys himself in that situation. What does that tell you?

That if a trained and armed officer of the state is unwilling to protect his own family I shouldn't rely on him to protect mine.

Judgemental much? Why is moving his family out of the danger zone and waiting for the danger to pass any less valid a means of protecting his family than confronting the intruder?

Police officers are trained to deal with guns, and they know a great deal about them. They probably know a great deal more about guns than you or I would. If a police officer would rather avoid a confrontation whenever possible, maybe that's because he has an understanding of how dangerous those confrontations can be?

Can you even be certain that in that situation you would actually hit your target rather than bullets missing and firing all over the place? People's motor skills can be quite impaired by fear and panic.

Talk is cheap. It's one thing to talk tough, it's another to cope with it in the situation. To an extent I agree that if I'm put in a situation where it's my life or someone else's I'll do what I have to and get a good lawyer. Having said that, if there's any way I can avoid it coming to that in the first place, I'll take that route. Even if it means having to replace all my things. I'd rather deal with that than try to recover from a serious and potentially debilitating injury.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That's not something I ask to have happen to me, but sometimes bad things like this are forced upon us and we have to respond.

But you literally just said your response would be to not respond.

And that's YOUR choice.  Give the nice man your wallet.

Quote:
Is defending your silverware worth risking your life or personal safety if it can be avoided?

Nevermind even that you seem to believe that situations like this come with an iron-clad promise that it's only about the possessions, what right do you feel you have to tell others to take the risk that maybe the silverware won't be the end of it?  Sadly, people ostensibly stealing "money" or "jewelry" or "mere possessions" have decided that it could also be fun to assault or rape or kill.  So now we can't just assume any more.

Quote:
Judgemental much? Why is moving his family out of the danger zone and waiting for the danger to pass any less valid a means of protecting his family than confronting the intruder?

Because he lacks the excuse that he's untrained and lacks the excuse that he's unarmed and calling 911 "for the police" neglects the fact that he IS the police.

But you want homeowners to call HIM to protect them and their family.  Sorry, Aristotled24, but I don't want to call the police so that they can call the police.  Officer Coward isn't going to help me if he's standing out by his shed calling "the real" Police.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Is defending your silverware worth risking your life or personal safety if it can be avoided?

Nevermind even that you seem to believe that situations like this come with an iron-clad promise that it's only about the possessions, what right do you feel you have to tell others to take the risk that maybe the silverware won't be the end of it?  Sadly, people ostensibly stealing "money" or "jewelry" or "mere possessions" have decided that it could also be fun to assault or rape or kill.  So now we can't just assume any more.

You're correct and that risk is always present. Not to say that the bad guy isn't responsible, but there are a wide range of responses that the bad guy's target can make that will elevate or lessen the risk of a violent confrontation.

In the earlier situation, you asked why you couldn't shoot someone coming into your house, and I explained that by law you can't just go after someone in that situation unless it's self-defense. But if that's a risk you're willing to take, I don't know what else I can say.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Judgemental much? Why is moving his family out of the danger zone and waiting for the danger to pass any less valid a means of protecting his family than confronting the intruder?

Because he lacks the excuse that he's untrained and lacks the excuse that he's unarmed and calling 911 "for the police" neglects the fact that he IS the police.

But you want homeowners to call HIM to protect them and their family.  Sorry, Aristotled24, but I don't want to call the police so that they can call the police.  Officer Coward isn't going to help me if he's standing out by his shed calling "the real" Police.

Ah, so people who decide to move themselves out of harms way are cowards in your books? Glad to know.

There's an obvious difference in the 2 situations that you're referencing. If this officer is on duty and gets a call that you're experiencing a home invasion, he will respond and assist you because that is his job. When he's off duty he gets to make his own judgement about to best handle the safety and security of his home. And not to be pedantic, but even if he did confront the bad guy, unless he's gonig to physically drag the bad guy to the station in his own vehicle and book him, then his colleagues are going to come by and to deal with the bad guy in any case.

Pages