Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
JKR we have been around this mulberry bush countless times. Neither expert said that casing had any effect on the firing of the gun. And no, they don't last much longer.

The fact that you are convinced it wasn't an accident doesn't make it fact. Neither expert ruled out the possibility of a hangfire. Neither expert could explain the bulge in the bullet. That can happen as a result of hangfire. Hangfires are more common with old ammunition. The ammunition was from 1953. 

Nothing was proven either way. Benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 But go back and read the quote at 285 and tell me it's not accurate. You all seem to be saying these things, and when I quote them for truth freak out like you didn't understand what you were really saying.

Or cobbling together these ridiculous scenarios that make no sense when you actually look at them. Like this one:

It happened to be Gerald's bullet that killed Colton. He could just as easily have died in a rollover, (drunken driving is illegal because it is deadly). He could have died when the gun was being used as a crowbar. He could have killed someone while target shooting recklessly. He wasn't just a little tipsy.

Right. He just happened to be there pointing the gun at his head and pulled the trigger. Sheer coincidence.

Don't read between the lines. No coincidence at all.  He didn't deliberately point the gun at Colton. He tried to reach in and turn off the vehicle. As he did that the gun went off while it was inadvertently  pointed at Colton's head. As of right now that is the official version of events. 

You change that insisting that Gerald intentionally murdered Colton because he is racist. Then you accuse us of defending the right to shoot people just for being on the property. 

I am pointing out that robbing people is dangerous behavior. If you go break into your neighbour's house and he shoots you in the back he is guilty of murder, but you were stupid. Even if he goes to prison you are still dead. 

I'm a defensive pedestrian. I look over my shoulder crossing on green because I know I could get cut off. It would be the drivers fault, I'd still be dead. 

Reckless behavior leads to unforeseen consequences. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If there is a 1/3,000,000 chance something is going to happen to me on any particular day, I am going give 1/3,000,000th of a fuck about it.

JKR

If Stanley boldfacedly lied about the hangfire, he is a sociopathic liar. I think that is possible that he lied about the hangfire and was very lucky that the bullet had an unusual bulge but I'm uncomfortable even contemplating that someone could be so maniacal. I think the reluctance to think of someone being like that helped his defence. The bumbling of the Crown also seems to have helped Stanley make his case:

Boushie family lawyer says there were grounds for an appeal in Stanley case; Lawyer says layperson testimony about 'hang fire' should have been inadmissible; CBC; March 8, 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/boushie-family-lawyer-says-there...

Quote:

'This was a hang fire case'

Murphy sent the letter earlier this week, before the Crown announced its decision. He urged the government to appeal the not-guilty verdict based on the fact that two people who testified about a gun malfunction known as "hang fire" were not expert witnesses and their testimony directly contradicted testimony given by experts.

...

Stanley's defence lawyer said that is what happened in this case — that there was a serious delay between when Stanley pulled the trigger and the bullet left the gun and killed Boushie. 

"The entire case came down to the hang fire and the length of the hang fire," Murphy said in an interview with CBC News.

The court heard expert evidence given at trial that this delay — between the trigger pull and the bullet firing — can only last, at maximum, half a second. But two other people called to the stand by the defence testified otherwise. 

One witness, Wayne Popowich, contacted the defence team after reading about the expert evidence in the newspaper. He said a hang fire happened to him 40 years earlier when he was 15 years old. He said that delay lasted at least 12 seconds.

A second civilian witness also contradicted the expert. Nathan Voinorosky told court he once experienced a seven-second hang fire while target shooting,

Murphy said these two accounts directly contradicted expert evidence and were irrelevant to the case. 

"If the jury did not hear the evidence about those two hang fires and the length of them, their verdict would have not been necessarily the same. And I think that's a very fair statement," he said. 

"The evidence of both of those witnesses was not admissible evidence. It should have never gone before the jury."

...

However, because there didn't appear to be an objection by Crown prosecutor Bill Burge to the inclusion of these witnesses at trial, Penney said it's tough to see the grounds for an appeal.

 

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

If there is a 1/3,000,000 chance something is going to happen to me on any particular day, I am going give 1/3,000,000th of a fuck about it.

How about if there is a 50/50 chance you will die?

In Montreal when I hear of pedestrian deaths if is often when both pedestrians and cars have the green light. The car come up behind the pedestrian and turns right kills the pesdestrian, and isn't charged because they didn't see the pesdestrian. I think that should be manslaughter because you are not supposed to take a corner so fast that you don't see a pedestrian who has the right of way. 

I'm still going to look over my shoulder. I also have a yellow raincoat for storms. I've been a driver so on sunny days I take into account drivers could be blinded by the sun when it is low. It costs me little to nothing to be careful. 

JKR

I think it is unfair to blame the jury for respecting the laypersons testimony. They jury were not in a good position to dismiss that testimony but the Crown was.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Even if there is 100% chance I will die in that 1/3,000,000 case. There are much more probable things which could negatively affect me without killing me. Say there are 1,000 murders per annum in Canada. That number is declining because the hospitals are getting better at patching the victims up and saving their lives after an aggravated assault with intent to kill.

Nonetheless, that is about 3 per day giving an average Canadian a 3/34,000,000 chance of being murdered on any given day ceteris paribus. This is less than 1/10,000,000, so the 1/3,000,000 figure includes other things. Like a plane falling out of the sky.

I can't worry about everything, so the best I can do is worry about the things which have the most chance of happening to me. There are catastrophes which could happen, but I will be sharing that in common with everyone else in my area, and if we survive we will be very urgently trying to figure out how to take care of who is left. In other words, if I lose everything, so does everyone else.

The vast majority of bad things that can happen to me are because of stupid things that I do to myself.

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
Are you anywhere near North Battleford? I remember one of the recent stories of rural crime was from there so I did a search.  When you look at crime rates in Canada here's how North Battleford rates out of Canada's most dangerous places to live.

Violent Crime #2

Sexual Assault #4

Assault #2

Firearms Offenses #1

Robbery #4

Breaking and Entering #1

Fraud #5

Impaired driving #1

Pot Trafficking #11

Cocaine Trafficking #12

Other Drugs #6

Youth Crime #1

Yes, crime is very high in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Has been for a long time. Do you think this is news to any of us? Furthermore, if we're talking about crime in general, most crime happens between people who know each other, not strangers. How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Maybe Smith isn't panicking about crime in his area because he has a broader understanding of what's going on, as opposed to the news reporters who only show up when a crime has been committed and that's all they report on and people get a skewed impression? I live close to downtown Winnipeg, in an area that has a reputation as having high crime. Most of the people I've heard remark on this don't spend much time downtown, they just hear about crime downtown on the news. Even the fact that I've in the past routinely walked half an hour to get home after 11PM would scare people, and yes, I have seen things on my walk that bother me, but on the whole I know the area and am confident  in my ability to survive.

And let's allow that Boushie and his friends were drunk while driving between farms. Do you think that's the first time something like that has happened in rural Saskatchewan or Manitoba? That's been going on for a long time. Only after a First Nation's person is shot to death is there a loud, visible, public call for people to have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Coincidence? Why has this not been a thing before the Boushie shooting?

We live here. We know what's going on. Maybe one of us can show you around and teach you a few things if you ever come out our way?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Who is advocating for that?

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

The vast majority of bad things that can happen to me are because of stupid things that I do to myself.

Agreed. (to me as well)

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Who is advocating for that?

Well you said that the best thing would be for people to know that they can get shot if they go into someone's house uninvited. Having the threat of death as your main strategy for preventing crime would seem to rely heavily on a lot of people running out and getting guns.

And JKR. Glad you found the point that neither of the firearms experts testified that hangfire lasted more than a fraction of a second or so.

The people whose heresay was allowed - one wonders if they had a stopwatch on hand, or did it just feel like 12 seconds or if it was something else that happened. The judge did actually prevent the defense from entering information from a website as evidence, which shows how much he was scrambling. But the fact the crown did not appeal the heresay testimony does not mean that it was valid.

And people murder other people all the time. It is often maniacal, but not that unbelievable.

 

pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Who is advocating for that?

And JKR. Glad you found the point that neither of the firearms experts testified that hangfire lasted more than a fraction of a second or so.

The people whose heresay was allowed - one wonders if they had a stopwatch on hand, or did it just feel like 12 seconds or if it was something else that happened. The judge did actually prevent the defense from entering information from a website as evidence, which shows how much he was scrambling. But the fact the crown did not appeal the heresay testimony does not mean that it was valid.

And people murder other people all the time. It is often maniacal, but not that unbelievable.

 

Um.  Their evidence was not "hearsay", but direct evidence of their own experience.  Just so you know, in evidence law, there is no stronger category.  The Boushie lawyer is making a technical point about how that evidence was used to contradict an expert.  The issue is not whether the evidence was per se unreliable (which is the problem with hearsay) but whether it was admissible in this precise circumstance.

6079_Smith_W

Thanks pookie.

It still is not clear if it was even the same function - an actual hangfire. It wasn't the same gun. And I doubt they were timing it. How could they? Twelve seconds? And that still requires pulling the trigger, then pointing at someone's head.

Put that speculative testimony together with everything else he threw at the jury - the attempt to enter information from a website, Stanley's claim that he thought the gun was not loaded even though that beggars belief, his claim that he didn't pull the trigger and that it was a misfire, not a hangfire, and the expert testimony that the gun did not misfire even by dropping and hitting it with a hammer, that there was no clear connection between that casing and what made the gun fire.

There is no clear narrative there. In fact it is both contradictory and virtually impossible on a number of points. All of it seems designed to sow confusion, or more accurately, to plant a few impossible stories in the minds of the jury that would allow them to let someone off from even manslaughter and pretend it was justice. Clearly they didn't actually try to piece that evidence together because it makes no sense.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Well you said that the best thing would be for people to know that they can get shot if they go into someone's house uninvited. Having the threat of death as your main strategy for preventing crime would seem to rely heavily on a lot of people running out and getting guns. 

Your reading comprehension seems really limited. The best way is for people to raise their children not to rob people, not to try to steal vehicles and certainly not to threaten people through home invasion. Not getting blind drunk and going for a drive or going swimming would also be handy lessons to teach your kids as well. 

If homeowners choose to own a firearm that is their right. That does not mean I am recommending it. I don't recommend skiing either but I defend the right of people to do it. If someone does own a firearm and they feel threatened I think it is human nature that they will choose to defend themselves when their home is attacked and they fear for their life. If someone invades another person's home they are risking their life. I think it's a good idea to warn them they are risking their life. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
​ The people whose heresay was allowed - one wonders if they had a stopwatch on hand, or did it just feel like 12 seconds or if it was something else that happened.  

There is an entire thread to argue about whether or not the verdict in the Stanley trial was correct. From the perspective of debating rural crime and the law he was acquitted based on the inability to prove that he deliberately fired the gun. 

Had it been proven that he deliberately fired the gun it would have been classified as murder. I think everyone agrees that if he deliberately shot Colton that it would be murder. I don't believe it was deliberate. You do. That's fair but there is no way to prove it either way. 

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs.  

JKR

According to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix,
this is the testimony the jury heard from John Ervin, the firearms expert called by the defence:

Quote:
John Ervin, a firearms expert called by the defence, said the bulge on the casing was caused by the bullet firing when the gun was not in battery. In other words, the cartridge was not properly seated in the chamber when it detonated.

Ervin said that, in order for a bulge like the one on the casing to have formed, the gun would have to have been out of alignment to a point where it could not have fired.

“I simply don’t know what caused that firearm to discharge,” he said.

Ervin said one possibility is a hang fire. He said that while these are rare, they are more common with older ammunition.

“There’s not enough evidence to say there was a hang fire, nor is there enough evidence to say there was not a hang fire,” Ervin said.

Spencer asked Ervin what the longest possible hang fire could be. Ervin said it was impossible to know. He said that in firearm courses, if people pull the trigger and don’t hear a bang they are instructed to keep holding their guns downrange for 30 to 60 seconds.

It sounds to me like John Ervin was saying that it is possible for a hang-fire to last for up to a minute. So I think that is what the jury probably went by. A lot can happen in 60 seconds. I think the Crown should have done a better job reducing that time period in the minds of the jury. I think that "30 to 60 seconds" phrase by John Ervin may have been the crux of the case even if it was not accurate.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-chief-jus...

6079_Smith_W

Hey Pondering, I am not the person who brought up the Stanley trial this time. And that horse was out of the barn long ago.

And this is where we are going now? Really?

Pondering wrote:

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs.  

Just to remind you again, it is not just my opinion that people should avoid engaging thieves in situations like this, it is also the professional advice of the police. They have said that after every one of these incidents.

And not all thieves are Indigenous.

And JKR. Yup, that could very well have been it. Funny that neither defense nor crown pointed out he wasn't talking about how long a hangfire can actually last, only how long they recommend being careful.

Also, no one made the connection between the fact that if it is proper firearms handling to watch where you point your gun if it doesn't fire when you pull the trigger, you certainly shouldn't have it pointed at someone's head, as Gerald Stanley did.

Funny how they can make improbable leaps of logic on the one hand, and on the other ignore some pretty simple things like not pointing a gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger.

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And JKR. Yup, that could very well have been it. Funny that neither defense nor crown pointed out he wasn't talking about how long a hangfire can actually last, only how long they recommend being careful.

 

I can see why the defense didn't point it out as that was the basis of their case, but why didn't the Crown???

6079_Smith_W

At the rally I attended, and since then they were also criticized for not doing their job well - both during the trial, and in not even trying to appeal.

(edit)

 

 

JKR

Mistrust between the Crown and indigenous people is a huge issue in the justice system and the Stanley trial really highlighted how pervasive and destructive that is. I think the Crown would probably have done a better job if it was representing the interests of a white family.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I agree with you there. It is a different application of the law if you are white. And it is particularly different if you are Indigenous.

And to be clear (just noticed something you said upthread), I don't hold the jury responsible for not knowing things that the lawyers would have.

I do hold them responsible for how they dealt with the evidence and for the decision they made.

As I have said before (and this is just my opinion) I don't think it was the defense strategy to present a coherent argument asas much as to sowing enough doubt that the jury could make a racist decision, and tell themselves that it was justified.  Because the evidence did not make sense. I wonder if they settled on one story and ignored the rest of it, or if they even analyzed it to that degree at all.

And might it have been different if the crown had pointed out those inconsistencies? I don't know.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And this is where we are going now? Really?

Pondering wrote:

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs.  

Damn right I'm going there. You have made it very clear that white people should not have the right of self-defence unless they have specifically asked the intruder what their intentions are and the intruder has stated "It is my intent to kill you" although I am not sure you would approve of self-defence even under those circumstances.  

In the proper thread, I did raise the issue of careless use of the firearm but I won't re-argue it here. You have brought up the Stanley trial in this thread numerous times in some cases inferring that I somehow approve of shooting people merely for trespassing which I do not. You assume and insinuate that people posting here are supporters of Farmers with Firearms when no one has suggested any such reactionary stances. 

No one here has ever suggested that it is in any way shape or form acceptable to kill people for stealing. We have only defended the right to self-defence triggered by home-invasion or physical threat, not theft. 

You on the other hand defend the rights of blind drunk adults to drive around with weapons, shooting out of their vehicle and trying to steal and intimidate people as harmless youthful hijinks and you are fine with your neighbour showing up on your doorstep to threaten you with a gun. 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You read between the lines so you must also be speaking between the lines. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And not all thieves are Indigenous.

No, just the ones you're focused on. If you were defending all thieves you wouldn't be calling it racism. 

6079_Smith_W

Actually Pondering, my point is the same advice that is offered by the police.

Don't engage a potentially dangerous situation unless you absolutely have to. Especially do not do so with a gun.

Neither the police nor the province are warning that thieves should be prepared to be shot if they go into someone's house.

The province has ruled out any change to the law that would make vigilanteeism easier.

What you are suggesting is totally offside from that reality. It is in fact a threat to safety, and something that will increase rural crime.

But what I really mean by "going there" is you trying suggesting the response to crime has any relation to fact that we do live on land that we stole through genocide, and that we still live in a society that runs on systemic racism and denial.

And your insinuation that all thieves are Indigenous is also a classic example of that attitude. As is talking about shooting Indigenous people as a way of mocking reconciliation.

 

(edit)

I'm not defending thieves Pondering. I am saying vigilanteeism and responding to crime by shooting people is outrageous. And the promotion of it is a total scam by gun nuts.

But does racism play a role, even though not all thieves are Indigenous. Absolutely, especially when you have people just assuming a direct relationship.

pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, I agree with you there. It is a different application of the law if you are white. And it is particularly different if you are Indigenous.

And to be clear (just noticed something you said upthread), I don't hold the jury responsible for not knowing things that the lawyers would have.

I do hold them responsible for how they dealt with the evidence and for the decision they made.

As I have said before (and this is just my opinion) I don't think it was the defense strategy to present a coherent argument asas much as to sowing enough doubt that the jury could make a racist decision, and tell themselves that it was justified.  Because the evidence did not make sense. I wonder if they settled on one story and ignored the rest of it, or if they even analyzed it to that degree at all.

And might it have been different if the crown had pointed out those inconsistencies? I don't know.

1. That is a common defence strategy in everything from arson to aggr assault to fraud to murder.

2. It might have made a difference to pursuing an appeal

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I am sure it is common, and I can understand why lawyers do it (some to a more unethical degree than others). It is part of what makes the legal process an adversarial game (in this case a racist one) rather than something which should be trying to reach an understanding of what happened.

Another thing that would have helped is if the crown had questioned the memory of a child from 40 years ago. That did not happen, even though we know that memory changes over time, and it is highly unlikely that he had a watch to count off 12 seconds.

I was only going by the liveblog, but there were a surprising number of things that did not get challenged, or pointed out as inconsistencies.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually Pondering, my point is the same advice that is offered by the police.

Don't engage a potentially dangerous situation unless you absolutely have to. Especially do not do so with a gun.

Neither the police nor the province are warning that thieves should be prepared to be shot if they go into someone's house.

The province has ruled out any change to the law that would make vigilanteeism easier.

What you are suggesting is totally offside from that reality. It is in fact a threat to safety, and something that will increase rural crime.

But what I really mean by "going there" is you trying suggesting the response to crime has any relation to fact that we do live on land that we stole through genocide, and that we still live in a society that runs on systemic racism and denial.

And your insinuation that all thieves are Indigenous is also a classic example of that attitude. As is talking about shooting Indigenous people as a way of mocking reconciliation.

(edit)

I'm not defending thieves Pondering. I am saying vigilanteeism and responding to crime by shooting people is outrageous. And the promotion of it is a total scam by gun nuts.

But does racism play a role, even though not all thieves are Indigenous. Absolutely, especially when you have people just assuming a direct relationship.

Thank you for proving my point. Obviously not all thieves are indigenous. You are the one claiming this is rooted in racism, that only FNs get shot at not white people. If white people are also getting shot at then racism isn't the issue. 

I have said at least 10 times that I support the laws as they exist and do not support any changes. I have never promoted the idea of gun ownership or protecting from theft with a firearm. I have made it clear the sole justification for using a gun is to protect from physical attack. 

The reality is people in rural areas almost always have guns. That isn't something I am promoting. It's a simple fact of life. Unless you intend to outlaw firearms on farms the reality is they will have guns. They apparently have the legal right to carry a firearm on a combine using the justification of shooting animals. Unless the law is changed they will do it. I'm not promoting it. I'm saying that is what they will do regardless of what police recommend. If you can think of a way to change the law that has any chance of passing by all means suggest it. 

Police and the province shouldn't have to warn people that home-invasion could lead to their death by frightened rural homeowner with a gun. You know your neighbour has a gun. If you go break in his house while he is home don't be surprised if he shoots you. Don't expect your white skin to protect you. 

Police want to discourage homeowners from shooting invaders. All they can do is advise against it because it isn't illegal. That is current reality. It is legal to shoot home invaders now. No change in law required. It is legal to carry a firearm on your own property including outdoors. That is the current law. If someone threatens your safety on your property, even outdoors, you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to discourage or end the threat. That is the law. It is not illegal to shoot in the air to scare off intruders. 

This is the current state of law. Unless the law is changed home-invaders are taking their lives in their hands. If thieves have even a tiny modicum of sense they will wait until a house is unoccupied to break in. If they don't even have that tiny modicum of sense I am sad for them but the homeowner is not to blame for the thief's stupidity in turning themselves into a home -invader. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. Obviously not all thieves are indigenous. You are the one claiming this is rooted in racism, that only FNs get shot at not white people. If white people are also getting shot at then racism isn't the issue.

Even if we accept that Boushie and his friends were going around robbing farms and looking for things to steal, do you think that hasn't been been happening on farms in Saskatchewan and Manitoba before? The fact that groups like "Farmers with Firearms" became more prominent in the wake of the shooting of a First Nation's man tells me that race has something to do with this.

Pondering wrote:
If white people are also getting shot at then racism isn't the issue.

So because white people are mistreated by police, that means that if a First Nations person is mistreated by police that you can safely rule out race being an issue in that case?

Pondering, how much time have you spent here in the Prairies? I've lived here for nearly my entire life. I know what goes on here. Despite the problems of property crime on the Prairies, I've never heard open calls for people to defend themselves with firearms before this case. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can point that out because I haven't come across it.

6079_Smith_W

And my comment wasn't about who is getting shot. I have not said only Indigenous people get shot, because I know personally that is not true.

It was about your claim that if I don't agree with shooting people and follow the advice of police about not being a vigilante it must be because I want to give all my possessions to Indigenous people.

Why? Well according to you because I support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement. Why else would I not want to stand up for my castle and  kill people?

I trust people here can unpack that one for themselves.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And my comment wasn't about who is getting shot.

It was about your claim that if I don't agree with shooting people and follow the advice of police about not being a vigilante it must be because I want to give all my possessions to Indigenous people.

Why? Well according to you because I support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement. Why else would I not want to stand up for my castle and  kill people?

I trust people here can unpack that one for themselves.

I never said any such thing which is why I don't put much stock in what you say about the Prairies. You have completely misrepresented what people are saying in this thread to the extent of calling black white and you do it over and over and over again so you can argue with yourself. 

I also support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement. That has nothing to do with reactions to home invasion.  Notice I am not talking about arriving home and finding a thief there. It is illegal to shoot people for stealing. You should know that by now. 

I think it's an excellent idea if you follow the advice of police. I think everyone should. What you want to do with your possessions and your life is entirely up to you. 

It is entirely up to other people if they want to risk their lives by trusting home invaders.

The law draws a hard line. You may only defend yourself using force, not things you own. If you shoot someone for theft you go to prison for murder. 

6079_Smith_W

It is in fact what you said.

You also said that I believe if white people get hurt or robbed it is their own fault.  Again, because I support respecting treaties and land claims.

And the law doesn't actually give anyone free rein to shoot someone under any circumstances, much as some seem to be spinning it that way. It is against the law. Whether there is seen to be a justifiable cause is entirely up to police, prosecutors, and judges.

That is why in both cases we are discussing that involve people being shot, the shooter was arrested and charged. Shoot someone and you are taking a chance that you will be held to account for it.

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I also support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement.

You can claim to support reconciliation and respecting treaties all you want. Your posts in regards to the Boushie thread, in particular interpreting the actions of Boushie and his friends in the worst light possible while giving Stanley the benefit of the doubt, contradict your claim.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I also support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement.

You can claim to support reconciliation and respecting treaties all you want. Your posts in regards to the Boushie thread, in particular interpreting the actions of Boushie and his friends in the worst light possible while giving Stanley the benefit of the doubt, contradict your claim.

That isn't true. I have said multiple times that I think Stanley is at least guilty of manslaughter but that it was not proven. I don't buy Shelton throwing the hammer either. The justice system, not me, gives defendants the benefit of the doubt. Although that certainly leads to guilty people going free would you have it otherwise?

I have also said on numerous occasions that Boushie was probably asleep and woke up to mayhem. It's possible he didn't participate in the behavior at either farm that day. I would say that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. 

I have said I don't believe Boushie or his friends intended any harm to the Stanleys and I think they were trying to leave when Sheldon threw the hammer and that when Boushie woke up and transferred to the drivers seat it was to leave not run anyone over. 

You and Smith are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You give 100% of the benefit of the doubt to criminals and none whatsoever to homeowners. 

I think it is possible Gerald accidently pulled the trigger or it's possible that it was a hangfire. 

There is zero evidence to suggest that Gerald Stanley leapt at the opportunity to execute an FN man in front of witnesses. I don't think the theory is believable. Neither you nor Smith has presented any evidence suggesting that Gerald is so racist that he murdered Colton in cold blood based on that motivation. You cannot claim his motivation for murder was theft as nothing was stolen. To deliberately murder someone for attempted theft is far-fetched. Gerald would have exhibited such a violent personality prior to this incident if that it the kind of person he was. 

We know as fact that the men and women were drunk, had been shooting the gun out the car window, and had used the gun as a crowbar to try to steal a vehicle on the previous farm. What benefit of the doubt am I supposed to give them? The female witness first said Leesa Stanley fired 2 shots to Colton's head. I think she did believe that when she got out of the car which is why she punched Leesa. When she found out it was Stanley she pretended she had seen it happen. The other woman was so drunk that she was passed out in the back seat for the entire thing including driving on the rim on gravel over the length of  the Stanley's driveway to the yard. The two men who brought the women and Colton into the situation took off leaving their "friends" behind. 

Sure, fine upstanding young people. Colton should not have died. No one deserves to die for stupidity or because friends decided to endanger their lives. 

Colton was stupid, his friends were stupid, Sheldon was stupid (throwing the hammer) Gerald was stupid (old ammunition, not keeping the gun down even though he thought it was empty). Lots of stupid to go around. Many moments that would have changed things had people made more intelligent choices. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You also said that I believe if white people get hurt or robbed it is their own fault.  Again, because I support respecting treaties and land claims.  

No, I am saying you don't believe people have a right to defend themselves from home invaders. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And the law doesn't actually give anyone free rein to shoot someone under any circumstances, much as some seem to be spinning it that way. It is against the law. Whether there is seen to be a justifiable cause is entirely up to police, prosecutors, and judges. 

Wrong again. I have been very clear that we are only permitted to use the amount of force necessary for defence and you can't shoot a thief that is running away in the back. You have to have plausible cause to consider yourself or your family in danger of physical injury unless you use force, and you are supposed to use a minimal amount of force and only until the immediate threat is ended. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Whether there is seen to be a justifiable cause is entirely up to police, prosecutors, and judges. 

Of course. The homeowner must be able to establish that they were acting in self-defence or in the defence of their family. They have to have a reasonable explanation for their fear. Generally speaking the courts find in favor of homeowners when confronted by home-invaders unless there is some indication that the invader was no threat. That is, homeowners are allowed to default to the assumption that the home invader is a threat to their physical safety not just their property. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
That is why in both cases we are discussing that involve people being shot, the shooter was arrested and charged. Shoot someone and you are taking a chance that you will be held to account for it.  

In both these cases the homes of the shooters were not invaded. In the Stanley case it was in their yard. In the other case it was also people rummaging through a car, not breaking into a home. The Stanley case is complicated by conflicting testimony from gun experts allowing for the possibility of a malfunction. It can be seen as a tragic series of events. The case in which the homeowner shot at thieves in the car seems to be deliberate and there is no suggestion that he was personally at risk or that his family could have been at risk. There was no reason for him to shoot into the vehicle or point the gun. We also have the third case of warning shots being fired and the thieves driving away in the stolen vehicle and that homeowner was not charged. So, I think it is considered reasonable if not recommended to fire warning shots. 

Farmers with Firearms wants farmers yards to be considered like their homes. Not happening. There will be no licence to shoot at trespassers. 

I support our current laws. I think they strike the right balance. That includes the benefit of the doubt going to the accused. 

6079_Smith_W

This is what you said:

Pondering wrote:

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is what you said:

Pondering wrote:

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs. 

Okay you are right I did. After days of your projecting ridiculous views on me and others that I and they do not hold it was time to put the shoe on the other foot. 

You insist on reading things between the lines that are not there so I gave you a taste of your own medicine. 

Paladin1

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Yes, crime is very high in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Has been for a long time. Do you think this is news to any of us? Furthermore, if we're talking about crime in general, most crime happens between people who know each other, not strangers. How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Hi Aristotleded,

I don't think crime out west is news to any of you, no. I was surprised to read how much of a warzone North Battleford seems to be.  #1 in Canada for Firearm offenses, B&E, DUIs and youth crime. #2 for Violent crime and assault.  In all of Canada. I was surprised.  I can't really see that place getting much worse whether more firearms are added or not.

Quote:
I have seen things on my walk that bother me, but on the whole I know the area and am confident  in my ability to survive.

To get a better understanding can I ask like that?

Quote:
And let's allow that Boushie and his friends were drunk while driving between farms. Do you think that's the first time something like that has happened in rural Saskatchewan or Manitoba? That's been going on for a long time.

Yes it seems like quite the epidemic. Maybe alcohol should be heavily restricted, perhaps a special liscence to buy it. I'd like to see cars taken away and impounded on someones first DUI offense.

Quote:
Only after a First Nation's person is shot to death is there a loud, visible, public call for people to have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Coincidence? Why has this not been a thing before the Boushie shooting?

My guess is that it was a catalyst. People fed up with being victimized decided to use this, in poor taste as it may be, as a line in the sand.

Quote:
We live here. We know what's going on. Maybe one of us can show you around and teach you a few things if you ever come out our way?

I will be out that way this summer, both Saskatoon and Winnipeg. I would very much like to take you up on that offer.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I support our current laws. I think they strike the right balance. That includes the benefit of the doubt going to the accused. 

Keep an eye ont he news this week. A lot of Babbler's are going to be happy with the Liberals ;)

6079_Smith_W

The premier and attourney general have both commented on the call for a change to tresspass rules that would shift the onus away from the landowner.

Both Moe and Morgan were clear that their willingness to talk about trespassing rules would not veer into the introduction of "stand-your-ground" legislation. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sarm-bear-pit-session-1.4579303

As is clear from what SARM is asking for though, it would still be legal to come up someone's drive and knock on the door.

Pondering

And let's allow that Boushie and his friends were drunk while driving between farms. Do you think that's the first time something like that has happened in rural Saskatchewan or Manitoba? That's been going on for a long time.

Allow it? It was proven, they admitted it. So what if it has been going on a long time. That makes it okay? Less dangerous because they have practice? They also admitted to trying to steal a vehicle at the previous farm. A piece of the gun was found there. I'm looking for a means of giving them "the benefit of the doubt". 

Trying to define them as innocent "kids" who just drove up to the farm to ask for help because 5 adults in their twenties don't have a cell phone with them is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's living in fantasy land. 

Paladin1

I know there is a clause with the tresspassing law where someone with a flat tire that knock on your door can't be charged under a tresspassing law providing they leave when told to do so but would a no tresspassing sign negate something like that?

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Trying to define them as innocent "kids" who just drove up to the farm to ask for help because 5 adults in their twenties don't have a cell phone with them is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's living in fantasy land. 

 

Did no one in the car have a cellphone with them?

I was thinking about something. When this story first broke I remember a lot of people suggesting they were just innocent kids out for a drive. From what little I knew of the facts I thought that was a pretty naive belief and wondered if it was legitimate or purposefully overlooking what was known. I was wondering of the farmers side seen this and it made their reaction all the worse?

6079_Smith_W

No one was assuming they weren't trying to steal something. But it is a fact that people who were just walking up to the door have been shot by twitchy landowners. So in that sense it is relevant to those who think vigilanteeism is the proper response to crime.

I think this might be in reference to the specific point that they were driving drunk and therefore might have died anyway, and that allegedly that means the fact Stanley shot him dead is less of a problem. He just happened to be the one who did it.

Though Boushie wasn't driving , so I am not sure how that weird logic even applies. He got into a car with a drunk driver, and therefore it isn't as much of a big deal that someone killed him?

On a specific point of rural crime, Stanley is back in court today on his improper storage charge.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No one was assuming they weren't trying to steal something.

They most certainly were. I seen a number of comments from people about how the innocent kids in the car were just out for a fun drive when racist white farmers tried to kill them. Other comments about how FN kids can't enjoy mother nature (going for a swim) without someone trying murder them etc..  Some people did infact seem to believe or want to portray the occupants of the car as out for an innocent drive.

 

Quote:

On a specific point of rural crime, Stanley is back in court today on his improper storage charge.

And oddly, Cassidy Cross-Whitstone still isn't facing charges.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think this might be in reference to the specific point that they were driving drunk and therefore might have died anyway, and that allegedly that means the fact Stanley shot him dead is less of a problem. He just happened to be the one who did it.

Though Boushie wasn't driving , so I am not sure how that weird logic even applies. He got into a car with a drunk driver, and therefore it isn't as much of a big deal that someone killed him?

Not what I said. And again I have said his death was tragic multiple times. What I said was that Sheldon, Gerald and all five adults in the car all acted stupidly which led to the accidental shooting of Colton by Gerald. Only Gerald is directly responsible as he was holding the gun. 

Having said that stealing is a dangerous activity. Just like drunk driving it can lead to death. 

So, if the goal is to prevent deaths rather than assigning blame I think it's a good thing to let that be known. 

Vigilantism is illegal. 

6079_Smith_W

This is the comment I was talking about:

Pondering wrote:

Driving around with drunks to the point where you are passing out, shooting a gun out a window at targets, using a gun as a crowbar, and finally driving up Gerald Stanley's property to his yard driving on a rim and trying to get into vehicles, is all dangerous behavior that can get you killed. It happened to be Gerald's bullet that killed Colton. He could just as easily have died in a rollover, (drunken driving is illegal because it is deadly). He could have died when the gun was being used as a crowbar. He could have killed someone while target shooting recklessly. He wasn't just a little tipsy. 

Anyone breaking into your neighbour's house is taking their life in their hands. Simple as that. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You can claim to support reconciliation and respecting treaties all you want. Your posts in regards to the Boushie thread, in particular interpreting the actions of Boushie and his friends in the worst light possible while giving Stanley the benefit of the doubt, contradict your claim.

Sorry, but this is silly.  The Stanley case has absolutely nothing to do with treaties, nor reconciliation.  Canada didn't "owe" Aboriginals a guilty verdict to show that we're really sincere.

So far the proof that this is all just a case of racism gone mad seems to be the continuous assertion that it was racism gone mad.  Or, unfalsifiable stuff like "just come out here and see with your own two eyes" or whatever.

6079_Smith_W

He didn't say anything about the verdict. I expect he's talking about comments in this thread spinning everything Indigenous people say and do as suspect, and with evil intent, while trusting white people and giving them the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

That is actually central to issues of reconciliation. There was coverage this morning of the anniversary of a memorandum of understanding  between the town of Elbow and Saskatchewan First Nations. Overcoming those prejudices was central to that agreement:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/fsin-elbow-memorandum-signing...

Thought truth be told, you don't have to come to the prairies to see hatred against Indigenous people.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I expect he's talking about comments in this thread spinning everything Indigenous people say and do as suspect, and with evil intent, while trusting white people and giving them the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

If we're discussing lots of cases, I suppose a pattern could emerge.

But if we're talking about one specific case -- and it seems we still are -- then doubting one side's story, believing one side's story, or even questioning both sides' stories isn't really evidence of latent racism.

Personally, I've always had a really hard time believing that O.J. didn't kill his ex-wife.  But I hope that saying that doesn't set race relations back 100 years.  I'm not saying it because he's a man of colour.  But since he IS a man of colour, am I being a li'l bit racist?

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
Hi Aristotleded,

I don't think crime out west is news to any of you, no. I was surprised to read how much of a warzone North Battleford seems to be.  #1 in Canada for Firearm offenses, B&E, DUIs and youth crime. #2 for Violent crime and assault.  In all of Canada. I was surprised.  I can't really see that place getting much worse whether more firearms are added or not.

I find the use of the term "warzone" to be a bit hyperbolic. What I find problematic is that we live here, some of us have even posted stories about being victimized by crime, and there are posts that come across as lecturing about how bad things are from people who don't live here or are making comments based on a ranking in a news article that's devoid of any context. It's like the ignorant mentality I described in my other post about people who will judge the area I live even though they spend far less time here than I do.

Paladin1 wrote:
Maybe alcohol should be heavily restricted, perhaps a special liscence to buy it. I'd like to see cars taken away and impounded on someones first DUI offense.

We do have strict impaired driving laws at least in Manitoba. Manitoba and Saskatchewan also have crown corporations that are responsible for distribution and sale of alcohol. The government agency in Manitoba is strict in its enforcement to the point that those responsible will ticket their own mothers in a second if the situation warranted. As for further restrictions? How do you stop someone who isn't restricted from providing alcohol to someone who is? Underage drinking is a huge problem in Manitoba (has been even back in my day, and I'm sure long before my time as well) and somehow we can't seem to figure out how to grapple with that problem short of telling teenagers "don't do it." The other thing is, if you restrict alcohol sales further, will that trigger increased break-ins at alcohol stores, which leads us right back to the problem of crime in the first place?

Paladin1 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Quote:
Only after a First Nation's person is shot to death is there a loud, visible, public call for people to have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Coincidence? Why has this not been a thing before the Boushie shooting?

My guess is that it was a catalyst. People fed up with being victimized decided to use this, in poor taste as it may be, as a line in the sand.

So it appears to you that something might be off a bit below the surface, and you've used the term "poor taste" to describe it. I think this conversation is making progress.

Paladin1 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Quote:
We live here. We know what's going on. Maybe one of us can show you around and teach you a few things if you ever come out our way?

I will be out that way this summer, both Saskatoon and Winnipeg. I would very much like to take you up on that offer.

If you're serious, you know where to find me, with the caveat that my 3-D life is very busy, as I imagine to be the case with you as well.

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:
.

Personally, I've always had a really hard time believing that O.J. didn't kill his ex-wife.  But I hope that saying that doesn't set race relations back 100 years.  I'm not saying it because he's a man of colour.  But since he IS a man of colour, am I being a li'l bit racist?

No, but that might be the parlour law and order chat version of claiming that I have black friends, so I that means I can't be racist.

And sure, we are talking about a couple of cases. When I brought up the lopsided doubt and argument you didn't deny it; you said the other side didn't need help.

 

Pages