Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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. 

That doesn't mean Gerald is any the less responsible. Gerald being responsible, even if accidently, doesn't negate the fact that Colton and his friends made a habit of dangerous behaviors. Colton did not foresee that he could be fatally shot. What do you think he would have done if he had foreseen the possibility?

Gerald alone is responsible for Colton's death. He held the gun. He failed to handle it safely. It doesn't matter that he thought it was empty. As I understand it you are never ever supposed to point a gun at someone even if you are convinced it is empty.  He didn't point it on purpose but he still didn't keep it pointed at the ground.

I think it is important for young people like Colton to know that their risky behavior can lead to death. Even if Gerald had been convicted Colton would still be dead. 

6079_Smith_W

@ Aristotleded24

Exactly. Then again, we have posted enough information, including quotes from administrators saying that they haven't been hearing from residents about an epidemic of crime. Frankly at this point I think it is a case of some people here seeing what they want to see. I'm not sure a visit here would make any difference. After all, we also have those zealots who live here. They are a big part of the problem after all. They certainly seem to be some of the ones contributing to rural crime by shooting people.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

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. 

That doesn't mean Gerald is any the less responsible. Gerald being responsible, even if accidently, doesn't negate the fact that Colton and his friends made a habit of dangerous behaviors. Colton did not foresee that he could be fatally shot. What do you think he would have done if he had foreseen the possibility?

Gerald alone is responsible for Colton's death. He held the gun. He failed to handle it safely. It doesn't matter that he thought it was empty. As I understand it you are never ever supposed to point a gun at someone even if you are convinced it is empty.  He didn't point it on purpose but he still didn't keep it pointed at the ground.

I think it is important for young people like Colton to know that their risky behavior can lead to death. Even if Gerald had been convicted Colton would still be dead.

Pondering, in the years that you have been at babble, I've noticed that you are a very strong advocate for the safety of young women and girls. If someone were to say something like, "sure he shouldn't have raped her, but wearing revealing clothing, going with him in his car, going with him into his apartment, inviting him into her apartment, kissing him, getting drunk is all risky behaviour that can get you raped," you would be the first and among the loudest posters denouncing that mentality as victim blaming and pointing the finger of responsibility squarely at the perpetrator. This is very similar to your assessment of the Boushie case, and I find your blind spot to your own behaviour here quite troubling.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

 

I think it is important for young people like Colton to know that their risky behavior can lead to death. Even if Gerald had been convicted Colton would still be dead. 

So they better smarten up if they don't want to die?

Sorry to break it to you, but it is no news flash to Indigenous people here that there are lots of white people who would be happier if they were dead and would happily kill them if they could get away with it.

Saskatoon is the town, after all,  where the cops had a thing for driving Indigenous people out of town in winter to die. I think Indigenous people in Saskatchewan are quite aware of the threats to their lives, and how much people are going to care if they are killed, and how likely it is that white people are going to be held to account for it.

Then again, you live in a part of the country where similar things happen to people of African heritage, so this should be of no surprise to you either.

And even if Stanley had been convicted Boushie would still be dead? What the fuck does that even mean?

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
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.

I'm not saying I can't be racist because of my black friend.  I'm only suggesting it's not racist to consider a legal case -- even one involving a POC -- on its merits, and without making mention either way of that POC.  In other words, I think we can acknowledge that a young black man might be pulled over for "Driving While Black" and also might be pulled over for driving 140kph in an 80kph zone.  I hope it never becomes "either/or".

I'm not sure anyone's asked, so I'll ask:  if Colten Boushie were a third generation Scottish-Canadian, is it our theory that Stanley would have said to him "hey, white brother, do you need a li'l help here?"

6079_Smith_W

So what are the legal merits of bringing up how one group of people were drunk and obviously there to commit acts of violence (even though they did not before the killing) and could not be believed, and that those on the other side were scared, and just defending their homes, and made understandable mistakes (which killed a man), and were telling the truth.

Sorry man, but what I see is racism. Claiming it is just on "the merits" is nonsense.

 

 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering, in the years that you have been at babble, I've noticed that you are a very strong advocate for the safety of young women and girls. If someone were to say something like, "sure he shouldn't have raped her, but wearing revealing clothing, going with him in his car, going with him into his apartment, inviting him into her apartment, kissing him, getting drunk is all risky behaviour that can get you raped," you would be the first and among the loudest posters denouncing that mentality as victim blaming and pointing the finger of responsibility squarely at the perpetrator. This is very similar to your assessment of the Boushie case, and I find your blind spot to your own behaviour here quite troubling.

I did warn my daughter not to be alone with men she doesn't know, not to drink a beverage she left alone on a table or bar, not to hail taxis, call for one, etc. What she wears is immaterial. 80 year old women have been raped. The average man will always be physically stronger than the average woman so we have to guard ourselves against them because even "nice" men rape women. I always lock my door even though I live in a very safe building. If I didn't lock my door and someone robbed me or worse it would not be my fault. I'd still rather prevent it from happening. 

Should we not recommend bus service along the highway of tears because that is "victim blaming"? After all, what happened to them had nothing to do with hitchhiking right? It's unavoidable bad guys. 

I recall a serial rapist attacking students going to their cars from a local university. Male students got together and offered themselves as escorts to women students leaving night classes. I thought it was a great initiative and an example of men taking responsibility for protecting women from other men.

They got a lot of flack. Some women declared we shouldn't need protection, that we have a right to walk at night without being attacked. The men were not suggesting it's okay that we needed escorts, or that women shouldn't be able to walk freely. They were not suggesting it was our fault we were getting raped or that we couldn't take care of ourselves.

They were just offering a practical means for women attending night classes to get to their cars safely until the perpetrator could be caught. 

When it comes to serious injury or death that it was someone else's responsibility is not much comfort. There is no restitution that can be made. 

I'm a pragmatist. More than anything else in the world Colton's family want him to be alive. If there is another person on the path to early death, prevention is by far the most important consideration. 

  • It is legal for people to own firearms
  • It is unlikely that can be changed in the foreseeable future
  • people in rural areas often own guns, especially farmers, most likely the majority own guns. 
  • When people's homes are invaded they become afraid for their safety. 
  • When people who own guns are afraid for their safety they get their gun and load it.
  • It is legal for farmers to have loaded guns, and shoot at birds and animals, on their property. 
  • Some farmers are riding around with a gun on their farm equipment. 
  • If they are threatened by someone it is legal to shoot that person. 
  • Shooting someone outside is more difficult to justify but not impossible depending on circumstances.
  • The minute a loaded gun is in the picture the risk of death for someone goes up exponentially. 
  • The someone is usually but not always the interloper. 

To me that is as factual as the possibility of rocks on a riverbed when you go diving.

If the goal is avoiding death whatever power lies in your own hands or in the hands of the community to prevent it should be embraced not shunned as victim blaming. 

6079_Smith_W

But it is victim blaming, or at the very least expecting victims to bear the burden for staying out of the way of those who would assault or kill them, and don't go anywhere near challenging men with the simple idea that they should not commit sexual assault.

Same in this case. Don't get drunk and go into people's yards if you don't want to get killed. And if something happens you are to blame, and no one is going to believe you. As for the radical notion that we shouldn't shoot people dead, apparently we can't do anything about that because it is the status quo and can't change, just like the assumption that men are going to commit sexual assault, so we simply have to live with it.

As for your assertion that this threat of deadly force actually plays a role in reducing crime, I agree with you that it plays a role, even if I don't agree that it is for a positive purpose.

Our society has always used that threat of violence (and the white majority knowing we can get away with it) to keep Indigenous people in fear and in their place. Not all that different than the role violence against women plays in our society.

So there are parallels, if perhaps not the ones you are seeing.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

I assume the comeback is going to be that this is about defense. In fact, it isn't.

White people don't have to worry about walking into some racist's pawn shop and getting shot in the back. Or being pushed around and thrown out of a store for no reason:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/confrontation-canadian-tire-r...

Kamao Cappo is actually the same rancher who showed up at that RCMP meeting in Perdue and pointed out that they also have poor police response, but they don't shoot people. One wonders if he would have gotten that apology if he hadn't had video to back him up.

This is why telling people it is okay to use guns isn't a solution to crime; it will create more crime. In fact, it already has. There was nothing defensive about the way those guns were used in Biggar, and in Okotoks.

It is really about entrenching the fine old tradition of using violence to enforce systemic racism and white supremacy. Tell all the stupid white people that the people who show up at their doorstep starving to death are there to attack them, and run into the fort and bar the doors. Not much has changed since 1885.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looting_of_Battleford

 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Same in this case. Don't get drunk and go into people's yards if you don't want to get killed.

That seems like great advice. But maybe include trying to steal stuff or intimidating the home owners.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, and make sure your skirt is cut below the knee. Don't wear low-cut sweaters. Don't go out at night, and don't look men in the eye or be too friendly if you don't want them to take it the wrong way and assault or kill you.

Great advice.

Oh, and don't go into white people's stores unless you want to get assaulted or shot, or at very least followed around until you leave.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yeah, and make sure your skirt is cut below the knee. Don't wear low-cut sweaters. Don't go out at night, and don't look men in the eye or be too friendly if you don't want them to take it the wrong way and assault or kill you.

Great advice.

That's a weak comparason.

Women dressing however they want is neither illegal nor an invite for men to rape them.

Tresspassing on someones properety, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, especially with the intent to rob them is illegal.  The difference is you're breaking the law and quite possibly scaring someone or intimidating them, making them think their life is in danger.

Unless of course your argument is that men have sexual emergencies and have to rape women so a woman dressing like that is forcing the man to act.

 

Quote:
Oh, and don't go into white people's stores unless you want to get assaulted or shot, or at very least followed around until you leave.

And honestly those white crackers should let anyone who is a non-cracker just take what the want from the store.

 

 

Paladin1

I have advice that will save a lot of lives out west;

Stop drinking and driving.

Stop tresspassing on peoples property unless you have a valid and legal reason to do so.

Stop stealing from people.

 

If people followed those "laws" then this would be a non-issue.

6079_Smith_W

Like I said, for those crackers who want vigilantee powers it isn't really about taking anything at all. It's about thinking the law doesn't apply to them.

But you are making some false assumptions of your own.

Leo LaChance didn't go into that store to steal. Nor did Mr. Cappo. But one wound up dead and the other was roughed up, verbally abused and thrown out

In the Canadian Tire case it was just some guy making racist assumptions. And in the Prince Albert case it seems some white supremacist just wanted to kill someone. So no, it isn't a non-issue.

This is without even getting in to your belief that it is a great idea to kill someone for theft, or just being on your property.

 

Paladin1

C'mon Smith. Clearly I said it was a great idea to kill people just to test your guns to see if they work incase you have to use them to scare away coyotes. Please get my quotes correct.   I haven't read about those stories about the stores before, I just took a quick look now.

In the Leo Lechance case this comment stood out. "The exact details of what followed in the store were never determined."

With Mr. Cappo that store employee sounds like an asshole. I've been accused of stealing, I'm sure lots of people have. But if I were to make a guess I'd say that race probably was a factorwith how Mr. Cappo was treated.   Would you like me to explain why?

I mean I'm sure you'll accuse me of suggesting the store employee should have shot him for stealing because you seem really set on twisting peoples words for some reason but really, do you want to know what I think the culprit might be?

6079_Smith_W

I understood what you said. You said it was great advice that people shouldn't get drunk and trespass if they don't want to get killed.

That would seem to indicate you don't have a problem with murdering people who come on your property, if we are going to put the responsibility where it really belongs.

In case I need to spell it out, this whole question of shooting people concerns proportional response. Murdering someone isn't proportional, and it isn't legal. And spinning gun violence this way is a pretty ironic and hypocritical way of hijacking a thread about dealing with crime.

6079_Smith_W

It is funny, and not in a good way, that you are all spinning this as it being just fine to have a gun around in case the worst possible scenario happens. And spinning the fact that the law might consider an extreme situation justifiable means using a gun on someone is a legal right. It is not. 

And the assumption this is all perfectly normal, and necessary for crime prevention, except for all these cases in which someone actually uses a gun in that way. In those cases it is either a mistake, or someone was clearly out of line and deserves to go to jail. Kind of begging the question. And ignoring the fact that police and provincial government have repeatedly warned people to not take the law into their own hands

What you are also ignoring is that this is emboldens twitchy racists who think they know when that kind of violence is warranted, and assume the worst of Indigenous people. Not to mention some who just want to shoot people, and are pretty sure given past examples that they'll be able to get away with it.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So what are the legal merits of bringing up how one group of people were drunk and obviously there to commit acts of violence (even though they did not before the killing) and could not be believed, 

I do not believe they were there to commit acts of violence. I said so multiple times. I also said I think they were trying to leave when the hammer was thrown by Sheldon at the SUV causing the driver to lose control and hit the parked vehicle. They testified that they lied so I did believe them and so did the jury. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
and that those on the other side were scared, and just defending their homes, and made understandable mistakes (which killed a man), and were telling the truth. 

Except I am not saying the Stanleys were telling the truth. I'm saying it is plausible. Being acquitted is not saying a person is innocent of the crime they committed. It is only saying the crown failed to prove their guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

I'm saying regardless of colour the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Sorry man, but what I see is racism. Claiming it is just on "the merits" is nonsense. 

That is because you are misrepresenting what has been said due to your prejudice. Even if 80% of white people in your area are racist that does not mean Gerald Stanley is one of them and shot Colton on that basis. That is no different than assuming an individual Asian must be academically accomplished because it is common among Asians, or that a tall person plays basketball. 

I have not decided that Gerald is innocence, I just don't think the evidence proves his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

Farmers with Firearms represent a subset of farmers not all farmers. 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

I do not believe they were there to commit acts of violence. I said so multiple times.

Go back and read post 174 in the thread on the Stanley trial. You said this:

Like you said "You don't take out a gun unless you intend to use it in some way." Colton loaded his gun and took it with him to go swimming and drinking. Why would anyone take a loaded gun to swim and drink? He had it on his lap.

....

I don't believe Colton intended to kill anyone. I do believe Colton was drunk and intended to frighten and intimidate anyone who tried to stop him and his friends from stealing whatever they came across that he wanted. It would be quite natural to assume people on a farm might have guns. Instead of being frightened by the thought he came prepared for a gun fight.

And from post 231:

The 5 were aggressors because they came onto the property to steal and even though Colton's gun was inoperable it wasn't at the previous farm. It does show willingness to do violence. He was no choir boy.

In fact, best to re-read the several pages around that to get the ways in which Stanley is given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, while Boushie is cast in the worst possible light.

These assumptions about willingness to do violence, and intent to intimidate or get involved in a gun fight were made even though no one picked up that broken gun, even when their car was attacked with a hammer, and even when one of their own was shot dead. Plus it wasn't Boushie's gun.

And yes, Farmers with Firearms are just a gun lobby group. They don't speak for all farmers. So why are people peddling their vigilante stand your ground propaganda here in this thread?

 

Paladin1

A lot of people burried in grave yards had the right of way.  Sometimes good advice is just good advice. If you don't want to run the risk of some scared farmer/trigger happy person shooting at you for trying to steal their shit then don't steal their shit.

As a Canadian citizen I should be free to walk anywhere in the city I want to at anytime of day or night. It's good advice not to walk around the rough part of town at 3 am counting your wad of cash. I'm not saying I agree that it's okay to rob people at 3 am, am I?

 

Quote:
What you are also ignoring is that this is emboldens twitchy racists who think they know when that kind of violence is warranted, and assume the worst of Indigenous people. Not to mention some who just want to shoot people, and are pretty sure given past examples that they'll be able to get away with it.

By your estimate how many white people are racist in your province? 90%? Higher?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As a Canadian citizen I should be free to walk anywhere in the city I want to at anytime of day or night. It's good advice not to walk around the rough part of town at 3 am counting your wad of cash. I'm not saying I agree that it's okay to rob people at 3 am, am I?

+1

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with being fitness-conscious, is there?  And there's nothing wrong with wearing black clothing, is there?  And nothing wrong with being a bit of a "night owl", right?

But if I go jogging, on the side of the highway, at 3am, wearing all black, and a driver hits me, does that mean I "deserved" it?  Did I receive a "death sentence" and if so, for what and from whom?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Go back and read post 174 in the thread on the Stanley trial. You said this: ...And from post 231
 We are now at post 370 and I have changed my mind several times as I discovered more information about exactly what happened and looked at arial pictures. The most recent addition is that one of the guys claimed their gun was unloaded when they drove up to the Stanleys and suggested they might have loaded the gun. So did he load it before or after using it to try to break into the car at the earlier farm? 

You said: "You don't take out a gun unless you intend to use it in some way." I responded. 

Like you said "You don't take out a gun unless you intend to use it in some way." Colton loaded his gun and took it with him to go swimming and drinking. Why would anyone take a loaded gun to swim and drink? He had it on his lap.

Since then I found out it wasn't Colton's gun and said that I think he was asleep when he arrived and that he is 100% innocent. You just don't want to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit in with your prejudices. 

I also said this before I knew more of the story:

I don't believe Colton intended to kill anyone. I do believe Colton was drunk and intended to frighten and intimidate anyone who tried to stop him and his friends from stealing whatever they came across that he wanted. It would be quite natural to assume people on a farm might have guns. Instead of being frightened by the thought he came prepared for a gun fight.

I also said that before I knew the entire story and since then I have said I think Colton was asleep and I don't think anyone, including the Stanleys, intended to shoot anyone that day. I do understand it isn't convenient to your argument to acknowledge that. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

In fact, best to re-read the several pages around that to get the ways in which Stanley is given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, while Boushie is cast in the worst possible light.  

Yes, but not to stop when you get to the part that doesn't support your argument. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 These assumptions about willingness to do violence, and intent to intimidate or get involved in a gun fight were made even though no one picked up that broken gun, even when their car was attacked with a hammer, and even when one of their own was shot dead. Plus it wasn't Boushie's gun.  

Yes, when criminals have guns I assume they intend to use them until I find out otherwise. They are criminals after all. If someone is stealing I don't assume it is directly after or before going hunting so that is why they are carrying a gun. I did find out later that the gun was for shooting at random targets out the car window. Not something that would occur to me and dangerous behavior in and of itself. I think the reason you are not supposed to do that is because you could kill someone. Especially if you are blind drunk at the time.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And yes, Farmers with Firearms are just a gun lobby group. They don't speak for all farmers. So why are people peddling their vigilante stand your ground propaganda here in this thread?  

You're the only one doing that. I support only the current laws. I haven't heard you suggest a single change in the law. What is your idea to prevent future deaths of people like Colton and his friends?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Was Colton Boushie having a nap while all of this transpired?  Or was he not?  I've seen more than one account saying he was napping during this, but also accounts suggesting that he started out in a passenger seat but ended up in the driver's seat.  What's the story with that?  How was he in the driver's seat if he wasn't driving?

6079_Smith_W

How about not shooting people, Pondering? Too radical maybe?

And if we reel back to my comment at 357 this actually started with yet another request to just look at the "legal merits" and ignore that nasty racism stuff. Which is as sad as it is absurd, for the reasons I gave, and which still stand, even if you are moving your opinions around.

I'll say it again though, only white people would assume that you could just pretend racism doesn't exist or turn it off when it becomes inconvenient to them. The people who get it all the time understand that it is everywhere, in overt or subtle ways, and you can't turn it off.

Kind of why I shook my head at Paladin's request to put a number on it. How many white people think Indigenous people are drunk lazy thieves that they should have the right to shoot? I don't know.

But I expect close to 100 percent of white people have no understanding of what it is like to be Indigenous and on the receiving end of that hatred all the time, and the knowledge that their lives aren't worth the same as ours in the eyes of the law.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'll say it again though, only white people would assume that you could just pretend racism doesn't exist or turn it off when it becomes inconvenient to them.

Can I be OK with a black man, driving 120kph in a 100kph zone, getting a speeding ticket?

Or because some other black men get pulled over for nothing more than "driving while black" does that mean this man's ticket was also "racism"?

6079_Smith_W

Don't be ridiculous.

So long as we are talking about crime in rural Saskatchewan, and shooting people dead is even considered a valid response, and people who encounter others' on their property (or their stores, or on a grid road somewhere) are to blame if they wind up being killed, you vigilante advocates have a pretty serious blind spot when it comes to the reality of racism in our society.

As Timebandit pointed out upthread, this isn't really about people defending themselves from crime. It is about privileged guys, almost exclusively white, who think the law should not apply to them, and want to be able to use guns to intimidate and threaten, and when they feel like it, shoot and kill.

Speaking of blind spots, you probably don't even recognize that it IS a major part of rural crime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So long as we are talking about crime in rural Saskatchewan, and shooting people dead is even considered a valid response, and people who encounter others' on their property (or their stores, or on a grid road somewhere) are to blame if they wind up being killed, you vigilante advocates have a pretty serious blind spot when it comes to the reality of racism in our society.

We "vigilante advocates" continue to wonder why you're so committed to the idea that there's nothing more than plain racism going on.

Not that we're not inclined to duck our heads.  Racist posts can get you banned.  But can I still stick my pinky finger up and ask "but what about...?"

You've delivered your verdict on all of this.  The fact that that verdict is "racism" doesn't really leave me any room to say anything, is all.  Once that's a foregone conclusion, what's left to discuss?

6079_Smith_W

Oh my. Free speech again. Well I just mentioned changes to trespass laws, new cops, and public meetings and that seems to have gone nowhere.

And of course it isn't just about racism. It is also about poverty, and addiction, and public safety. But racism is the biggest gaping wound in this society, and you can't talk about this issue without recognizing it. If you don't see that I'd say you actually don't understand what is going on here. Even in Saskatoon, it is easy to see. The dividing line runs right down the river.

It seems the only place you three want to go is vigilanteeism, so if there is anything stalling this conversation on one drumbeat, I think that might be it.

In fact thinking guns are in any way part of the solution is the biggest part of this problem. It puts you offside from a lot of the rural community. It puts you offside from the RCMP, from the province and from the law. About the only people you are onside with are a very vocal gun lobby driven by... wait for it ... privilege and racism.

And again, I call bullshit on the notion any of you have any idea what is involved in someone being shot dead. If you did you might take it a bit more seriously.

 

6079_Smith_W

Though just going by the numbers, I am not sure what this says about racism, but it is pretty clear what it says about guns

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-crime-severity-index-1.4...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And of course it isn't just about racism. It is also about poverty, and addiction, and public safety. But racism is the biggest gaping wound in this society, and you can't talk about this issue without recognizing it. If you don't see that I'd say you actually don't understand what is going on here.

That's exactly what I was referring to.

Everyone else's two option are to either agree with you, or be racist.

If I misunderstood, tell us what that other option is.

6079_Smith_W

Really?

The simple expectation that we should follow the law and not murder people is an unreasonable ultimatum?

Though I guess if not committing murder is something that's out of the question as a solution for young people getting killed I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'll say it again; if that is what it comes down to clearly you do not understand what is going on here, even based on your "legal merits". You can interpret that however you like.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The simple expectation that we should follow the law and not murder people is an unreasonable ultimatum?

Shrug.

As soon as you say "... murder people" you've already decided.

Quote:
if that is what it comes down to clearly you do not understand what is going on here

And for bonus points, the assertion that everything is different "here" and anyone not from "here" needs to be silent and listen to your wisdoms.  Even as it's suggested that racism exists everywhere, perpetrated by all of us.  But OK, it's WAY, WAY different and worse for you out there, or whatever.

6079_Smith_W

Magoo, someone did get shot dead.

What do you imagine happens when you pick up a gun?

I don't think it is that different here. But we do have the highest rate of violent crime in the country. So yes. By the numbers. It is worse.

And it is worse in other ways you might not understand, like the fact this was a war zone 130 years ago, and people were starved into submission. It has been occupied territory since then, and the institutions where Indigenous children were sent here had death rates higher than WW2 prisoner of war camps. As bad as relations between white and Indigenous people might be where you live, it was a military operation here, and the settlers who came here learned that attitude and that siege mentality. I brought up Battleford for an important reason, and I could also bring up the legacy of Nazism and the Klan here in the prairies.

How does that relate to your solution to rural crime? Because there are still some setttlers who would have no problem shooting Indigenous people dead if they had the chance and thought they could get away with it. Just like there are cops unafraid to post that they got what they deserved, and a town councillor who said Stanley should have left no witnesses, and the admitted fascist who killed Leo LaChance, and cops drive Indigenous people out of town to freeze to death.

These are the people you think should have a free rein to shoot people?

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Kind of why I shook my head at Paladin's request to put a number on it. How many white people think Indigenous people are drunk lazy thieves that they should have the right to shoot? I don't know.

Isn't that comment stereotyping? Is it only White people who think this about Indigenoius people?

 

 

 

 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That's exactly what I was referring to.

Everyone else's two option are to either agree with you, or be racist.

If I misunderstood, tell us what that other option is.

 

That's the feeling I'm getting.

Interesting that the police keep getting lauded but is it white farmers who are driving FN people to the city limits and leaving them to freeze to death?

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

These are the people you think should have a free rein to shoot people?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-rcmp-1.4366410

RCMP shoot unarmed FN man in North Battleford last October.

6079_Smith_W

Of course the police do it too. They do it most often because they do have the guns, and the power. Surely you are aware of this. And like the rest of the settler population not all of them are itching to kill people.

But when in comes to understanding about how things can go sideways when you think you can play gunslinger they know a bit more than the rest of us.

And all white people? Well, there's some historical and social background to that too. In the first place not everyone is so inclined to hate other people.  But the ones who really got the indoctrination were the Anglo Protestants, and in the days when First Nations people were imprisoned and invisible on reserves they directed their hatred and fear at Catholics, Eastern Europeans, and of course the murdering, traitorous Metis. The Orange Lodge in Winnipeg is named after Thomas Scott, after all.

Most of the flood of immigration in the early 1900s didn't come to Ontario. They came to the prairies. Eastern Europeans were the ones treated like lazy drunken criminals (and in some cases branded literally as traitors) by the Anglo majority. They (and Catholics) were far more likely to fall victim to the sterilization campaigns when Eugenics was public policy

Of course nowadays you might just as easily find people from those same cultures saying and thinking the same things about Indigenous people, even though 80 years ago that hatred was directed at them.

If you're really wondering why some people think that way. And why there are many Metis people here who pass for white who didn't tell people (and in some cases didn't even know) who they are.

I know I posted this already, but in case it didn't get read, here it is again:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-the-death-of-colten-boushie-...

Or if you ever happen to find a copy of Stephen Leacock's "Canada, The Foundations of its Future" you can see what white Anglos  were taught about everyone else. It might give you some clues about why racism and siege mentality is so pervasive here.

6079_Smith_W

An aside, but many people don't know what a multicultural society Winnipeg was in 1870 before the Canadian invasion. There were more people of mixed race than there were of any one culture. And even though there were racial tensions, particularly on the part of Anglos who assumed they owned the place, no one group held all the power. If any group was strongest, it was the Metis, who had resisted attempts to impose outside rule in the Pemmican War.

That is the legacy John A Macdonald was determined to break.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Of course the police do it too. They do it most often because they do have the guns, and the power.

So police have the guns, and the power.  And the police don't want farmers to use firearms to defend themselves. Could it be because police don't want to lose their monopoly on the power they hold?    Could police stand to benefit from increased crime in the area in terms of more overtime for them, better job security AND bigger budgets? That sounds harsh, surely, but surely less harsh than some of the stuff that gets said around here. Just devils advocate.

 

Quote:
But when in comes to understanding about how things can go sideways when you think you can play gunslinger they know a bit more than the rest of us.

Because they care about people . But if they're white settlers then they're intrisnically racist, so would they only not want white settlers using guns to defend themselves because things could go sideways?

Quote:

If you're really wondering why some people think that way. And why there are many Metis people here who pass for white who didn't tell people (and in some cases didn't even know) who they are.

I've read quite a bit how both sides continue to treat Metis like shit.

If you don't mind me asking how far of a drive is North Battleford to you Smith?

6079_Smith_W

You know I live in Saskatoon. I'd suggest looking at a map. Really.

Like I said, I was in Battleford last Wednesday. I am there regularly. I know people there. I have good friends who live in the country near there and are familiar with both the crime (including gun homocide) and the racism.

If you are questioning whether this is a problem specific to one tiny area, I wish I could say yes. But in fact it is everywhere. And there are plenty of people who are pointing out the same problems I am.

As for your conspiracy theory about cops, you know as well as I do that they show up anyway, when someone gets shot. And many of the people have been asking for more police. So I am not sure your reasoning holds together.

Cops really do have more experience with gun violence than we do. Please accept that.

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Of course the police do it too. They do it most often because they do have the guns, and the power. Surely you are aware of this. And like the rest of the settler population not all of them are itching to kill people.

But when in comes to understanding about how things can go sideways when you think you can play gunslinger they know a bit more than the rest of us.

And all white people? Well, there's some historical and social background to that too. In the first place not everyone is so inclined to hate other people.  But the ones who really got the indoctrination were the Anglo Protestants, and in the days when First Nations people were imprisoned and invisible on reserves they directed their hatred and fear at Catholics, Eastern Europeans, and of course the murdering, traitorous Metis. The Orange Lodge in Winnipeg is named after Thomas Scott, after all.

Most of the flood of immigration in the early 1900s didn't come to Ontario. They came to the prairies. Eastern Europeans were the ones treated like lazy drunken criminals (and in some cases branded literally as traitors) by the Anglo majority. They (and Catholics) were far more likely to fall victim to the sterilization campaigns when Eugenics was public policy

Of course nowadays you might just as easily find people from those same cultures saying and thinking the same things about Indigenous people, even though 80 years ago that hatred was directed at them.

If you're really wondering why some people think that way. And why there are many Metis people here who pass for white who didn't tell people (and in some cases didn't even know) who they are.

I know I posted this already, but in case it didn't get read, here it is again:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-the-death-of-colten-boushie-...

Or if you ever happen to find a copy of Stephen Leacock's "Canada, The Foundations of its Future" you can see what white Anglos  were taught about everyone else. It might give you some clues about why racism and siege mentality is so pervasive here.

That was an excellent article that describes very well Saskatchewan's racist past and present. It is impossible to understand the events on the Stanley farm without understanding Saskatchewan's racist history. All sorts of terrible events, big and small, will continue as long as racism permeates daily life in Saskatchewan and elsewhere. I've been to Saskatchewan and I've seen how difficult it is for indigenous people to deal with living with perpetual racism. People everywhere would have a very difficult time just dealing with the inevitable anger that would derive from such an unacceptable situation, and this would be especially so for indigenous youth who are just beginning to come to grips with the racist society they face. I think it makes sense that many indigenous youth feel "anti-social" and rebellious in a racist society that is so unfair to them. I think that is why it is so important to be very understanding of the perspective of indigenous people. I think Stanley and his son would not have instinctually responded so violently if they had taken the perspective of the indigenous youth into account. I think they would have given white youth a much bigger break if white youth had been the ones acting out. I think if white youth had driven aggressively onto their property the ensuing altercation would have been limited to just a verbal altercation and a gun would not have been involved.

Paladin1

 

I'm pretty decent with maps. I thought you lived on the outskirts of Saskatoon, maybe east or south of town. Just curious how long the drive was. I do recall you were there Wendsday.   Looking at the national stats I *am* curious why North Battleford seems to be ground zero for so much crime out there. Have you lived in Saskatoon your whole life or have you lived in any other parts of the prairies?

No disagreement cops have experience with gun violence, considerable experience in and around North Battleford. More than any of us. That's not proof of intention, however.  I'm not one to blindly accept police saying "just trust us".  

 

6079_Smith_W

Not sure if it's ground zero. It does have four big First Nations near it, though. And of course, the legacy of that fort. I'd say there are places that are as bad, like Fort Qu'Appelle, or worse like the cities (especially P.A.), and La Loche. But it is everywhere.

If you want to know why, grinding poverty is a big part of it.

I'm from Southern Manitoba. I have lived in the south west, and the east near Brokenhead and in the west near  Keesekoowaneen. And in Winnipeg.  I have lived in La Ronge, several times here in Saskatoon, and in Regina. I also have family near the Blood FN in Alberta, so I have spent a lot of time there too. Also lived in Vancouver.

As for not wanting to trust police on this, I know there's others who just think the laws shouldn't apply to them either. Sorry to inform you that they do.

 

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  How about not shooting people, Pondering? Too radical maybe? 

I don't have a gun. I don't shoot people. Farmers are not going to shoot or not shoot people based on my say so. If someone threatens another person's life I believe they have a right to shoot the person that is threatening their life. 

Apparently you think people should volunteer to die because racism. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  And if we reel back to my comment at 357 this actually started with yet another request to just look at the "legal meris" and ignore that nasty racism stuff. Which is as sad as it is absurd, for the reasons I gave, and which still stand, even if you are moving your opinions around. 

It is the legalities that determine the outcome of a trial. Again. We do not convict people because racism exists. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  I'll say it again though, only white people would assume that you could just pretend racism doesn't exist or turn it off when it becomes inconvenient to them. The people who get it all the time understand that it is everywhere, in overt or subtle ways, and you can't turn it off. 

No one is denying the existence of racism. You can't convict people of murder because racism exists. It is not racist to be afraid when someone breaks into your home. It isn't racist to feel threatened when 5 people drive up to your yard on a tire rim and try to get into or start the vehicles parked there. At that point you don't know what degree of threat they pose. You are outnumbered. Firing shots in the air lets them know that it won't be easy to overpower you so back off. 

I known what your contention is. You are claiming that Gerald had no right to feel threatened. That the only reason he felt threatened is because the five were FNs.  He then proceeded to walk over to the SUV to shoot Colton in the back of the head because Colton is FNs. You have no logic or evidence to support that argument. Your only support for that assertion is the rampant racism there in general. You don't seem able to grasp the point that you can't convict someone of a specific crime because there is a lot of racism in the area in general. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

But I expect close to 100 percent of white people have no understanding of what it is like to be Indigenous and on the receiving end of that hatred all the time, and the knowledge that their lives aren't worth the same as ours in the eyes of the law. 

So Gerald should have been convicted to make them feel better? 

I know racism on the prairies is different than in Quebec, more widespread and intense. No I can have no idea of what it is like to live as an indigenous person anymore than they can know what it is like to live as a caucasian or you know what it is like to live as a woman. 

You're entire argument is because racism in rampant where you live that Gerald, lawyers, the jury were swayed to acquit Gerald because he is white and Colton was indigenous. To you that is proof enough that Gerald should have been convicted. 

6079_Smith_W

Well I'm actually going by the evidence, and you said yourself he should at least have been convicted of manslaughter.

I was not so optimistic, and was expecting a hung jury, myself.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Don't be ridiculous.

So long as we are talking about crime in rural Saskatchewan, and shooting people dead is even considered a valid response, and people who encounter others' on their property (or their stores, or on a grid road somewhere) are to blame if they wind up being killed, you vigilante advocates have a pretty serious blind spot when it comes to the reality of racism in our society.

As Timebandit pointed out upthread, this isn't really about people defending themselves from crime. It is about privileged guys, almost exclusively white, who think the law should not apply to them, and want to be able to use guns to intimidate and threaten, and when they feel like it, shoot and kill.

Speaking of blind spots, you probably don't even recognize that it IS a major part of rural crime.

The blind spot is yours. It doesn't matter whether or not I approve. The facts of life are that farmers have guns and it is legal for them to use them in self-defence. Nothing you or I say will stop them from doing that. 

Yes, top notch security is important. Leaving if you can, calling 911, all good ideas. No one is promoting vigilantism. It is not legal to shoot people who come up to your door or who you come across wandering on your property. If you shoot someone based on those circumstances you will likely be convicted of murder. 

I am asking how can we go about stopping farmers from using their guns as self-defence against interlopers? Unless it is made illegal I don't see that changing no matter how many public service announcments are aired. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You're entire argument is because racism in rampant where you live that Gerald, lawyers, the jury were swayed to acquit Gerald because he is white and Colton was indigenous. To you that is proof enough that Gerald should have been convicted.

Proof denies faith.

But as long as the theory is completely unfalsifiable, it can't be proven wrong either.  Then it just comes down to loudness.

Personally, I maintain that Stanley walked because God wished it.  Someone prove me wrong.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Oh my. Free speech again. Well I just mentioned changes to trespass laws, new cops, and public meetings and that seems to have gone nowhere. 

What's to discuss? I don't agree with what Farmers for Firearms wants. More cops and public meetings are good. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And of course it isn't just about racism. It is also about poverty, and addiction, and public safety. But racism is the biggest gaping wound in this society, and you can't talk about this issue without recognizing it. If you don't see that I'd say you actually don't understand what is going on here. Even in Saskatoon, it is easy to see. The dividing line runs right down the river. 

Acknowledging racism and labeling the the Stanleys and the jury with it are two separate things. You are making assumptions about individual white people based on generalizations. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 It seems the only place you three want to go is vigilanteeism, so if there is anything stalling this conversation on one drumbeat, I think that might be it. 

I am against vigilanteeism and I am against the store owner who managed to stop a thief from escaping by tackling him and tying him up. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 In fact thinking guns are in any way part of the solution is the biggest part of this problem. It puts you offside from a lot of the rural community. It puts you offside from the RCMP, from the province and from the law. About the only people you are onside with are a very vocal gun lobby driven by... wait for it ... privilege and racism. 

Again I am not promoting it as a solution. I am stating that people are acting within the law and in all likelihood will continue going and getting their gun when they feel threatened and shooting the people threatening them because that is human nature. A baseball bat is traditional for people who don't own guns. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And again, I call bullshit on the notion any of you have any idea what is involved in someone being shot dead. If you did you might take it a bit more seriously.  

It seems you are the one not taking it seriously. You are all about proving that it is all about racism and racism alone instead of thinking about how further deaths can be prevented.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not sure if it's ground zero.

My comment is based soley on crime statistics. Maybe those stats are wrong and North Battleford is nicer than it sounds.

Quote:
As for not wanting to trust police on this, I know there's others who just think the laws shouldn't apply to them either. Sorry to inform you that they do.

No need to apologize.  We're all law abiding, aren't we? Until we think a law is stupid of course like speeding a little bit when we're late, downloading a movie or song so we're not supporting capatialists. A little pot because it's just a harmless plant. Stuff like that.

That doesn't take anything away from my point. Police know more than any of us about collecting evidence, working a crime scene, dealing with family members when crime takes place. For example the police in the Bouchie shooting were flawless, correct?

I'm going to go out on a ledge and suggest that if the police were saying that farmers should protect themselves with guns you would be arguing police are being idiots and don't know what the hell they're talking about. Their experiece doesn't count, they're racist and want other people to do their jobs for them maybe.

6079_Smith_W

And we're all law abiding until someone shoots someone, which is what we are talking about. Not smoking a joint.

You don't need to go out on a ledge. I think stand your ground laws in the States  makes their terrible record of gun death and racist shootings far worse. Those up here who promote it either aren't paying attention, or want to be able to do the same thing. I'm sure that's why some here are in favour of it. They have already said that it is okay that someone was shot dead.

But the fact is our cops aren't recommending people use guns for vigilanteeism any more than doctors are recommending home appendectomies.

 

Pages