Crime In Rural Areas

Indeed, media coverage of this trial – and discussion in the days after the verdict – was rife with outspoken farmers in the Saskatchewan farming community advocating for violence, having viewed themselves historically, and in the present day, as heroic frontiersmen taming the wild and cultivating their little outposts of empire. But here we ask the following question: How is it that the death of a young Cree man becomes recast as the story of a knight protecting his castle?

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

Probably a good idea, though perhaps it is a new policy. How they first hit the news this last week was their active support for the GoFundMe page for Gerald Stanley. Ryan was interviewed about that page.

Included on the page are links to a GoFundMe page for Gerald Stanley, advice for members to 'report' the GoFundMe page for Colten Boushie's family in an attempt to shut it down, and promotion for a rural crime watch group based in Kindersley. 

https://panow.com/article/740426/facebook-group-creator-fears-safety-ove...

Just for fun, I'd recommend going through some of the stories about Ian Stables, who was just sentenced for stealing $1.2 million in machinery. Not much talk about scared farmers in those articles, or in the threads.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/donavon-area-rancher-pleads-guilty-...

I get that this is a perennial concern, if perhaps one with several ulterior motives. I have lived in the country, and ridden with cops for a news story (not too far from Winnipeg, actually). All it took was one DUI for the entire detatchment to be shut down with paperwork for the night, then all the calls went to the main office in teh city. But one also has to ask the question of why the public safety minister has to coincidentally weigh in on it days after the Stanley trial, when there was nothing said after the Stables trial, which actually was about a string of thefts.

The basis of the social contract is that individuals surrender certain rights (e.g. the right to shoot someone trying to rob them) in exchange for the state taking responsibility for stopping that robber.  If the state cannot, reasonably do so (and I totally understand how that can be difficult when a victim lives 70km from the nearest police station) then maybe the state should just reimburse victims for the property they lost.  As far as I can see, the only other two options are:

1.  expect people who don't live near a police station to just accept that they're awesome targets for property crime

2.  accept that people who cannot reasonably be protected by the state can "take matters into their own hands"

Might be fewer tragic outcomes if the citizen who hears someone breaking into their shed rushes to the hall closet to retrieve... a laptop, with which they begin filling out the reimbursement form.

I know there's private homeowners' and renters' insurance, just like there used to be private medical insurance, but in the case of remote rural residents, they're literally not getting what their taxes pay for.  Expecting them to cover that gap out of their own pocket would seem to disadvantage them, relative to someone in my neighbourhood, who can have 911 at their door in minutes.

Ed'd to add:  well, actually, I'm also reminded of Toronto's "Lucky Moose" case, in which a repeat robber, caught on video and known to police, was caught robbing again, and the police did nothing.  In this case, the victim wasn't 70km from the nearest police station, they're literally 350m from 52 Division, connected by one large street (Dundas St.).  Google Maps suggests it's a 5 minute stroll.  But for some reason, even with video evidence, and a criminal record, the police could do nothing!  Their hands were TIED!!

So, unsurprisingly, the store owner stepped up to do the job of the police.  If the state that accepted his tax money had done what they were expected to do, he wouldn't have had to (and I've personally never believed that he wanted to have to). 

But I really do hope that nobody's thinking "well, when enough citizens lose enough cars and bikes and tools and jewelry then maybe they'll vote for a better world where people who want cars and bikes and tools and jewelry no longer have to steal them!"

Though pro-vigilante groups, and that lobby within political parties were also quick to exploit the Lucky Moose case and claim that the owner was right to hunt down and restrain the thief, and that the only option was to go outside the law.

It's not that different here. The fact that the most vocal group is "Farmers with Firearms" is a good clue as to what they think their first line of defense should be. And I am more than a bit suspicious of the spokesperson's claim he doesn't want to give his last name because he is afraid of reprisals. Gotta keep up that siege myth, after all.

That this lobby is front and centre in reference to a case where a farmer kills someone, and completely absent in the case of a white guy who steals over a million dollars worth of equipment.

And that it isn't CrimeStoppers, Neighbourhood Watch , or (heaven forbid) a group that might also have a connection with First Nations, which also have crime problems that jumps in in the wake of this, but these groups that promote vigilanteeism, and even manage to get municipal governments to go along with it. 

There are neighbourhood patrols in cities, and neighbourhood watch organizations in rural areas. They don't tend to call for people to take the law into their own hands and resort to the use of guns.

Three people who were in the SUV that brought Boushie to the Stanley farm testified in court as Crown witnesses: Eric Meechance, 23, Cassidy Cross-Whitstone, 18, and Belinda Jackson, 24.

They said their day began at the Red Pheasant First Nation reserve, located about 57 kilometres north of Stanley's farm near Biggar, Sask., and that it involved some drinking....Meechance said the group, which also included Boushie and his girlfriend Kiora Wuttunee, got into Wuttunee's grey SUV and went swimming at a river. On the way back to the reserve, the group got a flat tire. (Items in the vehicle support the testimony)

They ended up at the ranch of Marvin and Glennis Fouhy in the district of Spinney Hill, northeast of the Stanley farm. Cross-Whitstone admitted to trying to break into a truck there.The group then took off, the SUV's muffler dragging "real bad," according to Meechance.

Sometime after 5 p.m., Gerald Stanley and his son Sheldon, 28, were putting up a fence on the cattle farm the family had lived on for around 30 years near Biggar, Sask.Both men heard the SUV coming noisily down the long gravel driveway leading to the farmhouse, garage and shop. Cross-Whitstone said he went there in search of help with the SUV.

Gerald and Sheldon both saw someone from the SUV go into a gold Ford truck parked in the yard by a customer. ​

 

"We didn't really think anything of it," recalled Sheldon, thinking it was one of his father's customers. 

Both Stanleys saw the SUV make its way toward the shop and someone get out and climb aboard an ATV. Sheldon Stanley hollered at the person. 

Meechance said he tried to start the ATV, but denied trying to steal it when cross-examined by Gerald Stanley's lawyer, Scott Spencer.

Boushie remained in the back of the SUV along with Wuttunee and Jackson, according to Whitstone.

"As soon as we heard the quad start, I started running," Sheldon Stanley testified in court. 

Gerald Stanley testified that he kicked the tail light because he thought the SUV was headed for his son, while Sheldon admitted smashing the front windshield of the vehicle with a hammer.

Cross-Whitestone said that scared him. Meechance testified the cracked windshield made it hard for Cross-Whitstone to drive.

"There was a parked vehicle we hit," said Meechance, referring to a blue SUV.

"Once I saw the collision, I took off running for the house," Sheldon Stanley testified. He said wanted to get his truck keys that were inside the house.

Sheldon Stanley said a few minutes after the third shot was fired, Wuttunee and Jackson opened the driver's side door and Boushie tumbled out, a .22-calibre rifle (missing the stock) lying between his legs. 

Sheldon Stanley said Wuttunee and Jackson then attacked his mother Leesa, who had been mowing grass on the property and went to the Boushie SUV after it settled near the farmhouse.

"I punched her," said Jackson.

"Once I saw the collision, I took off running for the house," Sheldon Stanley testified. He said wanted to get his truck keys that were inside the house.

Boushie remained in the back of the SUV along with Wuttunee and Jackson, according to Whitstone.

"As soon as we heard the quad start, I started running," Sheldon Stanley testified in court. 

Gerald Stanley testified that he kicked the tail light because he thought the SUV was headed for his son, while Sheldon admitted smashing the front windshield of the vehicle with a hammer.

Cross-Whitestone said that scared him. Meechance testified the cracked windshield made it hard for Cross-Whitstone to drive.

"There was a parked vehicle we hit," said Meechance, referring to a blue SUV.

"Once I saw the collision, I took off running for the house," Sheldon Stanley testified. He said wanted to get his truck keys that were inside the house.

Jackson told a different story. She said she heard Gerald Stanley tell his son to "go get a gun." She said Gerald Stanley retrieved a gun from the shop and she saw him shoot Boushie twice in the head. (An autopsy only found one bullet entry hole.)

Sheldon Stanley said he heard a gunshot when he was on the deck leading to the house, then another as he entered the home.

When he came out of the house, he said he was looking at his truck, which is when he heard but did not see a third gunshot. He testified he then saw his father by the window of the SUV, with a semi-automatic pistol in one hand.

"It just went off. I just wanted to scare them," he recalled his father saying.

Before that last shot, according to Jackson, Meechance and Cross-Whitstone had fled the car while Boushie was in the front passenger's seat.

Both Meechance and Cross-Whitstone said they fled down the farm's driveway, and both said they heard bullets whizzing in their direction.

Meechance said he did not witness the third shot going off. He said he ran so fast he lost his shoes, later recovered from the scene by the RCMP.

Sheldon Stanley said a few minutes after the third shot was fired, Wuttunee and Jackson opened the driver's side door and Boushie tumbled out, a .22-calibre rifle (missing the stock) lying between his legs. 

Sheldon Stanley said Wuttunee and Jackson then attacked his mother Leesa, who had been mowing grass on the property and went to the Boushie SUV after it settled near the farmhouse.

"I punched her," said Jackson.

Gerald Stanley's account

Gerald Stanley said he did not point a gun at anyone that day.

He said that after the SUV parked near the farmhouse, he went to his shop and grabbed his Tokarev gun, normally used to scare off wild animals, and loaded the pistol with what he thought were two rounds.

Gerald Stanley said he lost track of where his son was at that point. Feeling "stressed," Stanley told the court he fired two warning shots in the air and kept pulling the trigger to make sure the gun was rid of bullets.

"In my mind it was empty," he said.

He then saw the lawnmower his wife had been riding and felt "pure terror."

"I thought the [SUV] had run over my wife," he said.

Stanley testified that he ran as fast as he could to the SUV and, after hearing the engine rev, went to the driver's window intending to turn the ignition off.

He said he reached for the keys with one hand and had the handgun in the other. He said his finger was not on the trigger.

As he was reaching into the vehicle, he said the Tokarev accidentally fired.

"I couldn't believe what just happened," Stanley testified. "Everything seems to just go silent."

Spencer argued it was a case of "hang fire," referring to a delay of several seconds between someone pulling a trigger (as Gerald Stanley said he did after the warning shots) and the bullet coming out.

Asked by Crown prosecutor Bill Burge why he kept the gun in his hand when going to the car window, Stanley said, "I just wasn't thinking straight."

The Stanleys called police and waited inside for them to arrive, drinking coffee at the dining room table. 

Over course of the next two days, the RCMP photographed the crime scene. The .22-calibre rifle, which belonged to Cross-Whitstone, was found near Boushie's body. It was bent out of shape and contained five bullets in the magazine and one in the chamber.

Police also found several firearms on the Stanley property. The Tokarev was found in a gun case inside a closet in the farmhouse. Boushie's DNA was later found on the handgun.

I think they are all lying. The Stanleys were not the only people there with guns. Boushie had his gun on his lap and loaded with a bullet in the chamber. That is not an accessory for an afternoon swim. He wasn't there to ask for help with his truck. If you are so afraid to approach a farmhouse at 5 in the afternoon that you have to keep a loaded gun in your lap you have no business approaching that house for help with a flat tire. 

I don't know if it was a "hang" whatever but I don't believe he cold bloodedly shot him in the head on purpose either. 

Property crime goes down when employment goes up. How about dealing with poverty? Oh, wait, conservative rural voters don’t like paying taxes. Guess you can’t have it both ways. 

Quote:

How about dealing with poverty? Oh, wait, conservative rural voters don’t like paying taxes.

Not the same way everyone else does, I guess.  But there are so many of them that if they don't like paying taxes, poverty persists.

Pondering wrote:

I think they are all lying. The Stanleys were not the only people there with guns. Boushie had his gun on his lap and loaded with a bullet in the chamber. That is not an accessory for an afternoon swim. He wasn't there to ask for help with his truck. If you are so afraid to approach a farmhouse at 5 in the afternoon that you have to keep a loaded gun in your lap you have no business approaching that house for help with a flat tire. 

I don't know if it was a "hang" whatever but I don't believe he cold bloodedly shot him in the head on purpose either. 

Agree with your opinion and curiously note this topic was largely ignored in a lot of discussions about the situation.  The rifle that was in the car is a "light" or small caliber but it can certainly kill. American assasins used them in Vietnam. The bullets, when it is the "lead round nose" (so just lead and not incased in copper) are very difficult to trace back to firearms due to lead being a soft metal and not leaving "scratches" inside the barrel of a gun that fires it.

Looking at the gun though suggests to me that our gun control measures are working. The illegal gun was pretty beat up and abused and not some $1000 Glock pistol or $2000 AR15. Or even a relatively cheaper gun in better condition. If that's the kind of hardware they're carrying then getting firearms ogically isn't an easy thing for them. So that's a positiive thing.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The people who most want to set up a system of vigilante justice would also be the most vocal about raising taxes to ease poverty.

I get that conservative types aren't about "paying it forward". 

At the same time, I don't think a crime == a "crime of poverty" any time the criminal has a lower net income than the victim.  And I don't think anyone should be required to give more, to "alleviate poverty" as a condition of not wanting to be stolen from.  Sure, I get that some people have less than I have, but I don't think I should have to down tools to fix that before I can be pissed off about the time someone smashed my back door, took what they saw of some minor value, tossed through my wife's underwear drawer (not mine!) and took off.

I'm not saying that an iPod, $60 worth of change, some speakers and a broken window are worth a human life, but if I'd been home when it happened I don't think I'd have been asking myself "what are this man's struggles, and how can I help him?".  Some times it's 0% about the $ value of the property, and 100% about the right to some security in your own locked home.

But they weren't in a locked home. They were outdoors. The case hinged entirely on two points. Was he afraid for the safety of his family and did the gun malfunction or did he pull the trigger accidently or otherwise.

The other issue is jury selection. I don't think it's fair to suggest the jurors were racist but neither did they reflect the composition of the community. That can provide different perspective during deliberations. It would make it a lot easier for indigenous communities to accept a decision. Not having any indigenous jurers also assumes that indigenous people can't or won't be objective. Is it any wonder if they think the same of white jurors? 

I just read an ugly article listing the things Colton could have done differently, all true but immaterial. Had Sheldon not thrown the hammer at the SUV it would probably have driven away. If Gerald hadn't run for his gun it wouldn't have happened. Two guys were already running away when Gerald fired the warning shots. At this point Colton and the two girls were still in the SUV.  Colton climbed from the passenger seat to the driver's seat. If Gerald had kept his distance Colton would probably have driven the SUV off the property. 

These behaviors and tensions are directly attributable to institutionalized mistreatment of indigenous peoples in the present day through our elected officials as well as the historic destruction of entire communities by taking their children away from them.

There is plenty of responsibility to spread around for Colton's death the least of which is his. 

Not only can they be reduced... they have been falling.

But you are right about the remedies. Given the lack of complaint about things like STC and the grants in lieu (which hurt small cities like Yorkton and The Battlefords most) I think many of these guys would rather carve their own arms off than admit their ideology might be bad for people, themselves included.

Of course, the battle isn't even over dealing with the root causes of crime versus enforcement. The narrative is that the cops can't help so we have to have a free rein to shoot people ourselves. So I don't buy this whole victim narrative at all. It is people who want their guns, and want to be able to do whatever they want with them, including threatening and killing. It is about nothing else.

Otherwise they'd be talking about pro-active solutions. They aren't.

But hey, Scott Moe just reversed the PST on farm and life insurance (but not house and car) to the tune of $180 million. Bet they'll love that.

Still irrelevant to the point that if you want to prevent thefts, see to the poverty issues. 

In 1974,  I drove a motorcycle from Ottawa to Vancouver. On the way, I met up with two other riders in Thunder Bay and travelled west with them. When we reached Kenora, the American Indian Movement had already seized a local city park which had been First Nations land. The city had simply taken the land in the 1950s and turned into a park without even going through the fomality of any legal process. That night we went to a local bar wearing our leathers and sat by ourselves. It was obvious from the glares of the white patrons that they did not like our being there. The First Nations people in the bar seeing that we were outcasts like them slowly started drifting over and sitting with us. After we left the bar, the RCMP stopped us to check the luggage on our bikes whether we were gun-running to the American Indian Movement people in the park, because they were suspcious  about why whites would be talking with First Nations in the bar.

The next day we road into Manitoba and stopped at a gas station where we asked if we could change our oil using the oil we brought with us. The two men working at the station not only said sure but offered us oil pans to help with the work. However, they then started telling us about a First Nations man who they had thrown out of the station's store because he had asked for vanilla extract. They assumed he wanted it so he could the alcohol. Now expecting trouble, they had a shotgun that one of them stuck out the door and the other had a pistol pointed out of the window, every time a First Nations vehicle arrived at the garage for the next week. 

On the way back from Vancouver, I stopped in Kenora with two other bikers where we met First Nations/Black man with whom we went to a bar. They threw him out before he even sat down, although they were willing to let us stay. We left. 

Having seen the assumptions that were repeatedly made about First Nations people on this trip, it did not surprise that the arrival of First Nations people would be seen as suspicious and potentially dangerous by many whites, greatly increasing the chance of a shooting occurring when a problem is perceived.

Pondering wrote:

Poverty is about more than food and shelter. Studies have shown the more unequal the society the more crime there is. 

The thing is short term we are saving money, long term we are setting ourselves up to support people for life which is much more expensive and leads to generational poverty. It also increases medical and emergency service use. 

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

It wouldn't take a farm like that to satisfy him or other people living in poverty. They need hope that the future will be better than the past. Money does buy happiness up to 75K a year.

We can't just wave a wand and give everyone 75K a year but we can do a great deal better than we have. People are the greatest resource we have. A healthy educated population creates a better society for all. 

Locals in Colton Boushie's reserve don't seem to be blaming settlers. It looks like they're blaming the chief, Wutanee.

http://battlefordsnow.com/article/596582/residents-blame-council-substan...

Council corruption is a reoccuring theme.

Quote:

“There are some people here who get overlooked because they’re not related to [council],” Elsie said. “When the Chief and council are in, they’ll give their own people stuff, but not others. [Carol] has a small family. Big families get everything.”

According to Elsie, council is currently funding the renovation of the chief’s father’s home. Chief Wutunee confirmed the renovations were happening, but gave reasons why his father's home was being fixed.

“My father is 88 years old and he has health conditions,” Chief Wutunee said. “We try to make sure that our Elders are taken care of. When they are catching bronchitis and pneumonia, what are we supposed to do? Say ‘well that’s my family. We aren’t going to help them because it will look bad?’ We have to try to accommodate all of our Elders.” He added many of the complaints from residents were "political" in nature.

However, 83 year old resident Vera Meechance believes Wutunee’s “Elders-first” mentality is selective because she currenlty has a backed-up septic tank and a cistern she claims hasn’t been cleaned in a decade.

Quote:

Chief Wutunee was on the books for $62,303 in base pay and an additional $61,100 for expenses, for a total of $123,408 last year.

Good claims each member receives the total of those expenses and doesn’t need to provide any proof of how it was spent. She added a good place to start finding more funds to fix housing would be in those salaries.

“That is the kind of salary people with PhD’s make. Professors at universities, executive officers of companies make that kind of money. It would be one thing if we were seeing results. He has been the Chief for two years now and nothing has been accomplished at Red Pheasant. It is just outrageous really.”

I've read in a few places that the last 2 or 3 chiefs of Red Pheasent we're relieved of their duties for corruption.

I don't think not having a farm is the issue here.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

People only steal if the only other choice is to starve the way men only rape if the only other choice is to die celibate.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't remedy poverty.  But I will suggest that if someone smashes your car windows to steal three CDs and the change from your cupholder, it's probably not because they could otherwise never afford $2 for a loaf of bread so much as because they lack much more than that for drugs.

Don't believe me?  When you park your car, leave a loaf of bread on the front seat, and if it's the only think missing when your car is broken into then I'll concede.

People don't have to be starving.

Petty theft like CDs and such isn't what I'm talking about, anyway - and it sure as fuck wasn't what the Stanley family or their supporters are on about, either.

You're less likely to steal a truck if you can afford one of your own and you're not economically disadvantaged. The stats bear it out - when the oil patch is busy and the employment rate is low, vehicle thefts and burglaries go down. When unemployment goes up, so does that sort of crime.

I don't know what effect it has on CDs and parking change out of your vehicle in the city, but that's not really the point. I'm hoping that you don't want to shoot anyone for swiping your tunes.

Paladin1 wrote:

Locals in Colton Boushie's reserve don't seem to be blaming settlers. It looks like they're blaming the chief, Wutanee.

http://battlefordsnow.com/article/596582/residents-blame-council-substan...

Colton's name isn't even in that article so I don't think they are blaming the chief for his death. The chief himself will probably never have a farm worth as much as the Stanley's cattle farm and you are being too literal. 

Corruption among chiefs is terrible and I hope that FNs find a way to deal with it but don't have to fix all their problems before demanding that we stop denying them their rights. Maybe the chiefs wouldn't have been able to do as they have if the communities had not been so damaged by us by chronic underfunding of health, education and child services as well as the massive kidnapping of their children to place them in residential schools to make sure they would lose their language and culture. Can you not understand the depth of trauma that caused. No school-aged children in the community. They would swoop in and take them all. Just because we aren't doing it anymore (arguable) doesn't take away the trauma and loss of parenting ability and loss of culture. It will take generations to recover. 

I understand where the Stanleys were coming from.  I don't believe Gerald had any intention of killing anyone. I think he will probably be marked by this for the rest of his life and haunted by the image of Colton lying there dead. 

Quote:

Colton's name isn't even in that article so I don't think they are blaming the chief for his death.

I think Paladin1 was referring to local poverty.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Colton's name isn't even in that article so I don't think they are blaming the chief for his death.

I think Paladin1 was referring to local poverty.

A corrupt chief is certainly part of it but FNs don't have to solve all their problems before we take care of the ones we are responsible for. 

Well, just as with booze, weed, and other sins, there are competing ideologies on the price point. "It should cost what it does now, so the government can rake in all the money the mafia is." "It should cost what it costs the health care system to take care of users." "It should be cheap enough to undercut the black market, but still expensive enough to fund whatever I feel like the government isn't spending enough on."

It's akin to my issue with the "revenue-neutral carbon tax", which is that taxation has two purposes: raising revenue, and discouraging the use of whatever's taxed. Trying to get both uses out of it (as with tobacco) means the government will be working at cross-purposes to itself.

All that said, as I said in the other thread, keeping drugs expensive via prohibition hasn't solved the problem, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to make them legal and cheap. Or, to make an analogy with your example: you picked single-malt scotch as what hypothetical people are addicted to, not 40-oz bottles of Mad Dog.

I also don't see why there needs to be prohibition to see addicts as disadvantaged instead of people making rational selfish moral decisions. If it costs less to treat health issues from addiction than to treat gunshot wounds, maintain large prison populations, and have the stereotypical mom-and-pop rural residents deal with smash-and-grabs, that's enough for me. I don't need the official state-granted right to sneer at people who have health issues due to bad decisions.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Where in that article does it say the people of Red Pheasant don't consider racism a problem? For that matter where does it say that they don't recognize chronic underfunding as the greater problem?

That article speaks volumes to me. We're comfortable in our nice houses with running water, toilets that work, heat.  When I read that article she's not complaining about settlers and racisim and white privilage. She's trying to get shit around her house fixed and the man/people responsible for it don't seem to be doing their job. Most mayors of 600 person towns don't make $123'000 a year.

Racisim, settlers, land grabs et el may be responsible for the over all situation but she needs help right now.  Are we too busy looking at the big picture and missing what's going on infront of our faces?  Not trying to be rude because I really enjoy debating with you (sorry to kill your street cred ;)  ) but you're constantly bringing up racisim and talking about racisim and mentioning more racisim. I'd have to reread that article but I don't think she brings it up once.   I'm going to try and contact her and see if there's anything I can do to help. Maybe pay for a contractor to do something, I don't know.  (anyone want to pitch in?)

What I do know is that corruption on reserves is constantly, constantly brought up by members of said reserves but no one on our side seems keen to get involved and do anything about it. Do you suppose it could be because people are afraid of getting labeled racist?

Quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fiske-crime-harvest-guns-1.3770769

Let us do our jobs. That's great.  But the RCMP have body armor, handguns, submachine guns, shotguns and the same assault rifle that the military use. 

Ed Smith of Battleford banged on his window to tell a theif to get lost and the theif turned around and almost shot him in the head. If it was an RCMP officer and not Ed Smith  then that theif would have been shot in the chest multiple times. Why's an RCMP officers life more valuable than Ed Smith and his wife's life?

Legal drugs is working for Uraquay. Do you have an example of where the war on drugs is working?

Poverty eradication programs do reduce crime. I really don't care about the ideology, or the morality, it works.

The government is a tool of the people for shaping our environment. I don't want homeless people lying around in the metro in filthy heaps. It makes me depressed. I expect my government to provide for people who can't or don't take care of themselves. 

I don't accept the excuses. Solutions abound for anyone who cares to do a modicum of research. We have an entire world in which examples of how to do it better abound.

Lets take one example. Pharmacare. The evidence is clear that a universal system is best. Then all the money goes into one non-profit pot instead of being filtered through private companies. The money paid to those companies now would help fund the system. The reason we aren't getting that is either ideological or at the behest of private companies not the public which has expressed enthusiastic support for Pharmacare. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But if drug use is just a health issue then shouldn't we deal with it like any other health issue:  by trying to eradicate it (even as we compassionately treat those afflicted by it)?  Nobody ever says "the first priority with diabetes is to treat those who have it, and the second thing is to help more people develop diabetes".  Making drugs easier to acquire is like demanding that soda manufacturers only use HFCS.

An interesting example, since with diabetes, obesity, cholesterol, and so forth, we try to treat the problem through education and medical advice, not by making soda cost $750/L and sending people to prison for 20 years for possession of Pepsi with intent to distribute. In fact, in isolated northern areas, the government does indeed have a program to provide food (including unhealthy food) via air and sealift to those who otherwise couldn't afford it.

It's possible for the government to simultaneously engage in harm reduction and discourage substance abuse. CLSCs in Québec provide needle exchanges, and few people (other than the extreme right) view that as the government encouraging people to go start shooting up. For someone who's engaging in rural property crime due to drug abuse, neither criminal prosecution nor expense have deterred that abuse. The idea that only the associated miseries are sufficient discouragement reminds me of people who oppose HPV vaccination for high schoolers (and abortion for everyone) under the logic that if they're not being threatened with cancer or lifelong crippling debt, the government's just encouraging them to go slut it up. It's an exceedingly compassion-free Skinner-box-behaviourist view of sociological problems, and setting aside the unease it fills me with (especially as a white male), it doesn't appear to be working as a deterrent.

To be fair, the three men that tried to stop a pick-up all had guns. The driver would not have been at fault if he hit one. 

Colton group also had a gun. It's true they had broken it earlier and Stanley didn't see it but he still had a gun. 

It's reasonable to think the people stealing in the area have guns. 

If I were a farmer I would keep a gun with me. How is the farmer to know if he is facing someone who just wants to steal his stuff or some sickos into torture and murder. It's a terrible thing if it's young men running around with guns that really don't intend to shoot anyone with them and just want to steal stuff. They are going to get themselves killed. 

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

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