Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

milo204 wrote:

kropotkin: racism?  ok it seems you're obviously just looking to sling mud as opposed to talking normally about this. 

This man pointed a weapon, that he had just loaded, at another human being who was inert in the front of a car. I know many people and I do not know a single person who would point a gun at someone in that situation. I lived for a number of years in the Rocky Mountains and hunting is a large part of both the culture and tourism industry. I can't imagine any of my gun owning friends in their isolated rural home breaking the windshield of a car and kicking out the tail lights and then running to get a hand gun because some drunk teenagers showed up on their property. I mean WTF kind of human being does that to another human being.

So I can either believe that this killer is a homicidal maniac acting with no regard for the lives of other humans or he is a racist asshole who saw a group of "drunk Indians" on his property and reached for a gun like he would to repel any other vermin.  I also lived in Saskatoon for four years and was disgusted at the overt racism displayed against indigenous people. It is no worse than Prince George but there are certain parts of the country that are worse than others and Sask is bad. Racism is a significant part of some Canadians' culture.  

Milo your victim blaming is unintentional racism 101. "Hell what was that black kid doing in a mostly white neighbourhood," is the US response to racist killings. You and Pondering are giving us the Canadian version of the same biased worldview. I don't live in a culture where people reach for their guns to repel burglars and I am glad of it. This farmer committed homicide and you want to blame the dead young man for being drunk and disorderly. Your lack of empathy for the real victim and instead your on going sympathy for the poor hard done by farmer says you have a cultural bias based on race.

This article highlights the difference in tone when discussing young people shot in a farming community for drunken joyriding.  Unlike Stanley no one was charged because the shot came from a distance and no one owned up to it. If the weapon had been found and someone charged it would have been manslaughter. Stanley has had many neighbours come to his defence and justify this murder, despite the fact that their was no actual physical endangerment involved, unlike the unanimous condemnation of the Ludwigs's by their local community. The local farm comunity was sympathetic to the young white victim and wanted charges laid for her death despite the drunken reckless driving that might have been endangering the lives of the Ludwig children. Gee what is the difference again?

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2009/06/19/she-did-not-deserve-to-die-...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That pistol has a 13 pound trigger pull, is not prone to misfire, and would have had the slide back if it had been empty, as Stanley claimed. Everything he said about it is suspicious.

I am not inclined to believe that it just went off accidentally.

On some firearm forums, the trigger pressure that hase been noted is less than 8 pounds of pressure for that type of pistol.

This isn't an excuse for what has happened. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But the casing bulge is measurable, physical evidence.  We can't just dismiss it by saying that Stanley was lying about it, and it's pretty incompatible with any theory that relies on that gun/ammo functioning properly.

Stanley didn't say anything about it. And there is no indication that it means anything at all. No one said that it would have stopped the gun from operating properly , so it actually is compatible. The defense offered some outside theories regarding hangfire, but no one came up with any reason why the gun might have misfired, if in fact it did.

Quote:

And there is no indication that it means anything at all.

So it's totally normal?  Happens with lots of shots?  JKR asked whether it happened again during numerous test fires.

Quote:

No one said that it would have stopped the gun from operating properly , so it actually is compatible.

Evidently it certainly didn't prevent the gun from continuing to work, seeing as how it was used to try to replicate a hang-fire.

I think the question is "what caused the bulge?".  Surely, the answer to that is not "the gun working properly, since that's what the casings are supposed to look like."

It's not incompatible with the gun ever working properly again.  I'm suggesting it's incompatible with the gun being supposed to have been working properly when that particular shot was fired.  The way a cartridge fits into the barrel of a gun when everything is working properly would make it impossible for a casing to bulge outward unless the first half inch of that barrel also bulged outward.

Quote:

The defense offered some outside theories regarding hangfire, but no one came up with any reason why the gun might have misfired, if in fact it did.

Those theories aren't actually necessary.  We don't need to know why the gun may have discharged incorrectly (age?  neglect?  dodgy ammunition?) -- we only need to know whether it could have.  That bulging casing is physical evidence that it did, unless we consider that sort of thing to be proper functioning.

Is a bulged casing evidence of:

a) a gun operating normally, and firing with the cartridge partially out of the chamber as designed?

b) a gun barrel that could not contain the expanding gases of a discharged round, and allowing those gases to deform a brass cylinder?

c) evidence that something went wrong with that particular round?

Quote:

Did you read the article at #251?

Yes.  They hit golf ball after golf ball, but couldn't replicate the supposed "hole-in-one".

Quote:

Seems like we're piling on questions for which there are no clear answers, but which don't really have any bearing on the central points.

Except that the question of why one of three cartridges would have a measurable bulge has a lot of bearing on one of the central points, namely, "was the gun functioning normally?"

I don't place any stock in the fact that it wasn't replicated.  I again suggest that that is pretty much the definition of a rare event.

But when a gun that is alleged to have hang-fired (a rare event) also discharged a cartridge bulged past what the chamber of a properly functioning gun loaded with a properly functioning round would allow (also a rare event) it's hard not to think that maybe the two were somehow related.  Maybe you're got some other theories, but I'm not shocked if a jury thinks maybe that bloated brass cartridge had something to do with the "hang-fire" that you think Stanley was just lying about.

And if the Crown made no effort to explain it as perfectly normal, and nothing to do with malfunction (nevermind not replicating it) then they left plenty of reasonable doubt, which the jury is literally expected to consider. 

Why did that one casing bulge?  I don't expect you to have the definitive answer, but if you can't say any more than "Who knows; God works in mysterious ways" then what's the surprise here?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

This man pointed a weapon, that he had just loaded, at another human being who was inert in the front of a car.  

I don't believe he did that. I believe he was trying to reach into the car to turn off the ignition using his left arm which would be very awkward because he had the gun in his right hand. The gun went for whatever reason and hit Boushie. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 I can't imagine any of my gun owning friends in their isolated rural home breaking the windshield of a car and kicking out the tail lights and then running to get a hand gun because some drunk teenagers showed up on their property. I mean WTF kind of human being does that to another human being. 

The kind that owns multiple guns on a farm and keeps them around for protection. The kind that wants to arrest the men that tried to rob them. Colton Boushie was 22, Belinda Jackson 24, Cassidy Cross-Whitstone 18, Eric Meechance 23, I didn't find Kiora Wuttunee's age. 

kropotkin wrote:

This farmer committed homicide and you want to blame the dead young man for being drunk and disorderly.  

No. I don't believe he intended to kill Colton. I am not blaming Colton for his own death but he is not some drunk and disorderly teenager. He was a grown man driving around with another grown man with a loaded gun and they were drunk. They were obviously there to steal a vehicle. I don't know anyone who would drive around on a rim like that do you?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 Your lack of empathy for the real victim and instead your on going sympathy for the poor hard done by farmer says you have a cultural bias based on race.

I don't recall showing the Stanleys any sympathy and I do recall saying that the conditions Boushie was living under are a direct result of racism and the destruction of entire communities by the residential schools and by continued seizing of indigenous children and removing them from what is left of their community.

Colton Boushie did not "deserve" to die but there is plenty of responsibility to go around. His "friends" drove him there while he was asleep. After the windshield was smashed they jumped out of the car (including the driver) and ran leaving the two women and Boushie behind in the vehicle. Boushie then went from the passenger seat to the drivers seat, the side he fell out of, so he must have made it into the seat but not yet hit the gas. He had the broken but still loaded gun in his lap. 

I'm guessing all farmers have guns and that hunting guns are very common with non-farmers too. Gerald Stanley may not have seen a gun but he would have been stupid not to consider that one might be in the vehicle. 

Gerald Stanley had no business confronting the men. He should have shouted for his wife to get inside and gone inside himself with his son. I would not have blamed him if he got a gun and stood at the door to let them see it while shouting at them to get off his property. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There's no indication of when they were using that rifle for target practice. Or who did, or even if the 22 shells came from the same rifle.

I recall reading they said they were using the rifle to for target practice from the vehicle (another law broken) earlier in the day.

Quote:

Except that they weren't using it that way when they came in the Stanleys' yard.

Were they aware the gun was no longer functioning? If they were using it for target practice earlier in the day (I can try and find the source if you wish) and then the gun was broken and damaged while using it to break into a vehicle, it's reasonable to think they would assume the gun still would shoot if they pulled the trigger.

Quote:

He also said it was technically still a firearm. Clearly the fact it was not easily functional (you try aiming with no stock and then using a hammer to tap the trigger) put it in a grey area though. That, and the fact it was not used, may have factored into the police decision to not lay a charge.

It could be.

Quote:

You know guns better than I do; why are you spinning things that clearly make no sense given what we already know about those weapons?

I'm not spinning anything. I've stated my personal opinion is that he likely should be guilty of manslaughter and I don't buy the hangfire defense. I don't think I'm wrong about the pistol or rifle.

That's absurd, Magoo. Just because the cops decided to not lay a charge doesn't mean you can legally walk into a school with it. The test of how well it worked was explained by the firearms witness. The rules about what you can bring into a school, and what goes into  police decision to lay a charge are two completely different things.

Whatever caused the cartridge to bulge didn't stop the gun from firing. The expert said that it would have happened at the time the gun fired, and that if anything it might mean the bullet going out with less force. But it had no bearing on misfiring, or any hangfire (which in any case would only have been a second) .

It still doesn't explain how Stanley claimed he thought the gun was empty when the slide position made that impossible.

And Paladin, whether you are reading things into their intent that isn't borne out by testimony - no one picked up that gun - they had broken it, so clearly they were not firing shots when they came into Stanley's yard. It was sitting between  Boushie's knees with the barrel pointed up, and no one noticed it until after he had been killed. Also, it looks like the trigger guard was broken off, so either they realized it wasn't working, or they were really taking their lives in their hands.

If you want to petition the RCMP and demand charges, fine. I can see why they might have let that one pass, considering all they really had was a broken gun that had no connection to the case.

Quote:

Just because the cops decided to not lay a charge doesn't mean you can legally walk into a school with it. The test of how well it worked was explained by the firearms witness. The rules about what you can bring into a school, and what goes into  police decision to lay a charge are two completely different things.

Okay.  I guess I just thought that if a gun couldn't be fired, there would be no reason to worry about it.

Quote:

Whatever caused the cartridge to bulge didn't stop the gun from firing.

Unless that particular round also deformed the chamber, or the firing mechanism, why should it.

But why did one round deform like that?  Some might imagine a hang-fire, or other malfunction.  But what say you?

Quote:

But it had no bearing on misfiring

So... normal firing?  That's why deformed shell casings are so common?

Nothing like personal attacks to spice up a discussion

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But what say you?

What are you asking me for?

Williams said nothing about it damaging the gun. He said he wasn't able to make it misfire, and had no idea what would make it do that. He didn't say anything about that deformation having any bearing on the firing of the gun, only that it happened at the time the gun fired.

So maybe you see something in there that has some relevance to the killing. I don't. But I sure see some people focusing on these things that might be interesting and mysterious, but according to the expert don't have any bearing on what happened.

The most the defense tried to make of it was that is was responsible for an alleged rare hangfire. Which means what? Stanley points the gun at Boushie's head and pulls the trigger and it goes off a second or two later?

Somehow I don't see that as being appreciably different.

Except he claims he though the gun was empty, even though it was very obviously not.

Might seem contradictory, until you realize that it's just a grab bag for the jury to prop up the belief that it was an accident, despite him pointing the gun at his head, seeing it was loaded, and pulling the trigger. So either rare accident works. Doesn't matter that they are contradictory and neither makes sense.

(edit)

cross posted.

Oh I didn't promise not to call anything racist. I think this thread is dripping with it. I think most of the assumptions being made here are racist, I think the fact this tragedy has been reduced to a game and we aren't even talking about systemic racism reflects our racism,  and I think the fact the jury jumped on these ridiculous excuses comes down to racism too.

But nobody is stopping you from talking Magoo. Maybe kropotkin should have the same privilege. Besides, I thought you said you weren't asking for a racism safe space.

Don't chomp at the bit quite so enthusiastically. He didn't call you personally a racist.

But you know what, I get that he's frustrated. I don't like what is going on here either. I don't like the racist attitudes. I don't like that someone's murder is being treated like a game. I  don't like the needling and passive aggression. And I especially don't like that Indigenous concerns can't even get on the table in the thread that is supposed to be dedicated to them.

This is a complete shame and waste of time.

Quote:

What are you asking me for?

Why you think that one casing deformed.

And whether you think maybe it means that gun was functioning normally.  Which, I guess, would imply thinking that normally functioning guns normally eject deformed shells, and that's just normal.

Quote:

He didn't call you personally a racist.

[/quote]I don't like the racist attitudes.[/quote]

Who's the racist?  Whose attitude is racist?

Quote:

And I especially don't like that Indigenous concerns can't even get on the table in the thread that is supposed to be dedicated to them.

Which is exactly why I absentmindedly pondered the merits of a "Law and Justice" forum where those who wanted to ask why the shell casing got deformed could do so, and you wouldn't have to suffer that kind of "racism".

But to borrow from your own playbook, do you feel like you're being prevented from discussing what you want to discuss?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Don't chomp at the bit quite so enthusiastically. He didn't call you personally a racist.

But you know what, I get that he's frustrated. I don't like what is going on here either. I don't like the racist attitudes. I don't like that someone's murder is being treated like a game. I  don't like the needling and passive aggression. And I especially don't like that Indigenous concerns can't even get on the table in the thread that is supposed to be dedicated to them.

This is a complete shame and waste of time.

This thread is specifically about the Gerald Stanley trial and the evidence. I believe everyone here acknowledges racism against indigenous peoples occurs across Canada but is particularly severe in the praries. Everyone acknowledges indigenous people should have been part of the jury. 

Everyone seems to agree that Gerald Stanley is guilty at least of manslaughter. Some think that Stanley's version of events is possible so it was not proven beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that his actions were not in the defence of himself and his family. 

The case rode on whether or not the gun could have malfunctioned. There was no explanation for why the bullet was deformed. That probably created sufficient doubt in the minds of the jury. 

You believe that had the men not been indigenous Gerald Stanley would not have acted as he did. I think he would have because he would still have figured out that they were up to no good. He still would have gone for his gun. There is no proof either way. Not agreeing with you on this point doesn't make me racist. 

No one has suggested Colton deserved to die or that Stanley was justified in getting a gun, only that he was justified in believing that they were up to no good based on their behavior and appearance and I don't mean the color of their skin. I mean the condition of the vehicle, that they tried two other vehicles and ran when Gerald shouted. That they didn't ring the bell so were obviously not there for help. 

No one has presented any logic to support the notion that Gerald deliberately murdered Colton in his front yard in broad daylight.

All the defence lawyer had to prove was reasonable doubt. I just read yet another account here that has some interesting information. There were zero witnesses that could be trusted and this detail about the gun.

Defence lawyer Scott Spencer argued the deadly shot was the result of a so-called hang fire, an unexpected delay between when a trigger is pulled and the discharge. Experts testified a hang fire could explain an unusual bulge found in the gun’s cartridge and that a hang fire is more likely to occur with old ammunition.

Stanley testified the bullets he used were more than 60 years old and had been stored in an unheated shed.

The experts also told court that hang fires are rare and usually last less than a second.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/a-look-at-the-evide...

I just read reasonable doubt. 60 year old ammunition. A witness who didn't know which seat Colton was sitting in. Another witness still "asleep" after the windshield had been smashed with a hammer. Other witnesses lying. More reasonable doubt. 

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-defending-the-jury-in...

In 1994, a young Indigenous man, John Black, while pumping gas into his car at a gas station in Kelowna, was confronted by an unarmed white man riding a bicycle, who was taunting and threatening him. Black, fearing for the safety of his wife and child in his car, calmly took out a tire iron, and struck the head of Dale Anfield. Black then drove to the police station and turned himself in.

He was charged with second-degree murder. I was his defence lawyer. My Indigenous client was judged by what appeared to be an all-white jury. My client was acquitted. The white judge correctly instructed the jury on the law. The members of the victim’s family were outraged at the jury’s verdict. No one suggested racism after this verdict.

On the face of it to me he should have been convicted of murder unless the white man had some sort of weapon with which to follow through on his threats. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually Pondering, this is the Indigenous Issues and Culture forum.

So yes, giving the benefit of the doubt to a white guy at every turn, while at the same time having baseless assumptions and suspicions about Indigenous people is not appropriate here, and actually kind of racist.

Could you be more specific? How am I giving Stanley the benefit of the doubt? I've said he is guilty of manslaughter. I've said I don't believe his entire version of what happened. I don't believe he deliberately shot Colton in the head because there is zero evidence or logic that points to that conclusion. No need for "benefit of the doubt". There was no motive. Even if he were racist that still isn't enough motive to suddenly decide to murder an indigenous person, but just one. 

What baseless assumptions have I made?

Pondering wrote:

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-defending-the-jury-in...

In 1994, a young Indigenous man, John Black, while pumping gas into his car at a gas station in Kelowna, was confronted by an unarmed white man riding a bicycle, who was taunting and threatening him. Black, fearing for the safety of his wife and child in his car, calmly took out a tire iron, and struck the head of Dale Anfield. Black then drove to the police station and turned himself in.

He was charged with second-degree murder. I was his defence lawyer. My Indigenous client was judged by what appeared to be an all-white jury. My client was acquitted. The white judge correctly instructed the jury on the law. The members of the victim’s family were outraged at the jury’s verdict. No one suggested racism after this verdict.

On the face of it to me he should have been convicted of murder unless the white man had some sort of weapon with which to follow through on his threats.

So you found one anecdote showing the legal system siding with a Native man over a white man? Is that supposed to disprove the fact that racism exists in this country? If I found an example of a company where women are paid more than men, would that one example disprove the idea that there is a pay gap between the sexes in men's favour?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So you found one anecdote showing the legal system siding with a Native man over a white man? Is that supposed to disprove the fact that racism exists in this country? If I found an example of a company where women are paid more than men, would that one example disprove the idea that there is a pay gap between the sexes in men's favour?

You obviously are not reading my posts. I will repeat myself again. There is racism right across Canada. Indigenous peoples are still being abused, their children taken out of the community, it's particularly bad on the prairies, etc. I am not going repeat it all again. 

I am not saying that case proves anything about this case other than there is no evidence that racism tainted the verdict even if it tainted the selection process. The case mentioned was similar but racially reversed. A verdict was reached that people believed was unjust. It doesn't mean they were right. 

Sexism exists but it doesn't mean every single time a woman doesn't get a job and a man gets it that it is due to sexism. 

I believe that both Stanley men lied and all the other witnesses lied as well. Leesa Stanley was probably telling the truth.

What is it you disagree with? Are you saying you do believe that Stanley deliberately killed Colton? If so could you tell me why you believe that?

Pondering and Magoo, go back and read this thread from the top if you are really asking honest questions. I'm not going to take your hands and walk you through what has been pointed out numerous times by several people.

And Aristotleded24. Regarding Melfort, exactly. As with every other case it is what the Indigenous person did wrong, or didn't do right. Even if they are children.

And the onus is on a child like Fontaine for not giving the right information. Not on the adult police who were dealing with her, who knew she was staying at a CFS shelter hotel just a few blocks from Furby.

You know, just because some of this is playing devil's advocate and not overt racism isn't an excuse. Turning this into a fucking parlor game is just as much an example of white privilege when people have been killed, systematically told they are not part of our justice system, and continue to be abused by our institutions, and subject to racist attacks in the media. We can afford to treat it like a game because it doesn't affect us. But don't  interrupt it and call it for what it is. That's not fair.

These things don't happen to white people in the same way they do to Indigenous people, despite the cherrypicking. And there are enough examples of it right here in this thread.

(edit)

Just read some of the comments on that article, NR. Again, no surprise at the denial.

What it gave them was an excuse to make a racist decision and let a killer go free, and to tell themselves that they were perfectly justified and safe from having to answer for what they did.

If I had taken bets prior to these cases, I would have always bet on the accused verbally admitting to involvement in a crime leading to a jury conviction. I would always bet on the jury not buying the accidental misfire defence. I would fully expect to win both bets.

However, these cases have convinced me that I would need to completely change my bets, at least in cases where the victim is Indigenous.

...

The sentiment "Black lives matter" was a reaction to several instances of American police officers using lethal force in questionable circumstances against black suspects. Indigenous peoples want Canada and its justice system to realize that their lives matter too. They are asking questions about to what extent the justice system is taking Indigenous victimization seriously, and what value the Canadian legal system places on their lives.

Indigenous communities are certainly now of the feeling that Canadian juries are giving a free pass for murder against Indigenous victims.

And indeed, if we expect acquittals to be the standard outcome in cases of Indigenous victims where we should otherwise expect convictions, how can Indigenous Peoples be faulted for their resentments?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/tina-fontaine-colten-boushie-just...

kropotkin

if you think "Hell what was that black kid doing in a mostly white neighbourhood," is even remotely close to what i'm arguing here you're just being dishonest.   my only "cutural bias" here is "people minding thier own business in their home" vs. "people who would roll up on you to rob you while you're home" and i'd say that is a pretty widely held bias, one that is almost universal across cultures and time. 

it comes from the same set of values that lead to my support for aboriginal rights (i.e. he who made the mess shoud clean it up).  Your position, oddly,  seems to reflect the "well yeah we stuck you on a rez in the middle of nowhere with no future, but any problems that arise after that--not our fault" line of reasoning....as in, "ok the farmer is the one thrust into the situation of possible violence against him and his family through no fault of his own, but really he should be concerned about the well being of the people who put him in that situation, and if someone gets hurt/killed--even by accident--he needs to pay with his freedom" which to me seems ridiculous.

Quote:

ok the farmer is the one thrust into the situation of possible violence against him and his family through no fault of his own

That's why I tend to side with people who've been burglarized or had their home invaded or whatever.  They got no say in the matter, nor any warning.  If the nearest thing at hand is a lethal weapon, they don't really have the option of saying "WAIT!  Hold that thought while I go take some boxing lessons so that I might subdue you using the least force necessary!".  They also don't have the option of saying "WAIT!  If you will look me in the eye and promise on a stack of pancakes that you're ONLY here for the silverware, and will harm no-one, then of course your health is more important than some forks and spoons, so take them!".

I don't have sympathy for so-called "Castle Doctrine" because I believe that a big-screen TV is more important than a human life.  I have empathy for it because it's simply never, ever that simple.  Unless you chase the thief for three blocks and then shoot him, in which case it's definitely that simple -- you just shot someone for no reason.

Stanley seems to have gotten off based on two points. 

First, he claimed he feared for the safety of himself and his family based on how the suv was being driven, almost hitting his son, hitting the car which was why he got the gun. He comes out with it and shoots twice in the air. Two are running away. A man is switching to the driver's seat of the SUV. Stanley runs over to turn the ignition off before the man can drive off. As he is doing that the gun goes off killing Boushie. His second claim is that he didn't pull the trigger. He doesn't know why it went off. 

On the first point. Did he fear for the safety of his family? As a multiple gun owner, he probably knew self-defence was the only legal justification for getting a gun. I don't think he was afraid but that's just my opinion, it is plausible that he feared for his family. 

On the second point the bulge in a part of the gun or casing or whatever and 60 year old ammunition created reasonable doubt.

Very bad timing, but the following will probably lead to a conviction.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-rcmp-say-shooting-happened...

RCMP in Alberta have taken a rural homeowner into custody after a shooting that  police allege happened when he confronted two people rummaging through his vehicles.

Police say members from their detachment in Okotoks were called to the property at around 5:30 a.m. on Saturday. They say that during the confrontation between the owner and the suspects, an unknown number of shots were fired before the suspects fled. Later, police found one person with an injury to his arm, but police were still seeking a second person on Sunday.

French said the investigation into Saturday's incident is ongoing and information wasn't available on whether it was the homeowner or the suspects who fired the shots. He also did not have information on whether a firearm has been seized as part of the investigation. French wouldn't speculate on whether the homeowner would face charges. The suspect who was apprehended was taken to hospital and is expected to recover, police said. They noted there is no danger to the public.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-rcmp-say-shooting-happened...

I think Steve Earle nailed it when he sang about how "the devil's right hand, the devil's right hand, momma said the pistol is the devil's right hand" in the great country and western song Devil's Right Hand.  Not Earle's best song in my opinion but the song is about a young man who was always told by his loving mother that carrying a handgun around would cause him problems.  At the end of the song he shoots and kills another man over a card game dispute, and is arrested and put on trial for his life.  At his trial he proclaims his innocence because in his words "nothing touched the trigger but the devil's right hand".

In my opinion if Stanley had grabbed a long gun, either a rifle or shotgun, things would have likely ended differently on that farm that day, but that's just my BS opinion.

OK, car load of apparant ne'er-do-wells, maybe he thinks there is 4 of them, or he thinks the group is bigger, either way Stanley and his son were outnumbered so I can sort of understand the idea of brandishing a firearm as an additional encouragement for these unwanted guests to take their business elsewhere.  But a handgun? 

With a long gun of some sort Stanley would have been conditioned by his past firearms experience to keep 2 hands on the long gun, I think it highly unlikely that an experienced shooter would hold a long gun awkwardly with one hand while trying to reach into a car for the keys with their free hand.  The warning shots might have been a bit much in my opinion but I wasn't there, so I'll assume Stanley legitimately thought he needed a firearm of some sort and that the warning shots were legit.

Guess if the Crown had charged Stanley with manslaughter or a lesser charge to begin with, maybe they could have convicted Stanley on a lesser charge, but I think the jury had the option of a manslaughter conviction so who knows what went on in the jury chamber.

People would have had issues with why Stanley wasn't being charged with a more serious offense, so either way

there would be people unhappy with the verdict.  Maybe that's why the Crown went with a second degree murder charge, who knows?

Like I said, it's a legal system, we got a nice legal verdict but there's not much justice associated with it.

(eedited for speeling)