The Ugly Canada Thread

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You're taking this in an odd direction.

I was young once.

My friends and I did stupid shit.

But we never would have gotten into the same situation that Colten Boushie and friends got themselves into.

Why? Not because none of us were aboriginal. (My friends in my youth weren't all "white".)

But because our initial instinct if we got a flat tire wouldn't have been to go steal stuff to get out that bind.

And if some of the wilder ones in the group (which we did have) had suggested such a thing, they would have been talked out of it by the others.

And even if we'd ended up on someone's property, maybe looking like a bunch of scruffs coming back from drinking at the beach, if the owners had indicated we were not welcome in some way, we would have gotten the hell out of there.

Look, I am totally cognizant of the racist and oppressive socio-cultural environment that can exist on the Prairies for aboriginal people (especially youth) and how this leads many of them to become jaded, mistrustful, and even defiant.

But as in any functioning society, this doesn't give you the right to do anything you want, or to expect that your actions will always be without consequences. Often tragic ones.

BTW, I am not trying to defend Gerald Spencer here. It sounds like the Crown may have bungled this case particularly with the charges they chose to levy against him.

Are you sure? Because it sounds a lot like you are saying that you think this is justified as part of a functioning society. I've read/heard nothing that has convinced me somebody needed to die in this situation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Are you sure? Because it sounds a lot like you are saying that you think this is justified as part of a functioning society. I've read/heard nothing that has convinced me somebody needed to die in this situation.

There are precious few situations where you'll get out of me that "someone needed to die".

This definitely wasn't one of them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Are you sure? Because it sounds a lot like you are saying that you think this is justified as part of a functioning society..

Not at all.

I am not trying to make a tasteless pun here, but this specific case seems to me to be an ill-advised choice of "hill to die on" to try and bring about meaningful change to the toxic relationship between indigenous Canadians and the criminal justice system.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The biggest problem with the Stanley case is that what Stanley admitted to doing in his testimony should have had the jury finding him guilty of manslaughter. The jury disagreeing with it is a case of jury judging not on the finding of law and not the jury judging not on the finding of fact. The crown can appeal the ruling on these grounds. This is a case of jury nullification that can have severe consequences and the FN community should be alarmed at how this case unfolded.

The Crown brought this case forward with a second-degree murder charge.

Could the jury on its own have shifted that to another charge like manslaughter or careless use of a firearm?

Or were they limited to ruling on the charge that was brought before them?

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Crown brought this case forward with a second-degree murder charge.

Could the jury on its own have shifted that to another charge like manslaughter or careless use of a firearm?

Or were they limited to ruling on the charge that was brought before them?

^Apparently the jury was advised by the judge that manslaughter was a possible decision they could have made. That is all I know. I know based on what I have read and heard that I would probably have leant towards manslaughter. It seemed like a relatively logical verdict, but I am only getting some of the information and I really don't know what I would have felt in the courtroom or during deliberation.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Wow. Not going to lie, I'm a bit surprised at how many people are here with the "both sides" kind of argument on here.

My thoughts:
-The depth and darkness of anti-indigenous racism in this country, and how nasty it can get in the rural prairies isn't a surprise to many of us. But what is the extent to which the "system" allowed that to devalue a life.
-This incident, and many of the comments serve to illustrate the extent to which "rural crime" on the prairies has become a dogwhistle for anti indigenous racism.

I'm not indigenous, but I'm also not white. Years ago I was driving with some much younger siblings through BC and our vehicle broke down. There was no cell reception, so I walked about 25 km to get to cell reception. There were some residences along the way, and I considered asking for help, but decided against it for this very reason. I've grown up knowing that how I look is immediately threatening to large segment of people, whether they would consider themselves racist or not. This means, in general that I'm less likely to be trusted, less likely to be helped. Worst case scenario, somebody gets freaked out and reacts violently. The chances of actually getting any help and any of those properties was not worth the time for me, so I continued walking.

The stories aren't quite the same, I know that. But also, people will do stupid things. The problem is that for some of us, doing a stupid thing may cost us our life - and our system and society will basically say its okay.

Do people honestly think that had the victim been white he would have been killed?

AND if he was, would the verdict had been the same?

What if it was a white kid getting shot on a reserve? Same outcome?

To me, this comment is right on target about the conversation we need to be having in society. In some ways this case is a bit like the Rodney King episode of the early 1990s. Race was in all likelihood a key issue that influenced the events, as well as the interpretation of the events.

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

There is no escaping the elephant in the room.

did the punishment suit the crime? did this punishment occur because the individual was aboriginal (and by extension, because the defendant was not)? did this influence the jury?

if the answer to the first question is "no" and the answer to at least one of the other questions is "yes" or "maybe", clearly we have a major, major ugly truth that we need to face with respect to Canadian society.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

But so much of him being threatening is based on the fact that he was indigenous, whether we want to admit it or not.

It was a factor for sure, but so were others, AFAIK, like the fact that he was young, the fact that he was male, the fact that they were armed, the fact that they were drunk, the fact that there were a bunch of them, and the fact that they had been up to no good previously. I mean obviously an old indigenous lady in a wheelchair knocking on the Stanley's door because she's stranded nearby and who hasn't done anything wrong previously would clearly not get shot in the head immediately, can we agree on that...?

As I pointed out already on this forum, I once had two scared cops pointing their guns at me. Believe me, I had my hands up in the air as soon as they asked the first time, and thoroughly complied with all their whims while they brutally threw me on the hood of their car and handcuffed my hands behind my back. I could easily have been killed had I acted stupidly, even being white, and from my own experience there I am also convinced that by acting exactly as I did I would not have been killed either had I been black.

I think acting stupidly or not really dwarfs race in the grand scheme of things.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You're taking this in an odd direction.

I was young once.

My friends and I did stupid shit.

But we never would have gotten into the same situation that Colten Boushie and friends got themselves into.

Why? Not because none of us were aboriginal. (My friends in my youth weren't all "white".)

But because our initial instinct if we got a flat tire wouldn't have been to go steal stuff to get out that bind.

And if some of the wilder ones in the group (which we did have) had suggested such a thing, they would have been talked out of it by the others.

And even if we'd ended up on someone's property, maybe looking like a bunch of scruffs coming back from drinking at the beach, if the owners had indicated we were not welcome in some way, we would have gotten the hell out of there.

They tried to "get the hell out of there" but had their windshield smashed by a hammer and then crashed the car. Saying it's their fault for not escaping fast enough is mind bending. How is that an argument?

Here's a "Fake News" article laying out the sequence of events as told by both sides:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/...e-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

Look, I am totally cognizant of the racist and oppressive socio-cultural environment that can exist on the Prairies for aboriginal people (especially youth) and how this leads many of them to become jaded, mistrustful, and even defiant.

But as in any functioning society, this doesn't give you the right to do anything you want, or to expect that your actions will always be without consequences. Often tragic ones.

BTW, I am not trying to defend Gerald Spencer here. It sounds like the Crown may have bungled this case particularly with the charges they chose to levy against him.

No one is arguing that Boushie and his friends should have been able to steal property without legal consequence. We're saying the consequence shouldn't be death. If anyone has gotten away with a crime without consequence it is Gerald Stanley.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

It was a factor for sure, but so were others, AFAIK, like the fact that he was young, the fact that he was male, the fact that they were armed, the fact that they were drunk, the fact that there were a bunch of them, and the fact that they had been up to no good previously. I mean obviously an old indigenous lady in a wheelchair knocking on the Stanley's door because she's stranded nearby and who hasn't done anything wrong previously would clearly not get shot in the head immediately, can we agree on that...?

As I pointed out already on this forum, I once had two scared cops pointing their guns at me. Believe me, I had my hands up in the air as soon as they asked the first time, and thoroughly complied with all their whims while they brutally threw me on the hood of their car and handcuffed my hands behind my back. I could easily have been killed had I acted stupidly, even being white, and from my own experience there I am also convinced that by acting exactly as I did I would not have been killed either had I been black.

I think acting stupidly or not really dwarfs race in the grand scheme of things.

So it's his fault he got killed then?

[Acajack]

Radio-Canada has a noon-hour national public affairs show that I was listening to over lunch.

The last item was the Boushie-Stanley case.

The two panelists who comment on everything and anything are totally Quebec-focused in their careers and outlooks.

So this was a bit like two guys from BC and Alberta commenting on Quebec language politics.

Anyway, one of the commentators opened by saying that the RCMP were not respectful after the shooting, and acted as though Boushie the shooting victim had been a "thief" or something.

They also discussed at length how this was a verdict arrived at by an "all-white jury"...

Which brings me to a question I've asked before on here? How do we know the jury was "all-white"? Has this been confirmed by anyone reliable?

Do they ask jurors for demographic information? And if they do, should they?

If I am up for jury duty, can they ask me if I am anglophone, francophone, gay, straight, aboriginal, non-aboriginal, a person with a disability?

I know that can ask me questions that can reveal biases, hang-ups, etc. But personal information about my identity?

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by lio45

It was a factor for sure, but so were others, AFAIK, like the fact that he was young, the fact that he was male, the fact that they were armed, the fact that they were drunk, the fact that there were a bunch of them, and the fact that they had been up to no good previously. I mean obviously an old indigenous lady in a wheelchair knocking on the Stanley's door because she's stranded nearby and who hasn't done anything wrong previously would clearly not get shot in the head immediately, can we agree on that...?

As I pointed out already on this forum, I once had two scared cops pointing their guns at me. Believe me, I had my hands up in the air as soon as they asked the first time, and thoroughly complied with all their whims while they brutally threw me on the hood of their car and handcuffed my hands behind my back. I could easily have been killed had I acted stupidly, even being white, and from my own experience there I am also convinced that by acting exactly as I did I would not have been killed either had I been black.

I think acting stupidly or not really dwarfs race in the grand scheme of things.

Always difficult to say based on the specifics of the situation. But I would argue there are many cases where this is decidedly not the case. If I'm going to be dealing with scared people (including cops) with guns, I'm quite convinced the chances of the situation being diffused would be better if I were white. Even if everything else is equal. I honestly believe that as a person of colour, I am typically going to have less leeway in that sort of situation. I'm less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt if I bend the wrong way or move a bit too fast. This applies equally if I am doing something stupid. I would get away with more if I were white. In every single situation? No, but in enough of them that its something I'm always somewhat aware of.

I don't think we're going to agree on the importance of race in this incident. I don't think it was a small, factor - I think an overarching cultural and incident specific aspect that impacts every decision made at the time and thereafter.

But even if it just was a small factor, I don't see how it still isn't a serious concern, especially when somebody ends up dead.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

They tried to "get the hell out of there" but had their windshield smashed by a hammer and then crashed the car. Saying it's their fault for not escaping fast enough is mind bending. How is that an argument?

Here's a "Fake News" article laying out the sequence of events as told by both sides:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/...e-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

.

You make it sound like Stanley was waiting around hoping for a bunch of native kids to show up so he could shoot one.

They were trying to get the hell out there all right, and perhaps with the ATV, the other truck and maybe running over Stanley's wife in the process.

As I've said before, no one with a brain is happy that someone lost their life as a result of this.

But situations like these have a way of turning sour real fast. That's why they're best avoided at all costs.

Basic smarts.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So it's his fault he got killed then?

Obviously but there are a number of things, at various points as the events unfolded, that Colten Boushie (and/or his friends) could have done in order to greatly reduce the likelihood of someone ending up dead that day.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Obviously but there are a number of things, at various points as the events unfolded, that Colten Boushie (and/or his friends) could have done in order to greatly reduce the likelihood of someone ending up dead that day.

Well, it's guaranteed that "if Colten Boushie had done things differently that day, he would not have gotten killed" is a true statement, so if you want to choose to define that as being his fault, be my guest.

It's also guaranteed that if Gerald Stanley had done a number of things differently that day, Colten Boushie wouldn't have been killed. So by the same standard, it can be considered Mr. Stanley's fault too. A butterfly flapping its wings somewhere could also have altered the course of events. It really doesn't take much to change an outcome.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, it's guaranteed that "if Colten Boushie had done things differently that day, he would not have gotten killed" is a true statement, so if you want to choose to define that as being his fault, be my guest.

It's also guaranteed that if Gerald Stanley had done a number of things differently that day, Colten Boushie wouldn't have been killed. So by the same standard, it can be considered Mr. Stanley's fault too. A butterfly flapping its wings somewhere could also have altered the course of events. It really doesn't take much to change an outcome.

I know, I am just responding to the constant posting of comments that somehow I think it was a good or even a defensible thing that Colten Boushie got shot dead.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

If I'm going to be dealing with scared people (including cops) with guns, I'm quite convinced the chances of the situation being diffused would be better if I were white. Even if everything else is equal. I honestly believe that as a person of colour, I am typically going to have less leeway in that sort of situation. I'm less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt if I bend the wrong way or move a bit too fast. This applies equally if I am doing something stupid. I would get away with more if I were white.

I completely agree with all of this (and it's unfortunate -- my ideal society is color-blind) but you're not really disagreeing with my point with what I'm quoting above... my point is that being white is an edge in such situations, sure (the same way that being old is an edge, and being a woman is also an edge; "unfortunately" for me, I'm a guy, and I still consider myself young!) but it's still a small factor, compared to the importance of behaving smart vs behaving stupid.

Statistically, I'm pretty sure we'd find the following to be generally true:

Stressed cops + white suspect acting really stupid = suspect unfortunately could end up dead

Stressed cops + black suspect acting really stupid = suspect unfortunately could end up dead

Stressed cops + white suspect acting reasonably = suspect doesn't die

Stressed cops + black suspect acting reasonably = suspect doesn't die


Maybe in some cases the race of the suspect would end up being the one factor that pushes the situation from one outcome to the other, but I still think those would be a minority, compared to the large numbers of suspects getting arrested, and the less large but still larger numbers of suspects getting killed. If we analyzed all the cases of suspects getting "killed in action" I'm pretty sure the main correlation by far we'd find would be with their behavior, not with their race.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know, I am just responding to the constant posting of comments that somehow I think it was a good or even a defensible thing that Colten Boushie got shot dead.

I replied to you technically but my reply was in fact more meant for O-tacular given that he had specifically asked that question.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

They tried to "get the hell out of there" but had their windshield smashed by a hammer and then crashed the car.

From the CBC article you linked

Based on the associated write-up, this is where the vehicle crashed. In looking at the picture, it doesn't seem "that bad" - certainly clear enough to drive. Also, in looking at that picture and the front tire, if they were able to drive into the farm as well as they did, would spidering on the window really have made driving that much worse??

Anyway, I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but rather that it is very easy to interpret the alleged events however suits our biases.

From the writeup it appears that they "tried to get the hell out of there" after being caught stealing. If they really went there for help with a flat tire, why didn't they knock on the front door instead of powering up the ATV and driving away with it??

[Acajack]

To be very blunt I don't have much patience for the "good guys all wear white hats and are always right" and "bad guys all wear black hats and are always wrong" bullshit that now passes for public discourse these days.

I thought Harper and the Cons were morally wrong on the MMIW issue with their argument that it was a simple criminal justice issue that the existing authorities could handle it just fine. That kind of mindset is one of the prime reasons why I've always said I'll never vote conservative.

I don't know if most people are aware but there is a fairly serious case in NW Quebec where several Sûreté du Québec officers have been accused of sexually exploiting native women on a reserve near Val-d'Or. They deserve to be put through the grinder (figuratively speaking) if the allegations prove to be true.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by shreddog

From the CBC article you linked

Based on the associated write-up, this is where the vehicle crashed. In looking at the picture, it doesn't seem "that bad" - certainly clear enough to drive. Also, in looking at that picture and the front tire, if they were able to drive into the farm as well as they did, would spidering on the window really have made driving that much worse??

Anyway, I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but rather that it is very easy to interpret the alleged events however suits our biases.

From the writeup it appears that they "tried to get the hell out of there" after being caught stealing. If they really went there for help with a flat tire, why didn't they knock on the front door instead of powering up the ATV and driving away with it??

Who knows if it was the smashed windshield, the flat tire or simply just shock and surprise that made them crash. Does it matter? If they could have driven away they would have. More importantly though you and others continue to miss the main point. Colten Boushie could have been stealing a tractor and making threatening gestures and Gerald Stanley still wouldn’t have the right to kill him. This isn’t Texas or Florida with Stand Your Ground laws. This is Canada.