The Ugly Canada Thread

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

More importantly though you and others continue to miss the main point. ...

Again biases. My first post on this topic was to correct your bias that they couldn't escape as the window was smashed in (your exact words) whereas the evidence does not support that.

FWIW, I feel the Stanley should have been charged and tried on manslaughter (but not murder). And that he should have been found guilty. I also feel that the youth share culpability for had they not been drinking and driving, breaking parole, trespassing and attempting to steal property THIS would not have happened. Stanley, didn't go looking for natives to shoot. That said, NOTHING they did warranted his response.

And thanks for having an open mind about my opinion.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

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.

No, just no.

There isn't a single one of us who really knows what they would have done.

From the other photos that accompany the article the vehicle in the photo above is actually pointing in the direction of the house. (Those are the front or back steps of the house.)

It's not pointing away from the house or in the direction of the driveway that leads out of the property. (EDIT: Just looking at the photos again - it does look like a drunken person might have driven in that direction to try and get out of there.)

As I said: we have no idea what they were going to do or where they were going. Every single one of them was apparently pissed drunk anyway.

And again - no one here is saying Colten deserved to die.

But bad shit tends to happen more frequently when you do unwise stuff.

Drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes never start drinking or get behind the wheel with the intent of killing someone or themselves, do they? And yet drunk drivers kill others or themselves all the time.

[Acajack]

And another thing: of course at one point they're going to try and get out there real fast. The whole thing went to shit, their car window got smashed, the farmer is running around with a gun and firing warning shots...

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Yeah but the sefie sock puppet former snowboard instructor and drama teacher did teach some pre-law high school classes which obviously made him a legal expert!

ravingconservatives.com

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No, just no.

There isn't a single one of us who really knows what they would have done.

From the other photos that accompany the article the vehicle in the photo above is actually pointing in the direction of the house. (Those are the front or back steps of the house.)

It's not pointing away from the house or in the direction of the driveway that leads out of the property. (EDIT: Just looking at the photos again - it does look like a drunken person might have driven in that direction to try and get out of there.)

As I said: we have no idea what they were going to do or where they were going. Every single one of them was apparently pissed drunk anyway.

And again - no one here is saying Colten deserved to die.

But bad shit tends to happen more frequently when you do unwise stuff.

Drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes never start drinking or get behind the wheel with the intent of killing someone or themselves, do they? And yet drunk drivers kill others or themselves all the time.

This is where I'm confused, what is the purpose of the 'but' here?

Did he deserve to die or not? What does the qualification mean, did he maybe deserve to die, depending on exactly how things went down?

I'm confused to have people saying that they don't think he deserved to die, while simultaneously constructing arguments as to why the outcome might be understandable.

This is different than a car crash because Colten did not accidentally shoot himself. That only works in my mind if we believe that getting shot in this situation is a reasonable inevitability. To be fair, I think that is something that many people would agree with.

I get it, I've thought through the alternatives and can admit I don't know exactly what happened that night. But nothing in my head has convinced death was somehow a natural consequence. Death is what happened, and that is what people are trying to grapple with. He died, and if we as a society don't think it was deserved, then we have problem. But from my perspective as a society we actually aren't sure.

Some of us feel like it wasn't deserved. Some of us think it is totally fair. Some seem to think maybe he did have it coming, that ultimately it is kind of his fault for his part in creating a bad situation.

The first stance and the last stance are not the same thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

This is different than a car crash because Colten did not accidentally shoot himself. That only works in my mind if we believe that getting shot in this situation is a reasonable inevitability. To be fair, I think that is something that many people would agree with.
.

How can you not see that if you trespass on someone's property, try to steal stuff, and fight back when they try to stop you, that getting shot might be a "reasonable inevitability"?

It's not a happy or a desirable outcome, but it's definitely one that is within the realm of possibility, no?

[rousseau]

I fully agree with everything Acajack has written here on this thread. I think he's grappling with this in the most reasonable way.

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Did he deserve to die or not? What does the qualification mean, did he maybe deserve to die, depending on exactly how things went down?

(Not speaking for Acajack here, just myself). I think only the looniest of the rightwing cranks on this forum are suggesting that Boushie deserved what he got. Most of us appear to be on board with the idea that surely Stanley should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I fully agree with everything Acajack has written here on this thread. I think he's grappling with this in the most reasonable way.



(Not speaking for Acajack here, just myself). I think only the looniest of the rightwing cranks on this forum are suggesting that Boushie deserved what he got. Most of us appear to be on board with the idea that surely Stanley should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

I've generally got the same position as Acajack here, except that I'm not yet ready to say that I think I know better than the entirety of the jurors who did have access to a lot of evidence I haven't been privy to.

I'll draw a parallel with a local trial that was very followed here in my hometown, a few MMA employees were accused of 47 counts of manslaughter, and in the end the jury found them not guilty. These people are already going to have to live the rest of their lives with a severe burden on their consciences anyway for what happened that night, and piling on legal trouble on top of it would not have brought back the dead. That's me playing devil's advocate a bit here, 'cause I don't have much of an opinion either way, but I suppose an argument could be made that destroying the Stanley's family lives even further wouldn't bring back Colten, nor would it likely change the future odds that a threatened farmer would end up shooting a potentially dangerous intruder or not.

I think the most useful lesson to be learned from this unfortunate business is, if you value your life in distant rural areas where there's no local police, then don't trespass while armed to try to steal stuff from people.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

How did I make it sound like Stanley was waiting for them? I simply pointed out the facts of what occurred while they were trying to escape.

[O-tacular]

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.

Did you mean obviously not or obviously?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/flo...autistic-man-s-unarmed-therapist-n745716

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've generally got the same position as Acajack here, except that I'm not yet ready to say that I think I know better than the entirety of the jurors who did have access to a lot of evidence I haven't been privy to.

I'll draw a parallel with a local trial that was very followed here in my hometown, a few MMA employees were accused of 47 counts of manslaughter, and in the end the jury found them not guilty. These people are already going to have to live the rest of their lives with a severe burden on their consciences anyway for what happened that night, and piling on legal trouble on top of it would not have brought back the dead. That's me playing devil's advocate a bit here, 'cause I don't have much of an opinion either way, but I suppose an argument could be made that destroying the Stanley's family lives even further wouldn't bring back Colten, nor would it likely change the future odds that a threatened farmer would end up shooting a potentially dangerous intruder or not.

I think the most useful lesson to be learned from this unfortunate business is, if you value your life in distant rural areas where there's no local police, then don't trespass while armed to try to steal stuff from people.

So Stanley is the victim here because his conscience is burdened? Using your same logic no crimes should ever be prosecuted because they can't bring back the dead or bring back property or bring back "X" thing. What about justice? What about victims and their families?

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So Stanley is the victim here because his conscience is burdened? Using your same logic no crimes should ever be prosecuted because they can't bring back the dead or bring back property or bring back "X" thing. What about justice? What about victims and their families?

Oh get off your high horse.

Yet from what I can see from my place in Ottawa is that Stanley probably should have got manslaughter but I wasn't there in the jury and see all the evidence nor privy to deliberations within the jury.

Stanley will live with his actions for the rest of his life, as well as the young people in the SUV will live with their actions that lead to their friends death.

There seems to be momentum to make adjustments to the justice system which in many ways will be a good thing. But when I hear an NDP pundit call Saskatchewan a Jim Crow Mississippi I just shake my head at it all.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by rousseau

(Not speaking for Acajack here, just myself). I think only the looniest of the rightwing cranks on this forum are suggesting that Boushie deserved what he got. Most of us appear to be on board with the idea that surely Stanley should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

I also think that Stanley should have been found guilty of manslaughter. That seems to be the majority opinion on here.

BTW - has there been any "right wing cranks" on the forum suggest that Boushie got what he deserved???

Nobody deserves to die in this manner. Boushie however is largely responsible for the circumstances leading to his own death, and this has to be factored into any sentence passed on Mr. Stanley.

Stanley feared for his property, his family and for his own life. He had five young men on his property acting aggressively, who were heavily inebriated and therefore acting in an unpredictable and possibly intimidating manner. Should Stanley have pointed his gun at Boushie's head - obviously not, and it is this point which, to me, makes him guilty of manslaughter.

I however am of the opinion that Stanley may not have actually intended to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, this was a high stress situation and all sort of stress hormones including adrenalin were coursing through Stanley's veins. Stanley's trigger finger could have twitched without him even realizing it, leading to the gun discharging and to Boushie's death - a tragic outcome for everyone involved.

So, because he pointed a loaded weapon, Stanley is guilty of manslaughter, but since he likely did not intend to pull the trigger, I don't think 2nd degree murder is justifiable.

With manslaughter, the presiding judge has considerable latitude in deciding sentence. It would actually be interesting to poll the forum to decide how much time everyone thinks Mr. Stanley should have been given if he had been found guilty of manslaughter.

Personally, I think a federal sentence is in order, but given the many mitigating factors in the case, I think two years in a federal penitentiary should be sufficient. The sentence should be served someplace other than Saskatchewan however (given the notoriety of the case) and the fact that about 80% of the prison population in Saskatchewan is aboriginal. This would be for the prisoners own safety.

Anyone else want to pass sentence????

[VANRIDERFAN]

Good post Moncton Rad

But to clarify there were two women and 3 men in the SUV.

[FrAnKs]

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/flo...autistic-man-s-unarmed-therapist-n745716

I don't think you understand the meaning of

Originally Posted by lio45

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

Do you need me to try to explain again, maybe with different words this time?



Alternatively, do you want me to reply to each of your cases with a case of a black suspect getting arrested without getting killed, and we see who runs out of cases first?

[vid]

The discussions we have!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So Stanley is the victim here because his conscience is burdened? Using your same logic no crimes should ever be prosecuted because they can't bring back the dead or bring back property or bring back "X" thing. What about justice? What about victims and their families?

Not at all. I never said he shouldn't have been prosecuted, I said I could understand why a local jury, after weighing the evidence (note that for that, there has to be a prosecution, something which I always supported), might reach an unanimous verdict that he didn't have malevolent intentions, had suffered enough already, that nothing further would be accomplished at this point by crushing him and his family even further with the vengeful hammer of the toughest possible version of justice, and that there would be little deterrent value to a guilty verdict anyway as farmers are obviously not killing random trespassers for fun and wouldn't start doing that even if there was a slightly increased perception that they could maybe, if all the stars really align for them, get away with it after a hellish 1.5+ year ordeal that will likely be morally and financially disastrous for them.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

The discussions we have!

It's a discussion forum, and that's one of the main pancanadian stories of the moment so it's probably normal that it's getting discussed here.

FYI, tonight on the local CBC hourly news the #1 story was JT's comments on this case, so, it's probably in fact THE top story in the country as of the time of this writing.