Crime In Rural Areas

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 But go back and read the quote at 285 and tell me it's not accurate. You all seem to be saying these things, and when I quote them for truth freak out like you didn't understand what you were really saying.

Or cobbling together these ridiculous scenarios that make no sense when you actually look at them. Like this one:

It happened to be Gerald's bullet that killed Colton. He could just as easily have died in a rollover, (drunken driving is illegal because it is deadly). He could have died when the gun was being used as a crowbar. He could have killed someone while target shooting recklessly. He wasn't just a little tipsy.

Right. He just happened to be there pointing the gun at his head and pulled the trigger. Sheer coincidence.

Don't read between the lines. No coincidence at all.  He didn't deliberately point the gun at Colton. He tried to reach in and turn off the vehicle. As he did that the gun went off while it was inadvertently  pointed at Colton's head. As of right now that is the official version of events. 

You change that insisting that Gerald intentionally murdered Colton because he is racist. Then you accuse us of defending the right to shoot people just for being on the property. 

I am pointing out that robbing people is dangerous behavior. If you go break into your neighbour's house and he shoots you in the back he is guilty of murder, but you were stupid. Even if he goes to prison you are still dead. 

I'm a defensive pedestrian. I look over my shoulder crossing on green because I know I could get cut off. It would be the drivers fault, I'd still be dead. 

Reckless behavior leads to unforeseen consequences. 

If Stanley boldfacedly lied about the hangfire, he is a sociopathic liar. I think that is possible that he lied about the hangfire and was very lucky that the bullet had an unusual bulge but I'm uncomfortable even contemplating that someone could be so maniacal. I think the reluctance to think of someone being like that helped his defence. The bumbling of the Crown also seems to have helped Stanley make his case:

Boushie family lawyer says there were grounds for an appeal in Stanley case; Lawyer says layperson testimony about 'hang fire' should have been inadmissible; CBC; March 8, 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/boushie-family-lawyer-says-there...

Quote:

'This was a hang fire case'

Murphy sent the letter earlier this week, before the Crown announced its decision. He urged the government to appeal the not-guilty verdict based on the fact that two people who testified about a gun malfunction known as "hang fire" were not expert witnesses and their testimony directly contradicted testimony given by experts.

...

Stanley's defence lawyer said that is what happened in this case — that there was a serious delay between when Stanley pulled the trigger and the bullet left the gun and killed Boushie. 

"The entire case came down to the hang fire and the length of the hang fire," Murphy said in an interview with CBC News.

The court heard expert evidence given at trial that this delay — between the trigger pull and the bullet firing — can only last, at maximum, half a second. But two other people called to the stand by the defence testified otherwise. 

One witness, Wayne Popowich, contacted the defence team after reading about the expert evidence in the newspaper. He said a hang fire happened to him 40 years earlier when he was 15 years old. He said that delay lasted at least 12 seconds.

A second civilian witness also contradicted the expert. Nathan Voinorosky told court he once experienced a seven-second hang fire while target shooting,

Murphy said these two accounts directly contradicted expert evidence and were irrelevant to the case. 

"If the jury did not hear the evidence about those two hang fires and the length of them, their verdict would have not been necessarily the same. And I think that's a very fair statement," he said. 

"The evidence of both of those witnesses was not admissible evidence. It should have never gone before the jury."

...

However, because there didn't appear to be an objection by Crown prosecutor Bill Burge to the inclusion of these witnesses at trial, Penney said it's tough to see the grounds for an appeal.

I think it is unfair to blame the jury for respecting the laypersons testimony. They jury were not in a good position to dismiss that testimony but the Crown was.

progressive17 wrote:

The vast majority of bad things that can happen to me are because of stupid things that I do to myself.

Agreed. (to me as well)

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Who is advocating for that?

And JKR. Glad you found the point that neither of the firearms experts testified that hangfire lasted more than a fraction of a second or so.

The people whose heresay was allowed - one wonders if they had a stopwatch on hand, or did it just feel like 12 seconds or if it was something else that happened. The judge did actually prevent the defense from entering information from a website as evidence, which shows how much he was scrambling. But the fact the crown did not appeal the heresay testimony does not mean that it was valid.

And people murder other people all the time. It is often maniacal, but not that unbelievable.

 

Um.  Their evidence was not "hearsay", but direct evidence of their own experience.  Just so you know, in evidence law, there is no stronger category.  The Boushie lawyer is making a technical point about how that evidence was used to contradict an expert.  The issue is not whether the evidence was per se unreliable (which is the problem with hearsay) but whether it was admissible in this precise circumstance.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  Well you said that the best thing would be for people to know that they can get shot if they go into someone's house uninvited. Having the threat of death as your main strategy for preventing crime would seem to rely heavily on a lot of people running out and getting guns. 

Your reading comprehension seems really limited. The best way is for people to raise their children not to rob people, not to try to steal vehicles and certainly not to threaten people through home invasion. Not getting blind drunk and going for a drive or going swimming would also be handy lessons to teach your kids as well. 

If homeowners choose to own a firearm that is their right. That does not mean I am recommending it. I don't recommend skiing either but I defend the right of people to do it. If someone does own a firearm and they feel threatened I think it is human nature that they will choose to defend themselves when their home is attacked and they fear for their life. If someone invades another person's home they are risking their life. I think it's a good idea to warn them they are risking their life. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

​ The people whose heresay was allowed - one wonders if they had a stopwatch on hand, or did it just feel like 12 seconds or if it was something else that happened.  

There is an entire thread to argue about whether or not the verdict in the Stanley trial was correct. From the perspective of debating rural crime and the law he was acquitted based on the inability to prove that he deliberately fired the gun. 

Had it been proven that he deliberately fired the gun it would have been classified as murder. I think everyone agrees that if he deliberately shot Colton that it would be murder. I don't believe it was deliberate. You do. That's fair but there is no way to prove it either way. 

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs.  

Hey Pondering, I am not the person who brought up the Stanley trial this time. And that horse was out of the barn long ago.

And this is where we are going now? Really?

Pondering wrote:

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs.  

Just to remind you again, it is not just my opinion that people should avoid engaging thieves in situations like this, it is also the professional advice of the police. They have said that after every one of these incidents.

And not all thieves are Indigenous.

And JKR. Yup, that could very well have been it. Funny that neither defense nor crown pointed out he wasn't talking about how long a hangfire can actually last, only how long they recommend being careful.

Also, no one made the connection between the fact that if it is proper firearms handling to watch where you point your gun if it doesn't fire when you pull the trigger, you certainly shouldn't have it pointed at someone's head, as Gerald Stanley did.

Funny how they can make improbable leaps of logic on the one hand, and on the other ignore some pretty simple things like not pointing a gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger.

At the rally I attended, and since then they were also criticized for not doing their job well - both during the trial, and in not even trying to appeal.

(edit)

Yes, I agree with you there. It is a different application of the law if you are white. And it is particularly different if you are Indigenous.

And to be clear (just noticed something you said upthread), I don't hold the jury responsible for not knowing things that the lawyers would have.

I do hold them responsible for how they dealt with the evidence and for the decision they made.

As I have said before (and this is just my opinion) I don't think it was the defense strategy to present a coherent argument asas much as to sowing enough doubt that the jury could make a racist decision, and tell themselves that it was justified.  Because the evidence did not make sense. I wonder if they settled on one story and ignored the rest of it, or if they even analyzed it to that degree at all.

And might it have been different if the crown had pointed out those inconsistencies? I don't know.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And not all thieves are Indigenous.

No, just the ones you're focused on. If you were defending all thieves you wouldn't be calling it racism. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, I agree with you there. It is a different application of the law if you are white. And it is particularly different if you are Indigenous.

And to be clear (just noticed something you said upthread), I don't hold the jury responsible for not knowing things that the lawyers would have.

I do hold them responsible for how they dealt with the evidence and for the decision they made.

As I have said before (and this is just my opinion) I don't think it was the defense strategy to present a coherent argument asas much as to sowing enough doubt that the jury could make a racist decision, and tell themselves that it was justified.  Because the evidence did not make sense. I wonder if they settled on one story and ignored the rest of it, or if they even analyzed it to that degree at all.

And might it have been different if the crown had pointed out those inconsistencies? I don't know.

1. That is a common defence strategy in everything from arson to aggr assault to fraud to murder.

2. It might have made a difference to pursuing an appeal

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually Pondering, my point is the same advice that is offered by the police.

Don't engage a potentially dangerous situation unless you absolutely have to. Especially do not do so with a gun.

Neither the police nor the province are warning that thieves should be prepared to be shot if they go into someone's house.

The province has ruled out any change to the law that would make vigilanteeism easier.

What you are suggesting is totally offside from that reality. It is in fact a threat to safety, and something that will increase rural crime.

But what I really mean by "going there" is you trying suggesting the response to crime has any relation to fact that we do live on land that we stole through genocide, and that we still live in a society that runs on systemic racism and denial.

And your insinuation that all thieves are Indigenous is also a classic example of that attitude. As is talking about shooting Indigenous people as a way of mocking reconciliation.

(edit)

I'm not defending thieves Pondering. I am saying vigilanteeism and responding to crime by shooting people is outrageous. And the promotion of it is a total scam by gun nuts.

But does racism play a role, even though not all thieves are Indigenous. Absolutely, especially when you have people just assuming a direct relationship.

Thank you for proving my point. Obviously not all thieves are indigenous. You are the one claiming this is rooted in racism, that only FNs get shot at not white people. If white people are also getting shot at then racism isn't the issue. 

I have said at least 10 times that I support the laws as they exist and do not support any changes. I have never promoted the idea of gun ownership or protecting from theft with a firearm. I have made it clear the sole justification for using a gun is to protect from physical attack. 

The reality is people in rural areas almost always have guns. That isn't something I am promoting. It's a simple fact of life. Unless you intend to outlaw firearms on farms the reality is they will have guns. They apparently have the legal right to carry a firearm on a combine using the justification of shooting animals. Unless the law is changed they will do it. I'm not promoting it. I'm saying that is what they will do regardless of what police recommend. If you can think of a way to change the law that has any chance of passing by all means suggest it. 

Police and the province shouldn't have to warn people that home-invasion could lead to their death by frightened rural homeowner with a gun. You know your neighbour has a gun. If you go break in his house while he is home don't be surprised if he shoots you. Don't expect your white skin to protect you. 

Police want to discourage homeowners from shooting invaders. All they can do is advise against it because it isn't illegal. That is current reality. It is legal to shoot home invaders now. No change in law required. It is legal to carry a firearm on your own property including outdoors. That is the current law. If someone threatens your safety on your property, even outdoors, you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to discourage or end the threat. That is the law. It is not illegal to shoot in the air to scare off intruders. 

This is the current state of law. Unless the law is changed home-invaders are taking their lives in their hands. If thieves have even a tiny modicum of sense they will wait until a house is unoccupied to break in. If they don't even have that tiny modicum of sense I am sad for them but the homeowner is not to blame for the thief's stupidity in turning themselves into a home -invader. 

And my comment wasn't about who is getting shot. I have not said only Indigenous people get shot, because I know personally that is not true.

It was about your claim that if I don't agree with shooting people and follow the advice of police about not being a vigilante it must be because I want to give all my possessions to Indigenous people.

Why? Well according to you because I support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement. Why else would I not want to stand up for my castle and  kill people?

I trust people here can unpack that one for themselves.

It is in fact what you said.

You also said that I believe if white people get hurt or robbed it is their own fault.  Again, because I support respecting treaties and land claims.

And the law doesn't actually give anyone free rein to shoot someone under any circumstances, much as some seem to be spinning it that way. It is against the law. Whether there is seen to be a justifiable cause is entirely up to police, prosecutors, and judges.

That is why in both cases we are discussing that involve people being shot, the shooter was arrested and charged. Shoot someone and you are taking a chance that you will be held to account for it.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I also support reconciliation, respecting treaties and fair land claims settlement.

You can claim to support reconciliation and respecting treaties all you want. Your posts in regards to the Boushie thread, in particular interpreting the actions of Boushie and his friends in the worst light possible while giving Stanley the benefit of the doubt, contradict your claim.

That isn't true. I have said multiple times that I think Stanley is at least guilty of manslaughter but that it was not proven. I don't buy Shelton throwing the hammer either. The justice system, not me, gives defendants the benefit of the doubt. Although that certainly leads to guilty people going free would you have it otherwise?

I have also said on numerous occasions that Boushie was probably asleep and woke up to mayhem. It's possible he didn't participate in the behavior at either farm that day. I would say that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. 

I have said I don't believe Boushie or his friends intended any harm to the Stanleys and I think they were trying to leave when Sheldon threw the hammer and that when Boushie woke up and transferred to the drivers seat it was to leave not run anyone over. 

You and Smith are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You give 100% of the benefit of the doubt to criminals and none whatsoever to homeowners. 

I think it is possible Gerald accidently pulled the trigger or it's possible that it was a hangfire. 

There is zero evidence to suggest that Gerald Stanley leapt at the opportunity to execute an FN man in front of witnesses. I don't think the theory is believable. Neither you nor Smith has presented any evidence suggesting that Gerald is so racist that he murdered Colton in cold blood based on that motivation. You cannot claim his motivation for murder was theft as nothing was stolen. To deliberately murder someone for attempted theft is far-fetched. Gerald would have exhibited such a violent personality prior to this incident if that it the kind of person he was. 

We know as fact that the men and women were drunk, had been shooting the gun out the car window, and had used the gun as a crowbar to try to steal a vehicle on the previous farm. What benefit of the doubt am I supposed to give them? The female witness first said Leesa Stanley fired 2 shots to Colton's head. I think she did believe that when she got out of the car which is why she punched Leesa. When she found out it was Stanley she pretended she had seen it happen. The other woman was so drunk that she was passed out in the back seat for the entire thing including driving on the rim on gravel over the length of  the Stanley's driveway to the yard. The two men who brought the women and Colton into the situation took off leaving their "friends" behind. 

Sure, fine upstanding young people. Colton should not have died. No one deserves to die for stupidity or because friends decided to endanger their lives. 

Colton was stupid, his friends were stupid, Sheldon was stupid (throwing the hammer) Gerald was stupid (old ammunition, not keeping the gun down even though he thought it was empty). Lots of stupid to go around. Many moments that would have changed things had people made more intelligent choices. 

This is what you said:

Pondering wrote:

You seem to feel that entering people's homes "uninvited" and stealing is fine and white people owe it to FNs to hand over their property and say thank you if they don't get hurt and if they do get hurt oh well they must deserve it because they are white and own property which was all stolen from FNs. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Yes, crime is very high in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Has been for a long time. Do you think this is news to any of us? Furthermore, if we're talking about crime in general, most crime happens between people who know each other, not strangers. How does allowing more access to guns do anything but make things much worse?

Hi Aristotleded,

I don't think crime out west is news to any of you, no. I was surprised to read how much of a warzone North Battleford seems to be.  #1 in Canada for Firearm offenses, B&E, DUIs and youth crime. #2 for Violent crime and assault.  In all of Canada. I was surprised.  I can't really see that place getting much worse whether more firearms are added or not.

Quote:

I have seen things on my walk that bother me, but on the whole I know the area and am confident  in my ability to survive.

To get a better understanding can I ask like that?

Quote:

And let's allow that Boushie and his friends were drunk while driving between farms. Do you think that's the first time something like that has happened in rural Saskatchewan or Manitoba? That's been going on for a long time.

Yes it seems like quite the epidemic. Maybe alcohol should be heavily restricted, perhaps a special liscence to buy it. I'd like to see cars taken away and impounded on someones first DUI offense.

Quote:

Only after a First Nation's person is shot to death is there a loud, visible, public call for people to have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Coincidence? Why has this not been a thing before the Boushie shooting?

My guess is that it was a catalyst. People fed up with being victimized decided to use this, in poor taste as it may be, as a line in the sand.

Quote:

We live here. We know what's going on. Maybe one of us can show you around and teach you a few things if you ever come out our way?

I will be out that way this summer, both Saskatoon and Winnipeg. I would very much like to take you up on that offer.

The premier and attourney general have both commented on the call for a change to tresspass rules that would shift the onus away from the landowner.

Both Moe and Morgan were clear that their willingness to talk about trespassing rules would not veer into the introduction of "stand-your-ground" legislation. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sarm-bear-pit-session-1.4579303

As is clear from what SARM is asking for though, it would still be legal to come up someone's drive and knock on the door.

I know there is a clause with the tresspassing law where someone with a flat tire that knock on your door can't be charged under a tresspassing law providing they leave when told to do so but would a no tresspassing sign negate something like that?

No one was assuming they weren't trying to steal something. But it is a fact that people who were just walking up to the door have been shot by twitchy landowners. So in that sense it is relevant to those who think vigilanteeism is the proper response to crime.

I think this might be in reference to the specific point that they were driving drunk and therefore might have died anyway, and that allegedly that means the fact Stanley shot him dead is less of a problem. He just happened to be the one who did it.

Though Boushie wasn't driving , so I am not sure how that weird logic even applies. He got into a car with a drunk driver, and therefore it isn't as much of a big deal that someone killed him?

On a specific point of rural crime, Stanley is back in court today on his improper storage charge.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think this might be in reference to the specific point that they were driving drunk and therefore might have died anyway, and that allegedly that means the fact Stanley shot him dead is less of a problem. He just happened to be the one who did it.

Though Boushie wasn't driving , so I am not sure how that weird logic even applies. He got into a car with a drunk driver, and therefore it isn't as much of a big deal that someone killed him?

Not what I said. And again I have said his death was tragic multiple times. What I said was that Sheldon, Gerald and all five adults in the car all acted stupidly which led to the accidental shooting of Colton by Gerald. Only Gerald is directly responsible as he was holding the gun. 

Having said that stealing is a dangerous activity. Just like drunk driving it can lead to death. 

So, if the goal is to prevent deaths rather than assigning blame I think it's a good thing to let that be known. 

Vigilantism is illegal. 

Quote:

You can claim to support reconciliation and respecting treaties all you want. Your posts in regards to the Boushie thread, in particular interpreting the actions of Boushie and his friends in the worst light possible while giving Stanley the benefit of the doubt, contradict your claim.

Sorry, but this is silly.  The Stanley case has absolutely nothing to do with treaties, nor reconciliation.  Canada didn't "owe" Aboriginals a guilty verdict to show that we're really sincere.

So far the proof that this is all just a case of racism gone mad seems to be the continuous assertion that it was racism gone mad.  Or, unfalsifiable stuff like "just come out here and see with your own two eyes" or whatever.

Quote:

I expect he's talking about comments in this thread spinning everything Indigenous people say and do as suspect, and with evil intent, while trusting white people and giving them the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

If we're discussing lots of cases, I suppose a pattern could emerge.

But if we're talking about one specific case -- and it seems we still are -- then doubting one side's story, believing one side's story, or even questioning both sides' stories isn't really evidence of latent racism.

Personally, I've always had a really hard time believing that O.J. didn't kill his ex-wife.  But I hope that saying that doesn't set race relations back 100 years.  I'm not saying it because he's a man of colour.  But since he IS a man of colour, am I being a li'l bit racist?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

.

Personally, I've always had a really hard time believing that O.J. didn't kill his ex-wife.  But I hope that saying that doesn't set race relations back 100 years.  I'm not saying it because he's a man of colour.  But since he IS a man of colour, am I being a li'l bit racist?

No, but that might be the parlour law and order chat version of claiming that I have black friends, so I that means I can't be racist.

And sure, we are talking about a couple of cases. When I brought up the lopsided doubt and argument you didn't deny it; you said the other side didn't need help.