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.
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.
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.