The Battleford Trial ... what's at stake?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Pinga said:
Yup.

A young man is dead.
The guy who murdered him is at home with his family.

He was afraid? Go in the house .
He didn't mean to kill him? Then don't get a gun
The gun misfired. Wouldn't have happened if you didn't have a gun.
The people in the car were thieves. Since when is the punishment for theft, death.

This man killed someone when he was angry.

He got away with it.

And that is sad
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with you.
 
Pinga said:
Yup.

A young man is dead.

The guy who murdered him is at home with his family.

He was afraid? Go in the house .
Click to expand...

From many experiences (mine and family and neighbours) it seems to me that merely standing there watching might have been enough to make the young men move along. A few calm words like "You might want to take this chance to leave. I'd hate to have to call the police to move you along" would probably have helped too. They didn't come down the driveway shooting - they didn't threaten any individual - they tried to drive off and the car was hard to control (no tyre). Stanley over reacted and smashed the windscreen and it was all downhill from there.

He didn't mean to kill him? Then don't get a gun
Click to expand...

Yup

The gun misfired. Wouldn't have happened if you didn't have a gun.
Click to expand...

There, in my mind, remains some doubt about the misfiring story. The first time we heard this on the news my partner (who grew up connected to farming on both sides of his family through several generations) snorted and said to me "He is lying" later he added "He was reciting a memorised script". (All just his opinion of course).

The people in the car were thieves. Since when is the punishment for theft, death.

This man killed someone when he was angry.
Click to expand...

From my viewpoint I'd point out that he was probably angry as soon as he saw the car was packed with people from the Reserve. Same sort of thing as all those white cops in the US shooting non threatening, unarmed black citizens . Stanley likely reacted using the excuse that everything on the farm was HIS (entitlement at play) and he needed to show them who was boss. If 'they' wanted stuff they should get a job and earn it. Common knowledge for some around here - including self described Christians.

Having unresolved, unwarranted hatred or contempt for people of a different colour or culture isn't a license to kill them. I really thought the situation was perfectly clear and that the jury would agree with me.

My value system tells me that property has less value than human life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The above post has refused to post properly three times. No idea why, but I am fresh out of time and patience. On my computer it shows if I click on it - maybe it will appear for you too.

I think I fixed it. Let me know if I didn't get it right. ~Northwind
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KayTheCurler said:
The above post has refused to post properly three times. No idea why, but I am fresh out of time and patience. On my computer it shows if I click on it - maybe it will appear for you too.
Click to expand...

It comes up OK ...

Quick scan but surveys the biggest enima of humanity ... extreme differences of whether God is individual, or social ... and ignore the blending part ... meditative?

The extremes of politic' n win it appears ... the grand divide remains ... cause we can't get it together!
 
In the end, whether the accused felt threatened or thinks he was defending family/life/property was not relevant to the actual defense argument (though it may have impacted the jury thought patterns). THe defense was not based on justifiable homicide (which in my opinion should not be a defense leading to not guilty but to manslaughter with a reduced sentence), it was based on the weapon malfunctioning. Which the defense did not have to prove happened, they only had to plant a reasonable doubt that it "might" have happened. And apparently they did.

Whether people were on the farm to commit robbery is in fact irrelevant. Whether the vehicle was being used as a weapon in irrelevant. and so It is not clear to me, reading what little I have, that either of those statements have been proved or agreed to positively or negatively. The competence of the person holding the weapon would be relevant, the faulty thought processes of pointing a weapon at a human would be relevant, and the expert testimony (which is almost always problematic because different experts disagree on what the evidence shows) is relevant.

Also relevant is what the jury wants to believe--for whatever reason they want to believe it.
 
KayTheCurler said:
The above post has refused to post properly three times. No idea why, but I am fresh out of time and patience. On my computer it shows if I click on it - maybe it will appear for you too.
Click to expand...

I think I fixed it.

KayTheCurler said:
There, in my mind, remains some doubt about the misfiring story. The first time we heard this on the news my partner (who grew up connected to farming on both sides of his family through several generations) snorted and said to me "He is lying" later he added "He was reciting a memorised script". (All just his opinion of course).
Click to expand...

I agree with this. People who have guns are expected to take care of them properly. They also know not to point a weapon at another human being unless they mean to use it. He was at the very least, being irresponsible. I believe he was lying.
 
This is an interesting perspective on this situation:

The acquittal of Gerald Stanley in the killing of Colten Boushie has sent shock waves across Canada, with headlines comparing Saskatchewan to America in the 1950s and Colten Boushie to Rodney King. But these comparisons are erroneous at best. This is a made-in-Saskatchewan crisis, one that has deep roots going back to the signing of Treaty 6 and the first settlers coming into the region. The Stanley verdict and its fallout is a made-in-Saskatchewan crisis

This is not as simple as whether the farmer should or should not have had a gun, or whether the kids were or were not up to no good.

I have been reacting to the notion that Prairie farmers are like farmers in Southern Ontario, and therefore they should not have guns. I have not been suggesting that Gerald Stanley was right.
 
From The article that @GordW posted

"Speaking generally, if the people who are telling the story are not believable, or aspects of their version of events are not credible or inconsistent, then it becomes more difficult to convince the jury that's really what happened," said Steven Penney, a University of Alberta law professor.
Click to expand...

I suspect this was a big factor. It's unfortunate, but reality. Courtrooms and young adults have different styles of communicating.

"Once left with the all-or-nothing choice, the jury was left to ask whether it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the midst of all that chaos in a blindingly-quick period of time, Stanley intended to fire the fatal shot.

"We know what it decided."
Click to expand...

This is the bottom line isn't it.
 
The news says that someone snuck a device into the room next to the court room

and videoed the verdict. How could this be? Where was the security?
 
With the prevalence of cell phones it may become necessary to give more thought to security. Maybe ban them from 'sensitive' places like courts. Apparently some schools and some individual teachers ban them in the classroom. Students are expected to place them in a storage slot during class. The person who did it may find themselves in trouble for breaking the law - no cameras in court.
 
Pinga said:
I don't know? How many in Canada, monk?

I believe there are laws regarding police use of firearms.
Click to expand...

You don't want to know how many in Canada ... if you did you would look it up for yourself.

My point is that there are guns and there are people that are authorized to use them ... when they use lethal force when not necessary they usually get time off with pay while it is resolved and more often than not an officer will be found not guilty.

You personally approve of the PM of Canada having security detail around him at all times even when he is on vacation and not serving the public - to the tune of 200,000 at the taxpayer's expense. If these kids ended up on Trudeau's property or even anywhere near his person - they could be shot - unless we are paying that much in order for the 'necessary' security to not shoot and retreat into the safety of a building with Trudeau and his family.
  • Be prepared to carry a firearm and to use it or any other necessary physical force
    As a police officer you will be responsible for maintaining public order and safety. You will be expected to use various levels of intervention in the performance of your duties as a police officer.
If the Farmer or the Indian enlists in the army they will be given a gun and trained to shoot at the enemy without question. People that they personally have no dispute with - shoot to kill. I really do not understand that kind of logic.

I imagine that the better way to have handled this incident of two family's that have caused harm to each other's families would be better resolved between the two communities - but instead what we have is legal fees and courts and media - every body is making money off the tragedy - nothing is getting resolved in any restorative way.

Now there is even fighting over who is allowed to have the GoFund Me option to aid the individual families with the costs incurred on both sides.

I imagine that if in the event that you were in a situation that you did pull a gun (you do have that option do you not - being a gun owner) on someone and fatally injuring them - that that would be punishment enough on you for the rest of your life. Paying fines and going to jail and enduring financial ruin - might not go as far to compensate - as having to face the family that you actually injured - and coming to some terms with them rather than the 'justice' system.

I am not a good enough writer to express this adequately - what needs to happen is - face to face mediation between the two groups of people that are involved. I am going to assume here that the farmer feels extremely bad about this - he is not an 'authorized killer' after all - just a man that made a bad decision to bring his gun into the equation - and it backfired on his family and the families that have suffered these types of scenarios far too often to not feel targeted as not having lives of value - in the grand scheme - of the 'white' justice system.

When I read that Justin Trudeau was going to have a 'meeting' with Coleton's family is when I get really mad. WTF does Trudeau have to offer these people - hiding behind his 'secured' privilege.
 
ChemGal said:
I do think grabbing the gun was the wrong decision. From what I see though, the faults are at least equal. A fatally on the Stanley side could have occurred too.
Click to expand...
Well one person on one side is still alive while the other one is dead. So how exactly are the faults equal here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top