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
Oh look ... within the OP
The recent film Reserve 107 documents how settler and First Nations neighbours at Laird, 150 km east of Battleford, overcame their mutual distrust and signed an agreement to work together to obtain compensation for the Young Chippewayan Band for land still owed them under Treaty Six.
  • "This is a fantastic and important film that excels technically and emotionally.
  • It's a heartwarming look at how those who were displaced are working together with the white farmers and families that own the land"
reserve-107-the-film
 
Waterfall said:
Googling the distance from this guys farm to the Battleford RCMP and it's only 8.2km.
Click to expand...
Okay I have to correct this.....when I checked Gerald Stanley's address in Sask....it comes up to a farm north of North Battleford at a distance of 8.2km.
But when I check Canada 411 and type in Gerald Stanley in Biggar Sask.....it automatically changes the name to Stanley Gardiner and no Gerald Stanleys live in Biggar Sask. (which would be 56km from the RCMP in North Battleford)

Does Gerald Stanley really live in Biggar SK?
 
monk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post above monk. I agree that some kind of mediation or restorative justice needs to happen. I am reminded of when I heard Senator Murray Sinclair speak about the TRC. He asked when would we know that reconciliation had happened. Of course no one, not even he had the answer. There needs to be some sort of process towards reconciliation in Battleford. I have no idea what that would involve, and frankly that is not up to me. It is up to the parties involve to determine what needs to happen.
 
Waterfall said:
Does Gerald Stanley really live in Biggar SK?
Click to expand...

I've heard Biggar somewhere in relation to this story.

I work with a man who is a farmer in the Alberta Peace. He is currently living on the farm where he was raised. I think it has been in his family for awhile. He is mid-50's and has spent most of his life there, so it has been a long time. He might only be 8 or 10 kms from the nearest RCMP detachment. I suspect if he were to call them, he'd have to wait awhile for them to come. The area they cover is huge, and they could possibly be a long way from his home. The location of the detachment is not as important as the location of the officers available to respond.
 
dreamerman said:
In a court of law it is. You shoot someone and they are slightly injured from that shot as compared to shooting someone and they are fatally wounded.
Click to expand...
If someone is holding a gun, is warned, won't drop it and the police shoot them, who is at fault?
 
ChemGal said:
If someone is holding a gun, is warned, won't drop it and the police shoot them, who is at fault?
Click to expand...

The guns ... thus guns get the blame and should be banned when it shoulf be insane people ... rare cases when determined by comparison with the normal world which is sane? This is said to be para demi -c ... in the half light? Some say a dimmer illumination ...
 
GordW said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this. It's much harder to comment, not actually having been in court to know what evidence was given and what was said.
 
Do people really see much of a benefit if Mr. Stanley was given a jail sentence?
 
monk said:
Oh look ... within the OP
The recent film Reserve 107 documents how settler and First Nations neighbours at Laird, 150 km east of Battleford, overcame their mutual distrust and signed an agreement to work together to obtain compensation for the Young Chippewayan Band for land still owed them under Treaty QUOTE]

I heard about this a while back. As we have some distant family there I asked about it. Typically, they didn't know anything, never heard of it! It is a Mennonite area and some of the citizens are quite involved in helping projects - locally and further afield.
Click to expand...
 
monk said:
Oh look ... within the OP
The recent film Reserve 107 documents how settler and First Nations neighbours at Laird, 150 km east of Battleford, overcame their mutual distrust and signed an agreement to work together to obtain compensation for the Young Chippewayan Band for land still owed them under Treaty Six.
  • "This is a fantastic and important film that excels technically and emotionally.
  • It's a heartwarming look at how those who were displaced are working together with the white farmers and families that own the land"
reserve-107-the-film
Click to expand...

This is a wonderful half hour film - I encourage everyone to watch it. And make sure you take an extra 10 minutes to watch the "Update" - link is at the top of the film's page. There is hope for courageous peaceful reconcilliation therein ... I wonder how we can help this model spread?
 
BetteTheRed said:
It's an interesting observation that when we see Christians engaged in really deep peace work, work with integrity, the name Mennonite often comes up.
Click to expand...

It is also an interesting observation that
“By taking this risk and extending the olive branch, Chief Weenie began a journey of reconciliation. He hoped there would be receptive people from the Mennonite and Lutheran communities who would walk alongside on this uncharted ground.”
 
monk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that restorative justice would've been a much better option. ...maybe in the wider context, that's what Trudeau meant when he said "we've failed". Maybe it should've been Stanley, not Trudeau, in the room talking with the Boushie family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top