Quote:
Originally Posted by station
So much black and white thinking.
A man shot another man in the head and killed him. His defence was an accidental misfiring. Suspicious testimony on both sides. Rule of law found him not guilty by a jury of his peers. That’s a nice tidy box.
However, rule of law (the police and the crown) also saw fit to declare his actions exceedingly reckless and provide enough evidence to try him for murder which, as has been pointed out, is a high bar to clear. His defence was a Hail Mary. The verdict seems to have been surprise to most, especially on the manslaughter charge. This was far from an open and shut case. I agree the rule of law is sacred to our democracy. But is a confusing verdict not open to questioning? Is our justice system so utterly infallible that it’s beyond scrutiny? I think not.
Despite how it seems, I’m not all in on one side. I do feel empathy for Mr Stanley. Who knows how any of us would react if a bunch of drunk people showed up on our poroperty and tried to steal our things. He may be unfairly cast as a racist and/or murderer by the public. He might have to move. He almost lost his freedom and probably has enormous legal bills. See how empathy works? I put myself in his shoes. So many of you seem unwilling or unable to do that for both sides.
You guys are so busy doubling down on defending the verdict and ranting about criminals that you forgot about compassion. Human compassion. It’s not about identity politics, social justice, or culture wars. It’s about people who are hurting trying to make sense of a tragedy. And they are trying to make sense of it in an environment of racial tensions. Is it really so hard to listen and try to understand their perspective, even if you don’t agree?
|
I don't care what the law says when it comes to which direction my moral compass points on this matter. I think the law is wrong. I truly believe if someone breaks into your home or on your property, and is stealing your things, you have the right to kill them, to stop them, if they have the means to kill you. This group of thugs had a firearm in their possession. They certainly posed a lethal threat to Mr. Stanley.
If I owned a remote rural property I would likely have to reluctantly change my stance on firearms, as you need to protect yourself, if nobody is going to be able to get to you in time. And if I was in the same situation, regardless of what the law says, I'd likely use lethal force as well. I'd rather do prison time as a living man, than be an innocent dead man. Especially if my family's safety is in the equation.
We will never know the true intentions of the drunk thugs, as Gerald Stanley ended this conflict before they could have potentially shot him. If they were unarmed, I'd be more sympathetic. But they weren't and I am not.