Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
I keep hearing the racism card being played, but what about the 'use your brain and years of evolution to detect a dangerous situation' card.
In rural Sask, there has historically been a major issue with Natives and farmers. This isn't a racist statement, this is a fact. (And it is an issue on BOTH sides and how they have historically acted)
When 5 drunk natives in rural Sask come onto your land, judging from historical evidence, there is a very good chance something bad is going to happen.
It isn't racist for a farmer to be on edge, and take every precaution to protect his family and possessions, based on the information and historical evidence he had at the time.
Would it have been different if it was 5 'middle class decently dressed' white young adults? Maybe. But unfortunately decades of issues have sterotyped the behavior of this certain group (and in this case stereotyped it correctly). It would be stupid for him NOT to be more scared/worried/concerned in this situation based on what has been happened in that area for decades.
What if 5 drunk 'redneck' adults came onto the reserve and acted the exact same way to a Native man and his family. Based on what has gone on in Sask over the years, do you not think this man would fear for himself and his families well being? Would that make him a racist?
Throwing the race card around in this case just perpetuates the cycle of anger and fear. Drunk adults of ANY race going onto someone's property and doing what they did carries a severe risk to those individuals, and in this case the risk came to be.
In the real world, not the internet world, in the heat of the moment, with a real danger and risk, these things will happen.
The Native leaders need to stand up more (Because some do a fantastic job) and start leading their young men (and women).
They need to explain/teach, that although it may not be fair how people may look at them, years of issues ARE going to have people more scared and more on edge if they behave in ways like this. In some ways they DO need to behave better then other groups.
Don't get drunk and terrorize people.
|
Even accepting your argument as true, that being shot in the head by Mr. Stanley was a foreseeable and likely consequence of Mr. Boushie’s actions, that doesn’t mean that Mr. Stanley’s actions were not criminal. Being assaulted by a jilted husband might be a foreseeable consequence of engaging in Alan affair with a married woman, but it doesn’t make the assault legal. Being hit by an impaired driver might be a foreseeable consequence of crossing the street at 2:30 am in the entertainment district, but it doesn’t make the impaired driving legal.
So although your argument might help to explain why Mr. Boushie was shot and killed, ot doesn’t explain at all why Mr. Stanley was acquitted.