Many interesting parts to this case and to say that racism isn't one of them is very disingenuous.
Around a third of the population around the North Battleford area is indigenous. The verdict came from an all white jury. The defence used a peremptory challenge on every single visibly indigenous looking person during jury selection.
Everyone who has grown up near the rural prairie areas knows people who drove around drunk or stole gas or snooped around on farms. Boushie and his friends were stupid and wrong to be driving around drunk and stealing but I don't believe for a second that if Boushie were a white kid that he'd have paid for his stupidity with his life. Indigenous people are NOT treated the same way in this country. Racism exists, especially in the rural areas, you better believe it does.
I understand the reasons why he wasn't found guilty of second degree murder. These kids were on his property and he felt threatened. Their testimonies were hindered by the fact they couldn't remember details due to being so drunk etc. The hang fire defence is completely absurd. He smashed their tail light in. His son smashed the windshield with a hammer. He lost it and shot the kid. He should have at least done some time for manslaughter.
Stanley himself also testified that he did not ever see the rifle, so the armed robbery self defense theory doesn't fly. The other two kids fled after he pulled his gun and fired two shots (they say he fired at them, he says he fired them in the air). Does anyone actually think the gun accidentally went off? Come on now.
Hypothetical situation: If a First Nations man put a gun near the back of a white kids head and pulled the trigger shooting him behind the ear, do you honestly think for one second that he'd get off scott free? That his trial would involve twelve First Nations jurors?
|