Colten Bushie murder trial

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by station

Do you guys actually know what empathy means? It’s the ability to understand how someone is feeling from their perspective.

This incident and trial contain racial tensions. You can deny it and say it’s not right but it’s there.

Regardless of circumstances, criminal or not, a young man lost his life and the perpetrator won his freedom on a technicality. A family and a community now feel the pain of injustice and can we really blame them?

You can declaim about the fairness of the trial and the justice system, you can pour over the minutiae of the incident to justify the veridict, you can breathlessly bemoan liberal media, and you can rant about criminals and self defence, but seriously what is the point? What is to be gained?

Tensions are high, emotions are high. We have a checkered history (at best) with indigenous relations and overt racism still exists in modern (especially rural) Canada. Maybe we could just stop and listen for a minute, you know?

Yikes, what are you projecting here? I get that you have empathy for one side here but you're all in on just the one side alone.

[Nyah]

I don't really have much to add except it's a sad and unfortunate situation all around. The kid shouldn't have lost his life. The farmer shouldn't have shouldn't have had his & his families life irreparably changed. I'm not going to tout that I did stupid stuff like this as a kid, but neither did I grow up in circumstances that Colten Bushie did. I have no idea what his life was like, or what he was dealing with. I'm not naive to the fact that growing up on a First Nation reserve no doubt has a slew of challenges for kids that I would have never had to deal with. So I don't judge him. I also don't blame Mr. Stanley for his actions either. He thought his family was in danger, and I can't say that me, or my loved ones would have acted any differently. It's tough. We don't know whether he'd faced similar situations in the past either. So I can't judge him.

I think it's absolutely possible and even necessary to have empathy for both parties here. It's easy to assign blame, and I think it's lazy. For me the take-away, is that we really owe our First Nations youth more. We need to make it a priority to help these kids overcome obstacles they may be facing. My sisters friend worked as a counselor for First Nations youth, and it's not easy for them. For many, their whole lives are surrounded by addiction, violence, and a general distrust of those outside the reserve. A lot of them don't stand a chance in the world outside their reserve (and even on it). We have to do better by them.

[llwhiteoutll]

Go Fund Me has stated they aren’t removing the legal bill fundraiser for Stanley because it doesn’t violate their TOS, despite demands from people claiming its racist/illegal/supporting a murderer/whatever

Some Twitter warrior and federal government employee is now aggregating the personal information of donors, posting it and encouraging people to confront them and to make complaints against them with their employers and professional organizations

[you&me]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Some Twitter warrior and federal government employee is now aggregating the personal information of donors, posting it and encouraging people to confront them and to make complaints against them with their employers and professional organizations

That's scary.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Go Fund Me has stated they aren’t removing the legal bill fundraiser for Stanley because it doesn’t violate their TOS, despite demands from people claiming its racist/illegal/supporting a murderer/whatever

Some Twitter warrior and federal government employee is now aggregating the personal information of donors, posting it and encouraging people to confront them and to make complaints against them with their employers and professional organizations

Some of the names used on there are purposely left to antagonize. For example someone donated in Bobby Cameron's name who is the chief of FSIN. There are numerous others. People have put together examples of racist facebook posts by some of the contributors. A lot of the people on that gofundme are racist.

[flamesfever]

Years ago I spent a whole winter on a reservation east of Calgary, and struggled with how we could help the First Nations people. I came to the conclusion that the only solution to helping them is to make them more financially less dependent on the Federal Government. Throwing money at them is not a long term solution.

I believe having an interest in oil development and pipelines, etc. is an avenue that the Federal Government should be spending more time and effort promoting. IMO puting a moratorium on shipping of oil along the northern BC coast, and killing the Northern Gateway Pipeline was a disastrous move by Trudeau. It would have not only help the First Nations people, but would have allowed entry to the sea in a much less populated area.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Go Fund Me has stated they aren’t removing the legal bill fundraiser for Stanley because it doesn’t violate their TOS, despite demands from people claiming its racist/illegal/supporting a murderer/whatever

Some Twitter warrior and federal government employee is now aggregating the personal information of donors, posting it and encouraging people to confront them and to make complaints against them with their employers and professional organizations

He needs to not be a Federal Government Employee anymore if he's doing this.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by icecube

Some of the names used on there are purposely left to antagonize. For example someone donated in Bobby Cameron's name who is the chief of FSIN. There are numerous others. People have put together examples of racist facebook posts by some of the contributors. A lot of the people on that gofundme are racist.

So on one side we have classless comments and names being used in jest to donate, on the other we have blockades being organized and death threats being made.

When this erupts, it’s the sole fault of the groups who have spent the last year or so making sure to make this about race and race alone, not the law.

[pylon]

I'm blown away by the amount of people that would be perfectly OK, with the terrifying prospect of a group of drunk people coming on their property, terrorizing and attempting to steal their property, and letting them go on their way.

It wouldn't matter if they were Indigenous, Asian, Black or White. Sometimes you play with the bull, you're gonna get the horns, and this is exactly what happened here. They ran into a tough old farmer, that isn't a limp, spineless noodle like 90% of our population, ready to protect his property and land with lethal force.

Whether he meant to shoot the intruder or it was an accident, the fact he had a firearm certainly suggests he was prepared to use it. I am not a gun guy, and would never want one in my home myself. I'm the spineless noodle that likely has to let this armed group of thugs steal my stuff, and tear up my property. But the fact there is people out there that are perfectly willing to, and have the courage to defend themselves creates a great social proofing mechanism that might make any potential intruder maybe ask him or herself, "What if this guy is armed?" is a good thing in my eyes.

Gerald Stanley never asked anyone to illegally trespass on his property and attempt to burglarize him. He is the victim. He was the one that was terrorized by a group of humans. The skin color means nothing here. I'd support him for standing up for himself against any human that terrorized him and his family.

[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 property 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?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by pylon

I'm blown away by the amount of people that would be perfectly OK, with the terrifying prospect of a group of drunk people coming on their property, terrorizing and attempting to steal their property, and letting them go on there way.

It wouldn't matter if they were Indigenous, Asian, Black or White. Sometimes you play with the bull, you're gonna get the horns, and this is exactly what happened here. They ran into a tough old farmer, that isn't a limp, spineless noodle like 90% of our population, ready to protect his property and land with lethal force.

Whether he meant to shoot the intruder or it was an accident, the fact he had a firearm certainly suggests he was prepared to use it. I am not a gun guy, and would never want one in my home myself. I'm the spineless noodle that likely has to let this armed group of thugs steal my stuff, and tear up my property. But the fact there is people out there that are perfectly willing to, and have the courage to defend themselves creates a great social proofing mechanism that might make any potential intruder maybe ask him or herself, "What if this guy is armed?" is a good thing in my eyes.

Gerald Stanley never asked anyone to illegally trespass on his property and attempt to burglarize him. He is the victim. He was the one that was terrorized by a group of humans. The skin color means nothing here. I'd support him for standing up for himself against any human that terrorized him and his family.

That's not how the law works. A person's response has to be in proportion to the threat. You can't just shoot someone who comes on your property to try to steal something. There's a reason Stanley's lawyers didn't even try to argue that he was defending himself. The victim was shot in the back of the head while in a vehicle that was trying to flee the scene.

If someone attacks you and you overpower them and then you proceed to stomp their head into the ground and kill them, you're going to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you were just minding your own business and didn't ask to get attacked. It doesn't mean society is OK with people being attacked or that the person who was killed wasn't a major factor in what happened, but it's still a crime.

[CaptainCrunch]

At this point, how can the Crown appeal and guarantee a fair trial. Frankly they can't, because of the actions of Trudeau, his Native Affairs Minister and his Justice Minister, there is next to no chance of a fair trial on appeal.

Frankly there probably isn't a perspective juror that hasn't heard our members of government practically calling the last jury racist.

There isn't a judge that isn't going to feel inordinate pressure during any appeal or any trial.

I get it, Trudeau and his government strategically use things like this to advance their image and his image. But in this case, he's now created a situation where any appeal no matter what is going to be viewed as unduly influenced by the Federal Government.

[CaptainCrunch]

You're first paragraph pretty much defines reasonable doubt, you're even saying right there that Stanley should have been acquitted and let go.

I think though that you're a little confused on the definition of rule of law in the second paragraph.

The police and the prosecutor charged him with murder, but that's not the rule of law, that's decided by the courts and the empaneled members of the jury.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not how the law works. A person's response has to be in proportion to the threat. You can't just shoot someone who comes on your property to try to steal something. There's a reason Stanley's lawyers didn't even try to argue that he was defending himself. The victim was shot in the back of the head while in a vehicle that was trying to flee the scene.

If someone attacks you and you overpower them and then you proceed to stomp their head into the ground and kill them, you're going to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you were just minding your own business and didn't ask to get attacked. It doesn't mean society is OK with people being attacked or that the person who was killed wasn't a major factor in what happened, but it's still a crime.

Well no, side of the head while Stanley reached into the vehicle to try and grab the keys.

[pylon]

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.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Well no, side of the head while Stanley reached into the vehicle to try and grab the keys.

The shot entered his head behind his left ear. I guess you can call that the side of the head if you want, but the difference is immaterial. The SUV was moving away from Stanley when he approached it and attempted to enter it.

[corporatejay]

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?

Few things. First and foremost, Trudeau has not really couched his comments. He's basically come out, without having been present at trial, declaring that an injustice has occurred. That's awful.

Second, I think scrutinizing the justice system is fair but I'm not sure declaring "no justice for aboriginals" is criticism, it's typical black and white thinking that you are criticizing.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not how the law works. A person's response has to be in proportion to the threat. You can't just shoot someone who comes on your property to try to steal something. There's a reason Stanley's lawyers didn't even try to argue that he was defending himself. The victim was shot in the back of the head while in a vehicle that was trying to flee the scene.

By his own testimony, that the court and jury accepted, Stanley was of the belief that his wife had just been struck and run over by the people who were trespassing on his property and attempting to commit a theft. Canadian law allows for lethal force in that kind of situation.

They didn't argue self-defense because he didn't fire in self-defense. He fired warning shots and tried to remove the keys from the vehicle he thought had just injured/killed his wife. Even the Crown never said his use of the pistol was illegal, their case was to show his use of it was reckless enough to warrant a manslaughter or murder conviction. Even the upcoming firearms charges don't deal with the use of the pistol, they deal with storage.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The shot entered his head behind his left ear. I guess you can call that the side of the head if you want, but the difference is immaterial. The SUV was moving away from Stanley when he approached it and attempted to enter it.

Well the way your OP sounds is a guy shot this guy in the back of the head while fleeing the scene. Which isn't remotely close to the truth.

[CaramonLS]

Just to add, it is still not over for Stanley. He still has to face a new trial for firearms charges next month. Part of the cross examination was having Stanley incriminate himself for not storing his firearm properly.

Link

While the group received immunity from the prosecution for their crimes they committed.