Colten Bushie murder trial

[2Stonedbirds]

Boushie family/lawyers on CBC right now. Main points
-asking for changes to justice system
-justice system is racist
-people shouldn't have to live in fear
-said changes are coming as promised by our elected officials

[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.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Do you think FNs are convicted at a higher rate because of the makeup of juries or because of the systemic inequalities that they suffer from (and have suffered from for hundreds of years)?

The accused gets to choose a jury trial or not. If FNs accused feel that jury trials are 'against' them, then they can elect for a judge alone.

Not of much assistance to Mr. Boushie or his family (or other victims) though.

Also, arguing that accused persons can just elect trial by judge alone to avoid prejudices in the community is not a very satisfying solution (especially because it still results in a significant inequality of choice).

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Boushie family/lawyers on CBC right now. Main points
-asking for changes to justice system
-justice system is racist
-people shouldn't have to live in fear
-said changes are coming as promised by our elected officials

Did they explicitly say fear from having 5 adults with loaded weapons trespass on your land to rob you or was it just implied?

All Colten had to do to not be fearful that day was not commit a crime.

[Makarov]

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.

[White Out 403]

Stanley was acquitted because the Crowns witnesses kept changing their stories, and we're totally unreliable. The Crown failed to prove guilt.

It genuinely concerns me that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is so misunderstood.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Did they explicitly say fear from having 5 adults with loaded weapons trespass on your land to rob you or was it just implied?

All Colten had to do to not be fearful that day was not commit a crime.

No for some strange reason that tidbit wasn't mentioned.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Did they explicitly say fear from having 5 adults with loaded weapons trespass on your land to rob you or was it just implied?

All Colten had to do to not be fearful that day was not commit a crime.

Do you really believe that is the only fear that most indigenous people in Canada have to live with? Fear that a loved one will commit suicide? Fear of being sexually assaulted? Fear that a daughter will go missing and never be found? Fear of being picked up by police and dumped at the edge of town in the middle of winter? Fear of unemployment and poverty?

I think some posters are being very naive frankly.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Do you really believe that is the only fear that most indigenous people in Canada have to live with? Fear that a loved one will commit suicide? Fear of being sexually assaulted? Fear that a daughter will go missing and never be found? Fear of being picked up by police and dumped at the edge of town in the middle of winter? Fear of unemployment and poverty?

I think some posters are being very naive frankly.

That wasn't their point in the press conference. It wasn't fear from systemic issues on reserves, their concern lied in the fear of being murdered for the color of your skin.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Stanley was acquitted because the Crowns witnesses kept changing their stories, and we're totally unreliable. The Crown failed to prove guilt.

It genuinely concerns me that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is so misunderstood.

I do struggle with the entire concept. Need to read a book about it or something.

Just FYI: You, nor anyone, knows why the jury acquitted. They didn’t provide reasons.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

That wasn't their point in the press conference. It wasn't fear from systemic issues on reserves, their concern lied in the fear of being murdered for the color of your skin.

Right. And you don’t think that indigenous persons are far more likely to be violently killed in Canada than non-indigenous persons? I can dig up the statistics for you if you like.

EDIT: of course those statistics won’t even be complete because we don’t actually have any idea of the true number of murdered and missing indigenous people (especially women) in Canada. Just let that sink in for a moment.

[GGG]

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.

Actually this is the definition of Racism, Having a negative stereotype of people based on who they are as opposed to what they are doing. If your reaction to 5 drunk natives and 5 drunk white people coming on to your land is different than that is racist. You are arguing that historical acts justify that racism. I would disagree that it is a justification.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Do you think FNs are convicted at a higher rate because of the makeup of juries or because of the systemic inequalities that they suffer from (and have suffered from for hundreds of years)?

The accused gets to choose a jury trial or not. If FNs accused feel that jury trials are 'against' them, then they can elect for a judge alone.

All of the above. From the crimes they get charged with, to Police bias against them, to having much poorer defense teams (poverty rather than race for this one) to both Judges and Juries with predispositions against them. At all phases of the system they have worse outcomes than white people. I think there is an open question as to why?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Right. And you don’t think that indigenous persons are far more likely to be violently killed in Canada than non-indigenous persons? I can dig up the statistics for you if you like.

EDIT: of course those statistics won’t even be complete because we don’t actually have any idea of the true number of murdered and missing indigenous people (especially women) in Canada. Just let that sink in for a moment.

They are also most likely to be murdered by another indigenous person. There isn't a race war of white on native crime that exists beneath the surface.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that we should get rid of jury trials. I think that what we should do is stream every trial on the internet and have a jury by Internet.

If you want to you can go on your fazebook like page and see a list of trials, with a short description, and preferably some memes.

Then you can log in and watch the trial, and for example if a lawyer objects,. you can vote on whether on not its sustained or denied.

You can totally help the lawyers with the examination by sending in questions that will go right to their tablets.

And in the end, you can actually vote on the verdict.

Social democratization at its best.

Oh and lawyers can appeal on meme.

I mean frankly no matter what the courts are going to be accused of racism, its just going to happen.

I get the whole concept of social equalization, but I have to ask, does that really matter when it comes to the examination of an actual crime, or should that be reserved for the decision concerning the sentences if found guilty.

I get it, you're poor or you have a severe alcohol disorder or you're a drug addict. But does that matter when it comes to the crime you committed.

I'm poor so I shot this person killing him.

I'm addicted to drugs, so I broke into a families house and beat them to within an inch of his life.

I'm come from a drunken family so I got drunk and got into a car and ran over a kid.

Frankly, I always believed that the question in front of the courts is more about, did you commit the crime. All of the other factors can come into play after that's decided to me.

Also in no way does for example putting quotas in a jury make a court less racist. If you have a native defendant saying that you have to actually have half native and half whatever isn't inherently less racist. The question has to be, can you get beyond the race of the defendant and put forward a fair verdict based on the evidence put forward to you and based on the rules of the courts and the law.

Also I get the idea that they believe that the courts are racist, so what do they want? Their own justice system within Canada? do we do that with everyone, but what happens when you have a race on race crime then, you're back into the whole court is racist thing.

If you want to make the courts less racist, then you have to find a way to make it open and understandable, so that the first instinct isn't just to look at a verdict and decide its racist.

If you want to make the courts less racist, then you need to find a way to make people take the time and actually understand how a verdict was reached, which means things like making jurors explain why they reached every single verdict, similar to what a judge has to do.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Right. And you don’t think that indigenous persons are far more likely to be violently killed in Canada than non-indigenous persons? I can dig up the statistics for you if you like.

EDIT: of course those statistics won’t even be complete because we don’t actually have any idea of the true number of murdered and missing indigenous people (especially women) in Canada. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Aboriginals engage in far far risky behaviour on a per capita basis than any other ethnicity. They suffer from solvent (not substance) but solvent abuse at alarming rates, drug addiction, sexual abuse, lack of education, lack of social bonds and are more likely to end up in jail, not because the system is racist, but because they are more likely to commit crimes.

There are reasons for these, social and systemic reasons, but these are facts nonetheless. This is not a "racist" system, but it's a system that results in far more aboriginals being imprisoned.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Not of much assistance to Mr. Boushie or his family (or other victims) though.

Also, arguing that accused persons can just elect trial by judge alone to avoid prejudices in the community is not a very satisfying solution (especially because it still results in a significant inequality of choice).

I think you are confusing the purpose of the justice system. It isn't to make victims feel better or to provide any sort of assistance to help a grieving mother over the tragic death of her son. The court system, through a jury of his peers, found Stanley not guilty. I haven't heard anything that makes me feel that this jury didn't do what they felt was right in finding him not guilty. We don't know exactly what they heard and discussed, so its impossible to second guess them. A lot of people disagree with their decision, but it all seems to be for emotional reasons.

I wholeheartedly agree that the country continues to let down FN. But I don't think throwing a white farmer (who was the initial victim in all of this) would do anything to help anyone at all.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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.

I might have you confused with a similar sounding poster, but aren't you a lawyer? Isn't the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing what puts food on the table for most of your profession?

Strange to see a lawyer exhibiting such bias based on all the limited and confounded information.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

All of the above. From the crimes they get charged with, to Police bias against them, to having much poorer defense teams (poverty rather than race for this one) to both Judges and Juries with predispositions against them. At all phases of the system they have worse outcomes than white people. I think there is an open question as to why?

Strange to claim this in this particular case, since the 5 adults were not charged with anything, yet have admitted they trespassed and tried to steal a vehicle at a previous farm before even showing up to the Stanley home.


All while driving impaired, carrying a loaded rifle with no stock on it, attempting to steal an ATV, smashing into another vehicle, and taking a run at a woman on a lawnmower, and terrorizing a family that was doing nothing more than minding their own business on their own land.

Im not seeing a lot of bias there on behalf of law enforcement or the crown.

Historically, no question natives have not been treated equally overall. That should have zero to do with what happened that day 2 years ago and the subsequent set of actions that led to the charges that were laid and then debated by a jury, who then came to a conclusion.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually this is the definition of Racism, Having a negative stereotype of people based on who they are as opposed to what they are doing. If your reaction to 5 drunk natives and 5 drunk white people coming on to your land is different than that is racist. You are arguing that historical acts justify that racism. I would disagree that it is a justification.

This is getting a little philosophical, but his point is more about probabilities rather than overt racism.

That said there is certainly going to be overlap between these two concepts.