When you have no case play the race card. Or gender card if possible.
nazi.
JLM,
I get that, but if Stanley didn't realize the occupants of the car were native, doesn't that kind of not make this incident about race? It's about a confused farmer who felt threatened and panicked is it not?
I have a question. Did Stanley even realize Boushie was native at the time of the incident? Or did he just feel threatened by a young group in a car with a weapon?
If the answer is 'no', then why is this case about race in the first place?
Shift change.
Flossy is posting contrary stuff again. I think he needs a playmate. He must be an only child.
The racism part is what has happened since the shooting.
I had one of those at the range only once to me in many years of shooting.....and the rule of keeping your firearm pointed downrange for a full minute before even attempting to manually eject the cartridge is there for a reason.....He fired 2 warning shots into the air, the 3rd shot did not fire (some news reported this as a jam, but it was not, it was a delayed fire), as he brought the weapon down it discharged and hit the kid in the head. The only thing the Farmer is "guilty" of is reckless use of a firearm. The weapon should not have been pointed "at" anyone as he brought it down. He should not have been discharging (warning shots) into the air. Where the hell did he think those rounds were going to end up when the fell? If he had handled the weapon properly, no one would have been shot when it finally did discharge.
Now, that being said, those "kids" should not have been on his property, period.
He fired 2 warning shots into the air, the 3rd shot did not fire (some news reported this as a jam, but it was not, it was a delayed fire), as he brought the weapon down it discharged and hit the kid in the head. The only thing the Farmer is "guilty" of is reckless use of a firearm. The weapon should not have been pointed "at" anyone as he brought it down. He should not have been discharging (warning shots) into the air. Where the hell did he think those rounds were going to end up when the fell? If he had handled the weapon properly, no one would have been shot when it finally did discharge.
Now, that being said, those "kids" should not have been on his property, period.
I am sorry that a young man lost his life and that the Stanley family lives have been turned upside down by this tragedy.
Imagine how different the outcome had the youths in the car not been thoroughly intoxicated - so much so that at least two of them were passed out, were in possession of a loaded rifle, and had already caused trouble at another farm. Had they simply been sober and in need of help with a flat tire, respectful of other's property - not trying to start an ATV and then crashing into a Stanley vehicle, who knows what might have happened. There are consequences to one's actions, sadly in this case the consequences resulted in a death.
In all the resulting hue and cry, I have yet to hear from the family of the dead man concerning where they were when the this group set out for a day of drinking, shooting off a rifle and trying to steal a vehicle? Where did the rifle the group had come from? Why were they in possession of a loaded weapon? Lost among the vitriol being spouted by the family and supporters is any sense of responsibility by them for allowing their children to act in such a reckless manner. Where is their culpability in this matter?
what about stanley's family? Are they not culpable in the shooting by letting their hothead father have a loaded weapon?
Neither you nor I nor anyone else on here is the lawful judge, jury nor executioner of wayward youth or anyone else. You do not have the right to kill just because you think that you do.
If you look back a dozen posts, you'll see photos of some idiot's beloved rifle. A few of you guys arm yourselves for just such an opportunity to kill some intruder. You are sick monsters.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else on here is the lawful judge, jury nor executioner of wayward youth or anyone else. You do not have the right to kill just because you think that you do.
What about Stanley's family? Are they not culpable in the shooting by letting their hothead father have a loaded weapon?
In all the resulting hue and cry, I have yet to hear from the family of the dead man concerning where they were when the this group set out for a day of drinking, shooting off a rifle and trying to steal a vehicle? Where did the rifle the group had come from? Why were they in possession of a loaded weapon? Lost among the vitriol being spouted by the family and supporters is any sense of responsibility by them for allowing their children to act in such a reckless manner. Where is their culpability in this matter?