Saskatchewan trial spurs calls for change with jury selection
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Just had to say GREAT POST.
Goes well with this.......
https://paherald.sk.ca/2018/02/12/racist-farmers-thieving-indians/
Minor detail.
As well, Stanley did not claim self defense.
But the overall thrust of the post was very good.
He was defending his property and well being but never used that as his defense.
He rolled the dice on the evidence and the evidence provided the jury a very easy decision with a very short deliberation.
He'll use defense of property and well-being for his weapons charges.
He rolled the dice on the evidence and the evidence provided the jury a very easy decision with a very short deliberation.
He'll use defense of property and well-being for his weapons charges.
Little dramatic license. At least I'm not trying to make it about race, like you and mentalfloss. Pair of twins, you two.
A little and a little late to comment.
And this is about race. The second the verdict came out the cries of racism began.
And this is about race. The second the verdict came out the cries of racism began.
Sorry, I was in Paris. A little busy to scan the news from Flatskatchewan.
I understand that you think you're the bright center of the universe, but you need to understand that some of us don't quite see it that way.
You'll make it about race, that's for certain sure.
I am truly sorry your life didn't work out better. I hope it improves. Never too late.
This thread reminded me of another man who defended his property in Ontario.....Ian thompson
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/98208-pissed-surveillance-camera-video-firebomb.html
If the attakers had been a different ethnicity, you would have heard "racist" name calling from the usual suspects.....
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/98208-pissed-surveillance-camera-video-firebomb.html
If the attakers had been a different ethnicity, you would have heard "racist" name calling from the usual suspects.....
Cries of racism began long before the verdict came out. In fact, it's likely the primary reason there were no native people on the jury. It's unfortunate that some can't see this for what it is, that the same outcome would have likely resulted on that day on the Stanley farm if it was a carload of "drunk redneck white kids".
There are many people, and many politicians that are using this incident and resulting verdict as an excuse to overtly display their racism, or declare themselves a victim of an oppressive system, or signal their virtue, or pander to their base, or fuel animosity between each other, etc. etc. Meanwhile, societal groups keep drifting apart, hatred grows, a country is torn apart more every day. For what?? Votes? Image? Hurt feelings about things that happened 200 years ago? Power? Hate?
This is just another symptom of a sick, dysfunctional society that will not get better on it's own. We need leadership on both sides to get past the crap and get down to finding things we have in common, not exploiting our differences. I don't have a lot of hope this will happen any time soon.
Like I've said before the incident itself was not due to racism, but as soon as it hit social media it turned into racism
Nope.
It's not sick, it's not dysfunctional. It provides its people with more peace, freedom, and prosperity than any society in history. If that's "sick and dysfunctional," I'll take it.
It's a society working through its problems, inherited, current, and yet to come. More just, more fair, more equal than it was 50 years ago. And doing so with remarkable sensitivity and transparency (I just complimented your country, in case you missed it).
It ain't pretty, it ain't clean, it ain't efficient. The road ain't smooth and it ain't straight. There'll always be people trying to run things into the ditch for their own gain, and sadly, lots more willing to jump in and help them.
And what you're seeing here is the process. Two men met. It wasn't a happy meeting. One ended up dead, the other ended up on trial for his freedom. Indians weren't judged. White people weren't judged. The man who killed was judged. He was judged on what he did, as a man, not as a white person or a male person.
And now folks're working on the implications of things. Maybe the law needs adjusting some. Maybe not. But it won't happen by ignoring people's concerns.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
-- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I would be inclined to agree with you if I saw things going generally in the right direction. I would agree if I got the sense that people are working for the betterment of their society instead of themselves. But I don't. Progress has been made, but lately I'm perceiving that we are moving swiftly in the other direction. Where you see collaboration within groups and people working through the problem regarding this situation, I see it as increasingly more divisive, an excuse for a lot of people to posture and divide for selfish reasons.
I think you and I more or less see things similarly in this situation with one big difference, you have hope that we are going to come out better on the other side, and I am skeptical (to put it nicely) that anything good will result from this. This is one time where I sincerely hope you are right and I'm wrong.
If I were ever accused of a criminal offence, one thing I would want would be a right to an inquisitorial hearing. That way, the prosecutor could not hide evidence as easily.