The trial of Gerald Stanley, a farmer in northern Saskatchewan, over the shooting death of Colten Boushie, a 22-year-old Cree from the Red Pheasant First Nations (an Indigenous community) has stirred much discussion, most focused on the alleged racial nature of the events. Stanley was acquitted by the all non-Indigenous jury. This has given rise to protests calling for “Justice for Colten” and a number of politicians, including the Prime Minister, making statements generally critical of the verdict.
Although some of the events that took place are not clear (contradictions in statements by witnesses from both sides), several issues have not been raised publicly:
- What was Stanley’s frame of mind when he shot Boushie?
- Was Boushie the innocent young man who wanted to become a firefighter that has been portrayed by the press?
- What would be the repercussions of a “guilty” verdict?
What was Stanley’s frame of mind when he shot Boushie?
The defence claimed that Stanley’s gun had gone off accidentally. This may or may not be true. However, if it is not true, then why would Stanley shoot Boushie? Did he hate indigenous people so much he took an opportunity to murder one? This would be totally irrational – there was no way he could expect to get away with it.
It is clear that the events that day evolved irrationally. Boushie and his friends (who were very drunk – Boushie’s blood alcohol level was 0.3%) tried to steal an ATV and had tried to hit Stanley’s son with their truck (the son smashed the windshield of the truck and Stanley himself kicked in a tail-light). Clearly this was a very stressful situation for Stanley.
When facing a crime or attempted crime it is normal to be in a state of extreme stress. Under such stress, it is unreasonable to expect a person to behave rationally and logically.
My father had a small jewellery store in London. Unsurprisingly, it was the scene for a number of attempted robberies, some successful. What is relevant to this case is that my father’s reaction was unpredictable. On one occasion he tackled the would-be robber, who ran, followed by my father and, with the help of passersby, apprehended the thief (this earned my father a commendation from the police). On another occasion he was clubbed with a two pound hammer and was lucky not to suffer permanent injuries (two other jewellers were not so lucky). On yet another occasion, he cowered in a corner while the store was ransacked.
The point is that under severe stress, nobody can predict how they will react. Anger is a common reaction and this is what may have happened in the Stanley case. If that is the case, then it should be considered an act of “temporary insanity”.
Was Boushie the innocent young man who wanted to become a firefighter that has been portrayed by the press?
Boushie had been drinking with his friends and all were very drunk. They tried to steal a truck from a neighbouring farm before they came to Stanley’s farm. There they tried to steal an ATV before they were confronted by Stanley.
Although Boushie himself was asleep (which is why he didn’t run away like the others) it is clear the group were intent on criminal acts.
When committing a criminal act, the criminal cannot know how the victim will react. If the criminal is hurt (or killed, as in this case) it should be regarded as an “occupational hazard”.
What would be the repercussions of a “guilty” verdict?
The trial had to consider only the facts of the case, and wider repercussions should not have any impact on the verdict.
The verdict of not guilty had the inevitable result of protests by indigenous groups and anti-racist groups.
A verdict of guilty would have opened the door for criminals of all kinds to attack all farms in remote, isolated areas of Canada with impunity.
Both outcomes are bad. However, it looks like the court and the jury did their duty honestly.
Yes, I remember story of the attack on your Father with the sledge hammer. He got it in the face and they bust his cheek bone right?
Forunately in the UK gun possession is uncommon. We used to provide Lexan to ticket office windows and test it at the firing range while instructing the clerks (if faced with gun) to hand over the cash anyway.
It’s only an ATV, not your wife or your child. People should not die over possession inanimate objects and was the ATV uninsured and is that why it had to be protected?
If I have my facts straight, it was more than just trying to steal an ATV – his wife was punched by one of the indigenous women.
I agree, it is not right to shoot someone over an ATV or any other thing, but equally, it is not right to risk death over an ATV.
Also, in such a situation, you cannot be sure of what will happen next – steal the ATV, ransack the house, beat up the inhabitants or worse.
I grew up in Southern Saskatchewan in the early 1960’s and don’t recall much in the way of theft from farms. Stealing gasoline was about it, and more than one vehicle ended up with diesel instead and ruined their engine. To our teenage minds stealing from farms could get you shot. So a sure way not to get shot by a farmer was not to be on his property, especially after dark. This is a pretty easy concept, but appears to be lost on the Boushie clan.
The gun rights crowd often say “when seconds count the cops are only minutes away” with respect to self protection. In the case of the Saskatchewan farmers that has to be modified to “when seconds count the cops are only hours, or perhaps days, away.” I see there is no mention in the narrative about this incident about personal responsibility in the native ‘culture’ that would stop young men from making such bad decisions as going to a remote farm, apparently causing mayhem, and expecting no repercussions.
Apparently 81% of men in Saskatchewan jails are native. Why is there no self awareness from the native community that there is something wrong! I know, it was those damn residential schools and the ‘settlers’ spread all over ‘their’ land. The problem here is that the placing the blame for native dysfunction on the ‘settlers’ is working for the native industry ($12 billion per year federally, who knows how much provincially), but not for individual natives. This situation won’t get better until the native population starts to look inward and see a large portion of the blame for the ‘native problem’ is caused by them.