Farmer found not guilty in shooting

The details in that article are somewhat minimal, but it sounds like the farmer confronted a carload of drunks on his property, and things got out of hand. It appears that there is a racial "overtone" to this incident, and that the victim and his drunk friends were Native Indians (?), This kind of incident is similar to those which often erupt into violence and looting, etc., here. Hopefully the Canadians, and the members of this Indian tribe are more civilized than some of the people here.
 

Camper, I realise you are interested in an American response, but this Canuck is mortified by the verdict, yet another example of systemic racism toward our Indigenous people. Shame Canada, shame.
 
Well I agree with some others...more information needed but......

Why does it always seem to come down to race? You country or ours ?

If I read & understand it correctly?..there was some believed theft in progress? Some trespassing involved ? Then some lying & change in testimony on part of those accused with the dead suspect?....Correct ?

I don't see where race has one thing to do with it. If 'bad-guys' come on ones property, and are indeed attempting to steal? Then I say shoot them.

If a person [no matter who or what they are] race aside/sex aside/age aside....does not wish to be shot...then do not place themselves in a position in which they may be shot...plan & simple.

It's just as [in this country] 'hate-crimes' Why ?...the crime is or is not the crime. In say the case of a shooting...it should not matter if it is a white person shooting a minority , or a minority shooting a white person....It is a person shooting a person...and it should IMO only be judged on the facts surrounding the incident . If it is an 'innocent' shooting a person attempting to do him/her wrong ? Then that's what it is....ethnicity should not enter into it.
 
Shalimar said:
Camper, I realise you are interested in an American response, but this Canuck is mortified by the verdict, yet another example of systemic racism toward our Indigenous people. Shame Canada, shame.
Click to expand...

Sorry Shalimar I don't agree with you.

If the Crown witnesses had been more reliable you might have seen a different verdict.

They lied, admitted to lying and changed their story. As such all you have left is what the farmer had to say.

I felt sorry for the members of the jury. They had no choice but to acquit the defendant even thought they knew the outcome would be unpopular.

Not once in this case have I heard any remorse from the perpetrators for any guilt involved in the incident.

I don't think it was racist motivated at all. It's the same old story over and over again. Alcohol related. When will it stop. When the government introduces legal marijuana? It's going to get worse.

Now they want to talk about revising the jury selection process. For 4% of the population?

And you have the Prime Minister and the justice minister commenting on the case. That's criminal.

One response I received.

"Those who question a jury's verdict tear down their own justice system. That is a foolish mistake."
 
I agree with others that the article does not provide much information.

Where I live the law would require the farmer to stay in a safe place, call the police or flee instead of confronting the criminals and attempting to protect his property.

I grew up around long guns and it is odd to me that the weapon discharged by accident at exactly the moment and in the right position to kill the young man.

I'm not sure if race was a factor, that calls for the operation of the farmer's mind.

On the other side of the coin, those young men had no good reason to be on that farmers property or to be borrowing the farmer's ATV.

Based on the information provided in the article I would acquit the farmer.
 
Big Horn said:
I'd need far more information. The little bit in the article tentatively suggests that he would have been convicted of manslaughter in this country, but, again, I'd need to know more.
Click to expand...

I'm more interested in the use of a handgun for self protection in the U.S. as compared to Canada when someone comes on to your property uninvited and are asked to leave and warning shots are fired.
 
Camper6 said:
I'm more interested in the use of a handgun for self protection in the U.S. as compared to Canada when someone comes on to your property uninvited and are asked to leave and warning shots are fired.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, warning shots are illegal everywhere in this country. People must have a target before they shoot or even aim a gun. Otherwise it's considered brandishing or perhaps reckless endangerment depending on the state.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree with others that the article does not provide much information.

Where I live the law would require the farmer to stay in a safe place, call the police or flee instead of confronting the criminals and attempting to protect his property.

I grew up around long guns and it is odd to me that the weapon discharged by accident at exactly the moment and in the right position to kill the young man.

I'm not sure if race was a factor, that calls for the operation of the farmer's mind.

On the other side of the coin, those young men had no good reason to be on that farmers property or to be borrowing the farmer's ATV.

Based on the information provided in the article I would acquit the farmer.
Click to expand...

His wife was out there on a lawn mower. He was afraid she was being run over.

So you are going to retreat into the house?

The guy had a rifle between his legs.
 
Camper6 said:
His wife was out there on a lawn mower. He was afraid she was being run over.

So you are going to retreat into the house?

The guy had a rifle between his legs.
Click to expand...

I should have known better than to respond to this thread.

I did not see the information about the wife on the lawnmower or the man with the gun between his legs in the article that was linked in the op.

If I missed those points then I apologize.
 
Camper6 said:
His wife was out there on a lawn mower. He was afraid she was being run over.

So you are going to retreat into the house?

The guy had a rifle between his legs.
Click to expand...


I don't know if every state protects a persons right to stand his ground. But some states have laws which say, "A person is not required to flee from danger when he is in his own house or on his own property. This is especially true if he is protecting his family.
 
I have family who live in Saskatchewan, my mother was a stubble jumper. They have all told me of the pernicious racism embedded in that province. Actually, a cousin phoned me after the verdict came in, he was mortified, but not surprised.
 
Shalimar said:
I have family who live in Saskatchewan, my mother was a stubble jumper. They have all told me of the pernicious racism embedded in that province. Actually, a cousin phoned me after the verdict came in, he was mortified, but not surprised.
Click to expand...


The white person is always to blame.

Not once have I heard someone say they did something wrong.

When I was a kid we had a saying.

"If you play with the bull long enough you are going to get the horn".

You live in Vancouver Island. You have no idea what goes on in the rest of the country.
 
Shalimar said:
I have family who live in Saskatchewan, my mother was a stubble jumper. They have all told me of the pernicious racism embedded in that province. Actually, a cousin phoned me after the verdict came in, he was mortified, but not surprised.
Click to expand...

Actually I cannot see how the jury could have come up with any other verdict, given the circumstances of the case.

Remember now. To convict someone there has to be no reasonable doubt the person is guilty.
 
Camper6 said:
The white person is always to blame.

Not once have I heard someone say they did something wrong.

When I was a kid we had a saying.

"If you play with the bull long enough you are going to get the horn".

You live in Vancouver Island. You have no idea what goes on in the rest of the country.
Click to expand...
Oh really? You are not aware of my travels, or what my experiences may be. I certainly don’t subscribe to “the white person is always to blame,” form of racism.
 
I think it boils down to the requirements to prove a charge of second degree murder.
If that charge could not be supported then a charge of murder would not stick either.
 
I don't trust the "Gee, the gun accidently went off" story. What, he had a filed-down trigger?

If you're carrying a gun out to a suspected theft/whatever, you're prepared to use it.

Here in the States I would think a jury would look askance at shooting someone because they were stealing your stuff. Only if your life is directly threatened do you have the legal and moral authority to shoot.

As for the other "details" that you mentioned, Camper, those were not in the article.

You're asking for ideas from Americans, but you shoot down one of your own country mates? For shame.
 
SifuPhil said:
I don't trust the "Gee, the gun accidently went off" story. What, he had a filed-down trigger?
If you're carrying a gun out to a suspected theft/whatever, you're prepared to use it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily to kill someone. That's premeditated murder. He fired two warning shots which the judge said was perfectly within his rights to do.

Here in the States I would think a jury would look askance at shooting someone because they were stealing your stuff. Only if your life is directly threatened do you have the legal and moral authority to shoot.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the reason given by the defendant.

A
s for the other "details" that you mentioned, Camper, those were not in the article.
Click to expand...

Well I would expect someone interested to google more information.

You're asking for ideas from Americans, but you shoot down one of your own country mates? For shame.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. I call them the way I see them. I didn't shoot anyone down and country has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
 
Camper6 said:
Not necessarily to kill someone. That's premeditated murder. He fired two warning shots which the judge said was perfectly within his rights to do.
Click to expand...

All I know is that in the world of self-defense you NEVER give a warning shot. A gun's only fuction is to kill - you don't waste ammo and you don't give a warning.

But then, that's for a REAL threat - not a bunch of joyriding kids.

That wasn't the reason given by the defendant.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know - "his gun just went off". Uh-huh. Guns don't "just go off" unless (A) they are modified, or (B) your finger is on the trigger, instead of on the guard as it should be.


Well I would expect someone interested to google more information.
Click to expand...

And I would expect a writer to present their sources.

You have to be kidding. I call them the way I see them. I didn't shoot anyone down and country has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Country seems to have everything to do with it. You believe a person can't know what is going on outside their door in their own country.
 
Camper6 said:
I'm more interested in the use of a handgun for self protection in the U.S. as compared to Canada when someone comes on to your property uninvited and are asked to leave and warning shots are fired.
Click to expand...

Camper, those laws vary state by state, depending on whether the state has a "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" law or other such law.
 
Camper6 said:
I'm more interested in the use of a handgun for self protection in the U.S. as compared to Canada when someone comes on to your property uninvited and are asked to leave and warning shots are fired.
Click to expand...

The laws vary by state -many are "stand your ground" states that allow for the use of force to deal with an intruder if you feel your life is in danger. There's only a few that are "retreat" states that strictly do not allow use of force unless you are actually defending yourself

www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top