Yall are a bunch of wankers!

Gerald Stanley - guilty or not?

The jury know more about it than I do.
Key hostile witnesses were proven to be liars.
They invaded his property
They damaged his truck
He lived in a rural area
He fired warning shots

    = Reasonable doubt

          = Not guilty

But yeah, the bit about the hang-fire in unlikely (but not impossible). I used to buy cheap 12-gauge ammo and after 3 years storage the failure rate was around 5%
Permalink Paris Hilton 
February 13th, 2018 10:43am
He was guilty of either manslaughter or second degree murder. The question was if he intentionally pulled the trigger or if it was as he claimed an accident that he accidentally went to the shed, accidentally picked up the gun and loaded it, accidentally shot at two kids running away after he smashed in their windshield right in the driver's face with a sledgehammer, causing the car to crash, hen when the kid in the backseat crawled forward to try to take control of the car after the driver ran off, accidentally pointed the gun at his head, accidentally pulled the trigger twice, accidentally missed one shot and accidentally shot him once in the back of the head, killing him.

Then when the girlfriend asked the wife who was standing there "Why did you shoot my boyfriend?", the wife accidentally said "That's what you get for trespassing."

However none of the kids had been told they were trespassing and the house was well known in the area as being a place people could bring cars to be fixed. In fact there were several cars in the driveway left off by customers. Hard to call it trespassing when you are running a mechanic business on your farm and you have customers coming up and down the driveway all day long and the latest ones have a missing tire and it's during business hours.

So if he did accidentally fire the gun, he gets manslaughter and probably just probation and a small fine. If he shot intentionally though it's second degree murder.

So the jury rules "Not guilty". Not manslaughter or murder. Even though Stanley says yes, he loaded the gun, yes he fired twice at the other kids running away after he sledgehammered one in the face, and yes he pointed the gun at point blank range, but he didn't pull the trigger, it just "went off" and he thinks it only went off once not twice despite multiple witnesses hearing both shots.

In web discussions, Canadians universally make this argument:

Farmers all need to be armed and kill any indians coming on their properly.
What part of they were trespassing don't people understand.
These indians broke into their house in the middle of the night. Of course you have a right to defend yourself.
The indians ran over the man's wife. It was self defense.
The indians stole a silver car and an ATV from his driveway, he was only protecting his property.
The indians were all black out drunk, all of them had 0.3BAC.
The indians were armed. They were carrying a loaded gun and threatened the farmer with it.
Canada should have finished the job with these creatures a long time ago. Why did we think they could be tamed.
It's not manslaughter when you shoot a ravaging wild animal. Bucks and squaws are not people.
Permalink Whitefeather 
February 13th, 2018 10:51am
> They invaded his property

He ran a mechanic business. It was during business hours. They had a flat that turned into a missing tire and driving or rims.

> They damaged his truck

Their SUV hit his truck AFTER he slammed their windshield in with a sledgehammer, right in the face of the driver. How is that their fault? Their SUV hit his truck and damaged it because he slammed in their windshield while attempting to murder the driver with a hammer. Saying "they damaged his truck" is a highly misleading way to describe what actually happened.

> He lived in a rural area

Yeah, a few miles from their house. They also lived in a rural area. He lived on their tribe's stolen land. He was an illegal alien.

> He fired warning shots

He shot to kill the two that were running away after he attempted to murder the driver with the hammer. The bullets whizzed by their heads. Warning shots aren't fired at the people and don't whizz by their head.
Permalink Whitefeather 
February 13th, 2018 10:56am
The young people had been drinking during the day and some of them said they were drunk, according to the statements they gave police.

They arrived at the Stanley farm after visiting a neighbouring farm belonging to the Fouhy family where they attempted to steal vehicles and items.
Permalink Zaq 
February 13th, 2018 11:17am
Native Americans have problems with alcohol:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans


Pro tip:

Don’t go looting when you’re drunk and your victims are armed.

Evolution in action.
Permalink WikiBot 
February 13th, 2018 11:47am
It's legal to drink in Canada, they don't have Prohibition there. Drinking age in Saskatchewan is 19. The youngest person in the car was 19.

They had gone swimming earlier and passed around shots. During the trial they asked the driver, "Did you have anything to drink anytime during that day?" He said, "Yes we all drank earlier that day." Note from his use of we in the response he is interpreting the you to be plural form you. He didn't say "Yes I was drinking" he said "Yes we were drinking". He also said it was earlier. Not while driving. No empties or bottles were found in their car. The prosecutor asked him "How much did you have to drink." He said "Maybe around 30 shots all together." He's answering collectively.

The media then wrote about this. With full quotes from other parts of testimony, but paraphrasing the testimony on the drinks, in order to give a false impression. Media reports said "Driver testifies to driving around and drinking 30 shots." That is not what he testified to though.

Many hours earlier they were swimming and had 30 shots between them. The bottle wasn't in their car. It was left behind somewhere, probably empty.

The driver was given a BAC test. He wasn't charged with drunk driving, or anything. The only result they told the public is the dead kid had 0.3BAC. He wasn't driving. He was in the back seat, sleeping it off until the farmer smashed in the windshield with a hammer in an attempt to murder the driver.

You are arguing here that if someone had something to drink earlier, it's OK to murder them. That is not the law.
Permalink Whitefeather 
February 13th, 2018 11:52am
They had a load rifle, had already stolen a vehicle, and were trying to hotwire his ATV. Whitefeather's narrative is uproarious.
Permalink Simulacrum 
February 13th, 2018 12:25pm
>He said "Maybe around 30 shots all together." He's answering collectively.

Without a link I’ll assume your lying as usual.
Permalink Plm 
February 13th, 2018 12:35pm
Whitefeather is Idiot!

Who knew?
Permalink Mycroft Holmes 
February 13th, 2018 12:38pm
Yes, I've seen the articles and comments claiming they were driving around armed to the teeth with loaded weapons and intimidating people with guns.

Did you follow the trial?

They had a broken off barrel of a 22 in the SUV. The farmer said he saw it but thought it was a crowbar. He did not interpret it as a loaded weapon and shoot in self defense, that wasn't his testimony at all. And it wasn't a loaded weapon. Yet white folks everywhere are ranting about a posse of armed wild indians roaming the prairie shooting innocent settlers. That's not what happened at all.

As far as stealing a car? What car did they steal? The SUV belonged to one of their parents and was the only car they were driving. The driver did say though that he had gone to some other location earlier and attempted to steal a car. Fair enough. But he didn't steal it. And none of the other people were in on that.

As far as the ATV goes, the farmer and son were outside working on a fence, the mother was mowing the lawn, the SUV with a busted tire comes up the road to their car repair place. The driver sees the farmer and the son and the mother. The front passenger gets out and sits on the ATV and is fucking around with it while they are waiting for the farmer/mechanic to finish what he is doing and come over. The guy fucking with the ATV stops and gets back in the SUV. All 5 are now sitting in the SUV. They back up and turn the SUV around to repark it. The farmer comes running up to them with a hammer and smashes the window in right in the face of the driver. The driver loses control of the vehicle and bumps the farmer's truck. The farmer tells the son to get the rifle. The farmer goes to get and load his pistol. The driver and passenger realize the farmer is trying to murder them and is getting a gun and they run off into the field. The farmer then shoots at both of them, nearly missing their heads. At the gun shots the people asleep in the car wake up. The male tries to climb into the drivers seat to get out of there since someone is shooting. The farmer then comes to the car, points the gun in the window, and shoots the male in the head, killing him.
Permalink Whitefeather 
February 13th, 2018 12:44pm
While failing to provide any links you continue to embellish your story.

You’re just bullshitting as usual.
Permalink Plm 
February 13th, 2018 1:26pm
No account of the story has any of the kids pointing a gun at or otherwise threatening or harming anyone. Not the Farmers account, not the Indians account.

The worst version, as told by the the only person to point a gun at, harm, and kill anyone in this situation, is that a bunch of super drunk Indians crashed their car then tried and failed to steal another one. For that, the Farmer put his gun to the back of ta kid's head and "accidentally" pulled the trigger.

Maybe the circumstances make that not murder. But it's not nothing.
Permalink MS 
February 13th, 2018 1:54pm
If the farmer had done nothing...

The drunken armed gang would have murdered the farmer and his son, gang raped his wife and daughter before killing them and then stolen his car and escaped without consequence.

The jurors very sensibly decided not to encourage rampaging gangs in their community.
Permalink Zaq 
February 13th, 2018 2:37pm
> Whitefeather is Idiot!

That's been known for a long time.
Permalink ,ndo 
February 13th, 2018 3:34pm
"The drunken armed gang would have murdered the farmer and his son, gang raped his wife and daughter before killing them and then stolen his car and escaped without consequence."

Citation needed, Nazi fucker.
Permalink MS 
February 13th, 2018 3:42pm
"The worst version, as told by the the only person to point a gun at, harm, and kill anyone in this situation, is that a bunch of super drunk Indians crashed their car then tried and failed to steal another one. For that, the Farmer put his gun to the back of ta kid's head and "accidentally" pulled the trigger. "

When I mentioned the rifle thing in another post, it was that this notion of a helpless group only looking for help is not helpful to the narrative. They had a broken rifle (with a shell in the chamber) because they physically used it to try to bust the window of another truck. When they pulled onto his property one immediately jumped in the farmer's truck. If a large group rampages onto a property the outcome probably isn't going to be good, and the whole "just need help with a flat" notion (they didn't even have a tyre left on the rim...) is such bullshit.

The farmer openly acknowledged that he shot by accident, and even the warning shots were illegal. It was, without a doubt, a negligent homicide (along with some firearms charges). The prosecutor tried for too much and that's why there was a not guilty.
Permalink Simulacrum 
February 13th, 2018 3:46pm
The act of putting a loaded gun to the back of a kid's head is more than negligent.
Permalink MS 
February 13th, 2018 4:03pm
Morally, ethically, yes.

Legally -- that's for the court to decide.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
February 14th, 2018 8:42am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: February, 2018 Other topics: February, 2018 Recent topics Recent topics