Two sides, one story

I don't suppose there are very many people who haven't heard about the verdict rendered in the Stanley trial last night.  But if you haven't read or heard anything, a land owner shot and killed a young aboriginal man on his property in August 2016.  Last night, Gerald Stanley was acquitted of all charges.  Today there is outrage and anger from the Boushie family, the First Nations leadership, and many others. 

Of course, there is more to the story than the short synoptic above.  On a summer day, five young people decided to go swimming at a local river.  While there they drank copious amounts (30 shots for one of the participants alone).  On the way home, the driver was driving erratically, so much so that a tire blew but he continued to drive on the rim.  Along the way, they decided to stop in at a farm where they attempted to steal another vehicle by smashing a window with a loaded shotgun.  When they realized the truck had a standard transmission they left in their SUV and made their way to the Stanley acreage.

The story the young people later told was they were seeking help with the tire.  However before asking for help two of the young men attempted to start an ATV, while another looked through another vehicle.  The two young women were said to be sleeping in the back seat of the SUV while all of this went on.

At the sound of the ATV the land owner and his son came running from the field where they were fixing a fence.  The three young men jumped back into the SUV and attempted to leave, however the driver made a wide turn and crashed into the SUV of Mrs. Stanley.  Meanwhile the son, Sheldon, used a hammer to smash the windshield of the SUV.

In the space of these few minutes, Gerald Stanley grabbed a handgun from his shed, loaded it, and while two of the men ran from the SUV he fired two warning shots into the air.  

The tale gets more tangled at this point.  According to the testimony shared on-line one of the other men had been in the driver's seat but when Gerald Stanley got to the SUV, Colten was in the seat.  Stanley indicates he reached in to grab the keys with one hand, and accidentally shot the young man in the head.  According to one of the women in the back seat, Stanley held the gun to the young man's head and fired.  

What really happened?  We'll never know for sure.  The defense lawyer suggested that the cartridge bulged which would suggest a hang fire...that is, a lag in time between pulling the trigger and the shot actually firing.  The experts who testified for the Crown suggested this would be rare and the gun would not fire without a trigger pull.  (My brother, a police officer, had another theory - muscle memory.  After firing off the two shots, he wonders if Stanley's hand didn't tighten).  When Colten's body was pulled from the SUV (by one or both of the women), a broken shotgun was between his legs. 

The incident sparked much reaction, a good deal of it negative.  Charges of racism were met with horrific comments, including one person who suggested that Stanley's "only mistake was leaving witnesses".  Emotions ran high in the fall of 2016; the verdict has opened these wounds once again.  I can only hope that calmer heads were prevail but to be honest I won't be surprised if there are not some ugly scenes and situations played out over the next few months.  There will be those who want to retaliate and those who will respond. 

I've watched the trial in interest for the past two weeks.  As some of you might know, I grew up on a farm.  I can remember several times while I was growing up, being along in the farm house when a strange vehicle came into the yard.  Usually they were there to steal gas....I stayed put and let them have it.  There would have been no point calling the police, as we lived 12 miles from the nearest dispatch.  Nor would it have crossed my mind to pull a gun (not that I've even fired one in my entire life).  

But I do know what the fear feels like and thus I was surprised that the Stanley lawyer did not bring that fear forward.  But perhaps I'm wrong in my assumption that this family would have been afraid when five drunken young people arrived in their yard.  The fact the two men immediately grabbed weapons (hammer and handgun) would suggest this may not have been the first time someone attended the acreage for less than friendly reasons.  Yes, I tend to believe the assertion the young people were there to steal another vehicle rather than to request help.  As the defense attorney stated, "they were up to no good".  

However, regardless of the reasons, I feel the landowner went too far.  His stated intention was to frighten them off.  But in the end, someone died as a result.  That, in my mind, is manslaughter.  The jury, none of which appeared to be aboriginal, decided otherwise. 

Today, there are protests planned across the country, seeking "Justice for Colten".  I understand.  On the other hand, until individuals of all races, colors, and creeds are accountable for their actions.  IF, these young people had not been driving and drinking, IF the landowner and son's first reaction had not been to grab weapons, IF there had been one indigenous person (or more) on the jury, I suspect the outcome would have been different.  

I suspect the decision will be appealed.  The Crown has every right to do so, and the family of Colten Boushie will push for it.  Yet, even if Stanley is tried by judge alone, and found guilty of second degree murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter, I suspect they will find no closure.  This is a no win situation but perhaps will be the impetus for change.  

Time will tell.