|
Helsing posted:I had an interesting family get-together over the weekend. Toward the end of the evening a relative of mine brought up how upset they were about Jagmeet Singh becoming leader of the NDP and how horrified they were that he wouldn't disavow Paramar in that Power and Politics interview. She was also really uncomfortable with the fact he wears a turban. She said wistfully that she missed Jack Layton and recalled how cynical she was about politics when she first came to Canada, and how Layton had really inspired her because he seemed like a real person and not a fake politician. reminder that helsing is a racist piece of poo poo
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Is that Gerald Stanley Support Fund, owner of the Gerald Stanley Support Fund Gerald Stanley Support Fundadome? Also, I'm a bit fuzzy on the weapon these guys had when they drove onto his property. Are we really going with the narrative that he just blew an ND into the back of the guy's head with the weapon he was maybe-legally holding?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
This is the response I got when I said how a lack of native representation on the jury normalized viewing natives as the Other. It's quite something. quote:They obviously view themselves as other. From the marches I saw the last couple days, I'm pretty sure that justice is spelled R-E-V-E-N-G-E He is so close to getting it right and understanding the why of things, only to come to the worst conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:reminder that helsing is a racist piece of poo poo if personal anecdotes about various people they encounter in day to day life is the bar for being racist, then 95% of this thread is racist as hell
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:This is the response I got when I said how a lack of native representation on the jury normalized viewing natives as the Other. Ask him why native people are defined by their group membership (and thus denied from sitting on a jury because they share a race with the victim) but white people are defined by their individuality (and therefore allowed to sit on a jury despite sharing a race with the accused, because they are assumed to be capable of objectively assessing the facts regardless of their race).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Is that Gerald Stanley Support Fund, owner of the Gerald Stanley Support Fund Gerald Stanley Support Fundadome? Boushie and co. had a possibly inoperable .22 rifle in their truck which had a broken stock found at another farm in the area. The RCMP declined to test it. Gerald had a PAL and the Tokerav pistol which is a restricted firearm in Canada, registered to him. So the ownership and legality of the pistol is not in question. He is being brought up on firearm charges in a different trial, namely unsafe storage. I won't comment on that since its a bit of a convoluted firearm law and would probably just be a judge only trial. What the jury could possibly have reasoned for acquitting him, is that after firing the (lawful) warning shots in the air. Was what Gerald did afterwards an unreasonable departure from what a reasonable person would do in that situation? quote:Popescul told jurors that when Stanley grabbed his pistol and fired two warning shots into the air Stanley was acting lawfully. He told the jurors it would be up to them to decide if Stanley’s actions beyond that continued to be lawful vyelkin posted:Ask him why native people are defined by their group membership (and thus denied from sitting on a jury because they share a race with the victim) but white people are defined by their individuality (and therefore allowed to sit on a jury despite sharing a race with the accused, because they are assumed to be capable of objectively assessing the facts regardless of their race). If all the native people were from the same res, they would possibly be biased as knowing the victim. On the other hand any regular white juror probably wouldn't know either the Stanley family or the victims. If there was a racial component to the challenge, the prosecution can challenge the defenses challenge by saying its racism. But the Defense could argue that all the natives that showed up knew the victim and would be biased in that way allowing him to strike them from the jury. If there was a non-local native like a recently moved FN that showed up they could have been put on the jury. Chillyrabbit fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Gerald had a PAL and the Tokerav pistol which is a restricted firearm in Canada, registered to him. So the ownership and legality of the pistol is not in question. He is being brought up on firearm charges in a different trial, namely unsafe storage. I won't comment on that since its a bit of a convoluted firearm law and would probably just be a judge only trial. I'm not questioning his ownership of the weapon, only the reason it was in play. Why is it lawful to threaten someone with death for doing something you couldn't legally inflict GBH/death on them to stop?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
having a legal category based on 19th century race science continue to exist in this country leads to most people internalizing some really hosed up poo poo, as it turns out
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I'm not questioning his ownership of the weapon, only the reason it was in play. Why is it lawful to threaten someone with death for doing something you couldn't legally inflict GBH/death on them to stop? 5 younger people, 3 men, show up very intoxicated on your farm and seem possibly out of control considering the car striking the parked car and how it may have driven on the farm. You have you an older white gentlemen, your younger son, and an older wife. It could be reasonable that you foresaw a possible danger from the situation at hand, being outnumbered in a rural area far from easy help. If on the other hand all of Stanleys family was there at a barbecue say 3 uncles and aunts and their strong farm hands totally 10 people, it would be unreasonable to get a gun since you outnumber the other party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:if personal anecdotes about various people they encounter in day to day life is the bar for being racist, then 95% of this thread is racist as hell "I really dislike [their] open religiosity" is probably not something you should be saying openly about brown people in 2018 if you care about being called a racist
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
If Stanley was so careful as to remove the clip and pull the trigger several times to make sure the gun was empty and no longer a threat, as he testified, why even bother to keep holding it, much less walk across the yard and confront the vehicle with it? It’s useless at that point. Also, try reaching with your *left* hand into the window of an SUV to take the keys out. Especially if it is your non-dominant hand. It’s completely awkward and non-intuitive and doesn’t make sense unless you’re holding something extremely important in your right hand. Which he wasn’t, because careful gun owner Gerald Stanley had already gone to great lengths to prove his gun was no longer loaded, and thus useless as a tool of potential self-defence. Instead, careful gun owner Gerald Stanley ended up pointing it at someone’s head and whoops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:If all the native people were from the same res, they would possibly be biased as knowing the victim. On the other hand any regular white juror probably wouldn't know either the Stanley family or the victims. This is incorrect. Peremptory challenges can be made for any reason, including race, and do not have to be explained by the lawyer. The Supreme Court has upheld that an aboriginal person being tried by an all-white jury is not racism. At the same time, the enormous distances involved in selecting a jury in places like that part of Saskatchewan make it prohibitively expensive for many aboriginal people to show up on jury selection day even if they are summonsed. Here's an article about the legal minefield and logistical challenges involved in trying to get any aboriginal people at all on a jury in a case like this one: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/huge-pool-750-people-summoned-potential-jurors-colten-boushie-1.4504633
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:5 younger people, 3 men, show up very intoxicated on your farm and seem possibly out of control considering the car striking the parked car and how it may have driven on the farm. You have you an older white gentlemen, your younger son, and an older wife. That doesn't answer my question: Why is it legal to threaten to kill someone under circumstances where you could not legally kill them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
And the area they were drawing potential jurors from was hundreds of kilometres in size with like 10+ different reservations, so “they all knew Colten” isn’t really relevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Self-defence and defence of property, in my understanding, didn’t really factor into the trial at all, likely because the defence lawyers knew what we’ve now sussed out - that it wasn’t really believable given the accepted sequence of events. Rather, they poured all their effort into reasonable doubting up a misfire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:And the area they were drawing potential jurors from was hundreds of kilometres in size with like 10+ different reservations, so “they all knew Colten” isn’t really relevant. Danielle Smith, now a talk radio idiot in Calgary, was going on about how the fact that many Indigenous people didn't show up for jury duty is evidence they don't want to participate in the justice system, and they need to "take responsible" for that (because she's a dullard who doesn't know how to speak English, evidently). Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that they can't afford to travel back and forth from where they live to court repeatedly, or pay for hotels for the length of the trial. They probably just don't give a gently caress about the justice system. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:Also, try reaching with your *left* hand into the window of an SUV to take the keys out. Especially if it is your non-dominant hand. It’s completely awkward and non-intuitive and doesn’t make sense unless you’re holding something extremely important in your right hand. Which he wasn’t, because careful gun owner Gerald Stanley had already gone to great lengths to prove his gun was no longer loaded, and thus useless as a tool of potential self-defence. Instead, careful gun owner Gerald Stanley ended up pointing it at someone’s head and whoops. If only the prosecutors had read Encyclopedia Brown: The Case of Excalibur, where Encyclopedia Brown figures out Bugs is lying because basically the same thing, that it's extremely awkward and unlikely to do something with one hand when it would be much easier to do it with the other. quote:Bugs’s own words to Mr. Evans proved he had not seen Woody steal the penknife as he claimed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Was what Gerald did afterwards an unreasonable departure from what a reasonable person would do in that situation? Well, depending on how many of the 1100+ people who contributed to his gofundme are from Saskatchewan, I'm going to say that his actions were not an unreasonable departure from what a white Saskatchewan resident would do in those circumstances. Good acquittal IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Danielle Smith, now a talk radio idiot in Calgary, was going on about how the fact that many Indigenous people didn't show up for jury duty is evidence they don't want to participate in the justice system, and they need to "take responsible" for that (because she's a dullard who doesn't know how to speak English, evidently). No, see, they doubled the per-diem for serving on a jury to a whole $80 while still not compensating you in any way for the time taken to go to jury selection day itself, so clearly they've done all that is necessary to ensure anyone can serve on a jury regardless of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Pictured: reasonable distances for uncompensated travel as a poor person selected as one of 750 potential jurors, just so you can show up and immediately get sent back home because of the colour of your skin
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Note that Uranium City is fly in only lol. For reference, Biggar to Battleford is about an hour drive. Stickarts fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:Note that Uranium City is fly in only lol. As are, I'm guessing, numerous other smaller settlements in that area. EDIT: Okay, maybe not "smaller". PT6A fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:As are, I'm guessing, numerous other smaller settlements in that area. Some have ice roads!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Why is the jury boundary not a circle
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Why is the jury boundary not a circle If you don’t like thousand-kilometre-long straight lines, Saskatchewan might not be the place for you. Also, my understanding is that to qualify as a potential juror you have to have an active health card and a driver’s licence. Which we know is a pretty effective strategy to disenfranchise blacks in the American south. It might seem reasonable, but if it bars lower classes from participation... is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Why is the jury boundary not a circle It should obviously be based on which the closest court to a various place is, which would explain why that shape exists. It's left as an exercise to the reader to determine why there aren't provincial courts dotted all through sparsely populated Northern Saskatchewan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Really this just highlights the serious ongoing issue of white people still living in rural backwaters. Hopefully the Advent of autonomous farm vehicles will solve this problem in the long term but if that turns out to be impractical there's always :gruesome combine harvester murder smiley:.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Why is the jury boundary not a circle Because Saskatchewan is a rectangle, nature's perfect shape.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It should obviously be based on which the closest court to a various place is  naturally
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Really this just highlights the serious ongoing issue of white people still living in rural backwaters. Hopefully the Advent of autonomous farm vehicles will solve this problem in the long term but if that turns out to be impractical there's always :gruesome combine harvester murder smiley:. This is my conclusion as well. Bring on the 50,000 acre automated mega farms owned by absentee Chinese investors!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Pictured: reasonable distances for uncompensated travel as a poor person selected as one of 750 potential jurors, just so you can show up and immediately get sent back home because of the colour of your skin Hmm didn't know the cachement area was that big. flakeloaf posted:That doesn't answer my question: Why is it legal to threaten to kill someone under circumstances where you could not legally kill them? The judge ruled it was lawful for whatever reason when he fired the warning shots. star phoenix posted:In his instructions to the jury, Chief Justice Martel Popescul said Stanley was within his right to get his gun and fire warning shots into the air, but that the jury must decide whether the actions he took after that continued to be lawful. I'll probably shut up now on the Gerald Stanley trial as this is starting to get very legal heavy and I hate reading so many legal things at once. Good discussion though all around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Hmm didn't know the cachement area was that big. Yeah, so Danielle Smith's comments about how Indigenous people in that area must just not want to be part of the justice system are dumb as all gently caress, because she's literally just as loving stupid as everyone both to the right and left of her has always said she is. And possibly a wee bit racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:This is my conclusion as well. Bring on the 50,000 acre automated mega farms owned by absentee Chinese investors! I too enjoy my country not having control over it’s own food production
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:"I really dislike [their] open religiosity" is probably not something you should be saying openly about brown people in 2018 if you care about being called a racist the difference between "called" and "is"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
For an acquittal does the whole jury have to agree not guilty or simple majority? (or something else?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not going to go through 40+ pages of your nonsense to find every example, but here's part of a post you made following the election of one Mr. Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America. First of all, no poo poo Trump's election is a reflection of how racist the United States is. To vote for him you had to be, at bare minimum, comfortable electing someone more or less openly espousing white nationalism. My point is: so what? How do we make sense of the 2016 election in a way that actually produces a map for going forward? Cause just saying "Oh, at some point between 2008 and 2016 America got waaaay more racist, guess we can't have nice things" is the sort of opinion that is really easy for you to have because you're an affluent young white guy living in Canada. It's not an attitude that people who are actually caught up in these events can afford to have though because it's essentially just a counsel of despair which implies nothing could ever be different. By the way, this paragraph you skipped past describes your posting attitude and why I think it's so insufferable perfectly: Helsing posted:The real danger of demonizing segments of the population is not that it's unfair or that it rights off a large constituency that could easily be converted to the left. That may or may not be true depending on circumstances, but that's not the core argument, at least to me. Instead my concern is mostly that the way the left / liberals are articulating their grievances has the effect of blinding them. Self-righteousness and contempt can distort the way you perceive reality. Some of the ways in which the left / liberals soothe themselves over their failures is to adopt an overly smug attitude about themselves and their opponents, and this can have tactical and strategic consequences that go way beyond writing off a particular demographic. The difference between us is that I actually care about looking for ways to fix things whereas you just treat politics as an opportunity to flatter yourself and to tell yourself how much smarter and more enlightened and brilliant you are than the common rubes. Racism isn't a sufficient explanation for why Trump won. If we could just attribute this gigantic overturning of the status quo to a timeless and implacable form of American racism then how do we explain why Trump won in 2016 rather than 2000, 2004, 2008, etc? For people who actually care about making a political difference, rather than just masturbating their egos, these questions actually matter and are worth discussing. If Obama could win with the American electorate then there's no reason Hillary couldn't have won as well. Her failure to do so is clearly attributable to more than just racism. More importantly: we can't really fix how racist people are in the short term, it's a structural feature of society that can only be chipped away at gradually over time. On the other hand, some of the more concrete reasons behind Trump's victory actually can be addressed in the short term. Hence why it's more useful from a political perspective to focus on those factors. All you want out of this is an easy answer that flatters you personally, exonerates you of any real responsibility while giving you license to feel self righteous about yourself. It's a political dead end that lets you continue to support the broken status quo that lead to Trump's election while pretending that it's just a total coincidence he won now rather than at any point in America's equally racist past. It's especially ironic because for all your fake wokeness you're deadset against any political party that proposes a more equitable distribution of wealth that would actually concretely improve the lives of the people you're squirting crocodile tears on behalf of. You use vulnerable people as props in your narcissistic and self flattering vision of yourself but then consistently bad mouth and attack any politician or political tendency that actually proposes anything beyond the milquetoast changes to the status quo. So in a very real and concrete way your skin-deep attestations of anti-racism are just the way you ease the cognitive dissonence of benefitting from a social status that systematically oppresses other people on your behalf. You get to have all the material benefits of neoliberalism without any of the guilt. In fact not only do you not feel guilty, you've managed to find a way to use racism to feel good about yourself. It's liberalism.txt. quote:Oh, and also there's this bit: "Intersectionality is racism" - woke genius PT6A quote:You have a consistent pattern of minimizing the impact of race and racism in things. Maybe you don't even realize you're doing it, but I would honestly recommend that you revisit your own attitudes toward race and think about why that keeps happening. Analyzing the way that race overlaps with other markers such as gender, sexuality and class is not "minimizing the impact of race". You're appropriating terms and ideas that I don't think you have the slightest genuine interest in and then crassly using those terms to try and score points in a debate you clearly haven't spent more than two seconds thinking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 19:50
|
|
"
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:"I really dislike [their] open religiosity" is probably not something you should be saying openly about brown people in 2018 if you care about being called a racist I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Gerald had a PAL and the Tokerav pistol which is a restricted firearm in Canada, registered to him. So the ownership and legality of the pistol is not in question. He is being brought up on firearm charges in a different trial, namely unsafe storage. I won't comment on that since its a bit of a convoluted firearm law and would probably just be a judge only trial. Stanley would need an RPAL to legally own the pistol.  Postess with the Mostest posted:"I really dislike [their] open religiosity" is probably not something you should be saying openly about brown people in 2018 if you care about being called a racist I laugh at the Jehovah’s witnesses that come to my door. If the JW was brown would that make me racist or just an rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
I don't think anyone was suggesting you're not an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Phew thank god
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 20:15
|
|