Guns are not the answer when protecting property

If there is one lesson from the tragic death of young Colten Boushie, it is this: introducing a gun into a volatile situation is a perilous mistake.

The events surrounding the 22-year-old indigenous man’s death after being shot by Gerald Stanley on his farm in the Rural Municipality of Glenside in west-central Saskatchewan on Aug. 9, 2016, have been widely reported. Stanley was recently found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter after convincing the jury that he did not intend to kill Boushie.

The terrifying ordeal on Feb. 18 of a farmer near Battleford, Sask., adds to the gravity of issue. After a 79-year-old farmer tapped on his window to gain the attention of an intruder on his deck, the intruder fired a bullet through the window, narrowly missing the man.

For the purposes of this editorial, we are discussing property crime, not an instance in which an intruder bursts into someone’s home and threatens its occupants.

Rural residents, including farmers, are becoming increasingly frustrated with property break-ins and thefts. Although statistics show that rural crime rates (per 100,000 people) are roughly constant, the actual number of property thefts are up, so farmers are seeing more crime. Expensive equipment — trucks, all-terrain vehicles, fuel and even GPS systems — are all targeted. Livestock is stolen, too.

But, as Stanley’s action showed, guns are not the answer. Whatever his actions, Colten Boushie should not have been killed.

There are innumerable studies on the usefulness of guns as security, but we will cite the reputable New England Journal of Medicine’s 1993 study: “Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection, this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home.”

To that we add comments from assistant RCMP commissioner Curtis Zablocki about what happens when guns are used in dangerous situations: “We know that with that type of a response, that can often up the potential for violence in those types of situations.”

The frustration with property theft resulted in the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities passing a resolution last March that calls for expanded “rights and justification for an individual to defend or protect” himself, his family and his property.

To say it doesn’t suggest the use of guns for property protection would be a specious reading of the motion.

Some have even called for U.S.-style stand-your-ground laws.

Good grief, no. Nothing about the horrid gun environment in the United States is an example to Canada. We must find our own solutions.

Decades ago farms were smaller, neighbours were closer and there were more of them. Farmers looked after each other.

Current realities are different. Larger farms, with their requirement for large amounts of fuel and expensive equipment, are increasingly becoming targets. Very few farmers haven’t had something stolen.

Security, not confrontation, is the best response. Driveway alert systems, cameras, motion detector lights, even sirens are viable measures. Some can be adopted for grain bins and shop doors. Systems can be linked to smartphones for live viewing.

And farmers must be sure to lock away tempting items such as tools, batteries, fuel, trucks, and ATVs.

Rural dwellers lament that it has come to this — their way of life is being affected. It’s lamentable, yes, but much less lamentable than killing someone.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen, Brian MacLeod and Michael Raine collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.

Comments

  • John Fefchak

    Phone call Scenario:: HELP! someone’s in our house and we don’t have anything to defend ourselves with…I think they have guns.
    Ans: Try to remain calm, sir. The coroner will be on his way shortly.

    • MacLeodProducer

      Hi John, we did say in the editorial that we were not discussing the issue of personal safety in the event of a home invasion. We were referring to response to property theft. – Brian

      • Welderone

        Yes, Brian we surely don’t need the worst gun laws in the world. The gun laws in the United States.

        • Harold

          Knives are used more often in the United States in killing and murder than guns are. Explosives and arson are also used to commit murder. There are also many other tools that are used to commit murder; even the hands of a human are used in strangulation. Do you think that a gun law prevents murder when a criminal has set out to commit one? You take away guns from the law abiding and the law abiding become soft targets for the criminal element and the mentally deranged and that is exactly what we are seeing in Canada right now and the law abiding are angry and the police can do nothing to combat all of the crime that there is. Are gun Laws and gun confiscation your solution? You take away guns and you will only increase the usage of knives and other weapons and for your own information a police officer is equally if not more afraid of a knife than they are of a perpetrator with a gun. You might want to run that one by a police officer for a confirmation and I certainly recommend that you do. Most of the murder and violence in the United States are criminals against criminals and criminals killing those who bring resistance against them. The law abiding are just as mentally competent as any law abiding police officer is. The United States has a population of almost 327 million people and Canada has a population of only 35 million. Where is this utopia of reduced crime; is it Canada? Per capita, how are we much better off with our gun control than our American counterparts are without it? In the USA they are not afraid to stand up for their rights and to protect those rights but here in Canada we cannot say the same thing about our own Country. Is it courage vs cowardice?

          • Welderone

            Not sure where you got this information about knives Harold. Surely not seeing any information on the internet making your statement true. Canada,s population is over 36 going on 37 million people. Here are the stats as I last seen them. All adjusted for population. 7 to 1 is the ratio for gun murders in United States versus Canada. Just for your information that person that killed all them people in Las Vegas was law abiding and bought his guns legally. Do you work for the NRA?

          • Harold

            Try the government of Canada and try the United States Government and gather their statistics. There is more to the stats than just the stats and many draw the wrong conclusions because they do not apply the many interconnections that there are associated with groupings and subsets. The stats that I look at in this regard are specific to many different areas of study and concern. I might point out that following your belief of the benefits of gun control in a country heavily controlled that a 7 to 1 ratio is a complete failure. You don’t need to give me your information about the Vegas shooting because if that is all you know, I know more and also that all of the information has not been released, but that aside, one person or even 100 persons do not represent 327 million people or a flaw in the American constitution. The law abiding can flip with a improperly prescribed pharmaceutical drug making the Doctor and drug company liable and not the patient or the Law or the gun and it happens more often than you might think. This is only one subset to the stats that does not get advertised. The stats of 7 to 1 in gun violence does not support gun confiscation because 7 to 1 in this grouping the same victims could have or would have been killed using any of the other numerous methods. Do know how many in this grouping would be alive today if the perpetrator did not have access to a gun? That is a question that cannot be answered because the answer lies inside each and every perpetrator. Not having access to a gun has never prevented a murder, at least not a murder that a stat will tell you about.

          • Monkeeworks

            7 to 1 still leaves you 100 million short.

          • Denise

            If you google: America’s gun problem, explained
            -vox.com, it’s hard to defend America’s obsession with
            guns and believe they are safer.
            It appears “Common sense is a dead instinct in today’s society”-njlady

          • Harold

            I don’t Google. I know the American history and what you are calling obsession is not obsession at all. The right to bear arms is constitutional. The constitution is the culture of the country as is our constitution the culture of Canada. In Canada the right to bear arms was given to the government because our protection was King George and now her majesty the Queen and her military and occupying police force. RCMP. (One occupying force). In the United States protection was not given to State, it was given to the people because there were two occupying forces. Our constitution is – on behalf of her majesty the queen – and the United States constitution is – we the people for the people. The reason why you find it hard to defend the USA is because you are a Canadian who does not have a firm grasp on what our own constitution is and means and therefore cannot possibly understand the USA and theirs. You speak of common sense as though we are common and “we the people” is the same meaning and the same saying as “on behalf of her majesty the Queen”. American guns are not a “obsession” they are an American possession. An American gun problem is when there is something mechanically wrong with the gun and it needs repair. A mental problem is not related to guns at all. Perhaps you want to take the gun to the psychiatrist but I can guarantee you the gun will remain the same. If you believe that a gun can turn someone insane then I would like you to own one and prove it to me; everyone else but you right? Your fear is not the moral high ground, it is just fear. I have heard your argument many times.

          • Denise

            Many Americans are obsessed with guns.There is a gun culture, in America, that does not exist in other societies.
            The Second Amendment was written a long time ago when guns were not as as lethal as today.Military assault weapons belong in the hands of soldiers, trained for war time ,not average citizens.
            Personally, I don’t enjoy going to the states as much as I used to. You never know who’s carrying a concealed gun. Don’t you think that’s kind of creepy and scary? They are probably paranoid and you never know what might set them off.
            I can see a farmer or rancher needing a rifle or if you lived in a dangerous ghetto, in the rotten core of an American city, you might need a hand gun to defend your family but other than that you’re justing inviting trouble.
            And boy, does America have trouble because of their improperly regulated gun industry!
            But people (children!!!) are finally starting to stand up and take action, because many of their politicians are too beholdin’ or cowardly to take on the NRA.

          • Harold

            The right to bear arms had nothing to do with how lethal a gun was and it had nothing to do with war or the military and like I said you don’t understand the constitution. The right to bear arms was the right to protect yourself with arms; period. The military is a killing machine and the public is not and you have the two mixed. The public do not go out on military assault missions but they can use their guns for protecting themselves on their own property. It is conceivable that someone could be faced with a few gun carrying criminals’ and may need a rapid fire gun for that event if they are alone on their property. Many Americans are obsessed with guns? Do you know all of these people to understand their obsession? A psychologist at least examines a patient before they cast a judgment. Perhaps you can explain obsession (mental disorder) so I will know what it looks like when I see it. Automobiles kill; does that mean that Canadians have an obsession to the automobile? Yes we do! Does that mean that we take them away? It’s not the driver that kills, it is the car correct? Some cars kill deliberately and some cars kill innocently and the driver can do nothing and is not responsible correct? For this we put the car in a Jail compound correct? You said “they are probably paranoid and you never know what might set them off”. How do you know that they are “probably paranoid”? That is a Hollywood movie concept that has no basis in reality. What might set a police officer off? Is a police officer paranoid all of the time? What sets a police officer to draw his gun? Am I afraid of a man with a concealed gun? No. I am afraid only when he draws it and points it at me and when he does I don’t feel “creepy” at all. Are you afraid of a parked car? Its creepy and scary thinking about what that car can do to you right? The gun doesn’t shoot; the shooter shoots, and what is in the mind of the shooter, the shooter shoots at. What makes a car the same as a gun is that each tool needs a human to operate them. It is when a criminal is pointing a gun at your child’s head is when the most righteous hope that they have a gun in their hand to take that criminal out. Do you think that a criminal gives a damn about your self-righteousness or any gun law? It is when a gun is pointed at a mothers head that a child of age wishes they had a gun to take the criminal out. You saw many children in a protest but you did not see the children who are upholding the second amendment; they were at home and uninvited; the media have painted your picture and not the children. Children have not lived enough life to have a firm grasp on realities and you only have to remember and review your own past to know that this is true. You are not of the same mind set of 13, 18, 25, years of age, and most are around 35 before they achieve concreteness in their principals of what they will stand for in life, so therefore your illustration of the children vs. adults is unfounded. Children spout the sayings of their parents and it seems to be intelligent, but it does not come from the wisdom of that child that they truly understand what they are saying. If the students had access to a gun (school shooting) the students would have shot that fellow student and that is what they expected the adults in charge to do, but no one there had a gun. If the student would have been shot in the school by guards the students would be saying something completely different. In Canada, have we ever been able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? One bullet is just a lethal as twenty. Perhaps you can tell me what guns the citizens of the USA can own because you seem to think that they can own any gun that they want without restrictions. The US citizens are not as armed as the military are. You seem to think that it is ok to own a gun where there is a perceived threat (ghetto etc ) but that is the reason anyone anywhere owns a gun; a perceived threat. What do you think their threat might be; school children? In a recent USA report, a man pointed a gun at the head of motorist in an attempted carjacking and the motorist had a concealed weapons permit and drew his gun and shot the criminal. The criminal was afraid of the concealed weapon and had he known, the criminal would have chosen a softer target, perhaps someone like you. The car is not worth dying over so that is why you shoot the criminal and keep your car. I thought that it is a coward who surrenders his car over to a criminal, so what is your definition of the tail between the legs. Courage? Justice? Duty? Onus? NRA?

          • Harold

            Many Americans are obsessed with guns? Do you know all of these people to understand their obsession? Perhaps you can explain obsession so I will know what it looks like when I see it. Automobiles kill; does that mean that Canadians have an obsession to the automobile? Yes we do! Does that mean that we take them away?
            You said “they are probably paranoid and you never know what might set them off”. How do you know that they are “probably paranoid”? That is a Hollywood movie concept that has no basis in reality. What might set a police officer off? Is a police officer paranoid all of the time? What sets a police officer to draw his gun? Am I afraid of a man with a concealed gun? No. I am afraid only when he draws it and points it at me and when he does I don’t feel “creepy” at all. Are you afraid of a parked car? Its creepy and scary thinking about what that car can do to you right? The gun doesn’t shoot; the shooter shoots, and what is in the mind of the shooter, the shooter shoots at. It is when a criminal is pointing a gun at your child’s head is when the most righteous hope that they have a gun in their hand to take that criminal out. Do you think that a criminal gives a damn about your self-righteousness or any gun law? It is when a gun is pointed at a mothers head that a child of age wishes they had a gun to take the criminal out. You saw many children in a protest but you did not see the children who are upholding the second amendment; they were at home and uninvited; the media have painted your picture. Children have not lived enough life to have a firm grasp on realities and you only have to remember and review your own past to know that this is true. You are not of the same mind set of 13, 18, 25, and most are around 35 before they achieve concreteness in their principals of what they will stand for in life, so therefore your illustration of the children vs. adults is unfounded. Children spout the sayings of their parents and it seems to be intelligent, but it does not come from the wisdom of that child that they truly understand what they are saying. If the students had access to a gun the students would have shot that fellow student and that is what they expected the adults in charge to do but no one there had a gun. In Canada, have we ever been able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? One bullet is just a lethal as twenty. Perhaps you can tell me what guns the citizens of the USA can own because you seem to think that they can own any gun that they want without restrictions. The citizens are not as armed as the military are. You seem to think that it is ok to own a gun where there is a perceived threat (ghetto etc ) but that is the reason anyone anywhere owns a gun; a perceived threat. What do you think their threat might be; school children? In a recent USA report, a man pointed a gun at the head of motorist in an attempted carjacking and the motorist had a concealed weapons permit and drew his gun and shot the criminal. The criminal was afraid of the concealed weapon and had he known, the criminal would have chosen a softer target, perhaps someone like you. The car is not worth dying over so that is why you shoot the criminal and keep your car.

          • Denise

            Sorry, I don’t follow your line of logic. I will say that, I think, you underestimate the ability of school students to have a good grasp on reality and the ability to make the right decisions on serious issues. It’s quite often the adults that have lost that ability to think with clarity because of their entrenched socialization within a community of like -minded people.
            These kids are not innocent, any more, when their classmates have been shot to death, in front of them, in a place that should be a sanctuary for learning. Their ideas are good and they speak with clarity on the gun issues in America.
            It’s young people that lead the way and bring about changes in society. The adults are often the ones holding back and trying to stop their kids from changing rhe status quo. After it happens, all agree it was necessary.

          • Harold

            Did you have a firm grasp on reality at 18 years of age? Could you at 18 years of age tackle serious issues using the full scope of knowledge that you had attained by that time? Are you going to try and convince me that you are of the same mind set as you were at 18 and therefore now at present you have nothing further of your wisdom to offer to an 18 year old student? If children are capable of looking after themselves then just what the hell do they need us adults for? Based solely upon the students actions you condemn the parents as weak minded over that of their own children? I am a parent, and if my kids were to attend this rally are you saying that they are somehow now wiser than me? What you are describing is adult abandonment and today the kids are no strangers to parental abandonment and school abandonment at even the earliest ages of their life and as a result the kids of today are hyper sensitive, reckless, combative, self merited, and they are now erupting in a violence that is easily triggered by the mere utterance of a single word that they deem is distasteful. Was that you at 18? I think that you over-estimate the children when their actions well suit your own sensibilities but I see a reality that explains itself that contradicts what you are saying. Further, kids are innocent when they are shot by their classmate; it is the shooter who is not innocent, so you have that backwards in your comment I might add. Apparently you believe that defending your own child with a gun in your hands in the face of a criminal is inappropriate and I hope that you never have to confirm your belief. Be that as it may, a gun only offers you a safer distance away from your attacker that the ordinary baseball bat or tire iron cannot provide. If you could remove the thought of murder from the mind of a criminal that criminal would drop the gun or any other weapon. Do you think that with your mind you can accomplish this? It is not the gun that commits the crime but these protesting students believe otherwise. Furthermore, the kids are protesting the fear that they have in the school system, and not the fear that they have walking in their neighborhoods. It is the unsuccessful adult anti-gun lobbyists who are the ones staging the gun protest and they are using the children as their Front-men and Pons. Do you think that these children understand that this is not their own march and that they are acting merely as the Pons for an adult agenda? Perhaps you should take a look at who has actually instigated and orchestrated and applied the assistance to this anti-gun lobbyists march all disguised as a so called children’s march. You can deceive people/students quite easily it your can make people believe that your idea was not your Idea but the Idea of the people. (Trudeau does this all the time and some are none the wiser and I see it over and over again) The School and local law enforcement and the FBI knew of the threat long before the incident and they chose to do absolutely nothing to protect these children until it was too late. The shooter bragged that he would be a school shooter and no one took away his guns. If this were a true Children’s march, where in fact would these children be seen protesting? The children are being used to cover the asses of all three of the agencies who were negligent in their duties and had failed them prior to that day. The children are none the wiser and more so of the cowardice display of those agencies who will not admit that they had full responsibility for what had taken place in the school. A coward Agency would throw a child in front of them for protection in the face of adversity now wouldn’t they?

          • Monkeeworks

            Every murderer and criminal and rapist today was once a child.

          • sharpur

            The American constitution has been perverted by the interpretations of the 2nd A. by the gun lobby influenced SCOTUS. The writers of the 2nd A. never envisioned regular citizens having automatic weapons in their homes.

          • Harold

            … The citizens are only allowed to have semi-automatic weapons. They are not permitted to own rapid fire “machine guns”. The same guns that the public in the USA own are the same guns that the Citizens in Canada can own – with a gun licence. Our Canadian NRA is the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights so perhaps look in your own back yard. The constitution forefathers were seeking equality and back then the musket was the only thing available. Nothing has changed today and there is still the equality that the forefathers were seeking. The model T was exchanged for the cars that we have today and we are just as equal as we were back then. The model T cannot be used today for any practical purpose and neither the musket and ball. The forefathers didn’t foresee Atomic bombs did they.

          • sharpur

            Bump stocks convert a semi-automatic into a rapid fire weapon. Weapons can be sold at gun shows that are not subject to the same regulations as stores. There are too many loopholes. The writers of the constitution also did not envision citizens commonly keeping guns at home.

          • Harold

            Yes bump stocks do, but the aim of the gun becomes less than accurate. A goose gun is just as affective as a gun with a bump stock. A goose gun fires many pellets that scatter all at once and it is used for hunting. Recently the USA has banned the future sales of bump stocks. I’m sure that you were sitting with the forefathers and know exactly what they were thinking. It is easy to speculate about the deceased when they are not here to defend themselves.

          • Harold

            The interpreters of the Law or the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States but the NRA is NOT a leg of government and therefore the Court (SCOTUS) does not give the NRA any credibility whereby the Court brings discredit upon itself; that does not happen. You have your thoughts backwards possibly due to someone feeding you bad information. The only time that the Supreme Court sides with anyone is when a violation of someone’s rights has been proven in their court. The NRA is only a member association of gun owners and that is all that they are. They are merely a group of citizen protestors – only when their rights are being stripped away. When they are not protesting they are focused upon the safe handling and safe use of a firearm and they are training and educating the inexperienced. For the training that the NRA provides, in Canada that same training is mandatory before you ever get a gun license in this country. Moreover, to remove the Constitutional right to bear arms the constitution has to be changed and it can only be done if the majority of the USA citizens consent. In a Democratic Society under law, the Supreme Court cannot change the constitution and does not have the lawful power to do so; it has to be done by the people and the politicians who represent them, numbering more than half of the entire population of the USA. (326,766,748) However, each state through its local majority can restrict firearm use but constitutionally they cannot eliminate them. The children’s march on Washington DC is therefore a fool’s errand that was an organized gun control sham and the children don’t know that in betrayal, they are only being used as puppets of someone else’s agenda. It is the old bait and switch trick. You go for the big (DC fool’s errand) when all along the focus was to erode the gun laws at the local and state level. Human nature is that if you can’t have something big (DC) – you settle for something smaller.(state level) The deception is that you lost something that was attainable and big so you settle for something small just so you believe you got something, rather than nothing. The anti gun lobbyists are very well organized and very well funded and I have no problem with that, but when they use their resources to deceive the public and the children in order to attain their goals, I will call every organizer what they are – the scum of the earth. The protesters (children) were organized to protest on a school day which was an obvious attempt by the lobbyists to deceptively inflate the protest attendance and student support. The children were left with the choice of being abandoned at school or to join in on the protest with all their friends; what do you think the majority did? Now that the children during school time have protested they are now brainwashed into a new sense of duty to protest again, regardless if it conflicts with their previously held positions; brainwashing 101. This is why the first stage was not planned for the weekend but it started on a school day instead. The students were flocked to the protest like sheep and were not there of their own individual volition. The perversion that you speak of is not the NRA – it is the anti-gun lobbyist and their hidden and deceptive ways. You can support your own anti gun stance without being lied to by the people (scum) who are pretending to support you. The Democrats supported the protest only to harvest the children’s votes for the next election so they too we part of the school day deception. For the Democrats it fed their hate Trump campaign and instead of the State and local level protest, they greedily misdirected the kids on a fool’s errand to Washington DC. The Vote seeking Democrats, being politicians, knew that they were deliberately sending the kids in the wrong direction.

          • sharpur

            NRA sues Florida. The NRA suit focuses on the part of the law that raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21 from 18. Why would the NRA sue a state over a law that raises the age to buy a firearm? I think we both know that answer. Lobbyists unfortunately have become “arms of the gov’t.”. There are far more lobbyists in Washington than politicians.

          • Harold

            The age of adulthood in the USA is 18. Raising the age from 18 to 21 is a violation of their constitutional rights. The NRA represents their members. A law suit is simply a test between the two opposing Laws; the state vs the constitution. Clearly you don’t understand the court system nor the law and have added fiction to their claim. To think that we both have the same answer is inaccurate.

          • Welderone

            I just checked the FBI records for murder victims in 2016 in the United States. The stats were 11,004 people with guns and 1,604 with knives. Making the first sentence in the above post total nonsense,

          • Harold

            You are correct and thanks for that but the focus lately in the US has been on assault rifles so my focus had been on rifles and therefore my comment was incorrect. In 2015 there were 548 rifle killings and those were rifles of any kind and I compared them to stabbing deaths which numbered 1,573. Instead of guns I should have said rifles and I apologize for that. Hand gun uses in 2016 homicides were 7,105 and that is the data that I have. However, here in Canada where we do have gun control, knives are the weapon of choice in homicides and you can find those numbers at stats Canada. Having said this, the stats are just stats and they are about as meaningful as it is meaningful to number all of the stones in a grave yard. A gun does not create a crime, a human mind does. Aggravated assault: includes being threatened with a weapon – threat or attempted attack by an offender armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon that does not result in victim injury; are these included in your stats? Resistance to the criminal can lead to the death of either the criminal or the victim and then what was only aggravated assault now turns into murder and then another stat is recorded. The bottom line is that if one has in their mind the intent to commit murder – the lack of a gun is not deterrence. I don’t know where people get the impression that if they were to be killed by somebody that a gun is the only effective method.

      • Harold

        When it comes to a home invasion, personal safety is something that is very real and is a big concern to the homeowner or to any other member of the family because it can lead to their harm, injury, or death. Property theft is a home invasion; the house does not float upon the air – it sits upon the land and the fences are the land and the land is the HOME. The land is called property and a theft has only occurred when objects have passed over the property line. Theft is the act of TRESSPASSING onto PROPERTY to remove objects for which you have NO LAWFUL CLAIM to, or CONCENT. The Trespassing Laws are in place to prevent harm, injuries, and death, whether it is the homeowner or the perpetrator of a crime. Pandering to a criminal has never worked and will never work and to give criminals the right of way in any way shape or form is to make a stand for injustice. So MacLeod, what exactly is your response when in front of your face a criminal is removing your property from your house and yard? Obviously your choice to provide us with a half-hearted editorial is evidence of your willingness to help the criminal out by holding the front door and the gate open for them; to let the mice out of the cage and let the police chase them. A criminal packs a firearm and other tools for one purpose only – to counter resistance; the more resistance encountered the more deadly the outcome. The criminal is also a coward and they do not go anywhere where the resistance to them may be deadly. You do not combat the criminal coward with more cowardice and shame. Clearly you have decided not to discuss “the issue of personal safety” because in doing so your rhetoric would lose integrity and support. I have heard cowards and Law makers and Police Chiefs say that they don’t want to see law abiding citizens armed to combat crime because they don’t want a repeat of the “wild west” and small minded and devoid of thought they are they are satisfied that the west is now run wild with criminals. In their stupidity borne of the pieces of history missing, our law enforcement personnel and our politicians have forgotten that it was the criminals who were responsible for making the old west wild and it was NOT made wild by the law abiding who sought to tame the “Wild West” by arresting criminals and bringing them to justice. Perhaps they were all brought up on the “realism” of Hollywood movies and not by the books that are the chronicles of history. Protecting your property with a gun is not the making of a wild west – it is prevention of the west going wild in crime. When good turns its back on evil the target and bulls-eye is on the backs of the good and we the target. Many citizens are robbed on the streets but I have yet to see an armed police officer a victim of the same robbery. Is it the gun and will the police officer draw it? Is the Cop wild? Who is the same man, the police officer – without a gun and a badge; a victim? Like a police officer, the homeowner’s property and its contents is the homeowner’s badge of jurisdiction and like a police officer a gun is only a tool that is used to protect that jurisdiction. A criminal has no such jurisdiction and should never under any circumstances be rewarded with any.

        • John Fefchak

          Thank you Harold… your words resonate the truth of the situation that rural folks are dealing with, in protecting their property. Trespassing, stealing/robbery is still a crime in most jurisdictions; landowners and rural residents have a right to retaliate. Yet, it very much seems, the media says…..leave it to the police?

          • John,

            In this case what we are saying is that there are better options to protect your “stuff” than by shooting someone who is trying to take it.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • John Fefchak

            Paul.
            The better options that I recognize are only “more security” … like locks, electrified fences, barbed wire, gates, barred windows, and attack dogs. “We imprison ourselves and cower from the threat of thieves” Why should our freedom be forfeited for such invasions. …just because the media says so?
            “O’ Canada, We stand on guard for thee.”
            I am a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces.

          • Harold

            Trespassing is an act; it is not a sign that is placed upon your property that gives it meaning. Theft and robbery is trespassing by its act. If you don’t want visitors – a violation of your will – is called trespassing. For an expression of the violation of your will, you can put up a sign if you wish or you can simply tell your visitor to leave and at that very second that visitor is trespassing upon your will. It is expected that you will give your unwanted visitor the time that is necessary and is reasonable for the visitor to vacate. Thereafter you have the right to use reasonable force to escort that visitor off of your land. Reasonable is determined by resistance. To more resistance, applying more force is reasonable but your jurisdiction ends at the fence line and you do not need the police. However, if you don’t want the bother you can call the police and they will do it for you. Because you have jurisdiction, they just remove your unwanted visitor for trespassing your will, with no questions asked other than “are you the land owner?” Then there is trespassing to remove property; it is commonly called theft or robbery. You have the right to use reasonable force to prevent your property from leaving your yard. This is called self defense and self defense is not frozen to preventing a personal injury like most people think. Self defense and the level of resistance can lead to someone being injured and that injury causing an unintentional death to either the victim or the criminal. These are maxims in Canadian Law and trespassing to remove property is a crime in every jurisdiction in Canada. When I said that your property is your badge of jurisdiction perhaps you thought I was kidding but I was not. If the police do not have a lawful reason (investigation) to be on your land, you can ask that badge to leave and thereafter they are trespassing and they can be charged accordingly; another fact of your jurisdiction. Regarding the media, they say many things but people need to focus on who is doing the telling. For example, if the chief of police is telling you to “leave it to the police” he had better been talking to you as your servant and not as your boss. If he speaks as a boss, the proper response is to tell him to go to hell unless he can present to you some law that compels you to listen to him and to obey him. Often times the police talk through their hats, to say it politely, and the media not knowing the difference, because they are only reporters, they put it in print. When the police say “leave it to the police” it is just a suggestion and their suggestion has no lawful cause, effect, or force, but unknowingly the public believes and blindly accepts that it does but of course the media is equally as blind.
            thanks for your comment.

        • sharpur

          Trespassing is not a home invasion. Stanley & family could have gone in the house. One calls the police & the other two try to get the make, model & plate number of the vehicle. Trespassers do not have to be caught immediately, the family is safe and the trespassers are caught later.

          • Harold

            I get my definition of trespassing from law books and law. (U of A) Where do you get yours? “Home invasion” is not a Legal term and therefore the term is not recognized in Court; it is a laymen’s term of no description. The word is trespassing to commit or trespassing to remove, etc.. Trespassing is the unlawful interference with another’s PERSON, PROPERTY, or RIGHTS. All wrongs (torts) are trespasses. What you think things are doesn’t make them so. When you are using proper terms I will know that you have a background in law. I use the term “home invasion” simply because it is a laymen’s term and a laymen’s description. Furthermore, you have a very simple answer to what could be a very dangerous situation. Let’s play out your simple answer. If the trespasser is not caught – the criminal repeats the crime on someone else’s property, and now one family is robbed but safe and the other family down the road is not; Bravo. If the get-a-way vehicle is spotted, the police endanger themselves and others in a high speed chase and somebody else is killed or maimed. Bravo. The criminal often steals the license plate or the vehicle that they use to commit a crime and you believe that obtaining the license plate number is the criminal’s identity? The criminal simply puts a balaclava over their face to hide from video identification. They wear gloves to cover their fingerprints. They bring tools with them to cut though and break down all of your defenses. Do you believe that criminals are one time, down on their luck, offenders who have only one time lost their way? That sounds just like Hollywood. What does 100 criminals times three offences represent; 300 family losses; 4 offences and 400 family losses; 4 families to one family and who pays the most? Clearly “the buck” will not stop with you, it will be passed onto someone else in order that you gain all of your comfort. When you see your children being loaded into the trunk of a car perhaps you will get the license plate number while someone else is calling the police. There is no sense in being the first responder is there; you might get hurt fighting crime.

  • Harold

    Perhaps we should disarm all of the police officers and the military and go on a dope smoking love-in with the criminals who are packing guns. Gee, I wonder if criminals are packing guns to protect themselves from the law abiding or if guns are just their fashion statement. There are many tools of self defense and all of them when used can lead to someone’s injury or to an injury causing unintentional or intentional death. A fist or a foot in self defense can cause an unintentional or a intentional death. The purpose of a Jury is to hear the evidence of the INTENT and all of the FACTS related to the event and then to rule upon whether the death was intentional or unintentional. To my knowledge, none of you who wrote this Article attended the Stanley vs Boushie Court Trial to hear all of the evidence yet you have a strong opinion about the outcome built solely upon your own imaginary thoughts connected to your own sense of idealism. Without hearing the facts and hearing the testimony how did you editorialists come up with your verdict? Better yet, after hearing the facts and evidence how do you know that as a fact you would not have been the Juror saying not guilty?
    The media cocoon from reality – a day late and a dollar short. It is truly a damn good thing that there are Juries in a Court of Law because the Jury of the public and the media are about as far out to sea as one can get. As to your little side trip, to believe the BS coming from the New England Journal of Medicine is to believe that no homicide is possible within a home without the use of a gun. I can assure you that the lack of a gun does not cage the mind or cage the minds imagination. Does the lack of a gun prevent one’s suicide or will the many other methods that we all read and know about work just as well. These same medical clowns are also the same ones prescribing mind altering drugs to the public at large through their pill mill and they certainly ignore taking the credit for that in their mindless observation of homicides. The risk of a homicide rests only within the mental state of the perpetrator and not within the mind of an inanimate tool that they pick up and use to get the job done. Is death by baseball bat or strangulation, or a knife somewhat more glorious and glamorous than a death by shooting? Nonetheless, these same academic geniuses would also prove that having a house is also as counterproductive as is gun ownership because the “home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of…” arson. Because someone can cite a risk is does not mean that a bad event will happen. To have the risk of death – you have to be a living entity – and it is certainly the thoughts of the fearful and their mindless data of fear who are the ones who like a leech suck the very life out of the living.

    • sharpur

      You really do protest and pretend too much Harold. People have access to the trial transcripts for the information presented in the Stanley/Boushie case. You have some nice words strung together. Some sentences make sense on their own but your argument overall does not add up.

      • Harold

        Exactly what am I protesting when in fact it is you who are protesting the verdict of the Jury; what am I pretending or is it you? You would be more informative if you said exactly what did not add up and then perhaps I could make sense of it. Of course that is not your intention and is the reason you leave it blank. A person cannot return a comment to a blank thought. Many take a few statements from a trial and create their own imaginary trial and they deceive all who will listen to them. How many pages in total was the trial transcript? I’d like to hear your answer.

  • Tim Atchison

    Well folks just tell the crimmials help yourself …

  • Clinton Hood

    No we do need castle doctrine period.

  • Mike McEachren

    I am not understanding how the reference to the February 18 incident in Battleford involving the 79 year old man assists in your argument.

    • MacLeodProducer

      Hi Mike. It was referenced to show how frustrated farmers are getting, and legitimately so, given that type of incident. – Brian

  • Anna C

    Kudos for this bold editorial. I wish more farmers would do the basics: take the keys out. Lock the shop. I understand that it’s NOT FAIR that you have to change your “way of life”, but honestly, it’s time to get real and contribute to an actual solution.

    • Monkeeworks

      Trucks were locked. That is how the shot gun rifle butt got broken. By them smashing it into the window to break into the neighbors truck. Then they expect help with a flat tire? When does the victim stop paying for the criminals actions? Do you think a farmer leaves the keys to his $750,000.00 tractor in the ignition? I think someone here is very young or very nieve.

  • Rob

    of course guns aren’t the answer, but faced with the real terror of armed would-be criminals in your yard, they offer some peace of mind. It’s pretty safe to say that perpetrators committing theft nor a farmer who is forced to defend his home want to see a death occur as a result of a skirmish. But it is completed unfair to load responsibility of security on the farmer’s potentilly vast and isolated property. Locks in bins and sheds – of course. And of course, they get broken into. Live view cameras for remote device triggering – to what degree will these prevent a crime? Most effective might be a loud alarm or otherwise noticeable signaling method to deter further action – effective in cities but as effective in rural areas? Why instead isn’t there deeper examination into proper punishment to illicit fear of actually committing a crime? Or better yet, examination of the conditions that lead to utter lack of respect for a neighbor’s property and peace? By only addressing the violence that may erupt from defense from crime and not the crime itself, power is continually given back to the perpetrator.

    • John Fefchak

      Rob. This is how I visualize “more security” … padlocks, electrified fences, barbed wire, gates, barred windows, installing cameras, alarms and having attack dogs. “We imprison ourselves and cower from the threat of thieves” Why should our freedom be forfeited for such invasions. …just because the media says so? ..or the police and politicians suggest it. Never! We have every right to protect and defend our families and our possessions from the intruders and thieves who would perpetrate themselves upon us.
      “O’ Canada, We stand on guard for thee.”
      I am a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces.

      • Harold

        One of the duties of government, like the military, is to protect property and lives and the fact that Canadians have to dress up their lives in all of these expensive defensive measures and armor is a fact of government’s failure in performing that duty. In the arrogance of government they have created laws that trespass against the law abiding that gives the rights to the criminal element instead. In the government’s failure to provide protection the citizens are now left to defend for themselves but the government has taken the defensive tools out of their hands. It is the people of Canada who “stand on guard for thee” and the People are doing a lazy job in keeping their government accountable. The police and the media are not the government and anyone listening to the two of them is lazy. The laws that trespass against the law abiding must be repealed and it won’t be done until the public demands it. The Government does not repeal, on their own initiative, any of the Laws that they have created; it has to be directed by the public in majority. Every single Law that is in place today assumes that the Majority has accepted it. It is the Majority that repeals that same Law when they no longer consent. Are we going to talk to the media and a cop; why would we? Like you say, the appropriate answer is “never”.
        Thank you for your service in the Canadian Armed Forces.

  • DifferentAngle

    The Colton Boushie trial was a failure of the justice system to acknowledge the evidence and it highlighted prejudice and stereotypes remain in people of power and authority. Experts testified the gun used was not prone to misfire. A Colt 1911 style slide action remains open after the last round is fired leaving no mistake if the weapon is loaded or not. The fatal wound was execution style murder and the jury found Stanley not guilty. I understand the frustration, fear and the need to feel safe again in one’s own property and home. I agree when you and your loved ones are threatened inside your home any means of protection is acceptable. Gunning down thieves like vermin is not necessary, justified or legal. Yes a warning shot might scare them off like the rat brethren they are, just hope they only brought a knife to your gun fight. Remember when barrels cross you are all in and may not walk away from the table when the dealing done.

    • Harold

      By your expression it is clear to me that you were not a member of that jury nor were you a relevant fact witness in this case and neither did you attend the Trial. Nonetheless, attending a trial is really not that meaningful, if as a spectator, you don’t have a background in Law and most spectators don’t, but they being honest with themselves in their own lacking, they rightfully accept the verdict. Then you have the dishonest spectator who lacks in knowledge and is confused by all, and baseless, they do not accept the verdict. It is remarkable how the confused laymen create for themselves their fictions to mask over their confusion and thereafter their fiction poses as a fact and it becomes the new moral high ground and then borne is a new social warrior. In this case, the criminal is now a victim and the victim is now the criminal, bloodthirsty and seeking to murder somebody; all baseless and fiction from your 20/20 vision that the victim did not have at the time of the event. Then you have those who get their sound bites of the trial from news and they accept the verdict but then there are always the baseless and small minded that don’t. The media presents after an event and after an event is 20/20 vision and from this vision is premeditation; in other words, woulda, coulda, shoulda, is evident to the viewer – but that is not the evidence given to the Court because the incident in this case was not premeditated so the viewers 20/20 thoughts are not truth they are in fact fiction. What I am saying to you is that your statement “the Colton Boushie trial was a failure of the justice system” is unfounded, and the failure is yours and your failure is not the failure of the Justice system. When the Justice system fails, there is an appeal process and you are not that process. Clearly, you do not understand what the failure of the justice system is to even claim that the Justice system has failed. Speaking of fiction, you are perhaps unaware that you have described murder and not self-defense and in doing so it suited your own narrative and you feel justified and you are justified if your testimony was the evidence presented to Court, but clearly it was not. You would probably like to believe that the Court and the Jury overlooked your facts and your evidence and your ideology and your fictional Law book, but your testimony was not relevant because you are not – a fact witness – and therefore your testimony is fiction and is not the truth, it is hearsay. However, you do have a good version of a Hollywood movie, but it is not a reflection of what truly happened. Further, like you did, you can say what you wish about the experts and the facts of the gun but – INTENT – NOT FACTS – is the other half of the Law and it determines innocence or guilt; not the skin color. People of racism love to believe that skin color places them on a higher seat of morality over others when in fact morality rests in the conscience of each individual human being and skin color has nothing to do with it. Those who see skin color as a symbol of one’s inner conscience are in fact racists. Before the trial and after the trial some of the native peoples have shown their white racism and some of the whites have shown their racism; which one of the two groups is on a higher plane of morality? In your blindness to racism you cannot conceive that if Colton were a white man that the results of the Trial would have been the same. No, it would destroy your justice warrior theme and you would be disappointed that you did not have a cause. This “all white” Jury was condemned and convicted by merely the color of their skin and not by their true social conscience between right and wrong and this condemnation was the definition of racism. White is a mixture of people of many cultures and races and some, although not white, can be perceived as white by pigmentation and it is absurd to believe that every race has a innate hatred toward the indigenous peoples. Am I to accept that the condemnation of this Jury came from a higher plane of morality? I know better, and I don’t.

      • DifferentAngle

        Fact is Stanley reached inside the vehicle, put the pistol to the back of Boushie’s head and pulled the trigger. Not in self defense but in anger and desperation that the authorities were least 45 minutes away. At that very moment its hard to say how much danger him and his family were in. The impact of the event obviously wasn’t a grave concern to Stanley as he went inside to have a coffee and wait for the RCMP. Thanks for your somewhat legal view on my comment.

        • Harold

          Here again, “…..put the pistol to the back of Boushie’s head and pulled the trigger” was not proven – beyond the shadow of a doubt; a maxim in Law. Furthermore, what someone does after a terrible event varies between individuals and some people’s minds go blank after a horrible event because they cannot immediately deal with the horror. The fact that someone goes and drinks coffee thereafter is not evidence of intent, and again, you were not a fact witness – a psychologist. You must be aware that some people grieve a lost loved one only after the body is buried and others grieve at the moment of the loss. How would you behave if you accidentally killed someone with your vehicle through no fault of your own; do you know? Is there a prescribed way to “deal with it” that you will follow by script to prevent shaming yourself in the eyes of others and it proves your innocence? If there is, the same prescription is used by murderers to mask over their crime. Appearances can be deceiving. Nonetheless, you stated “at that very moment its hard to say….” and that tells me that you did not attend the Trial and that your perception of the event is hearsay. Sitting down for a coffee is sometimes the expression of horror and it is not the expression of a psychopathic personality. All said, there is one huge fact that you have over-looked and that is the fact that Crown is not seeking an Appeal and if any of your thoughts were based upon a shred of truth over and above what was heard – the Crown would be seeking an Appeal, but then again, you are not a fact witness.

          • sharpur

            Do you think an Indigenous person would have been acquitted with the “hang fire” defence? I don’t. What were the young women doing while the Stanleys sipped their coffee? They had been traumatized by the shooting death of their friend.

          • Harold

            You are entitled to think all that you want and to create all of the imaginings that you want but the fact remains that you were not there. furthermore your hypothetical “indigenous person” was not on trial and wasn’t the focus of this trial and hypothetically a plane could crash into your house. Lets talk about the plane crash that didn’t happen. An acquittal comes after a preponderance of ALL of the evidence and a “hang fire” is not the only defence that was presented to the Court. Nonetheless, a SHADOW OF DOUBT in the administration of Justice compels the Jury to accept the “hang fire” defence and a shadow of doubt was provided by the conflicting testimonies which were heard in Court; if there is a shadow of doubt the Jury must acquit the accused. Your evidence (thoughts) were not presented to the Court so therefore you have no personal claim of injustice. Further, do you expect to see “the young women” having a love-in with the Accused on site? How will the accused console these young women and do they want to be consoled under the circumstances? What gain would there have been if the accused had not dismissed himself? If he had stayed with these young women could matters have escalated and been made worse and the accused subject to the threat of more injury; revenge? If the police had arrived within minutes would the accused have gone into his house? Is it more forgivable if the accused was thirsty and he drank water instead? Perhaps water and coffee should go on the stand and testify on your behalf. Bottom line; you weren’t there to dictate what should have or what should not been done and comfortable as you are no one can criticize your actions, can they.
            When you are at home and the police do not come or are many miles away and you are facing danger- you are it. You are your first responder. What is your safety and the safety of your family worth? So what are you doing about it? No one is prepared for the moment a criminal chooses to strike and there is no given recipe to follow because you cannot predict any action or any reaction and sometimes very bad things happen. There seems to be no shortage of those who without all facts, evidence, and testimony, believe that they are the informed Jury; they are in fact only the jury of their own idealism. I would like to see these same people try to pass off their BS to the 12 Jury members who were selected for this trial.

  • Carmel Paddock Noel

    What’s ridiculous is, how everyone else has the answer as to what this man should have and should not have done in this situation. I would like to know how many of you have been in this situation!!! Its tragic yes that a young person got killed. I believe the man is telling the truth about not intending to kill anyone. When faced with a threatening situation and not knowing what the intent of the intruders my be, what would any of you do??!!! Defend yourself, your family….. not one of you knows what was going thro the mind of any of the people(intruders or property owner) that were there that night!!!

    • Harold

      You are absolutely correct. There is no prescribed remedy to any crime. Every individual is as different as there are different snowflakes and only the individuals involved in an incident are the outcome. I don’t believe that there is an individual who hasn’t avowed one thing on a stack of bibles, and then when actually faced with it, did do entirely the opposite thing or did something that they didn’t even dream of doing instead; why? The spirit to spirit connection or location or other factors were different than what had been previously thought – for both parties. We cannot at times even understand ourselves but yet the armchair critics (who are exactly the same) in their delusion believe that they can paint a roadway and if followed to their exact specifications that everything will just magically fall into place. These people of delusion believe that as a deity the world revolves around them and the world owes them a hearing. What is tragic about this young man’s death is that he chose a life of crime and that life eventually led to his death, as most often it does, and is the expected long term outcome. The tragic story or travesty that no seems to be talking about in their complete ignorance is the fact that the farmer did not ask for this, and although not guilty, this farmer has to re-live the experience in picture images in his mind every time that he thinks of it, or closes his eyes, for the rest of his life and this can destroy a man further; his life as he had once loved it – is changed. It was for this reason that we like to give our guns to the police but nowadays the police are nowhere to be found when needed because we are overrun with criminals. Bad is bad no matter who gets the job.

      • sharpur

        // The hard truth is that Gerald Stanley was probably more suspicious of a Cree man like Boushie than he would have been toward a White man like Iain Stables, even though Colten Boushie is a young man without a criminal record whereas Stables is a criminal who was recently convicted of stealing $1.2 million worth of farm equipment. For being convicted of stealing over 15 pieces of farm equipment Iain Stables received the mild sentence of 2 years of house arrest.1 For being among a group that Gerald Stanley suspected of stealing, Colten Boushie received a death sentence. // You stated that Colten Boushie had chosen a “life of crime” which is incorrect.

        • Harold

          Fiction is not a “hard truth” and you even know that yourself being compelled to use the word “probably” in your description. Before you make your assessments perhaps you should read the Courts transcripts. Colten entered onto the property with a 22 cal. illegal firearm with the butt of the rifle broken while trying to break through a window of a truck at a previous farm. The rifle had been fired a number of times prior to entering onto Stanley’s property. The rifle was between Colten’s Legs and dropped to the ground as his body was pulled from the SUV. There after the two girls put Stanley’s Wife on the ground and they started beating her.
          There is a lot to this case that you have favourably ignored just to support your narrative. Do you think that to take a case that didn’t involve firearms and death somehow supports a case that did involve firearms and death? There are very different verdicts between theft and a killing. Clearly you are very desperate to prove racism.

    • John Fefchak

      Right on!

    • John Fefchak

      Right On…. Carmel. “Judge Not Lest Ye be Judged” (Mathew 7:1)

  • Valdimar Huerta

    The western producer once a magazine in complete support of western culture and honour ,Once a community building supportive Icon to the ranchers and farmers of the west!
    Today it lwers itself to condemnation and back slideing in the support of criminals and the criminal elements!
    Western Producer you discust me with your disrespect for the saftey of the Canadian farmer!
    Pathetic

  • sharpur

    What about the original trespassing & theft of this land & resources? Shouldn’t we be looking at why indigenous & non-Ind. people are trespassing and stealing people’s possessions. It isn’t enough to say, oh they’re just bums that are too lazy to work & buy their own stuff. We need to look at the economic and conditions of the trespassers/thieves. Then we wouldn’t be arguing about how best to protect our property. We need to think bigger, look at the history and the big picture. Manitoba & Sask. land was taken much more violently than other provinces. The original people responded with violence (talk about defending your property), many were hung for doing so and that animosity remains between the people who were corralled like cattle on scrubland reserves and the people who were given 160 acres of farmland. Go figure eh?

  • Harold

    OK, “what about the original trespassing & theft of this land & resources”? The Crown is the trespasser against the indigenous and every other “white” citizen of Canada. Simply, it is the crowns trespass that makes your driving a privilege and not a right. You live in the privilege of what the foreign crown corporation grants you, and the same is the indigenous peoples. You want “to think bigger” or am I too deep already? Without the trespass of the crown, how would our constitution now read if it were drawn up by the people instead? The soil is not Canada – the Crown Corporation is Canada – and the corporation is owned and empowered by the foreign queen under the umbrella of a international Treaty. History is history and it is a cancelled cheque. Do you propose that we re-live every cancelled cheque? That sounds to me as a trip into the land of victimhood where all crime and bad behaviors are justified and supported; a land where all honor is dishonored and dishonor is honored. Who is saying “they’re just bums that are too lazy to work & buy their own stuff”? We are calling law breakers – law breakers – and that is simple enough. Who creates the economic conditions of the criminal other than the criminal themselves? Who creates the economic conditions of the law abiding other than the law abider themselves? I can “go figure” that the treaty that the indigenous signed has confined them to their spaces that you have described and that the rest of us are paying the indigenous for the lease of the land that was taken. (tax dollars) We are paying the indigenous dividends and therefore they have no right to steal our property. Why don’t the Indigenous peoples rip up their crown corporation treaties and simply create their own constitution and enact it and then do in Canada whatever they wish in law, commerce, and trade, or are we going to claim victimhood for another 100 years and beyond. Perhaps the indigenous do not rip up their contracts because the dividends (free tax dollars) they are paid, are too good to do without. Did you say that you wanted to think big?

    • sharpur

      // Who is saying “they’re just bums that are too lazy to work & buy their own stuff” // You know very well many are saying things just like that.

      // Who creates the economic conditions of the criminal other than the criminal themselves? // Poor quality of elementary education & racism often predict one’s economic condition.

      • Harold

        You are correct; I do “know very well many are saying things just like that”. The question was who? The answer is – the dull and ignorant or the observant. There are the bums (sloth) and there are the lazy (sloth) and there are those who are hindered. (Abused – mentally, physically, deceitfully) There are many who come out from poor economic conditions and they become well to do or Rich; thousands of story’s if your mind is focused there. The criminal is not setting themselves up for an economic well-being if the outcome of their actions is Jail. A student is not responsible for the “poor quality” of the education system and I can tell you that the honor students today are “dumbed down” from what they truly need to know and they too can be found in Jail. The Rich can also be found in Jail. When met with racism, you simply go to the next business and apply there. The dull and the Ignorant do not see the person who is standing right in front of them and you will not educate the dull and ignorant nor can you legislate brains into them; why would somebody help the dull and ignorant prosper by working for them? It seems that you like to believe that racism is so alive today that no one of color has a chance at prosperity even though everywhere that you look you see them employed or as employers. In the real world employers are worried about achieving results and not skin color. Bad behavior is bad behavior; it is not racism. The word racism can now mean anything that you want it to mean and is now organized propaganda to mask one’s own bad behavior. Have you ever looked at the first definition of the word race and do you know that it holds the integrity of the second definition of race? Most screamers of racism have never spent time with a dictionary to even know what they are saying. Most of the people in the parade only like being in a parade and cannot answer any question related to their cause when asked; instead they mutter slogans of no content that others have passed to them. Social justice warriors are of the dull and the ignorant. Everyone no matter who you are has a struggle in life and that is life and that struggle does not excuse anyone for committing a crime. To dismiss crime is to say that someone else’s struggle in life gives them permission to walk into your life and disrupt it making your struggle worse. Is that your moral high ground?

  • sharpur

    The federal age of adulthood doesn’t apply here. The drinking age in Florida is 21 and they can indeed raise the age to purchase particular weapons.

    • Harold

      Local and federal Laws create the age limits. The age of majority is 18 and up USA wide so contrary to your belief – age does apply; those under 18 cannot vote – period. Apparently you do not understand the gravity of your own ability to vote at 18 and easily taught, but with our void and failing education system it is of no wonder; just as void today as it was when I attended and now know the difference. Any State can rise the drinking age to 90 years of age if they want to, or ban drinking all together. If they tried to do this – do you now understand what a constitutional challenge is? The Challenge in Court is the age of majority 18 (LAW) and the constitutional guarantee (LAW) vs arbitrarily imposed State Law; whereby the new Law imposed must be backed by the local majority by signature or vote to be of JUST CAUSE and not whimsically and arbitrary Imposed by the FEW. (Government) The State has NOT done this (no vote, no petition signatures representing majority) and therefore their actions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, if the new Legislation is ADVERTIZED and thereafter it is – not challenged in Court – then the new proposed Law is considered to be – accepted by consent of the majority – and then it becomes LAW. The new Law when enacted votes away constitutional rights to those under-ages of 21. The NRA is representing the people over the age of majority (18 +) and citizens who do not want their family members Rights removed. A single person does not a majority make, so a organization representing the many is used as a spokesmen for the many in membership. (Damn ordinary) The few do not represent the majority in a Democratic society and although Canada is also Democratic our Democracy is thrown into the wind and Canadians only understand wind thrown Democracy and therefore we are directed by the few. The majority in your Province could vote the drinking age to 12 if you wanted to and The Constitution of Canada gives you the ability to do so – if you are of the age of majority. 12 to 17 cannot vote. (Yet) Of course Canadians will only do this if someone in government or their agency gives them permission to think, speak, or act. You can do anything you want with human rights and freedoms – but NOT without a constitutional challenge and majority consent. All that you have been telling me is that you don’t understand any of this and granted it’s not your fault. What is made absent in school is deliberately made absent from thought and empowerment.

  • sharpur

    Only the last sentence of my post is in my words. You didn’t respond to that. You had previously referred to Boushie’s “life of crime” of which there is no evidence.

    • Harold

      Were you engaged in his life that you can claim otherwise or is there no evidence only because you haven’t heard any or have ignored it? I’m sure that you were not the family’s pipe line anymore than you are the pipe line of Stanley’s family. There is more evidence supporting a life of crime than there is claiming otherwise. Furthermore, a life of crime starts the day or the moment that you enter into it so are you thinking life of crime starts at birth? A life of crime can start yesterday and commences thereafter. There is a big difference between saying “a lifetime of crime” and “a life of crime”. Did I really need to respond? In the bigger picture, when you commit a crime, that memory and it’s results goes with you for life and because there is no returning to erase it, but some people will reoffend to numb their conscience and along with it they create their own supportive ideology’s and friends to it. Those with a strong conscience are deeply hurt by their own actions and in the pain of it, they will change their ways for life and they carry that pain always and embrace it. Those who numb their past are doomed to repeat it. If you want proof of this, look into and examine your own life, it is found there, and if not, ask your parents. I am not your proof of this, only a messenger.

explore

Stories from our other publications