The facts that are in the case include, the boy was a man. He was twenty-two, not thirteen or sixteen or even eighteen. He was trespassing on the accused's property, which does not mean he should be shot. The boy was joy riding vehicles on the accused's property, and he was driving the property of the accused. There was some question of possible injury to the accused's relations. There was mention that the owner tried to scare the victim off by firing the gun into the air, twice. There was a physical confrontation where the rifle reportedly went off killing the man. All these things together suggest that murder was not the goal of the accused. Manslaughter for sure was a possible outcome as was aquital. There were some reports that the jury was an all white jury, but at was never substantiated, and it shouldn't have mattered. But it does.
There are protests about the results of this trial. But it is clear that this trial was not firmly about race. For one thing a rifle is not a close quarters weapon. It can be used that way but in the confrontation it was not described as being used as one. There are other charges that should have been laid, improper use of a firearm, careless use and manslaughter, it was an accident, but it was not murder.
There should have been more native people on the jury. The trial was happening in Saskachewan and native people make up a significant proportion of the population there. In Canada there are almost 2 million native people, or about five percent. This was not the case they should have been pining for justice with. But still it was.
No comments:
Post a Comment