Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Maybe. We'll never know.
But on Fluffy's theory, he did. FAS is a common reason for out of control criminal behaviour. And I am going to guess FAS is pretty common in Native communities.
I think the 'destined for stupidity' comment was specifically pointed at the 'Fetal Alcohol Syndrome' comment.
If you have FAS, especially if it is severe, you have some very serious developmental and cognition issues. Not the person's fault, but to be a little crass, they almost certainly ARE 'destined for stupidity'.
Not saying any of these people have or had FAS, just trying to clarify the comment.
If there is no proof the guy is deranged with FAS condition, then why bring it up?
You are guys are making assumptions that because he's from a Native community, his home life screwed up, everyone is an alcoholic and he was among a group of people looking for trouble as he has FAS.
Don't make assumptions trying to prove a point.
The "destined for stupidity" FAS claim is part 2. His part 1 claim for Boushie looking for trouble was his prior sentence. So what fluffy is saying is basically.... if you come from a Native community, you can do dumb things.
And I agree.
But my opinion still stands that just because you may come from a environment that is lousy, it doesn't mean it's a green light to do stupid things. And in this case, he got unlucky and ran into a guy with a gun. The crew were looking for trouble and got trouble back.
Got to use your head.
No. Hence his attorney rejecting that as it would be difficult to sustain 'reasonably' under the circumstances.
Small correction, it wasn't a rifle but a Tokarev semi auto pistol.
I said this before, I think Stanley used excessive force given the info I've read.
The counter is that Stanley went shooting because he thought his wife was mowed down (literally), and cars were jostling for position bumping into things. So he claims given the situation he had to grab a gun. Then he said "it just went off" as if he didn't mean to shoot him.
I can see him being freaked out and wanting shoot people to put an end to the situation, but I think it was overboard. Then again, I'm not in his shoes.
The counter is that Stanley went shooting because he thought his wife was mowed down (literally), and cars were jostling for position bumping into things. So he claims given the situation he had to grab a gun. Then he said "it just went off" as if he didn't mean to shoot him.
I can see him being freaked out and wanting shoot people to put an end to the situation, but I think it was overboard. Then again, I'm not in his shoes.
At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. There is science that suggests serial killers and pedophiles are born that way... and I don't doubt these behaviors are based on genetic predispositions. So, these folks lost the genetic lottery. They have no choice and it's sad.
But those of us born without these issues must still protect ourselves from the aforementioned people. It might be in your genetic makeup or destroyed genetics (due to disgusting parental drug and alcohol abuse) to want to come in and kill me and take my things, but I'm going to blow your head off with my shotgun when you try.
Instances like this are unfortunate, but they make for a better society. They showcase the pitfalls of fucking with people's property and livelihood. This makes people more lawful because they don't want to end up like Boushie. In doing so, the sense of law and order is strengthened and instead of living in a fearful lawless third world shithole, we live in a place of peace and prosperity, based on trust, kindness, and dignity. Protecting yourself and your family from harm is as fundamental as it gets.
So you are defending serial killer and pedophile behaviour and filing it away as "they have no choice"?
I'm not defending their behavior. Defending their behavior would mean I think there should be no consequences for it. But if you read my next sentence, you can clearly see that not only do I advocate for consequences, I suggest the consequences may necessarily be fatal for them.
When do statistics matter to you and when are they considered irrelevant or even racist? There was a thread about a month ago where I presented you with a metric fuckton of scientific data and statistics and your response to it was: You're racist.
What gives, counselor?
Kind of like your 'metric fuckton' of scientific data that points to serial killers and pedophiles being hardwired and having "no hope"?
I don't think there is any question that finding children sexually attractive has a genetic basis. Most people are naturally repulsed by the idea yet pedos desire children with the same fervor that a normal man desires a woman. I'm shocked if you find this to be a revelation. Perhaps do more reading about it.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=gene...ome..69i57.12407j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I've not said that serial killers and pedos have no hope.
As already said what in many ways is worse in that not only the Minister of Justice but the Prime Minister thought it appropriate to wade in to criticize the verdict and imply that they want to do something to change the jury system in Canada.
