Raw emotions hold sway after verdict

John Gormley’s column (SP, Feb. 16) presented a fair outline of the facts in the Gerald Stanley trial. Following the verdict of the trial a tidal wave of media attention was stirred up by the Boushie family, supporters and social activists. Any statement not following the narrative of a miscarriage of justice was immediately labelled as “racist.” No examination of the facts of the case, no context to the incident on the Stanley farm leading to the death of Colten Boushie, only a raw emotional reaction.

I have followed this case and read the judge’s charge to the jury that clearly laid out the instructions to the jury, the sections of the law that applied to the case and how they should be applied.

There were no witnesses to the confusion surrounding the discharge of the handgun that killed Colten Boushie. The prosecutor had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gerald Stanley deliberately killed Mr. Boushie and the evidence presented did not support that conclusion.

The family did not agree with the verdict but the jury arrived at the verdict without any taint of racism. Truth was the first casualty in this affair as the social activists jumped in, along with our prime minister to add fuel to the fire.

Reconciliation between the First Nations and the rest of the community cannot occur in this environment; we need an open discussion of the problems facing both sides. Gerald Bates, Saskatoon