Murder in the Cove

I found this documentary interesting and very thought provoking. The case upon which it's based reminded me of the murder of Ken McElroy in 1981, in Skidmore, Missouri, but with a difference. Both cases involved men who antagonized and alienated their provincial communities. But while Ken McElroy was a sophisticated and sadistic aggressor who knew how to manipulate the law, Phillip Boudreau was an illiterate criminal who really never seemed to have any means to develop a livelihood beyond thefts of various kinds, but particularly of lobsters in a fishing village (patently unwise). McElroy was shot by unnamed members of his community in the equivalent of an assassination. Boudreau was shot while in his boat, the boat was then rammed (three?) times until he hit the water, still alive, then he was "gaffed," i.e., dragged with a fishing hook to deep water, attached to an anchor, and deep-sixed. The jury convicted for manslaughter, though the actions involved in killing Boudreau seem obviously premeditated, once the assault upon him was intiated. After all, the convicted men could have pulled him into their boat and taken him to a hospital. Mr. Boudreau seems to have been an unproductive and nasty piece of work, though it's apparent in this documentary he was cared for. Murder in the Cove raises the interesting question of why authorities (police or fishery agents) took no action against him despite the fact he stole lobsters year after year and bragged about it (though at one point copies of repeated criminal charges are shown, so he certainly was known to the Canadian police, and had served time in prison from a young age). And while he was evidently a thorn in the community's side, there's no suggestion in the film that he was ever violent, despite that he threatened violence. And in any case, whether he was violent or not, the primary issue the film raises is the right of an individual citizen to make an independent judgement of guilt and deal out the ultimate punishment. The man who instigated and coordinated the attack says to his interrogator: "Someone had to do it." But who appointed him executioner? And is execution really an appropriate punishment for theft, even habitual theft? Why not notify the authorities? Apparently no one ever did. Early in the film someone indicates (I'm paraphrasing) 'we like to handle our own problems.' Ouch.

To be honest I didn't finish the show, it just started to drag on and meander. After they explained the who and why of the murder there didn't seem to be much more to hold your interest. They should have focused more on the town as the most interesting thing instead of slow sentimental interviews with people who speak in an indecipherable english. It's difficult to relate to them. Being Canadian and liking 'newfies' and east coasters I like the idea of this show more than the execution.

It's not horribly done but it's not exactly a well-told tale, either. Middle of the road, nothing else to watch, better than anything on ID, fare. First, this adult that was an age to obviously know better than to behave as he was, finally met the consequences of his actions- the world has a way of meting out punishment and he met his. Incarceration had no effect on his criminality, no deterrent factor, no second thoughts, and he finally crossed someone who'd had just about enough. I do not care that lobster USED TO BE A NICKEL A POUND, or that he had stolen for other people to make money, or that he was trying to survive; he knew exactly what he was doing, exactly what the penalty might be, and chose to continue. People trying to survive steal milk/bread/peanut butter/etc., he was doing this because he felt like he could. There's no survival in this. And with people all around him as what we witness in this case, it's no wonder. He wasn't created by those he stole from- oh no, he was created by the people who still continue to make excuses for him. This isn't about lobsters being stolen, the gentleman that's a journalist is correct. This is about one man deciding to be a thieving, good-for-nothing, despicable human being, stealing others livelihood right in front of their face. I don't care how funny, how sweet, how generous, whatever the excuse, he took food out of the mouths of families trying to make an honest living, and they finally had enough. He was able to get away with it for so long, everyone just became accustomed to being stolen from, because law enforcement had little to no affect. Vigilante justice may be what was handed out, but it is justice just the same. You can only subject a person to so much abuse before they finally stand up and fight back, and I hope Rheal and his loathsome mother can figure this out before he also becomes a statistic and smear on the sidewalk.

He got what he deserved. The cops as usual totally out of touch with the community and their responsibilities. Men and suits telling you originally Justice is never right. What a bunch of Karen's. I'd like to see what they be willing to do if it was their livelihood or family being threatened robbed and decimated. Let's not forget this man have been a thief a liar and in trouble for many years of his life. He often threatened other people around him saying he burned their houses down or murder their loved ones. He stole thousands and thousands of dollars from these other fishermen. When you listen to the people that try to defend his actions and vacuum up they sound like a bunch of morons.