Bryant charged VII

Evidence??? Who needs evidence?? He's a white male big "L" Liberal lawyer with foppish taste in clothes. He MUST be guilty. Why bother with a trial??

The video shows nothing - at least, not to my eyes. But that doesn't matter. An impression is created that it proves Bryant's guilt. That impression spreads. And people actually start to believe that they've seen something in that video!

In the prevous thread, an impression was created that Bryant said he thought he was being carjacked - when, in fact, Bryant said absolutely nothing.

It's exactly the same (although less well-financed) as the tactics of Bryant's team of message-massagers. The difference is that money talks, and the rich guy's PR troupe will likely be far more successful.

Once people stop paying attention to facts and yield to rumour, prejudice, wishful thinking - anything can happen. I'm one of the idealist few that think the truth is on the side of the oppressed. We don't need to make stuff up in order to win our point.

ETA: Remember the child who said: "The emperor has no clothes?" That's what ran through my mind while watching this video along with the helpful annotations.

Some people were saying that it was obvious Bryant was guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and wondering why the police didn't charge him with that. They also tried to suggest that Sheppard was simply interested in forcing Bryant to remain at the scene (not sure why).

I tried to introduce some reality into this dreamlike discourse about "white rich male Liberals" by actually quoting the Criminal Code on that point and what it requires - not much - just handing over contact information and seeing if help needs to be called - then (I repeat) both parties are free to leave. Then I summarized the above scenario as an example of what may well have happened.

The difference is that I have no interest in defending Bryant, and I have no idea who said what or did what (and the video sheds no light whatsoever on those questions). I just wanted to remind some of my friends here that it was a good idea to go by the facts rather than making things up and filling in blanks based on prejudice.

Don't show him any videos of minority folks in ghettoes being harassed by cops. You never know who he'll decide the guilty parties are.

By the way, buddies like yours, who look at a dark grainy video and recommend capital punishment, then change their mind after you tell them some more facts, aren't allowed on juries (thank God) in our criminal justice system.

Your friend is not the solution. He's the problem.

Are we back to thread 1, where I quoted the Criminal Code (Section 252) for your enlightenment?

Let's try it in lay person's terms:

You bandy around words like "guilty" without a clue as to what the elements of proof are that would be required. Take comfort in the thought that you're not alone.

I do. Its totally obvious he is leaving the scene of the accident. Did he throw Sheppard a card while he was driving by?

I meant guilty of murder. Its totally obvious he is leaving the scene of the accident. Did he throw Sheppard a card while he was driving by?

Look dude, its pretty damn simple: Bryant is already leaving while Sheppard is lying on the ground "threatening" Bryant, in the terms you are discussing.

Unless you are saying he threatened Bryant by pulling front of him with a Bicycle. If being shouted at constitutes a reasonable defence for leaving the scene of an accident, 99% of all drivers could simply drive away from any accident, and you would call that rasonable grounds to leave the scene of an accident.

As we can see, Bryant hits Sheppard knocking him to the ground, Bryant pulls around him and Sheppard leaps on the vehicle as it is leaving. It is all one chain of events begun by Bryant using his car to start the altercation.

He is being silly. He is saying that if you yell at people who hit you with their car they are allowed to drive away. He has removed the word reasonable from the dictionary of law and rendered it meaningless.

Do you need me to quote the Criminal Code again, or will you just scroll up? Let me know.

By the way, tell me the facts of what happened in your case of the guy who hit the kid. Maybe he didn't stop his vehicle after the collision (the way Bryant did)? That would make him guilty right there, unless he could show he didn't know he had hit someone etc.

So believe it or not, every case depends on the actual facts.

There is no law against leaving the scene of an accident, once you've stopped, given your contact information, and offered help if it seems someone is injured.

That's what the law says, anyway.

.

Unionist, I don't understand what you're playing at here.

Common courtesy is to stop, get out of your vehicle, and exchange apologies and information. That clearly did not happen here.

Did Bryant shout over the windshield: "Are you hurt?" and get a "No, I don't think so" in return? Even if he did, not good enough by my standards.

Did he then identify himself in your scenario by shouting "I'm Michael fucking Bryant - so sue me!" before driving off? If so, does it pass muster for you?

Yes I have. I never left it in case you didn't notice.

As if you pull a knife on me stab me with it, and then I retaliate, then you kill me, and it is my retaliation to your attack that you are calling a seperate act, and in fact my retaliation for your initial assault is the starting point of the event. No. This event begins with what looks like an intentional assault with a car: Bryant halts, then jumps forward and strikes Sheppard.

Looks intentional. Or was he so overfull with fallafel balls that he could not keep his foot on the brake?

Of course, dog with bone-like you are still pretending that lying on the ground and saying whatever it is that Sheppard said, while he was watching Bryant flee the "accident" constituted a threat. Newsflash: People yell at each other during car accidents and mere yelling does not constitute a "threat" that allows one to leave. If that were the case, then anyone could leave any accident because their feelings were hurt.

But "saying" something, even in a loud voice does not constitute a threat that is a defence of continuing to drive away from an accident. Even if he said: "you motherfucker, I am going to kill you", there is the issue of Bryants initial assault with the car. And it is not a seperate incident at all. Sheppard saying whatever he said, even if it was "you motherfucker, I am going to kill you" is verbal retaliation for the very real initial assault with the vehicle.

In that case Bryant bears total responsibility for Sheppard death because he was the instigator of the violent altercation by using his car as a weapon.

I am perfectly prepared to hear any defence of that act, but on the face of it murder is where the substantive charge should begin at. But of course since it is "criminal negligence" the assertion is that it was an "accident".

I mean if I start a physical altercation with you using whatever weapons are immediatly at my disposal and that altercation results in your death, that is murder is it not?

He must certainly have known that driving at speed with a passenger outside the vehicle would quite possibly result in grevious bodily harm if not death. I mean he does have a drivers license doesn't he?

As for leaving the scene. He is clearly leaving it after hitting Sheppard, not dialing 911.

No. It looks like he started a fight, using his car, an object known to cause bodily harm on a regular basis, and the fight continued and escalated and eventually someone was killed.

Ok, so I pistol whip someone with a gun. Rather than running away they attack me in retaliation. In the ensuing fight the gun goes off and I kill them.

Thanks, Unionist. I am a very interesting and thoughtful person. As you know. Heh.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner here, unionist.

On the one hand, you claim to want to wait for the 'facts'. On the other hand, you don't want to discuss any of the particulars. On the one hand, you're offended by people's presentations of possible scenarios. On the other, you've presented some 'what ifs' yourself - while claiming not to be invested in them, of course. Like Sargeant Shultz, "You know NUTTINK!"

The thing is, the 'facts' are being compiled and interpreted (or perhaps even fabricated, depending on one's PoV) as we speak. Who is responsible for deciding which of them count? Who weighs their importance?

And is no one allowed to second-guess this authority, unionist?

I would never have imagined you to be so deferential to the powers-that-be.

I don't want to discuss rumours and gossip. That's what passes here for "particulars". I don't want to call Bryant (for example) a "blatant liar" when he hasn't made any statement. I don't want to discuss what Sheppard said to Bryant or what Abramovich said to the falafel vendor. It's all National Inquirer stuff.

Of course I present "what ifs". Nothing wrong with that. Others are presenting "this is what happened". You don't see a difference?

I always admired him more than the know-it-alls.

How about being specific. Do you want some "general" response? Let me be specific. This video everyone is talking about. Did you look at it? Does it answer a single one of the substantive questions that have been raised here? Please show me. I'm willing to learn.

Sure. The police decided not to charge Bryant with Sec. 252 (for example). Some babblers have second-guessed that. Turns out they didn't (and still don't) have a clue what the elements of proof are that Section 252 requires. Bryant may well be guilty of murder. Or negligence. Or nothing. I don't know why the cops charged him with anything at all. You see, they haven't explained yet. If and when they do, we may be in even a better position to second-guess them.

Using feeble arguments to second-guess the powers-that-be is for losers. I'm in the union movement. We don't go around spewing easily refutable nonsense based on half-understood rumours. That would be our death knell.

For example, we don't hand out signs on our picket lines saying that the boss is a White Male Liberal rich swine - unless there's an issue of racism or misogyny or the like. But look at the shameful posts in these threads judging someone in a road incident based on these qualities. It's for losers, and it makes a mockery of how progressive people should talk to the world and view the world. It's a caricature.

No breathlyzer test? Whatthefuckisthat?

Oh yeah, terms of bail not immediatly announced? All together sounds like privilege to me.

That is not an example, for actual compare, it is a strawman.

Bryant is NOT a boss. This is NOT a picket line.

Funny, I look at your posts and feel they are shameful. Plus a whole whack of other things too.

Facts:

We know white male supremacy runs the world.

We know that the more power you have as a white male, the more "supreme" you are perceived to be, by the powers that be.

We know the justice system does not treat people equally before the law.

We have alredy seen Bryant's unequal treatment before the law and how he has been treated differently than the majority would be, in a preferential way.

We know that he hired a PR firm to spin events in his favour and that the msm media is playing their/his song.

We now know that he pushed Al Sheppard, with his car, thereby starting the whole incident, which resulted in a man being killed.

We know that the police did not start off with the highest incidence of charges that anyone else, other than a prominent rich white male, would've received.

We know the PR firm, has tried to dirty the waters, and has maligned Al Sheppard over things that did not have to do with his deahth. And that this is a proxy action of Bryant's

Denying any of this is for losers and makes a mockery of progressive perspectives. It makes a mockery of the principle of not having to debate things here from original progressive principles.

Bryant's a well connected Liberal Party fat-cat who murdered a Metis Canadian using Bryant's expensive imported phallic symbol of a sports car as a several thousand pound weapon of destruction, and probably for him a psychological extension for his small pee-pee. 

Bryant the fat-cat will likely receive a slap on the wrists by an old white boys club that's been running the show for far too long in this corner of the Northern Puerto Rico. Mark my words.

Huh? No where did I say that him being white and male and rich made him guilty of anything. It's not that I don't think that privilege does as privilege wills, and there is a tendency for people who have not suffered on the other side of the line to take for granted that they have teflon status, in some regards. I have seen this teflon in action in my own life working in my favour. It's a fact. It's there. I have privilege, just by being white and male in this society. Sometimes its so ineffable, you don't even notice. But it is there.

But I don't remember saying that Bryant should be treated differently under the law because he is a white male of the privileged classess. In fact I have been arguing all along that that Bryant should NOT be treated differently under the law because he is a white male of the privileged classess.

If I ask myself what the likely consequences would have been if we reverse the two men's roles, with Shepperd killing Bryant with his car, it is likely the master narrative would be quite different. As previously stated, I contend that the legal process is a stacked deck and a fixed game which has and will continue to favour Bryant. If that's "identity politics" then so be it. I believe Shepperd's death was not "negligence", it was murder. Bryant's powerful position ensures that won't be the issue before the courts he so recently ran.

Well he is being treated differently. And that is obvious to me.

What you have been arguing is that I think that Bryant is guilty of murder. I never said he was. I said, he should be charged with that, just like most people would be, and then he can work his way down from there. I also argued that a trial on the basis would bring to light different "facts", since such a charge is substantiated differently than a negligence charge, and probably he would be sentenced differently therefore.

I also think, based on what I see in that tape that Bryant very likely instigated a series of violent events using a car as a weapon, and that in that case it appears that charging him with murder would be a viable and likely course of action in a similar case if it were me.

I think your issue is that you are conflating the issue of Bryants privilege being discussed in the manner of his treatment, and Bryant's privilege being causual to his behaviour. The first is an overt fact, the second harder to pin down and more a matter of psychology than law. The first time I mentioned such notions was in the post you are responding too.

I have never made a statement saying that I thought the fact that because Bryant is rich and white and male that he killed Sheppard. Such things, if they are relevant are more systemic and conditional rather than specific to the case, and I have no proof otherwise.

I think you are also conflating my assertion based on the evidence that I have seen that he could and probably should be charged with murder, with my saying that I think beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder. I never said he was guilty of that charge. I am absolutely certain in my mind based on what I have seen that he is guilty of criminal negligence, at the very least.

I don't in fact really care at all if he is found guilty of anything. I don't think I will every meet him. I don't care if he ends up in jail, and I doubt if he will do anything like it again. What is really bothering me is the process of the investigation and the prosecution.

Why are you folks trying so hard to disagree with me? I told you before, you don't need an adversary to make a good argument. I agree with you. You can't force me to disagree if I don't want to!!

And I'm not conflating Bryant's privilege with whether he done it or not - you are!!! Stop it!

All right, I'll tell you what I really think. This road incident is one small, daily, infuriating manifestation of our chaotic and selfish and unregulated and uncivilized and cold-blooded society. Such things happen every day, every hour, in every sphere of life - including on babble. Luckily, they don't always result in death. But to look for good guys and bad guys in all these incidents is really, really, I think, really, to miss the point totally.

Those comments weren't about you, Cueball.

Read the rest of the threads and posts for chrissakes. Your only problem so far is playing loose and easy (like when you said, "didn't Bryant say it was carjacking?", or when you went on and on about "leaving the scene" without stopping to read the law).

Anyway, read what I wrote in my last post. That's my opinion. I find it disturbing that people get so worked up over this one road incident. What the hell is so special about it, compared to all the other crap that happens every single day? Well, if you don't know the answer to that by now, re-read all these threads yet again.

If the roles were reversed, as Cueball says, Sheppard would have been charged, at the very least, with murder, and then he would have had to plead down. This is not rocket science. We already know that because Bryant is well off, a know politician, a man with incredible pull in legal circles etc. that he has full advantage over almost anyone else in this situation.

No one can be equal before the law when they come to it unequal.Sheppard comes before it unequal. Already he is the one being tried by the media. His entire background is public knowledge. He is the dead one here. He has no voice, and here we are, on a progressive board, pretending this isn't the case (well some of us any ways). Bryant has Navigator and the media as his lap dogs. What does Sheppard have? Nothing. He is dead.

Bryant, had he been another man in the same situation, with less money, less of a reputation, no pull in the legal system, would clearly NOT be treated the same. Full stop. It really is that simple.

"The video shows nothing - at least, not to my eyes. But that doesn't matter. An impression is created that it proves Bryant's guilt. That impression spreads. And people actually start to believe that they've seen something in that video!"

You are seriously saying you see nothing? You don't see the car move forward and the admittedly grainy and shadowy figure of a cyclist is stationary? Later you don't see the car reverse revealing the figure of a person on the ground beside a bicycle and the car then attempting to drive around? Also at what point is the vehicle stationary long enough for there to be any significant exchange of information or offer of assistance to be made as per your scenario.

You keep speaking of facts but where do you exactly expect these facts to come from. Eye witness accounts can vary wildly (as countless research has demonstrated). Witness accounts are not facts they are perceptions that are culturally mediated. If someone believes cyclists are reckless, irresponsible and prone to violence they are more likely to see Sheppard attacking Bryant someone else might see something else as other witnesses have already reported. Witness accounts are also always challenged in court, Bryants PR firm is already doing its work in creating an alternate or more than one alternate narratives that can be used to witness accounts. I'm not quite sure where you expect facts to come from when you seem in doubt of your own senses.