Jump to navigation
I think they both got special treatment - Levesque didn't even get a speeding ticket let alone a breathalyzer test and a charge of drunken or reckless driving.
My only point was the person who thought that somehow things were different in 1977 was obviously wrong. I don't know if the judicial system has changed but at the very least there is more media scrutiny and exposure now due to the 24 hour news cycle. Bryant had to quit his job. Levesque's political career was completely unaffected.
Levesque was premier of the province at a time when drinking and driving was somewhat tolerated by the law and society. He was the biggest wheel in that province at the time.
The Levesque incident almost sounds like it was accidental as opposed to Bryant's stunt driving and deliberate murder of Sheppard. Bryant wasn't accused of flunking a breathalyzer or failing to observe the road for sleeping drunks - his victim was right there beside him and screaming for his life. A sober and relatively sound of mind Bryant only ceased his dangerous stunt driving after slamming Sheppard into a mailbox at high speed. And there was video and eye witnesses to it all. There is no justice.
You entitled to your conspiracy theories if they make it easier for you to get up in the morning. I'm more interested in the facts.
What are the facts then, if you are so interested in them? Are you interested enough to actually find out what they are? If so, please enlighten us.
The only facts we have that were presented by Peck were that D'Arcy had previous incidents of fighting and threatening, which Bryant could not possibly of known about at the time of the incident, so they could not possibly have been a factor in Bryant's behaviour.
We have the supposed fact of the car stalling twice and lurching. We are forced to presume that there is evidence that there was an actual mechanical problem with the car, and that Bryant did not deliberately knock D'Arcy to the ground. There are unfortunately no actual facts presented about the car's mechanical malfunction, only a claim.
We have the fact of video evidence from security cameras on the scene that showed D'Arcy being knocked to the ground from behind by the car. Then D'Arcy lost his temper and approached the driver. Then the car sped off and D'Arcy clung to the mirror. Those are the only facts we have.
What Peck presented at the conference were so far unsupported claims and a character smear against the victim. D'Arcy's prior incidents, none of which resulted in being charged and convicted, did not cause Bryant's actions that night.
We are refused a trial, and one of the purposes of a trial to sort out what is irrelevant, what is admissible, and what can be supported by evidence. Nothing presented at the press conference and reported in the news falls under those categories.
What evidence we have points to charges being laid and followed up at trial. This is what would have happened if you or I or any other unconnected citizen were in such a predicament. We would then have the opportunity to present the evidence that our cars malfunctioned, that evidence could be examined to show if it was legitimate, and it would go on record. If this actual evidence exists, we only have one man's opinion on it. Opinion, not fact.
Closing for length. Please continue here.