Bryant Charged II

Snert wrote:

If, as you say, Bryant used "increasingly" dangerous methods to try to dislodge Sheppard, that would actually be a point in his favour, yes? I mean, if he tried a less dangerous thing, and Sheppard hung on, and he tried a more dangerous thing, and Sheppard still hung on, I doubt the law would expect Bryant to have continued trying ineffectual methods of getting Sheppard to let go. His actions couldn't have been all that disproportionate if Sheppard wouldn't just let go.

Not when his first, less dangerous action was completely against the law. this is like saying that I am in a shouting match with you, and I decide to punch you to shut you up, but you are still screaming. So I stab you, you keep screaming, and I take out my gun and shoot you. Can I tell the police that: "but officer, I had no choice, he kept shouting at me!" So far no witness or police report has indicated that Bryant was in any physical danger from the cyclist.

sanizadeh wrote:

But unionist, I am sure you agree that if this was a regular person instead of Michael Bryant, he would not have got bail free and the media would not have been focusing on the victim's faults instead of the accused.

I have no clue what kind of bail he got (do you?) - I can't figure out what happened from the snippets that have been quoted.

And given that all the horrendous things we know about Bryant's conduct [b]come from the media[/b], the question of "focus" is still up in the air.

If you want me to agree that in general, the rich and powerful get away with murder, while working people and the poor are treated like dirt by the MSM and the criminal justice system and the police, I will agree - 100%. Just please don't ask me to apply the general rule to a specific case where the facts aren't all in yet.

Sometimes, the butler did it.

sanizadeh wrote:

So far no witness or police report has indicated that Bryant was in any physical danger from the cyclist.

And what has Bryant said? Or Susan Abramovich? Ah, you don't know? Does it matter?

Bryant has just resigned his position @ Invest Toronto.

Unionist wrote:

sanizadeh wrote:

So far no witness or police report has indicated that Bryant was in any physical danger from the cyclist.

And what has Bryant said? Or Susan Abramovich? Ah, you don't know? Does it matter?

No, but I was responding to snert who, based on the same media reports that we have seen, was speculating about the "disproportionate response" issue. It is true that we don't have all the information but when one side is making judgement based on the current infomation, the other side can respond too, don't you agree? Untill both sides cease and desist from judgement pro or against.

He also claims (for the first time I've seen, at any rate) to be "innocent of the very serious accusations made against me". That's an indication that he will either plead not guilty, or cop a plea on less serious accusations...

Quote:

So far no witness or police report has indicated that Bryant was in any physical danger from the cyclist.

Do you find that surprising? I don't. The issue will not be whether a bystander thought Bryant was in danger, it will be whether Bryant reasonably thought he was in danger. And I would expect that when someone grabs onto your car mirror as you try to drive away, it's not unreasonable to think maybe they mean you harm. That, or they saw a smudge on your mirror and they really, really wanted to wipe it off for you.

Snert wrote:

 

Do you find that surprising? I don't. The issue will not be whether a bystander thought Bryant was in danger, it will be whether Bryant reasonably thought he was in danger. And I would expect that when someone grabs onto your car mirror as you try to drive away, it's not unreasonable to think maybe they mean you harm. That, or they saw a smudge on your mirror and they really, really wanted to wipe it off for you.

The fact is that the actions by Sheppard did not escalate. he kept hanging on the mirror, at that speed we can assume it is likely he was holding himself so that he was not thrown into the incoming traffic. Yet the actions by Bryant kept escalating. I am no legal expert, but can I kill an unarmed man when I "feel in danger" even before any physical contact is made? God, I would love it!

Double post.

Quote:

I am no legal expert, but can I kill an unarmed man when I "feel in danger" even before any physical contact is made? God, I would love it!

No, your feeling alone is not sufficient. The fear would need to be reasonable, as determined by a jury or judge, depending on the nature of the trial. I'm no lawyer either, but I would expect both a jury or a judge to regard Sheppard's actions as threatening. If so, they would then decide whether Bryant's response was or was not reasonable under the circumstances.

If Bryant had, say, struck Sheppard and dragged him along, this would be open and shut. But the fact that Sheppard latched onto the mirror certainly makes it look as though he meant to harm Bryant, doesn't it? Or else what reason would he have had to grab onto that mirror as Bryant was driving away? There's no possibility that he could dig in his heels and somehow stop the car, so... what?

Slumberjack wrote:

The initial act of grasping the mirror, to either prevent the other party from withdrawing, or to purposefully decide to continue with the altercation, is in itself an act of violence. A person faced with that situation would most likely be convinced at that point of the individual's intention to escalate into more direct physical violence, because of the irrationality of the action.

Just to be clear: so you are saying if someone grabs my car mirror and not let go (without doing anything else), I am allowed to kill him, right?

If not, then your statement in the above would be irrelevant to this case. because this is what Bryant allegedly did.

Yes. I added that bit. But it is worth repeating, again.

Cueball wrote:

Bail is punishment if you don't have any money, and can't afford a real lawyer to plead your bail hearing. It is very common indeed for people to spend more time in jail in pre-trial, than the time that they are convicted to serve.

... If they are convicted.

[Edited to make more sense after Cueball's edit!]

Quote:

Just to be clear: so you are saying if someone grabs my car mirror and not let go (without doing anything else), I am allowed to kill him, right?

No, you're allowed to attempt to get him to let go. What you do will then be judged as reasonable or not reasonable given the circumstances of the case, and taking into account whether you intended to cause harm or were negligent with regard to causing harm. Certainly you cannot go directly from a minor altercation to saying "I intend to kill this person". The law expects you to defend yourself with reasonable force, and as little as is needed, but it doesn't expect you to sacrifice your own safety for that of your attacker.

You're usually a sensible poster. This seems to have you riled up to the point of ridiculousness.

sanizadeh wrote:

Just to be clear: so you are saying if someone grabs my car mirror and not let go (without doing anything else), I am allowed to kill him, right? If not, then your statement would be irrelevant to this case. because this is what Bryant allegedly did.

That single act itself doesn't justify death. The events taken in context within the overall situation would go towards examining Bryant's mindset at that moment, including his perceived need to brush the attacker off using poles and mailboxes. Whether he had the intent to kill or not has yet to be determined, as is the determination of what constitutes a justifable level of self defence in this case. Accidents that result in death can occur when extreme behaviour induced reactions are bought about through the level of panic that an individual experiences. These factors will appropriately be assessed at trial.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

Just to be clear: so you are saying if someone grabs my car mirror and not let go (without doing anything else), I am allowed to kill him, right?

 

No, you're allowed to attempt to get him to let go. What you do will then be judged as reasonable or not reasonable given the circumstances of the case, and taking into account whether you intended to cause harm or were negligent with regard to causing harm. Certainly you cannot go directly from a minor altercation to saying "I intend to kill this person". The law expects you to defend yourself with reasonable force, and as little as is needed, but it doesn't expect you to sacrifice your own safety for that of your attacker....

so, based on that criteria, the reasonable response in this situation by Bryant would have been to call 911 or have his partner do so, as soon as the backpack was slammed on the car.  the next reasonable thing once his mirror was grabbed and if he percieved that he might be attacked, would be to move out of harm's way. the car was stopped at that point and it is a convertable so this would be quite feasable.  that stretch of bloor st. is a round the clock construction zone. there are police standing around every few blocks.  

it is NOT, in my opinion a reasonable response to step on the gas, swerve into an oncomming lane at high speed trying to dislodge the person you feel threatened by in a very congested and busy stretch of road, and once dislodged run them over and leave the scene. 

those are the simple facts as presented by the police and witnessess, that we have all read in the media.

i agree that if what Allan did prior to the incident is relavent to the subsequent events, then so is what Bryant did. and i would hope that if toxicology tests are done on the cyclist and the results released publicly then the same should happen to Bryant.  alcohol is not only thing that can impair judgement.

i am offended deeply that Bryant has just released a public statement claiming his innocence.  

i am confused as to how a man that has grabbed onto your mirror of your car somehow has access to the footpedeals of said vehicle and was preventing him from stopping the car.  baffling.

Sure, but all of these theories would normally be tested against a the highest possible conceivable charge, which, based on the overview looks like manslaughter (or murder II). I wonder what people would be saying if this was going on in Iran.

I don't think so. Criminal negligence is a form of a manslaughter charge, but it is different that a manslaughter charge with intent, even if such intent is mitigated by other factors.

sanizadeh wrote:

Thanks, but let's recap: According to the media reports so far, a person does as much as banging a bag on a car and holding to a miror, and the driver speeds up, in the wrong direction,  bangs the other person against mailboxes and trees etc until he falls off, and then runs over him and kills him. I call it manslaughter, but you think there could be a justified self-defence issue.

The rabblers can decide which one's argument is more ridiculous.

A lot depends on circumstances we simply don't know yet. Was the cylist drunk? How belligerent was he? Did he threaten Bryant? But one detail that really seems to be ignored is that the cylist didn't simply grab on to the car to get him to stop. According to the Star, "Sheppard chased the car on foot" before grabbing "hold of the vehicle on the driver's side." If true, I suspect Bryant wasn't feeling angry or entitled -- simply scared shitless.

Whazzup? wrote:

According to the Star, "Sheppard chased the car on foot" before grabbing "hold of the vehicle on the driver's side." If true, I suspect Bryant wasn't feeling angry or entitled -- simply scared shitless.

I certainly would be. 

Here are the relevant sections of the criminal code: Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide

Quote:

Murder

229. Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 212.

 

Manslaughter

Murder reduced to manslaughter

232. (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.

Quote:

Criminal negligence

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Definition of "duty"

(2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 202.

Obviously two completely different things.

writer wrote:

Gay panic used to have some traction, too.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

so, based on that criteria, the reasonable response in this situation by Bryant would have been to call 911 or have his partner do so, as soon as the backpack was slammed on the car.

 

Might there have been a similarly responsible response other than slamming the car in the first place?

 

I think it's very telling that you seem to believe that responsible behaviour should have begun with Bryant.

nice strawman.  when faced with someone already slamming something on the hood of your car, you have a choice how to react. some people call 911 and let the police handle it.  some apparently step on the gas and drive at excessive speed into street furniture, run the person over when they are finally dislodged from your car and then leave the scene. you know, like they do in the movies.

Slumberjack, I disagree.