Bryant Charged II

Cueball wrote:

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.

 

 

Section 232(2) describes the defence of provocation, Cueball, NOT the offence of manslaughter.

Try again.

Quote:

nice strawman.  when faced with someone already slamming something on the hood of your car, you have a choice how to react.

Again you seem to think that responsibility should have begun with Bryant.

If a driver cuts you off, or bumps you, or offends you in some way, you don't similarly have a choice of how to react??

I love how the slamming "already" happened in your account of things. Time begins there, eh?

pookie wrote:

Section 232(2) describes the defence of provocation, Cueball, NOT the offence of manslaughter.

Try again.

The difference is that one includes the intent to kill the other is an accidental death through negilience. I submit that if manslaughter and criminal negligence were the same charge, they would not have two seperate entries in the criminal code.

In this case, the assertion has been made by the police that their was no intent.

Slumberjack wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Irrelevant. You would have to prove that the amount of force used was reasonable in the context. Hardly plausible that a person in a car is substantively threatened. Or do you mean that you would be scared shitless that you might get the paint scratched on your car, and have to get a new paint job?

Not irrelevant.  When faced with the obvious and violently irrational behaviour of an attacker, regardless of the level of physical harm up to that point, one could never tell what might come next.

Oh well, then we can just go around killing people because they look threatening I guess. One never might no what could come next.

Snert wrote:

 Again you seem to think that responsibility should have begun with Bryant.

I believe that much of his defence will be taken up with the question of responsibility, and if his frame of mind while being attacked would have allowed for a more responsible reaction commensurate with the threat level.

Cueball wrote:

Absolutely it is relevant.

But you said it wasn't.

Quote:

If you scare me by punching me in the face, that does not mean that I can draw a gun and shoot you in the head

That depends on the circumstances.  If you punched me in the face while threatening to kill me I might reasonably be allowed to harm you, even kill you, if your threat was credible and my response was reasonable.

Quote:

And of course its is silly, as silly as the proposition that someone inside a car is somehow reasonably at risk because of a pedestrian.

No, what's silly is your contention that the only grounds for fear involved a paint job. 

ETA:  On a second reading, I think that might have been a typo and you meant to say "irrelevant."  If that's the case, I would ask how an "irrelevant" factor could be a mitigating circumstance.

I haven't assumed anything.

ETA:  In response to post #112.

G. Pie wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Oh well, then we can just go around killing people because they look threatening I guess. One never might no what could come next.

You're being ridiculous.  "Looking threatening" isn't sufficient.  Being threatening sometimes is. 

Cueball's assertions would have the victim in that proverbial bar brawl mentioned earlier as someone who's only justified response to being whacked relentlessly with a pool stick, would be to shrivel up in a corner while hoping someone would eventually get around to dialing 911.

Cueball wrote:

The difference is that one includes the intent to kill the other is an accidental death through negilience. I submit that if manslaughter and criminal negligence were the same charge, they would not have two seperat entries in the criminal code.

In this case, the assertion has been made by the police that their was no intent.

Nope.  The way that we distinguish manslaughter from MURDER is the lack of intent to kill.

The operative section is this:

234. Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter.

Criminal negligence was added to the Code in 1955, to describe a new category of fault.  If you kill someone because of your negligence you are guilty of manslaughter; you have commited a culpable homicide that is neither murder nor infanticide.  That's all that manslaughter means.  

The point is that we have murder with intent and planning -- in some countries called murder one or first degree, murder with intent no planning which which in some places is called murder two or second degree and then there is manslaughter where through your actions you have caused a death but did not ntend it. A lack of capacity due to passion is considered a lack of intent so some cacses where the person may have done it on purpose may be manslaughter if the passion clouded their judgement.

Self defence that is not reasonable can be either second degree murder or manslaughter depending on those terms. If reasonable then it is justifiable homicide.

The issue of reasonable is not tested against those in an armchair with all the facts. In fact the action is not what is tested as reasonable-- it is what would a reasonable person due in those circumstances. In other words if a mistake is made resulting in an unreasonable action but a reasonable person could make that mistake then the action may be deemed reasonable-- or in other words it is the context in whch the action is considered and fear not correctness. There is no measurement of whether death is a justifiable punishment as some have suggested-- death is not a justifiable punishment for anything in Canada and the state, even, can not mete out that punishment.

The protection of the self or the passenger will be measured against the danger of the action. One question will be-- could Bryant and his wife have left the vehicle safely rather than drive it dangerously-- protecting your car is not the same as protecting yourself and drive dangerously is hardly protecting your car.

It is hard to know at least so far how much was anger and how much was fear yet which is why I have not decided what I think Bryant is guilty of. It does look like he at least showed poor judgement that was so dangerous it caused a death-- at worst this could have come from a flash of anger without fear being the deciding factor.

His penalty must come ultimately from a judgement of first was it a reasonable action to do what he did based on self defence-- does not look like this is the case but that is the first question. Then if it was not, was the error driven by fear and how serious is that misjudgement-- this could lead to a manslaughter charge. If the error were driven by anger or rage then there starts to become a possibility, although unlikely, that a first degree murder charge could be relevant. If it was driven by rage or anger and he was not incapacitated by that rage then there could be an intent to kill. Given the lack of a motive for murder, beyond a flash of rage, the manslaughter charge is more likely.

Apart from all of this, we have to consider why our society is so violent that anger can lead to violence so often. That we are talking in gender terms is a good question since it is mostly men although not exclusively men who flip out and cause such violence. That we have a society where so many men cannot manage having less than absolute power, that this leads some to rage and violence -- both could have been at play in this case. The crucial questions that will lead to a determination of guilt and on what charge have not been completely answered. The way I have framed this makes most of the victim's circumstance less relevant like if he was drunk or sober. It is more Bryant's perceptions, judgements and actions that are relevant. We should not be swayed by the media interest in the bike courier's previous evening- the witnesses of what he did and what Bryant saw are the only relevant factors coming from the cyclist.

Another issue that further complicates things is this-- if Bryant feared for his safety when he was driving with the cyclist on his car, we then have to consider Bryant's actions in escalating things to that degree. If at the moment of the altercation Bryant did not escalate things dangerously then his fear could get him off but that fear, even if it is the real motivator for his later action, is not as relevant if the circumstances were the result of his own previous aggression. Again more facts are required.

Anyway I say all this to show that this is much more complicated as you drill down into it and people should hold off on the anger of other's interpretations for a bit.

pookie wrote:

Cueball wrote:

The difference is that one includes the intent to kill the other is an accidental death through negilience. I submit that if manslaughter and criminal negligence were the same charge, they would not have two seperat entries in the criminal code.

In this case, the assertion has been made by the police that their was no intent.

 

Nope.  The way that we distinguish manslaughter from MURDER is the lack of intent to kill.

 

 

The operative section is this:

234. Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter.

 

Criminal negligence was added to the Code in 1955, to describe a new category of fault.  If you kill someone because of your negligence you are guilty of manslaughter; you have commited a culpable homicide that is neither murder nor infanticide.  That's all that manslaughter means.  

Nope. We are talking about the difference between "reduced murder", which is murder with justification, such as rage (husband kills wife because she found him with someone else) and negligence causing death (husband kills wife accidentally while wielding a chain saw).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The point is that we have murder with intent and planning -- in some countries called murder one or first degree, murder with intent no planning which which in some places is called murder two or second degree and then there is manslaughter where through your actions you have caused a death but did not ntend it. A lack of capacity due to passion is considered a lack of intent so some cacses where the person may have done it on purpose may be manslaughter if the passion clouded their judgement.

Exactly.

Obviously the second is more applicable than the first or the third. The idea that the former AG does not have to prove that he did not intend to kill the victim by ramming him into objects is appauling.

Cueball wrote:

My point is that if someone threatens you, say tell you to fuck off in a threatening manner, does not in an of itself warrant shooting them.

And why is it necessary to make such a point when nobody here has ever claimed otherwise?

Lively conversation!  Time to start a new thread, though.

I have no interest getting inside of Bryant's head.

My comment is more about the rationalizations I see here, with unionist's very solid point acknowledged.

I don't pretend to have the full story.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

nice strawman.  when faced with someone already slamming something on the hood of your car, you have a choice how to react.

 

Again you seem to think that responsibility should have begun with Bryant.

 

If a driver cuts you off, or bumps you, or offends you in some way, you don't similarly have a choice of how to react??

 

I love how the slamming "already" happened in your account of things. Time begins there, eh?

well, bryant could have certainly stopped timeline from escalating by acting calmly and sensibly.  we already know there was a previous accident involving his car and the cyclist.  we already know the cyclist chased him down to the next light.  if you want to talk about where time begins, how about him stopping and resolving the situation in the first place instead of taking off?   

I was talking about what is a reasonable response.  the reasonable response to someone hitting you on your bike and then fleeing the scene would be to chase them down at the next light if you can and speak with them, or failing that get their licence plate and make of car and call the police.  the cyclist apparently didn't do that and neither did Bryant as far as we know right now.  the reasonable thing to do after hitting someone on their bike is to remain at the scene and sort it out, not drive off.

it could be considered entirely reasonable to be agitated and upset that someone that just hit you on your bike and then drove off.  a discussion then ensued, which we don't know the content of, and the cyclist slammed his backpack down on the car and grabbed the mirror.  that's the timeline so far that didn't involve anyone dying or endangering anything other than the vehicle.  at that point Bryant stepped on the gas and took off in an oncoming lane of a busy street trying to knock the guy off.  that is not in dispute.  he then ran him over and left the scene.  that is not in dispute either.  Bryant by his actions made a bad situation horribly worse, not only endangering and subsequently taking the life of the cyclist, but putting his passenger and the public at severe risk of injury or death.

i see no reasonable excuse for his actions and even less for issuing a public statement proclaiming his innocence.  sickening.

One account has it that the cyclist had to relearn how to walk after an accident with a car about a year ago.

If we want to talk about being scared shitless, let's imagine that for a moment.