Bryant Charged III

So according to you, Sheppard jumped onto the car in an effort to prevent Bryant from leaving the scene of an accident without giving his contact information and offering help, thereby enforcing Section 252 of the Criminal Code? Kind of a citizen's arrest?

No.

...onto the car?!!! A top-down convertible!  You're down to making up facts and throwing up straw men, are you? Kind of pathetic.

martin dufresne wrote:

...onto the car?!!! A top-down convertible!  You're down to making up facts and throwing up straw men, are you? Kind of pathetic.

 

Sorry, martin, some prepositions are ambiguous in English. When I climbed wearily onto the last bus home last night, I rode inside - not on the roof. If you can think of a clearer substitute for "onto" in this context without adding explanatory clauses, fill your boots. But "making up facts" and "throwing up straw men" and "pathetic" seems like overkill, old friend...

By the way, throwing up straw men can be very hard on the throat. So can making off with facts.

I have not seen any indication that Sheppard was ever on the hood of Bryant's car or inside it but always at its side, grabbing the mirror (and perhaps the steering wheel unless that's just part of Bryant's defence). Did you, Fidel?

One can also throw up smokescreens, Unionist. (But you knew that, didn't you?)

You mean someone looking inside his head?... The important thing is that he did, not whyever.

No I mean were there any witnessess to the original accident... and what did they say... if anything about Bryants confrontation with Sheppard, and Sheppards actions, and words....

martin dufresne wrote:

I have not seen any indication that Sheppard was ever on the hood of Bryant's car or inside it but always at its side, grabbing the mirror (and perhaps the steering wheel unless that's just part of Bryant's defence). Did you, Fidel?

A construction worker named Brazeau said he saw Sheppard almost at the front windshield and close to hanging on to the driver, or something like that. I guess there isnt a whole lot to hang onto with those fancy foreign convertibles. I think Bryant must have had the top down for the full look at me I'm a member of the old line party white boyz club effect

Cueball, what if Bryant [b]was[/b] threatened? What if he [b]was[/b] being attacked or otherwise endangered? That's the only scenario you seem to have omitted. What if stopping the car seemed like the best way to allow the attacker to do damage?

Why do you stop at a certain point and draw conclusions, instead of examining all the hypotheses and ruling some out as more evidence comes in?

Look Unionist. If I am in the woods with someone, and I shoot someone, the question of my intent is the central issue of the investigation, regardless of any threats real or perceived that I may feel. I haven't said that I think necesarily that Bryant acted with intent to kill or harm Sheppard. I am saying that nature of his motives will not be examined in the court since it has already been determined that he is merely negligent. His story that it was an "accidental shooting" omits the possibility of intent, which encompasses murder and manslaughter.

All of these defences you have made: Possible self defence, and so on are part of a defence against the charge of "reduced murder" or manslaughter. That is not the charge. In other words the crown has already accepted the view stated by the defendant that it was an accidental death by apparently accepting the claim of the defendant at face value.

So, none of this "self defence" "threat" "fear" "violation" stuff is relevant at all.

So Bryant lost his mind momentarily for a block or two while intending to murder Sheppard and using his Saab convertible as a weapon.

Well manslaughter is more often associated with the immediate intent to commit an unplanned homocide in the spur of the moment because one is enraged and so on. So, it sounds like a pretty heated situation, and I see no reason why the possibility that Bryant intended to seriously harm or even kill Sheppard in a moment of rage, should not be a subject of this case.

Criminal negligence is a lower form of manslaughter charge where there is no intent. This distinction will certainly weigh heavily when it comes to sentencing.

I am not looking at Sheppard's behaviour - which isn't the issue - but at Bryant's. White males - and esp. the super-rich - act out anger more because they have more leeway to do this in our society. And, as someone has said, their anger is often a mere reflection of offended privilege.

Also:

Unionist wrote: Bryant stopped at the scene of the accident, he and Sheppard spoke...

Do I detect a bit of disingenuousness? Sheppard had to run after Bryant to confront him. According to eyewitness accounts they didn't speak but yell. The notion that Bryant handed him his name and address in that context is what is implausible here.

Those saying manslaughter requires intent are spreading a false statement. If there is intent that is murder.

Some may be confusing the mens rae principle. This requires a guilty mind but this guilt is not simple- if you intended the action that resulted in a death is enough-- it is not necessary -- for manslaughter that you intended the death.In cases of criminal negligence you do not need to intend the result- in many cases you just need to have known or ought to have known it was a possible result of your actions.

I am less inclined than some to want to make determiantions of guilt or innocence on a noticeboard. However, I am curious why he has not been charged with leaving the scene of an accident as well.

Dangerous driving causing death has a high penalty and it makes sense as while it is not an offence with strict liability in some respects it comes close: the mens rae component only requires knowledge that the driving was dangerous and out of the normal standard-- no intent directly to the vicitm is required to convict.The actus reus is the driving itself not the consequences.

Further the offence carries a penalty up to 14 years and prison is mandatory if found guilty. This may be the best and easiest to prove. That said second degree murder carries penalties of 10-25 years. Realistically the penalty in this case is unlikely to approach the maximum so the range offered by dangerous driving causing death may be adequate.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Those saying manslaughter requires intent are spreading a false statement. If there is intent that is murder.

Sorry no. I read the laws today. Your mistake is that you are thinking that I am saying that manslaughter necessarily require intent. I said no such thing.

Criminal negligence charges are also manslaughter charges, but, by definition they exclude the possibility of intent. Certainly if it could be proved that in the heat of the moment Bryant intended to seriously injure or harm Sheppard this issue would have serious implications for sentencing, as in the terms of a "reduced murder charge", which is by definition is also a manslaughter charge, a murder mitigated by such factors as fear, threat, or rage, but include intent.

At this point in time Bryant basically can say it was all a bad mistake and I am sorry, blah blah blah. The possibility that in the heat of the moment he actually did intend to harm Sheppard is excluded from the trial therefore.

In other words, Bryant is not going to do any time whatsoever.

Cueball wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Those saying manslaughter requires intent are spreading a false statement. If there is intent that is murder.

Sorry no. I read the laws today. Your mistake is that you are thinking that I am saying that manslaughter necessarily require intent. I said no such thing.

Criminal negligence charges are also manslaughter charges, but, by definition they exclude the possibility of intent. Certainly if it could be proved that in the heat of the moment Bryant intended to seriously injure or harm Sheppard this issue would have serious implications for sentencing, as in the terms of a "reduced murder charge", which is by definition is also a manslaughter charge, a murder mitigated by such factors as fear, threat, or rage, but include intent.

At this point in time Bryant basically can say it was all a bad mistake and I am sorry, blah blah blah. The possibility that in the heat of the moment he actually did intend to harm Sheppard is excluded from the trial therefore.

In other words, Bryant is not going to do any time whatsoever.

Your post above remains confused or at least very, very unclear. You say not necessarily intent but include intent....

The point remains-- intent to kill is murder one or two-- intent to the action that could kill is manslaughter. Negligence causing death is a form of manslaughter.

You repeatedly keep missing the distinction of what the intent is-- sure you need (except for strict liability offences like speeding etc.) intent to something to be guilty but for murder the distinction is that you intended not any old thing but the final result-- death. With manslaughter you only need to intend the action you did.

I did not just read the law today-- I have some legal knowledge and you are confusing things the way you are describing this. It is always important when speaking of intent to be clear what type of intent you are speaking of. I am sorry if the websites you consulted today did not make that clear. Read up on the distinctions between the murder charges and mens rea and actus reus and you will get a better understanding as to the difference. In many cases where the higher charge is possible so is a lower one but the trier of fact may differ (what you have to prove).

Cueball wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Well manslaughter is more often associated with the immediate intent to commit an unplanned homocide in the spur of the moment because one is enraged and so on. So, it sounds like a pretty heated situation, and I see no reason why the possibility that Bryant intended to seriously harm or even kill Sheppard in a moment of rage, should not be a subject of this case.

Criminal negligence is a lower form of manslaughter charge where there is no intent. This distinction will certainly weigh heavily when it comes to sentencing.

These concepts are not about being associated-- theya re or are not-- the difference between murder first or second degree and manslaughter is intent to kill. This is an absolute difference not one of association. The intent for manslaughter is to the action that caused the death. The intent to murder is to the result. There is a huge distinction here.

The fact that some cases that look like murder become manslaughter are about the ability of the mind to be clear and have such an intent. First degree murder requires among other things the establishment of prior attempt to kill. Second degree is the intent to kill. In this case it would be practically impossible to prove and extremely unlikely in any event that there was intent to kill. However there is a lot of evidence that suggests that there was intent to an action that reasonably could be expected might kill-- this fits well within the rhalm of manslaughter but you still have to prove he intended actions that he knew could result in death. Otherwise the next step down is dangerous driving causing death as I mentionned-- what he was charged with-- and this carries up to 14 years. The test for this does not require any awareness that the person could die-- just that the driving was dangerous-- this may be the easiest to prove and so a logical charge to make.

No. In bold at the bottom:

Quote:

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.

In other words the intent to kill is mitigated by the immediate circumstance, and otherwise would be murder.

You are misreading the definition of murder reduced to manslaughter (which as I said is where the person's intent cannot be proven because of state of mind) with the general definition of manslaughter which is where there was not necessarily an intent to kill.

And you keep missing the central distinction over what was intended which is the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

Intent and "meaning" being one in the same as in: "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"

This "murder" may then be reduced to "manslaughter" on the grounds "the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation."

Criminal negligence is for acts of ommision, and so on and so forth, not "meant" acts where someone deliberately does something to harms someone. Criminal negligence carries its justification and the defence right in it: I didn't "mean" to do it with intent to cause harm because it was an accident.

14 years? 12 months community service. He can hob nob with the United Way crowd and call it a day.

lag

Am I ever glad I didnt vote Liberal,  psychotics that they are.

Well without even knowing what the police are looking at on video right now, you seem to be favouring the interests of the smiling white Liberaler in this incident over those of other guy whose politics we have no idea of in this case. Were you subconsciously aware of that?

I feel very sad for mister Sheppard. What a horrible way to die at the hands of some high striving sociopath who let his psychotic tendencies get the better of him.  

When guilt or innocence is being ascertained, and one begins the process with dogma, facts are reduced to props that are moulded not in the interest of weighing truth, but only to serve toward selfishly reinforcing the ideology instead of being used to fairly arrive at an opinion.  The circumstances which tragically affect the human beings involved become mere tools to that end.  Pathetic.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Culpability and intent are different things. Ever heard of criminal negligence? There are many criminal charges that involve a legal liability that does not require direct intent towards the final result. Certainly murder yes but manslaughter specifically applies when there was no intent. That is a very, very, serious charge.

I guess we're using "intent" differently?

You [b]cannot[/b] be convicted of any Criminal Code offence without the Crown being able to show [i]mens rea[/i] - i.e. a criminal state of mind, besides showing that a criminal act took place. That holds for criminal negligence as much as for manslaughter. That does not mean that the accused had to intend to kill the victim. Manslaughter specificially excludes that intent. But it does mean that the actions involved were "advertent", intentional, etc. - there was a criminal state of mind. While the consequences may have been unintended, the criminal actions themselves were not.

There's an exception for "dangerous driving", a lesser charge than "criminal negligence", where the Supreme Court said in a split decision, [i]R. v. Binus[/i]:

Quote:

The distinction between criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle and dangerous driving is that for the former what must be shown is advertence or subjective foresight as to the consequences of one’s conduct, and that for the latter all that must be shown is inadvertence in the sense of failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances.

But even in the opinion of the majority here, there can be no proven "criminal negligence" without proof of "advertence or subjective foresight as to the consequences of one's conduct".

[url=http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1967/1967rcs0-594/1967rcs0-594.html][co...

Having said that, where is M. Spector or one of our other lawyers when we need them? I'm winging it here...

ETA: Whoops, I see that you dealt with the "mens rea" issue in a later post - I should have read the whole thread before posting this - but if you'd like to respond to the above, please do.

Ummm..people, Sheppard was not a "white male". He was Metis. And if anyone wants to bother reading the Star today they will see that he was treated a hell of a lot differently. In fact, they were hard pressed to find a prosecutor to deal with this issue, for obvious reasons.

This is all about male white class privilege. I'm with Fidel, remind and Tommy on this.

There are issues with finding a prosecutor and a judge for this case because there is so much potential conflict of interest since anyone working in the Ontario justice system worked for Bryant up until recently. There is already talk of having to bring in a judge and prosecutor from another province or even having the trial take place in a different jurisdiction.

There is probably so much sensitivity about NOT wanting to have it seem like the system is favouring Bryant that he will probably get a rougher ride and possibly a stiffer sentence than if he were John Q. Public. In many cases, high profile people actually get harsher punishment because everyone is bending over backwards to show that they aren't being favoured and as a result you have spectacles like Martha Stewart being led away in leg-irons and sent to penitentiary for a crime that most legal experts said would nevber have merited prison if she were not  a famous person.

Yeah sure Stock...he'll be getting aougher ride" because that's how the Justice system works.

Just to offer a different 'spin' on all of this, whatever ever happened to taking responsibilty? And whatever happened to "taking it like a man"?

Bryant quite clearly refused to get out of his Saab to deal with an upset man he'd hit with his car. He drove away - after trading verbal abuse with the man according to some accounts.

When the man chased and caught up with him, Bryant chose to use his car as a lethal weapon, rather than stop the car and get out to face him man-to-man. And this in a neighbourhood where Bryant had every reason to feel secure, where there is a cop every block and a half protecting the rich from the riffraff.

To me, Bryant with his accelerating Saab is no better than some punkass wannabe hoodrat pulling a gun in a bar.