Bryant Charged IV

Cueball wrote:

pookie wrote:

As I said before, there are (at least) two different ways to commit manslaughter (one of them being through criminal negligence) because things are added to the Code over time (like criminal negligence in 1955) and Parliament rarely bothers to amend previous sections to reflect that.  It is an additive process.

Yeah, and I agreed all along. You are the one who is putting it about that I was saying that "intent" was fundamental to a manslaughter charge. I never did. What I said is that a "reduced murder" is a manslaughter charge that includes "intent", usually the immediate intent to cause the act that harms the victim when there are mitigating factors, such as that the victim was engaged in an altercation with the accused, and the accused unecessary force, was angered and so on and so forth.

Sorry - I did not see you agreeing with anything.  Instead you have been repeatedly confusing criminal law terms and concepts, because you initially suggested that the Crown is going easy on Bryant by laying a charge of criminal negligence causing death instead of manslaughter.   

There is no crime of "reduced murder".  What you describing is not a "manslaughter charge".  The situation captured by s.232 (the first section of the Code you seized upon in your search) is a case where the Crown can prove all of the elements of murder, INCLUDING intent to kill, BUT if there is EVIDENCE that the accused was "provoked", the result can be a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder.  Section 232 does NOT mean that there is a species of manslaughter that includes intent.  It means that in some cases a person who would otherwise be a murderer is allowed to plead provocation and get off with the lesser conviction.  

Cueball wrote:

In any case, even if a "criminal negligence" charge is also a "manslaughter" charge they are indeed two different crimes. Both can carry the same sentence, however, "criminal negligence" is not viewed by the courts as a charge that is as serious as a reduced "murder charge".

Source?  Stats? Before the Cons stepped in and changed the law, manslaughter convictions in some cases were being served as conditional sentences!  NO evidence that the courts approach manslaughter differentlty from criminal negligence causing death.

Cueball wrote:

It can be applied at the same level as a true "manslaughter" charge, but it is not, largely because the charge itself already has its excuse built into it: It was not deliberate.

"Excuse" has a specific meaning in criminal law. There is no "excuse" built into the offence of criminal negligence.  It works like all offences: it defines a specific behaviour+result as a crime.  That is all.

Cueball wrote:

I think if you look at the sentencing for those who are charged with manslaughter in the form of a "reduced murder" charge, ancilliary to "murder" and manslaughter charges that are based in "criminal negligence" you will see there is a vast difference in how they are treated in sentencing.

This is nothing but rank speculation.

Cueball wrote:

"Criminal negligence" is a manslaughter charge, to a lesser degree than a manslaughter charge.

There are no "degrees" of manslaughter.  In sentencing, the judge takes into account elements specific to the accused, APART from the fact of conviction.  An accused convicted of criminal negligence causing death could well receive a harsher sentence than an accused convicted of manslaughter where there is no negligence (for example, a single punch that results in death because the victim has the proverbial "thin skull").

bryant did not turn off his car or not press the gas pedal.   given the location, the amount of congestion and construction, which makes it a reduced speed zone with cops standing all around, that would have been the logical thing.

i have yet to bring up anything other than the released facts of the matter i have gleaned from the increasingly biased media, but now Bryant has publicly been outed as putting into play a "reputation management" PR firm by the name of Navigator, who specialise in public figures, i think it is relavent to point out that if Bryant felt threatened in any way, at any time, being the former AG all he would have had to do is get on his cell, or have his wife do so, call 911 and say it's Michalel Bryant and i'm being physically threatened by an angry bike courier.  end of story.  the cops would have been all over that like stink on shit.

there is a puff piece that ran in yesterday's star about Bryant that contains this choice quote from Bryant explaining how good it feels to be out of politics:

"..."When you get out there's this liberation. You don't realize what it's going to feel like until you get out. You can say, `you guys have no idea what ......you're talking about.'" YOU CAN "GIVE THE BIRD TO A NEIGHBOUR WHO'S CUT YOU OFF" something he couldn't do before "because you might want to put a sign in thier lawn."  

(bolding mine)

now, combining what i just read upthread from the link writer posted:

“I loved it from the start. It didn't matter how big you were, you could get in the ring and compete against people your own size. Plus, it's pretty primal. And it also assisted in giving people the wrong impression that they better not mess with me – which, mercifully, was rarely tested.” (Globe and Mail)

hmmm.  since the smearing of Al Sheppard has become a juggernaut, let's start the Navigator-negator up...privileged toronto hipster rich guy (i don't give a shit he's white, so am i) out on the town with his wife in his new (albeit nearly vintage) black convertable Saab on their anniversary.  he's so cool and sweet he doesn't go to any fancy joints, just a cruise around to their favorite downscale haunts.  not bad style in my opinion.  i'd be happy with that date. unfortunately on the way over the Don, some asshole bike courier hits his car. WTF??? what a douchebag!  he just got that car and it's his anniversary!!!!  he gets into it with the courier, who is mighty upset, but fuck it, he's skinny, could probably take him (boxer y'know).  yeah, yeah, your poor bike. now fuck off and leave me alone.  (who on a bike has not had this interaction in toronto?)   WTF???? BUDDY IS CHASING ME ON FOOT????  well i better teach this prick a lesson, ("jawwing" ensues) WTF???? he just touched my car!!!!!! (now i've personally had this used as justification to assault me while talking to more than one driver).   fuck it, i'm outta here!!!!!!

now that is all purely my own conjecture and spin, based on my personal 21 years of commuting by bicycle year round.  happens all the time.   what doesn't usually happen is the asshole in the car drive into me, i have to hang on for dear life and then get killed by street furniture and being run over.

also, most people have been brought up to stop your car immediately after an accident.  he didn't the first time and didn' t the second time. that has already been reported.  i don't see how driving another block after you've run someone over after smashing them into street furniture, then turning the corner and driving another half block into a luxury hotel parking lobby constitutes remaining at the scene.  i just don't.

bryant killed a man with his car.  bryant is a prominent public figure.  bryant has a prominent PR firm working on this for him. the man that was killed now being smeared in the public realm.

I think who Bryant is is as relavent as who Al Sheppard may have been.  that still doesn't escape the fact that Bryant chose to step on the gas of his car that resulted in the death of someone who for all intents and purposes at that point was a pedestrian.  he also recklessly endangered his pasenger, and the public around him.  and he left the scene.

he's a killer, and because of who he is he will get off.  i am sick to my stomach.

Amazing post farnival.

Farnival's pretty much nailed it I'd say..

and the puke factor ratchets up another notch:

The defence of Michael Bryant - Globe and Mail.

"...For instance, if Mr. or Mrs. Bryant suffered any injury, no matter how minor, they must be photographed and documented by a physician. .."

so...will the photos of the giant bloodstain on Bloor, and Al lying there with blood pouring from his mouth and nose like the witness described be offered up for comparison?

holy fuck.   where the hell do we live?

eta:  well said cueball.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

For him to say he is not guilty of any criminal charge with his experience as AG is pretty wild.

He didn't exactly say that, Sean.

[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090902/fatal_colli... said:[/color][/url]

Quote:

"Let me be clear. I am innocent of the very serious accusations made against me."

He left open the possibility that he may not be innocent of some other accusations. He likely did so for the purpose of being able to plea bargain without later being called a "liar" (although he may well deserve to be called some far worse things than liar...).

pookie wrote:

Sorry - I did not see you agreeing with anything.  Instead you have been repeatedly confusing criminal law terms and concepts, because you initially suggested that the Crown is going easy on Bryant by laying a charge of criminal negligence causing death instead of manslaughter.

Thanks for the appology. And they are going easy on him, because the process is that in almost all cases prosecutors and police lay the heaviest charge possible and then work down. In fact, as my criminal lawyer friends who spend all their time crawling around the godawful halls of "justice" in Toronto Ontario (you know, flat foot lawyers who practice criminal law in Ontario courts) , which you seem to be defending, agree that in a normal case they would try for an the more severe charge of "Manslaughter", and plead down to "Criminal Negligence". It is only you, who is using whatever aquired legal knowledge you have at your disposal who is trying to suggest that there is not a qualative difference between the two, on the premise that in theory a judge might choose to treat "criminal negligence" as severly as a second degree murder charge.

pookie wrote:

There are no "degrees" of manslaughter.  In sentencing, the judge takes into account elements specific to the accused, APART from the fact of conviction.  An accused convicted of criminal negligence causing death could well receive a harsher sentence than an accused convicted of manslaughter where there is no negligence (for example, a single punch that results in death because the victim has the proverbial "thin skull").

Not only are there degrees in how sentencing is handled, but one form of Manslaughter requires a different kind of proof than the other. Hence they are different charges. This is a key point, because in fact the issue of wether or not Bryant meant to ram Sheppard into a newspaper box is a relevant feature in the prosecution that would weigh in how the sentence would be adjudicated. In a criminal negligence charge, the issue of wether or not Bryant meant (as in intended) to dislodge Bryant from his car by running him into objects at 90 Kmh is not even relevant to the charge at all, and thus not a factor in determining sentencing.

In a proper manslaughter charge, all of these factors are weighed in an evidenced, and the degree to which Bryant meant to harm Sheppard (in self-defence or whatever) comes to light at the trial and bears on the sentence he would be given.

Truly a judge could hand down a very hefty sentence upon Bryant for doing what he has done as criminal negligence, but the fact is that the court will not hear evidence that will further impugn his standing before the court, since the issue of wether or not he "meant" to harm Sheppard will not be heard, weather he had motive to do so, and so on and so forth.

Cueball wrote:

pookie wrote:

Sorry - I did not see you agreeing with anything.  Instead you have been repeatedly confusing criminal law terms and concepts, because you initially suggested that the Crown is going easy on Bryant by laying a charge of criminal negligence causing death instead of manslaughter.

Thanks for the appology. And they are going easy on him, because the process is that in almost all cases prosecutors and police lay the heaviest charge possible and then work down. In fact, as my criminal lawyer friends who spend all their time crawling around the godawful halls of "justice" in Toronto Ontario, which you seem to be defending, agree that in a normal case they would try for an the more severe charge of "Manslaughter", and plead down to "Criminal Negligence". It is only you, who is using whatever aquired legal knowledge you have at your disposal who is trying to suggest that there is not a qualative difference between the two, on the premise that in theory a judge might choose to treat "criminal negligence" as severly as a second degree murder charge.

In the quote above, you seem to be using "manslaughter" and "second degree murder" interchangeably.  Do you realize they are different offences?  Do you know what distinguishes them?

Cueball wrote:

pookie wrote:

There are no "degrees" of manslaughter.  In sentencing, the judge takes into account elements specific to the accused, APART from the fact of conviction.  An accused convicted of criminal negligence causing death could well receive a harsher sentence than an accused convicted of manslaughter where there is no negligence (for example, a single punch that results in death because the victim has the proverbial "thin skull").

Not only are there degrees in how sentencing is handled, but one form of Manslaughter requires a different kind of proof than the other.

No - ALL manslaughter requires the same thing:  An act or omission causing death.  The "intent" of the accused with respect to death is irrelevant.  

How about this - the Crown CANNOT lay a charge using s.232 (what you keep referring to as "reduced murder").  Section 232 does not describe a separate offence.  It describes a DEFENCE to a MURDER charge.   

Cueball wrote:

This is a key point, because in fact the issue of wether or not Bryant meant to ram Sheppard into a newspaper box is a relevant feature in the prosecution that would weigh in how the sentence would be adjudicated.

If the Crown can prove that Bryant meant to ram Sheppard into a newspaper box we are probably talking about a murder case.  

Cueball wrote:

In a proper manslaughter charge, all of these factors are weighed in an evidenced, and the degree to which Bryant meant to harm Sheppard (in self-defence or whatever) comes to light at the trial and bears on the sentence he would be given.

Source please? 

pookie wrote:

Unionist - see post 100 of last thread. 

Thanks, pookie. You said:

Quote:

The case you cited is from 1967.  The leading case on crimninal negligence is Creighton from 1993. I don't have time go over it, sorry, but it specifically REJECTS either "advertence" or "subjective foresight of consequences" being required for proof of guilt. 

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1993/1993rcs3-3/1993rcs3-3.html

First, I talked about [i]mens rea[/i], not "subjective foresight" - and I fully agree that in many or even most criminal charges, there can be an "objective" test (the "reasonable person" etc.) to determine that there must have been "intent" in the sense of "criminal state of mind" - especially in the case of negligence. It would be silly for an accused to bring evidence to prove, in a case like this one: "well, I admit I was criminally negligent, but I didn't mean to be criminally negligent..."

Second, I never said Bryant had to be shown to intend any particular consequences whatsoever to be found guilty on these charges. I was simply responding to some blanket statement that "in manslaughter, intent is irrelevant". Nonsense, as many have pointed out - what is irrelevant (or rather, not required to show) is intent to kill. But without showing a criminal state of mind, there can be no conviction - even though the proof (as in manslaughter) may well be objective rather than subjective.

Third, [i]R. v. Binus[/i], while older, was a leading case on criminal negligence vs. dangerous driving and questions of [i]mens rea[/i] (at least, so it seems to me, but this ain't my field). I'm mildly curious - perturbed - as to why the court, in an obviously divided Creighton decision, didn't explicitly repudiate Binus - I don't even see where it mentioned Binus, unless I've got the name or spelling wrong. That's weird, isn't it??

Unionist wrote:

pookie wrote:

Unionist - see post 100 of last thread. 

Thanks, pookie. You said:

Quote:

The case you cited is from 1967.  The leading case on crimninal negligence is Creighton from 1993. I don't have time go over it, sorry, but it specifically REJECTS either "advertence" or "subjective foresight of consequences" being required for proof of guilt. 

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1993/1993rcs3-3/1993rcs3-3.html

First, I talked about [i]mens rea[/i], not "subjective foresight" - and I fully agree that in many or even most criminal charges, there can be an "objective" test (the "reasonable person" etc.) to determine that there must have been "intent" in the sense of "criminal state of mind" - especially in the case of negligence. It would be silly for an accused to bring evidence to prove, in a case like this one: "well, I admit I was criminally negligent, but I didn't mean to be criminally negligent..."

Mens rea is essentially subjective; It includes intent, knowledge, recklessness and appreciation of risk, which is sometimes called "subjective foresight." I realize that there are occasionally references to "objective mens rea".  I am simply suggesting that in that case it is more accurate to speak of "fault" than mens rea.  I was sure you made reference to subjective foresight in your previous post, when you cited the Supreme Court.

Unionist wrote:

Second, I never said Bryant had to be shown to intend any particular consequences whatsoever to be found guilty on these charges. I was simply responding to some blanket statement that "in manslaughter, intent is irrelevant".

When such a statement is made in reference to manslaughter, it is generally shorthand for "intent to kill." "Intentionality" with respect to the underlying act is rarely the subject of overt discussion at trial, unless there is evidence to show a lack of voluntariness.

Unionist wrote:

Nonsense, as many have pointed out - what is irrelevant (or rather, not required to show) is intent to kill. But without showing a criminal state of mind (and in a crime of this nature, the "objective" test may not be good enough - that's how I read Creighton...), there can be no conviction.

No - the Supreme Court clearly states in Creighton that all that is needed for guilt in criminal negligence is CONDUCT showing wanton or reckless disregard. Put it this way: Creighton was a constitutional challenge to a purely objective approach to "mens rea" in the case of criminally negligent homicide.  The Court decided that was ok, and upheld the law. They did not "read down" the law to make its approach less objective. Three of seven judges thought there should be allowance made for the accused's particular circumstances in determining when his or her conduct fell short of that standard, but they lost on that point.

Unionist wrote:

Third, [i]R. v. Binus[/i], while older, was a leading case on criminal negligence vs. dangerous driving and questions of [i]mens rea[/i] (at least, so it seems to me, but this ain't my field). I'm mildly curious - perturbed - as to why the court, in an obviously divided Creighton decision, didn't explicitly repudiate Binus - I don't even see where it mentioned Binus, unless I've got the name or spelling wrong. That's weird, isn't it??

Not really, because there were numerous intervening cases dealing with criminal neglience before Creighton but after Binus.   

Cueball]</p> <p> </p> <p>[quote wrote:

(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

All this means is that if you mean to kill person A and kill person B by accident, you are still a murderer.  This section is not part of the offence of manslaughter.  Again, you are using the partial DEFENCE to murder in s.232 as though it constitutes a separate offence.  Section 232 operates the same as any other defence (self-defence, duress), except that instead of getting completely acquitted, the "provoked" accused is still guillty of SOMETHING and can be punished. 

You have made all kinds of allegations regarding sentencing, including differences for different offences, but have provided zero substantiation.  You are also merrily throwing in self-defence , but you have no idea how self-defence would apply.

So that is the appology? I guess evasion counts as an admission that you completely misconstrued my original point, and all the other strawmen you have been batting around here were merely grounds for displaying a rudimentary knowledge in Latin, and that I did not ever suggest that their were not two sets of laws which are termed manslaughter.

Olly wrote:

Catchfire, just curious, as a cyclist do you bike drunk?

Okay.

Let's all agree Sheppard was drunk and selling heroin to five year olds while he was ridding his bike.

Since when is this a summary execution offence.

It's difficult to imagine this situation happening without Sheppard doing something wrong or inadvisable, or him not choosing a better way of doing things.

But he's dead.

He has paid the price for whatever he did or didn't do on his part.

All this attention on Sheppard servers only to taint the jury pool for Bryants trial-- if it gets that far--  and people who engage in this are helping an aristocrat evade justice.

I am totally disgusted.

Think he will go before a jury? I doubt it. It is far easier to buy 1 guy than 12.

Absolutely. I never denied it though you have asserted again and again that I did. What I did say is that the mode in which the charge is proved is entirely different. And indeed all kinds of evidence and arguement is brought in that is relevant to a murder charge, and this evidence is weighed to establish if the defendant had reasonable grounds to willfully do the things that he did for reasons of self-defence and so on. In the case of Criminal Negligence, self-defence doesn't even apply.

While on the one hand the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant meant to do anything, nor do they have to defend themselves from the accussation that they did. In terms of motive and intent all kinds of things get left out of the picture that might impugn the defendant in terms of sentencing. For example, it might even be shown that the defendant DID NOT have reasonable grounds for doing what he did, and this would most certainly impact on the sentence.

Anyway, all the criminal lawyers I have spoken too think the criminal negligence charge is the lesser charge. For some reason you don't, apparently because you don't think that judges take into account the intentions of the defendant when assessing sentence.

"Negligent" manslaughter is the same as "reduced murder" manslaughter: Hah ha.

Yeah, maybe if the negligent act killed several people or something, but one person? No.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Olly wrote:

Catchfire, just curious, as a cyclist do you bike drunk?

Okay.

Let's all agree Sheppard was drunk and selling heroin to five year olds while he was ridding his bike.

Since when is this a summary execution offence.

It's difficult to imagine this situation happening without Sheppard doing something wrong or inadvisable, or him not choosing a better way of doing things.

But he's dead.

He has paid the price for whatever he did or didn't do on his part.

 

All this attention on Sheppard servers only to taint the jury pool for Bryants trial-- if it gets that far--  and people who engage in this are helping an aristocrat evade justice.

I am totally disgusted.

Disgusted and angry, and I believe we should be.

I'm shocked SHOCKED to see all this vengeful, rightwing, get tough on crime rhetoric that people are expresing here. I thought that we were supposed to move away from having a justice system that's so punistive and instead it should be about getting at the root causes. Surely, all that needs to happen is for Bryant to say he's sorry, promise to take an anger management seminar and then be forgiven.

Who needs all this law and order, "throw him in jail and throw away the key" type rhetoric? What are we? a bunch of Tories???

martin dufresne wrote:

Call me a dreamer, but I foresee luxury cars being vandalized with DAS scratched in the paint job.

 

Why wish when you can go out and do it yourself. Don't delegate, I'm sure you can find many luxury cars in Yorkville.

Stockholm wrote:

I'm shocked SHOCKED to see all this vengeful, rightwing, get tough on crime rhetoric that people are expresing here. I thought that we were supposed to move away from having a justice system that's so punistive and instead it should be about getting at the root causes. Surely, all that needs to happen is for Bryant to say he's sorry, promise to take an anger management seminar and then be forgiven.

Who needs all this law and order, "throw him in jail and throw away the key" type rhetoric? What are we? a bunch of Tories???

While you're up there, check around for Peter C. Newman's hat.

I guess you law and order fanatics are determined to get your pound of flesh. Maybe we should push for mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous driving causing death - just to make sure that the Michael Bryants of this world spend them rest of their lives at Millhaven!!

does that mean you recommend having a mandatory minimum for that crime - or are you against all mandatory minimum sentences of any kind?

No it means that no one has argued any such thing regarding this case, but since you brought it up, I thought I would refresh your memory as to the law. Do you have any commentary which is on point, other than wild eyed off-topic and hysterical misrepresentations and personal attacks against no one and everyone?

For example, where did I say that Mr. Bryant was guilty of anything? I simply said that a prima facie case exists for basing the charge in murder.

Hehehe. I love the media. I do hope the cheque is in the mail.

Yes, the driver possibly, may have, we can say very certainly possibly, had a man grabbing hold of the wheel preventing him from turning right, and thus forcing him to go left, around the truck and into opposite lanes, because, you know, stopping just wasn't an option. No sir. Too radical an idea to contemplate.

But may I say in all earnestness, it is wonderful to see the usual suspects of law'n'order (law for us, order for you) rushing to stand by their man. It's so sweet.

Stockholm wrote:

I guess you law and order fanatics are determined to get your pound of flesh. Maybe we should push for mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous driving causing death - just to make sure that the Michael Bryants of this world spend them rest of their lives at Millhaven!!

My initial reaction from the eye witness testimonies of the contruction workers, it sounds to me as if Bryant was having a psychotic episode over the course of 100 metres or so of stunt driving and screaming obscenities at the soon to be deceased Sheppard hanging on for his life. I think if the white Liberaler receives anything less than manslaughter, there will be public outrage.