continued from here
Bryant charged VI
Sat, 2009-09-05 09:57
#1
remind
Bryant charged VI
Sat, 2009-09-05 10:01
#2
remind
Spinning the first week of Michael Bryant's new lifehttp://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/691400
From the article:
'It's a reasonable bet you, too, Toronto Star readers, have an opinion. But is it, you might ask, your own? Definitely not, says a veteran Toronto criminal lawyer, loath to have his name published. "Look, the headline on this story should be: `Navigator, changing your perceptions without you even knowing it.'"
He refers, of course, to Navigator Limited, the smooth public relations firm hired by Bryant (when exactly is unclear) to massage the message. He's said to be close to Navigator chair Jaime Watt, touted for knowing everybody in Canadian power circles. Senior partner Robin Sears most recently was spokesperson for Brian Mulroney during the parliamentary investigation into his dealings with deported German arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber.
Navigator isn't shy on its website:uilt on. "Clients have praised us for our ability to take an issue that has been looked at, sometimes for years, and radically shift perspective to reveal new insights. These fresh insights are what our strategies are b"
Experienced legal and political hands see Navigator's fingerprints all over public opinion. Shortly after a noon strategy meeting yesterday that apparently drew together Navigator staffers and Bryant's criminal defence lawyer, highly regarded Marie Henein, Sears acknowledged a reporter's remark that things seemed to be going well for them."
Meanwhile a guy hits a kid on a bike in BC, yesterday, and he is remaining in jail.
Sat, 2009-09-05 10:20
#3
That was an excellent article. I love the line right after where you cut off the quote, remind:
Experienced legal and political hands see Navigator's fingerprints all over public opinion. Shortly after a noon strategy meeting yesterday that apparently drew together Navigator staffers and Bryant's criminal defence lawyer, highly regarded Marie Henein, Sears acknowledged a reporter's remark that things seemed to be going well for them.
"I'm glad you agree," he said. "We're working hard to ensure that it does. A big part of that is us staying out of the story."
Whoopsie, guess you're part of the story now! Thanks, Linda Diebel. :)
Sat, 2009-09-05 11:02
#4
There is a great play in this: War room at Navigator. Top staff manning telephones. Staffers hitting away awith FAXes and keyboarding at blogs, forums and major dailies' comments sections. Hero realizes that their client's victim is his estranged son who had changed his name. Tries not to divulge that as his job and coke habit are on the line, but tries to steer the group away from a smear job, all the while dealing with repressed anger...
Sat, 2009-09-05 11:11
#5
From the article: "Michael will get through this," he says. "He has so much to contribute.(...)"
And there is a long line of people eager to get some of it.
Sat, 2009-09-05 12:41
#6
What impresses me is the way that every negative facet of Mr. Sheppard’s life has been brought to light in less than 48 hours since his death. He’s been portrayed variously as a drunk, transient junkie with a string of kids by different mothers, a brother in jail and 61 outstanding warrants for his arrest. I’m sure all of this is true–there’s probably no need to fictionalize anything.I’m amazed at the speed with which this information has been disseminated to the general public. I can recall no other time when the personal life of a victim of an accident, homicide or any other tragedy has been so microscopically exposed so quickly.
To put it in perspective, on August 8th a 56 year-old female pedestrian was struck by a cyclist and later died of her injuries. Try googling the accident today, less than a month later, and the best you’ll come up with is a Toronto Sun cover shot saying “Bike Victim Had Big Heart”. That’s about it.
So what makes Mr. Sheppard fair game for the type of scrutiny being applied? Could it be that the political spin machine is doing its best to control the damage done to Mr. Bryant, by Mr. Bryant? Could it be that at trial he will be found innocent because this very bad man who ended up dead made Mr. Bryant fear for his life and act irrationally?
http://skewedview.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/a-dead-cyclist-and-a-dose-of-...
Sat, 2009-09-05 15:35
#7
We had a gnome in here earlier snarking about Hammurabbi.
Standing in the community arleady formally appears in the justice system. After conviction the defence stands up and says, My client has lost reputation in the community and therefor should have the sentence reduced.
That should stop. It should flip. Prosecution should be arguing for increased sentences based high reputaion.
This is all besides the influence status has on the conduct of the trial, and the rest of the justice system.
We will know this has been flipped when people start dressing down to go to court.
I won't be holding my breath.
Sat, 2009-09-05 15:44
#8
In other words Svend Robinson should have had a long jail term?
Sat, 2009-09-05 15:44
#9
Prosecution should be arguing for increased sentences based high reputation.
Interesting idea. I can't really agree, though; that's just switching one kind of injustice for another, and it presents with some pretty sticky logistical problems. For one thing, how do you quantify a person's reputation or status?
Sat, 2009-09-05 15:55
#10
Stockholm, was Svend's disposition changed because of his standing? Did his lawyer argue that it should be changed because of his standing, as opposed to acknowledgement, attempted prior restitution, mental health issues, and all the other things in that case? To the extent standing worked in his favour, it should not have.
Frankly, I think he got whacked worse because he was an NDP politician, so it's not really a good case to argue the point you are trying to make.
Sineed: How do judges currently do it? The principle is: those with power and standing have a greater responsibility. How is that unjust?
Sat, 2009-09-05 16:02
#11
The principle of our justice system is not supposed to about retribution. Its supposed to be about rehabilitation and protection of society. Do you think that If Bryant doesn't go to jail, he is likely to kill more cyclists?
I don't think Svend was treated any worse for being an NDP politician. The consensus at the time was that he was treated quite fairly and that his punishment was consistent with what anyone else would have had for that crime. So it should be. But you seem to be arguing that he should pay a greater penalty than the average person because he's a public figure (of course by definition a public figure charged with a crime is automaticaly paying a higher price because their case will invariably attract about a thousand times more publicity leading to a thousand time more public humiliation than if it happened to John Q. Public)
Sat, 2009-09-05 16:26
#12
Oh Robin Sears and his ilk were behind this. I guess this kind of work keeps many kittens from untimely ends in bathtubs, and the wings on many flies.
It just goes to show that you don't need to actually see the red queen being palmed, or the bar behind the reclining levitating beauty to know that what you're seeing is a trick and not bad luck or the laws of physics suspended.
I think the heavy handed and cowardly Navigator campaign, as I have said before, has been too clever by half. Most people have sensed this and if anything, it's created a backlash of it's own.
Navagator, and it's lovely assistant, the media, are like bad magicians.
They allowed too many in the audience a peek behind the curtain.
Sat, 2009-09-05 16:53
#13
Stockholm, at his most contrarian: Do you think that If Bryant doesn't go to jail, he is likely to kill more cyclists?
Why dispel that possibility? If not him, other motorists, who will have seen that it's easy for drivers not to be held accountable fr the death of a mere cyclist. Stockholm is conveniently forgetting the importance of dissuasion by example in his thumbnail sketch of justice objectives (that do include some measure of retribution, contrary to his claim).
Sat, 2009-09-05 16:58
#14
That's precisely the argument that all the "get tough on crime" rednecks that you hate so much always give when they bring in mandatory minimum sentences and want to ban early release and parole etc....You really don;t see how hypocritical you are being about this case do you?
Sat, 2009-09-05 17:12
#15
Cyclying wasn't the cause of his death. There was an altercation from all accounts following a minor accident. Instead of obtaining the licence plate of the individual driving the vehicle and reporting it, he decided to escalate the situation by chasing down on foot and attacking two people in their vehicle. What began and could have remained as a minor road rage incident similar to so many other situations seemed to change into what can only be imagined at this point as an attack by a potential whacked out individual whose intent could only be guessed at. The level of force used to repel the attacker certainly should be examined through a trial, however at the point which he left his bicycle and chased down the husband and wife in their vehicle, he changed from an innocent cyclist into an enraged attacker. Anyone is within their right to defend themselves against it, using reasonable force up to the point where the attack ceases.
Sat, 2009-09-05 17:14
#16
I think if Bryant doesn't go to jail other people are more likely to kill cyclists. No snark, no hyperbole, I think that would be the result. Not a big increse, but an increase.
Public figure and social standing are not synonimous. Social standing should require greater responsability, not less.
ETA
You really arguing this, or just being contrarian?
Sat, 2009-09-05 17:26
#17
It's really too bad Sheppard wont be buried in Ontario cuz a few people here apparently could get a load off their chests by going to spit on his grave...
Sat, 2009-09-05 17:26
#18
This is absurd. Proponents of the death penalty similarly feel that unless murderers are publicly executed, other people won't be deterred from committing murders. I disagree.
If I'm a driver, do you seriously think for one second that what happens to Bryant is going to be a deterrent one way or the other to whether I at some future date decide to purposely run over a cyclist (or anyone else for that matter). As if I'm going to be sitting in my car and saying to myself "gee, that Michael Bryant killed a cyclist and the only consequences for him were being publicly humilating, having to quit his job, having to surrender his passport and having to spent tens and tens of thousands of dollars of his own money on lawyers and private investigators to save himself from going to jail etc... big deal I can handle all of that - its open season on cyclists!!"
Sat, 2009-09-05 17:41
#19
Let me refine my statement.
There exists currently a subpopulation of drivers that don't think bicycles should be on the road and react aggressively when a bicycle "gets in their way". This sometimes (rarely) leads to the death of a bicyclist. The demonization of Al feeds into their attitude. A jail term for Bryant is likely to be a wakeup call for some of these drivers. The lack of punishment will be reinforcing. The net effect will be a small increase in the risk of death by cyclists.
The implication of intentionality in my original statement was not intended.
Sat, 2009-09-05 17:51
#20
I for one am a cyclist and have not driven a car in 15 years. This isn't about drivers vs. cyclists. Its about two people getting into a fight. It could just as easily been two motorists having a fender bender where one of them went berserk and attacked the other and in the ensuing mele one was killed.
There are plenty of issues around how cyclists, drivers and pedestrians share the roads in any city - but that has nothing to do with a situation where the person who happened to have been on a bicycle may have (note i say "may" because until we see all the videotapes and hear all the testimony all we can rely on is gossip) been on drunk and violent and may have attacked the driver and grabbed his steering wheel. I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any cyclists in Toronto who identify in any way with someone who would do that.
The argument that drivers need to be deterred from purposely murdering cyclists is absurd. You might as well say that its good that Sheppard died because it will deter cyclists from attacking drivers of convertibles and grabbing their steering wheels. Both are absurd.
Sat, 2009-09-05 18:07
#21
About Bryant's lawyer:
Former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant knows his lawyers.So when he selected Marie Henein to defend him against charges of criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death, many outside the legal world were left wondering: "Who?" But Toronto's top criminal lawyers say Ms. Henein is an obvious choice - a "lawyer's lawyer" and a formidable opponent who would be at the top of their lists, were they ever to find themselves facing criminal prosecution.
*snip*
Marie Henein, has tried several major cases over the years,
including:
Marcia Dooley - 2009
Ms. Henein is representing Marcia Dooley in her appeal of a nearly decade-old conviction for the beating death of her seven-year-old stepson, Randal, which the judge at the original trial described as perhaps "the worst case of child abuse in Canadian penal history."
Outcome: Pending
David Frost - 2008
Ms. Henein defended controversial junior hockey coach David Frost, who was accused of sexually exploiting his players by masterminding and taking part in threesomes with them and their young girlfriends.
Outcome: Acquitted
Daniel Weiz - 2003
Ms. Henein defended Daniel Weiz, who was accused of second-degree murder for kicking 15-year-old Dmitri (Matti) Baranovski to death in a Toronto park.
Outcome: Acquitted
Gerald Regan - 2002
Ms. Henein tried to prevent former Nova Scotia premier Gerald Regan from having to face additional charges for inappropriate sexual conduct involving numerous young women who had worked with him over many years.
Outcome: appeal denied, but eventually acquitted
Alfred Holden - 2001
Ms. Henein represented Alfred Holden in his appeal of a conviction in a case where it was alleged that he picked up two girls, aged 13 and 14, at gunpoint, bound and gagged them and raped the younger girl.
Outcome: Acquitted
Bryant's joining some worthy company.
Sat, 2009-09-05 18:21
#22
I'm sure a person's social standing/status shouldn't enter into sentencing. Although, in the real world we know this is soup de jour for our legal system. As I said from the outset, whether I agree with it or not, killing someone with an automobile garners pretty light (by my account) sentences in Ontario, traditionally. And, if it turns out that's what Bryant did, then I'd expect the same kind of sentencing traditions holding for him as for anyone else.
However, a person's knowledge or expertise should enter into things. For example, if someone entirely unfamiliar with welding decided to pick up a welder and tack a broken swing set back together because they've seen someone weld before and decided to try it, and that weld failed and seriously injured a child, it's an unfortunate accident. If I did such a thing, a person that doesn't have a ticket for welding, but knows what a good weld is and isn't, and knows that such a job should have been done by a professional, and a child is seriously injured, then that's criminal negligence.
At least, that's how I see it. Considering how professionals don't get held to any standard in Ontario, doubtless the law sees it different.
Sat, 2009-09-05 18:27
#23
It's really too bad Sheppard wont be buried in Ontario cuz a few people here apparently could get a load off their chests by going to spit on his grave...
I've received complaints about this post, and understandably so. You either calm down and stop with these kind of attacks, or you get a vacation for a couple of days.
Sat, 2009-09-05 18:32
#24
I guess so, Sineed, but I don't know, if I were facing charges, I'd also probably pick the best lawyer I could afford. What's unfair is that everyone doesn't get such good representation, not that such good defence representation exists.
And even when you can afford a legal dream team, they are always outclassed and outspent by the state. The state always has publicly funded investigators working on their side, while the defence does not, unless they're rich like Bryant and can afford to hire their own investigating team, the way he apparently has.
It's a radical point of view, but I think the prosecution should not be allowed to spend more than the defence - and if the way to ensure that happens is to publicly fund defence to the same level as they do prosecution, so be it.
Sat, 2009-09-05 18:35
#25
Public figure and social standing are not synonimous. Social standing should require greater responsability, not less.
You really arguing this, or just being contrarian?
At the time of the incident, the general public, including everyone here were completely oblivious as to the status and standing of the people involved. Ones social standing has nothing to do with the right of an individual to self defence from a threat of unknown intent who may appear to be determined to cause harm by the nature of the agressiveness. If we were discussing a woman of far lesser social standing driving a used vehicle and an elitist out for a ride on his 3K high end bicycle, and simlar circumstances resulted, the same right to self defence would apply, and we most definitely wouldn't have had six threads of denunciations and verdicts hanging over the motorist. If excessive force were used in this alternate scenario, then that would be appropriately determined during a trial as well.
Sat, 2009-09-05 18:43
#26
Here's an even more radical piont of view-- that courts of law should concern themselves with determining the truth of a matter.
As for Ms. Henein, everyone deserves a vigorous deffense, maybe most importantly the kinds of people exampled above.
And, if she's successfull because of her knowledge and abilities in law, well, that's what happens.
But, I would say that record, superficial though it is, is a very impressive track record. Taking what looks like a hopeless case and getting aquittals. Seems outstanding. Like she's a super lawyer. Too good to be true.
And, often things that are too good to be true, turn out just so.
It'd be interesting to know exactly how she does it.
Sat, 2009-09-05 19:57
#27
Technicalities, exploiting people's holes in memories, pointing out miniscule contradictions. The truth is that the truth, the real truth, rarely is revealed in many cases.
As for Stock above, who continues to go on and on about how we're biased against the big rich lawyer man...well Stock, how do you think the courts fare for poor people?
One can never stand equal before the law if they before to the law unequal. Basic. Really.
Sat, 2009-09-05 20:43
#28
remind
Nice lawyer he got himself and Bryant does join "good" company.
Sat, 2009-09-05 21:01
#29
remind
Anyone put up one of these yet?
Sat, 2009-09-05 21:04
#30
Technicalities, exploiting people's holes in memories, pointing out miniscule contradictions. The truth is that the truth, the real truth, rarely is revealed in many cases.
Yes. The law is a blunt instrument at best.
Sat, 2009-09-05 21:25
#31
Exploiting people's holes in memories etc., is valid. Studies show that we put far too much confidence on "eye witness" testimony. As a species, we are bad witnesses.
I'm more concerned with built in, systemic corruption. Discovery, for example, where facts are traded off by both sides. Facts that never make it to court. That's not really condusive to finding the truth. Ask the Guy Paul Morin juries.
If there were less monkey business like this, and a greater effort made to determine the truth of a matter, then there'd be less of an issue over who could afford a real deffense and who couldn't, and we'd have fewer dangerous people at liberty, and fewer innocent people deprived of liberty.
But, mind you, it'd be less profitable for those that matter.
Sun, 2009-09-06 01:23
#32
If I were accused of a crime, I'd hire the best lawyer I could afford. And if that lawyer had successfully defended some awful people, that would in no way imply that I was somehow guilty by association.
Sun, 2009-09-06 06:25
#33
The spirit of '93 has not yet been sated with five, going on six threads? (1793) By golly, I'd want the very best lawyer around these here parts, and a temporary ban on the sale of rope braided from threads. Yessir, by cracky.
Sun, 2009-09-06 08:04
#34
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Anyone put up one of these yet?
Gawd, I hate ghost bikes. And roadside memorials.
They're both stupid yanqui tricks that shouldn't have crossed the border.
Sun, 2009-09-06 09:44
#35
The spirit of '93 has not yet been sated with five, going on six threads?
Apparently not.
I find it rather heartening.
Sun, 2009-09-06 09:47
#36
If I were accused of a crime, I'd hire the best lawyer I could afford.
And you'd get a good one, prof. I think professors can at least buy a lawyers B+ effort, if not A-.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:09
#37
Exploiting people's holes in memories etc., is valid. Studies show that we put far too much confidence on "eye witness" testimony. As a species, we are bad witnesses.
I'm more concerned with built in, systemic corruption. Discovery, for example, where facts are traded off by both sides. Facts that never make it to court. That's not really condusive to finding the truth. Ask the Guy Paul Morin juries.
If there were less monkey business like this, and a greater effort made to determine the truth of a matter, then there'd be less of an issue over who could afford a real deffense and who couldn't, and we'd have fewer dangerous people at liberty, and fewer innocent people deprived of liberty.
But, mind you, it'd be less profitable for those that matter.
So true Tommy, for the innocent who had to plea bargain or go to jail, and for the guilty, who are let free. The justice system is seriously flawed.
I'm not about making sure Micheal Bryant is in jail for a long time. I would like to see him receive a fair trial in a perfect world. But we know his will not be a fair trial for anyone but him.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:14
#38
The cornerstone of our justice system is that trials be fair to the accused. I know that a lot of people on the right get excited about victims rights etc...but the justice system is supposed to be blind to that - its just about the facts. If you think that Bryant will get a fairer trial than would someone with no money - then let's start a debate about how we can provide better legal representation to people with lower incomes. But I don't begrudge Bryant for wanting to get a good lawyer and defend himself in court - that's what any of us would do if we were in the same situation and we coud afford it.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:20
#39
If this were a fair world, one of the terms of Bryant's release would go further than just saying he couldn't drive a motor vehicle, and stipulate that if he needed to travel anywhere, it had to be by bicycle.
Instead, for the next few months, he'll be chauffeured about in his SUV by his wife. How terrible for him.
When you consider the wrongfully convicted, it doesn't include people like Conrad Black. It includes the sort of people Dr. Charles Smith victimized with his false accusations: single moms, immigrants; poor people, basically.
I'm sure Michael Bryant will get a fair trial. But I'd say most people don't.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:23
#40
Sorry to burst your balloon, but I read that Bryant himself is a very avid cyclist and was involved in several pro-cycling initiatives in the past - so you may find that he biked quite voluntarily. Similarly, I'm sure people here were just crestfallen when they found out that instead of him having dined with his wife at some pricy 5-star restaurant the night of the incident - they ate a shawarna stand and spent less than $20 on dinner for two.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:44
#41
If you think that Bryant will get a fairer trial than would someone with no money - then let's start a debate about how we can provide better legal representation to people with lower incomes.
You know, all through this I've wanted that debate, but you and some others insisted on characterizing at something you wanted the debate to be about, which was ensuring a fair hearing for a rich dude.
Which is probably what Bryant and his class fears most, truth be known.
Thing is, seems we dust off our principles of innocent until proven guilty, and all those other high ideals when it's a person of some substance's reputation or liberty at stake, but when we're confronted with outrageous travesties of justice that victimize the poor, people of colour, women, or aboriginal people there's this shrug of the shoulders-- "eh, what can ya do?"
I remember trying in vain to start a thread about the Cornwall Inquiry, where a parole officer used his position to extort sex from teenage boys. And how it was explained to the Judge how the parole officer escaped being charged because of "professional courtesy" to which the Judge commented, "I understand that."
And, despite a few posts of my own, no one commented.
And, I seem not entirely alone in my outrage over the lives destroyed by Dr. Charles Smith-- for which he has paid no price, pilling outrage on top of outrage-- but I am hardly in the majority here.
So pardon me if I am not scrambling to deffend the high principles this time.
Worst case scenario in all this is that a former Attourney General of Ontario gets wrongfully convicted of something, gets beaten up by a travesty of a justice system.
This won't happen by a long shot, but if it did......
Justice.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:47
#42
Its never "justice" for someone to be wrongfully convicted. Period.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:48
#43
Funny who it takes for you to see that.
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:54
#44
We are discussing this case. Of course there are cases of wrongful conviction - we all know that. There are also cases of wrongful aquittal.
But, I'm not going to get into this "let's pull the wings off a fly" crusade against Bryant until we know all the facts. Right now all we know if gossip.
I think this article makes a good point:
"In fact, celebrities may have it worse. Because their crimes inevitably attract media coverage, there's a temptation to make an example of them, to avoid looking soft.
And many celebrities have to walk away from their careers -- briefly or permanently -- while charges are heard. Bryant has already resigned as CEO of Invest Toronto. How many of us would have to do the same?
Speaking of media, celebrities also have to live out painful situations in the public eye.
Bryant's face is on the front page of papers; he held a press conference about the incident. If it happened to you or me, it might make a paragraph on page 17.
Fifteen pedestrians have already died on Toronto's roadways this year. Do we know any of their names? Do we know the names of people charged in those accidents? No. But we know Sheppard's name precisely because Bryant has been charged. This crash will now and forever be part of Bryant's legacy.
Bryant has tasted the upside of celebrity; such are the downsides"
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/marianne_meedward/2009/09/0...
Sun, 2009-09-06 10:57
#45
LOL.
You are doing it again.
Jesus, what's got into you.
Sun, 2009-09-06 11:00
#46
remind
Anyone put up one of these yet?Gawd, I hate ghost bikes. And roadside memorials.
They're both stupid yanqui tricks that shouldn't have crossed the border.
I guess you have had no one die in a tragic accident, as I used to think the same way, until my granddaughter's father did.
And now his roadside memorial, brings a sort of comfort, that is hard to explain to others.
Somehow, it is a celebration, or acknowledgement, that he lived and that his death was a tragic shortening of a life that was never to be lived, and that said death was full of pain and suffering, which requires acknowlegement. And that acknowlegement actually brings a sense of peace and comfort, as opposed to horror, and intense dispair, when one goes passed the spot a couple of times a year. before the memorial, it did not feel that way, there was only anquish. That others acknowlege that someone died there, when they pass also gives a comfort, that he does not pass out of this world, as if he had never been. It also gives comfort that those who pass by will perhaps realize how all too easy it is to die on these mountain roads and drive appropriately.
Sun, 2009-09-06 11:40
#47
Frustrated Mess
Has anyone here read The Trial by Franz Kafka?
Sun, 2009-09-06 12:39
#48
"Bryant has tasted the upside of celebrity; such are the downsides."
What "downside" exactly. Having to pay a piddling percentage of a year's salary to Navigator, Ltd. and to your defense team for getting you off the hook in a crime anyone else would have been jailed for? Or simply having the hoi polloi possibly pass judgment about this arrangement?Poor Bryant... life is so unfair for the rich and famous.
Tommy_Paine: ...you and some others insisted on characterizing at something you wanted the debate to be about, which was ensuring a fair hearing for a rich dude.
Which is probably what Bryant and his class fears most, truth be known.
YESSSS!!
Sun, 2009-09-06 12:57
#49
Gawd, I hate ghost bikes. And roadside memorials.They're both stupid yanqui tricks that shouldn't have crossed the border.
My (small amount of) research indicates that the roadside memorial has it roots in Hispanic culture in the Southwest of the US. See here, for example. Though Hispanic Americans are certainly Americans, they are hardly "Yanquis".
Somehow, it is a celebration, or acknowledgement, that he lived and that his death was a tragic shortening of a life that was never to be lived, and that said death was full of pain and suffering, which requires acknowlegement. And that acknowlegement actually brings a sense of peace and comfort, as opposed to horror, and intense dispair, when one goes passed the spot a couple of times a year. before the memorial, it did not feel that way, there was only anquish. That others acknowlege that someone died there, when they pass also gives a comfort, that he does not pass out of this world, as if he had never been. It also gives comfort that those who pass by will perhaps realize how all too easy it is to die on these mountain roads and drive appropriately.
That was beautifully put.
Sun, 2009-09-06 13:04
#50
We had a gnome in here earlier snarking about Hammurabbi.
Standing in the community arleady formally appears in the justice system. After conviction the defence stands up and says, My client has lost reputation in the community and therefor should have the sentence reduced.
That should stop. It should flip. Prosecution should be arguing for increased sentences based high reputaion.
This is all besides the influence status has on the conduct of the trial, and the rest of the justice system.
We will know this has been flipped when people start dressing down to go to court.
I won't be holding my breath.
nobody gnome.
You still haven't addressed how you define standing. For example by your logic John Clarke (or any activist) should have the book thrown at them because of their public profile. I'm sure the government would love that.
Be honest you want the book thrown at Bryant not for what he did but rather for what he is. A rich white guy.
Would you be happier if Bryant wore a hairshirt and flagellated himself?
Sun, 2009-09-06 13:20
#51
Stockholm, you have no real knowledge of the justice system. I will be skipping all your posts in this thread as you seem to have zero conecpt of "equal before th law" and what that means. None. I know you think you do, but you don't.
I find your posts incredibly insensitive and blind.