Bryant charged VII

Whazzup? wrote:

Maybe it's my eyesight, but I really don't see much of anything in that video. Certainly nothing relevant to the actually charges laid against Bryant.

The video shows nothing - at least, not to my eyes. But that doesn't matter. An [b]impression[/b] is created that it proves Bryant's guilt. That impression spreads. And people actually start to believe that they've seen something in that video!

In the prevous thread, an [b]impression[/b] was created that Bryant said he thought he was being carjacked - when, in fact, Bryant said [b]absolutely nothing[/b].

It's exactly the same (although less well-financed) as the tactics of Bryant's team of message-massagers. The difference is that money talks, and the rich guy's PR troupe will likely be far more successful.

Once people stop paying attention to facts and yield to rumour, prejudice, wishful thinking - anything can happen. I'm one of the idealist few that think the truth is on the side of the oppressed. We don't need to make stuff up in order to win our point.

ETA: Remember the child who said: "The emperor has no clothes?" That's what ran through my mind while watching this video along with the helpful annotations.

Cueball wrote:

unionist wrote:

Bryant stopped at the scene of the accident, he and Sheppard spoke, and then they had some as yet undefined altercation. At that point, Bryant was legally free to leave - unless he was refusing to tell Sheppard who he was and how to reach him. What makes anyone think that that's what happened?

Hilarious!

Some people were saying that it was obvious Bryant was guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and wondering why the police didn't charge him with that. They also tried to suggest that Sheppard was simply interested in forcing Bryant to remain at the scene (not sure why).

I tried to introduce some reality into this dreamlike discourse about "white rich male Liberals" by actually quoting the Criminal Code on that point and what it requires - not much - just handing over contact information and seeing if help needs to be called - then (I repeat) both parties are free to leave. Then I summarized the above scenario as an example of what may well have happened.

The difference is that I have no interest in defending Bryant, and I have no idea who said what or did what (and the video sheds no light whatsoever on those questions). I just wanted to remind some of my friends here that it was a good idea to go by the facts rather than making things up and filling in blanks based on prejudice.

Cueball wrote:

As I said, I was interested in impressions, so I showed that to a Navy Seabee friend of mine from the states, giving him no background whatsoever, except I told him the guy died. Being the good old law and order type he looked at that video called it murder and recommended the "hot seat." He agreed on murder II when I told him the full story. And laughed at "criminal negligence".

Don't show him any videos of minority folks in ghettoes being harassed by cops. You never know who he'll decide the guilty parties are.

By the way, buddies like yours, who look at a dark grainy video and recommend capital punishment, then change their mind after you tell them some more facts, aren't allowed on juries (thank God) in our criminal justice system.

Your friend is not the solution. He's the problem.

My friend, problem of no, is able to see, however.

It's obvious that Bryant is guilty of attempting leave the scene of the accident. Your point was pointless.

You have just got yourself all tied up in the identity politics of it all, and are slugging that out for no purpose. In so doing you have engaged in a little spinning the facts on your own.

As I said last week, in plain language what we are seeing here is clear evidence of simple corruption. The why's an wherefores of that corruption are another thing entirely. We are looking at an accident, and it is clear that Bryant tried to evade responsibility, contrary to your "theory" of last week. I am not going to speculate on the reasons that Sheppard did what he did next, but it is absolutely clear that Bryant started the physical violence that resulted in Mr. Sheppard's death.

It is not an accident, followed by another one, or an accident followed by an violent assault by Sheppard, but one continuous series of events begun by Mr. Bryant when he used his car to attack Sheppard.

I do. Its totally obvious he is leaving the scene of the accident. Did he throw Sheppard a card while he was driving by?

I don't know what happened (as opposed to you, who have all the facts). But apparently there was a collision between a car and a bike, and words were exchanged, and some kind of altercation. The bike, the car, and both drivers were not in motion at the time. At that point, to be guilty of a charge under Section 252, Bryant would either have had to refuse to identify himself or fail to get help if someone needed help. That's it. There is no law against leaving the scene of an accident. Would you please review the materials I've provided and get back to me later, at your leisure.

ETA: For those who have too much to do in life to back to the first thread where I explained all this, here's Section 252:

Quote:

252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with

(a) another person,

(b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or

(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person,

and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction

(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability.

What do you mean there is no law against leaving the scene of the accident?

The guy who hit the kid out here last week was charged with it.

He is being silly. He is saying that if you yell at people who hit you with their car they are allowed to drive away. He has removed the word reasonable from the dictionary of law and rendered it meaningless.

Ok good. So you are talking about some other accident, other than the one on the video, where the car hits the cyclist, knocks him over and then leaves then tries to leave the scene.

Nope.  That is the spin: the "accident" and then Sheppards asaault.

We don't know what passed between them, but it looks like Bryant deliberately tried to hit Sheppard, or at least Sheppard had every reason to think he did. Then Bryant pulls around him, evading the "accident", and Sheppard jumps on the car retaliating.

It is one violent altercation where Bryant uses his car as a weapon, apparently, and Sheppard reacts also violently. In the end Bryant kills Sheppard. So, in fact, Bryant begins a violent altercation that ends in Sheppard's death.

Murder: that is the charge that Bryant should be facing. Perhaps the intitial contact was accidental (I don't think so but whatever). It is Bryant who initiates contact, and the initial (what very well could be) assault. If he did not "accidentally" hit Sheppard he is the instigator of the violent altercation.

He can plead that pulling in front of him with a bicycle was "provocation".

Yes I have. I never left it in case you didn't notice.

As if you pull a knife on me stab me with it, and then I retaliate, then you kill me, and it is my retaliation to your attack that you are calling a seperate act, and in fact my retaliation for your initial assault is the starting point of the event. No. This event begins with what looks like an intentional assault with a car: Bryant halts, then jumps forward and strikes Sheppard.

Looks intentional. Or was he so overfull with fallafel balls that he could not keep his foot on the brake?

Of course, dog with bone-like you are still pretending that lying on the ground and saying whatever it is that Sheppard said, while he was watching Bryant flee the "accident" constituted a threat. Newsflash: People yell at each other during car accidents and mere yelling does not constitute a "threat" that allows one to leave. If that were the case, then anyone could leave any accident because their feelings were hurt.

But "saying" something, even in a loud voice does not constitute a threat that is a defence of continuing to drive away from an accident. Even if he said: "you motherfucker, I am going to kill you", there is the issue of Bryants initial assault with the car. And it is not a seperate incident at all. Sheppard saying whatever he said, even if it was "you motherfucker, I am going to kill you" is verbal retaliation for the very real initial assault with the vehicle.

In that case Bryant bears total responsibility for Sheppard death because he was the instigator of the violent altercation by using his car as a weapon.

I am perfectly prepared to hear any defence of that act, but on the face of it murder is where the substantive charge should begin at. But of course since it is "criminal negligence" the assertion is that it was an "accident".

I mean if I start a physical altercation with you using whatever weapons are immediatly at my disposal and that altercation results in your death, that is murder is it not?

Death and Advocacy Dave Meslin

Ok, so I pistol whip someone with a gun. Rather than running away they attack me in retaliation. In the ensuing fight the gun goes off and I kill them.

.

Thanks, Unionist. I am a very interesting and thoughtful person. As you know. Heh.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner here, unionist.

On the one hand, you claim to want to wait for the 'facts'. On the other hand, you don't want to discuss any of the particulars. On the one hand, you're offended by people's presentations of possible scenarios. On the other, you've presented some 'what ifs' yourself - while claiming not to be invested in them, of course. Like Sargeant Shultz, "You know NUTTINK!"

The thing is, the 'facts' are being compiled and interpreted (or perhaps even fabricated, depending on one's PoV) as we speak. Who is responsible for deciding which of them count? Who weighs their importance?

And is no one allowed to second-guess this authority, unionist?

I would never have imagined you to be so deferential to the powers-that-be.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

On the other hand, you don't want to discuss any of the particulars.

I don't want to discuss rumours and gossip. That's what passes here for "particulars". I don't want to call Bryant (for example) a "blatant liar" when he hasn't made any statement. I don't want to discuss what Sheppard said to Bryant or what Abramovich said to the falafel vendor. It's all National Inquirer stuff.

Quote:

On the one hand, you're offended by people's presentations of possible scenarios. On the other, you've presented some 'what ifs' yourself - while claiming not to be invested in them, of course.

Of course I present "what ifs". Nothing wrong with that. Others are presenting "this is what happened". You don't see a difference?

Quote:

Like Sargeant Shultz, "You know NUTTINK!"

I always admired him more than the know-it-alls.

Quote:

The thing is, the 'facts' are being compiled and interpreted (or perhaps even fabricated, depending on one's PoV) as we speak. Who is responsible for deciding which of them count? Who weighs their importance?

How about being specific. Do you want some "general" response? Let me be specific. This video everyone is talking about. Did you look at it? Does it answer a single one of the substantive questions that have been raised here? Please show me. I'm willing to learn.

Quote:

And is no one allowed to second-guess this authority, unionist?

Sure. The police decided not to charge Bryant with Sec. 252 (for example). Some babblers have second-guessed that. Turns out they didn't (and still don't) have a clue what the elements of proof are that Section 252 requires. Bryant may well be guilty of [b]murder[/b]. Or negligence. Or nothing. I don't know why the cops charged him with anything at all. You see, [b]they haven't explained yet[/b]. If and when they do, we may be in even a better position to second-guess them.

Quote:

I would never have imagined you to be so deferential to the powers-that-be.

Using feeble arguments to second-guess the powers-that-be is for losers. I'm in the union movement. We don't go around spewing easily refutable nonsense based on half-understood rumours. That would be our death knell.

For example, we don't hand out signs on our picket lines saying that the boss is a White Male Liberal rich swine - unless there's an issue of racism or misogyny or the like. But look at the shameful posts in these threads judging someone in a road incident based on these qualities. It's for losers, and it makes a mockery of how progressive people should talk to the world and view the world. It's a caricature.

No breathlyzer test? Whatthefuckisthat?

Oh yeah, terms of bail not immediatly announced? All together sounds like privilege to me.

unionist wrote:

For example, we don't hand out signs on our picket lines saying that the boss is a White Male Liberal rich swine - unless there's an issue of racism or misogyny or the like. But look at the shameful posts in these threads judging someone in a road incident based on these qualities. It's for losers, and it makes a mockery of how progressive people should talk to the world and view the world. It's a caricature.

That is not an example, for actual compare, it is a strawman.

Bryant is NOT a boss. This is NOT a picket line.

Funny, I look at your posts and feel they are shameful. Plus a whole whack of other things too.

Facts:

We know white male supremacy runs the world.

We know that the more power you have as a white male, the more "supreme" you are perceived to be, by the powers that be.

We know the justice system does not treat people equally before the law.

We have alredy seen Bryant's unequal treatment before the law and how he has been treated differently than the majority would be, in a preferential way.

We know that he hired a PR firm to spin events in his favour and that the msm media is playing their/his song.

We now know that he pushed Al Sheppard, with his car, thereby starting the whole incident, which resulted in a man being killed.

We know that the police did not start off with the highest incidence of charges that anyone else, other than a prominent rich white male, would've received.

We know the PR firm, has tried to dirty the waters, and has maligned Al Sheppard over things that did not have to do with his deahth. And that this is a proxy action of Bryant's

Denying any of this is for losers and makes a mockery of progressive perspectives. It makes a mockery of the principle of not having to debate things here from original progressive principles.

Bryant's a well connected Liberal Party fat-cat who murdered a Metis Canadian using Bryant's expensive imported phallic symbol of a sports car as a several thousand pound weapon of destruction, and probably for him a psychological extension for his small pee-pee. 

Bryant the fat-cat will likely receive a slap on the wrists by an old white boys club that's been running the show for far too long in this corner of the Northern Puerto Rico. Mark my words.

Cueball wrote:

Huh? I don't remember saying that Bryant should be treated differently under the law because he is a white male of the privileged classess.

I never said you did, Cueball - now did I?

Quote:

In fact I have been arguing all along that that Bryant should NOT be treated differently under the law because he is a white male of the privileged classess.

On that point, we are in full agreement.

If I ask myself what the likely consequences would have been if we reverse the two men's roles, with Shepperd killing Bryant with his car, it is likely the master narrative would be quite different. As previously stated, I contend that the legal process is a stacked deck and a fixed game which has and will continue to favour Bryant. If that's "identity politics" then so be it. I believe Shepperd's death was not "negligence", it was murder. Bryant's powerful position ensures that won't be the issue before the courts he so recently ran.

Well I think Bryant's psychotic episode overwhelmed him for one-hundred metres or so of stunt driving. Sheppard actually dared to touch the phallic symbol - Bryant's expensive "I'm an important white man" foreign-made convertible. It put Bryant over the edge. No commoner can do this and get away with it. And Sheppard didnt. He paid for it with his life. 

Bryant made a split-second decision to commit murder knowing full well his political connections would probably insulate him from full force of the law. And he'll receive a firm slap on the wrist for it.