Bryant Charged IV

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Sineed wrote:

Well.......we all know that Al was hanging on to the car.  And it's possible he grabbed the wheel, in which case his body weight would rotate the wheel counterclockwise, pointing the car into the opposing lanes.

That said, it could easily have been avoided.  What annoys me about the media coverage is the emphasis on what Al did, rather than what Bryant didn't do, which was stop the car.

Great point. One which reminds me that no one responded to my point here. Particularly after Bryant's boxing came up in this thread, I would have thought my appeal to old-fashioned manliness would have elicited some response.

remind remind's picture

Given his "boxing", Bryant could have hardly been terrified of Al, and if he is really that "shakeable" how has he made it so far inpolitics, have been the AG, and headed up a multi-million dollar corp?

One could not rationally believe he is some sort of buffed nailed prat, that would go into a flap.

Sineed

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

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. 

Regardless of the details around how Al died, what would have happened if Bryant had gotten into a minor accident with another car?  Would he have just driven away?  This is where the arguments around class come into it, I think; Bryant instead chose to speed away, just as if he were stepping over a homeless man in the street.

 

pookie

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").

Jingles

So, what I've learned from these tedious threads is that:

Mitigating factors determining guilt or innocence, or indeed if a crime took place at all are:

1. Race and gender of suspect.

2. Race and gender of victim.

3. Socio-economic status of each.

4. Political affiliations of suspect.

Sporting preferences of suspect was at one point mentioned, and I presume that somewhere someone will put forth the number and quality of tattoos possessed by each, and musical preferences. But I'll leave that out for now.

Way, way down on the list are things like "evidence", or similar such trivia.

My point is, those first four things are very real in the justice system and its inequitable treatment of underprivileged people. Those are the factors that progressives traditionally fought to remove to make the system actually approach something they can call "just". But here we see so-called progressives building their case around those very factors when it is someone they hate at the center.

Identity politics has a real knack for losing sight of the big picture. 

FWIT, being from Alberta I have no idea whom is this Bryant character, and frankly don't give a shit. Road rage happens, whether on two or four wheels, and I'm sure that less-fatal versions of incidents like this happen all the time. It was just his bad luck to run over the guy's head. I'm also sure that had Bryant stopped the vehicle, engaged in a physical confrontation, and been beaten to death with a bike lock (I know, I'm just using my Speculatron* for the moment), many here would be cheering on the cyclist.

 

*Babble Jumping-to-Pre-conceived-Conclusions Device

farnival

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.

 

martin dufresne

Bravo.

...the man that was killed now being smeared in the public realm...

And on Babble, I am sorry to add. And those of us who object have been likened to a "lynch mob." Cute.

 

...because of who he is he will get off...

 

If enough of us scream bloody hell and expose Navigator's tactics and corruption in the AG's decisions, he won't.

 

Stargazer

Amazing post farnival.

martin dufresne

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

 

NDPP

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

Cueball Cueball's picture

farnival wrote:

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.

Moreso, did Bryant panic? Did he flee the first time because he realized that the incident might undermine his carreer. Did he then in a panic fearing for his reputation and his career continue to attempt to flee by dislodging Sheppard from his car, by increasing the speed of his vehicle. Panicking and enraged, forseeing that his hopes of becoming the leader of the Ontatio Liberal party were ruined did he then continue to increase the speed of the vehicle, hoping that he could evade the incident entirely by removing the witness by whatever means necessary. Was it he who decided to stop the vehicle after the incident, or was it his companion who insisted that he do so?

There are several plausible motives that an angry and panicked politician might have for trying to evade capture.

farnival

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.

Salsa

Jingles wrote:
Way, way down on the list are things like "evidence", or similar such trivia

 

But it is interesting though. all the things people are willing to ignore or excuse in order to make reality fit their preconceptions. IRL, it's irritating as hell, but on the internet,, it's somehow......entertaining.

Unionist

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=He">http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090902/fatal_colli... said:[/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...).

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Exactly Unionist. However, were he pleading down from a murder II charge, he would be pleading down to criminal negligence. However, unlike you or me, he does not have to. Laughing

Cueball Cueball's picture

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.

writer writer's picture

Quote:

[Off-duty police officer] Derek Harvey-Zenk’s truck plowed into Taman’s small convertible on the morning of Feb. 25, 2005, killing her almost instantly. He later pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and was sentenced to house arrest.

Charges of impaired driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death and refusing a breathalyzer were dropped as part of the plea bargain.

In his report, [Brian] Gover [a former senior crown attorney in Ontario] concludes that a conditional sentence “brought the administration of justice into disrepute.” He says the public and Parliament insist that a jail sentence should be imposed when a traffic accident results in a serious injury or death.

But [Richard] Peck concluded, like [special prosecutor Marty] Minuk had, that previous cases in Manitoba resulted in conditional sentences for similar offences and it was appropriate for Harvey-Zenk as well.

Peck testified Thursday that Minuk acted in the only manner he could given how the case was investigated and the quality of evidence. Gover is expected to testify Tuesday, but his report has already been submitted.

The inquiry is investigating the conduct of the East St. Paul and Winnipeg police forces, which investigated the crash, as well as the prosecution of the case under Minuk and how he treated the Taman family and Taman’s parents, Victoria and Sveinn Sveinson.

Minuk is normally a defence lawyer, but was brought in as a special prosecutor for the case.

Introducing Richard Peck, special prosecutor for the Michael Bryant case (normally a defence lawyer). [url=http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=158585&sc=503]Experts tell inquiry special prosecutor had no conflict of interest [/url]

pookie

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? 

Cueball Cueball's picture

The main question is how in the hell did the car come to a speed of 90 kmh, It boggles the mind. He is, according to some struggling for control of the vehicle here, and so the logical thing to do is to put your pedal to the metal? Yeah. Right.

My first instinct would be to stop. Or even go slowly. Not speed up. But his action obviously increased the risk to everyone involved, himself included. To me that indicates a pretty clear possibility that Bryant's object was, at the very least, to cause Sheppard to fall off of the vehicle or jump.

Unionist

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 mens rea, 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, R. v. Binus, while older, was a leading case on criminal negligence vs. dangerous driving and questions of mens rea (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??

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

I have posted the relevant articles in law twice now. There is no need to post them again. That is the source.

As you can see "reduced murder" (murder II) is based in the murder charge. What constitutes murder is to mean to do something. The manslaughter (murder II charge) is based in the murder charge and then mitigated by extenuating circumstances to become a manslaughter charge. The intention, or "meaning" to do something is inherent in the murder charge therfore, the mitigating circumstance reduce it to manslaughter, or what they call a "reduced murder" charge.

"Meaning", as in meaning to disloldge sheppard from the car.

Quote:
(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

Meanwhile: "Meaning" is completely absent from "Criminal Negligence":

Quote:
Criminal negligence

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Definition of "duty"

(2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 202.

Therefore one does not have to defend ones intentions, or otherwise explore the issue of weather or not Braynt, meant to dislodge Sheppard from the car, causing him harm.

Yes he can be convicted on a manslaughter charge, even if he did not mean to dislodge Sheppard from the car, which is the advantage, but no, he does not have to defend his actions as reasonable self defence, nor will the prosecution try and establish that he willfully meant to dislodge Sheppard from the car.

pookie

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 mens rea, 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, R. v. Binus, while older, was a leading case on criminal negligence vs. dangerous driving and questions of mens rea (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 Cueball's picture

Sure, but all that means is that you can be theoretically charged with manslaughter even if you did not mean to do something, but did it through negligence. But because the murder II charge is based in the murder charge that is then reduced to manslaughter, the prosecution tries to establish that the defendant willfully did something to cause death on the same basis as a murder charge, and the defence tries to establish reasonable grounds for the defendant willfully choosing to do those things.

pookie

Cueball wrote:

 

Quote:
(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.

 

pookie

Cueball wrote:

But because the murder II charge is based in the murder charge that is then reduced to manslaughter, the prosecution tries to establish that the defendant willfully did something to cause death on the same basis as a murder charge, and the defence tries to establish reasonable grounds for the defendant willfully choosing to do those things.

What does this even mean?

Cueball Cueball's picture

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.

pookie

Cueball wrote:

So that is the appology? I guess evasion counts as an admission that you completely misconstrued my original point.

Your initial point is incoherent, and just keeps getting more so.

Tommy_Paine

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.

Cueball Cueball's picture

What does it mean? It means that the reason that there are two sets of laws regarding what constitutes manslaughter is because there are two different ways of arriving at the same conclusion. One based in the murder charge that is reduced to manslaughter, and another regarding negligent acts that amount to manslaughter.

"Meaning" is absent from one definition, and inherent in the other. Meaning, as in willfully meaning to dislodge Sheppard from the car by driving at high speed and smashing him into objects, as opposed to causing Sheppard to be dislodged from the car through negligently driving at high speed and smashing him into objects.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

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

pookie

Cueball wrote:

What does it mean? It means that the reason that there are two sets of laws regarding what constitutes manslaughter is because there are two different ways of arriving at the same conclusion. One based in the murder charge that is reduced to manslaughter, and another regarding negligent acts that amount to manslaughter.

"Meaning" is absent from one definition, and inherent in the other.

 

I am not going through the provocation stuff AGAIN, but there is also manslaughter where death occurs through an underlying act (say, assault) where there is neither negligence nor intent to kill.  Again, the proverbial fist fight that ends up with someone dead.  There, you have someone who is not "negligent"; they have actively and deliberately done something harmful, but they clearly did not intend to kill someone or even cause them serious bodily harm.  If the person dies, they are guilty of manslaughter.  In fact, that is the classic case of how we generally understand manslaughter to occur.  Is there "meaning" in the initial act of "assault"?  Sure, just as there is "meaning" in the act of driving away with someone hanging onto your car.  You intend to do the act, but you don't intend the ultimate consequence.  Too bad for you - if the person dies, you are guilty of manslaughter. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

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

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

Neither.

I fully expect that the police made an error, or the Crown, and the case will be thrown out two years from now.

Stargazer

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.

remind remind's picture

Agreed tommy and Stargazer, and I would add ashamed!

Stockholm

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???

remind remind's picture

:rolleyes:

boomerbsg

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.

Cueball Cueball's picture

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???

Tell me, does one of your feet hurt more than the other on a regular basis? I am asking you this because it just occurred to me  that you have been walking around your entire life with two right sided shoes on both fee because your mommy never taught you the difference.  It's really too bad that they took "All in the Family" of the air, because if a script writer was every hurting for inspiration on Archie Bunker rhetoric, they would need not look any further than this web site and search for your postings: cut and then paste.

In anycase, no one here except you now has proposed any kind of sentencing for Bryant. They have only argued that the charge does not meet the evident facts, by the standards and common practice of law.

Tommy_Paine

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.

pookie

Cueball wrote:

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. ...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.

Why don't you ask your criminal lawyer friends what charge the Crown would have to lay in order to get Bryant convicted of the "reduced murder manslaughter" you're so fond of.  Just so they're clear, be sure to say, "the manslaughter that results if there is provocation as per s.232". 

I'm pretty sure they will tell you the Crown would have to charge him with MURDER, and PROVE it.  Read that section again.  It says "culpable homicide that OTHERWISE WOULD BE MURDER can be reduced blah blah blah."  Meaning the Crown must be able to prove the entire offence of murder before the provocation even becomes a factor.  That's a pretty tall order in this case.  Maybe if there is more evidence, but right now?  Pretty remote.

 This whole thing started because you initially said (about a hundred years ago)  "why was the charge criminal negligence instead of manslaughter?".  You definitely did not say "why was the charge criminal negligence instead of murder?"

Stockholm

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!!

Wilf Day

Stockholm wrote:
I wonder what the tenor of the postings on babble would be if Libby Davies had been driving a convertible and bumped into a cyclist who was a rightwing redneck who started shouting racist, sexist and homophobic epithets at her and grabbed on to her car when she tried to get away from him and she did what Bryant did and killed him? Somehow i think that all the people waving pitchforks and trying to be Bryant's judge jury and executioner would suddenly undergo a total role reversal and would be trying to make excuses for what she did and would be going on and on about how sad it was that such a wonderful person made such a terrible mistake and people would be musing about how she had to have been acting in self-defence...

Probably. Meanwhile, some of us would still be waiting for the evidence, Davies or Bryant.

Stockholm

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

Cueball Cueball's picture

Maybe we should push for moderators on this web site to stop certain people from completely misrepresenting what people have said. No one has suggested any kind of sentencing for Bryant.

Interestingly though, the law does provide a mandatory minimum sentence of four years in the case where someone causes death by unlawfully discharging a fire arm, even if it was mere negligence. No such minimum sentence exists for someone causing a death by unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

Cueball Cueball's picture

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.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Actually if you read in further up the in the first thread, that I said he should be charged with murder right out. Glad you are getting the picture. So yeah, charge him with murder and then let him come up with his reasons for committing that murder. Then he can throw himself on the lieniency of the courts, or plead down to criminal negligence, just like what would happen to you or me if we were observed by at least two witnessess speeding at 90kmh through a construction zone, and "deliberately" (sic) and "definitely" (sic) trying to dislodge a man from the side of our vehicle by causing him to collide with solid objects.

But that is just the facts, which don't seem to be relevant to anything you are saying since you would rather go into short form dissertations about "mens rea".

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

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.

 

pookie

Cueball wrote:

Actually if you read in further up the in the first thread, that I said he should be charged with murder right out. Glad you are getting the picture. So yeah, charge him with murder and then let him come up with his reasons for committing that murder. Then he can throw himself on the lieniency of the courts, or plead down to criminal negligence, just like what would happen to you or me if we were observed by at least two witnessess speeding at 90kmh through a construction zone, and "deliberately" (sic) and "definitely" (sic) trying to dislodge a man from the side of our vehicle by causing him to collide with solid objects.

 

Dance around it all you want - the above is NOT what you have been arguing in our posts.  You are simply changing your tune. 

Cueball wrote:

Anyway, lets get back to defending the former AG for charges that if I were the suspect would certainly include manslaughter... hey... I wonder what the bail terms would be on a manslaughter charge?

That's the only thing I was ever responding to.

 

 

 

Fidel

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.

Pages

Topic locked