|
Shepherd shouted at Bryant, and then according to witnesses Shepherd was somehow, in what I guess we could call the ultimate example of defensive driving, knocked onto the hood of Bryant's car. Bryant then continued to exercise his right of self defence by accelerating his car and veering across a lane of traffic to slam the side of his car into some mailboxes and fire hydrants, resulting in Shepherd's death. Even if we accept the idea that Bryant driving his car into someone and then accelerating to knock them off again was all an attempt to defend himself, it hardly seems proportionate to somebody who at most is alleged to have grabbed at him and to have spoken aggressively. If some man accosted me on the street and grabbed my arm I'm not allowed to stab him in the gut of shoot him in an act of "self defence", which seems to be roughly the equivalent of driving into him with a car.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
THC posted:if I knock on someones window and yell at them for parking in a bike lane, is that over or under the line for vehicular manslaughter as self defence? just wanna check with the legal experts itt It depends on whether or not you have a Harvard law degree and whether or not you were or are a sitting member of government. Look at how Gordon Campbell got off on his drunk driving charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
One time, a kid on a bike hit my car. Then she was like, "whatever," and took off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:
The prior facts are admissible to show reasonableness of the defenses claims of aggression under a decision known as _Scopelliti_, regardless of the defendant knowing or not. Basically if I say 'flakeloaf was drunk and attacked me with no provocation', I can use prior behavior of your I was unaware of to show that my statement would be more reasonable than otherwise. "Although evidence of previous acts of violence by the deceased, not known to the accused, is not relevant to show the reasonableness of the accused's apprehension of an impending attack, where self-defence is raised, evidence of the deceased's character for violence is admissible to show the probability of the deceased having been the aggressor and to support the accused's evidence that he was attacked by the deceased." Given that Sheppard fits this like a glove, his history of aggression and propensity for violence pretty much made the Crown admit they had no real prospect of a conviction. Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
is everyone also forgetting the part where he wrote a book about it and profited immensely
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
also are we going to convienently forget that bryant had a drinking problem, was returning from a celebratory dinner, and never got a breathalyzer or impairement test and we have aboslutely no way of knowing if he was driving drunk which would basically explain everything
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTQ69STzhf0 Here's the video. We can clearly see that Bryant is engaging in a hit and run and Sheppard was clearly trying to stop him. Only a sociopath would defend the decision to run Sheppard's head into a fire hydrant after failing to do so with trees and a mailbox.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The prior facts are admissible to show reasonableness of the defenses claims under a decision known as _Scopelliti_, regardless of the defendant knowing or not. Can you identify where this became justifiable self defense: Wikipedia posted:According to Bryant his vehicle stalled when he stopped behind Sheppard. His car then lurched forward from his attempts to restart the vehicle which brought the car close to or in contact with Sheppard’s tire. Expert analysis of security camera footage confirmed the car’s headlights dimmed in a manner consistent with this explanation and that the vehicle had a “sensitive and light clutch”. The Crown also determined that no damage to the bicycle’s rear wheel rim was evident. Witnesses said that Sheppard confronted Bryant and his wife “loudly and aggressively” while they “remained passive.” The car’s next movement resulted in Sheppard ending up on the hood of the car. The car travelled 30 feet, lasted 2.5 second, the car’s speed was between 9 and 13.4 km/h and brakes were applied after 1 second. According to Bryant he was looking down trying to restart the vehicle and applied the brakes when he saw Sheppard on the hood. The crown determined that there was no evidence Sheppard was seriously injured at this point and there was not enough evidence to justify a separate charge based upon Bryant’s driving to this point.[33] You're saying Bryant was justified in accelerating his car out of self defense because an angry man was on his hood?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Only a sociopath would defend the decision to run Sheppard's head into a fire hydrant after failing to do so with trees and a mailbox. You can't even get basic details right. Did you even read the court docs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Can you identify where this became justifiable self defense: Actually at that point Sheppard had jumped onto the driver door and was partway inside the car*. At that point I think a reasonable person might conclude Bryant trying to drive away was justified. * demonstrated by forensic evidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:It depends on whether or not you have a Harvard law degree and whether or not you were or are a sitting member of government. I mean, I'm a cute white guy with great hair, I realize that goes a long way with Torontonians
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Big takeaway here is Marie Henein is a good criminal lawyer. If I ever get charged with something I hope I can afford her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
THC posted:I mean, I'm a cute white guy with great hair, I realize that goes a long way with Torontonians Bryant's actually an rear end in a top hat; I know someone who went to law school with him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
shes a real horrible person
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
RBC posted:congratulations everyone on defending a real life mr burns Way to pick the inferior Simpsons clip. Suburban culture in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HESH8U1B4o Trapick posted:Big takeaway here is Marie Henein is a good criminal lawyer. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:13
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
RBC posted:shes a real horrible person
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Big takeaway here is Marie Henein is a good criminal lawyer. If I ever get charged with something I hope I can afford her. Laura Miller is using her firm funded by mostly by anonymous donations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
RBC posted:shes a real horrible person Instate the Cardassian criminal justice system, imo. A defense lawyer's only role should be to help the accused to eloquently concede the wisdom of the State.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Purely for defending criminals, or something more than that? I don't have a problem with good criminal defense lawyers. for defending the privileged rich and making obscene amounts of money from it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
RBC posted:for defending the privilidged rich and making obscene amounts of money from it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Would it be better if she defended the rich for free? thats a stupid thing to say
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Our law system should mirror our health system
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
RBC posted:for defending the privileged rich and making obscene amounts of money from it 'Perhaps unexpectedly, another former client and ardent fan, is Jane Doe — the well-known activist and head of a coalition of groups focused on violence against women. Henein represented the Feminist Coalition pro bono in the Bedford case at the Supreme Court, which led to the high court striking down prostitution laws.' Attacking a defense lawyer for defending their client. Used to be Eddie Greenspan, then Clayton Ruby or James Lockyer, now Marie Henein. How trite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
RBC posted:thats a stupid thing to say Do you really think defense attorneys are horrible for defending criminals? That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Even rich assholes deserve a fair trial and quality representation. I have zero problem with them paying out the rear end for it. I'd also be fine with Marie Henein paying a bunch of income tax to better fund public defenders. I never said that
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
RBC posted:I never said that RBC posted:for defending the privileged rich and making obscene amounts of money from it Is any lawyer who defends a rich person horrible? I've really very confused by your logic here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Trapick posted:So is it just defending rich people that makes her horrible, the fact that she makes money for it, or both together somehow? Nope, I am talking about her specifically. I thought that was very clear. Apparently not. Anything else from that one sentance reply you don't understand that you need me to explain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
RBC posted:Nope, I am talking about her specifically. I thought that was very clear. Apparently not. Anything else from that one sentance reply you don't understand that you need me to explain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Would it be better if she defended the rich for free? I doubt even she could defend how dumb this post is!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Actually at that point Sheppard had jumped onto the driver door and was partway inside the car*. At that point I think a reasonable person might conclude Bryant trying to drive away was justified. Bryant hit him with his car. I guess it's possible that after being struck Shepherd was then "trying to get into the car" though it's equally possible he was hanging on for dear life to try and avoid being pulled under the wheels of the car he was just hit by. Either way, Bryant hit him with the car and then accelerated the car, crossed a lane of traffic, and slammed the side of the car into a mailbox. He didn't just drive away he maneuvered the car in such a way that the guy holding onto it would be crushed. This is like stabbing or shooting somebody because they grabbed you. If it weren't for the specific fact that he's a powerful man with a good defense attorney driving a car and if his victim weren't a mentally ill cyclist then the legal system most likely wouldn't have accepted that crushing someone with heavy machinery was a proportionate response to them shouting at you and possibly trying to grab your arm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Attacking a defense lawyer for defending their client. Used to be Eddie Greenspan, then Clayton Ruby or James Lockyer, now Marie Henein. It's new to you that people hate lawyers? Have you MET the law?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Bryant hit him with his car. I guess it's possible that after being struck Shepherd was then "trying to get into the car" though it's equally possible he was hanging on for dear life to try and avoid being pulled under the wheels of the car he was just hit by. Either way, Bryant hit him with the car and then accelerated the car, crossed a lane of traffic, and slammed the side of the car into a mailbox. He didn't just drive away he maneuvered the car in such a way that the guy holding onto it would be crushed. This is like stabbing or shooting somebody because they grabbed you. If it weren't for the specific fact that he's a powerful man with a good defense attorney driving a car and if his victim weren't a mentally ill cyclist then the legal system most likely wouldn't have accepted that crushing someone with heavy machinery was a proportionate response to them shouting at you and possibly trying to grab your arm. He only got off on this defence because he was an Attorney General at one point and therefore his friends were not interested in seeing one of "their own" go to jail for killing someone. Money and connections are the only reasons why Bryant did not end up in jail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Bryant hit him with his car. I guess it's possible that after being struck Shepherd was then "trying to get into the car" though it's equally possible he was hanging on for dear life to try and avoid being pulled under the wheels of the car he was just hit by. Either way, Bryant hit him with the car and then accelerated the car, crossed a lane of traffic, and slammed the side of the car into a mailbox. He didn't just drive away he maneuvered the car in such a way that the guy holding onto it would be crushed. This is like stabbing or shooting somebody because they grabbed you. If it weren't for the specific fact that he's a powerful man with a good defense attorney driving a car and if his victim weren't a mentally ill cyclist then the legal system most likely wouldn't have accepted that crushing someone with heavy machinery was a proportionate response to them shouting at you and possibly trying to grab your arm. No offense but you're a bit wrong on the series of events. Bryant did hit him and he landed on the hood, then Bryant stopped, and Sheppard landed on the road. Then Sheppard got up, threw something on the hood (his backpack or the like) and ran around to the drivers door and tried to grab Bryant or get in the car or the like. Once Sheppard did this (pretty loving justified if you ask me at this safe distance), Bryant drove off with Sheppard partly in the car. Bryant denies swerving to knock him off (natch) and the forensics guys say the car never touched the curb or went onto the sidewalk. After 100m or so Sheppard's torso hit the plug of the hydrant, knocking him off the car, and his head struck the curb or the pavement, causing a fatal brain stem injury. You kinda had it but missed the bit Sheppard got up and went around the car. In no case did he deserve to die, fwiw. All I am doing is saying a reasonable person could indeed claim driving off was self-defense, and claims that Sheppard was the aggressor (in legal terms) are pretty reasonable given his habits and the fact he was a BAC of 184. Bryant had a plausible defense, so the Crown withdrew as they had no real prospect of a conviction. The wildly differing eyewitness accounts are fascinating: some said he hit the curb, others he drove on the sidewalk, others he didn't, one said he got up to high speed, others didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:It's new to you that people hate lawyers? Have you MET the law? Yeah, I worked in 180 Dundas when the Morin Inquiry was going on. I saw Lockyer often. Shook his hand. I dated a woman a couple times who defends accused terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
What blows my mind about the michael bryant case is it never even got to trial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:
FTFY
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
RBC posted:What blows my mind about the michael bryant case is it never even got to trial. Having no reasonable prospect of a conviction can cause that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
RBC posted:Nope, I am talking about her specifically. I thought that was very clear. Apparently not. Anything else from that one sentance reply you don't understand that you need me to explain? Okay, so according to you, it is exclusively and only Heinein that gets poo poo for "for defending the privileged rich and making obscene amounts of money from it", and every single other criminal defense lawyer who "defend[s] the privileged rich and making obscene amounts of money from it" is off the hook?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Having no reasonable prospect of a conviction can cause that. So can prosecuting someone who you personally identify and sympathize with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
The case is peculiar because the defense showed all their evidence to the prosecution before the trial and he used the information to act as a judge and throw out the case - based on the defenses evidence. Shouldn't that have been left up to an actual judge in a courtroom?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:25
|
|