[OAC_Sparky]

Not so fast.

(05-28-2010, 10:41 PM)ZTWsquared Wrote: Under those circumstances, I can't imagine any jury convicting him

As I said, manslaughter does not need intent. This sets case precedence for every vehicular manslaughter case. "Well I thought he was crazy it wasn't my fault I ran him over". A lawyer wouldn't have to prove that he intended to kill anyone when he was trying to get away; as I stated above if someone punches you and you shoot them that steps beyond the scope of self defence because you are meeting a threat with excessive force.

Bryant, out of anyone because he was the advocate for stunting, knows that a car is a weapon. So where were these grievous wounds that the cyclist inflicted on Bryant to make him scared for his life? So the guy was stopped and the cyclist grabbed the wheel. Was there a knife or gun? No. Was the car in motion when it was grabbed? No. Bryant overreacted.

There are crazy people everywhere. Look at Crazy Maria in Oakville...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMQ3XIRhRp0

Now some strange woman jumps in your car, should you give her a kick out the door and take her for a drag down the street?

Quote:a drunken, enraged, maniac with a history of violence.

Points 1, 3 and 4 were unknown if the incident happened that quickly, else he could have just rolled up the window.