[meford4u]

OAC_Sparky,Sep 3 2009, 12:42 PM Wrote:

Flofocus,Sep 3 2009, 09:10 AM Wrote:Dont mess with short people.
[right][snapback]293715[/snapback][/right]

Amen. :lol:
[right][snapback]293725[/snapback][/right]

Why not? :D

[Flofocus]

(09-02-2009, 02:08 AM)mo_focus Wrote: he is a lawyer, i bet he will weazel his way out somehow

Yup, charges will probably be dropped.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/201...80216.html

[Mystake]

(05-26-2010, 12:29 AM)Flofocus Wrote:

(09-02-2009, 02:08 AM)mo_focus Wrote: he is a lawyer, i bet he will weazel his way out somehow

Yup, charges will probably be dropped.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/201...80216.html

$#@!

What a shame. I wouldn't mind seeing Bryant behind bars for a bit...

[Focus man. Focus.]

I guess it pays to have friends in high places.

[Oscar The Grouch]

That's total bullshit!!!

[ZTWsquared]

(05-26-2010, 01:39 AM)Focus man. Focus. Wrote: I guess it pays to have friends in high places.

Under the circumstances, even if it had been one of us, I'm pretty sure the charges would have been dropped ...

The cyclist was drunk at twice the limit ... and in the month prior to that he had 6 recorded instances of rage against drivers - including trying to grab the wheel and in one instance jumping into the passenger side and assaulting the driver ... so whatever the circumstances of his encounter with Bryant, what are the chances any jury would convict him given the facts about the cyclist .. hell, even the cyclists dad didn't mind the outcome.

[Flofocus]

(05-26-2010, 07:23 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote:

(05-26-2010, 01:39 AM)Focus man. Focus. Wrote: I guess it pays to have friends in high places.

Under the circumstances, even if it had been one of us, I'm pretty sure the charges would have been dropped ...

I am sorry, but - LOL

[darkpuppet]

Don't let your dislike of politicians fool you into thinking that the cyclist wasn't at least partially responsible for what happened.

When I'm in a car, I usually take the side of cyclists... though, as a cyclist, I can't say the same... there are a lot of cyclists out there that don't respect the road and the people they share it with.

[Flofocus]

(05-26-2010, 11:35 PM)darkpuppet Wrote: Don't let your dislike of politicians fool you into thinking that the cyclist wasn't at least partially responsible for what happened.

Completely agree - but if you cant afford this kind of lawyer Bryant has, good luck getting this kind of charge dropped.

I just think that if it was me in his shoes, it would be a very different outcome.

[ZTWsquared]

(05-26-2010, 11:49 PM)Flofocus Wrote:

(05-26-2010, 11:35 PM)darkpuppet Wrote: Don't let your dislike of politicians fool you into thinking that the cyclist wasn't at least partially responsible for what happened.

Completely agree - but if you cant afford this kind of lawyer Bryant has, good luck getting this kind of charge dropped.

I just think that if it was me in his shoes, it would be a very different outcome.

Maybe so ... but if it was me in his shoes, or any member of my family, it would have been the same outcome.

[Focus man. Focus.]

Anyone see the cover of the paper today, any Toronto Paper? This douch (Victim) was busted for doing the same thing previous to being hit/run over/dragged to his death. Its no wonder why Bryant got off, this guys antics have been well documented in the past.

[Flofocus]

(05-27-2010, 06:21 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote:

(05-26-2010, 11:49 PM)Flofocus Wrote:

(05-26-2010, 11:35 PM)darkpuppet Wrote: Don't let your dislike of politicians fool you into thinking that the cyclist wasn't at least partially responsible for what happened.

Completely agree - but if you cant afford this kind of lawyer Bryant has, good luck getting this kind of charge dropped.

I just think that if it was me in his shoes, it would be a very different outcome.

Maybe so ... but if it was me in his shoes, or any member of my family, it would have been the same outcome.

because you could afford this type of lawyer. Not everyone can.

[ZTWsquared]

(05-28-2010, 05:26 AM)Flofocus Wrote:

(05-27-2010, 06:21 AM)ZTWsquared Wrote:

(05-26-2010, 11:49 PM)Flofocus Wrote:

(05-26-2010, 11:35 PM)darkpuppet Wrote: Don't let your dislike of politicians fool you into thinking that the cyclist wasn't at least partially responsible for what happened.

Completely agree - but if you cant afford this kind of lawyer Bryant has, good luck getting this kind of charge dropped.

I just think that if it was me in his shoes, it would be a very different outcome.

Maybe so ... but if it was me in his shoes, or any member of my family, it would have been the same outcome.

because you could afford this type of lawyer. Not everyone can.

What evidence do you have that the type of lawyer that Bryant had was the deciding factor ... from what I read, this was a decision that the crown made after seeing the facts about the so-called victim - facts that the investigators themselves discovered.

I'm not saying that being able to afford an expensive lawyer doesn't ever make a difference - but in this case there seems to be good reason for the charges to be dropped; reasons that would have the charges dropped no matter who the accused was.

[OAC_Sparky]

But why then was he not charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Quote:Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

Any normal lawyer would argue that dragging a cyclist with a car even in self defense would be an excessive use of force.

ie. In Canada, at least, if someone punches you and you shoot him dead it is not a valid case of self defense. The same thing if somebody grabs you, it doesn't give you free license to drive away with him attached. And the fact that this person had been recently violent has little bearing on Bryant's actions as he had no previous dealings with the cyclist to know. What if it was just some drunk old lady? One without a violent history?

I'm not disputing he didn't do anything that any of us wouldn't do out of panic, but i am skeptical that the average Joe wouldn't stand trial for something.

[ZTWsquared]

double post

[ZTWsquared]

(05-28-2010, 07:52 AM)OAC_Sparky Wrote: But why then was he not charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Quote:Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

Any normal lawyer would argue that dragging a cyclist with a car even in self defense would be an excessive use of force.

ie. In Canada, at least, if someone punches you and you shoot him dead it is not a valid case of self defense. The same thing if somebody grabs you, it doesn't give you free license to drive away with him attached. And the fact that this person had been recently violent has little bearing on Bryant's actions as he had no previous dealings with the cyclist to know. What if it was just some drunk old lady? One without a violent history?

I'm not disputing he didn't do anything that any of us wouldn't do out of panic, but i am skeptical that the average Joe wouldn't stand trial for something.

I'm not a lawyer but I can punch all kinds of holes in your assessment above ... starting with who was the aggressor and was the cyclist dragged or was he the one aggressively hanging on to the car and being pulled by his own volition. The defense would argue that Bryant has the right to try and put space between him and someone trying to attack him.

And we don't even have to take Bryant's word for it, because he's got at least 6 other witnesses who will testify that the same cyclist attacked them in exactly the same way.

Should Bryant have done something differently? Perhaps - theoretically - but we're only asking the question because someone's dead. But even if the answer is "yes, he should have done something different" - it doesn't by definition mean that what he did do was criminally wrong.

This whole thing could have been avoided if the cyclist hadn't attacked him in the first place, and if he had of let Bryant go when he tried to get away. And again, we don't have to take Bryant's word for it.

Under those circumstances, I can't imagine any jury convicting him -- all his lawyers have to do is ask the jury to be put themselves in the same position and then ask them if they think they should go to jail for trying to get away from a drunken, enraged, maniac with a history of violence.

Game - set - match.

[Flofocus]

I want your rose colored glasses man, I really do, Im totally with OAC here, the average person would have had these charges go through. We'll never know for sure.

[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.

[ZTWsquared]

(05-28-2010, 11:08 PM)Flofocus Wrote: I want your rose colored glasses man, I really do, Im totally with OAC here, the average person would have had these charges go through. We'll never know for sure.

Just because I didn't drink the "rich guys always get off" kool-aid doesn't mean I'm not seeing things straight ... my brother is a lawyer and my brother-in-law too ... they tell me that this kind of thing happens all the time (charges dropped) because of some sort of change in circumstance - and they also tell me that sometimes the wealthy or the well-known don't get a break that you or I would, because the crown is concerned about the appearance of favouritism.

Look ... if the fix was in Bryant wouldn't have been charged in the first place ... but he was ... and the reason the charges were dropped was due to the crown not believing he had a reasonable chance of getting a conviction.

There was no ringing endorsement of Bryant's actions ... no statement to the effect that "he was absolutely in the right" ... just reasonable doubt he wouldn't be found guilty.

Sorry - but I'm not buying the "us little guys wouldn't get that kind of break" scenario, because looking at it objectively (forgetting that Bryant is the stunt driving guy) it seems pretty clear to me that anyone in that position would have received the same treatment.

[meford4u]

I gotta go with Ken here.

But then again, i can afford this type of lawyer.

And the fact that Ken referred to Flo and Sparky as "us little guys"............priceless.